FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

November1992 999 E StreetNW Washington DC 20463 Volume 18,Number 

RESTRICTICIfS 00 USE OF CANDItwm NMES

BECCIlE EFFtX:TIVE

As of November 4, 1992, party committees, PACs and other unauthorized

committeesl/ are prohibited from using

candidate names in the titles of special

fundraising projects and other communications. Unauthorized committees have long

been prohibited from using a candidate's

name in their registered committee names.

However, beginning November 4-the effective date of revised 11 eFR 102.14(al-an

unauthorized committee is prohibited from

using the name of any candidate in Hany

name under which a committee conducts

activities, such as solicitations or other

communications, includin9 a special project

name or other designation."

The final rule and its explanation and

justification were published in the Federal

Register on July 16, 1992 (52 FR 31424).

See also the September 1992 Record, page 3.

(.'(IlIMfNl'S SCXGIT CN CIIAlG!.S ro REGJI.ATICNS

CN "BEST EFEORTSThe Commission is seeking comments on

proposed changes to 11 ern 104.7(b), whi ch

requires a treasurer to exercise "best

effocts" to obtain and report complete

infonnation on individual contributors.

For each conhibution from an individual

whose contributions aggregate over $200 in

a calendar year, the commi.ttee must report

the contributor's name, address, occupation

and eroployer as well as the date and amount

of the contribution.

The Commission has proposed several

changes, highlighted below, to strengthen

the rule and to emphasize the importance of

disclosing contributor information.

Reports filed by some committees show a

significant percentage of incomplete

contributor entries.

lunauthorized committees are those that

have not been authorized by a candidate.

Written conunents on the proposed

regulations are due by December 18, 1992,

and should be addressed to Ms. SUsan E.

Propper, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E

Street, I'M, Washington, DC 20463. The

Notice of proposed Rulernaking was publishe

in the Federal Register on September 24,

1992 (57 FR 44137).

(continued

mx;uLATICNS

1 Restrictions on Use of Candidate Names

Now Effective

1 Comments Sought an Changes to

Regulations on "Best Efforts"

2 Comments Sought on Definition of Membe

3 P\lH.IC APPENU\NCES

PRESIDml'IAL ELECl'ICBS

3 Candidates on the Ballot

PUBLIC nH>n«i

3 FEe Asks LaRouche Campaign to Repay

1988 Matching Funds

4 october Matching Fund payments

SPECIAL ELECTICNS

4 New York and North Carolina, November 

4 North Dakota, December 4

6 S'I2'oT!STICS: la-Month PAC Activity

7 AWISORY OPINICNS

COORT CASES

9 FEe v. Life Amendment PAC

9 New Litigation

9 PUBLICA'I'ICNS: Court Case Abstracts

<X»IPLIANCE

10 Nonfilers

10 MURs Released to Public

11 FEDERAL RIDIS'l'ER tul'ICES

11 INDEX
November 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, I'M, washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530 2021219-3420 20z;219-3336 (TDD)

Follow-up aequest for Information

Under the current rule, a treasurer

satisfies the llbest efforts" requirement if

the original solicitation includes a

request for the required contributor

information and notifies the individual

that the committee is required by law to

report the information. No further action

is necessary.

The proposed rule, while requi dng each

solicitation to include a request for the

information, would additionally require

committees to make a separate request for

each contribution that lacks complete

contributor infonnation. The follow-up

effort would have to be a written request

or an oral request documented in writing.

The proposed regulation would apply to

unsolicited contributions, as well as

solicited contributions, lacking complete

contributor info~tion.

Reporting Contributor Information

The proposed rule would clarify two

reporting requirements:

o Committees must disclose whatever

contributor information is available,

even if incomplete; and

o They must file an amended Schedule A if

they later obtain missing information on

a contribution disclosed in a previous

report.

The proposed rule would also add a new

requirement: If information was not provided by the contributor but was, in fact,

known by the treasurer or the treasurer's

agents, that information would have to be

reported.

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

SCott E. '!boms, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott

Danny L. KcDona1d

John warren KcGarry

Trevor Potter

<:XnII!NI'S sanrr af DEFINITIOO" OF JmI!BER

RlJLEIIWUN3

The FEC seeks comments on a proposal

to add new conditions to the definition of

"member" set forth at 11 ern 100. 8(b)( 4)

(iv) and 114.1(e) • Under the proposed

rulemaking, a membership association and

its members would have to satisfy additional requirements in order for the

individual members to be eligible to

receive solicitations and communications

under 11 CFR 100.8(b)(4) and 11 CFR Part

114. Although some provisions would apply

to labor organizations, the proposed

changes would primarily affect incorporated

membership groups. The revisions reflect

the Supreme Court's 1982 opinion on this

issue (Federal Election Commission v.

National Right to work Conunittee) as well

as numerous advisory opinions.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

October 8, 1992 (57 FR 46346). Comments

are due by November 20, 1992, and should be

addressed to Ms. SUsan propper, Assistant

General counsel, 999 E street, NW, Washing

ton, DC 20463. Those Wishing to testify a

the December 9 hearing on this rulemaking

should so indicate in their comments.

The amendments would first define a

membership association as a membership

organization, trade association, cooperative, corporation without capital stock or

local, national or international labor

organization:

o That specifically provides for members in

its articles and bylaws;

o That expressly solicits persons to become

members; and

o That expressly acknowledges a person's

acceptance of membership, such as by

sending a membership card or placing the

name on a newsletter mailing list. The

Conunission welcomes comments on what

other types of actions an organization

could take to acknowledge a person's

membership.

Furthermore, under the new definition

of member, in addi tion to satisfying the

walter J. stewart, Secretary of the Senate,

Ex Officio Commissioner

Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of

Representatives, Ex Officio Commissioner

2
November 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

requirements for membership in the association (current regulation), a person would

have to accept the membership invitation

affirmatively. Except in the case of labor

unions. a member would also have to meet

one of the following three qualifications:

o A significant financial attachment to the

organization (not counting dues), such as

a substantial investment or ownership

stake; or

o The right to vote directly for all of the

association's officers or directors; or

o The obligation to pay dues on a regular

basis coupled with the right to vote

either (1) directly for a majority of the

officers or directors or (2) for those

who select a majority of the officers or

directors.

The Commission asks for comments on how

this third qualification might apply to

associations that have multitiered levels,

such as national, state and local. In partieular, under what circumstances would a

member of a local branch of a national

association have sufficient direct involvement with the national level to qualify as

a member?

In the case of labor unions, the

proposed regulation would continue to

consider individual members of a local

union as members of any affiliated national

or international union and as members of

any federation affiliated with the local,

national or international union.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

11/6-7 American Bar Association

Standing Committee on

Election Law

Santa Monica, California

Chairman Joan Aikens

Commdssioner Trevor Potter

Commissioner Scott Thomas

11/9 National Rural Electric

cooperative ASsociation

washington, DC

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

11/11 The Law Cente r , Unive rsity

of Southern California

Los Angeles, California

Commissioner Trevor Potter

11/12-13 National Association of

Business PACs

scottsdale, Arizona

commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

3

PRESIDENlIAL CANDID!\TES CN BALLOT

A recent press release lists the

Presidential candidates on the November 3

general election ballot in each state.

Twenty-three candidates appeared on the

ballot in at least one state.

Four candidates were on the ballot in

alISO states plus the District of Columbia: George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ross Pero

and Libertarian Party candidate Andre

Manou. Lenora Fulani, who received

federal matching funds for hec primary

campaign, was on the ballot in 40 states;

in most states she was identified as the

nominee of the New Alliance party. John

Hagelin of the Natural Law Party qualified

for the ballot in 29 states. (He recently

became eligible to receive federal matching

funds to pay primary debts and winding-down

expenses. )

voters in three states--Tennessee,

Wisconsin and Iowa-had the most Presidential choices. 14, while eight states

offered only four choices.

The ballot listing is based on a survey

of state election offices. The addresses

of the Presidential campaigns are also

included in the press release. To order a f~ee copy, call 800/424-9530 (ask for

Public Records) or 202/219-4140.

FEe ASKS I.AlUJCHE CAMPAIrn '10 REPAY

1988 JIIA'1'QIDC ftN)S

On September 17, 1992, the Commission

made a final determination that the

LaRouche Democratic Campaign repay $151,260

in matching funds to the u.s. Treasury.

The Campaign had received over $825,500 in

matching funds for Lyndon LaRouche's 1988

Presidential primary campaign.

The final repayment consisted of the

following amounts:

1. $40,950, the pro rata portion of

campaiqn expenditures made after the

candidate's date of ineligibility;

2. $1,161 in stale-dated committee checks

never cashed by the payees 1 and

3. $109,149 in matching funds received in

excess of the candidate's entitlement.

In a written response and at an October

1990 hearing before the Commission, the

(continued)
November 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

Campai~ challenged the third repayment

determdnation listed above.

That repayment was based on a

requirement that applies to a candidate

who, as in Mr. LaRouche's case, continues

to campaign after becoming ineligible for

matching funds due to insufficient votes.

Under those circumstances, the candidate

may receive matching funds only to defray

debts incurred before the date of ineligibility. Fee audit staff found that

individual contributions and matching funds

received by the LaRouche Campaign eliminated the Campaign's deficit on July 22,

1988. After that date, the campaign

received three matching fund payments

totaling $109,149, which the Commdssion

said had to be repaid to the Treasury.

The Campaign argued that, after the

date of ineligibility, only matching

funds--not private contributions--should be

applied to the debt if the candidate

continues to campaign.

In a Statement of Reasons supporting

the final repayment, the Commission

explained that, under the present law, all

funds raised after the candidate's date of

ineligibility--including private contributions--must be applied to the debt.

october CUmulative

candidate Payment Total

Republicans

Patrick Buchanan $ 328,254 $ 4,361,494

George Bush 0 9,677,368

Democrats

Larry Agran 0 269,692

Jerry Brown 0 4,239,405

Bill Clinton 2,825,181 12,536,135

Tom Harkin 46,144 1,978,905

Bob Keney 50,287 2,009,885

Paul Tsongas 0 2,850,573

Douglas Wilder 0 2B9,027

New Alliance party

Lenora Folani 123,416 1,880,034

Total $3,313,283 $40,092,519

ICandidates have requested $1.07 mdllion

for the November payment. This includes a

$100,000 threshold submission filed by John

Hagelin of the Natural Law party to qualify

for matching funds. On October 15, the

Commission approved his eligibility to

receive matching funds.

4

SPECIAL EUX::'1'IeJolS IN HJR'lU CI\ROLINPI.

.AND NEJi YOOK

Both North Carolina and New York held

special general elections on November 3,

the same day as the regular general

election. The North Carolina election was

held in the 1st Congressional District to

fill the vacancy created by the death of

congressman walter Jones on September 15.

The New York election was held to fill the

8th Congressional District seat formerly

held by Congressman Ted Weiss, who died

September 14.

Because of time constraints, committees

were not required to file pre-election

reports for the party caucuses held to

select nominees for the special general

elections. However, the caucuses were

considered elections for purposes of the

contribution limits. See 11 CFR 100.2(e).

Authorized committees of candidates

participating in the special general

elections were required to file a pregeneral election report; they were also

subject to the 48-hour notice requirement

for contributions received shortly before

the election. See 11 CFR 104.5(f) and the

FEe reporting notice sent to special

election candidates. These committees are

reminded that they must file a post-general

election report for activity occurring

between October 15 and November 23.

PACs and party committees supporting

candidates in the special general elections

are subject to the same reporting requirements that apply to them in the regular

general election. See the reporting

article in the September Record.

K)R'lB I:W«:m\ SPECIAL ~TE ELECTICN

A special general election will be held

in North Dakota on December 4 to fill the

seat formerly held by Senator Quentin N.

Burdick, who died september 8.

Because of time constraints, committees

were not required to file pre-election

reports for the party caucuses held to

select nominees for the special general

election. However, the caucuses were

considered elections for purposes of the

contribution limits. See 11 CFR 100.2(e).

Reporting requi rements for the special

general election are explained below.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

November 1992

Candidate ComIlittees: 48-Hour Notices

In addition to filing special election

reports (see Table 1), prfncdpal. campaign

committees of candidates on the ballot in

the special election must file 48-hour

notices on contributions of $1,000 or more

received between November 15 and December

1. See 11 CPR 104.5(£) and the FEe

reporting notice sent to candidates in the

North Dakota special election.

Party CCmIittees and PACs

A party cored.t.tee or PAC filing on a

quarterly basis must file special election

reports if it makes contributions or

expenditures in connection with the special

election during the coverage dates shown in

Table 2. Party committees and PACs filing

on a monthly schedule do not have to file

special election reports. However, PACs

filing under either schedule are subject to

the 24-haur reporting requirement explained

below.

24-Hour Reports on Independent Expendi tures

PACs and other persons planning to make

independent expenditures in connection with

the North Dakota special election may have

Volume 18, Number 11

to file 24-hour reports. This requirement

will be triggered if the person makes independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or

more between November 15 and December 2.

The report must be filed within 24 hours

after the expenditure is made. For mol:e

information, see 11 CFR 104.4(b) and {c},

104.5(9) and 109.2(b).

Whel:e to File North Dakota Special

Election aeports

Principal campaign committees file

with the Secretary of the Senate; other

committees file with their customary filing

office. PACs, however, should note that

24-hour independent expenditure report.s

(see above) are filed with the Secretary of

the Senate since this is a Senate election.

Addresses and further information are

provided in the Form 3 and Form 3X

instructions

Copies of reports must be simultaneously filed with the Office of the Secretary

of State, State Capitol, First Floor, 600

E. Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, NO 56505-

0500. party committees and PACs need file

only that portion of the report applicable

to the candidate.

e REPORTIOO MoTES POR THE DECEMBER 4 00Rl'H DAKOTA SPECIAL ELECTl(li

Table 1: Authorized CoDmittees of candidates in the Special Election

RepOrt

pre-Special

post-special

Year-End

Period Covered1:/

Through November 14

November 15 December 24

December 25 -- December 31

Register~ertified

Mailing Date~/

November 19

January 4r 1993

January 31, 1993

Filing Datep

November 23

January 4, 1993

January 31, 199

Table 2: Party Ccmmittees and PACs (<).larterly Filers)

Suw>rting Candidates in the Special Election

Report Period Covered:!/

RegisteredVQertified

Mailing Date~/ Filing Date~/

•

pre-Specia13/ Through November 14 November 19 November 23

Post-GeneraI Through November 23 December 3 December 3

Post-SpeciaI3/ November 24 -- December 24 January 4, 1993 January 4, 199

Year-End - Through December 31 January 31, 1993 January 31, 199

IThe coverage period begins with the close of books of the last report filed by the

committee. If the committee is new and has not filed previous reports, the first report

begins with the date of the committee's first activity.

2Reports sent by regist~red or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date;

othe~ise they must be received by the filing date.

3A pre- or post-special election report is required only if the party committee or PAC mak

contributions or expenditures in connection with the special electior. during the coverage

dates for the report.

5
November 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

PAC ACTIVITY AT 18-JQm1 MMUt

As of June 30, 1992-18 months into the

1991-92 election cycle--PACs had contributed $112.1 ~llion to federal candidates.

a 10 percent increase over PAC giving

during the same period in the previous

election cycle. of that total, $102.9

million was contributed to candidates

seeking election in 1992. During the first

18-months of the 1989-90 cycle, PACs gave a

total of $101.6 million to federal candidates, with $93.8 million going to 1990

candidates.

PAC Contributions to Candidates and

Closing Cash on Hand

As of June 30 of Election Year

Millions of Dollars

40)--- ._

30

20

A September 15 FEe press release

provides comprehensive data on IB-month PAC

activity during the 1991-92 cycle and

comparable statistics for six previous

election cycles. The release also ranks

the top 50 PACs in terms of receipts,

disbursements and cash on hand. The graph

below is based on the press release. To

order a copy of the release, call 800/424-

9530 (ask for Public Records) or dial the

office directly at 202/219-4140.

_ Contributions to Candidates

_ Cash on Hand

Trade/Member- Other Corporate 1 Nonconnected 

ship/Health

88 90 92

Corporate

88 90 92

Labor

88 90 92 88 90 92 88 90 92

1Other Corporate categoryconsists of separate segregated fundswhose connected organizations are cooperatives or

corporations withoutcapital stock.

2 Unlikeseparatesegregated funds, nonconnected PACsdo not haveconnected organizations. See 11 CFR 100.6.

6
November 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

ADVISCRY OPINIOO

Recent requests for advisory opinions

(AORs) are listed below. The full text of

each AOR is available fo~ ~evi~ and comment in the FEC's Public Records Office.

NJ 1992-37

House candidate's continued employment as

radio talk show host. (Requested by Randall

A. Terry: Date Made Public: september 30,

1992; Length: 13 pages)

ALTERNATE DISPOSITIctl OF HmS

AOR 1992-22

Individual's for-profit sale of T-shirts

bearing candidate slogan. On October 14,

1992, the Office of General Counsel closed

this AOR without issuance of an opinion

because the requester, Robin Langer, failed

to provide sufficient information.

AOR 1992-36

Application of contribution limi ts when

Senate candidate withdraws but then seeks

different Senate ~eat in special election.

Senator Kent Conrad withdrew his AOR by

letter of October 6, 1992.

Al1VISORY OPINIOO SUl'I'WUES

NJ 1992-30= Qualifying as a National Party

Cc:mnittee

The Natural Law party of the united States

qualifies as the national committee of a

political party and may therefore make

coordinated party expenditures under

2 U.S.C. §441a(d). The party is also

entitled to the higher contribution lirodts

for national party commdttees under

2 u.s.c. §441a.!1

OJalifying as a Political Party

The Natural Law Party qualifies as a

"political party" because the party's

candidates for federal office are on the

ballot in several states. See 2 U.S.C.

§431(16) .

IThe commission did not address any public

funding issues as they were not presented

in the advisory opinion request.

7

Qualifying as a National Coamittee

'ltle Party qua.lifies as a "national

committee" of a political party, defined

under §431(14), because it demonstrates

sufficient activity at the national level,

based on criteria applied in past advisory

opinions:

o Nominating candidates for various federa

offices in numerous states. The party's

candidates have achieved ballot access in

22 states, and, furthermore, the party's

ballot extends beyond the Presidential

ticket to include House and Senate

candidates. See AD 1988-45.

o Conducting activities such as voter

drives on an ongoing basis. The party

has held voter registration drives in

various regions of the country.

o Publicizing party issues. The Party has

established a national newsletter.

Also indicative of national committee

activity, the party has established a

national office, and three of its state

affiliates have qualified as political

committees under the Federal Election

campaign Act.

Qualifyi.nq as a state Coanittee

The Party's agreement with its state

affiliates requires them to conduct

activities commensurate with the day-to-day

operation of the party on a state level

(i.e., ~nating candidates and assisting

them in gaining ballot access; holding

voter registration drives and conventions;

and soliciting contributions). To the

extent that a state affiliate's relationship wi th the party is based on this

agreement, as evidenced by the affiliate's

obtaining ballot access for Presidential

and other federal candidates, the affiliate

qualifies as a "state conuuittee" under

§431(15). Seven of the party's federally

registered affiliates meet this condition

and therefore qualify as state committees.

Date Issued: September 21, 1992;

Length: 6 pages.

AD 1992-31: Vice Presidential candidate o

Independent Ticket

Vice Presidential candidate James Bevel is

running on an independent ticket with

Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

Unlike Vice Presidential candidates

nominated by a political party, Mr. Bevel

is required to designate a principal campaign committee but may not, as proposed,

designate the same committee as his runnin

mate. However, the two commi. ttees are

(continued
November 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

affiliated and, consequently, share the

same contribution limits.

Vice Presidential candidates nominated

by a political party do not have to designate a principal campaign committee and are

not subject to reporting requirements. Mr.

Bevel, however, as an Indeperdent cendfdate, is not entitled to those exceptions.

See 2 U.S.C. 5S432(e)(1) and 434(a)(lO).

Furthermore, because a principal campaign

committee may not support more than one

candidate, he must designate his own

principal campaign committee-not Mr.

LaRouche's. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3).

with respect; to the contribution

lirodts, the Federal Election Campaign Act

provides that contributions to a Vice

Presidential candidate are also considered

contributions to the Presidential candidate

nominated by the same political party.

2 U.S.C. S441a(a)(7) (C). Although, in this

case, neither candidate was nominated by a

party, the two candidates are nevertheless

running as a unified ticket on the ballot.

Furthermore, for purposes of the contribution limits, FEC regulations treat independent candidates the same as candidates

who first seek nomination and then qualify

as party-nominated candidates in the gene~­

al election. 11 eFR lOO.2(c)(4); see ADs

1975-53 and 1975-44. Therefore, the principal campaign committees of Mr:. LaRouche and

Mr. Bevel are considered affiliated committees, and contributions to one candidate

are also consider:ed contributions to the

other. 11 eFR 110.3(a)(1)(i). Their

principal caxpaign committees must identify

each other as affiliates on thei~ Statements of Organization. 11 eFR 102.2(a)(I)

Iii) and Ib)(ll(i).

The two committees may conduct joint

campaign activity as long as receipts and

disbursements are reported by the commcittee

receiving or disbursing the funds. See

11 CFR 1l0.8(d)(3). Alternatively, because

the committees are affiliated, the Bevel

committee may choose to conduct all activity through the LaRouche committee. in which

case the Bevel committee's reports would

simply consist of zero entries on the cover

page.

Date Issued: september 25, 1992i

Length; 5 pages.

AD 1992-32: Donation of Excess CCDplign

Fun:1s to Public Housing

Council

A propos~ $6,500 donation to a public

housing residents' council by the Michael

A. Andrews for Congress CoImlittee will not

be considered a conversion of excess

8

Volume 18, Number 11

campaign funds to per:sonal use pr:ovided

that Congressman Andrews does not hold or

der:ive a personal financial interest in the

council. Using excess funds for personal

use is prohibited. The law provides for a

number of expr:essly lawful uses for excess

campaign funds-such as donations to charities that qualify under 26 U.S.C. §170(c)--

but also perm!ts their use "for any other

lawful purpose" except personal use.

2 U.S.C. §439a. Even when an entity does

not qualify as a §170(c) char:ity, as is the

case here, a donation may be permissible as

a use of excess campaign funds for a

"lawful purpose." See N:Js 1986-39 and

1992-14. (The advisory opinion noted,

however, the committee's intent to make its

donation contingent on the public housing

council's "working towards legal non-profi t

status," among other factors.) The Committee should report the donation as an "other

disbursement. II Date Made Public: september 24, 1992; Length: 3 pages.

NJ 1992-35: Contribution Lilllits for

IndepeOOent candidatel/

Jon E<hachaturian, an independent senate

candidate in the october 3 Louisiana

primary, may not accept contributions from

individuals in excess of the $1,000 limdt

pr:ovided for at 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A).

Mr. Khachaturian had requested an exemption

from the $1,000 limit because he is an

independent candidate. He believed that

the $1,000 limdt, as applied to his independent candidacy, could be cons.idered to

impair his First Amendment rights because

it precluded him from raising sufficient

contributions from willing donors to mount

an effective cang;>aign. He further stated

that the limit placed him at a disadvantage

in comparison to political party candidates, who had greater access to larger

contributions from multicandidate PACs and

Who were eligible foc coordinated party

expenditures.

Lacking the power to rule on the

constitutionality of legislation, the

Commission could not waive the limit as Mr

Kh8lch8lturian suggested even if the agency

were persuaded by his position. Moreover,

the Supreme Cour:t upheld the $1,000

contribution limit in Buckley v. Valeo.

Date Issued: september 25, 1992;

Length: 3 pages.

lSee also summar:y of Khachaturian v. FEC,

page 9.
November 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, NJmber 11

FEe v , UFE POLITICAL ACTI(ft

<XJIIlI'rl'EE, Il«:. (C88-860z and C89-1429z)

On september 11, 1992, the n.s.

District Court for the western District of

washington at Seattle held defendants in

the above cases in civil contempt of court

for failing to comply with the court's

earlier judgments against them.

In a June 1990 judgment in the first

case, civil Action No. C88-860Z, the court

had ordered Life Amendment PAC, Inc., and

its treasurer to pay a $30,000 penalty for

reporting violations. Finding that a

second defendant committee, Citizens Organized to Replace Kennedy, and its treasurer

had also violated the reporting provisions,

the court had imposed a $5,000 penalty and

had ordered them to file rtissing debt

schedules. Defendants were jointly ordered

to pay the FEC's costs.

with respect to Civil Action No.c89-

1429z (originally C89-1429WD), the court

had issued a June 1989 order imposing

$125,000 in civil penalties against Life

Amendment PAC, Inc., and its treasurer for

numerous recordkeeping and reporting

violations, some of which were knowing and

willful. The court had also ordered

defendants to file amended reports and to

pay the FEe's costs in the action:

Under the September 1992 contenpt

orders, defendants in each suit must pay an

additional penalty of $100 per month until

they comply with the earlier order. The

defendants were also ordared to pay the Fee

up to a maximum of $1,000 as reimbursement

for the agency's costs.

Nf.Jrl IDITICJrf OF <:WR'l' OUlE 1I8STRACTS

The FEe recently published the

tenth edition of Selected Court case

Abstracts, summaries of court cases on

the federal campaign finance law.

Most of the summaries originally

appeared in the Record. The new

edition includes Record summaries

through the December 1991 issue. As

in previous editions, legal citations

and name and subject indexes provide

research aids.

To order a free copy, call 800/

424-9530 or 2021219-3420.

9

NI!H LITIGl\'l'I<W

Khachaturian v. FECII

Jon Khachaturian, an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana's

October 3 primary election, asks the court

to decla re that the $1,000 limit on

contributions from individuals {2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(I)(A») is unconstitutional as

applied to his candidacy because it prevented him from raising sufficient funds to

compete effectively against the major-party

inCUJllbent candidate. Mr. EQlachattirian

claims that, as a result of the limit, he

was unable to accept over $200,000 in

contdbutions.

He further asks the court to: issue a

preliminary injunction prohibiting the FEe

from. enforcing the $1,000 limit against

him; order Louisiana's secretary of state

to place his name on the general election

ballot, even if he loses the primary; and

certify the consti tutional issue to the

u.s, Court of Appeals for the Fifth errcutt.2/ U~S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana, Civil Action No.

92-3232, Section K, Mag. Div. 6, september

29, 1992.

FEe v. CoIIDittee of 100 DeD>crats, et al.

The FEe filed suit against Committee of

100 Democrats, Throw the Rascals OUt (the

principal campaign committee of 1990 House

candidate Dominick A. ruseo) and M1. Fusco

as treasurer of both committees. The FEC

asks the court to find that defendants

violated the terms of the conciliation

agreElments they entered into with the

agency in order to resolve violations of

the campaign finance law.

7he FEC specifically claims that Throw

the Rascals Out and treasurer Fusco failed

to pay the civil penalty stipulated in

their agreement and that the Comittee for

100 Democrats and treasurer Fusco failed to

file a Statement of Organization and

campaign finance reports, as required under

thei r agreement.

(continued)

1

See also summary of AO 1992-35. page B.

2en September 30, the court certified the

constitutional question to the u.s. Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for en

bane consideration but denied Mr. -

Khachaturian's motions for a preliminary

injunction and an expedited hearing.
November 1992 FEDERALELEC1l0N COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 11

The agency further asks the court.

o To order defendants to comply with their

respective conciliation agreements;

o To assess interest charges on the civil

penalty owed by Throw the Rascals out

until it is paid; and

o To assess an additional $5,000 penalty

for the violation of each conciliation

agreement.

u.s. District Court for the District of

Columbia, civil Action No. 92-2245(GAG),

October 5, 1992.

FEe v , Miller

The FEe asks the court to find that

Stefan Miller violated the terms of the

conciliation agreement he entered into with

the agency by failing to pay the stipulated

civil penalty. The FEe abo asks the court

to order Mr. Miller to pay the penalty; to

assess interest on the unpaid portion; and

to assess an additional $5,000 penalty.

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, Civil Action No. 92-2244{SS),

~tober 5, 1992.

nx: PUBLISHES IOtPIUR

The Commission recently cited the committee of Ralph Hall (Louisiana House

candidate, 4th Congressional District) for

failing to file its pre-primary report.

The names of cmthorized cOl\ll\littees that

fail to file reports are published pursuant

to 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7). Enforcement

actions against nonfilers ate pucsued on a

case-by-case basis.

ftJRS RELFASED 10 mE' PUBLIC

Listed below are MURs tFEe enforcement

cases} recently released for public review.

The list is based on the FEe press ["eleases

of September 18 and 28 and OCtober 13,

1992. Files on closed MURs are available

for review in the Public Records Office.

unless otherwise noted, civil penalties

resulted f["om conciliation agreements

reached between the respondents and the

COImlission.

JIIDR 2937

Respondents: (a) Humphrey for Senate

~ign Committee, Samuel D. Heins,

treasurer (MN); (b) Oxford Energy Company

PAC, Patrick O'Brian, treasurer (NY)

COmplainant: FEC initiated.

10

SUbject: Excessive contributions

Dispesition: (a) $4,000 civi! penalty;

(b) $500 civil penalty

..m 3458

Respondents: The Wilson Committee, Alrrf S.

Trites, treasurer (TK)

CoIIplainant: FEe inihated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour notices

Disposition: $1,850 civil penalty

J«1R 3487

RespondentS: (a) David Duke for President,

James McPherson, treasurer (LA); (b) David

Duke for Governor, James McPherson,

treasurer (LA)

CoDplainant: Referral from Louisiana

Commdssion on Ethics for Public Employees

Subject: Foreign national contributions

Disposition: (a) and (b) Reason to

believe but took no further act.Ion

J«m: 3503

Respondents: (a) Perot Petition Committee,

Michael Pass, treasurer ITX); (b) Carmack

watki.ns (TX)

Complainant: Mrs. Ted Klock (TX)

SUbject: Independent expenditures;

disclaimer; reporting

Disposition: (a) No reason to believe;

(b) reason to believe but took no further

action

JllUR 3543

Respondents: (a) Friends of Bob Grahcun

Commdttee, Robin Gibson, treasurer (FL);

(b) Carlos Cardoen (FL)

C<Dplainant: Van B. Poole, Republican

party of Florida

Subject: Foreign national contributions

Disposition: (a) and (b) No reason to

believe

MUll 3557

Respondents: (a) USA Today (VA); (b) NBC

News (NY)

complainant: Stephen C. Meyet"s (MAo)

Subject: Commercial use of contributor

information

Dispasition: (a) and (b) No reason to

believe
November 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Numoer 

Copies of Federal Regi5ter notices are

available from the Public Records Office.

1992-15

11 CFR Part 104: Recordkeeping and

Reporting by political Committees: Best

Efforts; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (57

!R 44137, September 24, 1992)

1992-16

11 eFR parts 109, 110 and 114: Independent

Expenditures; Corporate and Labor Organization Expenditures; Chan/iJe in MCFL Public

Hearing Time (from 10:00 am to 9:30 am,

10/14 and 15) (57 FR 45009, September 30,

1992)

1992-17

Filing Dates for the New York Special

Election (57 FR 45793, OCtober 5, 1992)

1992-18

Filing nates for the North carolina Speci

Election (57 FR 45792, october 5, 1992)

1992-19

11 CFR parts 100 and 114: Definition of

"Member" of a Membership Organization;

Notice of proposed Rulemaking (57 FR 4634

October 8, 1992)

1992-20

11 CFR Part 102: Special Fundraising

Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names

by unauthorized Co1llllittees; Announcement 

Effecti Vel Date (11/4/92) (57 FR 47258,

October 15, 1992)

1992-21

Filing Dates for the North Dakota Special

Election (57 FR 47661, October 19, 1992)

The first number in each

citation refers to the ~numbern

(month) of the 1992 Record

issue in which the article

appeared; the second number,

following the colon, indicates

the page number in tllat issue.

ADVISCRY OPINIOiS

1991-29: Contributions received

and mad~ by corporation'S

employee pledge program, I: 4

1991-32: Charges for consultant's fundraising services,

5:6

1991-33: Allocation of expenses

..men party COIlIIIlittee administers primary election, 1:6

1991-34: Comwittee sale of

access to voter data base as

ongoing venture, 1:6

1991-35: Application of allocation rules wllen SSF's nonfederal account pays its own

adPUnistrative expenses, 2:10

1991-36: corporation'S payment

of employee'S travel expenses

for party fundraiser, 3:5

1991-31: Nonconnected FAC'S

payment to incorporated fi rm

for shared facilities and

services contributed to comnri.ttees, 3:5

1991-30: Repayment of embezzled

funds to commtittee, 3:6

1991-39: Contributions suspected of being made in names

of others, ~:9

1992-1: campaign salary paid to

candidate; reimbursements for

campaign expenses, 4;9

1992-2; party reallocation of

staff salaries as fundraisinq

expenses, 4:10

1992-3: COrporate payment of

benefits for employee/ candidate on unpaid leave, 5:8

1992-4: Caq>aign's payment of

candidate's living expenses

and spouse'S salary, 4:10

1992-5: Candidate's appearance

in cable public affairs

programs, 5:8

1992-6: Honorarium paid to candidate for speech on campai9"

issues, 4:11

1992-7: Corporate PAC'S solidtation of franchise personnel, 6:4

1992-8: Tax seminars as fundraising mechanism, 5:8

1992-9: cooperative's twiceyearly solicitation through

raffle at annual meeting, 6:5

1992-10: Committee's disbursement to nonprofit voter

organization, 6:5

1992-11: Computer-generated

SUIIIlIary page and detailed

sunllliuy page, 6: 6

11

1992-12: candidate'S future

ownership of campaign van,

7:7

1992-14: candidate's designa

tion of excess campaign fu

in event of his death, 7;7

1992-15: Extension of time f

redesignations of qeneral 

e19ction contributions whe

candidate loses primary, 8

1992-16: Nonfederal contribu

tions made by u.s. subsidi

of foreign corporation, 8:

1992-17: Affiliation of part

nership PAC with SSFs of th

corporate parbiers, 8:8

1992-19: State campaign's lea

of COlDpUters to candidate'

federal campaign, 9;9

1992-20: Funds from members'

corporate practices used to

pay expenses of membership

organization's PAC, 10:5

1992-21: Excess campaign fund

of 1994 candidate donated 

5170(c} charity, 8:9

1992-23: Ads paid for by inc

porated membership organiz

tion, 10:6

1992-24: Campaign's sale of

assets and other debt retir

ment activities, 10:6

1992-25: utah convention as

separate election, 9:9

(continue
November 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

1992-27: Retroactive allocation

of fundraisinq expenses,

10:'7

H192-2B; Repaymetlt of

paign's loan to nonprofit

coqporation, 10:8

1992-29: Late deposit of

contributions, 10:8

1992-301 Qualifying as a

national party COIIIIlit tee,

11:7

1992-31: vice Presidential

candidate on independent

ticket, 11=7

1992-32: Donation of excess

campaign funds to public

housing council, 11:8

1992-34: Use of government car

for campaign travel, 10:8

1992-35: ContrivJtion limits

for independent candidate,

11;8

axJR'l' CASES

FEe v , ------=-AFs~, 1:7

- America' 5 PAC, 7:10 - Black POIItIC~1 Action

Conrni ttee, 8Ii3

- cauIae~a:13 - coamittee of 100 Democrats,

et aI., 11;9 - EIC1riCgEt for Congress

Commit tee, 9: 1.1

- Friends of Isaiah Fletcher

COJmIittee, 10:12

- !ntertlational FUnding'

In&titute, 9:1l

- JI:~kO. 6:U - L le ~ndment Folitical

Action Committee, Inc.,

11:9

- Millet", U:10 - NailOiial lI.1!publi can Senatodd Conmi ttee (91-5176),

8:11

- NRA

1 _ p<?li~ical Victory Fund,:7

- Political Contributions

Data, !ric. ,- iO:rO- --

- ~ist Pa~ty (92-0674),

:9 - Schaefer, r[iends of, 6:6

- wright,- 7:8

v , FEe '~ins, 1:8, 3:7; 8:11

- AkIiiS, Ball, et al., 10:12

- !l~anstool, 3:8

- BfYan v. FEC, 8:13 - Corcmn cause (91-29141,

1:9: 10:11 - common Cause (92-0249), 3:8 - !ieedODiltep\lbl~c~! rnc.,

3:7; 6:7 - Machaturian, 11:9

- LaRouche. 4:8

- National Rifle Association

Of Merica (NRA> -(89-3011 ),

4:8 - Schaeff3[, 6:6

-~us, 616 - Trinsey, 3:7 - White, 7:9

kEl'Ud'OO

pre-primary, pre-runoff repo

ing dates

- AI. date changed, 7:16

- FL date changed, 9:8

- Rouse and Senate, 1=14

- OR, sC dates changed, 5:9

- Presidential, 2:10; 3:10

Schedule for 1992, 1:10; 3;8;

6:2; 9:6

Special elections - New York, 11;4

- North Carolina, 11:4

- North Dakota, 10:1; 11:4

waivers, July 15 quartedy,

'7:16

SPEND:n.G LlKITS FOR 1992

Coordinated party, 3:1

Presidential, 3:14

BOD-LINE ARTICLES

Advances by staffl contribution limits and reportinq,

9:10

compliaoce with b.ws outside

FEe's jurisdiction, 3:12

Contributions: receipt and

deposit, 6:10

Debt settlement plans: postponing payment to creditors

8:10

Last-ndnute contributions: 48

hour notices required, 1:18

Nanles of corporate and labor

PACs, 8:10

Registration by candidates and

their ccmmittees, 2:12

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official BUSiness

Bulk Rate Mail

Postageand Fees Paid

FederalElection Commission

Permit Number G-31