August 1992

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 18,Number8

COMMFNl'S SOUGHT CN PROPOSED CQRPOM,TEjIaN3OR

CCI'OOJNICATICli RULES (JIlCFL RlJLEMAKING)

The FEC seeks public comments on draft

regulations governing communications made

by corporations labor organizations

(11 eFR Part 114). Under the proposed

rules, only public communications containing "express advocacy" would be subject to

the prohibition on expenditures by corporations and labor organizations. However,

certain nonprofit corporations would be

permitted to make independent expenditures.

The proposed rules would also ame~n the

defini tion of "express advocacy" at Part

109.

These changes would implement the

Supreme Court's opinion in FEC v.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.

(MeFt}1/ and several subsequent court

decisions. The proposed rules would also

address MCFL issues raised by the National

Right to Work Co;nmittee in a rulemaking

petition. 2/

written comments on the proposed rules

are due September 18 and should be sent to

Ms. Susan E. propper, Assistant General

Counsel, Federal Election Coromrission, 999 E

Street, NW, washington, DC 20463. To

obtain further public comment, the FEe has

scheduled a public hearing for OCtober 14

and 15. Persons wishing to testify at the

hearing should so indicate 1n their written

comments.

To order a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (published in the Federal

Register on July 29, 1992), call the Public

Records Office: 800/424-9530 or 202;219-

4140. In addition, you may order an

annotated version of the proposed rules

(easier to follow than the published

version) and the hypothetical conmunications developed by Commissioners McGarry

and Potter to illustrate the difficulty in

1479 u.s. 239 (1986).

252 FR 16275 (May 4, 19B?}.

defining "express advocacy." (A photo- copring charge will apply to all orders.)

The following paragraphs highlight the

major issues addressed in the proposed

regulations.

(continued)

1 RmJIATICNS: ~CFL proposed Rulemaking

REPORTS

3 FEe Emphasizes Need to Obtain

Contributor Information

3 Cl.EARlNGWSE: Electoral College Study

PUBLIC FUNDIOO

3 FEe Denies RNC Petition to Withhold

Clinton Matching Funds

5 JUly Matching Fund payments

AUDITS

5 Compliance with Contribution Laws

6 ADVISORY OPINIOOS

9 S~IST1CS: PAC Contributions

800 LINE

10 Debt Settlement Plans: Postponing

payment to creditors

10 Names of Corporate and Labor PACs

0X1R'1' CASES

11 FEe v. Kopko

11 Akins v , FEC

11 FEC v . NRSC

13 FEC v. Caulder

13 Bryan v , FEC

13 New Litigation

13 FEDERAL ROOISTER OOfICES

14 CCftpLIANCE: MURs Released to Public

15 INDEX:

16 PUBLlCATIC6S: New Index to PAC Acronym
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 1B, Numbe

Changes to Implement MCFL Ruling on S441b

In MCFL, the SupremeCourt narrowed the

scope of 2 u.S.C. §441b--the provision that

prohibits expendit.ures by corpor-ations and

labor organizations. The Court stated that

"an expenditure must constitute 'express

advocacy' in order to be subject to the

prohibition of §441b."

Accordingly, the draft rules would

delete the current "partisan" and "nonpartisan" standards that apply to

corporate/labor communications at 11 csa

114.3 and 114.4, replacing them with the

Court's narrower "express advocacy" standard. Under draft section 114.4, therefore,

corporations and labor organizations would

be prohibited from making express advocacy

conmmications (rather than "partisan"

communications) outside the restricted

class.

However, the draft rules would not

change the current prohibition against

contributions made by corporations and

labor organizations. New language in the

draft rUles indicates when corporate or

labor organization activities would result

in a prohibited in-kind contribution.

under the proposed regulations, coordination with candidates could result in

prohibited in-kind contributions or could

compromise the organization's ability to

make independent expenditures through its

separate segregated fund. This warning

would also apply to independent expendituces by an "exempt corporation" (discussed

later in this article).

Definition of Express Advocacy

The proposed rules would amend the

definition of "express advocacy" at 11 CFR

Part 109 to incorporate the opinion of the

Supreme Court in MCFL and the Ninth Ci[cuit

Court of Appeals' opinion in FEe v.

Furgatch. The draft proposes two possible

definitions, seeking comments on which one

should be adopted. The Corrnnission also

asks for comments on whether, in addition

to the "express advocacy" standard at Part

109, a different definition should be

incorporated at Part 114 to govern

communications by corporations and labQr

orqaniaetIons,

Corporations Exempt under l'K:FL

The MCFL Court also concluded that

nonprofit corporations having certain

essential features were exempt from the

§441b prohibition on independent expenditures. Based on that ruling, proposed new

section 114.10 describes the requirements

that a corporation would have to meet in

order to qualify as an MeFL-type corporation. The draft presents two alternative

approaches for implementing this aspect of

the MCFL decision. Both versions of

section 114.10 include proposed rules on

the reporting requirements for KCFL-type

corporations and on the level of independent expenditure activity that would cause

such a corporation to become a political

cormnittee (i .e., the "major purpose" test)

other Changes

The draft rules propose other significant changes to the rules on communications by corporations and labor organizations. Several proposals are made with

respect to candidate appearances at 114.3

and 114.4 and to the other activities

covered under 114.4 (candidate debates,

voter guides, voting records, voter

registration drives and get-out-the-vote

drives) • In many instances the Commission

has offered alternative proposals or raise

questions for comment.

In addition, the proposed regulations

address new issues not covered in the

current regulations. including:

o The use of corporatejlabor letterhead or

logos by an individual or a candidate.

o The identification of an individual as a

representative of a corporation or labor

organization when that individual makes

express advocacy corrmnrnications or

solicits contributions.

o The facilitation of contributions by a

corporation or labor organization.

o Corporate/labor endorsements of

candidates.

Federal Election Comnission, 999 E Street, NW, washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530 202;219-3420 202;219-3336 (TOO)

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

SCott E. Thomas, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott

Darmy L. McDonald

Jam warren McGarry

Trevor Potter

Walter J. Stewart, Secretary of the Senate,

Ex Officio Commissioner

oonnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of

Representatives, Ex Officio Commdssioner

2
August 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 8

"

-""". '.1 ,::!$,;:.y7.- ,

',~~... -

FEe E:Ml'BMIZES NEED TO OOTAIN

CCNI'RIBUroR INFQRMATIOO

FEe Chairman Joan D. Aikens recently

underlined the need for comm..i ttees to

obtain the required contributor information--name, address, occupation and

employer--and to disclose the information

in FEC reports. This information is

required for each individua~ ~ose agg~egate contributions to a polltlcal commuttee

aggregate over $200 in a calendar year.

In a letter sent to Presidential candidates and their treasurers, Chairman Aikens

reminded them of the "best efforts" standard fOr obtaining contributor information.

Under FEe rules, the treasurer must make

"at least one effort per solicitation" to

obtain the required information--either a

written request or an oral request documented in WI:: i ting . rurthe rmore , the

request must inform the. contri~tor.that

"the reporting of such Lnformat.Lon 1S

required by law." 11 CFR 104. 7(b).

1he Chairman'S letter provided examples

of acceptable requests and one that would

not meet that "best; efforts" stardard:

o Acceptable: "Federal law requires our

comm1 t tee to report the name, wailing

address, occupation and name of employer

for each individual whose contributions

aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar

year."

o Also Acceptable: "Federal law requires

us to report the following: n [followed by

a request for the above information and

blanks to be filled in by the contributor.]

o Not Acceptable: "Federal law requires

the committee to ask for this information."

The Chairman pointed out that, if a

committee's solicitation did not contain a

satisfactory "best efforts" request, the

committee must make further efforts to

obtain the information. Moreover, if the

information becomes available after a

report has been filed~ amended reporting is

required.

Noting that the FEC reviews commit-:-

tee's disclosure of contributor lnformatlQn

as part of its aUd~t of pub~icly f~~ed.

campaigns, the Chauman advised r Fllllng in the gaps in this information now through

amended reports may preclude an adverse

audit finding."

3

SmDY CN ELECl'ORAL CQLLEX;E AVAILABLE

The FEC's National Clearinghouse on

Election ~ni5tration recently

released a study on the Electoral

College, the first in a series of

Bssays in Elections to be published by

the Clearinghouse.

The Electoral College, wri tten by

William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director

of the Clearinghouse, describes the

origin of the system, its eVOlution,

some historical curiosities and its

current workings. The essay also

provides arguments for and against the

system.

The new series makes clear, in its

introduction, that the views expressed

in each essay are those of the author

and are not necessarily shared by the

FEC.

To order a free copy of The Electoral College, call 800/424-9530 (ask

for the Clearinghouse) or call the

office directly at 202/219-3670.

FEe DENIES PETITIOO ro WITBHOLD PUBLIC

FUIDS FR(»I CL:rN":IOO' CAMPAIGN

on June 25, 1992, the Co~ssion denied

a petition submitted by the Republican

National Committee (RNC), which challenged

Governor Bill Clinton's eligibility for

federal matching funds and federal funding

in the general election.

The RNC's petition arose from a

televised "Town Meeting" on June 12, 1992,

during which Governor Clinton answered

questions from the television audience.

During the broadcast, an 800 telephone

n\lItlber was flashed on the screen. one of

the options available to callers was to

make a contribution. The Democratic

National Committee {ONe} paid for the costs

of the broadcast--about $400,000.

RNC Petition

The FNC claimed that the program was a

primary event because it was used to raise

funds for the primary election. Therefore,

the RNC alleged, the DNC exceeded its

$5,000 contribution limit, and the Clinton

for President Co~ttee accepted an unlawful contribution. In the alternative, the

RNC asserted that, if the DNe's spending

(co!ltinuedl
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Numbe

'constituted coordinated party expenditures

for the genera! election under 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d), then the Clinton Committee could

not use its primary funds to pay for

expenses related to the program (e.g.,

travel costs, staff salaries). The RNC

further claimed that, if the broadcast was

a general election expense, the Clinton

committee would be precluded from using

primary funds to finance similar fundraising events in the future. Based on

these assertions, the RNC concluded that

Governor Clinton "cannot; certify On good

faith" that he has met one of the conditions necessary to receive public funds:

the "agreement signed by the candidate that

his campaign will abide by all the rules

set forth in the statute and regulations."

The RNC therefore asked the Commission to

withhold future public funds from Governor

clinton.

Clinton'S Response

In response, the Clinton for President

Conunittee suggested that the ONC's expenditures for the event were proper cOordinated

party expenditures, since Governor Clinton

"is assured of the Democratic party's presidential nomination. n Moreover,

according to the Clinton Comrnit tee, it did

not pay for any costs and did not solicit

or receive any contributions in connection

wi th the event. The Commi ttee admitted

that providing 800 number callers with the

option to make contributions was an error

but contended that the error was promptly

corrected. The Committee also stated that

it has not and will not accept any contributions generated by the event. In conclusion, the Committee argued that the petition did not present sufficient facts to

warrant a denial of public funds.

FEe Decision

As explained in the statement of

Reasons supporting its decision, the Commission denied the RNC's petition because

the facts and circumstances it presented

did not constitute fraud, which is the

standard for justifying the suspension of

public funding. This standard rs based on

FEC regulations and an opinion of u.s.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit.

Under FEe regulations, the cemmission

will not withhold matching funds unless it

"finds patent irregularities suggesting the

possibility of fraud." 11 CFR 9039.3{a)

(3). Similarly, the court of appeals

stated that the FEC could "investigate a

complaint, a request for funds, or conduct

during a political campaign if it reasonably appears that a patent fraud or other

4

major viOlation of the law is being commi

ted. u However, the court stressed that

important public interests weigh against

the withholding of funds from a candidate

who has met "the objective cdteria for

eligibility." In re Carter Mondale

Roelection Committee, Inc. 642 r.2d at 54

(D.C. Cir. 1980). Moreover, in a concurring opinion, Judge Wald noted that a

decision by the commdssion to certify fun

could be overturned "only when the mater

als available to the Commission present o

their face an extremely clear and very

substantial case of fraud or fraudulent

intent." td, at 55t.

With respect to specific claims made 

the RNC petition, the Commission has prev

ously concluded th~t a party cORmittee

could make coordinated party expenditures

prior to the nomination of the candidate.

AD 1984-15. Although it is not clear

whether this precedent would apply to the

ONe's "Town Meeting" expendi tures, the

allegations raised in the petition do not

constitute fraud.

Further, the FEe said, candidates may

make general election expenditures for

limited purposes during the priroary perio

Such expenditures do not preclude the

candidate's making subsequent primary

expendttures and do not tender the candidate ineligible to receive further matchi

funds. Moreover, the RNC's speculations 

future activities by the clinton Committe

were inSUfficient to warrant a denial of

pooHc funds.

The Commission also noted that, if th

Clinton Committee did receive checks from

800 number callers and submitted the

contributions for matching funds, the

proper forum to address the issue would b

the audit or enforcement process.

Finally, the Commission determined th

the RNC's challenge to Governor Clinton's

general election funding was not ripe for

agency review, since the Democratic party

had not then selected its Presidential

nominee and Governor Clinton had not yet

applied for general election funding.~/

lGovernor Clinton received the Democratic

Presidential norrcination on July 15. He

requested public funding for his general

election campaign on July 17, and the

Commission certified the $55.24 million

grant that same day.
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 

JULy MATCHII«; ElJND PAYMmrS

on June 29, the Commission certified a

total of $3.2 million in matching fund

payments to 1992 presidential primary

candidates. The U.S. Treasury made the

payments early in July. As of the July

payment, primary candidates had received

$31 million in matching funds, as shown in

the table. Candidates have requested ~2.9

million for the August payment.

After a candidate's date of ineligibility, the candidate may still receive

matching funds to wind down the primary

campaign and to retire debts incurred

before that date. Several Democratic

candidates became ineligible when they

publicly withdrew from the race.l/ The

remaining Democratic candidates (Agran,

Brown and Clinton) became ineligible on

JUly 15, when the Democratic Party nominated Governor Clinton. The Republican

candidates will likewise become ineligible

when the party selects its nominee at the

August convention. Lenora Fulani will also

become ineligible on that date.

Matching Fund payments

July CUIDu1ative

payment Total

e Republicans

Patrick Buchanan $ 167,148 $ 3,307,951

George BUsh 841,449 8,956,056

Deuocrats

Larry Agran 1~9,758 249,758

Jerry Brown 381,482 4,068,269

Bill Clinton 1,162,689 6,493,027

Tom Harkin 32,108 1,884/915

Bob Kerrey 46,648 1,885,912

Paul Tsongas 293,676 2,672/594

Douglas Wilder 0 289,027

New Alliance party

Lenora Fulani 138,888 1,447,942

Totals $3,213,846 $31,255,451

lGovernor Wilder withdrew on January 8.

Senator Kerrcy on March 6, Senator Harkin

on March 9 and former Senator Tsongas on

March 19.

5

ASSESSIM3 PRESIDENTIAL <Xl'lMI'n'EES'

COMPLIANCE taTH eamtIBUl'Irn LAWS

In a letter recently sent to the

committees of 1992 Presidential candidates

receiving matching funds. FEe chairman Joan

D. Aikens explained two new policy decisions. First, committees will be requested

to pay excessive and prohibited contributions to the u.s. Treasury.11 second, the

Commission will now expand Its use of

statistical sampling to review committee

receipts and evaluate a committee'S compli

ance with the contribution requirements.

With respect to the first point, the

letter reminded presidential comacittees of

the 30-day limit for refunding contributions that appear to be illegal and the

60-day limit for resolving excessive contributions either by refunding the excessive amounts or by receiving reattributions

or redesignations. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(1)-(3)

Commdttees were alerted that the Commission

will no longer recognize untimely refunds,

redesignations or reattributions if they

are made more than 60 days following the

date of a candidate's ineligibility or the

date the ccmmittee received the Chairman's

letter, whichever is later. After that

deadline, the agency will request that all

unresolved prohibited or excessive contributions be paid to the U.S. Treasury.

The letter also explained that most of

the audit testing of contributions and

supporting documentation will now be performed using a sampling technique widely

accepted in the audit profession. (The

agency has used the same technique since

1980 to determine the amount of a cormnittee's matching funds.) The agency decided

to implement this approach to save time and

money for all concerned in the audit process without sacrificing the essential

accuracy of audit fiodi119s . In the past,

FEe auditors frequently reviewed voluminou

contribution records in order to compile

lists of potentially prahibited or excessive contributions.

(continued

lThe Conunission is requesting payment to

the Treasury rather than to individual

donors because donor names cannot be

derived from a projection. As the article

explains, the Commission will now use

statistical sampling to project the amount

of a committee's illegal contributions.
August 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18,Numbe

using the sampling technique, the

Commission will evaluate a committee's

compliance with the contribution limits and

prohibitions and with the recocdkeeping and

reporting rules on contributions. The

agency will project the total amount of

contribution violations in each category,

based on apparent violations identified in

the sample. This amount will become the

basis of audit findings, in addition to any

apparent violations discovered in other

reviews of the committee's records.

Committees will have the opportunity to

show that any of the contributions included

in the sample were permissible or, alternatively, were refunded, reattributed or redesignated on a timely basis. If a corornittee can make this showing, a new projection

will be made based on the reduced number of

violations in the sample.

ADVISORY OPINIOO

Recent requests for advisory opinions

(AORs) are listed below. The full text of

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

AOR 1992-24

Candidate debt retirement through sale of

campaign asset (candidate-authored book) to

his wholly-owned corporation, speaking

engagement fees, and sale of books and

tapes purchased from his corporation.

(Requested by Pilzer for Congress; Date

Made Public: J\1J1e 18, 1992; Length: 22

pages, including attachments)

AOR 1992-25

Application of contribution limits to Utah

convention, primary and general election.

{Requested b:r Owens for senate Committee;

Date Made Public: June 19, 1992; Length;

8 pages, including attachment)

AOR 1992-26

Free or reduced-rate advertising time

offered by corporation's radio stations to

federal candidates. (Requested on behalf

of EZ Communications, Inc.; Date Made

PUblic: June 29, 1992; Length: 4 pages)

l\OR 1992-27

Retroactive reallocation of fundraising

expenses. (Requested on behalf of the

National Republican Senatorial Committee;

Date Made Public: JUly 8, 1992; Length: 5

pages)

6

ADa 1992-28

Campaign's interest-free loan to nonprof

corporation and subsequent repayment.

(Requested by Leahy for u.s. Senator

Committee; Date Made Public: July 15,

1992; Length: 1 page plus attachements)

ADR 1992-29

Misplaced contributions checks received 

1991 and early 1992 but not deposited un

June 1992. (Requested by Liz Holtzman fo

Senate; Date Made Public: July 17, 1992

Length: 2 pages)

AD 1992-15: Extension of Time for Redes

nations of General Election

Contributions When Candidate

Loses primary

The Russo for Congress Committee I the

principal campaign committee of Congressm

Martin A. Russo, received contributions

designated for the 1992 general election

before the congressman lost the Illinois

primary on March 17, 1992. The Connnitte

may continue to receive redesignations or

make refunds of general election contribu

tions up to 23 days from the date it

receives the adviso~ opinion.

Under 11 CFR l02.9(e), a candidate m

receive general election contributions

before the primary if the contributions a

properly designated for the general and i

the committee uses an acceptable account

method to distinguish between primary and

general election contributions. These

regulations are designed to ensure that

general election contributions are not

spent for the primary.1/ Ir the candida

loses the primary, contributions designat

for the general must be either redesigna

or refLUlded in accordance with 11 eFR

110.1(b}{5) or 110.2(b){S). See also

110.1(b)(3){i) and 110.2(b)(3)(il,

lcontributions designated for the genera

_election may be spent, before the primary

for: limited general election purposes,

Le., "in those limited circumstances wh

it is necessary to luake advance payments 

deposits to vendors for services that wi

be rendered or goods that \','i11 be provide

after the establishment of a general elec

tion candidacy. AO 1986-17. However, th

does not provide a general election limi

if the candidate loses the primary; nor

does it obviate the requirement to make

refunds of general election contributions

if redesignations are not obtained.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

August 1992

F£C regulations require that a redesignation or reattribution be made within 60

days of the treasurer's receipt of a

contribution. However, in the case of

losiog primary candidates like Mr. Russo,

the need for a committee to obtain redesignations of general election contributions

does not arise until the candidate loses

the primary. In such cases, the time

period for receiving redesignations or making refunds is 60 days from the date of the

primary rather than 60 days from the treasurer's receipt of the contribution. See,

by analogy, AD 1991-12. More than 60 days

has already elapsed from the Illinois primary date; nevertheless, considering that

the Committee made its advisory opinion

request 37 days after the primary, it may

continue to receive redesdqnatdons or make

refunds up to 23 days from the date it

receives the advisory opinion.

Contributions designated for Mr.

RuSSO'S 1992 general election may be redesignated for Mr. Russo's 1992 primary election as long as the redesignated amounts do

not exceed the Committee's net debt for the

primary and as long as a reoesrqnetton does

not cause the contributor to exceed his or

her limit for that election. 11 CFR

110.1Ib)(5)liii) and 1l0.2Ib)(5)(iii).

Contributions may also be redesignated for

the 1994 primary; however, if the redesignated contributions exceed $5,000, Mr.

RuSSO will become a candidate for that

election and will have to file a statement

of Candidacy within 15 days. 2 U.S.C.

§432(0)(1), 11 CFR 101.1.

{Date Issued: June 5, 1992; Length: 5

pages)

AD 1992-16: Nonfederal contributions Made

by u.s. Subsidiary of Foreign

Corporation

Nansay Hawaii, Inc., a domestic corporation

organized in Hawaii, is wholly owned by a

foreign national corporation, Nansay Corporation (Japan). Nansay Hawaii receives

funds from its foreign national parent arrl

has one foreign national member on its

four-member Board of Directors. Provided

it complies with certain requirements, the

company may make contributions to nonfederal candidates without Violating the

prohibition on contributions from foreign

nationals. 2 U.S.C. §44le and 11 CFR

110.4(a). (The foreign national prohibition applies to contributions made in

connection with any election, federal or

nonfederal. )

7

Volume 18, Number 

Avoiding Indirect Contributions from

Foreign Parent

In addition to prohibiting direct

contributions from foreign nationals, §44le

prohibi ts a foreign national from making

contributions through another person, such

as a u.s. subsidiary. See also ADs 1989-20

and 1985~3. Nansay Hawaii receives regula

subsidies from its foreign parent for oper

ating expenses and developing real estate.

Therefore, to avoid a contribution made

with funds from the foreign parent, certain

conditions must be met:

1. The subsidiary must be able to

demonstrate through a reasonable accounting

method that it has sufficient funds in its

account--other than funds given or loaned

by its foreign national parent-to make the

nonfederal contributions. See, by analogy

11 CFR 102.5(b)(I)(ii).

2. Funds received from the foreign

national parent may not replenish any

portion of the contributions the subsidiary

has made since the preceding payment. To

ensure this, the parent must review the

subsidiary's contributions each time it

makes a payment to the subsidiary, reducing

the amount of that payment if necessary.

Nansay Hawaii's nonfederal contributions will satisfy the first requirement

because the company intends to make nonfederal contributions from the net earning

generated from its two incorne-producing

properties, whose bank accounts are not

presently subsidized by the foreign parent

The company and its foreign parent mus

also comply with the second requirement.

They must monitor the subsidies Nansay

Hawaii receives from the parent to cover

the debt service with respect to its undeveloped properties and company operating

and development expenses. The parent must

reduce the subsidies as necessary.

Avoiding Foreign National participation

FEe regulations prohibit a foreign

national from participating in the

decision-making process for election

activities, such as decisions concerning

the making of contributions. 11 CFR

110.4(a)(3); see also ADs 1989-29, 1999-20

1985-3 and 1982-10.

Under Nansay Hawaii's proposal, its

Board of Directors will select the two u.s

citizen Board members to form a committee

that will make all election-related decisions on behalf of the company. The

committee may decide to delegate this

authority to senior employees who are also

U.S. citizens. In order for the company to

comply with the regulation, only those

board members who are not foreign national

(continued
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

may vote on the selection of committee

members, and on~y non-foreign nationals may

participate in the functions and operations

of the coromdttee. See AO 1990-8.

(Date Issued: June 26, 1992; Length:

6 pages)

AD 1992-17: Affiliation of Partnership PAC

with SSFs of the Corporate

Partners

The Du Pont Merck Pharmaceutical Company

(OU Pont Merck) is a partnership equally

owned by two corporate partners: E.I. Du

Pont de Nemours and Company (Du !?ont) and

Calgan Corporation. Ca1gon is a whollyowned subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.

(Merck). Based on the affiliation factors

listed in Fee regulations, Du Pont Merck's

.PAC (the Du Pont Merck Program for Active

Citizenship, rnc.) is affiliated with the

separate segregated funds (SSFS) of Du Pont

and Merck. By virtue of this affiliation,

Du Pont or Merck may pay the Du Pont Merck

PAC's administrative and solicitation

costs. Alternatively, the partnership

itself may pay such costs without the payments being considered a contribution to

its PAC.

Affiliation

In determining whether political

committees are affiliated, the commission

may examine the relationship between the

organizations that sponsor the committees.

11 CPR 100.5(g)(4)(i).

Du Pont Merck was created by its two

corporate partners, and its Board of

Directors is composed of three high-ranking

officers from Du Pont and three from Merck.

By virtue of each partner's 50 percent

cent.red over the bca rd , Du Pont and nerck

participate in majoe decisions, such as the

appointment, dismissal and compensation of

partnership employees. The president and

CEQ of Du Pont Merck was a past vice president of DU Pont.

Based on these facts, which correspond

to the affiliation criteria at 11 CFR

100.5(9)(4)(ii)(8), (C), (E), (F) and (I),

Du Pont Merck is an affiliate of both Du

Pont and Merck. This conclusion is consistent with AO 1979-56, where the SSFs of two

parent corporations, each holding a 50-

percent interest in a third corporation,

were considered to be affiliated with the

thir:d corporation's SSF but not with each

other.

Du Pont Merck PAC, although established

by a partnership, is similarly affiliated

with the SSFs of the two corporate partners, Du Pont PAC and Merck PAC. See AD

8

Volume 18, Numbe

1979-77. In a previous advisory opinion

the Commission said that When a partnersh

is affiliated with a corporation that ha

an SSF, the partnership's PAC is subject 

the same solicitation restrictions as an

SSF. NJ 1989-8.

Moreover. in view of the corporate

partners' equal ownership over the partn

ship, and given the applicable FEC regula

tions on partnerships (discussed below),

each Du Pont Merck PAC contribution shou

be apportioned half to the limit shared

with Du Pont PAC and half to the separate

limit shared with Merck PAC. An alterna

tive apportionment agreed upon by the two

SSFs would also be acceptable. See M

1987-34,

.P.dministrative and Solicitation Costs of

Du Pont Merck PAC

A corporation is permitted to use its

general treasury funds to pay the costs o

establishing, administering and solicitin

contributions to its SSF, and the paymen

are not considered contributions or

expenditures. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)(C).

MOreover, a corporation may pay the admin

istrative and solicitation costs of an SS

established by an affiliated corporation

AD 19B3-19. Thus, because Du Pont Merck

PAC is affiliated with the SSFS of the

corporate partners, Du pont and Merck may

pay the admdnistrative and solicitation

costs of the PAC.

The law does not extend to a partnership the corporate exemption for the

payment of a PAC's administrative and

solicitation expenses. 1he Commission ha

however, accorded different treatment to 

partnership equally owned by two corpora

tions and has perrodtted such a partnershi

to share the costs of a payroll deduction

plan without the payment resulting in a

contribution. AD 1987-34. Therefore,

because OU Pont ~rck is entirely owned b

and affiliated with two corporations, it

may pay the administrative and solicitati

expenses of Du Pont Merck PAC without

making a contribution.

This conclusion is compatible with

11 CFR 110.1(e), which provides that

contributions by partnerships are attribu

able not only to the partnership but also

to the partners. The administrative and

solicitation support paid by Du Pont Merc

may therefore be construed as coming from

the affiliated corporations. To the exte

that AQs 1981-56 and 1981-54 would prohi

a partnership in a similar situation from

paying administrative and solicitation

costs without contr:ibutions consequences,

those opinions are superseded.
August 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18. Number 

Senate $16.4 $19.5 $20.0 $23

Incumbents 11.8 15.3 16.5 17

Challengers 2.2 2.3 2.4 1

Open Seats 2.4 1.8 1.0 3

House $25.9 $31.0 $43.6 $50

Incumbents 23.9 34.4 40.3 45

Challe.ngers .8 1.4 .8 1

Open Seats 1.2 1.2 2.5 2

Total $42.1 $56.4 $63.6 $73

:pAC CCNl'RIBU'!'Irn5 TO H<XrSE AND SDmTE

CANDIMTF.S

As announced in the FEe press release

of June /, 1992, PACs contributed $73

million to candidates during the first 15

months of the 1991-92 election cycle (i.e.

through March 31, 1992). 1his was an

increase of $9 million over the same perio

in the previous election cycle, 1989-90.

By March 31, 1992, PACs had raised $22

million, spent $188 million and still had

$139 million in cash on hand.

The FEe press release provides the

following statistics on PACs:

o Tables comparing 15-month data on PAC

activity over several election cycles;

o A table detailing PAC contributions to

House and Senate candidates during the

current cycle by type of PAC and type of

candidate; and

o The top 50 PACs ranked in teL.mS of

receipts, contributions, disbursements

and cash on hand.

The table below is based on the press

release, which is available from the Publi

Records Office. Call 800/424-9530 (ask fo

Public Records) or 202/219-4140.

PAC Contributions to Candidates

'l'hrOWJh March 31 of Election Cycle

(millions of dollars)

AIIElndments to State1Mnt of Organization

Du Pont Merck PAC should amend its

Statement of Organization to identify Du

Bont PAC and Merck PAC as affiliated

committees. 2 U.S.C. S433(b)(2). Moreover, if Du Pont Merck PAC functions as a

separate segregated fund--i.e., if Du Pont

or Merck provides direct administrative and

solicitation support, or indirect support

(by virtue of the partnership's payment of

those expenses)--Du Pont Merck PAC must

amend its statement to identify Du Pont and

Merck as its connected organizations. see

11 CFR lOO.6(a) and 102.1{c).

(Date Issued: June 26, 1992; Length:

6 pages)

NJ 1992-21: Eltcess campaign FUnds of 1994

candidate Donated to

§'170(c) Charity

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who has

registered as a 1994 Senate candidate, may

use his committee's excess campaign funds

to zreke a $1,000 donation to The National

Fund for the United states Botani c Garden

(the fUnd), which is a qualified puhlf,c

charity under 26 U.S.C. §170{c} and ~nich

has offered Members of Congress the opportunity to purchase an individualized

engraved paving stone for a $1,000

donation.

Excess campaign funds are defined as

"amounts. received by a candidate as

contdbutions which or she determines

are in $xcess of any amount necessary to

defray.•. campaign expenditures. II 11 CFR

113.1(e}. The law specifically provides

that excess campai gn funds may be dona ted

to a section 170(c) charity. 2 U.S.C.

§439a; 11 CFR 113.2(b). In AD 1985-9,

which presented a situation similar to Mr.

Moynihan'S, a Member of Congress seeking

reelection deternrined that his campaign had

excess can'paign funds and received approval

to donate the excess funds to a section

170(c) charity. (See also AO 1986-36,

where an unopposed general election candidnte was permitted to deterndne that he had

excess campaign funds before the election.)

Mr. Moynihan'S committee must report

the disbursement of excess campaign funds.

payments to a charitable organization may

be reported as !lother disbursements."

The Comrndssion exp~e5$ed no opinion as

to the application o~ Senate rules, which

are outside its jurisdiction. (Date

Issued: June 25, 1992; Length: 3 pages)

9

1986 1988 1990 1992
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

-~ ~~-- ---------._~-------.--:

")'1: " '-1-' '~l' <',_"0.; C-

-_._----~---~-,-------

DEBT SE'l"l'LE2'IENl PLANS: POS'1'PCl'fiN3 PAYMENT

'IO CREDI'lORS

Committees that have filed--or anticipate filing--debt settlement plans are

reminded that, once a debt settlement plan

is sutmdtted for Co~ssion review, the

committee must postpone paying creditors

included on the plan until the Commission

has corrpleted its review.

Only terminating contmittees]/ are

permitted to settle their debts for less

than the amount; owed.2/ 11 eFR 116.2(a).

After reaching agreement with creditors on

the terms of the settlement, these committees tmlGt file a debt settlement plan on

FEe Form 8. (The comntsaion encourages

committees to include as many debt settlement agreements as possible in a debt

settlement plan.) once it has filed a debt

settlement plan, the committee must continue to report all debts but must postpone

making any further payments to the creditors included in the plan until notified

that the FEC has completed its review.

11 CFR 116.7(a).

The purpose the Commission's review is

to determine whether the committee's finan-

~ial arrangements with creditors willin9 to

settle debts or forgo payment will result

in prohibited or excessive contributions

from the creditors. Committees must therefore postpone paying creditors until this

deterll'tination is made.

IFor purposes of debt settlement, a terminating committee is one that is winding down

its political activities preparatory to

filing a tecmination report and that would

be able to terminate except that it has

outstanding debts and obli~tions. A

committee is considered to be winding down

its political activities if it has ceased

to receive contdbutions (other than

contributions to retire debts) or make

expenditures (other than to pay previously

incurred debts as \Orel! as necessary

administrative costs). 11 eFR 116.1(a).

2s oth terminating and ongoing committees,

however, may reach a9ree~nt5 with creditors regarding disputed debts. Note that

disputed debts have special reporting

rules. Note also that terminating committees filing debt settlement plans must

include a description of the nature and

status of any disputed debts. See 11 eFR

116.10.

10

Volume 18, Numbe

Moreover, the Commission evaluates

proposed debt settlements in light of the

commdttee's overall financial picture and

therefore needs current infonmation on ea

debt submitted for settlement. The postponement rule ensures that the informatio

on the debt settlement plan is, in fact,

current. If the canmittee were to deplet

its cash on hand by paying a creditor aft

the debt settlement plan was filed, the

information on the plan would no longer b

accurate.

please note that, with respect to an

authorized candidate cornmi.ttee, the committee may not settle its debts if anothe

authorized committee of the same candidat

has funds or assets available to help pay

the debts. Moreover, an authorized committee may not terminate if it has funds 

assets available to pay debts owed by

another authorized committee of the same

candidate that is unable to pay its debts

11 era 116.2(c)ill. A principal campaign

committee may not terminate until other

committees authorized by the candidate ha

extinguished their debts. 11 CFR l02.3{b

For more information on debt settleme

plans, see 11 ern Part 116 and FEe Form 8

NMIES OF CORPORATE AND LABOR PACS

This article explains the specific

requirements that apply to the names of

PACs established by corporations and labo

organizations--i.e., separate segregated

funds (SSFS). These requi cenenta, which

appear in FEe regulations at 11 CFR

l02.14(c), are intended to assist the pub

lic in identifying SSFs and their connect

organizations.

First, the full, official name of an

SSF Imlst include the name of its connecte

organization in its entirety (including

"Inc." or "Corp." if applicable).

second, an SSF may use a shortened fO

of its official name on checks and letter

head, but the shortened. name Im.lst include 

clearly reCOgnized abbreviation or acronym

by which the connected organization is

commonly known, Thus, the shortened name

"must afford adequate notice to the publi

of the identity and sponsorship of the

separate segregated fund." AO 1987-26.

Third, both the fUll, official name a

the shortened name (if adopted) must be -

included on:

a The Statement of Organization;

o All reports filed with the FEe; and

o All disclaimer notices required on pub

political advertising (see 11 CFR

110.11).

Finally, if the SSF's official name

does not include the complete name of its
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMJSSION Volume 18, Number 8

connected organization, or if its abbreviated form is not informative enough, the

SSF should modify its name to comply with

11 eFR l02.14(c). Within 10 days of making

the change, the SSl" must file lin amended

Statement of Organization identifying the

change. 11 CPR l02.2(a)(2). If necessary,

the PAC should also modify its checks and

letterhead.

For more info~ation on the names of

SSFs--including examples of acceptable and

unacceptable abbreviated narnes--see page 4

of the FEe's Campaign Guide for corporations and Labor organizations. rurther

information is also provided in a September

1989 Record article.

FEe v: KOPKO

On June B, 1992, the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declared that Edward E. Kopko violated 2 U.S.C. §441f by making contributions in the names of others. In its

complaint, the ~EC had alleged that

defendant KOpko had reimbursed twelve of

his relatives and friends for their $250

checks to Alexander Haig's 1988 Presidential campaign. The court ordered Mr. Kopko

to pay a $1,500 civil penalty and permanently enjoined him from violating 5441f.

Both the FEC and the defendant agreed to

the entry of the order. (Civil Action No.

91-cv-7764. )

AKINS v. FEe

On June 9, 1992, the u.s. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit, in a per curiam order, directed

the district court to Clarify its order of

January 21, 1992. (Civil Action t'ol'o. 92-

5124.) In that orderl the district court

had required the FEe to "issue a final

decision on the merits of the Plaintiffs'

administrative complaint forthwith, and in

no event later than 4 p.m, on May 29,

1992."

The court of appeals stated that it

found the above language confusing; nWhile

it could be interpreted, as the FEe has

suggested, as a direction to the agency to

take final action by May 29, we question

this interpretation because the district

court has not found that the ~EC's failure

to act on appellees' administrative complaint was ' contrary to law' as required by

2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(C).u

11

The court further stated; I1We would

have serious doubts about the propriety of

an o~der compelling the FEe to take final

action absent a finding by the district

court that the agency's failure to act was

'contrary to law.' Upon clarification, the

district court should allow the FEe sufficient time for any action the clarified

order may contemplate."

(The FEe had interpreted the order as a

mandatory deadline for final action and had

asked the district eDurt to clarify the

order by deleting that language. When the

court refused, the agency filed an appeal.)

In response to the directions from the

court of appeals, the district court issued

a new order on June 26, 1992. Stating th1lt

its previous order uwas not intended as an

injunction," the district court reopened

the case to decide the "contrary to law"

issue. However I shortly thereafter, on

July 7, 1992, the court dismissed the case

as moot since the FEC had completed action

on the administrative complaint (MUR 2B04).

Civil Action No. 91-2831 (CRR).

FEe v , NATICNAL :REPUBLICAN Sl!NA'IORIAL

CCWUTrEE (91~S116)

on June 12, 1992, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit reversed the district court's

judgment. The district court had ruled

that the National Republican Senatorial

Committee (NRSC) had exceeded the contribution li~ts through its exercise of

"direction or control" over earmarked

contributions. The court of appeals, however, found that the district court had

erred in a previous decision. In that

case, Common Cause v. FEC, the district

court had ordered the FEC to conform to the

courtI s own interpretation of "dd rection or

control."

Background

If a comrrdttee, in soliciting earmarked

contributions to be passed on to a candidate, exercises "direction or <::ontrol" over

the contributor's choice of the recipient

candidate, the contLibution counts against

both the contributor's limit and the

committee's limit. 11 CFR 110.6(d)(2).

MUR 2282. In an administrative

complaint filed with the Commission (MUR

2282 ), Common Cause alleged that NRSC had

exercised direction or control oveL the

earmarked contributions it had solicited

for twelve Senate candidates. As a result,

Common Cause claimed, the contributions

counted against NRSC's limQts for the

(continued)
August 1992 FEDERALELECllON COMMISSION

candidates and caused NRSC to exceed the

contribution limits.

NRSC's OCtober 1986 solicitation letter

asked readers to support Republican Senate

candidates running in four states, wi thout

mentioning the names of the candidates.

The letter noted that contributions would

be divided equally among the four candidates. Various combinations of the four

states appeared in different versions of

the letter; twelve states were covered in

all. Checks were payable to NRSC or an

NRSC-cantrolled fund. The mailing resulted

in $2.3 ncillian in contributions. The NRSC

deposited the checks in its own accounts,

aggregated the contributions to the specified candidates and forwarded the contributions to the candidates in checks drawn on

its accounts.

The FEe'S General Counsel recommended,

inter alia, that the agency find probable

cause to believe that NRSC had exceeded the

contribution limits by exercising direction

or control over the choice of recipient

candidates. The Commission, in a 3-3 vote,

deadlocked with respect to this allegation

and therefore took no action. Cormnissioner

Thomas J. Josefiak (who has since left the

Commission), joined by Commissioners Aikens

and Elliott, issued a statement of reasons

supporting their votes against a probable

cause finding.

The Commission did find probable cause

to believe that NRSC had comaitted other

violations, and the rroR was resolved

through a December 198B conciliation agreement in which NRSC agreed to pay a $20,000

civil penalty. The MUR was then closed.

Conm::m cause v. FEe. Comnon Cause

asked the court to compel the FEC to act on

the "dtrectacn or control" aneqecron. On

January 24, 1990, the district court found

that the FEe's dismissal of the allegation

was contrary to law. Ruling that NRSC had

exercised direction or control, the court

ordered the agency to proceed on that

basis. In compliance with the order, the

cosmtssdon reopened MUR 2282 and found

probable cause. When it failod to reach a

conciliation agreement with NRSC on the

matter of direction or control, the agency

filed suit.

FEe v. NRSC: Distdct Court. The new

suit was assigned by lot to the same

district judge. On April 9, 1991, the

district court granted the FECrs motion for

summary judgment, ruling that the NRSC had

exceeded the contribution limits by exercising direction or control over earmarked

contributions. The court imposed a $24,000

penalty.

12

Volume 18, Numbe

Court of Appeals Ruling

In addressing the central issue--the

interpretation of direction or control--th

court cited its decision in Democratic

Congressional Campaign Committee (OCCC) v

FEC. In that opinion, the court held tha

when the FEC dismisses a complaint due to 

3-3 deadlock, the action is subject to

judicial review, and the three COIlUllission

e rs who voted to dismiss must provide a

statement of reasons for their vote. The

NRSC court noted the purpose of this

requirement: "Since those Commissioners

constitute a controlling group for purpos

of the decision, their rationale necessar

ily states the agency's reasons for actin

as it did." A footnote to the DCCC opini

"strongly suggests that, if the---meaning o

the statute is not clear, a reviewing cou

should accord deference to the Commissio

rationale. " In the present case, the court pointe

out that the three cOJllI'liissioners who had

voted against probable cause in MUR 2282

voted in favor of reopening the enforceme

proceedings only because they felt they

"were obligated to follow the [district]

court's order. "11

The court 01 appeals found that Comm

sioner Josefiak's Statement of Reasons in

MUR 22B2, joined by two other commissioners, should have been sustained in Common

Cause v. FEC.2/ The court observed that

Commissioner Josefiak's statement "identi

fied the two main factors the Commission

General counsel, and later the district

court, invoked to support; a finding of

direction or control, and pointed out the

present inadequacy of each."

The first factor was that NRSC

deposited the earmarked contributions in

its accounts before focwarding them to th

candidates. Noting that FEe regulations

permit a conduit committee to deposit

earmarked contributions, the court stated

"Nothing has been offered to reveal why

engaging in a Commission-approved practic

should cause one to run afoul of other

Commission rules."

The second factor was that NRSC "controlled" the choice of cendrdates by

selecting the candidates for whom contributions were solicited and by further

selecting the four states mentioned in ea

IStatement of Reasons of Cornrncissioners

Aikens, Elliott and JDsefiak, MUR 2282,

December 10, 1990.

2Statement of Reasons of Commdssioner

Josefiak, MUR 2282, January 30, 1989;

Concurrence, February 24, 1989.
FEDERALBECTION COMMISSION

E±

•

•

•

August 1992

fundraising letter. The court, however,

observed: "Every solicitation 'preselects' candidates to some degree. It is

fanciful to suppose that national political

committees of any party would expend their

resources merely to urge individuals to

contribute to the candidate of their

choice. !t

To find "direction or control" on the

basis of these two factors, the court said,

"would throw into doubt whether any solicitation of any earmarked contribution would

'be exempt from the 'double-counting' requirements of §1l0.6{d}(2)." rrcwever , the

court concluded that it was not required to

decide if that would be a permissible

conscruccLoru "It is enough to say that

the comrdaston has not affirmatively

adopted such a construction arn that it has

provided, through the statement of Commissioner Josefiak, joined by two others, a

reasoned justification for not doing so."

Ruling that "l ilt; was an error for the

district court to force a different construction upon the cocnrsstco," the court

reversed the district court judgment.

FEe v. CADLDER

on June 16, 1992, the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of pennsylvania ruled that Michael caulder violated

2 U.S.C. §432(b)(3) by knowingly and willfully cotrmling1ing his personal funds wi th

$51,600 belonging to Alerted Democratic

Majority, a political committee. (Defendant had embezzled the committee's funds and

supplied false infonmation on the comndttee's FEe reports in order to disguise the

embeazLeraerrt, )

The court imposed a $103,200 civil

penalty against Mr. Caulder but, in view of

his depleted financial situation, suspended

all but; $3,000 of the penalty, to be paid

in monthly installments. The court also

permanently enjoined him from violating

§432(b) (3) and from engaging in any activity that would result in his being responsible for political committee funds,

accounts, financial records or FEe reports.

The FEe may request full payment of the

suspended penalty 1£ it discovers that

defendant eade inaccurate or misleading

representations during the litigation or

that he vfolated any terms of the court

order. The FEe may also request full or

partial payment of the penalty should Mr.

Caulder's financial circumstances improve.

The court' 5 order and judgment were agreed

to by both the FEe and Hr. Caulder. (Civil

Action No. 9l-CV-5906.)

13

Volume 18, NumberS

BRY2\N v. FEe

On July 9, 1992, the u.s. District

Court for the Pistrict of Massachusetts

dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction. civil Action No. 92 11317H. The

court said the suit should have been filed

in the u.s. District Court for the District

of Columbia.

Jon L. Bryan had asked the Massachusetts court to find that the fEC's dismissal of his complaint (MUR 3365) was

contrary to law. However, under 2 U.S.C.

5437g(a)(1){A), such lawsuits must be filed

in the District of Columbia court.

NEW LITIGM'IOO'

FEe v , Black Political Action Comittee

The FEe asks the court to find that

the Black political Action Committee (Black

PAC) and its treasurer violated the terms

of a conciliation agreement entered into

with the agency to resolve several reporting violations. under the agreement, Black

PAC and its treasurer WQre to pay a $15,000

penalty, $5,000 of which was due on December 25, 1991, and the remainder in $1,000

monthly installments. The FEC alleges that

it bas not yet received a single payment

from defendants.

The FEe requests that the court assess

a $5,000 penalty against defendants and

permanently enjoin them from future violations of the conciliation agreement's

terms.

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, Civil Action No. 92-1436, June

17, 1992.

FEDERAL ROOISTER rnrIcm

Copies of Federal seqiater notices

are available from the Public Records

Office.

1992-9

11 CPR Part 106: Allocatlon of Joint

Federal and Nonfederal Expenses; Final

Rule; AnnoWlcement of Effective Date

(57 FR 27146, June 18, 1992)

1992-10

11 ern Part 102: Special Fundraising

Projects and other Use of Candidate

Names by Unauthorized Comnittees;

Final Rule; Transmission to Congress

(57 FR 31424, July IS, 1992)
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Numbe

MURS

Listed

IlELBASED

below

'l'O

are

'I'm!:

MURs

PUBLIC

(FEe

enforcement cases) ,~cently

released for public review.

The list is based on FEe press

releases of June S, 19 and 29

and July 10, 1992. Files on

closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records

Office.

unl.ess otherwise not.sd,

civil penalties resulted from

conciliation agreements reached ~tween the responeenrs and the

Commission.

Pre-MUR 245

Respondent: NeW' York DemOCr<ltic Party (NY)

co.plainant: FtC initiated

Subject: Transfers

nisposition: ~clined to open

a MUR

MIJR 2575

Respondents: (a) Toshiba America Consumer Products, me.;

(b) Toshibe America Informati.on

Systems, Inc.; (c) Robert

Traeger ('l'N}; td) Betty Trae9~r

(TN); (e) Hiroshi Ikeda (TN);

( f) Tsunehiro Miyashita (nn;

(g) paul Wexler (CA): (h] Norman Nelson (TN); (i) Kazuo

lshiguro (.lPN); (j) Dennis

Eversole (TN); (~l Vasuo

Nishioklll ('IN)

caap1.ainant: Election Crimes

Branch, Criminal Division, U.S.

Department of Justice

Subject: Corporllte contributions; contributions in the

names of othvrs

Disposition: (a) $6,500 civil

penalty; (b) $750 civil

penalty. {c) and \d) $6,3aO

civil penalty; (e) $1,500 civil

penal.ty; (f) $1,300 civil

penalty; (gl $750 civil penalty; (h) $400 civil penalty;

1i) $500 civil penalty;

(jJ $300 civil penalty;

(k) reason to believe but took

no further action

1'IUR 3lZ7

ltespaKlents: Republican party

of Iowa, Steven Roberts, treasurer

Compl5inant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Excessive and prohibited contributions; administrative expense allocation

Disposition: Re~50n to believe

b'.1t took no further action

KU9. 31<14

Respondents: (a) Craig for

u.s. Senate, Richard Jackson,

treasurer (rD); (b) Realtors

political Action Committee,

Thomas Jefferson III, treas~rer

(IL)

CCIIp1ainant: Jane A. Jeffries,

Deputy Campai9fl Manager, Senet.te

Committee for TWilegar (rD)

SUbject: Disclaimer:; inadequate disclosure

Disposition: (a) No reason to

believe; \b)\l} $4,000 civil

penalty (disclaimer);

(2) reason to believe but took no furthe c acti.oo (inadequate

disclosure)

l'IlJR 3151

ReS~ts: San Diego COutlty

Coordinating Republican Assernbly(c:A)

cQlIIPlairumt: sylva warren (CA.)

SUbject: Re<jisttaticn and

t"opol:"tinq

Disposition: Reason to believe

but took no further act.Ion

JUt l1S7

Respotdents: (a) The Joan

Kelly Hom For Congre15s ComlIIittee, Lisa 5. Vanllltllburg,

treasurer (MO); (b) cormnmity

ConSUltants, Inc. (MOl; et al.

(c}-(h) --

COI:p1ainant: TOny Feather r

Executive Director. Missouri

Republican party

Subject: Corporate and exces- sive contributions. failure to

file reports on time

Dl.Sp05ition: (a) $700 civil

penalty; (b) reason to believe

but took no further action;

(c}-{h) no reason to believe

MlJR 3237

Respondent£.: {~) i<entuckians

for Brock Commdttee, William G.

Johnson, treaSuteL; (oj Al

Brock (KY)

Coolplainant: mc initiatee

SlJbject; Excessive contributions

Disposition: la) $900 civil

penalty: (b) $900 civil penalty

MlJR 3252

Respondents: Friends of Van

Sistine, Jerome Van Sistine,

treasurer (WI)

CClllPlainant: Ma rk Pischea •

oeputy Executive Director,

14

National Republican Congressional Committe~ (IX::)

SUbject: Failure to file

Statement of or9anization;

failure to file reports

Disposition: $900 civil

penalty

PIJR 3398

Respondents: National Assoc

tion of Federal eredit union

Political Action Committee,

William J. Donovan, treasure

(DC)

CoUJplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on tine

Disp:lsitian: $350 civil

perntley

Mf.Ul 3419

llespcndents: New Hampshire

5tate Democratic Co~tte~,

l'obert M. Walsh, treasurer

Caq;)lainanl:.: 30M Libby,

O1airman, Rockingham CoUnty

Democratic Comittee (Nfl)

Subject: Reporting

Disposition: Took no action

I'IJR 3421

Bespondents: Rep. peter H,

Kostmayer and Jack RUss, form

Sergeant-at-Arms. U.S. House 

Representatives (OC)

COIlylalnant: Conservative

campaign Fund (DC)

Subject: toan

Disposition: Nn reason to

believe

fIllIR 3474

Respondents: la) U.S. Senat

John Seymour C()1.'fmittE!e, r.

Laurence Scott, Jr., treasur

(CA). Ib) California As~ocia

tion of Re<l1tors

COlIplainant: Gl~n ?eterson

{CAl

SUbject: COrporate contribu

tion; disclaimer

Disposition: {a.l-(bl No rea

to believe

l«JR 348Z

Respondents: California Avo

do ~roponent, Chris Miller,

treasurer

COaplainant~ FEe initiated

SUbjecb COrporate contribu

tion,

Disposition: Reason to belie

but took no futthel:" action
August 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 8

•

JlllJR 3489

Respondents (all in PA):

(a) Friend for Senate, James J.

Kelly, treasurer; {bl John

Halloran; (c) Joseph T. Lagrew;

(dl Harold 11. Randall;

(e) RObert E. Wagner CtIIIplaJnant~ D. Bruce Cahilly

(PA)

SUbject: Disclaimer

Disposition: (a)-(b) No reason

to believe; (c) reason to

believe but took no further

action; (d}-(e} no reason to

believe

!"lJR 3491

Res:pcnlent.s: Citizens for

Christopher Hodgkins, William

E. Noonan, tr-easurer {MA}

COoplainant: FEe initiated

&rbject: Failure to file

48-HOUr notices

Ddspo<ion~ $1,000 civil

penalty

l'I.IR 3530

!tespondents: Astle For Congr~s.s, garry L. Dunn, b:easurer

(MD)

ceap1ainant: Sua sponte SUbject: Disclaimer

Disposition: Reason to believe

but took no further action

The first nunber in each

citation refers to the "mmoer"

(JIIOoth) of the 1992 Record

issue in which the article

appeared; the second number, foll~'ing the colon, indicates

the page number in that issue.

IDJISORY OPINICR>

1991-29: Contributions received

and tIIllide by corporation's

employee pledge program, 1:4

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

5:6

1991-33: Allocation of expenses

when party CObttee adrrinisters primary election, 1:6

1991-34: Committee sale of

access to voter data base as

009Oi09 venture, 1:6

1991-35: Application of allocation rules When SSF's nonfed- e~~l account pays its own

administrativ~ eXDens~s, 2:10

1991-36: Corporation's payment of employee's travel expenses

for party fundraiser, 3:5

1991-37: Nonconnected PAC'S

payment to incorporated fim

for shared facilities and

serviGes contributed to com- mittees, 3:5

1991-38: Repayment of embezzled

funds to candldate committee,

3:5

1991-39: Contributions ~uspected of being made in narres

of others, 4:9

1992-1: 0UIlp:l.1gn salary paid to

candidate; reimbursements for

campaign expenses, 4:9

1992-2: Party reallocation of

staff salaries as fundraising

expenses, 4:10

1992-3: OOrporate payment of

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

1992-4: Campaign's payment of

candidate's living expenses

and spouse's salary, 4:10

199~-S: Candidate's appearance

in cable public affairs

programs, 5:8

1992-6: Honorarium paid to candidate for speech on campaign

issues, 4~11

1992-7: Corporate PAC's solicitation of franchise person- nel, 6:4

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

1992-9: Cooperative'S twiceyearly solicitation through

raffle at annual meetin9. 6:5

1992-10: CommJttee's disbursement to nonprofit voter

organizat1on, 6:5

1992-11: Computer-generated

S\lJ'llrI\3ry paqe and detailed

S\Jll1M ry page, 6: 6

1992-12: candidate's future

ownership of campaign van.

7:7

1992-14: candidate's designation of excess campaign funds

in event of his death, 1:1

1992-15: Exten~ion of time for

redesignations of general

election contributions when

candidate loses primary, 0:6

1992-16: Nonfederal contributions made by U.S. subsidiary

of foreign corporation, 8:7

1992-17: Affiliation of part- nership PAC with SSFS of the

corporate partners, 8:8

1992-21: Excess campaign funds

of 1994 candldate donated to

§170(c) charity, 8:9

CXllRl' CASES

FEC v. ----=--Ms~1'Q, 1:7

- America's PAC, 7:10 - Black Political Action

COlIlmittee, 8: 13

- Caulder, 8:13 - Kopko. 8: 11

- NRA PolitlFal Victory Fund,

1:7

15

- National Re~iblican Senatorial C~ttee (91-5176).

8:11 - po~li£t Partr (92-0674),

5: - Schaefer, rriends of, 5:6 - Wrignt, 7:8

v , FEe

--=-Akins, 1:8. 3:7: 8:11 - ara.nstool, 3:8 - eryan-V:-FF;C, 8: 13

- Common C~use (91-29141. 1~9

- CotmIOO Cause (92-0249), 3: 8 - Freedoll R:epublicans, Inc.,

3:7; 6:7

- LaRouche, 4:8 - National ~ifle ASsociation

of America [NRAI (89-3011),

4:8

- Schaefer, 6:G

- src;-nnaus, 6: 6 - Tnnsey, 3~7

- White, 7:9

RB1'ORI'ING

Pre-primary reporting dates - Correction, AX, 7:16 - COrrection, OM, se, 5:9

- House and Senate, 1:14 - presidential, 2:10; 3:10

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

6:2

SPOilIN:; LIPlITS FOR 1992

Coordinated party, 3:1

Presidential, 3:14

SOo-L~ Q'nCLES

Coropliance with laws outside

FEe's jurisdiction, 3:12

Contributions: receipt and

deposit, 6:10

Debt settlement plans: oostponing payment to creditor-s,

8:10

Last-minute contributions: 48-

hour notices required, 1:18

Names of corporate and labor

PACs, 8:10

Registration by candidates and

their commdttees, 2:12
August 1992 FEDEPALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 181 Numb

.~~._...- ~'-"'I- ,.~~ ........~- ........... ...... -~- .~ - -~ I~_~ .....,........ --, - --~ ~- -. - - - - ................~- ~- -~... - ,.-~~ --- - ----- ............. --~ ~. -.,.........

. .' . . r!' "'J-~i'"·~-~·r, l-i:)r "-:1 ~~7""'rl'-.:> . , ,--' . - -. J,"t,J».'-1 j ,-/.I! ili'J~0 . , , . ~-~~ . ---------~---~~_....... _._~--~---------~--....~--..._

NEJol INDEX ro PAC ABBREVlATIOOS

The Public Records Office recently

released PACRONYMS, an alphabetical list of

acronyms, abbreviations and common names of politic~l action committees (PACs). When a

political committee'S campaign finance

report identifies a contributing PAC only

by its abbreviation or acronym, you can use

the index to find the full name of the PAC

and its sponsoring organization.11

For each abbreviation or acronym

listed, the publication provides the full

name of the PAC, its city ~d state, and

its FEe identification number. If the

PAC's full name does not identify the PAC's

connected, sponsoring or affiliated organization, that name is included as well.

To order a free copy of PACRONYMS, call

the Public Records Office at 800/424-9530

(ask for Public Records) or 202/219-4140.

The Public Records Office has several

other PAC listings that may help

researchers:

o Alphabetical List of All Registered PACs.

For each PAC registered with the FEC,

this list shows the treasurer's name, the

lsee also the article on page 10 for an

explanation of FEe rules governing

shortened names of PACs,

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

OfficialBusiness

committee address, and the name of the

sponsoring, connected or affiliated

organization. (Cost: $13.25)

o List of All Registered PACs Arranged b

State. This list provides the same

information as the above list, only

arranged by state. (Cost: $13.25)

o Alphabetical List of Sponsoring Or~i

zations. This list identifies all

organizations sponsoring PACs and show

the PAC's name, treasurer and address.

(Coot: $7.SI})

Moreover, if you know only one or tw

key words in a committee's name, a staff

member can provided computer-assisted

research to find the names of all commi

tees with those specific words in their

names.

These lists and the computer search

capability arc also available through th

FEe's Direct Access Program (CAP), althou

in some cases the data is not formatted 

described above. OAP provides on-line

access to FEe ccunpaign finance as well a

FEe advisory opinions and court case sum

maries. The cost is $25 per hour, with 

additional sign-up fees. For more inform

tion on DAP, call Phyliss Stewart-Thomps

Data Systems Development Division, 800/4

9530 or 202}219-3730.

Bulk. Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit NumberG-31