Volume 17, Numbe

PUBLIC FUNDIm

3 FEe Approves 1992 Convention Funding

3 Preliminary Spending Limits for

Presidential Candidates

BEWtA'l'IOOS

1 No Action on Foreign National Rulemaki

2 Matching Fund Procedures: Final Rule

YEC ~, STAFF VISITS

see page 10 for information on

upcoming FEe regional conferences

in Boston (September 11-12) and

Chicago (November 14-15). See back

page for information on FEe staff

visits in August to Baton Rouge

Rale igh and Salt Lake city . '

4 SPECIAL ELIOCTICI'IS: Virginia

6 ADlTISCBY OPINICfiS

15 IWEX

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

16 Staff Visits to Raleigh, Baton Rouge a

Salt Lake City

10~: Boston, Chicago

11 FARrY ACTIVITIES: 1991 Spending Limit

11 camT CASES: FEC v. Populist party

12 800 LINE: Redistricting

CLE'.ARI1'GDJSE

13 Publications of Interest to Committees

14 aJln'LI1INCE: MURs Released to the Pub

999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

". .:~ . <. >: 'REGULATIONS

August 1991

FEC' 'mKES N) ACTIOO CN

FOREIGN NATIOOAL

On June 13, 1991, in a 4-to-2 vote, the

Commission rejected a proposed rule that

would have t~eated U.S. corporations as

foreign nationals if fo~eign ownership

exceeded 50 percent. The Commission then

unanimously voted to close the rulemaking.

CUrrent FEe rules at 11 eFR 110.4(a)(I)

prohibit foreign nationals from making

contributions or expenditures, either

directly or through another person, in

connection with any U.S. election. Under

the proposed regulation, a domestic corporation that was more than 50 percent

foreign owned would have been prohibited

from operating a separate segre~ated fund

or otherwise participaHng in local, state

or federal elections.

In several advisory opinions, the

Commission has permitted domestic subsidiaries partially or totally owned by

foreign corporations or other foreign

entities to establish separate segregated

funds and engage in other election-related

activi ty as long as two basic condrtions

are met. First, the individuals who exe7c~se decision-making authority for the act~v~ty must be U.S. citizens or individuals lawfully admi tted for permanent

rea idence (i. e., "green-card holde rs 11 ) •

second, the funds used for election-related

activity must not come feem the foreign

national parent or from a foreign citizen.

The advisory opinions remain effective.

The Commission received 84 comm.ents on

the proposed rulemaking, which was published in the Federal Register on August

22, 1990 (55 F.R 34280). At public

he3ring on the rulemaking held October

30-31, 1990, thirteen witnesses presented

testimony. (The testimony was summarized

in the December 1990 Record, page 2.)

(Regulations continued, page 2)

•

•

•
August 1991 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Num

Federal Election ColIIIission, 999 E street, Ni'l, Washington, IX: 20463

800/424-9530 202/376-3120 202/376-3136 (TOD)

3The Commission has requested a written

opinion from the Secretary of the Trea

to verify this point.

the Treasury regulations will be fo~lo

even if a shortfall does not occur. 

In addition to Changing the schedu

for submdssions and certifications, the

final revisions to the FEC's rules on

tnatchinq funds contain the changes

highlighted below.

o The option for submittin9 letter req

for matchin<J fW"lds (at fOrnEr 11 'CFR

9036.2{b){ 2» has been eliminated. U

the old rules, candidates could subm

letter request with minimal backup

documentation every other submission

date. However, under the once-month

schedule, fully daewnented submission

are necessary in order to verify the

exact amount of matching funds repre

ed in a request.

a The once-monthly schedule also neces

tates the elimination of the holdback

procedures (at fo~r 11 CFR 9036.2(c

(1)(i»). under those procedures, the

Commission certified funds within 5

business daYs of the candidate's sub

mission, holding back a percentage o

funds until the agency verified the e

aP'IOWlt to be certified for that subm

sion; any additional payments were th

certified within 20 or 25 days.

o 'l11e revised rules incorporate a recen

Commission ~ecision to reject matchin

fund submissions and resubmissions if 

projected amount of nonmatchable

contributions exceeds 15 percent of t

amount requested. This new rejection

policy does not apply to subnissions 

in Decenber of the year before the

election nor to subnissions made befo

the candidate's date of ineligibility

The new policy is reflected in revise

11 CFR 9036.2(c) and (d) and

9036.4 (a)( 2) •

o The revised rules at 11 CFR 9034.5(f)

require a candidate to submit an upd

2

walter J. Stewart, secretary of the Senat

Ex Officio Commissioner

:oonnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House o

Representatives, Ex Officio Commissione

John warren McGarry, Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman

Lee AnD Elliott

'Ibomas J. Josefiak

Danny L. I'IcDOna1d

Scott E. 'l!loolas

FINM. RULE: fIV\'l'CHII«; FUND SUBMISSIOO5

AND cmrIFICATIm5 (MSID (Z( 'I'RFASlmY

SHORTFALL ~)

On July 18, 1991, the Commdssion

approved revised rules on matching fund

procedures for presidential primary

candidates. The rules will become effective after they have been before Congress

30 legislative days. They were transmitted

to congress on JUly 19, 1991.

The final rules are identical to the

proposed rules published for comment in a

Notice of proposed Rulernaking on June 26,

1991 (56 FR 29372). The Commission

received only one coounent, a letter from

the Internal Revenue service (see below).

Under the revised rules, candi~tes

will make matching fund submissions only

once a month, instead of twice a month, and

the COITI'I'Iission will certify matching fund

payments on a fixed day each month, instead

of within 5 days of reedving a matching

fund submission. The monthly schedule was

necessitated by new rules rece2tly adopted

by the Department of Treasury. Under the

new rules, Treasury will make matching

fund payments only once a month. Previously, Treasury paid candidates 600n after the

Commission certified the amount.

The Treasury rules were written to

address the possibility of a shortfall in

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

(The Treasury rules Set out a formula to

determine the amount of partial payments

that primary candidates would receive

should a shortfall occur.) In its comment

on the FEe's June Notice of proposed

Rulemaking, the IRS stated its position

that the payment procedures contained in

lA matching fund submission is a request

for matching funds that contains documentation verifying that the contributions

qualify to be matched with public funds.

2s ee 56 FR 21596 (May 10, 1991). For a

sunnary of the Treasury rules, see the July

Record.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

August 1991

Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign

Obligations (NOCO statement) if the

candidate has not been paid the full

amount certified because of a shortfall

in public funds. This cule would apply

after the candidate's date of ineligibility. when his or her entitlement to

matching funds depends on the amount of

the caqlaign's debt. In a shortfall

situation, there could be a long delay

between a cel:tification and the full

payment of the 'amount certified, during

which time a campaign's debt status could

significantly change. An updated NQCO

statement submitted shortly before the

next payment date will enable the Commission to revise the amount certified, if

necessary, before the candidate is paid.

·PUBLIC FUNDING

FEC' APPBOYES PUBLIC FUNDS FOR 1992

PRESIDl!Nl'IAL az.NENl'Ictm

In July 1991, each of the two major

parties received $10.6 million in public

fWlds foe their 1992 Presidential nominating conventions. The Commission

approved the funding after determining that

the parties had met all eligibility

requirements for public funding. The

Department of Treasury actually made the

payments.

'I11e Democratic convention will be be

held in New York City on July 13-16, 1992;

the Republican convention will be held in

Houston on August 17-20, 1992.

under the public funding law, each

major party convention committee is

entitled to receive $4 million multiplied

by the the cost-of-living adjustment

(COLA). (The COLA for 1990 was 2.65.) The

$10.6 million figure will be adjusted early

in 1992, when the 1991 COLA becomes available.· The parties will then receive

additional public funds.

PRBLDIINPtRY SPDIDIOO LIMITS FOR

PN!'SIOBlfl'IAL CANDI~

on July 3, 1991, the FEe issued a press

release listing preliminary spending lim!ts

for 1992 Presidential candidates receiving

public funds. TIle figures are not final,

since they are based on 1990 cost-of-living

adjustment (COLA) and voting age population

(VAP) figures. The actual limits will be

based on 1991 COlA and w.P figures, which

will not be released until the early months

of 1992. The JUly press release (hIf the

3

Volume 17, Number 

Presidential Election Were Held in 1991")

is available from the Public Records Offic

at no charge. (Call 800/424-9530 and ask

for Public Records or call the office

directly--202/376-3140.)

Based on the 1990 COLA of 2.65. a 1992

Presidential primary candidate receiving

federal matching funds would be subject to

a national spending limit of $26.5 million

(a $10 million base figure multiplied by

2.65). Adding in the fundraising exemptio

(20 pe rcent of the national limitor $5. 3

million) would bring the overall spending

limit to almost $32 million.

In addition to Observing the overall

limit, primary candidates receiving matching funds must comply with a spending lind

in each state based on the state's YAP. A

list of preliminary state 1imdts appears i

the July 3 press release. The list is

based on 1990 VAP figures.

Using the 1990 COLA of 2.65, the two

major party nominees in the general election would each receive $53 million in

public funds ($20 mdllion multiplied by

2.65) and would have to limit campaign

spending to that amount. (Major party

nominees who accept public funds must

finance the entire campaign with those

funds; they may not accept any contriOOtions except to pay for certain legal and

accounting expenses.)

When the 1991 COLA and VAP figures

become available in 1992, the FEe will

announce the final spending lim!ts in a

press release and the Record.

FEDERAL RmIS'l'ER ICl'ICES

Copies of Federal Register notices

are available from the Public Records

Office.

1991-8

Filing Dates for Pennsylvania Special

Elections (56 FR 22719, May 16, 1991)

1991-9

Filing oates for Arizona Special

Elections (56 FR 23902, May 24, 1991)

1991-10

11 CFR farts 9034, 9036 and 9037:

Matching Fund Submission and Certification procedures for Presidential

Primary candidates (56 FR 29382, June

26, 1991)
-----------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Volume 17, Num

For information on the content of 

notice, see 11 CPR 104.5(£).

Information for PACs am party Coadtt

SeiDiannual Filers. A PAC or party 

mittee that reports on a semiannual ba

during 1991 must file reports for the

Virginia special elections if it makes

contributions or expend!tures in conne

with those elections during the applic

reporting periods. (A reporting perio

begins the day after the close of book

the last report filed through the clos

books for the special election report, 

shown in the tables on the opposite pa

EXAMPLE: A PAC or party cOlllllitte

last report filed was the semiannual r

that covered activity through June 30, 

(the close-of-books date). The coomU t

makes a contribution to a special elec

candidate's general election campai 90 

september 10. The comittee must ther

file a pre-general election report, wh

covers activity between July 1 and Oc

16. If the committee makes another co

bution or expenditure on OCtober 21, i

must fl1e post-general election repo

which covers activity between October 

and November 25. 

PACS may also have to file 24-hour

reports on independent expenditures.

PIonthly Filers. PACs and party co

tees that file monthly during 1991 do 

have to file special election reports, 

PACs may have to file 24-hour reports 

independent expend!tures.

24-Hour :Reports on Independent Ex

tures. Any PAC (including a monthly f

that makes independent expenditures in

connection with a special election ma

to file a 24-hour report. This repor

requirement will be triggered if the

cOIM'littee makes independent expend! tur

aggregating $1.000 or more after the 2

day, but more than 24 hours, before th

election. The dates that apply to the 

hour reporting requirement for indepe

expenditures are shown below.

a Republican convention: 8/6-8/23

a Democratic convention: 8/19-9/5

o General Election: 10/17-11/3

The report must be filed within 2

hours after the expenditure is made.

Although most PACs normally file with 

FEC, 24-hour notices disclosing indep

expend1tures on behalf of House candi

are filed wi th the Clerk of the House

copy must also be filed with the state

filing office (address given below). 

4

VIRGINIA SPECIAL ELBCTI(H)

Virginia has scheduled November 5 as

the date of the special general election to

fill the 7th Congressional District seat of

Congressman D. French Slaughter, Jr., Who

plans to resign on November S. The Republican and Democratic nominating conventions, which function as primary elections,

are scheduled for August 25 and September

7, respectively. Political cOfll'tlittees

authorized by candidates participating in

these special elections must file reports

according to' the tables that appear on the

opposite page. These conmittees should

also refer to the FEe reporting notice on

the virginia special elections sent to

participating candidates.

PACs and party committees may also have

to file special election reports, as

explained below.

call the FEC for further information

(800/424-9530 or 202/376-3120).

Authorized CoIIImittees:

48-Bour Notices on COntributions

Authorized committees must file special

notices on contributions of $1,000 or more

that are received after the 20th day but

more than 48 hours before an election. The

dates that apply to the 48-hour notice

requirement for the special elections are

shown below.

o Republican Convention: 816-8;22

o DelllOcratic Convention: 8/19-9/4

o General Election: 10/17-11;'2

Please note that this special notice

requirement applies to all types of contributions, including:

o In-kind contributions;

o Loans (other than bank loans);

o Guarantees and endorsements of bank

loans; and

o Contributions, personal loans and

endorsements of bank loans made by the

candidate.

The notice must reach the Clerk of the

House and the Virigina Board of Elections

within 48 hours after the committee's

receipt of the contribution. (The Virginia

address is given under "state Filing,"

below. ) Forty-eight-hour notices may be

faxed to the Clerk of the House. The fax

number is: 202/225-7781. Note that only

48-hour notices may be submitted by fax

machine because they do not requi re the

treasure r's si9TIature; other repo rts and

statements may not be faxed. AD 1988-32.

August 1991
5

Pre-- and Post~lection Beports for the NovedJer 5 General Election

OCtober 24

December 5

August 26

August 13

Volume 17, Number 

(for example, the rorm 3x summa[)' page and

any schedules that disclose contributions

or expenditures on behalf of the candidate). 2 U.S.C. S439(a); 11 eFR 108.3.

COOrdinated Party Sper¥linq Limits

The coordinated party spending limit

for the Virginia House seat is

$26,500. This amount may be spent by the

party's national convnittee on behalf of the

party's nominee in the special general

election. State party committees in

Virginia may also spend up to $26,500 on

behalf of the party's nominee. 11 ern

llO.7(b).

october 21

December 5

August 10

August 23

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

OCtober 16

November 25

August 18

August 5

Pre-general

Post-general

Report Closing Dati Reg.jCert. Mailing DIlte2 Filinq Date

Republican

Pre-convention

Deroocratic

Pre-convention

l1eport Closinq Date1 Reg./Cert. Jllailing Date2 Filing Date

OOTE: Authorized committees of general election candidates must file both the pre- and

post-election reports. PACs and party cotlmittees should see "Semiarmual Filers," opposite

page, for special election filing requirements.

Pre-convention Reports for the August 2.5 Republican Convention

and the 5ept:edler 7 Democratic Convention

NOTE: Authorized. committees of candidates seeking nomination at a convention must file th

appropriate pre-convention report. PACs and party corrmittees should see "semlannual

Filers, II opposite page, for special election filing requi rereent.s,

August 1991

more information on this f'eporting

requir-ement, see 11 erR l04.4(bl and (c)

and 104.5(g).

state Filing'

In addition to filing with the Clerk of

the House or the FEC, committees filing

Virginia special election reports must also

file copies of reports with the Virginia

State Board of Elections. 200 North Ninth

Street, SUite 101, Richmond, VA 23219.

Authorized committees of candidates

must file the entire report; other conmittees must file only the portion of the

report that is applicable to the candidate

IThis date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins on

the day following the closing date of the last report filed. If the con:un.ittee is new and

has not previously filed a report, the first report DtUst cover all 1991 activity that

occurred before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became 

candidate. Candidates participating in the special elections should refer to the FEe

reporting notice on the Virginia special elections.

2Reports sent by registered or certified mail nust be postmarked by the mailing date.

otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

•

•

•
August 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17,Num

ADVISQRY.OPINIONS

MNISORY OPnn~ ~'1'S

Recent requests for advisory opinions

(!\DRs) are listed below. The full text of

each AOR is available for review and comment in the FEe's Public Records Office.

.N>R 1991-20

Telephone service bureau's provision of

900-line services to political committees.

(Date Made Public: July 3. 1991. Length:

9 pages plus attachments)

ACIl 1991-21

Terminating PAC's payment of residual funds

to individual who formed the cOOlllittee.

(Date Made Public: July 8, 1991; Length:

4 pages)

NJa 1991-22

rECA's preemption of Minnesota law under

which federal candidates may qualify for

state public funds if they observe spending

limits. (Date Made Public: July 9, 1991;

Length: 5 pages plus attachment)

1lOR 1991-23

Donation of raffle prize for trade

association PAC's 'fundraiser by nonmember

of association. (Date Made Public: July

15, 1991; Length: 2 pages)

JlOR 1991-24

Partisan communications by national trade

aS6ociation to representatives of member

state associations. (Date Made Public:

July 17, 1991; Length: 5 pages plus

attachments)

H)R 1991-25

Effect of special election on party c~ttees' ballot composition ratio. (Date Made

Public: July 22, 1991; Len9th: 4 pages)

.ADI1ISORY OPINIctf SUMMi\RIES

AD 1991-12: Transfer from Candidate's

JIlllti-Purpose cemni.ttee to

campaign cOllDi.ttee

The Schroeder Fund for the Future, Inc.

may transfer the balance of its funds

($467,000) to Representative Patricia

Schroeder's 1992 House campaign committee.

This transfer is permissible because the

committees are affiliated by virtue of MS.

Schroeder's control over both of them.

Donations contained in the transfer, however, must be aggregated with contributions

6

from the same donors to Ms. Schroeder

1992 primary election campaign. 

The Schroeder Fund for the Future 

Fund) was established in 1987 as Ms.

Schroeder's Presidential testing-the-w

committee. In 1988, it changed its st

to a self-described "organization asso

ated with a public official and certai

views on public policy, but no longer 

a candidate for any federal office." 

Fund incorporated under state law sole

for liability purposes. It filed a 19

federal tax return as a "political org

zation." The Fund also continued to f

FEe disclosure reports.

Now, however, the Fund proposes to

engage in campaign-related activity by

transferring the balance of its funds 

the Schroeder for Congress Conunittee, 

Ms. Schroeder's 1992 campaign committe

(the Schroeder committee). The Fund t

plans to terminate.

Affiliation

Because Ms. Schroeder controls bot

commdttees foc campaign-related purpos

the two committees are affiliated.

2 U.S.C. §441(a)(S); 11 eFR 100.5(9)(2

llQ.3(a)(1)(ii). As affiliated commi

the Fund's transfer to the Schroeder 

Committee is not subject to any limit.

11 CFR 102.6(a)(1) and 110.3(c)(1).

Registration and Reporting

Because the proposed transfer will

exceed $1,000, the Fund will become a

political committee, subject to federa

registration and reporting. 2 U.S.C.

5431(4) (A); 11 eFR 100. 5( a) • The Fund 

have to file Statement of Organizati

an authorized c~ttee of Ms. Schroe

1992 campaign.

lIn AO 1990-7, the Commission detetmdn

that the Fund could not make unlimited

transfers to Ms. Schroeder's 1990 Hous

campaign committee. The Fund had prop

that it be treated as a "previous camp

commi.ttee," which is permitted to make

unlimited transfers to the candidate's

current campaign committee under 11 er

110.3(3)(c)(4). The Commission, howe

disagreed. The agency concluded that,

because Ms. Schroeder never became a

Presidential candidate, the Fund did n

qualify as a previous campaign commit

Moreover, the Fund had asserted that i

not affiliated with MS. Schroeder's Ho

campaign committee, although the Comm

emphasized that it did not necessarily

agree with that assertion.
FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

August 1991

In its first report, the Fund must

disclose, and itemize as necessary, the

sources of it beginning cash on hand-those

donations most recently received before the

funds are transferred. Prohibited funds

must be excluded from the beginning cash

balance (but the Fund has indicated it

received no such funds). Donations that

exceed the limits must also be excluded, as

explained below. 11 era 104.12.

Aggregation of cant~ibutions

DOnations making up the Fund's present

cash on hand must be aggregated with any

contributions made by the same donors to

tile SChroeder" Coomittee for the upcoamq

election, the 1992 primary. DOnations that

exceed the applicable limit ($1, 000 for an

individual donor, $5,000 for a multieandidate committee donor) must be excluded from

the Fund's cash on hand-the amount transferred. For example, if an individual

donated $800 to the Fund and also contributed $500 to the Schroeder Committee for

the 1992 primary, the Fund would have to

exclude $300 from its cash on hand. In

this way the COJIlmittee would avoid receiving a contribution that exceeded the $1,000

per election limit.

Excessive arnoWlts, however, may be

redesignated by contributors. Using the

above example, the Schroeder Commdttee

could request that the individual redesignate $300 as a 1992 general election

contribution, but the COImnittee would have

to obtain the redesignation within 60 days

of its receipt of the original $500 contribution. 11 CrR 103.3(b)(3J. Alternatively, the FUnd could request that the

individual redesignate $300 of the $800

donation; in that case, the Fund would have

to obtain the redesignation within 60 days

after it filed a statement of Organization.

All donations in the Fund's cash

balance must be aggregated, regardless of

when they were made or foc what purpose.

The rund had proposed that funds reeeived

before September 28, 1987-the date Ms.

Schroeder announced that she was terminating her presidential testing-the-wate(s

effort--should not be subject to aggregation because they consisted of contributions made in connection with the 1988

election (i.e., they already counted

against the limit for that election).

However, those funds were not contributions

at all because they were donated in

connection with Ms. Schroeder's testingthe-waters effort and she never became a

Presidential candidate. 11 erR 100.7(b)(I)

and 100.8(b)(1).

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott filed a

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: June

7

Volume 17, Number 

14, 1991; Length: 6 pages plus 2-page

di5sent~

AD 1991-14: State Tax Checkoff FuJds used

for Partyps Federal Activity

The Republican pacty of Kentucky (RPK) may

use state income tax checkoff funds for it

federal activity.

under Kentucky law, an individual

taxpayer may designate $1 of his or her

taxes to a poli tical party. Recipient

party committees may use the funds only to

support general election nominees and to

maintain party headquarters. the committees must also deposi t the funds in a

separate account.

As a general rule, funds from state ta

checkoffs or fees paid for state services

may be deposited in a state party's federa

account and used for federal election

activity. ADs 1983-15, 1982-17, 1980-103

and 1918-9.

RPK has already designated the bank

which maintains RPfl;'s separate account for

checkoff funds as an additional federal

campaign depository. Because this account

holds only funds permissible under the

Federal Election campaign Act--checkoff

funds from individual taxpayers-it complies with FEe regulations on federal

accounts. See 11 erR 102.5(a)(1).

Funds deposited in the account are not

considered. contributions from the individual taxpayers because the checkoff neither

increases the amount of taxes owed nor

decreases any refund due. AD 1983-15, not

1. Instead, the proceeds arc considered

miscellaneous receipts from the state

agency. RPK should report them as such,

with a note explaining their source.

2 U.S.C. §434(b)(2)(J) and (3){G); 11 eFR

104.3(a)(2)(viii){A) and (4)(vi). see als

AD 1982-17.

Commissioner Thomas J. Josefiak filed 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: June 6

1991; Length: 4 pages plus l2-page

dissent)

HJ 1991-15: Party CtxIIlli.ttee·s Transfer to

Correct FederClil Account' 6

OVerpayment of Allocated

ElCpenses

The Democratic Party of Georgia (GnP) may

transfer funds from its nonfederal accoun

to its federal account to correct the

federal account's overpayment of its share

of joint expenses due to a miscalculated

ballot composition raUo. Aithough FEG

regulations require that transfers

represenating allocation payments from a

(continued
August 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

nonfederal account to a federal account be

made within a 40-<1ay period, GOP may make

the proposed transfer after the period has

expired because of special circumstances:

a good faith miscalculation of the ratio

that resulted in the federal account's

subsidizing nonfederal activity.

Ballot Composition Patio

under new allocation rules, which

became effective at the start of 1991,

state and local party committees with

separate federal and nonfederal accounts

must allocate their admdnistrative expenses

and generic voter drive costs between those

accounts using the "balLot composition

method." 11 ern. 106.S(d). This ratio is

based on the number of federal offices

compared with the total number of federal

and nonfederal offices expected to be on

the ballot in the next general election

held in the cormni.ttee' 5 state or geographic

area. 11 CFR 106.5(d)(1)(i). The ratio is

calculated at the start of each two-year

federal election cycle. Thus, the ratio

for the 1991-92 cycle is based on the

November 1992 general election ballot.

GOP originally calculated the ratio for

the 1991-92 cycle as 50 percent federal/50

percent nonfederal and used this ratio from

January 1 through March 17, when it recalculated the ratio as 37 percent federal/63 percent nonfederal. The 37/63 ratio

is the correct ratio, ~sed on the November

1992 ballot in Georgia.

Transfer to Correct Miscalculation

Had GOP used the 37 percent/63. percent

ratio from the beginning of the cycle

(January 1), the nonfederal account would

have transferred an additional $16,353 to

the federal account to pay for the nonfederal share of expenses. GOP's nonfederal account may nOW' transfer this

amount to correct the nonfederal underpayment, even though the transfer will take

place outside the 40-day payment period.

Normally, transfers from the nonfederal

I The Georgia ballot will include three

federal offices: u.s. president, U.S.

senator (one seat) and u.s. Representative,

for a total of three federal points. The

nonfederal portion of the ballot will total

five nonfederal points: state senator,

state representative, two statewide executive offices and partisan local offices

(one point). 11 CF.R l06.S(d)(1)(ii). The

correct share of federal expenses is therefore 3/8 (three federal points divided by

eight total points) or 37 percent.

8

Volume 17, Num

account to the federal account to pay 

allocable expenses must be made no mor

than 10 days before or 30 days after t

federal account makes the payment. 11 

106.5(g)(2)(i1)(8). GOP's situation,

however, is analogous to AD 1983-22, i

which the Commission considered specia

circumstances in allowing a separate

segregated fund to accept reimbursemen

frOtn its connected orqanization for an

administrative expense after the reimb

ment period had expired (see 11 eFR

l14.5(b)(3)). In GOP's case, the spec

cirCUIllStances involve an honest miscal

tion and an overpayment by the federal

account. Thus, the adjustment will no

result in the use of nonfederal funds 

influence federal elections but, rathe

wi11 reimburse the federal account for

disbursements it made to influence non

federal elections.

Reporting the Revised Batio and

Nonfederal Transfer

On Schedule H1, wlch shows the al

tion formula applied to administrative 

generic voter drive costs, GOP should 

the correct ratio with a note explaini

that an incorrect 50/50 ratio was used

during the period January 1 through M

17, and that corrective adjustments ap

on Schedules H3 and 84. When reportin

$16,353 transfer from the nonfederal

account on Schedule 83, GOP should not

that the transfer reflects a correctio

the ratio used through Marc!) 17. Fina

on Schedule H4, which shows disburseme

for joint federal/llonfederal activity, 

should itemize payments made between J

ary 1 and March 17 based on the origin

calculation of the ratio. The committ

should then disclose the $16,353 adjus

on one line, showing it as a negative 

for the federal share and a positive e

for the nonfederal share, with the tot

amount as zero. The name/address bloc

should be used to explain the adjustae

(e.g., adjustment for incorrect ratio 

1/1/91-3/17/91) • The opinion includes sample fonns

illustrating how the committee should 

out the schedules. (Pate Issued: Jun

1991; Length: 10 pages, including sam

foms)

AD 1991-16: Sale/U'6e Bestriction App

to FEe FOI1D5 Filed Under

IJXli.ana Law 

Indiana PACs that are registered under 

federal and state laws are permitted t

duplicates of completed FEe reports (f

on Form 3X) to fulfill their state rep
FEDERAL ELECllON COMMISSION

•

•

•

August 1991

iog obligations. Because information on

individual contributors itemized on reports

filed with the FEe is protected under

federal law--regardless of where duplicates

of the report.s are filed-Edward D. Feigenbaum may not copy such information from the

duplicate reports for use in a database he

intends to sell.

Mr. Feigenbaum plans to publish and

sell a campaign finance database on Indiana

candidates and political committees,

obtaining the data from reports filed under

state law with the Indiana State Election·

BOard. He intends to list names, cities

and states when identifying personsincluding individuals-who made contributions to or received disbursements from

Indiana committees.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act

and FEe regulations, itemized information

on individuals who are listed as contributors on FEe forms may not be sold or used

for the purpose of soliciting contributions

or for conanercial purposes. 2 U.S.C.

5438(a)(4); 11 eFR 104.15(a). The prinCipal purpose of this restriction is to

protect individuals who have contributed to

committees. See, for example, ADs 1989-19

and 1980-101.

Because he plans to use the information

for ccmrnercial purposes (Le., he plans to

sell the database presumably at a profit),

Mr. Feigenbaum may not include information

on individual contributors taken from

dUplicate FEC reports filed under Indiana

law.

FEe rules make clear that the salejUse

restriction applies to copies of FEe

reports that committees file with state

officers. (See 2 U.S.C. 5439(a)(2)(B);

11 ern roe: 3. l In this case, even though

the Indiana PACs are submitting copies of

their federal reports as an alternative

method of complying with Indiana law, the

copies are still subject to the saleJUse

restriction. The protection afforded to

individual contributors would be meaningless if it depended on where the reports

were filed.

The restriction would not, however,

apply to individuals who are reported as

the recipients of committee disbursements,

unless the transaction reflected an in-kind

contribution (which federal corrmittees must

report as an operating expenditure as well

a contribution) or a refund of a contribution previously made by an individual.

Nor would the restriction apply to

individual contributors who were added, or

listed on a supplement, to the copy of the

FEe filing to comply with the Indiana law's

$100 threshold for itemization, which is

lower than the federal law's $200 thresh9

Volume 17,Numbe

old. However, if the committee, as a

matter of convenience, chooses to use the

lower itemization threshold in reports

filed with the FEC, all the entries would

be subject to the federal sale/Use restric

tion.

Commdssioner Scott E. Thomas filed a

concurring opinion. (Date Issued: June

18, 1991; Length: 5 pages plus 2-pag9

concurrence)

.AD 1991-17: COrporate Sponsorship of

"Good Citizenship" video Tape

Featuring MeDber of congress

Congressman Gary A. Franks may appear in a

video tape produced a tax-exempt, nonpartisan corporation and financed by a

business corporation without a prohibited

contribution resulting; the activity is

exempt from the definition of contribution

under FEC rules on nonpartisan voter

messages and voter drives sponsored by

corporations.

Video Tape Content, Funding and

Distribution

The Committee for Citizen Awareness

(CCAl, a tax-exellpt corporation under

26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3), was established to

address the problem of low voter turnout i

u.s. elections and to encourage good

citizenship. To this end, it has produced

and distributed numerous video tapes

featuring Members of Congress--videos

similar to the proposed video featuring

Congressman Franks.

In sample videos submitted with the

advisory opinion request, the featured . Member describes a pending issue before

Congress, explains the Member'S committee

assignments and invites constituents to

write or call the Memberrs office.

Another part of the video with a voic

over narration gives a "behind the scene"

look at how the U.S. Congress works,

explaining, among other things, how a bil

becomes a law.

CCA receives funding for the video

tapes from sponsor corporations that do

business in the featured Member's home

state. In the sample videos, a represent

tive of the corporation'speaks about

declining voter participation and stresse

the importance of voting.

CCA maintains control over the produc

tion and distribution of videos, which

reach high school students, civic groups,

cable television viewers and company

employees, among others.

(continued
August 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMNIISSION Volume 17, Num

Application of Act and FEe Rules

If the content CCA's video tapes were

restricted to nonelection-related areas,

such as explaining the duties and functions

of congress or a Member of Congress, the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and

FEe rules would not apply. However, the

campaign finance laws are implicated

because the videos include references to

voting in federal elections.

The Act and FEC regulations prohibit

corporations from making contributions or

expenditures in connection with a federal

election. 2 U.S.C. §44lb(a); 11 CFR

114.2(b). FEe rules, however, contain

certain exceptions to the definition of

contribution. If a corporate activity

related to federal elections comes within

an exception, the costs do not result in a

contribution or expenditure by the corporation. 'IWo of these exceptions apply to

CCA's videos.

Nonpartisan voter Jllessages. The

regulations permdt a corporation to finance

nonpartisan voter education messages and

convey them to the general public. 11 CFR

114.4(b)(2). The C~ videos satisfy

certain factors that indicate a message is

nonpartlsan:

o 'ltIe message emits naming any candidate

(or, alternatively, names all candidates

for a given officeJ 11 ern 114.4(b) (2)

(i )(A). The CCA videos do nat name any

candidate; the only reference made to the

featured Member's election is the year

the Member was first elected to congress.

a '!'be message 0IIli.ts. mention of any pelitical party (except the party affiliation

of listed candidates). 11 crn 114.4(b)

(2)(i)(B). The videos do not refer to

any political party or to the Member's

party affiliation.

o '!be message is limited to urging the

public to register and vote am to naming

the times and places for registration and

voting. 11 CFR 114.4(b)(2)(i)(C). In

the CCA videos, the voting messages are

limited to brief portrayals of caJtg?aign

scenes in which no Member or political

party is identified and to an appeal by

the corporate sponsor's representative

for increased voter turnout.

Nonpartisan Voter Drives. The

regulations also permit corporations to

donate funds (and personnel and facilities)

for nonpartisan voter registration and getout-the-vote drives directed to the general

public. 11 CFR 114.4(c)(I) and (2). To

the extent the CCA videos have elements of

a vatet drive, the videos satisfy the

criteria for the exemption:

10

o '1tle project must be cosponsored and

conducted by a nonpartisan, nonprof

organization that is tax exempt. Sp

ically, the cosponsor must be a taxexempt organization (under 26 U.S.C.

§501(c)(3) or (4») that does not sup

endorse or oppose candidates or part

11 CFR 114.4(c){1)(A) and (B). In t

case, CCA is listed by the IRS as a

501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity prohibit

from participating or intervening in 

political campaign. ('!he Commission

presumes that CCA conducts its activ

in compliance with the Internal Reve

Code and IRS regulations.) Moreover

CCA-rather than the corporation fin

ing the video---canducts and controls 

project.

o services _t be offered without reg

to a voter's political preference. 1

114.4(c)(1)(C). In this case, the p

posed video will be distributed to

schools in Congressman Franks' distr

The Commdssion presumes that the dis

bution will be made without regard t

political demographics or the timing 

future elections in which Mr. Franks

may be a candidate.

The commdssion expressed no opinio

the possible application of House rule

which are outside its jurisdiction. (

Issued: JWle 14, 1991; Length: 6 pag

FEe TO OOLD IN BCJS'J:m, CHI

The FEe will hold two-day regional

conferences in Boston and Chicago to a

candidates, political party organizati

and PACS with their preparations for t

1992 elections.

o The Boston conference is scheduled f

September 11-12; details appear belo

o The Chicago conference will be held 

November 14-15. Further information 

this conference will appear in a fut

issue. In the meantime, call the FE

place your name on the mailing list 

an invitation to the conference (800

9530 or 202/376-3120).

Boston Conference

In addition to workshops on the fe

campaign laws, the Boston conference w

include a workshop on the Massachuset

campaign laws ptesented by the

Massachusetts Office of campaign and

Political Finance. In addition, a

representative of the Internal Revenue
FEDERJ\LELECTION COMMISSION

Service will be available to answer

election-related tax questions.

. .... 

... :'

Volume 17, Number

no charge. (Call 800/424-9530 and ask for

Public Records or call the office

directly--202/376-3140.)

FEC' v; POPULIST PAR'lY

(90-229 and 90-7169)

On May 31, 1991, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a

per curiam decision, granted the FEC's

motion for summary reversal of a district

court order that had imposed a date by

which the commission had to conclude its

investigation of the Populist party.

(Civil Action No. 90-7169.) The appeals

court said the district court had exceeded

its jurisdiction by setting the deadline.

The FEe had filed suit in the U.S•

District Court for the District of Columbi

seeking enforcement of subpoenas and order

the agency had issued to the Populist part

and other respondents in an internal

enforcement case (Matter Under Review or

HUR). The district court, on October 18,

1990, ordered the respondents to furnish

the information to the Comission by Novem

ber 15, 1990. The court, however , also

ordered the agency to conclude its investi

gation by November 29, 1990. The FEC

appealed this portion of the order, and th

district court granted a stay of the

deadline pending resolution of the appeal.

In its motion for summary reversal of

the district court order, the FEC argued

that the court had exceeded its limited

jurisdiction under 2 U.S.C. S437d(b), the

subpoena enforcement provision of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act 1•

The FEe said: "Section 437d(b) bestows no

license on the court to decide where the

Commission's limdted resources will be

directed or to determine how the underlyin

investigation should be run. It

The FEC also argued that the Act does

not provide for judicial review of the

length of a Commission investigation that

arises from an agency-generated enforcemen

case, such as the case involving the Populist Party. But even in cases that

originate from outside parties, only the

complainants--not the respondents--have th

right to seek judicial review of an investigation's pace. 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8) . The appeals court found the merits of

the Comrnission's position 11so clear as to

justify summary action."

11

. , .

." .,'.

:PARTY ACTIVITIES":

Botel. The conference will be held at

the Sheraton Boston Hotel and Towers, 39

Dalton street, Boston, MA 02199. Call

617/236-2000 for room reservations. To

receive the group rate of $140 per night,

notify the hotel that you will be attending

the FEe conference.

Reqiistration Information. The $130

registration fee covers the cost of the

conference, materials and meals (breakfast

and lunch each day). CalL the FEe to order

a registration form and schedule of workshops (800/424-9530 or 202/376-3120). The

registration fo~ with the fee enclosed

must be postmarked by August 28 to avoid a

$10 late fee.

l'Ihe Record has published the party ·spending limits for 1991 special elections that

have been scheduled thus far: $26I 500 for

the House races in Arizona, Illinois,

Massachusetts, Texas and Virginia; $481,602

for the Pennsylvania Senate race.

August 1991

1991 PARTY' SPJ!1'i[[)!Mi LIMITS

A July 3, 1991, press release lists the

coordinated party expenditures limits

effective for 1991. 'I.'lfese limi ts apply to

1991 special elections and also provide a

preliminary estimate of the 1992 limits,

Which will not be available until the early

months of next year. (The Record usually

publishes election-year limits in the March

issue.) The party spending limits apply to

expenditures that national and state party

committees may make on behalf of the

party's candidates in the general election.

See 2 U.S.C. §441a(d).

The 1991 coordinated party expenditure

lim! t for a House candidate is:

o In most states, $26,500 ($10,000

multiplied by 2.65, the 1990 cost-ofiiving adjustment); or

o In states with only one House seat,

$53,000 ($20,000 multiplied by 2.65).

For a list of the 1991 limits for

Senate candidates, which are based on state

voting age populations, see the July 3

press release ("1991 party spending Limits

Set for Off-Year Elections" l, which is

available from the Public Records Office at

•

•

•
August 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION CONlrvJISSION

.. J

RmISTBIC'l"IIt3

This article discusses how the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and FEe

regulations apply to redistricting: the

process of drawing new congrefsional districts after reapportionment. To obtain

copies of the advisory opinions (AOS) cited

in the article, contact the FEe's Public

Records Office at 800/424-9530 or 202/376-

3140.

Efforts to Influence Bedi.stdcting

Not SUbject to the Act

The U.S. Constitution mandates the

reapportionment of COngressional seats

based on the results of the census. The

Cooanission views the mandatory reapportionment process--and the related state

decisions on redistricting--as separate and

distinct fCQIll the process of influencing

the election of individuals to federal

office. AD 1981-35. See also ADs 1990-23,

1982-37 and 1982-14. Consequently, the

following redistricting activities,

although political in nature, are not

subject to the Act or FEe regulations:

o Conducting research, such as population

studies and map drawing;

o Lobbying a state legislature; and

o Challenqing state redistdcting plans in

the courts. ADs 1982-37, 1982-14, 1981-

58 and 1981-35.

candidate'S Involvement in Redistricting

Paid with caapaign Funds. A candidate

may use the funds of his or her authorized

committee to pay for redistricting activities.payments for these activities must

be reported by the cORiltittee as "other

disbursements" on Line 21 of FEC Form 3.

AD 1981-58. See also 2 U.S.C. §434(b)

(4)(G); 11 ern 104.3(b)(4)(vi).

Paid by separate COODittee. As another

alternative, a candidate or a group of

candidates may establish a separate committee used solely to raise and spend funds

for redistricting activity. Unlike an

authorized committee, a separate redis~

tricting cOIllllittee is not subject to the

1Reapportionment.is the reallocation of

Congressional districts among the states

based on census results announced by the

Census Bureau.

12

Volume 17, Num

Act's contribution limits, prohibition

reporting requirements. ADs 1990-23, 

37 and 1981-35. Therefore, it may acc

donations from:

o Corporations,

o Labor organizations,

o Federal contractors,

o National banks and

o Foreign nationals. 1\0 1981-35, note 

please note that, to operate outsi

the Act's restrictions, a separate re

tricting committee must be independen

the candidate'S ca:q>aign~ it may not b

established as a separate account of t

candidate t 5 authorized committee. NJ 

23.

Moreover. in order to remain outsi

the Act's jurisidiction, a redistricti

committee must not:

o Engage in activities that could be

construed as election influencing (f

example, making references to the

individual's candidacy for federal

offioe--see AD 1990-23, note 4);

o Donate services or computer data to 

federal political committee; or

o Transfer prohibited funds to any fed

political committee. AD 1981-35.

party Involvement in Redistricting 

A party comUttee may establish a

separate account to raise and spend fu

to influence redistricting. A party

committee's redistricting account is n

subject to the Act's limitations, pro

tions or reporting requirements as lon

the committee refrains from using the

account for federal election activity

This means that fWlds in a redistricti

account may not be:

a Transferred to a federal account of 

party committee~

o Used to pay for any services or com

data donated to a federal candidate 

federal political commdttee; or

a Used to finance any federal election

advocacy. AO 1962-14.

Effect of Bedistricting on

candidate'S CUpaign

As a result of redistrieting, a

candidate may switch his or her campa

another Congressional district. In su

cases, campaign activity in the two

districts is considered to be activity 

the same election. The Commission ha

taken this view because redistricting 

not change the office that the candid

running for: U.S. Representative from 

or her state. AD 1982-22.

Beport1nq Bequi.rements after Redi

trictinqe When candidates change dis
FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

August 1991

in mid-campaign, they do not have to designate a new campaign COIlItl.ittee. Rather,

they may continue to use the cOIlllllittee

originally designated on the Statement of

candidacy (FEe Form 2). AC 1962-22.

After changing districts, however, a

candidate must file an amended Statement of

Ocqanization (FEe Fonn 1), or a letter,

identifying the new district. The amendment must be filed, within 10 days of the

change in district, with both the Clerk of

the House and the appropriate state office.

11 CFR l02.2(a)(2); see AD 1960-30.

Effect on contribution Limits•. Contributions received before and after a candidate changes districts are considered to be

for the same election (unless the contributor has designated them for another election). one contribution lintit applies to

the election. In order to be sure that

contributors do not exceed their per-election contribution limits, all authorized

cotmLittee must aggregate contributions made

by one source before and af~er the candi~te changes congressional districts. AO

1982-22.

CLEARINGHOUSE

CLEARIlGDlSE PUBLICATICfiS

OF IN'l'EREST 'lU CCIVIITl'EES

The FEe's Clearinghouse on Electi03

Administration has published several

reports that may be helpful to candidates,

political parties and political committees.

These volumes are available at most federal

depository libraries (state, university and

major metropolitan libraries). 1hey may

also be purchased from the GOvernment

Printing Office. To order the reports

described below, list the title and stock

number, enclose a check payable to the

Superintendent of Documents and mail to:

SUperintendent of DoculIents

U.S. Government Printing Office

washington, DC 20402

For further information on any publication, call the Clearinghouse: 800/424-9530

(ask for the Clearinghouse) or 202/376-

5670. please note that the Clearinghouse

cannot handle orders, 'Which must be made

through the Government Printing Office, as

explained above.

Ballot Access (Autumn 1988)

This series addresses the process by

which parties and candidates come to appear

on the ballot.

13

Volume 17, Number 

o VOlume 1: Issues and Options

052-006-00042-2, $ 4.50

Designed primarily for state policymakers, Volume 1 is a comprehensive study

of current issues and trends in ballot

access law throughout the u.s.

o Volume 2: For Congressional candiOates

052-006-00046-5, $10.00

o volUllle 3: For Presidential candidates

052-006-00047-3, $ 9.00

Volumes 2 and 3 describe, for each state,

the ballot access requirements in both

primary and general elections for u.s.

House, Senate and Presidential candidates.

o Volume 4: For Political Parties

052-006-00048-1, $ 3.75

Volume 4 describes the rules in each

state for the formation and ballot access

of political parties.

Cupaign Finance Law 90: A sumary of

State Campaign Finance LaWS with Quick

Reference dlarts (March 1990)

052-006-00045-7. $23.00

This volume provides state-by-state

summaries of campaign finance laws and

regulations including- contribution and

expenditure limdts, solicitation rules,

reporting requirements and public financ1ng.

Election case Law 89: A SUlJIDary of Judi- •

cia! frecedent on Election Issues other

'!ban campaign Financing (February 1990)

052-006-0043-1, $18.00

This volume surveys the judicial treat

ment of election-related issues, among them

reapportionment, ballot access and voter

registration. The volume also serves as a

reference tool and starting point for

attorneys conducting research on a specific

election issue.

Contested Elections and Recenmts

(Autumn 1990)

o V01Ulle 1: Issues and Options in

Resolving Disputed Federal Elections

052-006-00049-0, $ 4.25

Volume 1 in this series, designed primar

ily for state policymakers, provides a

legal backgro~~ and explains procedures

for handling contested elections.

o voluoe 2: A SUIlDary of State Procedures

for Resolving Disputed Federal Elections

052-006-00050-3, $9.DO

Volume 2 describes the procedures follow

ed in each state, discussing such areas

as requisite conditions and filing forms

please note that candidates and other

parties interested in contesting an elec

tion should consult the state author!ty .
Volume 17, Num

I'IJR 3062

BIlspcadents: Wild-PAC, 

Monteith, treasurer (OR)

COlIplainant: Northwest 

forestation Contractors 

ation. Neil Stmmers, sec

treasurer (OR)

SUb1ect: Failure to reg

and file reports, failur

disclose connected organ

Disposition: Reason to 

but took no further actio

joint civil penalty; (g) 

reason to believe

MlJR 3024

Resp:lndents: North oak

Public Eaployf!es Associ

~nant; David H. C

1ND)

S\lbject: Improper solic

tions

Di8p08iticn: $500 civil

penalty

1'IJR 3056

Respondents: (all locat

NJl (a) National Comun

of New Jersey; (b) Henry

Bohnert; (c) Elmer E. Bu

III; (dl Carl Chirico,

(e) James Davidson; (fI 

Duncan; (9) Frank F1gure

(h) Anthony J. Franchina

(i) Louis Lombardi; (j l 

Roberts; (kJ William oor

(1) Arthur JWDirez; (m) 

w. Thaller

~ainant: FEe initia

SUbject; Contributions 

national bank; contribut

the name of another

Ddsposition: (a) $16,00

penalty; (b) $175 civil 

ty; (c) $125 civil pena

(d) $365 civil penalty; 

$5.000 civil penalty; (f

civil penalty; (g) $250 

penalty; (h) $11,150 civ

penalty; (i) $400 civil 

ty; (j) $700 civil pena

(k)-(ml reason to believ

took no further action

I'IJR 3150

Reap;lPdent&: Iowans far 

Sharon R. Winner, treasu

cc:..plai.nant: Iowa Demo

state party Committee, J

Roehrick, Chairman

SUbject: Failure to dis

campaign depositories an

kind contributions; corp

contribution

Dispositioo: (1) reason 

SUbject: Excessive coordinated

expend!tures; expenditures from

nonfederal account; failure to

report transactions correctly;

corporate contl:"ibutions

Disposition; (a)(l) u.s, district court: $2,000 civil

penalty (expenditures from

nonfederal account, reporting

violations); (2) reason to

believe but hUed to find

probable cause to believe

(excessive coordinated expe~itures); (3) no probable caUSe

to believe (corporate contributionS)1 {hI reason to believe

but took no further action

(excessive coordinated expenditures)

14

JIIJR 2678

Resptlldents: (a) The American

Citizens for political Action,

Robert E. Dolan, tt"easurer

(DC); (b) Mrs. paul Anderson

(CO); (c) Frank Darlin9ton

(PM; {d} Bernie J. Ruth (M'l'l;

(e) Harry Speelman (MD);

( f) caroline Bork (PA)

ca.plainant: FEe initiated Subject~ Excessive contributions

Disposition: (a) $11,000 civil

penalty; (b)-(d) reason to

believe but took no further

action1 (e) U.S. district court

court: judg:lrent to FEe;

{f) $1,000 civil penalty

JIIJR 2828

Respondents: oennis smith for

Congress, Terry E. Brown,

treasurer (1'1))

~JaiMnt: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

raport on time

Dispositioo: U.S. district

court: $4,000 civil penalty

_2993

Be8pOOdents: (a) Ernest

Criezls (~J; (b) Vjcki Crie2is

(CA); (c) The Great Greek, tne ,

• (CAl, (d) 'rt1e Great Greek, Ltd.

(CAj; (e) Moanlight Tango Cafe,

Ltd. (CA) J (f) HOOnlight TangO

cafe, Inc. (0.);

(g) DukakisjBentsen COllIllittee,

Inc., Robert A. Farner,

treasurer (MA) ~Ainant: Spero Criezis

(TXI

SUbject:: corporate contrUutions; contributions in name of

another

Dispositioo: (aj-(fl $1,500

August 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

:'?::~(~:~~'" ~.;.;/~:.'

:_',x.

IIJBS RELIW>ED 'ro 'l'BE PUBLIC

Listed below are MtlRs (FEe

enforcement cases) recently

released for public review.

'I1le list is based on the FEC

press releases of May 28 and

June 7, 13 and 20, 1991. Files

on elosed MURs are availabl.e

for review in the Public

Records Office.

lJnless otherwise twted,

civil penalties resulted from.

conciliation Agreements reached

between the I:"esp&ldents and the

comnillsicn.

JIIJR 1SB8

Bespondentsz (a) New Jersey

Republican State Comittee,

Frank B. Holman. trealiurer.

(h) John Dremesi for Congress,

RUssell E. Paul; treasurer

(NJ): (c) Re-Elect Hollenbeck

to congress, David I. KOrsh,

treasurer (DC), (d) R~ Redington for Congress, EUgene R.

Malnati, treasurer (NJ); et al.

(e)-{lll) --

coaplainant; FEC initiated

SUbject: Excessive and prohibited contributions; inaccurate

reporting; allocation of expenseE

Disposition: (a) $12,000 civil

penalty; (b) U.S district

court: $10,000 civil penalty

plUS interest and costs;

Ie) u.s district court: summary

judgment to defendant; (d) $375

civil penalty; (e)-(m) reason

to believe but took no further

action

_ 2336

Respondents= (a) William Wood-

'Ward Webb (NC); (b1 i'1ebb for

congress committee, Roy o.

Fowler, III, treasurer (NC);

(c) Mrs. M. woodwtllrd Webb (AL)

ee.p1&inant: FEe imtiated

Stmject: Excessive conttibution; inaccurate disclosure

Dispositian: (a) and (b) u.s.

district court: $5,000 civil

penalty; (c) probable cause to

believe but took no fUt"ther

action

JUt 2370

RespD;Jents: (a) west Virginia

Republican State Executive COI'Ilmittee, Jack Rossi, treasurer;

(b) Republican National Conmittee, Wi lliam. J. MclIIanus,

treasurer (DC)

CcIIp1aimnt: FEe initiated
FEDERALELECTION CONlrvllSSION

•

•

•

August 1991

believe but took no further

action (depositories); (2) no

reason to believe (other

allegations)

!'IJR 3184

Re&pOQdents: Rolde for U.S.

Senate Campaign, Larry J.

Kennedy, treasurer (HE)

COIIp1ai.nant: FEC iniHated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-

hour notices

Ddepcsition: $2,100 civil

penalty

IUl 3201

ReSpondents: Kolstad for U.S.

Senate CoDmittee, Jeanne

Amsberry, treasurer (MT) ~Jajnant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-

hour notices

Dispoaitian: $1,130 civil

penalty

JIIJR 3218

RlBlUdents: (a) Blackwell for

conqress CODIlIittee, Donald C.

AUberger, treasurer (OH);

(b) Ohio Republican Party

Federal candidates Committee.

Virginia S. Cheney, treasurer;

(c) National Republican Congressional COIlIIIlittee-Expendltures, Jack McDonald. treasurer

(DC)

The first number in each

citation refers to the nnumber~

(month) of the 1991 Record

issue in which the article

appeared; the second number,

following the colon, indicates

the page number in that issue.

.ADVISCEr OPINICMS

1990-14: AT,T's 9tlO-Une

fundraising service, 2:4

1990-19: Vendor/comni ttee

relationship; sale and

repurchase of fundraising

items, 1:8

1990-22: Blue Cross/B1ue

Shield's solicitation of

member plans' personnel, 1:9

1990-25: Parent corporation'S

obligations to ':labor

organization under

twice-yearly provisions, 2:5

1990-26: Sale of call1paign

a&scti personal. use of excess

funds after November 30,

1989, 3:7

1990-27: Transfec to party's

CoIIplainant: paul 5ylvester,

trea6Urer, Luken for congress

COfI1ltittee (OR)

SUbject: Excessive coordinated

expendi tures

Disposition: (a)-(c) No reason

to believe

MlJR 3225

Re8pMdents: Hughes for Congress, Harriet oamasek. treasurer (P"L)

CDIp1ainant: FEC initiated

Suhdect: Failure to file 48-

hour :lotices

Disposition: $2,000 civil

penalty

IIUt 3231

Bes:pcndents: Whitman for U.S.

Senate CODmittee, Inc., Ann W.

West, treasurer (NJ)

CCIIplainant: 'fEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48-

hour notices

Di8p08itiM: $1,700 civil , penalty

IIUt 3244

Respmdents: Consumer Bankers

Association Political Action

ccmmittee, Jayne E. Hunt,

treasut"er (VAl

oa.pJ~inant: FEe initiated

SubjH!t: Failure to file

reports on time; treasurer's

INDEX'

federal account of funds

mistakenly deposited in state

aecount, 3:9

1990-29: Return to federal

account of funds transferred

to state account, 4:5

1990-30: Designation of postelection contributions to

retire debts, 4:6

1991-1: credit card

contributions to nonconnected

PAC of federal contractor

partnership, 5:4

1991-2: Disposition of possibly

illegal funds raised through

900-line telephone calls, 5:5

1991-3: PAC newsletter distributed outside restricted

class, 6:6

1991-4: Payment to Senate

eIlIPloyee for two-week

teaching appointment, 5:6

1991-5: Party office building

fund; preemption issues, 7:4

1991-6: Calculating ballot

composition [~tios;,allocating pre-1991 expenses, 6:6

15

Volume 17,Number

failure to sign reports

Disposition: $2,550 civil

penalty

l'IJR 3251

1le8pCl'ldents: Dick Nichols fo

Congress, David A. O'Dell,

treasurer (RS)

~ajnant: initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48

hour notices

Dlspoaitioo; $1,500 civil

penalty

JIIJR 3258

_spond.nbu Jim Jentz for

congress, Ruth H. shell,

treasurer (IN)

COIIplainlmt: FEe initiated

SUbdect: Failure to file 48

hour notices

Disposition: $1,300 civil

penalty

NJR 3262

Respondents: John Adler for

Conqress. Gerald E. Darling,

treasurer (NJ)

GaIp1ainant: FEe initlated.

Subject: Failure to file 48

hour notices

Di8pOaitimu $1,65{) civil

penalty

1991-8: payment to senator fo

radio series, 6:8

1991-9: Retroactive interes

payments on loans made by

candidate, 1:5

1991-10: Candidate'lii use of

assets jointly held with

spouse. 6~8

1991-12: Transfer from candi

date's multi-purpose cOlllD

tee to campai9J1 comittee,

8:6

1991-13: Labor union jointly

established by two other

unions, 7:5

1991-14: State tax checkoff

funds used for party' s

federal activity, 8:7

1991-15: Party committee's

transfer to correct federa

account' Iii overpayment Qf

allocated expenses, 8:7

1991-16: Sale/USe restriction

applied to FEe forms filed

under Indiana law, 8:8

(continued
August 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Num

FEe: STAFF 'IO VISIT BA.'lm RCXG!:, RALEIGH .AND SALT LAKE CITY

In August 1991, FEe public affairs specialists will hold informal meetings wit

candidates, party cOIl1ltlittees and PACs to help them cooply with the federal campaig

law. The cities and dates are given below. Anyone interested in scheduling a

meeting should call either of the specialists listed for the location. call 800/4

9530 or 202/376-3120.

o Baton Rouge, Louisiana-August 7; Janet Hess and Dorothy Hutcheon

o RaleiCJh, North carolina-August 13-14; Patricia Klein and Greg Scott

o salt Lake City, Ut:ah--August 20-21; Ian sti['ton and Kathlene Martin

1991-17: Corporate sponsorship

of ~900d citizenship" video

tape featuring Member of Conqn~ss, 8:9

COORT CASSS

Dole v. International

Association Managers, Inc.,

6:9

f'EC v. - AusUSBile for congress, 2:7

- Dramesi for Congress, 3:10 - Fletcher, Friends of

Isaiah, 4:6

- Lawson, 6:10 - ~'I'ech! Inc., 3:11 - Mann for Congress coomittee, 5:7 - Hid-America Conservative

PN:, 2:10

- National Republican

§enatorial Comadttee, 6:10

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street,NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

- NRA Political Victory Fund,

3:10

- Political Contributions

Data, Inc., 2:8; 5:7 - Popu1~st Party, 8:11

- SChae er, Friends of, 7:8 - Slllith, oennis, foc

Congress, 5:1 - S~ImaR, 3:10

- wi for c~ress COIlIllittee, :10 - west virginia Re~can State Executive C ttee,

3:10 - workinc] Names, Inc. ~90­

1009-GAG ana B7-2467~),

5:7

v , FEe

--=C0llll1l0ll cause; National

Republican Seflatocial

Conmittee, Appellant (90-

5317), 1:7

- Faucher and Maine R

Life COlnnittee, InC

1832), 5:8 - International Assoc

l'IanaSirs, Inc., 7:8 - 11ePUb iean PaE'ty of

Kentucky, 7:8 - Schaefer, 6:11

- Spannaus (91-0681), 

- Stem, 2:7

stern-v:-General Electr

coopany, 7: 6

800 LmE

Allocating expenses thro

ballot composition, 2

Debt retirement by cand

committees, 4: 7

PACS: allocating federa

non.federal expenses, 

Redistricting, 8;12 St~ff advaneee and sala

2:6

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal election Commissi

Permit NumberG-31