August 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 8

Table of Contents

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 2)

 Compliance

 1 MUR 4818/4933: Contributions 

in the Name of Another and 

Excessive Contributions

3 MUR 5279: Partnership 

Contributions Made Without 

Agreement of Partners

 Regulations

1 NPRM on Party Committees’ 

Coordinated and Independent 

Expenditures

3 Federal Register Notice

 4 Advisory Opinions

 Court Cases

 9 John Hagelin, et. al. v. FEC

 10 FEC v. California Democratic 

Party, et. al.

 10 FEC v. Dear for Congress, et. al.

 11 Shawn O’Hara v. FEC

 11 New Litigation

 Alternative Dispute Resolution

 11 ADR Program Update

 Publications

 12 2003 Annual Report

 12 Selected Court Case Abstracts

 Public Funding

 13 Commission Certifies Matching 

Funds for Presidential Candidate

 Nonfilers

 13 Failure to File Pre-Primary Report

 Outreach

 14 Roundtable

 14 Index

Regulations

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Party 

Committees’ Coordinated 

and Independent 

Expenditures

On June 24, 2004, the Commission approved a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting 

comments on the proposed deletion of its current rules that restrict 

the ability of political party committees to make both independent 

expenditures and coordinated party 

expenditures with respect to the 

same candidate in connection with 

a general election. The NPRM 

also proposes removing rules that 

prohibit a political party committee 

that makes coordinated expenditures 

with respect to a candidate from 

transferring funds to, assigning coordinated expenditures authority to or 

receiving a transfer from a political 

party that has made or intends to 

make an independent expenditure 

with respect to that candidate. 

These rules were promulgated in 

January 2003 in order to implement 

section 213 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). 

Compliance

MUR 4818/4933: 

Contributions in the Name 

of Another and Excessive 

Contributions

The Commission recently entered 

into conciliation agreements with 

a number of respondents concerning Walt Roberts’ 1998 Congressional campaign in Oklahoma. The 

Commission’s investigation revealed 

various schemes devised primarily 

by former Oklahoma State Senator 

Gene Stipe to funnel over $300,000 

into Mr. Roberts’s campaign and 

hide the fact that Gene Stipe was the 

true source of the majority of these 

contributions. Conciliation agreements in the case resulted in civil 

penalties totaling $569,500.

On June 2, 2004, the Commission 

closed the matter, which involved 51 

respondents and included 11 conciliation agreements. The primary 

respondents were Gene Stipe and 

the Stipe Law Firm (now known 

as Stipe, Harper, Laizure, Uselton, 

Edwards and Belote, LLP), Walt 

Roberts, Walt Roberts for Congress, 

Charlene Spears, Francis Stipe, 

James E. Lane, Harold Massey, Sr., 
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2004

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

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

However, in McConnell v FEC, the 

Supreme Court found that section 

of the BCRA to be unconstitutional.

Therefore, the Commission now 

proposes to remove the rules that 

implemented section 213. 

Comments

The NPRM was published in the 

June 30, 2004, Federal Register (69 

FR 39373) and 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 Mr. Brad C. 

Deutsch, Assistant General Counsel, 

and must be submitted in either written or electronic form by July 30, 

2004. The Commission recommends 

that comments be submitted via 

e-mail. E-mail comments should be 

sent to choiceprovision@fec.gov and 

must include the full name and postal service address of the commenter. 

Comments that do not contain this 

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

information will not be considered. 

Faxed comments should be sent to 

202/219-3923, with a printed copy 

follow-up to insure legibility. Mailed 

comments should be sent to the 

Federal Election Commission, 999 E 

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463. 

No oral comments can be accepted.

 —Amy Kort

Michael Mass, Larry Morgan, Paul 

Beavers and Edith “Susie” Beavers.

Background

At the time these contributions 

were made, the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) limited 

to $1,000 per election the amount 

that any person could contribute 

to any federal candidate.1 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(1)(A). In addition, the 

Act prohibits making a contribution in the name of another, knowingly permitting one’s name to be 

used to effect such a contribution 

and knowingly accepting such a 

contribution. 2 U.S.C. §441f. The 

Act also provides that all receipts 

received by a political committee 

must be deposited in a designated 

account and all disbursements made 

by a political committee (other than 

proper petty cash disbursements) 

must be made by check drawn on 

the committee’s designated account. 

Political committee treasurers must 

file reports of receipts and disbursements, including candidate loans, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

the Act. 2 U.S.C. §434. Third party 

payments of a candidate’s personal 

expenses are contributions unless the 

payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. 11 CFR 

113.1(g)(6).

According to the conciliation 

agreements, Gene Stipe, with Ms. 

Spears’ help, made a $67,500 contribution and disguised it through 

an elaborate “cattle sale” that never 

occurred. Gene Stipe also made a 

$55,000 contribution for campaign 

media ads, which he disguised 

through a purported option contract. 

The contract was handwritten in August 1998 but was dated December 

12, 1997, in order to conceal Gene 

Stipe’s payment for the campaign 

media ads. Gene Stipe also made a 

$20,500 contribution that he disguised, with the help of Mr. Lane, as 

the sale of a stock trailer. No sale actually occurred. In another instance, 

the Stipe Law Firm paid $17,000 

for advertising expenses that never 

occurred. Gene Stipe, with Ms. 

Spears’ assistance, also made at least 

$77,500 in contributions disguised 

as a legitimate art auction. 

In addition, Gene Stipe made 

$89,689 in contributions by transferring the money to others who then 

transferred the money to 39 straw 

contributors. Ms. Spears assisted 

Gene Stipe by recruiting many of 

these straw contributors so that they 

could make contributions in their 

own names. Harold Massey, Sr., 

Michael Mass, Larry Morgan and 

Paul and Susie Beavers also assisted 

Gene Stipe by transferring money 

to straw contributors so that they 

could make contributions in their 

own names. Gene Stipe’s brother, 

Francis Stipe, was the source of 

a $50,000 candidate loan made 

through McAlester Industrial Credit 

Corporation, a defunct corporation.

Conciliation Agreements

The conciliation agreements 

provide that Gene Stipe will pay 

$267,000, the Stipe Law Firm will 

pay $101,000, Ms. Spears will 

pay $50,000, Mr. Massey will pay 

$36,000, Francis Stipe will pay 

$35,000, Mr. Mass will pay $30,000, 

Mr. Morgan will pay $18,500, Ms. 

Beavers will pay $13,500, Mr. Lane 

will pay $11,000 and Mr. Beavers 

will pay $7,500 in civil penalties. 

In his conciliation agreement, 

Gene Stipe admitted that he knowingly and willfully violated the law 

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

1

 Under the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), this limit 

was raised to $2,000 per candidate, per 

election.
August 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

(continued on page 4)

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the web site 

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

htm and from the FEC faxline, 

202/501-3413.

Notice 2004-11

Coordinated and Independent 

Expenditures by Party 

Committees, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (69 FR 39373, June 

30, 2004)

by making excessive contributions 

to Walt Roberts for Congress in the 

name of another.

In the conciliation agreement with 

the Stipe Law Firm, the Firm admitted that it knowingly and willfully 

violated the law by making in-kind 

contributions to Walt Roberts for 

Congress and by making and assisting others in making contributions in 

the name of another. 

In the conciliation agreement with 

Walt Roberts and Walt Roberts for 

Congress, Mr. Roberts admitted that 

he knowingly and willfully violated 

the law by:

• Failing to report all receipts and 

disbursements; 

• Knowingly accepting excessive 

contributions;

• Failing to deposit all receipts 

received into the Committee’s 

designated account and making 

disbursements from a non-designated account; and

• Knowingly assisting others in making contributions in the name of 

another. 

In addition, Mr. Roberts admitted 

that his committee, Walt Roberts for 

Congress, knowingly and willfully 

violated these same provisions of the 

Act.

In separate conciliation agreements, Mr. Massey, Mr. Mass, Mr. 

Morgan and Ms. Beavers admitted 

to knowingly and willfully violating 

the law by assisting Gene Stipe in 

the making of contributions to Walt 

Roberts for Congress in the name of 

another. Mr. Beavers also admitted 

that he violated the law by making 

contributions in the names of others.

Referral to Department of Justice

After completing its investigation in this matter, the Commission 

referred the knowing and willful 

violations pertaining to Gene Stipe, 

the Stipe Law Firm, Mr. Roberts, 

Walt Roberts for Congress and Ms. 

Spears to the Department of Justice. 

Gene Stipe pleaded guilty to perjury, 

conspiracy to obstruct a Commission 

investigation (both felony violations) and conspiracy to violate the 

Act (a misdemeanor violation). As 

part of Gene Stipe’s criminal plea 

agreement, he resigned from his 

state senate seat and surrendered his 

license to practice law in Oklahoma. 

Gene Stipe was sentenced to 1,000 

hours community service, five years 

probation, six months home detention and the maximum criminal fine 

of $735,567.

Mr. Roberts and Ms. Spears each 

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct a Commission investigation (a 

felony violation) and conspiracy to 

violate the Act (a misdemeanor violation). Mr. Lane pleaded guilty to 

conspiracy to cause the submission 

of false statements (a felony violation). Mr. Roberts was sentenced 

to two years probation for each 

count with concurrent sentences 

and 200 hours community service. 

Ms. Spears was sentenced to three 

years probation for both counts with 

a concurrent sentence, six months 

home detention with an electronic 

monitoring bracelet and 200 hours 

of community service. Mr. Lane was 

sentenced to three years probation, 

two months home detention with 

an electronic bracelet and a $5,000 

criminal fine. 

Additional Information

Additional information in this 

case is available from the CommisMUR 5279: Partnership 

Contributions Made Without 

Agreement of Partners 

The Commission recently entered 

into a conciliation agreement with 

Charles Kushner, a New Jerseybased real estate developer, and 40 

partnership entities that he controls. 

The agreement, which resulted in 

a civil penalty of $508,900, settles 

violations of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) stemming 

from over $500,000 in contributions that the partnerships made. The 

contributions in question were made 

between December 5, 1997, and 

August 17, 2000, for the 1999-2000 

election cycle. Recipients of these 

contributions included 13 candidate 

committees, one party committee 

and one PAC. 

The Commission’s investigation 

originated with a referral from its 

Audit Division, which uncovered 

these contribution practices during an audit of the Bill Bradley for 

President Committee. The Commission accepted a conciliation agreement with Bill Bradley for President, 

which became aware of the improper 

attribution practices, but accepted 

and failed to refund $34,000 in impermissible contributions from Mr. 

Kushner’s partnerships. The Bradley Committee admitted to violating 

the Act and paid a civil penalty of 

$16,445. 

Background

Under the Act and Commission 

regulations, a partnership is considered a “person” and may make 

federal political contributions. 2 

U.S.C. §431(11). However, in order 

to prevent a partnership from being 

used to evade contribution limits and 

sion’s Public Records Office and 

through the Enforcement Query 

System on the FEC web site. Search 

for cases 4818 and 4933.

 —Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2004

4

prohibitions, Commission regulations treat partnership contributions 

as counting towards the contribution 

limits of both the partnership and 

the specific partners to whom the 

contributions are attributed. Contributions may be dually attributed 

on a pro-rata basis in direct proportion to each partner’s share of the 

partnership profits. 11 CFR 110.1(e). 

However, this option is not available to partnerships with a corporate 

member because corporations are 

barred from making contributions to 

influence federal elections. 2 U.S.C. 

§441b. 

Alternatively, a partnership contribution can be dually attributed by 

agreement of the partners who chose 

to contribute, as long as:

• Only the profits of the partners to 

whom the contribution is attributed 

are reduced (or losses increased); 

and

• The profits of the partners to whom 

the contribution is attributed are 

reduced (or losses increased) in 

proportion to the contributions 

attributed to each of them. 11 CFR 

110.1(e)(2).

The Commission’s investigation 

found that Mr. Kushner and the 40 

partnerships violated the contribution limits and violated Commission 

regulations by failing properly to 

obtain the agreement of partners to 

whom the contributions could be attributed. The partnerships could not 

dually attribute their federal political 

contributions to all partners on a pro 

rata basis because many of the 40 

partnerships included at least one 

corporate partner. Instead, the respondents attributed 100 percent of 

each contribution made from a partnership to a single individual partner. 

Mr. Kushner, as managing partner 

of each partnership, determined the 

partners to whom the contributions 

would be attributed. He also selected 

the federal political committees that 

would receive contributions and 

determined the aggregate amount 

of these contributions. He signed 

the contribution checks and directed 

management personnel of Kushner 

Companies to forward the checks on 

Kushner Companies letterhead to the 

recipient committees.

Most of the partners to whom 

contributions were attributed did not 

receive prior or contemporaneous 

notice of the specific contributions 

attributed to their personal contribution limit. The partners did, however, 

receive annual tax forms that showed 

their yearly distributions. The tax 

forms generally reflected the debits 

made from their capital accounts 

to reduce their profits in proportion 

to the political contributions attributed to them. Most of the partners 

remained unaware of the specific 

1999-2000 contributions attributed 

to them until 2001, after the failure 

to obtain their agreement to the 

attribution of the contributions was 

discovered during a Commission 

audit.1

The respondents violated the 

contribution limits and caused five to 

eight partners to make contributions 

that exceeded their annual contribution limit.2

 In addition, contributions 

totaling at least $83,000 were attributed to individuals who were not 

partners in the contributing partnerships at the time the contributions 

were made. 

Conciliation Agreement

The conciliation agreement with 

Mr. Kushner and the 40 partnerships resulted in a civil penalty of 

$508,900. These respondents maintained that they relied upon advice 

of counsel, and, without admitting or 

denying the Commission’s conclusions, but in order to avoid the costs 

and distractions of litigation, did not 

contest that:

• The partnerships violated the Act’s 

contributions limits and Commission regulations regarding the 

attribution of partnership contributions (2 U.S.C. §441a and 11 CFR 

110.1(e)(2)); and

• Mr. Kushner violated the Act by 

making contributions in excess 

of his annual limit (2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(3)).

The respondents also agreed to 

cease and desist from violating the 

contribution limit and partnership 

dual attribution regulation. They 

further agreed to obtain the prior 

agreement of the partners to whom 

contributions are attributed in the 

future.

Additional information in this 

case is available from the Commission’s Public Records Office and 

through the Enforcement Query 

System on the FEC web site. Search 

for case number 5279.

 —Amy Kort

Compliance

(continued from page 3)

1

 Although the respondents obtained 

after-the-fact ratifications from many of 

the partners in 2001, the Commission 

did not view these acknowledgements as 

meeting the “agreement” requirement 

set forth in 11 CFR 110.1(e)(2). 

2

 At that time, the Act prohibited an 

individual from making contributions 

in excess of $25,000 in a calendar year 

to influence federal elections. Under 

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002, this limit was raised to $95,000 

over a two-year period. See 11 CFR 

110.5.

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2004-12

Regional Party Organization 

Established by State Party 

Committees

Democrats for the West (DFW), a 

regional party committee established 

by the Democratic State party committees of Arizona, New Mexico, 

Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, 

Idaho, Montana and Alaska (the 

Participating State Committees), is a 
August 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

state party committee that is affiliated with each of the Participating 

State Committees. 

Background

The Participating State Committees created DFW in order to 

conduct research, issue and tactical polling, training and periodic 

conferences among and between 

the Participating State Committees.1

 

DFW may maintain a full-time staff 

and will incur administrative expenses such as rent, office supplies, 

computers, etc. 

DFW will not disseminate any 

public communication that expressly 

advocates the election or defeat of 

any federal candidate or “promotes 

or supports or attacks or opposes” 

any federal candidate. DFW also 

will not: 

• Undertake any other direct electoral activity, including voter 

registration, voter identification or 

get-out-the-vote activity; 

• Direct, solicit or make any contribution to, or expenditure on behalf 

of, any federal candidate; or

• Make any transfers or contributions 

to any federal political committee 

or party committee other than the 

Participating State Committees. 

Additionally, DFW will not 

pay for the republication of any 

campaign materials prepared by 

a federal candidate or pay for any 

public communication that refers to 

a federal candidate within 120 days 

of an election.

Legal Analysis

State committee status. A “state 

committee” is defined as the “organization that by virtue of the bylaws 

of a political party or the operation 

of state law is part of the official 

party structure and is responsible 

for the day-to-day operation of the 

political party at the state level, 

including an entity that is directly 

or indirectly established, financed, 

maintained, or controlled by that 

organization, as determined by the 

Commission.” 11 CFR 100.14(a); 

see also 2 U.S.C. §431(15). 

In this case, the Participating 

State Committees established DFW, 

and will provide the initial financing for DFW through transfers to 

DFW’s federal account. Further, the 

Participating State Committees will 

maintain and control DFW. Accordingly, DFW is a state committee because it is “an entity that is directly 

or indirectly established, financed, 

maintained, or controlled by” the 

Participating State Committees. 

As a state committee, the limit 

on contributions from persons 

other than multicandidate committees to DFW’s federal account is 

$10,000 per calendar year. 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(a)(1)(D) and 441a(f). For 

multicandidate committees, the 

limit on contributions to DFW’s 

federal account is $5,000. 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(a)(2)(C) and 441a(f).

Transfers. The Participating State 

Committees, as well as any other 

national or state Democratic party 

committees, may make unlimited 

transfers to DFW because these 

committees are party committees of 

the same political party. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(4); 11 CFR 102.6(a)(ii) 

and 110.3(c)(1). As discussed 

below, unlimited transfers of federal funds between DFW and the 

Participating State Committees are 

also permissible because DFW and 

the Participating State Committees 

are “affiliated committees.” 11 CFR 

102.6(a)(i).

Affiliation. Under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act), 

political committees “established 

or financed or maintained or 

controlled” by the same persons 

or group of persons are treated as 

a single political committee for 

the purposes of the contributions 

they make or receive. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(5); see 11 CFR 100.5(g), 

102.2(b)(1), and 110.3. Because 

DFW was established by, and will 

be financed, maintained and controlled by, the Participating State 

Committees, DFW is affiliated with 

each one of the nine Participating 

State Committees.

Attribution of contributions.

Contributions to DFW from persons 

other than the Participating State 

Committees will be proportionately attributable to each of the nine 

Participating State Committees. 

In other words, one-ninth of any 

contribution DFW receives will be 

attributable to each of the nine Participating State Committees. Thus, 

for example, a $9,000 contribution 

by an individual to DFW would be 

attributed to each of the nine Participating State Committees as a $1,000 

contribution, and the same contributor would then be permitted to 

contribute up to an additional $9,000 

of federal funds to one or more of 

the nine Participating State Committees in that calendar year, provided 

that the contribution does not cause 

the individual to exceed his or her 

biennial contribution limit. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(3)(B). 

Alternatively, DFW may follow 

the Commission’s joint fundraising 

rules in order to handle contributions 

that would cause an excessive contribution to one or more of the Participating State Committees. To do so, 

the Participating State Committees 

would need to approve a written 

fundraising agreement in advance, 

provide an appropriate fundraising 

notice, distribute the joint fundraising proceeds and properly report the 

contributions. See 11 CFR 102.17.

Nonfederal funds. DFW may 

maintain nonfederal accounts and 

may raise funds for such accounts 

that are not subject to the limits, pro1

 DFW was established, and will be 

maintained and controlled, solely by the 

Participating State Committees. No officer, agent or employee acting on behalf 

of any other organization, including any 

other state or national party committee, 

was involved in the establishment of, or 

will maintain or control, the organization. (continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2004

6

hibitions and reporting requirements 

of the Act. See 2 U.S.C. §§441b and 

441a(a). See also 11 CFR 106.7. 

Guests and featured speakers 

at DFW events. DFW may invite 

national party officers and employees and federal candidates and 

officeholders (as well as the agents 

of any of these) to appear as guests 

or featured speakers at DFW events. 

However, the rules applicable in particular circumstances vary. Federal 

candidates and officeholders may 

attend, speak at or be featured guests 

at a DFW fundraising event without 

restriction or regulation because 

DFW is a state party committee. 11 

CFR 300.64(b). Federal candidates 

and officeholders are not required 

to issue any disclaimers during their 

appearances at such events.2 

Payment of DFW’s expenses. 

DFW intends to establish separate 

federal and nonfederal accounts 

and to allocate the costs of certain federal/nonfederal expenses 

between these accounts. 11 CFR 

102.5 and 106.7(b). When a party 

committee chooses to allocate its 

administrative costs,3

 then it must 

allocate such disbursements according to fixed allocation percentages 

described in the Commission’s 

regulations. 11 CFR 106.7(d)(2). 

A Senate candidate will appear on 

the ballot in six of the states represented by the Participating State 

Committees during each election 

year. Thus, according to these fixed 

allocation percentages, DFW must 

allocate at least 36 percent of its 

administrative expenses to DFW’s 

federal account in Presidential election years, and at least 21 percent 

of its administrative expenses to 

DFW’s federal account in nonPresidential election years. 11 CFR 

106.7(d)(2)(i)-(ii).

Salaries and wages, however, may 

not be allocated. Instead, a party 

committee must use funds that comply with state law to pay salaries and 

wages for employees who spend 25 

percent or less of their compensated 

time in a given month on federal 

election activities or on activities 

on activities in connection with a 

federal election. Salaries and wages 

(including fringe benefits) paid for 

employees who spend more than 25 

percent of their compensated time 

in a given month on federal election 

activities or on activities in connection with a federal election must 

come from a federal account. Party 

committees must keep a monthly 

log of the percentage of time each 

employee spends in connection 

with a federal election. 11 CFR 

106.7(d)(1); see also AO 2003-11.

DFW may pay employees who 

spend more than 25 percent of their 

compensated work hours in a given 

month in connection with federal 

elections using federal funds raised 

through events where both federal 

and nonfederal funds are raised 

when the costs of such events have 

been properly allocated using the 

“funds received” method. 

Use of polling and research data. 

DFW may provide its polling and 

research information to state and local party committees of the Democratic Party at less than the usual and 

normal fee, or at no charge. 11 CFR 

110.3(c)(1). However, if polling and 

research information is paid for with 

nonfederal funds, then the information can only be provided to national 

party committees if the recipients 

pay DFW the usual and normal fee.

Date Issued: June 14, 2004; 

Length: 7 pages.

 —Amy Kort

2

 See Explanation and Justification to 

Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: 

Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money: 

Final Rules, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,065, 49,108 

(July 29, 2002).

3 Items that can be allocated under section 106.7(d)(2) include administrative 

costs such as rent, utilities, office equipment and office supplies, except that any 

such expenses that are directly attributable to a clearly identified federal 

candidate must be paid only from the 

federal account. 11 CFR 106.7(c)(2). 

AO 2004-14

Federal Candidate’s 

Appearance in Public Service 

Announcements

U.S. Representative Tom Davis 

may appear in public service announcements (PSAs) to benefit the 

National Kidney Foundation (the 

Foundation) by promoting the Cadillac Invitational Golf Tournament. 

Because the funds raised through the 

tournament are solely for charitable 

purposes, Representative Davis’s 

appearance in the PSAs will not be 

a solicitation of funds in connection with an election, subject to the 

requirements of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act). 2 U.S.C. 

§441i(e)(1). The PSAs will also not 

constitute a “coordinated communication,” resulting in an in-kind 

contribution to Representative Davis, 

because his Congressional office 

will pay for the costs of taping the 

announcements. See 11 CFR 109.21.

Background

Representative Davis, who is 

seeking re-election in the November 2, 2004, general election, has 

appeared in PSAs promoting the 

Cadillac Invitational Golf Tournament for the past three years. The 

tournament is strictly a charitable 

fundraising event held annually to 

benefit the Foundation, which does 

not engage in any activity in connection with an election, including voter 

registration, get-out-the-vote activity 

or generic campaign activity. The 

PSAs will not expressly advocate 

Representative Davis’s election or 

make any reference to his candidacy. 

Representative Davis’s Congressional office will pay for the taping of 

the announcements, and they will be 

cablecast without a fee.

Advisory Opinions

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

7

Analysis

The two issues concerning the 

application of the Act to Representative Davis’s appearance in the PSAs 

are whether:

• Funds raised through the announcements are in connection 

with a federal or nonfederal election; and

• The PSAs fall within the definition 

of a “coordinated communication” and, thus, trigger payment or 

reporting obligations for Representative Davis.

Solicitations. Under the Act, 

federal candidates are generally prohibited from soliciting funds in connection with a federal election that 

are not subject to the limits, prohibitions and reporting requirements of 

the Act. Federal candidates and officeholders are also prohibited from 

raising funds in connection with 

a nonfederal election unless those 

funds are subject to the Act’s limits 

and source prohibitions. 2 U.S.C. 

§441i(e) and 11 CFR 300.61 and 

300.62. However, if the funds raised 

are not in connection with a federal 

or nonfederal election, then the Act’s 

prohibitions at section 441i(e) do not 

apply. See AO 2003-20. In this case, 

the funds raised through the tournament are solely for charitable uses 

and are not in connection with any 

federal or nonfederal election. 

Coordinated communication. The 

Act defines as an in-kind contribution an expenditure made by any 

person “in cooperation, consultation, 

or concert with, or at the request or 

suggestion of” a candidate, his or 

her authorized committee or their 

agents. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)(i). 

The Commission’s coordinated 

communication regulation sets forth 

a three-pronged test to determine 

whether an expenditure for a communication becomes an in-kind contribution as a result of coordination 

between a person making an expenditure and a candidate. A payment 

for a communication that satisfies 

all three prongs will constitute an 

1

 Because all three prongs must be satisfied for a communication to constitute 

a “coordinated communication,” the 

Commission did not examine the second 

and third prongs of the test.

in-kind contribution. The first prong 

of the test is that the communication must be paid for by a “person” 

other than the federal candidate, the 

candidate’s authorized committee 

or their agents, and the second two 

prongs set out a series of content and 

conduct standards. 

The Davis PSAs do not meet 

the first prong of the coordinated 

communication test because Davis’s 

Congressional office will pay for the 

taping of the announcements—the 

only costs identified in the request 

for the PSAs. The Act specifically 

exempts the federal government or 

any of its authorities from the definition of “person.” 2 U.S.C. §432(11); 

see also 11 CFR 100.10. Because the 

use of federal government resources 

by Representative Davis’s Congressional office does not qualify as a 

payment by a person for a communication, these PSAs fail the threepronged test and do not qualify as 

coordinated communications.1 Thus, 

no in-kind contribution results from 

the costs of the PSAs, and Representative Davis will not incur any 

obligations under the Act from his 

participation in the announcements.

Similarly, because neither Representative Davis nor the Foundation—nor any other person—will 

pay to cablecast the announcements, 

the PSAs do not qualify as electioneering communications, which 

are limited to communications 

“disseminated for a fee.” 11 CFR 

100.29(b)(3)(i). Thus, the PSA’s are 

not coordinated electioneering communications, which are also considered in-kind contributions. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(7)(C). 

PACronyms, Other 

PAC Publications 

Available

 The Commission annually 

publishes an alphabetical listing 

of acronyms, abbreviations and 

common names of political action 

committees (PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the 

index provides the full name 

of the PAC, its city, state, FEC 

identification number and, if not 

identifiable from the full name, its 

connected, sponsoring or affiliated 

organization.

 This index is helpful in 

identifying PACs that are not 

readily identified in their reports 

and statements on file with the 

FEC.

 To order a free copy of 

PACronyms, call the FEC’s 

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 or 202/694-1120.

 PACronyms is also available 

on diskette for $1 and can be 

accessed free on the FEC web site 

at www.fec.gov.

 Other PAC indexes, described 

below, may be ordered from the 

Disclosure Division. Prepayment 

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all 

registered PACs showing each 

PAC’s identification number, 

address, treasurer and connected 

organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs 

arranged by state providing 

the same information as above 

($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of 

organizations sponsoring PACs 

showing the name of the PAC 

and its identification number 

($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can 

also conduct database research to 

locate federal political committees 

when only part of the committee 

name is known. Call the telephone 

numbers above for assistance or 

visit the Public Records Office in 

Washington at 999 E St. NW.

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

8

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

AO 2004-17

Federal Candidate’s 

Compensation for Part-Time 

Employment

Payments that Becky A. Klein, a 

Congressional candidate, receives as 

compensation for part-time consulting services rendered to a law firm 

are not contributions to Ms. Klein’s 

campaign. The payments from the 

law firm will be for services actually 

rendered, and they are excepted from 

the definition of “contribution” because they qualify as compensation 

made irrespective of her candidacy.

Background

Ms. Klein is a U.S. House candidate, and she intends to accept 

part-time employment providing 

consulting services, based on her 

experience as Chairman of the Texas 

Public Utility Commission, to a law 

firm. The law firm will pay her on 

Dissenting Opinion

Commissioner Thomas issued a 

dissenting opinion on June 14, 2004.

 Date Issued: June 10, 2004; 

Length: 4 pages.

 —Amy Kort

AO 2004-15

Film Ads Showing 

Federal Candidates 

Are Electioneering 

Communications

Television and radio commercials 

featuring a Presidential candidate to 

promote a documentary film would 

constitute electioneering communications if they air within 60 days 

before the general election or within 

30 days before a primary election 

or national nominating convention 

and could be received by more than 

50,000 people. 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3) 

and 11 CFR 100.29. Ads that constitute electioneering communications 

may not be paid for by corporations or labor organizations and 

may trigger reporting obligations. 

2 U.S.C. §§434(f) and 441b(b)(2); 

11 CFR 104.20, 114.2(b)(2)(iii) and 

114.14(b).

Background

Under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, an electioneering communication is defined, with 

some exceptions, as any broadcast, 

cable or satellite communication that 

refers to a clearly identified federal 

candidate and is publicly distributed 

for a fee within 60 days before the 

general election or 30 days before 

a primary election or a nominating 

convention for the office sought by 

the candidate. 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3) 

and 11 CFR 100.29. For Presidential 

and Vice Presidential candidates, 

“publicly distributed” means that the 

communication can be received:

• By 50,000 people or more in a state 

where a primary election or caucus 

is being held within 30 days; 

• By 50,000 people or more anywhere in the U.S. from 30 days 

prior to the convention until the 

end of the convention; or 

• Anywhere in the U.S. within 60 

days before the general election.

2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i) and 11 

CFR 100.29(b)(3)(ii).

David T. Hardy, President of the 

Bill of Rights Educational Foundation (the Foundation), is producing 

a documentary film that focuses on 

the Bill of Rights. The request stated 

that the Foundation qualifies as a 

nonprofit corporation under Section 

501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. The film will include some 

footage of federal officeholders 

who are also candidates, including 

President Bush. Mr. Hardy and the 

Foundation plan to air radio and television ads for a fee in order to promote the film’s distribution. The ads 

will not be received in the districts 

of Congressional candidates who are 

clearly identified in the ads, but at 

least one Presidential candidate will 

be featured.

Analysis

Ads that refer to at least one 

Presidential candidate, are publicly 

distributed within the electioneering communication periods and can 

reach at least 50,000 people will 

meet all of the elements that define 

an electioneering communication. 

None of the statutory or regulatory 

exemptions for electioneering communications will apply to the ads in 

this opinion.1 Moreover, Mr. Hardy 

did not assert that the Foundation 

was entitled to a media exemption 

under the Act, and, thus, the Commission made no finding with respect to the application of the media 

exemption in this opinion. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(f)(3)(B)(i). Thus, the ads will 

be subject to the prohibitions and 

reporting requirements for electioneering communications.

As a corporation, the Foundation 

may not finance ads that constitute 

electioneering communications.2

However, Mr. Hardy may pay for 

the ads himself, and he must comply 

with the Act’s reporting requirements for electioneering communications that aggregate in excess of 

$10,000 in a calendar year. 2 U.S.C. 

§§434(f) and 441b(b)(2) ; 11 CFR 

104.20. 

Date Issued: June 25, 2004; 

Length: 4 pages.

 —Amy Kort

1

 Exceptions might apply if a communication was disseminated through means 

other than broadcast, cable or satellite communication, was a reportable 

expenditure or independent expenditure, 

was a candidate debate forum or a 

promotion of such an event, was a communication by local or state candidates 

or was made by a charitable organization under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). 11 CFR 

100.29(c).

2

 While qualified nonprofit corporations 

(QNC), as described in 11 CFR 114.10, 

are exempt from the prohibition on 

corporate payments for electioneering 

communications, the Foundation does 

not qualify as a QNC under Commission 

regulations.
August 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

1

 The Commission noted that Ms. 

Klein’s situation seemed virtually 

indistinguishable from that presented in 

AO 1979-74, which was the culmination 

of a series of advisory opinions reaffirming that “an individual may pursue 

gainful employment while a candidate 

for Federal office” and establishing and 

refining the criteria for when compensation received by a candidate would not 

be a contribution from the employer. 

The three part test in AO 1979-74 was 

subsequently codified in Commission 

regulations at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iii).

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2004-19

Commercial web site collecting and forwarding contributions 

to candidates who may or may not 

be known when the contribution is 

made (DollarVote.org, Inc., June 9, 

2004)

AOR 2004-20

Impact of new Connecticut election law on status of Connecticut 

convention as separate election 

(Adam Wood, Campaign Manager 

for Farrell for Congress, June 15, 

2004)

AOR 2004-21

Commercial web site to allow 

contributors to direct contributions 

to charity when an equal contribution is made to a competing candidate or cause (Matthew L. Ginsberg 

and On Time Systems, Inc., May 20, 

2004)

AOR 2004-22

Retiring House member’s transfer of campaign funds to state party 

committee for state party office 

building renovation (Representative 

Doug Bereuter, June 8, 2004)

Court Cases

John Hagelin, et. al. v. FEC

On May 5, 2004, John Hagelin, 

Ralph Nader, Patrick Buchanan, 

Howard Phillips, Winona LaDuke, 

the Green Party of the United States 

and the Constitution Party asked the 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia to find that the Commission wrongfully dismissed their 

administrative complaint dated 

June 17, 2003. The administrative 

complaint alleged that the Commission on Presidential Debates, Inc. 

(CPD) violated the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) in 2000, that 

it continues to violate the Act and 

that its actions have a direct impact 

on the 2004 Presidential election 

cycle currently underway. See also 

Hagelin et al. v. FEC in the June 

2004 Record, page 11.

Background 

The CPD, a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) 

corporation, sponsored four nationally televised debates between the 

Presidential and Vice-Presidential 

(continued on page 10)

an hourly basis for services actually 

rendered, and the rate of compensation will be comparable to that 

earned by similarly qualified consultants for similar services. Her work 

for the law firm will be independent 

of her campaign, and she will not 

use the firm’s facilities—nor those 

of any of the firm’s clients—for 

campaign-related activity.

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) prohibits the 

conversion of campaign funds 

to any “personal use.” 2 U.S.C. 

439a. Under Commission regulations, a third party’s payment of a 

candidate’s expenses that would 

otherwise be deemed “personal use” 

expenses is considered a contribution by the third party, unless the 

payment would have been made 

“irrespective of the candidacy.” 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(6). See also 2 U.S.C. 

439a(b)(2). The regulations state that 

employment-related compensation is 

considered a contribution unless the 

compensation:

• Results from bona fide employment that is genuinely independent 

of the candidacy;

• Is exclusively in consideration for 

services provided by the employee 

as part of his or her employment; 

and

• Does not exceed the amount of 

compensation that would be paid 

to any other similarly qualified 

person for the same work over 

the same time period. 11 CFR 

113.1(g)(6)(iii)(A), (B) and (C).

Ms. Klein’s proposal meets all 

three of these requirements. The 

consulting services arrangement is 

a bona fide employment, and it is 

genuinely independent of her candidacy. The proposed hourly rate of 

compensation is exclusively tied to 

services actually rendered and is not 

more than what is paid to similarly 

qualified consultants who perform 

similar services. Thus, the payments 

will be made “irrespective of candidacy” and will not be contributions 

to Ms. Klein’s campaign under the 

Act or Commission regulations.1

Date Issued: June 24, 2004; 

Length: 4 pages.

 —Amy Kort

AOR 2004-23

Affiliation between corporation 

and physician practices with which 

it has exclusive management service 

agreements (U.S. Oncology, Inc. 

Good Government Committee, June 

10, 2004)

AOR 2004-24

Software vendor proposing to use 

contributor information obtained 

from FEC web site to provide contributors’ contribution histories to 

its clients (NGP Software, Inc., June 

25, 2004).

AOR 2004-25

Federal candidate/officeholder’s 

donation of personal funds to organizations that engage in voter registration activity (Senator Jon Corzine, 

June 28, 2004)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2004

10

FEC v. California 

Democratic Party, et al.

On June 4, 2004, the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

California ordered the defendants 

to pay a $30,000 civil penalty and 

enjoined them from further similar 

violations of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act). 

The plaintiff and defendants 

stipulated to the entry of the court’s 

order, which followed the court’s 

February 13, 2004, decision to 

grant the Commission’s motion for 

summary judgment, finding that the 

defendants violated the Act by: 

• Using nonfederal funds to pay for 

mass mailings and radio advertisements that constituted express 

advocacy of a clearly identified 

federal candidate;

• Failing to include the required 

disclaimers; and

• Failing to report the ads as independent expenditures.

Under the Act, political party 

committees may only spend funds 

that are consistent with the limits and prohibitions of the Act to 

influence a federal election. Among 

other restrictions, the Act prohibits 

corporations and labor unions from 

making any contributions in connection with a federal election, and 

Court Cases

(continued from page 9)

1

 The defendants’ activities described in 

this case occurred before the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 took 

effect. Thus, the court considered the 

statutory and regulatory provisions in 

effect at that time.

FEC v. Dear for Congress, 

et al.

On June 7, 2004, the parties 

solely, for the purpose of settling 

this case, stipulated that the court 

could enter a consent judgment, with 

the defendants neither admitting nor 

denying the findings included in the 

judgment. In the consent judgment, 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York provided 

declaratory, injunctive and monetary 

relief in favor of the Commission. 

The court decreed that one or more 

of the defendants violated the Federal Election Campaign Act’s:

• Contribution limits (2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(1)(A));

1

 The term “political committee” means 

any committee, club, association, or 

other group of persons which receives 

contributions aggregating in excess of 

$1,000 during a calendar year or which 

makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year.

candidates of the Republican and 

Democratic Parties in the 2000 elections. The Act exempts nonpartisan 

activity designed to encourage individuals to vote or to register to vote 

from the definition of regulated expenditures. 2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii). 

The Commission has interpreted this 

statute to permit nonprofit 501(c)(3) 

or (c)(4) organizations that do not 

endorse, support or oppose political 

candidates or parties to stage candidate debates per 11 CFR 110.13(a); 

see 11 CFR 114.4 (f). Additionally, 

such a qualifying nonprofit organization may use its own funds and 

accept funds donated by corporations or labor organizations to defray 

costs incurred in staging candidate 

debates. 11 CFR 114.4(f)(1).

Administrative Complaint 

The plaintiffs alleged that the 

CPD was founded and controlled by 

the Republican and Democratic Parties and their representatives. They 

argued that the CPD raised significant monies and obtained numerous 

corporate co-sponsors of its debates 

in 2000. According to the administrative complaint, because the CPD 

does not meet the criteria for a qualifying organization under 11 CFR 

110.13 and 114.4(f)(1), the corporate 

monies raised and expended were illegal contributions and expenditures. 

Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that 

CPD meets the definition of political committee under the Act1

 and is 

required to register and report with 

the FEC. 

also prohibits a political committee 

from receiving such contributions. 

2 U.S.C. §441b. See also 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a, 441c, 441e, 441f and 441g; 

11 CFR parts 100, 110, 114 and 115. 

A party committee that maintains 

both federal and nonfederal accounts 

may pay for some mixed federal/

nonfederal activities with a combination of federal and nonfederal funds 

using the allocation rules set forth in 

Commission regulations.1

 However, 

any expenditure made by a political 

party committee for activities that 

expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified federal 

candidate must be made with federally permissible funds.

On February 13, the court also 

denied the defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. See the April 

2004 Record, page 8.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, S-03-0547 

FCD DAD.

 —Amy Kort

Court Complaint 

The plaintiffs allege that the 

FEC’s dismissal of the administrative complaint was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and 

contrary to law. They further assert 

that the dismissal was based on an 

impermissible interpretation of the 

Act. See 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A). 

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the FEC’s dismissal of the 

administrative complaint was contrary to law and to remand the matter 

to the FEC with an order to conform 

to the declaration within 30 days.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 04-CV-00731(HHK).

 —Amy Kort
August 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

Shawn O’Hara v. FEC

On June 29, 2004, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed as untimely the 

petitioner’s request for review of the 

Commission’s repayment determination against the National Committee of the Reform Party of the USA 

(RPUSA). Under that determination, 

the RPUSA must repay $333,558, 

plus interest, to the U.S. Treasury, 

representing public funds for the 

RPUSA’s 2000 Presidential nominating convention that were not permissibly spent under the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund Act. The 

court found that the petition for review of the repayment determination 

was filed beyond the 30-day period 

for filing such petitions. See the June 

2004 Record, page 6.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 04-1106.

 —Amy Kort

New Litigation

John C. Cooksey v FEC

On May 26, 2004, John C. Cooksey and Cooksey for Senate Finance 

Committee (the Committee) filed a 

complaint in the U.S. District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs ask the court to 

review a civil penalty assessed by 

the Commission under its administrative fines regulations.

Background. On April 29, 2003, 

the Commission notified the Committee that it believed the Committee had failed to file a 2002 30-Day 

Post-General report, as required under 2 U.S.C. §434(a). On May 2 the 

Commission notified the Committee 

of its reason-to-believe finding that 

the Committee had violated 2 U.S.C. 

§434(a) and its initial civil penalty 

calculation of $9,500. 

The Committee challenged the 

Commission’s reason-to-believe 

finding under the administrative 

process provided for in Commission 

regulations. 11 CFR 111.35-111.37. 

The Commission subsequently 

reduced the penalty amount to 

$8,000 after the Committee submitted new information that allowed 

the Commission to calculate the 

penalty based on actual data rather 

than on the estimates used for the 

initial penalty calculation. On April 

22, 2004, the Commission made a 

final determination that the Committee had violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a) 

and assessed an $8,000 civil money 

penalty.

Court Complaint. In their complaint the plaintiffs allege that the 

penalty is unfounded and/or excessive and is based on a factual error 

regarding the circumstances of the 

allegedly untimely report. The plaintiffs further argue that the existence 

of extraordinary circumstances that 

lasted for more than 48 hours and 

were beyond the Committee’s control relieves the Committee from the 

Commission’s penalty. See 11 CFR 

111.35(b).

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently resolved five additional cases under 

the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program. The respondents, 

the alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

the final disposition of the cases are 

listed below. 

1. The Commission reached 

agreement with Fannie Lou Hammer 

PAC and Edwin Washington, its treasurer, regarding the PAC’s failure to 

register and report. The respondents 

acknowledged that, although the 

Commission had administratively 

terminated their PAC in November 

2002, their expenditures in connection with federal election campaigns 

in 2002 voided the terms of this 

administrative termination. 

The respondents agreed to pay a 

$500 civil penalty. In addition, they 

agreed to complete and file with 

the Commission the missing campaign finance reports for the period 

from January 1999 through March 

2004 and set up and maintain in the 

Committee’s offices a resource file 

on the Act to provide guidance for 

the current and future officers of 

the PAC. The respondents will also 

send an appropriate representative 

to attend an FEC seminar on federal 

election campaign reporting requirements within the next year and will 

identify one staff member to be 

(continued on page 12)

• Reporting requirements (2 U.S.C. 

§§434(a)(6)(A), 434(b)(2), 

434(b)(4), 434(b)(4)(F) and 

434(b)(8));

• Prohibition on contributions made 

in the name of another (2 U.S.C. 

§441f); and

• Prohibition on corporate contributions (2 U.S.C. §441b(a)).

The court ordered Dear for 

Congress, Dear 2000 and Friends 

of Noah Dear to pay to the Commission all funds remaining in their 

accounts as of the date that the 

parties entered into the stipulated 

agreement, and the court ordered 

Abraham Roth, as treasurer, to pay 

a $45,000 civil penalty to the FEC. 

In addition, the court enjoined the 

defendants from committing further 

such violations of the Act. See the 

August 2003 Record, page 4.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of New York, 03CV2897.

 —Amy Kort

The plaintiffs ask the court to 

reduce and/or waive the $8,000 civil 

penalty.

U.S. District Court for the 

Western District of Louisiana, 

3:04CV1152.

 —Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2004

12

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

(continued from page 11)

Publications

2003 Annual Report Available

Printed copies of the Commission’s Annual Report 2003 are now 

available. To receive a free copy, call 

the Information Division at 800/424-

9530, or locally at 202/694-1100. 

The Annual Report 2003 is also 

available online at http://www.fec.

gov/pages/anreport.htm. 

 —Amy Kort

Selected Court Case Abstracts 

Available Online

The 2004 edition of the Selected Court Case Abstracts is now 

available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/cca.pdf. 

The Selected Court Case Abstracts, 

current as of March 2004, includes 

summaries of court cases pertinent 

to the Federal Election Campaign 

Act. Most of the abstracts originally 

appeared in the Record.

A printed version of the 2004 

edition of the Selected Court Case 

Abstracts will be available in the 

fall. The availability of the printed 

version will be announced in a future issue of the Record. 

 —Amy Kort

Enforcement Query 

System Now Available on FEC Web 

Site

 The FEC recently launched 

its Enforcement Query System 

(EQS), a web-based search 

tool that allows users to find 

and examine public documents 

regarding closed Commission 

enforcement matters. Using 

current scanning, optical character 

recognition and text search 

technologies, the system permits 

intuitive and flexible searches 

of case documents and other 

materials. 

 Currently, the EQS contains 

complete public case files for 

all MURs closed since January 

1, 2001. Users of the system 

can search for specific words 

or phrases from the text of all 

public case documents. They 

can also identify single matters 

under review (MURs) or groups 

of cases by searching additional 

identifying information about 

cases prepared as part of the Case 

Management System. Included 

among these criteria are case 

names and numbers, complainants 

and respondents, timeframes, 

dispositions, legal issues and 

penalty amounts. 

 The system was recently 

updated to offer additional case 

information and navigation tools, 

including:

• A redesigned Case Summary 

section that includes the name 

of a respondent committee 

treasurer and any prior 

committee treasurer; and

• An On-Line Tutorial to help 

users to utilize the system’s 

search capabilities more fully.

 The Enforcement Query 

System may be accessed on the 

Commission’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov.

responsible for compliance with the 

Act. (ADR 154/ MUR 5377) 

2. The Commission closed the file 

regarding Eric Tanenblatt, BushCheney ‘04, Inc. and its treasurer, 

David Herndon, the State of Georgia 

and the Office of the Governor in 

Georgia concerning the alleged use 

of state resources in connection with 

a federal election and alleged excessive contributions. The ADR Office 

recommended that the case be closed 

and the Commission agreed to close 

the file. (ADR 161/MUR 5402) 

3. The Commission closed the file 

regarding Pro Choice Voter and its 

treasurer, Elizabeth Shollenberger, 

and Westchester Coalition for Legal 

Abortion, Inc. and its President, 

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, concerning the alleged failure to file 

disclosure reports and accurately 

report debt. The ADR Office recommended that the case be closed and 

the Commission agreed to close the 

file. (ADR 164/MUR 5404) 

4. The Commission closed the 

file regarding Gutknecht for U.S. 

Congress, David Byer, its treasurer, 

and Leonard Prescott concerning the 

alleged failure to provide accurate 

contributor information. The ADR 

Office recommended the case be 

closed and the Commission agreed 

to close the file. (ADR 165/MUR 

5399) 

5. The Commission closed the file 

regarding Albert F. Turner, Friends 

of Albert Turner and its treasurer, 

Leslie Ford, Perry County Civic 

League and Milton E. McGregor 

regarding the alleged:

• Solicitation of contributions on the 

premises of a non-profit tax exempt 

organization; 

• Coordination of efforts with a 

political organization to collect 

contributions in violation of the 

Act; 

• Solicitation of soft money contributions; 

• Violation of the Act’s ban on corporate contributions; and

• Failure to register. 

The ADR Office recommended 

the case be closed and the Commission agreed to close the file. (ADR 

168/MUR 5419)

 —Amy Kort
August 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

13

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Candidates: 

June Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

June 2004 Certifications

Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $0 $7,615,360.39

John R. Edwards (D)2 $0 $6,521,338.88

Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $0 $4,104,319.82

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $0 $2,661,079.595

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)6 $0 $1,408,993.13

Joseph Lieberman (D)7 $0 $4,257,830.85

Ralph Nader (D) $298,758.66 $398,758.66

Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $0 $100,000.008

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.

3 Congressman 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 This amount reflects what the candidate has been paid. His cumulative certifications 

were higher, but the Commission rescinded part of that amount.

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

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

2004.

8

 On May 10, 2004, the Commission determined that Reverend Sharpton must repay 

this amount to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds he received in excess of his entitlement. See the July 2004 Record, page 8.

Commission Certifies 

Matching Funds for 

Presidential Candidate

On June 29, 2004, the Commission certified $298,758.66 in federal 

matching funds to Ralph Nader. The 

U.S. Treasury Department made the 

payments on July 1, 2004. 

Presidential Matching Payment 

Account

Under the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act, the 

federal government will match up to 

$250 of an individual’s 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 committee’s 

spending, limit their personal spending for the campaign to $50,000 and 

submit to an audit by the Commission. 26 U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b) 

and 9035; 11 CFR 9033.1, 9033.2, 

9035.1(a)(2) and 9035.2(a)(1).

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. 26 

CFR 702.9037-2. 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 

amount that each candidate has been 

certified to date. 

 —Amy Kort

Public 

Funding

Nonfiler

Congressional Committee 

Fails to File Pre-Primary 

Report

The Joe Byrd for Congress committee failed to file a 12-Day PrePrimary report for the July 20, 2004, 

primary election in North Carolina.

Prior to the reporting deadline, 

the Commission notified committees 

of their filing obligations. Committees that failed to file the required 

reports were subsequently notified 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 candidate’s 

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
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2004

14

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 limited liability 

company composed entirely of 

corporations may become an SSF 

with the limited liability company 

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: Candidate’s loans to 

campaign apply to Millionaires’ 

Amendment threshold, 2:2

Index

2003-32: Federal candidate’s 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 PAC’s 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

2003-39: Charitable matching plan 

conducted by collecting agent of 

trade association, 3:10

2003-40: Reporting independent 

expenditures and aggregation for 

various elections, 3:11

2004-1: Endorsement ads result in 

contribution if coordinated communications; “stand-by-your-ad” 

disclaimer for ad authorized by 

two candidates, 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

Roundtable Schedule

Date Subject Intended Audience

August 4

9:30-11 a.m.

New Rules on Pre-Election Communications:

• Coordinated Communications within 120 days 

of an election; and

• Electioneering Communications within 60 days 

of the general election.

• Candidates;

• Government affairs 

representatives; and

• Persons making coordinated communications 

or electioneering communications.

Outreach

FEC Accepts Credit 

Cards

 The Federal Election 

Commission now accepts 

American Express, Diners Club 

and Discover Cards in addition 

to Via and MasterCard. While 

most FEC materials are available 

free of charge, some campaign 

finance reports and statements, 

statistical compilations, indexes 

and directories require payment.

 Walk-in visitors and those 

placing requests by telephone may 

use any of the above-listed credit 

cards, cash or checks. Individuals 

and organizations may also place 

funds on deposit with the office 

to purchase these items. Since prepayment is required, using a credit 

card or funds placed on deposit 

can speed the process and delivery 

of orders. For further information, 

contact the Public Records Office 

at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1120.

Roundtable on Pre-Election 

Communications

On August 4, 2004, the Commission will host a roundtable session 

on new rules for pre-election communications, including coordinated 

communications within 120 days 

of an election and electioneering 

communications within 60 days of 

the general election. (See the chart 

at right for details.) These types 

of communications have been the 

subject of a number of recent Commission advisory opinions, including 

AOs 2004-14 and 2004-15, which 

are summarized in this issue of the 

Record.

Attendance is limited to 30 

people per session, and registration 

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

before registering or sending money 

to ensure that openings remain. The 

registration form is available on the 

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

pages/infosvc.htm and from Faxline, 

the FEC’s automated fax system 

(202/501-3413, request document 

590). For more information, call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530, or locally at 202/694-1100.

 —Amy Kort
August 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

15

2004-6: Web-based meeting services 

to candidates and political committees, 5:7

2004-7: MTV’s mock Presidential 

election qualifies for press exemption—no contribution or electioneering communication results, 5:8

2004-8: Severance pay awarded to 

employee who resigns to run for 

Congress, 6:4

2004-9: State committee status, 5:10

2004-10: “Stand by your ad” disclaimer for radio ads, 6:5

2004-12: Regional party organization established by several state 

party committees, 8:4

2004-14: Federal candidate’s appearance in public service announcements not solicitation, coordinated 

communication or electioneering 

communication, 8:6

2004-15: Film ads showing federal 

candidates are electioneering communications, 8:8

2004-17: Federal candidate’s compensation for part-time employment, 8:8

Compliance

ADR program cases, 1:25; 4:15; 7:9; 

8:11

Administrative Fine program cases, 

1:24; 4:14; 6:9

Enforcement Query System available on web site, disclosure policy 

for closed enforcement matters 

and press release policy for closed 

MURs; “enforcement profile” 

examined, 1:6; EQS update, 7:10

MUR 4818/4933: Contributions in 

the name of another and excessive 

contributions, 8:1

MUR 4919: Fraudulent misrepresentation of opponent’s party through 

mailings and phone banks, 6:2

MUR 4953: Party misuse of nonfederal funds for allocable expense, 

6:3

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

MUR 5199: Campaign committee’s 

failure to report recount activities, 

6:4

MUR 5229: Collecting agent’s failure to transfer contributions, 1:7

MUR 5279: Partnership contributions made without prior agreement of partners to whom contributions were attributed, 8:3

MUR 5328: Excessive contributions 

to and from affiliated leadership 

PACs, 5:1

MUR 5357: Corporation’s reimbursement of contributions, 2:1

Naming of treasurers in enforcement 

matters, proposed statement of 

policy, 3:4

Nonfilers, 3:16; 4:13, 6:7; 7:5; 8:13

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 4:10

– Alliance for Democracy, 3:8

– Cooksey, 8:11

– Cox for Senate, 3:4

– Hagelin, 4:11; 8:9

– Kean for Congress, 3:7

– Lovely, 5:12

– McConnell, 1:1

– LaRouche’s Committee for a New 

Bretton Woods, 6:7

– O’Hara, 6:6; 8:11

– Wilkinson, 4:9

– Sykes, 4:12

FEC v. _____ 

– California Democratic Party, 4:9; 

8:10

– Dear for Congress, 8:10

– 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 service, safe harbor for timely filing of reports, 3:1

Party committee coordinated and 

independent expenditures, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 8:1

“Political committee” definition, definition of “independent expenditure,” allocation ratio for nonconnected PACs, Notice of Proposed 

Campaign Guides 

Available

 For each type of committee, a 

Campaign Guide explains, in clear 

English, the complex regulations 

regarding the activity of political 

committees. It shows readers, 

for example, how to fill out FEC 

reports and illustrates how the law 

applies to practical situations.

 The FEC publishes four 

Campaign Guides, each for a 

different type of committee, 

and we are happy to mail your 

committee as many copies as 

you need, free of charge. We 

encourage you to view them on 

our web site (www.fec.gov).

 If you would like to place an 

order for paper copies of the 

Campaign Guides, please call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530.

Rulemaking, 4:1; Public hearing, 

5:3; extension of Commission’s 

consideration, 6:1

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

July reminder, 7:1

Kentucky special election reporting, 

1:9

North Carolina special election 

reporting, 7:9
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 August 2004