May 1997 Federal Election Commission Volume 23, Number 5

Table of Contents

Compliance

1 MUR 3637

Court Cases

1 Clark v. FEC and the Commission

on Presidential Debates

3 FEC v. Kalogianis

4 Common Cause v. FEC (96-5160)

5 DNC v. FEC (96-2506)

5 FEC v. Christian Action Network

2 Federal Register Notices

Publications

2 1997 Federal/State Disclosure

Directory Available on Web Site

Statistics

6 Party Committees Raise, Spend

Millions During 1996 Election

Cycle

8 Advisory Opinions

Information

 9 Update on Electronic Filing

10 Flashfax Menu

12 Index

Compliance

(continued on page 2)

Clark v. FEC and the

Commission on Presidential

Debates

On March 10, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit ruled in the FEC’s favor,

granting its motion for summary

affirmance in this case and denying

the motion of John P. Clark and the

Green Party USA for emergency

summary reversal. The ruling

upholds the district court’s denial of

a motion by Mr. Clark, other

individual voters and the Green

Party to intervene in a suit brought

by the Natural Law Party (NLP) and

its presidential and vice-presidential

candidates against the FEC and the

Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

This case stemmed from an

October 4, 1996, ruling from this

same court that upheld a lower court

ruling and dismissed lawsuits filed

against the FEC and the CPD by the

NLP and the presidential and vice

presidential candidates running

under the Reform Party banner.

Both the NLP and the Reform Party

candidates had sought to participate

in the presidential debates being

sponsored by the CPD. The CPD

excluded the candidates—the NLP’s

MUR 3637

Kentucky Committee Agrees

to $75,000 Civil Penalty

The Kentucky State Democratic

Central Executive Committee

agreed to pay a $75,000 civil

penalty to the FEC after a review of

its actions during the 1992 election

cycle turned up numerous violations

of the Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations.

Several of the violations revolve

around the committee’s failure to

pay for the federal portion of

allocable expenses resulting from

joint activity with permissible funds.

Specifically:

• During the 1992 election cycle, the

Committee made $415,446 in

disbursements for allocable

expenses from its nonfederal

accounts that should have initially

been paid for from the federal

accounts. This violated 11 CFR

102.5(a)(1)(i) and 106.5(g)(1)(i).

The Committee made $127,522 in

disbursements for federal activity

from its nonfederal accounts,

which contained impermissible

funds, in violation of 2 U.S.C.

§§441a(f) and 441b(a) and 11 CFR

102.5(a)(1)(i).

Court Cases

(continued on page 3)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1997

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

John Warren McGarry,

Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

• The Committee also accepted and

placed $11,000 in impermissible

contributions into its federal

account, in violation of 2 U.S.C.

§441b(a), which, in part, bars

contributions from corporate and

labor organizations.

• In making two transfers totaling

$59,185 from its nonfederal

accounts to its federal accounts,

the committee failed to comply

with FEC regulations that establish

the time limits in which such

transfers are to be made—in this

case, no more than 10 days before

or 30 days after the federal payments for which they were designated were made. 11 CFR

106.5(g)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). The

nonfederal accounts contained

funds that were considered impermissible for the federal account.

Thus, the transfer also violated 2

U.S.C. 441b(a).

• The Committee reported $884,576

in disbursements for joint activity

as coming from their federal

accounts when that was not the

case. 11 CFR 104.10(b)(4) and 2

U.S.C. §434(b).

• The Committee reported $458,756

in fictitious transfers from their

nonfederal accounts to their federal

accounts. 11 CFR 104.10(b)(3) and

2 U.S.C. §434(b).

• The Committee failed to reconcile

a cash-on-hand discrepancy

between its 1990 and 1991 reports,

in violation of 2 U.S.C. §434(b).

• Finally, the Committee did not

report to the FEC within 10 days

that a new treasurer had been

appointed. 2 U.S.C. §433(c). The

Committee also failed to have the

signature of the designated treasurer on all reports, violating 2

U.S.C. §434(a)(1).

In addition to the penalty, the

Committee agreed to refund the

$11,000 of impermissible funds it

received in its federal accounts and

to refund from its federal accounts

to its nonfederal accounts $59,185

that was not transferred in a timely

manner.

This MUR, or Matter Under

Review, was initiated as the FEC

carried out its normal supervisory

duties and after the Commission

received a complaint from the

Republican Party of Kentucky.

After a review of the complaint and

other pertinent facts, but prior to

finding probable cause to believe

the Committee had violated the law,

the Commission entered into a

conciliation agreement with the

Committee. ✦

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

1997 Federal/State

Disclosure Directory

Available on Web Site

The Combined Federal/State

Disclosure Directory 1997, which

lists the national and state offices

responsible for public disclosure of

a variety of financial- and electionrelated filings for candidates and

officeholders, is now available. The

publication contains information

about campaign finances, candidates

on the ballot, election results,

lobbying, personal finances, public

financing, spending on state initiatives and other financial filings.

New this year are a number of Email addresses for the various

agencies and their staffs, as well as

the agencies’ home page addresses

on the Internet. The agencies with

on-line access to the FEC’s database

are noted.

The disclosure directory is

available free at the FEC’s web

site—http://www.fec.gov—and on

Macintosh- and IBM-formatted

diskettes for $3. Paper copies of the

1997 edition are also available free

of charge. For more information,

call the Public Records office at

800/424-9530 (Press 3) or 202/219-

4140. ✦

Publications

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are available from the FEC’s Public Records Office.

Notice 1997-5

Filing Dates for Texas Special Elections (62 FR 15482, April 1, 1997)

Notice 1997-3 (Correction)

Final Rule; Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts (62 FR 18167,

April 14, 1997)
May 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Dr. John Hagelin and Mike

Tompkins and the Reform Party’s

H. Ross Perot and Pat Choate—

from the debates, saying that the

minor party candidates did not meet

the criteria for participation.

Background

On September 6, 1996, the NLP

filed an administrative complaint

with the FEC and, on September 13,

filed suit in U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia, contending

that the CPD had violated FEC rules

governing nonpartisan candidate

debates. 11 CFR 113.10. Specifically, the NLP suit asked the court

to impose a temporary restraining

order and issue preliminary and

permanent injunctions to prevent the

CPD from using any debate selection criteria that did not comply with

FEC rules. In the alternative, it

asked the court to order the FEC,

prior to the debates, to take action

on its administrative complaint. See

the November 1996 Record.

The Green Party, Mr. Clark and

seven other individuals, all independent voters or supporters of the

Green Party USA and its 1996

presidential candidate Ralph Nader,

filed a motion for intervention on

September 27, 1996. The district

court found that Mr. Clark and the

others “show[ed] their curiosity in

the case, but...fail[ed] to demonstrate sufficient grounds for intervention.” On September 30, the

court therefore denied the motion

for intervention. However, it did

grant Clark leave to file a brief as a

friend of the court.

On November 22—more than a

month after the appeals court had

ruled in this case and weeks after

the debates and 1996 elections had

taken place—Mr. Clark filed a

notice of appeal of the district court

ruling. Mr. Clark had not participated as a friend of the court in the

appeals process, nor in a subsequent

and unsuccessful petition from Mr.

Hagelin for an expedited rehearing

and rehearing en banc.

FEC Arguments and Appeals

Court Order

First, the FEC argued that the

appellants had failed to demonstrate

a common question of law, a

requirement for permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.1

Among other things, Mr. Clark’s

complaint claimed that the CPD’s

debate selection criteria violated

unspecified sections of the U.S.

Constitution. Mr. Hagelin’s complaint, on the other hand, had

claimed that the CPD’s criteria

violated FEC regulations at 11 CFR

110.13. Further, the FEC argued that

there were no common “questions of

fact,” as required by Rule 24(b),

between Mr. Clark’s and Mr.

Hagelin’s complaints. In addition,

the FEC said that the Clark appellants had not shown an independent

jurisdictional basis for their claims.

The would-be plaintiffs did not even

include a presidential or vicepresidential candidate who might

have claimed exclusion from the

debates.

Timeliness was also at issue, the

FEC argued. Rule 24(b) states that a

court must consider “whether the

intervention will unduly delay or

prejudice the adjudication of the

rights of the original parties.”

Because the debates were to begin

shortly after the original complaints

were filed, the district court set

about adjudicating the matter on an

expedited schedule, but Mr. Clark’s

motion was not filed until the last

day of the briefing schedule.

Finally, the FEC argued that

because the district court granted

Mr. Clark the option of filing a brief

as a friend of the court, it did not

abuse its discretion in denying his

initial motion to intervene. The

appeals court found that the merits

of the parties’ positions were so

clear that they warranted summary

action. It held that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in

denying the appellants’ motion to

intervene.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 96-

5361, March 10, 1997; U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia,

96-2132, September 30, 1996. ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

FEC v. Kalogianis

On March 25, 1997, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

New Hampshire ordered Anastasios

Kalogianis to pay a $37,500 civil

penalty to the FEC for making

$249,000 in excessive contributions

to the Tsongas for President Committee during the 1992 election

cycle. Both parties to this suit

agreed to the judgment and consent

order.

Mr. Kalogianis made six loans to

the Tsongas Committee. Although

one of the checks was made payable

to Nicholas Rizzo, the committee’s

chief fundraiser, the money was

given with the intention that it be

used in the Tsongas campaign. See

the October 1996 Record.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) states that no person

may make contributions to any

federal candidate or his or her

authorized candidate committee

which, in the aggregate, exceed

$1,000. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A). A

contribution includes anything of

value made by any person for the

purpose of influencing a federal

election, including loans. 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(A)(i). Further, Commission

regulations state that a loan that

exceeds the contribution limits of

the Act is unlawful whether or not it

is repaid. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(1)(i)(A).

(continued)

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)

states that would-be intervenors must

timely file their applications and

demonstrate that their claim or defense

and the “main action” have a question

of law or fact in common. In addition,

they must show an independent

jurisdictional basis for their claims.
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1997

4

Common Cause v. FEC (96-

5160)

On March 21, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit found that Common Cause

lacked standing to litigate certain

claims against the Commission, and

the court therefore dismissed those

claims. Common Cause had appealed a lower court ruling that

upheld the Commission’s dismissal

of several allegations in an administrative complaint filed by Common

Cause.

Background

The lawsuit concerns Montana’s

1988 senatorial race. Common

Cause alleged that the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

(NRSC) and the Montana Republican Party (MRP) violated the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) by making contributions and

expenditures in excess of the legal

contribution limits for Republican

candidate Conrad Burns. Common

Cause also alleged that the national

and state parties failed to accurately

report these contributions and

expenditures to the FEC. Common

Cause and James K. Addy, Mr.

Burns’s Democratic opponent in the

race, filed administrative complaints

with the FEC. After investigating

these allegations, the FEC’s Office

In addition to the civil penalty,

Mr. Kalogianis was permanently

enjoined from making similar

violations of the Act.

U.S. District Court for the

District of New Hampshire, 96-427-

JD. ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

of General Counsel recommended

that the Commission find probable

cause to believe that the NRSC and

the MRP had violated the Act.

However, because none of the

proposed probable cause findings

garnered the required four affirmative votes, the Commission voted 5-

0 to dismiss the complaints and

close the matter.

Common Cause and Mr. Addy

challenged the FEC’s dismissal in

U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia. The district court ruled

in the FEC’s favor, finding “that

deference is owed to the views of

the ‘declining-to-go-ahead’ Commissioners when reviewing a

Commission decision to dismiss a

complaint based on a deadlock.” It

granted partial summary judgment

to the FEC and remanded one

reporting violation to the Commission for review.

Common Cause appealed the

decision (except for the portion that

was favorable to it) and claimed that

deference is not owed to the “declining-to-go-ahead” Commissioners

when its members decide to dismiss

a complaint based on a previous

deadlock. The appeals court did not

address this argument because it

found that Common Cause lacked

standing.

Analysis for Standing

In order to show standing, a

plaintiff must have suffered an

injury in fact, or an actual wrong

against a legally protected interest,

that is traceable to the challenged

act and is likely to be redressed by a

favorable decision from a court.

Organizations may have standing to

sue in order to vindicate the rights

and immunities it enjoys or, under

certain conditions, on behalf of its

members. When an organization

sues on its own behalf, it must show

a concrete injury to its activities

with a resulting drain on its resources in order to attain standing.

In the case of an organization suing

on behalf of its members, the

organization must show that its

members would otherwise have

standing to sue in their own right,

that the interests it seeks to protect

are germane to the organization’s

purpose and that neither the claim

asserted nor the relief requested

requires individual members to

participate in the lawsuit.

The appeals court rejected all

three of Common Cause’s theories

as to why it had standing.

• Member Standing. The court found

that Common Cause was unclear

on exactly what “political information” was denied its members.

However, in the court’s view, the

nature of the information was

crucial to the injury-in-fact analysis. If the information allegedly

withheld was simply that a violation of the Act had occurred, then

Common Cause’s members did not

suffer the type of injury that the

court had previously held to be

sufficient for standing. To allow a

plaintiff to establish the required

injury in fact in those circumstances, the court concluded,

would be “tantamount to recognizing a justiciable interest in the

enforcement of the law. This we

cannot do.”

• Organizational Standing. The

court also said Common Cause

itself did not have standing in this

case. It found that the organization

was asserting an interest in knowing whether the NRSC and MRP

had violated the Act’s contribution

and expenditure limits. Just as this

was an inadequate interest to

establish standing when Common

Cause asserted it on behalf of its

members, it was inadequate to

establish Common Cause’s own

standing. The court stated that, in

contrast, if Common Cause had

asserted “an interest in knowing

how much money a candidate

spent in an election, infringement

of such an interest may...constitute

a legally cognizable injury.” While

Common Cause also alleged that

the NRSC and MRP had violated

the Act’s reporting requirements,

Read future issues of

the Record to find out

about FEC

conferences

scheduled this fall.
May 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

DNC v. FEC (96-2506)

On February 20, with the agreement of both parties, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia dismissed this case

without prejudice and ordered the

FEC to periodically update the

Democratic National Committee

(DNC) on the status of an administrative complaint it filed against Bob

Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign.

See the January 1997 Record.

In June 1996, the DNC filed an

administrative complaint with the

Commission alleging that Mr.

Dole’s presidential committee, Dole

for President, Inc., disregarded the

limit on expenditures during the preprimary season. The administrative

complaint was designated MUR

4382. Under the Presidential

Primary Matching Payment Account

Act, presidential candidates may

receive matching payments for their

primary campaigns if they agree to

limit their expenditures to a set

amount—in this case, a little more

than $37 million. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(b)(1)(A).

After no apparent action had

taken place on the complaint, the

DNC, on October 31, filed suit

asking the court to order the FEC to

move forward on its allegations

against the Dole campaign. The

DNC said that in failing to act on its

complaint within 120 days after it

was filed—the original administrative complaint was filed June 12 and

a supplemental complaint was filed

on July 22—the FEC was acting

contrary to law. 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(8)(A).

The court said that the FEC

should give lawyers for the DNC

confidential, updated chronologies

on the Commission’s actions in

MUR 4382. The first was to be

delivered at the end of March with

subsequent chronologies presented

at 12-month intervals until the

matter was resolved or there was

further court action.

this was a small part of its complaint. Further, Common Cause

asked only for an investigation

and, if its allegations were proven,

monetary penalties against the two

Republican committees. The court

specifically noted that Common

Cause did not ask for any kind of

disclosure of the allegedly undisclosed financial information.

• Dismissal of Complaint. The court

also rejected Common Cause’s

final argument—that it had standing because the FEC had dismissed

its complaint in a manner contrary

to law. The organization relied on

a section of the law that grants any

person who has filed an administrative complaint with the FEC the

right to seek review in the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia if the Commission

dismisses that complaint. 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(8)(A). Based on the U.S.

Supreme Court’s ruling in Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife1

, the court

said that “absent the ability to

demonstrate a ‘discrete injury’

flowing from the alleged violation

of FECA, Common Cause cannot

establish standing merely by

asserting that the FEC failed to

process its complaint in accordance with law.” Section

437g(a)(8)(A), the court explained,

“does not confer standing; it

confers a right to sue upon parties

who otherwise already have

standing.” Because Common

Cause did not demonstrate an

injury as a result of the alleged

violations of the Act, it could not

assert standing under this provision.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 96-

5160, March 21, 1997; U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia,

94-2104, March 29, 1996; U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia, 94-2112 and 94-2104,

September 30, 1994. ✦

The contents of the chronologies

may not be disclosed to anyone not

involved in the administrative

complaint. Additionally, DNC

counsel may use the information

only in preparation for litigation that

may result from the MUR. To

ensure that there is no unauthorized

dissemination of the chronologies,

DNC counsel must inform in

writing each person who sees the

information that it may not be

shared with others. The DNC must

maintain a list of those people, what

information they have seen and a

written statement from each person

acknowledging that he or she

understands the confidentiality

provisions that are part of this court

action.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 96-2506. ✦

FEC v. Christian Action

Network

On April 7, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

granted a request from the Christian

Action Network (CAN) that the

FEC pay its attorney fees and other

costs associated with this case. The

court remanded the case to the U.S.

District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, Lynchburg

Division, to set the amount to be

awarded. The appeals court had

previously upheld the lower court’s

ruling to dismiss and, in this opinion, included a lengthy analysis of

express advocacy and corporate

communications.

The Commission had filed suit

against CAN in 1994, charging that

it made independent expenditures

with corporate funds and failed to

comply with election laws that

govern reporting and disclaimers.

See the December 1994, September

1995 and October 1996 issues of the

Record. ✦

1

 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555 (1992).
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1997

6

Party Committees Raise,

Spend Millions During 1996

Election Cycle

Republican committees continued

to outpace their Democratic counterparts in fundraising during the 1995-

1996 election cycle. However, both

parties showed substantial increases

in their collection efforts on YearEnd reports filed with the FEC. The

reports covered financial activity

from January 1, 1995, through

December 31, 1996.

Republican committees on the

national, state and local levels

reported $416.5 million in federal

receipts, a 57 percent increase from

the last presidential election cycle

that ended in 1992. Those same

committees spent $408.5 million in

connection with federal elections

during the election cycle, a 62

percent increase. National, state and

local Democratic committees raised

$221.6 million for their federal

accounts and spent $214.3 million, a

36 percent increase in both categories over the same reporting period

in 1992.

Soft money, or nonfederal

dollars, also showed increases for

both parties in receipts and disbursements. Republican national party

committees1

 raised $138.2 million in

soft dollars and spent $149.7

Statistics

million. Both totals were more than

double the figures from the last

presidential election cycle. Democratic national party committees2

more than tripled the amount of soft

money raised and spent in the 1992

cycle. The committees raised $123.9

million in soft money and spent

$121.8 million.

This election cycle marked the

first time that party committees

could make independent expenditures. Only the senatorial campaign

committees and some state and local

party committees took advantage of

this option. Republican party

committees spent $10 million on

independent expenditures, while

Democratic party committees spent

$1.5 million.

The charts above and on the right

provide additional information

about the Year-End reports. Information about the financial activities

of the major parties found in the

Year-End reports is available in a

March 19 news release. The release

is available:

• At the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov (click on “News

Releases and Media Advisories” or

“Financial Information for Candidates, Parties, and PACs” at the

main menu); and

• From the Public Records office by

calling 1-800-424-9530 (press

3). ✦

2

 These are the Democratic National

Committee, Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee and Democratic

Congressional Campaign Committee.

1

 These are the Republican National

Committee, National Republican

Senatorial Committee and National

Republican Congressional Committee.

Political Party Federal Activity During Presidential

Election Cycles (in millions)

 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996

 Raised $37.2 $98.5 $127.9 $177.7 $221.6

 Spent $35.0 $97.4 $121.9 $171.9 $214.3

 Contributions $1.7 $2.6 $1.7 $1.9 $2.2

 Coord. Expenditures $4.9 $9.0 $17.9 $28.0 $22.6

 Raise $169.5 $297.9 $263.3 $267.3 $416.5

 Spent $161.8 $300.8 $257.0 $256.1 $408.5

 Contributions $4.5 $4.9 $3.4 $3.0 $3.7

 Coord. Expenditures $12.4 $20.1 $22.7 $33.8 $31.0 Democrats Republicans
May 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Hard Dollars and Soft Money Collected by Party

Committees During 1996 Election Cycle

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Republican Democratic

Hard Dollars

Soft Money

In Millions

Transfers by National Party Committees to State

and Local Party Committees

NRCC


NRSC


RNC


DCCC


DSCC


DNC


$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

Hard Dollars

Soft Money

In Millions

Looking for Back

Issues of the Record?

 Whether you’re researching a

range of campaign finance issues

or looking for specific

information from 1996 and 1997,

look to the FEC’s official web

site to find issues of the Record.

The web site—http://

www.fec.gov—includes issues

dating from January 1996 to the

present. Go to the web site and

click on “Help for Candidates,

Parties and PACs” to see back

issues. Also click on “What’s

New” to find the most current

issue of the Record.

 Newly available is a hypertext

version of the 1996 Record

index. The index features

alphabetical links that can be

used to search for information by

topic. Each topic listing is linked

to the first page of the Record

issue in which that topic was

discussed. Clicking on a topic

link will download the selected

newsletter issue to your

computer.

 For each of the issues available

at the web site, you will need

Adobe® Acrobat Reader

software to view or print the

publication. The FEC’s web site

has a link that will take you to

Adobe’s web site, where you can

download the latest version of the

software for free.
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1997

8

AO 1997-1

Use of Excess Campaign

Funds for Charitable

Foundation

Former Alabama Congressman

Tom Bevill may donate the remaining cash balance of his principal

campaign committee, Friends of

Tom Bevill, to the newly created

Bevill Foundation provided the

Foundation does not use the funds to

compensate the candidate, his

family or former campaign staff.

The Foundation would make

grants solely to various educational,

charitable, literary, scientific and

religious organizations. None of its

funds would be used to influence a

federal election, and no person

associated with Mr. Bevill’s former

congressional staff or family would

be employed at the Foundation. Mr.

Bevill, his wife and daughter, Susan

B. Livingston, would act as the

board of directors of the foundation.

While Ms. Livingston intends to

provide some legal services to the

Foundation, she would not be

compensated for that work. The

Foundation plans to seek tax-exempt

status under IRS statutes (26 U.S.C.

§§170(c) and 501(c)(3)).

Candidate committees may not

convert campaign funds to the

personal use of the candidate or any

other person. 11 CFR 113.1(g) and

113.2(d). FEC guidelines define

personal use as “any use of funds in

a campaign account...that would

exist irrespective of the candidate’s

campaign or duties as a federal

officeholder.” The rules also state

that donations from campaign funds

to such tax-exempt organizations

described in 26 U.S.C. §170(c) are

not considered personal use unless a

current or former candidate receives

compensation from the organization

before it has expended the entire

amount that the candidate’s commitAO 1997-2

Use of Campaign Funds for

Travel to Congressional

Retreat

Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives could use campaign

funds to pay travel expenses and

attendance for themselves, their

spouses and their children in

connection with the Bipartisan

Congressional Retreat.

Democratic and Republican

leaders in the House, along with the

Congressional Institute and The

Aspen Institute, planned the bipartisan retreat for early March at the

Hershey Lodge and Convention

Center in Hershey, PA. House

members were invited in an attempt

to establish a more constructive

spirit and ethic for member-tomember relations.

The legislators and their families

attended plenary sessions that

covered topics ranging from public

policy matters to the impact of

congressional duties on personal and

family lives. In addition, congressional members and their spouses

participated in small group sessions

Advisory

Opinions

tee donated to it. 11 CFR

113.1(g)(2).

As the recipient of funds from

Mr. Bevill’s committee, the Foundation is under the same statutory

prohibition regarding the use of

those funds as applies to the committee itself. The Foundation

remains covered by the restriction

on personal use of the funds by the

candidate or anyone else until it has

spent an amount equal to the amount

it received from the committee. The

Commission assumes that Foundation funds will not be used as

compensation to Bevill family

members or to any entity that is

controlled by or employs Bevill

family members. It also assumes

that none of Mr. Bevill’s former

staff members will be compensated.

Date Issued: March 17, 1997;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

to expound on those issues that

impact on House members. Children

had their own programs provided by

the lodge. The weekend also included a special dinner for the

members and their families.

Retreat organizers charged an

attendance fee of $60 for each

House member, $30 for each spouse

and $10 for each child. The principal cost of the retreat was paid for

by a grant from the Pew Charitable

Trusts. Members were responsible

for their own travel expenses.

Candidate committees may not

convert campaign funds to the

personal use of the candidate or any

other person. 11 CFR 113.1(g) and

113.2(d). FEC guidelines define

personal use as “any use of funds in

a campaign account...that would

exist irrespective of the candidate’s

campaign or duties as a federal

officeholder.” An exemption to the

ban on the personal use of campaign

funds, however, permits the use of

campaign funds to defray any

ordinary and necessary expenses

incurred in connection with a

person’s duties as a federal officeholder. This includes travel costs for

the officeholder and spouse so long

as the function they are attending is

directly connected to bona fide

official responsibilities.

Because the express purpose of

the retreat was to improve the

effectiveness of the legislative

environment in the House of

Representatives, the outing was

directly related to members’ official

responsibilities as officeholders. The

Commission based this conclusion

on several facts: the event would be

bipartisan; it had the support of

congressional leaders; and it was

expected to draw a large number of

members from both major political

parties.

Moreover, under 11 CFR

113.1(g), the personal use of funds

refers to any use of campaign funds

that would exist irrespective of the

candidate’s campaign or duties as a

federal officeholder. In this case, the
May 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are available for review and comment in the

Public Records Office.

AOR 1997-4

Application of contribution limits to PA limited liability company that was

formerly a partnership (Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, March 19, 1997; 1

page plus 44-page attachment)

AOR 1997-5

Qualification of lessee of trading “seat” on Exchange as member (Chicago

Mercantile Exchange, April 1; 7 pages plus 199-page attachment) ✦

Alternative Disposition of

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1996-47

The Commission voted unanimously to close the file on AOR

1996-47 without issuing an opinion.

The request, submitted on November 3, 1996, sought the

Commission’s opinion on whether

the National Reform Party Steering

Committee would qualify as a

national committee of a political

party under the Federal Election

Campaign Act. The heads of reform

parties in five states disassociated

themselves from the request. Also,

the requesters failed to respond to or

clarify a number of questions that

came about in response to the AOR.

Commission regulations at 11 CFR

112.1(c) require a complete description of all relevant facts pertaining

to each AOR. The steering committee may resubmit this AOR when it

can provide all necessary documentation and clarifications. ✦

cost of travel and attendance

occurred only because of the House

members’ duties as federal officeholders. Consequently, members

could use campaign funds to pay the

expenses. This also held true for

members’ spouses, who are covered

under 11 CFR 113.2(a)(1).

As the retreat organizers stressed

the importance of full family

participation to the success of the

retreat—this was reflected in

planned group activities—the

Commission concluded in this

specific circumstance that campaign

funds could be used to pay for the

travel expenses and attendance fees

of the children of participating

House members.

Campaign committee disbursements for this retreat should be

reported as “other disbursements”

on FEC forms.

Date Issued: March 17, 1997:

Length: 5 pages. ✦

Update on Electronic Filing

The FEC has heard from a

number of committee treasurers who

are interested in learning more about

the agency’s new electronic filing

process. As the FEC reported in the

February issue of the Record, it is

now possible to file disclosure

reports electronically on computer

disk. The required formats have

been established and are available

from the Commission’s web site

(http://www.fec.gov) and by request

(call the Data Division at 800/424-

9530 or 202/219-3730).

First Steps

During this first year, the agency

is focusing on committees that have

their own internal computer systems

and software companies that offer

products currently used by committees. This will allow the FEC to gain

experience with the electronic filing

system. The agency will publish on

a regular basis a list of companies

that have said they were making the

necessary modifications to their

programs. Committees that use

software from any of these companies might want to check with them

to see when new versions that allow

for electronic filing will be available.

Software companies currently

implementing electronic filing

include:

• Aspen Software (of Pennsylvania)

• Aristotle Industries

• Capitol Hill Software

• Donnelson and Associates

(Micropac)

Other software companies also

may be working on the process,

without any help from the FEC. If

vendors call the FEC to say that

they are developing electronic filing

software, the agency will be happy

to add them to the list. Call the Data

Division at 1/800-424-9530 (press 1).

FEC Software

For small committees not currently using a comprehensive

software program, the FEC is

developing very basic program that

will be available in early 1998. This

software will allow committees to

keep reportable information on

receipts and disbursements and

automatically prepare the electronic

filing. It will not, however, have the

added features that most commercially-available programs currently

contain.

The Record will continue to

publish details on the progress of

electronic filing, and the Commission looks forward to hearing from

committees as it moves forward on

this important project. ✦

Information

(Information continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1997

10

Information

(continued from page 9)

Flashfax Menu

Flashfax documents may be ordered

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by

calling 202/501-3413 on a touch tone

phone. You will be asked for the

numbers of the documents you want,

your fax number and your telephone

number. The documents will be faxed

shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

301. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

308. Combined Federal/State

Disclosure Directory 1996 on

Disk

309. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

310. Internet Access to the FEC

311. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expenditures320.

Local Party Activity

321. Corporate/Labor Facilities

322. Trade Associations

323. Foreign Nationals

324. The $25,000 Annual Contribution Limit

325. Personal Use of Campaign

Funds

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 Checkoff

Status

335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Filing a Complaint

345. 1996 Reporting Dates

346. 1996 Congressional Primary

Dates

347. 1996 Special Election Reporting

Dates

Federal Election Commission

401. The FEC and the Federal

Campaign Finance Law

402. La Ley Federal relativa al

Financiamiento de las Campañas

403. Federal and State Campaign

Finance Laws

404. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408. Index for 1995 Record

Newsletter

409. Free Publications

410. Personnel Vacancy

Announcements

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

424. List of Reports Available

425. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

426. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

427. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an

Electoral System

Money in Politics Statistics

525. 1991-2 Political Money

526. 1995 Mid-Year PAC Count

527. 1993-4 Congressional

528. 1993-4 National Party

529. 1993-4 PAC Finances

530. 1995-6 Congressional

531. 1995-6 National Party

532. 1995-6 PAC Finances

1996 Presidential Election

550. 1996 Presidential Primary Dates

551. Selected 1996 Campaign Names

and Addresses

552. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

553. 1996 Matching Fund Certifications and Convention Fund

Payments

554. 1996 Presidential General

Election Ballots

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

1007. Part 100.7, Contribution

1008. Part 100.8, Expenditure

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

1021. Part 102.17, Joint Fundraising

by Committees Other Than SSFs

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

1047. Part 104.7, Best Efforts

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 Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

1101. Part 110.1, Contributions by

Persons Other Than Multicandidate Political Committees

1102. Part 110.2, Contributions by

Multicandidate Committees

1103. Part 110.3, Contribution

Limitations for Affiliated

Committees and Political Party

Committees; Transfers

1104. Part 110.4, Prohibited Contributions

1105. Part 110.5, Annual Contribution

Limitation for Individuals

1106. Part 110.6, Earmarked Contributions

1107. Part 110.7, Party Committee

Expenditure Limitations

1108. Part 110.8, Presidential Candidate Expenditure Limitations

1109. Part 110.9, Miscellaneous

Provisions

1110. Part 110.10, Expenditures by

Candidates
May 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Schedules

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

372. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

373. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent Expenditures

375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated Expenditures

376. Schedules H1 – H4, Allocation

377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

4411. Section 441a

4412. Section 441b

4413. Section 441c

4414. Section 441d

4415. Section 441e

4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

601-45. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-45

700. Brochure

701-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

801-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

901-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

1111. Part 110.11, Communications;

Advertising

1112. Part 110.12, Candidate Appearances on Public Educational

Institution Premises

1113. Part 110.13, Nonpartisan

Candidate Debates

1114. Part 110.14, Contributions to

and Expenditures by Delegates

and Delegate Committees

111. Part 111, 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

201. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Presidential Nominating

Conventions

228. Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Campaigns

229. Candidate Debates and News

Stories

230. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

231. DSCC and DCCC Rulemaking

Petition

Forms

361. Form 1, Statement of Organization

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 Settlement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of

Multicandidate Status

FEC Accepts Visa and

Mastercard

 FEC customers can now pay for

FEC materials with Visa or

Mastercard. Most FEC materials

are available free of charge, but

some are sold, including financial

statistical reports ($10 each),

candidate indexes ($10) and PAC

directories ($13.25). The FEC

also has a 5 cents per page

copying charge for paper

documents and a 15 cents per

page copying charge for

microfilmed documents.

 Paying by credit card has its

advantages. For instance, since

the FEC will not fill an order

until payment is received, using a

credit card speeds delivery by

four to five days.

 Visitors to the FEC’s Public

Records Office will also be able

to make payments by credit card.

Regular visitors, such as

researchers and reporters, who in

the past have paid for FEC

materials out of their own

pockets, may now make

payments with a company credit

card.

 The credit card payment system

also reduces costs and paperwork

associated with check processing,

enabling FEC staff to better serve

walk-in visitors.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1997 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

1996-35: Status of Green Party as

national committee, 1:10

1996-42: SSF disaffiliation following corporate spin off, 1:11

1996-45: Use of campaign funds,

1:12

1996-46: Continuation of exemption

from select FECA reporting

provisions, 4:7

1996-48: Application of “news

story” exemption, 2:5

1996-49: Affiliation between PAC

of joint venture partnership and

SSF of corporate partner, 3:7

1996-50: Disaffiliation of SSFs, 3:9

1996-51: Qualification as state

committee of political party, 3: 9

1996-52: Resolicitation of excess

campaign funds for nonfederal

campaign, 3:10

1997-1: Use of excess campaign

funds to establish foundation, 5:8

1997-2: Use of campaign funds for

congressional retreat fees, travel,

5:8

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate,

4:6

– Christian Action Network, 1:5; 5:5

– DSCC (95-2881), 3:2

– Fund For a Conservative Majority,

1:5

– Kalogianis, 5:3

– McCallum, 2:4

– Parisi, 1:4

– Public Citizen, 4:6

– Williams, 2:3

_____ v. FEC

– Akins et al., 2:1

– Bush-Quayle ‘92 Primary Committee, 3:5

– Clark, 5:1

– Common Cause (96-5160), 5:4

– DCCC (96-0764), 1:4

– DNC (96-2506), 1:5; 5:5

– DSCC (96-2184), 1:2

– Hooker, 1:5

– NRCC (96-2295), 1:2

– Reilly, 1:4

– RNC (94-5248), 2:5

Reports

Electronic Filing, 2:1

Schedule for 1997, 1:6

Special Election, New Mexico, 4:3

Special Election, Texas, 3:6; 4:3

800 Line

Amended Reports, 4:2

Debt settlement and committee

termination, 1:8

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1997