September 1994

Table of Contents

Regulations

Revised Personal Use Rules

Compliance

I Foreign National Donors

3 FEC Targets Higher-Priority

Cases

4 MUR 3418, '84 GlennCampaign

to Pay $65,000

4 MUR 3816, Failure to File 48-

Hour Notices Results in $20,000

Penalty

4 Nonfilers Published

4 MURsReleased to the Public

Publications

3 Foreign NationalBrochure

15 Mail-In Order Form

Letters

5 FEC Asks Parties to Inform

Contributors About$25,000 Limit

Information

5 New FederalTelephone Service

for TDD Users

14 Flashfax Menu

Reports

6 Upcoming Reporting

Court Cases

7 LaRouche v. FEC(92-1555)

8 Center for Responsive Politics v.

FEC

8 FEC v. MichiganRepublican State

Committee

8 RNC v. FEC (94-1017)

9 New Litigation

Clearinghouse

10 Summary of State Campaign Laws

10 Advisory Opinions

15 Index

Federal Election Commission

Regulations

FEC Seeks Comments on

Revised Personal Use Rules

The Commission seeks public

comment on a revised version of

proposed regulations implementing

the prohibition on the personal use

of campaign funds (2 U.s.C.

§439a). The agency redrafted the

rules, reflecting comments made on

the first set of proposed regulations,

published in August 1993, and

testimony presented at a January

1994 public hearing.

The revised proposed rules were

published in the Federal Register on

August 17 (59 FR 42183). Comments must be submitted in writing

by October 3. They should be sent

to Susan E. Propper, Assistant

General Counsel, 999 E Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20463.

The Commission expects to

approve final personal use regulations in time for them to become

effective early in the 1995-96

election cycle.

Definition of Personal Use

(11 CFR 113.1(g)

Under the revised rules, personal

use would be any use of campaign

funds conferring a benefit on a

candidate or a member of the

candidate's family-a benefit that

was not primarily related to the

(continued on page 2)

Volume 20, Number 9

Compliance

Foreign National Donors

Pay $160,000 in Penalties

At an August 3 press conference,

FEC Chairman Trevor Potter

announced that an investigation into

campaign contributions by foreign

nationals resulted in civil penalties

totaling $162,225 against 26 contributors. The investigation uncovered more than $300,000 in illegal

donations made to over 140 Hawaiian state and local campaigns during

four election cycles. The FEC sent

out letters of admonishment to

recipient campaigns and party

committees telling them to refund

the illegal donations or otherwise rid

their accounts of the money. The

I investigation stemmed from three

complaints eventually merged into

Matter Under Review (MUR) 2892.

"For many years," the Chairman

explained, "it has been illegal for

any foreign national, whether an

individual, corporation or government, to make a contribution of

money or any other thing of value to

any U.S. candidate. This is one of

the few prohibitions in the federal

election laws that applies to candidates at every level of government

in this country-state and local as

well as federal."

The illegal donors in MUR 2892

were, for the most part, U.S. corpo-

(continued on page 3)
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Regulations

(continued from page J)

candidate's campaign or, in the case

of an incumbent, to the ordinary and

necessary duties of a federal officeholder. ( "Federal officeholder," in

this context, means a Member of

Congress, the President or the Vice

President. 2 U.S.c. §431(3);

II CFR 1I3.I(c).)

Under the proposed rules, the

Commission would use the same

definition in determining whether

the use of campaign funds to confer

a benefit upon someone other than

the candidate or the candidate's

family would result in personal use.

The proposed rules apply the

personal use definition to several

situations, highlighted below.

• Campaign Salary Paid to Candidate or Family Member. The rules

would prohibit the payment of a

campaign salary to the candidate

but would permit a member of the

candidate's family to be paid a

campaign salary not exceeding the

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

2021219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

2021219-3336 (TDD)

Trevor Potter, Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens,Commissioner

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, StaffDirector

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

LouiseD. Wides,Director

Stephanie Fitzgerald, Editor

2

fair market value of the services

provided.

• Campaign's Rental ofCandidateOwned Property. A campaign

could rent property owned by the

candidate or a member of the

candidate's family if the payments

did not exceed fair market value

and if the property were not being

used as the personal residence of

the candidate or one of his or her

family members.

• Candidate 's Personal Living

Expenses. Use of campaign funds

to pay the candidate's personal

living expenses (e.g., mortgage or

rent, groceries, clothing, tuition,

legal expenses) would be prohibited unless the expenses were

primarily related to the campaign

or to federal officeholder duties.

• Third-Party Payment of Candidate's Personal Expenses. If

someone other than the campaign

were to pay such expenses, the

payments would be considered

contributions, subject to the

contribution limits, unless: (1) the

payments were made from an

account held jointly by the candidate and a family member; or

(2) the payments were made

irrespective of candidacy and had

been made before the individual

became a candidate; or (3) the

payments were donations to a legal

expense trust fund established

under House or Senate rules.

• Candidate 's Purchase ofCampaign Assets. A candidate or a

member of his or her family could

purchase campaign assets at fair

market value plus an allocated

portion of any depreciation.

• Definition ofFamily Member. For

purposes of the personal use rules,

members of a candidate's family

would include his or her spouse,

children, parents, grandparents,

siblings and in-laws. An individual

having a committed relationship

with the candidate would also be

considered a family member.

• Combined Personal and Campa ign

Travel. The rules would require a

Septembe r 1994

person who combined personal

travel with campaign or officeholder travel to reimburse the

campaign for personal expenses

within 30 days.

• Personal Use of Campaign Vehicle. Reimbursement for personal

use of a campaign vehicle would

also have to be made within 30

days (but no reimbursement would

be necessary if the expenses were

de minimis).

• Donations to Chari ty. A campaign

would be permitted to donate

funds to a section 170(c) charity

unless the candidate received

compensation from the charity

before it had spent the donation for

expenses unrelated to the candidate' s personal benefit.

• Expenses Under House and Senate

Rules. The rules would permit the

campaign to pay "political expenses" under U.S. House rules or

"officially connected expenses"

under U.S. Senate rules as long as

the expenses were expenditures

under II CFR 100.8 or ordinary

and necessary expenses incurred in

connection with federal officeholder duties.

Officeholder's Use of Excess

Campaign Funds (11 CFR 113.2)

The proposed rules would permit

the use of excess campaign funds to

defray officeholder expenses,

including the expenses of travel

related to officeholder duties and the

costs of winding down the Congressional office of a former Member.

Additional Comments Sought on

Recordkeeping and Reporting

The Commission received

comments and testimony suggesting

that more complete disclosure of

campaign expenditures would be

useful in enforcing the personal use

ban. The FEC invites comments on

how the reporting requirements or,

alternatively, the recordkeeping

requirements could be amended to

promote compliance without unduly

burdening campaign committees...
September 1994

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

rations owned by Japanese parent

companies I or by Japanese and

Korean individuals. The donations

violated the foreign national prohibition because they were financed

by the foreign parent/owner or

because individual foreign nationals

were involved in making decisions

concerning the contributions. In

addition to these contributions,

foreign funds were donated by

Japanese corporations and foreign

individuals.

Chairman Potter said that the

FEC highlighted this case, not to

target a particular state or nationality-the FEC is pursuing foreign

contribution allegations in other

states-but to focus attention on the

foreign national prohibition, which

"is not as widely known and understood as it should be...especially in

the foreign business community ."

He announced the publication of a

new FEC brochure on the foreign

national prohibition (see box). The

brochure was sent to state election

offices, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign

corporations, foreign-owned U.S.

corporations and Washington

embassies. •

I Hawaii law permits corporations to

contribute to nonfederal campaigns.

FEC Targets Higher-Priority

Enforcement Cases

On July 6, the Commission

announced that it had closed 29

lower-priority enforcement cases I in

order to focus resources on more

significant cases placed on a fast

track. In a related development, the

agency released figures showing a

surge in the amount of civil penalties respondents have agreed to pay

in FEC enforcement cases.

(FEC enforcement cases are also

called MURs or Matters Under

Review. They are initiated by the

FEC and through outside complaints

and referrals.)

In December 1993, the Commission adopted an enforcement

prioritization system to come to

grips with a burgeoning caseload

involving multiple respondents and

complex financial transactions.

Previously, the agency had pursued

all cases but found that it was taking

too long to resolve them. Under the

new system, the FEC targets its

limited investigative resources on

cases that are considered higher

priority. Some of the factors the

I The 29 cases are listed in a July 6

FEC press release available from the

Public Records Office. Call 800/424-

9530 (press 3 if using a tou ch tone

phone) or 202/219-4140.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Commission considers in rating

cases are:

• Whether there was knowing and

willful intent to violate the law;

• The apparent impact of the alleged

violation on the election process;

• The amount of money involved;

• The age and timing of the violation; and

• Whether the case involved a

particular area of the law that

needs attention (such as foreign

national contributions).

Based on these and other factors,

I the Commission pursues a wide

range of cases, both large and small,

in different areas of the law. Lowerpriority cases may be pursued as

time and resources permit, or the

Commission may decide-as it did

I in the 29 cases recently closed-that

some cases do not warrant the time

and expense of an investigation. The

net benefit of the new approach is to

resolve the significant cases as

quickly as possible.

The Commission adopted the

new system to provide for more

effective enforcement and thus deter

violations of the campaign finance

law. To this end, the agency has also

toughened its policy on civil penalties, as reflected in the table. •

(Compliance continued on page 4)

Penalties Imposed in MURs

• Contributions from PACs sponsored

by foreign-owned U.S. businesses

and U.S .subsidiaries offoreign

corporations;

Foreign Nationals, a New Brochure

The FECrecently published • Nonfederal contributions made

Foreign Nationals, an easy-to-read directly by those corporations and

brochure that explains the foreign businesses; and

national prohibition. Thatprohibition • Foreign-national involvement in

applies to contributions andexpendi- ballot issues andotherpolitical

tures made by foreign nationals in activity not connected withany

connection with any United States election to political office.

election to political office, local state To ordera free copy, use the form

or federal. The brochure discusses:

on page 15. Or, you can have the

brochure faxed to you through

Flashfax. Call 202/501-2413 from a

touch tone phone andenter 324,the

document number of the brochure.

Fiscal Number

Year of Cases I Amount

FY 1986 161 $175,830

FY 1987 145 $301,165

FY 1988 168 $271,780

FY 1989 157 $428,225

FY 1990 161 $227,900

FY 1991 220 $429,862

FY 1992 165 $265,403

FY 1993 87 $572,599

FY 19942 62 $695,804

I ' lncludes only thos e cases that resulted

in civil penalties.

I 2 Through July 1994.

3
Nonfilers Published

The candidate committees listed below failed to file required campaign

finance reports. The list is based on the FEC press releases of May 20, June

3, June 24, July 15 and July 29. The Commission is required by law to

publicize the names of nonfiling authorized committees. 2 U.S.c. §438(a)(7).

The agency pursues enforcement action against nonfi1ers on a case-by-case

basis...

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance

(continued from page 3)

MUR3418

'84 Glenn Presidential

Campaign to Pay $65,000 for

Failing to Report Interest

The 1984 John Glenn Presidential

Campaign agreed to pay a $65,000

civil penalty for failing to report

accumulated interest on bank loans

made in connection with his 1984

Presidential campaign. The penalty

was included in a conciliation

agreement signed by the campaign

on June 6, 1994. The violations

came to the Commission's attention

through a complaint filed in September 1991.

In February 1984, the campaign

received loans totaling $2 million

from four Ohio banks. Between

1986 and 1991 the unpaid interest

on the loans had accrued to

$779,594, but the campaign failed to

disclose the interest as outstanding

debts in its FEC reports file during

that period. 2 U.S.c. §434(b)(8).

The campaign should have

reported the accrued interest owed

to each bank on Schedule D-P, the

debt schedule for Presidential

campaigns. The law requires

continuous reporting of debts each

reporting period until they are

repaid. 11 CFR 104.11(a) and (b).

In addition to payment of the

$64,000 penalty, the conciliation

agreement required the campaign to

file amended forms to report the

accrued interest owed to the four

Ohio banks...

MUR3816

Failure to File 48-Hour

Notices on Candidate Loans

Results in $20,000 Penalty

The Gwen Margolis Campaign

Fund agreed to pay a $20,000 civil

penalty for failing to file 48-hour

notices disclosing $200,000 in

contributions in the form of loans

from the candidate.

Gwen Margolis, a 1992 candidate

for Congress, loaned her campaign

September 1994

committee $75,000 on October 19,

1992, and another $125,000 on

October 29. Both loans were subject

to 48-hour reporting. The committee

reported the loans in its 30-day postgeneral report but failed to file a 48-

hour notice for either loan.

The federal campaign finance law

requires candidate committees to

file 48-hour notices on contributions

of $1,000 or more-including

loansI-if the contributions are

received after the 20th day but more

than 48 hours before the election.

The notice must reach the state and

federal filing offices within 48 hours

after the committee's receipt of the

contribution. 2 U.S.c. §434(a)(6)(A).

(See "48-Hour Notices," page 6.)

Under the terms of the conciliation agreement, the committee

agreed to pay $5,000 of the penalty

initially and to complete payment in

20 monthly installments. ..

MURS Released to the Public

Listed below are FEC enforcement cases (Matters Under Review

or MURs) recently released for

public review. They are based on

the FEC press releases of May 31

and June 3, 21 and 24, and July 11.

Files on closed MURs are available

for review in the Public Records

Office.

Candidate

Bush, James

Carroll, Steven

Curtis, Ronald L.

Dinsmore, Robert

Farrell-Donaldson, Marie

Hollowell, Jr., Melvin

Hume, Joe

Kelly, John

Lesser, Roger

McFarland, Douglas

McInnish, Hugh

Olson, Gen

Rappaport, Jon

Todd, Gary

Wills, Matthew

4

Office Sought

House, GN02

Senate/MO

House, CN41

House, CN05

House, MVl4

House, MV14

House, KS/02

Senate, MI

House, MD/08

Senate, MN

House, ALl05

Senate, MN

House, CN29

Senate, MA

House, KY/06

Report Not Filed

Pre-Primary

Pre-Primary

Pre-Primary

April Quarterly

Pre-Primary

Pre-Primary

Pre-Primary

Pre-Primary

July Quarterly

July Quarterly

July Quarterly

Pre-Runoff

July Quarterly

Pre-Primary

July Quarterly

Pre-Primary

MUR3175

Respondents: (a) Mary C. Bingham

(KY); (b) DNC Services CorporationlDemocratic National Committee, Robert T. Matsui, treasurer

(DC); (c) Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee, G. Wayne

Smith, Treasurer (DC)

(continued on page 12)

I Bank loans, however, are not considered contributions if made in the

ordinary course ofbusine ss, but

endorsements and guarantees ofbank

loans are considered contributions.
September 1994

Letters

Commission Asks Parties

to Inform Contributors

About $25,000 Limit

On July 21, the Chairman and

Vice Chairman of the Federal

Election Commission sent a letter to

the chairs of the national committees of the two major parties,'

asking for their assistance in helping

contributors avoid exceeding their

$25,000 annual limit. Under the

election law, individuals may not

give more than $25,000 annually in

total contributions to candidates and

political committees. 2 U.S.c.

§44Ia(a)(3).

Application of Annual Limit

The letter asked the committees

to inform individual donors that

when they contribute to a candidate,

the contribution counts against the

contributor's annuallimit for the

year in which the candidate seeks

election, regardless of the year in

which the contribution is made. The

letter goes on to explain that, by

contrast, an individual's contribution to a party committee or a PAC

counts against the annual limit for

the year in which the contribution is

actually made (provided that the

contribution has not been earmarked

for a particular candidate whose

election falls in a different calendar

year).

Joint Contributions

With regard to joint contributions

(using a single check or other

written instrument), the letter

pointed out that both donors must

sign the check or an accompanying

written statement in order for the

contribution to be split between

them. Without both signatures, the

/ The letters were sent to the Democratic and Republican national committees. House campaign comm ittees and

Senate campaign commiuees.

entire amount of the contribution

counts against the annual limit of

the individual who signs the check

or equivalent instrument.

Contributions to Federal and

Nonfederal Accounts

The letter further explained that

when a political committee deposits,

into its federal account, contributions that were intended for the

nonfederal account, such deposits

will be aggregated with other

contributions made by the same

donor during the same calendar year

to federal committees. If the total

amount exceeds $25,000, the

misdeposits can create the appearance that the contributor exceeded

his or her annual limit.

To avoid this situation, the

Commission alerted committees to

the rules governing deposits into

federal accounts. II CFR

102.5(a)(2) and (3). The letter also

suggested that political committees

encourage their contributors to

indicate the intended purpose of

their contributions-federal or

nonfederal--on the check or in an

accompanying note. -+

Information

New Service for TDD Users

Broadens Telephone Access

to Federal Agencies

Individuals with speech and

hearing impairments now have

greater access to federal agencies

through a new telephone service

called the Federal Information Relay

System (FIRS). The new service

allows individuals using TDDs

(telecommunication devices for the

deaf) I to call federal agencies and

JA TDD user communicates using a

keyboard and screen.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

employees-or receive calls from

them- by means of an intermediary

"agent" who relays the conversation

between the TOO user and the voice

user.

TOO and voice users can call

FIRS at 800-877-8339 from 8 AM to

8 PM, Monday through Friday.

The system works this way: A

TOO user calls FIRS and gives the

I agent the phone number of the

federal employee to be called. The

agent makes the call on a separate

line. The conversation can then

begin. The agent reads aloud the

words of the TOO user and keyboards the words of the voice user.

Here are some tips about using

FIRS. Before calling, make sure you

have the phone number you want

(including area code) ready to give

to the agent. When the agent

connects your call, direct your

conversation to the other party as if

the agent were absent. Do not make

comments to the agent during your

conversation because they will be

relayed to the other party. Voice

users should speak in a slow and

clear manner. If you have to leave a

message, you may want to note that

you are calling through FIRS.

The system enables federal

employees to conduct business more

effectively with the hearing and

speech impaired community and

broadens access for community

members to federal government jobs

and advancement opportunities.

To order a brochure on FIRS, call

the FEe's Information Division,

800/424-9530 (press 1 if using a

touch tone phone) or 2021219-3420.

The FEC is open from 9 AM to 5:30

PM. -+

(Information continued on page 14)

5
Federal ElectionCommission RECORD

Reports

Upcoming Reports

To find out your committee's

reporting obligations from October

1994 through January 1995, refer to

the accompanying table and chart.

To assist committee treasurerswho must sign reports and are held

responsible for filing reports on

time-the FEC sends them notices

of upcoming deadlines. Treasurers

who rely on someone else to complete the committee's reports should

immediately forward reporting

notices (with enclosed forms) to that

person.

For further information, call the

Information Division: 800/424 -9530

(press I if using a touch tone phone)

or 202/219-3420.

Where to File

Treasurers must file original

reports with the appropriate federal

office (FEC, Clerk of the House or

Secretary of the Senate) and simultaneously file copies with the

appropriate state filing offices. See

the instructions on the back of FEC

forms. A list of state filing offices is

available through the FEC's Flashfax service. Call 202/50 1-34 13 and

enter document code 303.

48-Hour Notices

on Contributions

• Wh o Mu st File. Authorized

committees of candidates in the

November 8 general election,

including unopposed candidates.

• When Filing Is Required. When

the committee receives a contribution of $1,000 or more between

October 20 and November 5. The

September 1994

requirement applies to all types of

contributions, including in-kind,

personal loans, endorsements and

guarantees of bank loans and

contributions (of any type) made

by the candidate.

• When to Fil e. The notice must

reach federal and state filing

offices within 48 hours of the

committee's receipt of the contribution. II CFR 104.5(f). Fortyeight hour notices (but not other

reports) may be faxed. Fax numbers: Clerk of the House-202/225-

7781; Secretary of the Senate- 2021

224-1851.

• What to Fil e. Form 6 or a statement containing the same information.

• Subse quent Reporting. Contributions must be disclosed a second

time in the 30-day post-general

election report.

What Reports to File, October 1994 Through January 1995

12-Day 30-Day

Quarterly Monthly Pre-General Post-General Year-End

House and Senate Campaigns and

of 1994 Candidates (October) required if candidate runs in November 8

(se e "48-Ho ur Notices") general election, even if unopposed

Other House and Senate

Campaigns

Presidential Campaigns 1 or

(October) (Oct. - Dec.)

PACs and Party Committees and

Filing Monthly (October) filed in lieu of November and

(see "24-Hour Reports ") December monthly reports

PACs and Party Committees

Filing Quarterly (October) required if committee must be filed

(see "2 4-Ho ur Reports") makes contributions regardless

or expenditures of activity

to influence the

November 8 election

during the pre-general

reporting period 2

I Presidential committees that wish to change theirfilin g frequency during 1994 should notify the Commission in writing.

2The reporting period extends f rom the closing date ofthe last report through October 19. Ifthe last report was the October

quarterly, the reporting period would cover October I though October 19.

6
September 1994 Federal Election Commission RECORD

J epor sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the filing date

(except In the case ofthe pre-gen eral election report ; see f ootnote 3). Reports sent

by othe r means must be recei ved by the filing date. I I CFR 104.5(e).

2 Presidential committeesfi ling month ly must also fi le the November and December

monthly repo rts.

J If sent by registered or certified mail, the 12-day pr e-general elec tion report must

be postmarked by October 24.

Court Cases

When to Report

'Petitions challenging FEC repay ment

determinations are fi led with this court.

2 The entire repayment was $151,260;

only $109,149 was contested.

private contributions to satisfy the

debt. The agency therefore ordered

the campaign to return $109,149 in

matching fund payments made after

that date. This repayment determination was based on an FEC regulation, 11CFR 9034.1(b), which

states that a candidate can receive

post-DOl matching funds to the

extent that, on the date of payment,

the sum of matching funds and

contributions "received on or after

the date of ineligibility" [emphasis

added] does not exceed remaining

net debts.

The LaRouche campaign challenged the FEC regulation as unreasonable and contrary to the intent of

the public funding statute to encourage participation in the political

system. Specifically, the campaign

argued that, under a fair reading of

the statute and FEC regulations, the

campaign was entitled to collect

matching funds for contributions

received after the 001 without having to credit the contributions

against the net debts figure. Otherwise, the campaign said, the candidate would be limited in his ability

to continue the campaign.

The court, however, found that

the FEC' s interpretation of its own

regulation was "compelling" and its

interpretation of the statute, reasonable. The statute "rnake]s] clear,"

the court said, "that Congress

wished to restrict the availability of

matching payments to candidates it

considered viable."

The court rejected several other

arguments made by the LaRouche

campaign, including the claim that

the FEC' s repayment determination

had improperly created a new rule to

address post-DOl matching fund

entitlements when the candidate

continues to campaign. The court

said that the Commission had

merely concluded that "the existing

rule was not affected by Mr.

LaRouche's decision, in 1988, to

continue the good fight rather than

to wind up his campaign...." •

(Court Cas es continued on page 8)

Filing Date 1

October IS

October 20

October 27 3

December 8

January 31, 1995

LaRouche v, FEe

(No. 92-1555)

On July 8, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit I upheld

an FEC determination ordering the

1988 LaRouche Presidential campaign to return $109,149 in federal

matching funds to the U.S. Treasury.'

At issue was the entitlement of a

candidate to matching funds after

his date of ineligibility (DOl). On

May 26, 1988, after receiving less

than 10 percent of the vote in two

consecutive primaries, Lyndon

LaRouche became ineligible to

receive matching funds to continue

his campaign but was still entitled to

matching funds to help defray

preexisting net campaign debts of

about $330,000. On that basis, the

campaign continued to receive

matching fund payments through

October 1988. However, an FEC

audit later found that, by July 22,

the campaign had received sufficient

post-DOl matching funds and

September 30

September 30

October 19

November 28

December 31

Period Covered

closingdate of last report through

Report

October Quarterly

October Monthly 2

12-Day Pre-Election

30-Day Post-Election

Year-End

24-Hour Reports

on Independent Expenditures

• Who Must File. PACs and other

persons who make independent

expenditures supporting or opposing candidates in the November 8

election.

• When Filing Is Required. When

the committee or person makes an

independent expenditure of $1,000

or more (by itself or aggregated

with other independent expenditures made to the same payee) between October 20 and November

6. The requirement also applies to

written contracts to make independent expenditures, even if unpaid.

• When to File. Information must be

reported within 24 hours after the

independent expenditure is made.

The report must be filed with the

appropriate federal and state filing

offices. See 11CFR 104.4(c).

(Twenty-four hour reports may not

be faxed.)

• What to File. Committees file

Schedule E; other persons use

Form 5. Alternatively, the committee or person may file a statement

disclosing the same information as

that reported on the scheduIe or

form.

• Subsequent Reporting. Expenditures must be disclosed a second

time in the 30-day post-general

election report. •

7
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

(continuedfrom page 7)

Center for Responsive

Politics v, FEC

This case was voluntarily dismissed as moot when the Commission took action on three complaints

the Center had filed with the agency

in 1990 and 1991 (MURs 3175,

3249 and 3325). The Center had

filed suit to force the FEC to take

action but, in March 1994, agreed to

suspend the litigation for four

months while the FEC worked to

resolve the MURs, which concerned

excessive contributions.

The U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia dismissed the

case on July 11, 1994. (No . 92-

2250(SSH)). ..

FEC v.Michigan Republican

State Committee

The FEC and the defendant

conunittee agreed to settle two

counts of a complaint and to litigate

the third. Under the terms of a July

18, 1994, consent order, the Michigan Republican State Committee,

the federal committee of the Michigan Republican Party, agreed to pay

a $12,500 penalty for knowingly

accepting $5 ,550 in excessive

contributions and for depositing into

its account $35,655 in impermissible, nonfederal contributions, a

violation of 11 CFR 102.5 .

With respect to the misdeposit of

nonfederal funds, the contributions

were contained in a transfer from

the Republican National Conunittee.

The deposit was impermissible

because the contributions were not

specifically designated for the

federal account. See 11 CFR

102.5(a)(2)(i). The conunittee

agreed to transfer the funds to the

state party 's nonfederal account.

The consent order was entered by

the U.S. Court for the Western

District of Michigan, Southern

Division (No. 5:94-CV-27).

8

Litigation is pending on the third

FEC claim-that the conunittee had

exceeded the §441a(d) coordinated

party expenditure limit on behalf of

the party's nominee in the 1984 U.S.

Senate race ...

RNC v. FEC (94-1017)

Granting summary judgment to

the FEC on July 22, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

rejected a challenge to the FEe's

revised "best efforts" regulations.

The revised rules, which became

effective March 3, 1994, explain

what steps a committee treasurer

must take in order to demonstrate

that he or she has used best efforts

to obtain and report required

information on individual contributors whose aggregate contributions

to the committee exceed $200 in a

calendar year. See II CFR 104.7(b) .

The Federal Election Campaign Act

(FECA) allows committees to retain

contributions lacking required

information only if the treasurer can

show "best efforts." 2 U.S.c.

§432(i).

The FEC first promulgated

regulations interpreting the best

efforts provision of the FECA in

1980. Recently, however, the

agency became concerned by the

failure of many committees to

provide complete contributor

information for a substantial percentage of their contributions. The

agency adopted the 1994 revisions

to strengthen the rules, adding two

new requirements. First, conunittees

must clearly display the following

statement in solicitations for contributions: "Federal law requires

political committees to report the

name, mailing address, occupation

and name of employer for each

individual whose contributions

aggregate over $200 in a calendar

year." Second, committees must

make a follow-up request for

missing information; the request

September 1994

may not include an additional

solicitation or material on any other

subject.

The plaintiffs in the case- the

Republican National Conunittee, the

National Republican Senatorial

Committee and the National

Republi can Congressional Committee-argued that these requirements

violated free speech rights by

impermissibly limiting the language

and subject matter of solicitations.

The court said that the committees'

arguments failed because the best

efforts regulations are not compulsory but "merely [provide] a 'safe

harbor' for any committee that is

unable to obtain all of the required

information."

In a related argument, the committees contended that the requirement for a follow-up request would

curtail free speech by imposing

additional costs on committees,

leaving less money for political

speech. The conunittees claimed

that this infringement was not

justified by a compelling government interest because compliance

with the disclosure requirements had

been sufficiently high under the old

rules.

Noting that the committees did

not introduce any evidence on the

overall level of compliance, the

court said that the added costs to the

conunittees--estimated at $1.50 to

$6.00 per letter-was a "minimal

burden" given the strong government interest in disclosure of

contributor information. 'This

information," the court said, "provides an 'essential means' to

uncover violations of the FECA, is

critical to informing the electorate...,

and deters corruption or even the

appearance of corruption in the

political system. "

In another line of argument, the

committees claimed that the revised

regulations contradicted legislati ve

intent, citing a statement in a 1979

House conunittee report that the

best efforts provision in the FECA

(2 U.S.c. §432(i)) did not require
September / 994

committees to make multiple

requests for information. Describing

the 1979 report as merely one

Congressional committee's postenactment opinion that provided

little assistance on how to interpret

the intent of Congress in 1976, the

court found it insufficient to overturn the FEe's interpretation of best

efforts.

The committees have filed an

appeal. ..

New Litigation

Whitmore and Quinlan v. FEC

Joni Whitmore, a Green Party

candidate for the House of Representatives, and James Quinlan, a

voter in the at-large Congressional

district in Alaska,I challenge

provisions in federal election law

that allow persons who are not

residents of Alaska's Congressional

district to make contributions, either

individually or through a PAC, to

candidates seeking election as

Alaska's representative in the

House. Plaintiffs argue that allowing

contributions from nonresidents of

the district violates their constitutional rights to equal protection of

the laws, to vote, to politically

associate and to be governed by a

republican form of government. '

t Mr. Quinlan fil es the suit on his own

behalfand as a class action suit on

behalfof registered voters in Alaska 's

at-large district who do not mak e

contributions to any candidates fo r the

House.

2Plaintiffs explain: "The go vernment of

the United States ofAmerica is not a

democracy-it is a republic The

republican fo rm ofgove rnment...requires each memb er of the United Staes

House ofRepres entative s to represent

the interests of. and to be accountable

for their legislative acts to, an equal

and discr ete numb er of United Stat es

residents. "

Plaintiffs claim that successful

candidates who receive contributions from nonresidents are not

exclusively answerable to the voters

in their district. They further claim

that nonresident contributors

exercise undue influence over

election outcomes in the Alaska atlarge district, thus denying Alaskan

residents equal representation in

their government. Ms. Whitmore

decided to refuse any contributions

from persons who are not residents

of the Alaska district, and she

requested the other candidates

running in the primary and general

elections to do the same. The

candidates named as defendants in

this suit declined Ms. Whitmore's

request.

Plaintiffs argue that these candidates, by accepting money from

nonresidents, will cause Ms. Whitmore's campaign irreparable harm.

As a result, plaintiffs request a

permanent injunction prohibiting the

defendant candidates from soliciting

or accepting out-of-district contributions.

Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory

jud gment from the court stating that

the Federal Election Campaign Act

violates Article I and the First and

Fifth Amendments of the Constitution by allowing these contributions.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Alaska, Civil Action No.

A94-289 CIV, June 30, 1994.

Albanese v. FEC

Sal Albanese, an unsuccessful

Democratic candidate in a 1992

House race, and a group of New

York voters, ask the court to find

that the federal electoral system

unconstitutionally excludes potential

candidates who do not have sufficient funds to mount a competitive

campaign against an incumbent.

The plaintiffs contend that, by

participating in this system, defendants Federal Election Commission

and Susan Molinari, Member of

Congress from New York's 13th

Federal Electio n Commission RECORD

Congressional District and Mr.

I Albanese's opponent in the 1992

election, have denied plaintiffs the

following constitutional rights:

(I) equal protection rights under the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments- specifically, equal participation the electoral and legislative

I process; (2) electoral rights under

Article 1, which requires that the

U.S. House of Representatives

"shall be composed of Members

chosen...by the people of the several

States"; and (3) the First AmendI ment right to speak and associate

freely in the electoral process.

Additionally, plaintiffs claim that

the Federal Election Campaign Act

violates the constitutional rights

listed above. To remedy these

alleged inequities, Mr. Albanese

asks the court to order Congress to

establish a public financing system

for Congressional elections and to

I rule that the current campaign

finance system is unconstitutional.

Mr. Albanese argues that the

current system favors incumbents,

wealthy candidates and candidates

backed by monied interests. He

claims that incumbents, especially,

receive public subsidies not available to other office seekers.

He specifically claims that the

defendant Member of Congress

unfairly subsidized her campaign

with her public salary, Congressional franking privilege and use of

office staff for reelection activities.

He further contends that his

opponent enjoyed significant name

recognition as a result of her incumbency and that his inability to raise

sufficient funds to purchase media

advertising impeded him from

gaining sufficient name recognition

to compete effectively.

He claims that an additional

advantage of incumbency in general

is the ability to raise money from

interests who have benefited from

the incumbent's legislative efforts.

Mr. Albanese concludes that the

current campaign finance system

(continued on page 10)

9
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

(continued from page 9)

discriminates against him and

candidates like him-those without

the personal wealth to compensate

for the alleged sources of support

available only to incumbents-and

therefore violates their constitutional right to equal participation in

the electoral process.

U.S. District Court for the

Eastern Division of New York, Civil

Action No. 94-3299, July 18,

1994.•

Clearinghouse

Updated Summary of State

Campaign Finance Laws

Released

The FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

recently published Campaign

Finance Law 94, the latest edition.

The publication summarizes the

campaign finance laws in each state

and includes state code citations.

For quick reference, a series of

charts list each state's reporting

requirements, contribution and

solicitation restrictions and expenditure limits.

This publication would be

particularly valuable for PACs

whose nonfederal election activity

requires them to comply with laws

in several states.

Campaign Finan ce Law 94 is

priced at $40 and is available from

the U.S. Government Printing

Office. To order, list the title and

stock number (052-006-00054-6),

enclose a check payable to the

Superintendent of Documents, and

send the order to the Superintendent

of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402.

For information on this and other

Clearinghouse publications, call

800/424-9530 (press 4 if using a

touch tone phone) or 202/219-

3670. •

10

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1994-19

Affiliation Between National

Membership Association

and State Societies

The separate segregated fund

(SSF) established by the American

Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

(ASA) is affiliated with the SSFs

established by ASA component

societies in North Carolina and

Florida. Contributions made and

received by the three SSFs are

subject to the limits for a single

committee.

ASA, a national medical society,

is a not-for-profit membership

association with 30,000 members.

Generally, an individual's membership in ASA is contingent upon

prior membership in one of the 48

state component societies chartered

by ASA's Board of Directors. To be

chartered, these state societies must

submit articles of incorporation and

bylaws, a list of officers and members, and a declaration of intent to

comply with ASA guidelines for

ethical practice.

The Commission concluded that,

for purposes of determining whether

the SSFs of ASA and the state

societies are affiliated, ASA may be

categorized as both a trade association I and a federation of trade

associations.'

I A trade association is a memb ership

organization composed ofpersons

engaged in a similar or related line of

commerce, and organized to promote

and improve business conditions in that

line of commerce but not to engage in

businessfor profit. 11 CFR 114.8(a).

2A f ederation of trade associations is

an organization representing trade

associations involved in the same line

of commerce. 11 CFR 114.8(g).

September 1994

ASA can be considered a trade

association by virtue of its membership, its purpose and its tax status.

ASA bylaws characterize the 48

state entities as "state component

societies" chartered by ASA.

Committees that are established,

financed, maintained or controlled

by a membership organization,

including related state and local

entities of that organization, are

considered per se (or automatically)

affiliated under FEC regulations.

II CFR 11O.3(a)(2)(iv). The Commission concluded that the state

component societies qualify as state

entities of ASA. The SSFs of the

state component societies are

therefore automatically affiliated

with ASA' s SSF and with each

other.

ASA may also be considered a

federation of trade associations for

purposes of determining affiliation.

FEC regulations indicate that, while

a federation's state entities are not

per se affiliated, they may be

affiliated if they satisfy certain

criteria listed in II CFR 100.5(g)

(4). II CFR 114.8(g)(l). Applying

those criteria, the Commission

concluded that the state entities are

affiliated with ASA. While ASA's

overlapping membership with the

state entities is one obvious factor

indicating affiliation, the most

prominent factor is ASA' s authority

to charter the state societies, to

revoke their charters and to establish

certain membership and governance

requirements.

Affiliated committees share a

common set of limits on contributions received and made. Transfers

between affiliated committees,

however, may be made without

limit. II CFR 102.6(a)(l).

Date Issued: July 21, 1994;

Length: 5 pages. •
September 1994

AO 1994-20

Donation of Campaign Asset

to Local Government

The Committee for Congressman

Charlie Rose may donate the

recreational vehicle (RV) that

served as the committee's mobile

campaign office to the Health

Department of Cumberland County,

North Carolina, for use as a health

clinic. The committee purchased the

RV during the 1992 election cycle

but no longer uses it.

Noncash Assets

In several advisory opinions, the

Commission has concluded that

noncash assets of a candidate's

campaign are covered by the phrase

"excess campaign funds" at 11 CFR

113.1(e). Under 2 U.S.c. §439a,

excess campaign funds may be

donated to any charitable organization described in 26 U.S.c. §170(c).

Section 170(c) provides that a gift to

any political subdivision of a state is

a "charitable contribution" if made

for "exclusively public purposes."

The Commission concluded that the

use of the vehicle as a mobile health

clinic was an exclusively public

purpose and that the gift was

therefore expressly permitted under

§439a .

Reporting

The donation will not be an

expenditure by the committee

because it will not be made to

influence Mr. Rose's reelection, and

the committee will not receive any

benefit from making the gift. The

fair market value of the RV (i.e., the

"blue book" price) should therefore

be reported as a memo entry "other

disbursement" on Schedule B. (If

the committee were to deliver the

vehicle as a part of a campaign

event, then the gift would be viewed

as a campaign expenditure and

would have to be reported as such.)

Date Issued: July 15, 1994;

Length : 4 pages...

I AO 1994-21

Solicitation in Dues Invoice

Sent to Nonsolicitable

Members

The American Pharmaceutical

Association may include a solicitation for contributions to its separate

segregated fund on a standard

membership renewal invoice sent to

all 30,000 members even through

about 1,000 members are not

eligible for solicitation under the

definition of "member" (11 CFR

114.1(e)(2». The proposed solicitation outside the solicitable class

meets the conditions set forth in past

advisory opinions: (1) the percentage of nonsolicitable persons-3

percent-is relatively small (de

minimis); (2) the invoice states that

contributions received from ineligible members will be returned; and

(3) the Association (the Commission

assumes) will screen and return such

contributions.

The Commission has specifically

rejected proposals to solicit outside

the restricted class-even with the

precautions in (2) and (3)-when

nonsolicitable persons composed 10

to 20 percent of the total solicitation

and, in another instance, 15 percent

or 8,000 persons. AOs 1980-139

and 1979-50. By contrast, the

Commission approved solicitations

sent to 1,000 nonsolicitable persons

representing 3 percent of the total

solicitation (AO 1978-97) and 3,200

nonsolicitable persons or .16 percent

of the total solicitation (AO 1981-7).

These last two opinions involved

solicitations published in an organization's newsletter or magazine.

The Associations's solicitation

involves a similar situation in that

the special printing of a small

number of invoices without the

solicitation would be impractical

and unduly cumbersome.

Date Issued: July 29, 1994;

Length: 4 pages. ..

Federal Election Commission RECORD

AO 1994-22

Candidate Committee's

Lease of Property

Owned by Candidate

The Patrick Combs for United

State Congress committee may lease

a mobile home for campaign

purposes, at fair market rate, from a

business the candidate owns with

his father, provided that the lease

agreement conforms in all respects

to normal business practices. The

candidate and his father are the sole

owners of Woody Combs Auto

Sales and Leasing.

Goods and services provided at

the usual and normal charge are not

considered contributions and are not

subject to the limits of the Federal

Election Campaign Act. 11 CFR

100.7(a)(1)(iii). If the committee

were to pay less than that amount to

lease the mobile home, it would be

receiving a contribution from

Woody Combs Auto Sales and

Leasing, which , as a partnership, is

subject to the $1,000 per candidate,

per election limit. On the other

hand, if the committee were to pay

more than the usual and normal

charge, the excess amount would

augment the earnings of a candidate-owned asset (the partnership)

and thus violate the ban on the

personal use of campaign funds.

2 U.S.c. §439(a).

The use of "dealer plates" by the

campaign would be permissible if

the use were consistent with normal

business practice and if the committee paid fair market value for the

benefit. Date Issued: July 28, 1994;

Length: 4 pages...

AO 1994-23

Payroll Deduction

Authorizations Transferred

to New PAC

Northrop Grumman, a new

corporation created through the

merger of the Northrop and Grumman Corporations, currently main-

(continued on page 12)

11
AOR 1994-26

Bank line of credit to candidate

approved before candidacy estab- I

lished. (Scott Douglas Cunningham;

July 22, 1994; 9 pages)

AOR 1994-27

Solicitation of employees enrolled

in corporation's stock ownership

plan . (Consumer Power Company

Employees for Better GovernmentFederal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

tains two separate segregated funds

(SSFs) previously established by the

former companies. In consolidating

the two into a new SSF, Northrop

Grumman does not have to seek

reauthorizations from employees

who had authorized payroll deductions of contributions to either of the

two SSFs .

Northrop Grumman plans to send

participants a letter notifying them

of the change in SSFs. The letter

will include a form for modifying or

cancelling a deduction. The corporation must send the letter before

implementing the payroll deduction

transfer. The letter must remind

participants of their continuing right

to revoke a payroll deduction

authorization without reprisal and

must include statements on the

political purpose of the SSF and the

voluntary nature of SSF contributions. II CFR I 14.5(a)(2)-(5). AO

1991-19. Date Issued : July 29 ,

1994; Length: 3 pages. •

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests

(AORs) are available for review and

comment in the Public Records

Office.

AOR 1994-25

Nonprofit corporation formed by

four members of the Libertarian

Party for purpose of staging national

nominating convention. (FEE

Enterprises, Inc. ; July 22, 1994;

7 pages plus attachments)

Federal; August II, 1994; 4 pages

plus 42-page attachment)

AOR 1994·28

Application of foreign natio~ a! .

definition to U.S. nationals living In

American Samoa. (Congressman

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega ; August 12,

1994; 2 pages plus 10-page attachment) •

Alternate Disposition of

I Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1994·18

The Commission could not reach

agreement, by the required four-vote

majority, on whether various

membership classes of the International Council of Shopping Centers

qualified as "members" eligible to

recei ve contribution solicitations

and partisan communications from

I the Council. See Agenda Document

#94-81.

AOR 1994-24

I This request was closed without

issuance of an opin ion because it did

not qualify as an advisory opini.o~

request. The facts related to activity

that had already taken place rather

than to ongoing or future acti vity , as

required under II CFR 112.1 (b).

Submitted by Chattem, Inc ., the

request asked whether the corporations's severance payment to a

company executive running for

Congress, and the continued payment of his medical benefits when

he converted to hourly employment,

were permissible. •

Septemb er 1994

I

Compliance

(continued from page 4)

Complainant: Ellen S. Miller,

Executive Director, Center for

I Responsive Politics (DC)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

$25 ,000 annual limit

I

Disposition: (a) $ 15,000 civil

penalty (excessive contributions; . .

$25,000 annual limit); (b) $500 CIVIl

I

penalty (excessive contributions);

(c) reason to believe but took no

further action

MUR 3360

Respondents: (a) Jack Kemp for

President, Scott B. Mackenzie,

treasurer (VA); (b) Victory' 88,

Scott B. Mackenzie, trea surer (VA);

(c) Dannemeyer for Congress, John

T. Poortinga, treasurer (CA); (d) 48

other respondents

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Corporate contributions;

prohibited in-kind contributions:

excessive contributions; expenditures in excess of the Iowa and New

Hampshire limits; calculation of

media transportation costs; recordkeeping and reporting; joint fundraising notice

Disposition: (a) $100,000 civil

penalty; (b) and (c) $20,000 civil

penalty; (d) reason to believe but

took no further action

MUR 3418

Respondents: Friends of John

Glenn (formerly known as John

Glenn Pre sidential Committee), Lyn

Glenn, treasurer (OH)

Complainant: Robert T. Bennett,

Chairman, Ohio Republican State

Central and Executive Committee

Subject: Failure to report debts

(accrued interest on bank loans)

Disposition: $65,000 civil penalty

MUR 3538/3526fPre-MUR 257

Respondents (all in FL): (a) Lawrence J. Smith; (b) Larry Smith for

Congress Committee, Joseph A.

Epstein, trea surer

Complainants: Lawrence J. Smith

(sua sponte); Earl Rodney (FL)

/ 2
September 1994

Subject: Knowing and willful

conversion of campaign funds to

personal use; failure to report

disbursements in full; failure to

deposit receipts into designated

campaign depository in timely

manner

Disposition: (a) $20,000 civil

penalty; due to unusual circumstances in this case, FEC accepted

payment of $5,000 (personal use);

(b) $5,000 civil penalty (reporting;

deposits)

MUR3616

Respondents (all in NY): (a) Nita

Lowey; (b) Nita Lowey for Congress, Aaron Eidelman, treasurer

Complainant: Sandra Monteiro

(NY)

Subject: Failure to file report on

time; disclaimer; failure to report inkind contributions

Disposition: (a) No reason to

believe (disclaimer); (b) reason to

believe but took no further action;

sent admonishment letter (disclaimer)

MUR 3627

Respondents: (a) Ross the Boss

Committee, Jack W. McGrath,

treasurer (CA); (b) 1-S00-GOPEROT (CA)

Complainant: Loron William

Knowlon (CA)

Subject: Failure to report debt

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe

but took no further action; sent

admonishment letter; (b) no reason

to believe

MUR 3679

Respondents: (a) Perot '92 (formerly known as Perot Petition

Committee), Mike Poss, treasurer

(TX); (b) Orville H. Brettman (lL)

Complainant: Orville Brettman (IL)

Subject: Failure to reimburse campaign expenses; failure to register

and report

Disposition: (a) No reason to

believe (reimbursement); (b) reason

to believe but took no further action

(registration, reporting); sent

admonishment letter

MUR3726

Respondents: (a) Perot '92 (formerly known as Perot Petition

Committee), Mike Poss, treasurer

(TX); (b) Denis L. Hemmerle (CA)

Complainant: Denis L.Hemmerle

(CA)

Subject: Failure to disclose disputed debts; excessive contributions

Disposition: (a-b) Reason to

believe but took no further action;

sent admonishment letters

MUR 3741

Respondents: Perot '92 (formerly

known as Perot Petition Committee), Mike Poss, treasurer (TX)

Complainant: Charles S. Turpin

(OK)

Subject: Failure to report financial

activities

Disposition: Reason to believe but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter

MUR 3757

Respondents: Huffington for

Congress, Eleanor F. Wyatt, treasurer (CA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 4S-hour

notice

Disposition: $20,000 civil penalty

MUR3825

Respondents: Mike Kreidler for

Congress Committee, Krista Bunch,

treasurer (WA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 4S-hour

notices

I Disposition: $2,250 civil penalty

MUR 3833

Respondents: Committee to Elect

Demar Dahl to the United States

Senate, Theodore N. McPhee,

treasurer (NV)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 4S-hour

notices

Disposition: $4,500 civil penalty

MUR 3840

Respondents: (a) New York '92

Host Committee, Inc., Henry Miller,

Federal Election Commission RECORD

treasurer; (b) Foundation of Jewish

Phil anthropies of Greater Miami

Federation, Inc.; (c) Steptoe &

Johnson

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Impermissable contributions

Disposition: (a)-(c) Reason to

believe but took no further action

MUR 38991Pre·MUR 296

Respondent: D. Lloyd Wilson (NE)

Complainant: FEC initiated; Ellen

S. Miller, Executive Director,

Center for Responsive Politics (DC)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

$25,000 annual limit

Disposition: $15,000 civil penalty

MUR3927

Respondent: Mrs. Stanley Stone

(WI)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: $25,000 annual contribution limit

Disposition: $S,OOOcivil penalty

MUR 3928

Respondent: Roy H. Cullen (TX)

Complainant: FEC initiated (Los

Angeles Times article 9/25/91)

Subject: $25,000 annual contribution limit

Disposition: $9,000 civil penalty

MUR 3931

Respondents: (a) Luis V. Gutierrez

(IL); (b) Gutierrez for Congress,

Raul Vega, treasurer (IL); (c) CBS,

Inc. (NY)

Complainant: Juan M. Soliz (IL)

Subject: In-kind corporate contribution; press exemption

Disposition: (a)-(c) No reason to

believe

MUR 3961

Respondents: Friends of Connie

Mack, Robert I. Watkins, treasurer

(FL)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions

Disposition: Reason to believe but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter.

13
441 . Sect ion 441

442. Section 442

451 . Section 45 1

452. Section 452

453. Section 453

454 . Section 454

455. Section 455

812. AO 1994-12

813. AO 1994-13

815. AO 1994-15

816. AO 1994-16

818. AO 1994- 18

8 19. AO 1994-19

820. AO 1994-20

821. AO 1994-21

822. AO 1994-22

821. AO 1994-21

Federal Election Commis sion RECORD

Information

(con tinued from page 5)

Flashfax Menu

To order any of these docum ents,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call 202/

501-3413 on a touch tone phone. You

will be asked for the numbers of the

docum ents you want, your fax number

and your regular number. The documents will be faxed shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

30 I. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FEC Campaign Financ e

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordin ated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expend itures

320. Local Party Activity

32 1. CorporatelLabor Facilities

322. CorporatelLabor Communications

323. Trade Associations

324. Foreign Nationals

Public Funding

330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

331. The $3 Tax Checkoff

332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

333. Recipients of Public Funding

334. Presidential Fund Tax Check off

Status

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questi ons from Candidates

344. Reports Due in 1994

345. Primary Dates and Deadlines for

Ballot Access

346. Filing A Comp laint

Federal Election Commission

40 I. The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law

402. La Ley Federal relativ a al Financiamiento de las Carnpafias

14

, 403 . State and Local Elections and the

Federal Campaign Law

404 . Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEe's Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408 . Index for 1993 Record Newsletter

409 . Free Publications

411 . Compl ete Menu of All Mater ial

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

425. List of Reports Available

426 . Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

427. National Voter Registrat ion Act

of 1993 (see also document 226)

Money in Politics Statistics

625. 1991-92 Political Money

626. 1993 Year-End PAC Count

627. 1993-94 Congressional

628. 1993-94 National Party

629. 1993-94 PAC Finances

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201 )

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

101. Part 101 , Candidate Statu s and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate

and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating

Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reports

and Statements with State Office s

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibit ions

I I I. Part I II, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to Support

Federal Officeholder Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candidates and Political Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

September 1994

I 20 I. Part 20 I, Ex Parte Commun ications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

225. Use of Candidate Names

226. Rules to Implement Natio nal

Voter Registrat ion Act of 1993

227. Presidential Nominating Conventions

Forms

36 1. Form I, Statement of Organiz ation

362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

365. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication

Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settl ement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of Multicandidate Status

Schedules

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

372. Schedules C and C- I, Loans

373. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent

Expenditures

375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated

Expenditures

376. Schedule s H1-H4, Allocation

377. Schedule 1, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431

432. Section 432

433. Section 433

434. Section 434

437. Section 437

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

Advisory Opinions

802. AO 1994-2

803. AO 1994-3

804. AO 1994-4

805. AO 1994-5

806. AO 1994-6

807. AO 1994-7

808. AO 1994-8

809. AO 1994-9

810. AO 1994-10

8 11. AO 1994-11
September 1994 Federal Election Commission RECORD

The first number in each citation

refers to the "number" (month) of

the 1994 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

1993-18: Corporate plan to foster

political participation, 2:I

1993-1 9: Retiring 1984 Presidential

debt, I:13

1993-20: Purchase and distribution

of candidate biography, 2:3

1993-21: Preemption of Ohio law,

2:4

1993-22: Usc.of excess funds by

retired House Member, 3:5

1993-23: PAC disaffiliation, 3:6

1993-24: Definition of member, 4:6

1993-25: Preemption of Wisconsin

law restricting contributions from I

lobbyists, 3:7

1994-2: Preemption of Minnesota

law restricting contributions from I

lobbyists, 5:6

1994-3: Charitable matching plan

for twice-yearly solicitations, 6:4;

correction, 7:6

1994-5: Candidate status, 6:5;

correction, 7:6

Name

Organization

Zip Code

members, 9: II

1994-22: Candidate committee's

lease of property owned by

candidate, 9: II

1994-23: Payroll deduction authorizations transferred to new PAC,

9:11

Court Cases

FEC v.

- America's PAC, 8:8

- GOPAC, 6:5

- LaRouche (94-658-A), 7:3

- Michigan Republican State

Committee, 4:7; 9:8

- National Republican Senatorial

Corrunittee (93-1612), 1:12; 4:7

- Political Contributions Data, Inc.

(pe D), 5:4

- Rodriguez, 6:5

- Survival Education Fund, Inc., 3:I

I - Williams, I: 12

v. FEC

- Akins (92-1864), 5:4

- Albanese, 9:9

- Center for Responsive Politics,

I :12; 9:8

- Freedom Republicans, Inc., 3:3

- Froelich, 2:2; 8:9

- Fulani, 8:II

- Jordan, 8:9

- LaRouche (92-1100), I: 12

(continued on page 16)

State

Phone Number

City

Address

No. of Copies

(If ordering more than 25 copies, please include your phone number.)

1994-6: Charitable matching plan

for twice-yearly solicitations, 7:4

1994-7: Charitable matching plan

for twice-yearly solicitations;

treasurer as custodian, 7:4

1994-8: Campaign's rental of office

space from candidate-owned

corporation, 7:4

1994-9: Transfers from nonfederal

PACs; effect of corporate reorganization on affiliation, 7:5

1994-10: Waiver of bank fees for

political corrunittee borrowers, 8:6

1994-1 1: SSF activities of federal

contractor partnership, 7:6

1994-12: Definition of member

applied to association's governing

and membership structure, 8:6

1994-1 3: Video slate card listing

multiple candidates, 7:6

1994-1 5: Cable series moderated by

House Member seeking reelection, 8:7

1994-16: PAC contributions refunded to former employees, 8:7

1994-19: Affiliation between

national membership association

and state societies, 9: 10

1994-20: Donation of campaign

asset to local government, 9: II

1994-21: Solicitation in dues

invoice sent to nonsolicitable

~-----------------------

Order Form for Foreign National Brochure

See box on page 3. Also available Through Flashfax (document 324 ).

Send yourorderto: Federal Election Commission

Information Division

999 EStreet, NW

Washington. DC20463

911. AO 1993-11

912. AO 1993-12

913. AO 1993-13

914. AO 1993-14

915. AO 1993-15

916. AO 1993-16

917. AO 1993-17

918. AO 1993-18

919. AO 1993-19

920. AO 1993-20

921. AO 1993-21

922. AO 1993-22

923. AO 1993-23

924. AO 1993-24

925 . AO 1993-25

Index

822. AO 1994-22

823. AO 1994-23

824. AO 1994-24

825. AO 1994-25

900. Brochure

901. AO 1993-1

902. AO 1993-2

903. AO 1993-3

904. AO 1993-4

905. AO 1993-5

906. AO 1993-6

907. AO 1993-7

908. AO 1993-8

909. AO 1993-9

910. AO 1993-1 0

15
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index

(continued fro m page 15)

- LaRouche (92-1555), 9:7

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (NRSC), 5:5; 7:2

- Republican Nation al Committee

(RNC) (94-1017), 7:3; 9:8

- Wh itmore and Quinl an, 9:9

Reports

Schedule for 1994, I:4; correction, 2: 1

- change in Florida and South

Carolina election dates, 4:6

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300 *

Printed on recycled paper

- reporting reminders, April, 3:1;

July, 6: I; October throu gh

January, 9:6

Spe cial election s

- Kentu cky (2nd District), 5:9

- Oklahoma (6th District), 3:7

- Oklahoma (Senate), 7:2

800 Line Articles

Help - my report is late, 6:1

Registrati on by candidates and their

committees, I: 14

September 1994

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31