FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ADVISORY OPINIONS

COMPLIANCE

Summary: MUR 2823

Publicly Released MURs

LEGISLATION

Grandfather Clause Repealed

2

4

6

1

Washington DC 20463 Volume 16,Numbe

(2) Members who serve in the 103rd

Congress (beginning in January

1993), or in any later Congres

may not convert any excess fun

to personal use.

The 1979 amendments to the Act

(effective since January 1980)

permitted candidates and their

committees to use excess campaign

funds for several specific purpose

and for "any other lawful purpose,

but prohibited excess funds to be

converted to "any personal use." 

U.S.C. §439a. However, the

amendments included an exception:

The ban on using excess funds for

personal use did not apply to

Members of Congress holding office

on January 8, 1980. Along with th

Act, House and Senate rules also

govern the use of excess campaign

funds.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

February 1990 999 E Street NW

CONGRESS REPEALS GRANDFATHER CLAUSE

In the recently enacted Ethics

Reform Act of 1989, 'Congress

repealed the "Grandfather Clause"

in the Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act). That clause in 2

U.S.C. §439a permitted retiring

Senators and Congressmen who were in

office on January 8, 1980, to

convert excess campaign funds to

personal use.

Under the Ethics Reform Act's

1989 amendments to the Act, signed

into law by president Bush on

November 30, 1989, all Members of

Congress will be prohibited from

converting excess campaign funds to

personal use. The amendment will

affect Members in two stages:

(1) Members serving in the 102nd

congress (1991-1993) or earlier

Congresses, and who were

previously covered by the

grandfather clause, may not

convert to personal use those

"excess amounts totaling more

than the amount equal to the

unobligated balance on hand" on

November 30, 1989.

ELECTION LAW CONFERENCES

TO BE HELD IN MARCH

The FEe will be holding two

conferences on campaign finance

law in March:

7

7

7

COURT CASES

FEC v. Furgatch

New Li tiga tion

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

o A regional conference for

candidates, campaign workers,

PACs and others active in

campaign finance, in Scottsdale, AZ, on March 8 and 9.

The Arizona Secretary of

State's Office will co-host.

o A conference for candidates in

washington, D.C., on March 30.

800 LINE

8 When Reimbursements Are Requir

in SSF Fundraising

9 New Treasurer

PUBLICATIONS

10 E&J Compilation

10 INDEX

See page 11 for details.

CONFERENCES

11 Election Law Conferences Plann
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

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

'" '" """Y,, ~'i;" ~<

"', ; '<~' •• . •• .:.~ r=/ ;""Ir/f~~·.:,: h ~. ~V "'

, -<-----.::......-_.- ------ ":.- ----- --- ----- _._-~---'--- ._~;;..'..,- ;<

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent

requests for advisory opinions

(AORs). The full text of any AOR is

available for public inspection and

comment from the FEC's Public

Records Office.

1989-31

Act's preemption of state law

governing reporting of federal

campaign committee's contributions

to state and local candidates.

(Date made public: December 6, 1989;

Length: 2 pages)

1989-32

Contributions by foreign nationals

to committee active in referendum

campaign. (Date made public:

January 6, 1990; Length: 7 pages,

including supplements)

1990-1

Corporation's sale of 900-line

telephone service to political

committees. (Date made public:

January 9, 1990; Length: 13 pages,

including supplements)

1990-2

Candidate committee's use of excess

campaign funds as collateral for

loan made to local party committee.

(Date made public: January 9, 1990;

Length: 2 pages)

Volume 16, Num

ADVISORY OPINION SUMMARIES

AO 1989-27: Act '·s preemption of

State Law Governing

Solicitations by sta

Employees

The Federal Election Campaign Ac

(the Act) preempts, in part, a

Massachusetts state law prohibiti

state and local government emplo

(other than elected officials) fr

soliciting or receiving

contributions for campaign purpo

Section 13 of Chapter 55 of 

General Laws of the Commonwealth 

Massachusetts provides that no s

or local government employee, oth

than an· elected officer, may

directly or indirectly solicit o

receive a political contribution

The section does, however, permi

the solicitation and receipt of

contributions by committees

organized to promote the candidac

of state and local government

employees, but only if those

contributions are not received o

solicited from persons having an

interest in a matter in which the

employee participated during the

course of his employment "or whi

is the subject of [the employee'

official responsibility."

The Act provides that federa

law "supersedes and preempts" al

state laws with respect to feder

elections. 2 U.S.C. §453.

Commission regulations specify th

the federal law supersedes state

laws concerning federal campaign

activities covered by the Act,

including limitations and

prohibitions on contributions.

However, the Act does not superse

state laws governing the

qualifications of candidates, da

and places of elections, voter

registration, voting fraud or

candidates' personal financial

FEDERAL ELECTION COMKISSION

999 E street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20463

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

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry, Vice Chairman

Joan Aikens

Thomas J. Josefiak

Danny L. McDonald

Scott E. Thomas

2

Walter J. stewart, Secretary of th

Senate, Ex Officio

Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the

House of Representatives, Ex Offi
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

disclosure. 11 CFR lOB.7(b) and

(el. Nor did Cong~ess intend for

the Act to supersede state laws

regarding the political conduct of

state and local employees--the

"little Hatch Acts."l

In light of FEC regulations and

the legislative history, the Act

does not preempt the Massachusetts

law's ban on contributions directly

solicited or received by state and

local government employees,

including solicitations by state or

local employees who are candidates

for federal office. The Act does,

however, preempt the state law's

prohibition on a political

committee's solicitation or

acceptance of contributions to

influence federal elections because

that prohibition extends beyond the

particular state employee and

regulates an area that Congress

intended for the Act to cover, i.e.,

the source of campaign funds.

Similarly, to the extent that the

prohibition on indirect

solicitations by employees relates

to solicitation or receipt by

individuals in the campaign acting

on behalf of the employee/

candidate, that portion of section

13 is also preempted by the Act.

Thus, while candidates who are also

state or local government employees

in Massachusetts may not solicit

funds for their own campaigns, their

campaign committees and agents may

solicit and receive contributions

from anyone who is otherwise

permitted by federal law to

contribute to federal candidates.

Commissioner Thomas issued a

dissenting opinion. (Date issued:

December 11, 1989; Length: 6 pages)

1. See H.R. Rep. No. 93-1239, 93d

Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1974)i also H.R.

Rep. No. 93-1438, 93d Cong., 2d

Sess. 102 (1974) and 120 Congo Ree.

518538 (October 8, 1974).

3

Volume 16, Numbe

AO 1969-29: PAC Established by

Company Owned by

Foreign principal

GEM of Hawaii, Inc., may make

contributions to state and local

candidates in Hawaii through GEM

PAC, the political committee it ha

established, provided foreign

nationals do not participate in an

decisions concerning GEM's

contributions to the PAC or to oth

political committees involved in

state or local elections. Because

the corporation is the only source

of funds for GEM PAC, however, the

committee may not make contributio

or expenditures in connection with

federal elections.

GEM is a wholly owned subsidia

of a foreign companYi it is incorporated under Hawaiian laws and

operates principally in Hawaii,

deriving its revenues from its U.S

operations. GEM PAC's members and

directors are not foreign

nationals.

State and Local Activity

The Act prohibits contribution

by foreign nationals in connection

with any election, including state

and local elections. 2 U.S.C.

§441e. A "foreign national" is

defined, for the Act's purposes, a

22 U.S.C. S611(b). As a company

incorporated under U.S. laws and

having its principal place of

operation in the U.S., GEM falls

outside of the definition of

"foreign national." Furthermore,

because GEM is not predominantly

funded by its foreign parent and

derives its revenues from its u.s.

operations, the company's

contributions to its PAC are U.S.

funds and are not prohibited under

the Act's foreign national

provision. See AOs 1989-20 and

1985-3. Therefore, GEM may

contribute to state and local

candidates by itself or through GE

PAC to the extent that (1) state a

local laws permit such corporate

(continue

1. Hawaiian state laws permit

corporate contributions of up to

$2,000 per election for state and

local candidates. HRS §§1l-191(18

and 11-204(a).
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

activity;l and (2) foreign

nationals do not influence GEM's

decisions concerning political

contributions, or participate in the

decisions or administration of GEM

PAC.

Federal Activity

As it currently operates, GEM

PAC is not a separate segregated

fund of GEM, but rather a vehicle

through which the corporation

proposes to make contributions to

candidates. The Act prohibits

corporate contributions to federal

candidates, so GEM PAC, holding only

corporate funds, may not make any

contributions in connection with

federal elections. 2 U.S.C. §441b.

GEM may establish a separate

segregated fund for federal election

activity, however. Under the

procedures set forth at 11 CFR

114.5, such a committee could make

contributions in connection with

federal elections (and for

nonfederal elections, if permitted

by state and local laws) provided

that the separate segregated fund

accepted no contributions from

foreign nationals and that the

decisions and administration. of the

fund remained independent of

direction by foreign nationals.

(Date issued: December 19, 1989;

Length: 5 pages)

AO 1989-30: . payment to Senator for

Teaching Course

Compensation received by Senator

Joseph Biden for teaching a law

school course will not be considered

an honorarium and, therefore, will

not be subject to the Act's $2,000

limit on honoraria received by

Members of Congress and other

government officials.

Senator Biden has been invited

by an accredited law school to teach

a course in the school's regular

curriculum. The course will be

scheduled during the regular school

term and will be repeated in

subsequent years. The Senator will

be paid from the university's

general funds, which are used to

compensate other law school

professors, and not from any other

funds designated for his compensation. The amount will be determined

under the school's usual guidelines

for teaching fees.

4

Volume 16, Num

The Act prohibits an elected 

appointed officer or employee of 

federal government from acceptin

honorarium of more than $2,000 f

any appearance, speech or articl

2 U.S.C. S441i. FEC regulations

however, exclude payments for

certain activities from the defi

tion of an honorarium, including 

payment of a stipend for service

the officeholder which are provi

on a continuing basis to the

organization making the payment. 

CFR 110.12(c)(3).

In Senator Biden's case, the

payment he receives for teaching 

course would be a stipend, not a

honorarium, and thus would not b

subject to the Act's honorarium

limits. See also AO 1985-4. (Da

issued: December 19, 1989; Lengt

pages)

"UR 2823: Excessive Contribution

Received by Candidate

Committee

This MUR, resolved through conci

ation, concerned a congressional

candidate committee's acceptance 

an excessive contribution and fa

ure to disclose the contribution

correctly.

Background

Initiated both sua sponte (i

by the respondent) and through a

complaint filed by a state party

committee, this enforcement acti

concerned a transaction in which 

Congressional candidate received 

$20,000 loan from a supporter,

secured with 4,000 shares of

corporate stock from the candida

personal assets. The candidate 

passed the funds on to his campa

committee. The candidate and th

supporter ratified their agreeme

with a preprinted promissory not

obtained from a bank. Although 

candidate claimed that the trans

action constituted a sale, in wh

1. The Commission merged the su

sponte complaint, pre-MUR 201, w

the party complaint, MUR 2742.
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION

the stock was exchanged for cash,

the Commission viewed the transaction as a loan to the committee

and, thus, found reason to believe

that the candidate and his committee

had accepted an excessive

contribution, in violation of

2 U.S.C. §441a(f). The Commission

also found reason to believe that

the supporter had made an excessive

contribution, in violation of 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A).

An examination of the reports

the committee filed during the

period revealed that .the committee

had inaccurately disclosed the

source of the $20,000. The

Commission found reason to believe

that the committee had violated 2

U.S.C. §434(b).

General Counsel's Report

Excessive Contribution. The

General Counsel challenged the

respondents' claim that the' $20,000

represented proceeds from a sale of

stock to a supporter, which the

candidate, in turn, loaned to the

committee. The respondents asserted

that the preprinted promissory note

was used to execute the transaction

only for the sake of convenience;

nonetheless, the General Counsel

noted evidence showing that the

parties treated the transaction as a

campaign loan in accordance with the

terms of the note.

For example, in his initial

contact with the Commission

regarding the matter (a letter that

led to the sua sponte complaint),

the candidate referred to the

$20,000 as a "loan" and stated that

the loan was secured by 4,000 shares

of stock. The preprinted promissory

note was signed only by the

candidate, though a typed revision

on the form stated that the term

"Lender" referred to the supporter

(i.e., the individual who provided

the $20,000) as payee.

Information included in the

candidate's Financial Disclosure

Statements filed with the u.s. House

of Representatives also supported

the General Counsel's recommendation

that the transaction be viewed as a

loan. In a Financial Disclosure

Statement filed during the year

after the election (the candidate

had, in the meantime, won the House

seat he had sought), the candidate

5

Volume 16, Numbe

disclosed the $20,000 as a

"personal" debt to the supporter,

and at the same time the reports

revealed that the ownership of the

stock had never changed.

Additionally, the $20,000 was

eventually repaid, with interest, 

the supporter in compliance with

terms set forth in the note. Che

totaling $23,754, drawn on the

candidate's personal account, were

written to the supporter in the

period following the receipt of th

loan. Notations on the checks

indicated the candidate's intentio

to repay a loan. One of the chec

for example, bore the notation

"payment on note." Checks from th

committee to the candidate, writte

at the time the repayments to the

supporter were made, appeared to

reimburse the candidate for the

amounts repaid to the supporter.

This evidence further substantiate

the General Counsel's view that th

candidate, acting as an agent of h

campaign, received an excessive lo

from a supporter and turned the

money directly over to the committee; repayments by the committe

were also made through the candidate. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(2).

Under the Act, a loan to a

candidate is a "contribution" when

it is made, and it remains a

contribution until it is repaid. 

contributions, loans from individuals are limited to $1,000 per

candidate, per election. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(1)(A). Section 441a also

prohibits anyone from knOWingly

accepting an excessive contributio

Disclosure. In its reports, 

campaign committee reported the

$20,000 as a loan from the candidate's personal funds, rather than

from the supporter. The election

law requires that committee repor

disclose the identity of any perso

making a loan to the the committe

during the reporting period. 2

U.S.C. §434(b)(3)(E).

Commission Determination

The Commission entered into

conciliation agreements with the

candidate, the committee and the

supporter prior to finding probab

cause. The agreements included a

civil penalty of $7,750 for the

candidate and his committee and a

penalty of $7,500 for the support
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

MURS RELEASED TO PUBLIC

Publicly released MUR summary

files, as announced in FEC press

releases on December 12, 18 and 22,

1989, are listed below. Civil

penalties resulted from conciliation

agreements reached between the

respondents and the Commission.

The summary file for each MUR is

available from the FEC's Public

Records Office.

MUR 2656

Respondents: Food Marketing

Institute PAC and treasurer (DC)

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $2,000 civil penalty

RUR 2701

Respondents: (a) Iowa Democratic

Party and treasurer (IA); (b)

Dukakis/Bentsen Committee and

treasurer (MA)

Coaplainant: M. Mahaffey (IA)

Subject: Impermissible

expenditures; disclaimer

Disposition: (a) $500 civil

penalty; (b) No reason to believe

MUB 2702

Respondents: (a) Kentucky state

Democratic Central Executive

Committee and treasurer; (b)

Dukakis/Bentsen Committee and

treasurer (MA)

Complainant: R. Gable, Chairman,

Republican Party of Kentucky

Subject: Prohibited expenditures;

disclaimer

Disposition: (a) $1,200 civil

penalty; (b) No reason to believe

MUR 2801

Respondents: (a) York County

Republican Committee and treasurer

(PA); (b) Dorr Committee and

treasurer (PA); (c) Bush/Quayle '88

and treasurer (DC)

Complainant: R. Bitzel, Chairman,

Democratic party of York County

Subject: Failure to register and

report; impermissible expenditures;

disclaimer; failure to report

independent expenditures

Disposition: (a) $400 civil penalty;

(b) $250 civil penalty; (c) No

reason to believe

6

Volume 16, Num

MUR 2824

Respondents: (a) Du Pont for

President committeee and treasur

(PA) ;

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to refund exces

contributions on time

Disposition: $2,000 civil penalt

MUR 2854

Respondents: National Federatio

Federal Employees Public Affairs

Council and treasurer (DC)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to report on ti

Disposition: $1,000 civil penal

MUR 2902

Respondents: Rep. J. Slattery (

Complainant: F. Logan, State

Chairman, Kansas Republican part

Subject: Failure to file Statem

of Candidacy on time

Disposition: $300 civil penalty

!'IUR 2942

Respondents: American Petrofina 

and treasurer (TX)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to report on t

inadequate contribution informat

Disposition: Reason to believe 

took no further action

MUR 2970

Respondents: Public Securities

Association PAC and treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to report

Disposition: $300 civil penalty

MUR 2998

Respondents: Santa Clara County

United Democratic Campaign '88 a

treasurer (CA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Prohibited expenditure

and transfers

Disposition: Reason to believe 

took no further action
Volume 16, Numbe

members. Adopting the recommendations of the General counsel,

who noted that the complaint raise

issues that the Commission had

already resolved with the respondents in prior enforcement actions,

the Commission dismissed the

complaint.

The plaintiff also seeks a cou

order requiring the Commission to

conform to the court's declaration

by instituting appropriate

enforcement against HCI within 30

days. In the alternative, the NRA

asks the court to remand its

complaint to the Commission for

further consideration.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, Civil Action

No. 89-3011, November 2, 1969.

1989-19

11 CFR Parts 100, 102, 110, 114 an

9034: Affiliated Committees,

Transfers, Prohibited Contribution

Annual Contribution Limitations an

Earmarked Contributions; Effective

Date of Final Rules (54 Fed. Reg.

48580, November 24, 1989)

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Copies of Federal Register Notices

are available from the Public

Records Office.

1989-17

Filing Dates for Texas (18th

District) Special Runoff Election

(54 Fed. Reg. 48318, November 22,

1989) •

1989-18

11 CFR Part 110: Contributions an

Expenditures; Prohibited

Contributions (Foreign Nationals);

Final Rule and Explanation and

Justification (54 Fed. Reg. 48580,

November 24, 1989)

February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

NEW LITIGATION

NRA v. FEe (89-3011)

The National Rifle Association

asks the district court to declare

that the Commission acted contrary

to law in dismissing a 1989

administrative complajnt that the

NRA had filed against Handgun

control, Inc. (HCI).

In its complaint, the NRA had

claimed that HCI had made PAC

solicitations outside of its

restricted class--i.e., to nonFEe v. FURGATCH (83-0596-GT(K»

In November 1989 the U.S.

District Court for the Southern

District of California issued a

memorandum decision and order

enjoining Harvey Furgatch from

violating certain provisions of the

Federal Election Campaign Act,

namely, the disclaimer notice and

reporting requirements connected

with independent expenditures. The

order followed a decision by the

u.s. Court of Appeals, Ninth

Circuit, finding that an earlier

order issued by the district court

had failed to (1) state the reasons

for the injunction against Mr.

Furgatch, (2) specify the precise

conduct prohibited by it and (3)

limit the injunction to a reasonable

duration.

On remand, the district court

cited Mr. Furgatch's past violations of the election law as

demonstrating that he was likely to

violate the law again. As an

additional reason for the

injunction, the court pointed out

that his conduct since the

enforcement action was opened (in

1980) had shown "an absence of good

faith efforts by Furgatch to cure

his violations."

In accordance with the appeals

court's ruling, the district court

specified that the injunction

prohibited Mr. Furgatch from

committing further violations of

sections 434(c) and 441d of the

Act. Finally, the court limited the

duration of the injunction to eight

years.

7
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

~:~ Lc~ • __' "_-:-~'. __'_.~,¥:.__ ~'_~' .

~' .' LI)~ .~ L, :\' ; ~' ,.: .' -' . , .-. ~- - - .. - --. _.......... - - --- -- ~'- -- - ..

WHEN REIMBURSEMENTS ARE

REQUIRED IN SSF FUNDRAISING

This article addresses situations where a separate segregated

fund (SSF) is required to reimburse

the corporation or labor organization for costs incurred in

fundraising.

The "One Third Rule"

The Federal Election Campaign

Act prohibits corporations and labor

organizations from making

contributions or expenditures in

connection with federal elections.

However, the Act and Commission

regulations do permit corporations

and labor organizations to use

treasury funds to pay for the

establishment, administration and

solicitation costs associated with

operating an SSF. Corporations and

labor organizations may sponsor a

fundraising activity, using some

tangible premium as an inducement to

make contributions to the SSF, such

as a prize, a raffle or the sale of

fundraising items. See 11 CFR

114.5(b).

In using one of these fundraising premiums, however, the

sponsoring organization must be sure

that the prize is not disproportionately valuable compared1with the

contributions it generates.

Moreover, the items offered may not

be so numerous or valuable that the

fundraising procedure becomes, in

effect, a means of "trading"

treasury funds for voluntary contributions. Accordingly, Commission

regulations provide that a reasonable practice to follow is for

the SSF to reimburse the corporation

or labor organization for any costs

that exceed one-third of the money

contributed. This standard is

commonly referred to as the

"one-third rule." 11 CFR 114.5

(b)(2).

For example, a corporation or

labor organization spends $300 in

treasury funds to purchase a raffle

1. Such fundraising devices must

also be permitted under state law.

8

Volume 16, Num

prize. The SSF raises $600 at 

raffle. Since the cost of the p

($300) is more than one-third o

amount raised ($200), the SSF m

reimburse the difference ($100) 

the sponsoring organization. O

other hand, if the SSF collects 

in contributions, then the cost 

the prize ($300) equals one-thir

the amount raised ($300), and no

reimbursement is necessary.

Prizes and Sale Items

In Advisory Opinion 1981-7, 

Commission held that a labor un

could use treasury funds to purc

jackets, which would be sold to

union members to raise contribu

for the union's 55F, provided th

the union treasury was reimburse

for any costs that exceeded

one-third of the money contribu

for the jackets. In Advisory

Opinion 1981-40, the Commission 

that pen and pencil sets offered 

a corporation in return for

contributions to its SSF were n

valuable or numerous that a "tra

mon~y" situation existed. The 

value of each memento--small in

comparison with the $1,000

contribution--did not approach

one-third of the money contribu

Thus, no reimbursement was requ

Multiple Prizes

In a situation where multip

prizes are available through a

raffle, the Commission explained

that to determine whether

reimbursement is required under 

"one-third rule," the SSF should

consider the total value of all 

prizes in relation to the total

amount of contributions receive

See Advisory Opinion 1989-18.

Minimum Guideline

Although a raffle ticket, p

or memento may be offered only 

those contributing a specified

amount, 'a minimum guideline for

contributions may not be enforc

Thus, the SSF or sponsoring

organization must state in the

solicitation that contributors 

free to contribute more or less 

the amount suggested. See Advi

Opinions 1981-7 and 1989-18.
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Regular Solicitation Costs

The "one-third rule" does not

apply to regular solicitation costs.

In Advisory Opinion 1979-72, for

example, the Commission stated that

a trade association's costs of

hosting a fundraiser for its SSF did

not have to be reimbursed by the SSF

even though the costs of the door

prizes and entertainment (for the

same event) were subject to the

"one-third rule. n Similarly, in

Advisory Opinion 1980-50, the

Commission held that.a corporation

could pay all the costs of a meeting

held to introduce its employees to

its SSF. The corporation could

lawfully schedule a breakfast or

luncheon meeting during business

hours, transport the employees to

the meeting, and pay the full costs

of the transportation and meals.

Since prizes were not involved, no

reimbursement was required.

NEW TREASURER

This brief article explains the

Act's reporting requirements concerning changes in officers. For

more information about treasurers'

responsibilities, call the FEC and

ask for the free brochure,

"Committee Treasurers," at 800/424-

9530 or 202/376-3120.

What should our committee do if

we have a new treasurer? A new

treasurer (and any other change in

the information disclosed on the

Statement of Organization) must be

reported within 10 days after the

change takes place.

How should we report the change?

By filing an amended statement of

Organization (FEC Form 1) or a

signed letter. The amended

Statement need contain only the

committee's name, identification

number (assigned by the FEC when the

original Statement was filed) and

the name of the new treasurer.

Could we notify the Commission

simply by having the new treasurer

sign the next report (Form 3 or 3x)?

No. The change in the position of

treasurer must be reported separately--either in a letter or in an

amended Statement of Organization.

9

Volume 16,Numbe

If I don't have my committee's

identification number, how can I g

it? By calling the FEC's Public

Records Office at 800/424-9530 or

202/376-3140.

Who should sign the amendment 

the statement of organization?

Either the outgoing or the incomin

treasurer may sign.

Must the treasurer be involved

with the committee"s day-to-day

operations? No. The treasurer is

responsible for seeing that certain

activities are carried out, but

other individuals (such as committ

support staff or professional

consultants) may actually perform

the duties. However, the treasure

(or a properly designated assistan

treasurer) must actually sign all

reports. For example, an accounta

or bookkeeper may handle the

recordkeeping and reporting duties

but the treasurer remains responsible for the committee's complian

with campaign finance laws.

Why does the FEe recommend tha

committees also designate an

assistant treasurer on the Stateme

of Organization? To ensure continuity, even if the treasurer is

unavailable. Under the law, a

political committee must have a

treasurer when it conducts financi

transactions. However, an assista

treasurer who has been designated 

the Statement may assume the

treasurer's responsibilities in ca

the treasurer is absent or resigns

unexpectedly. The assistant

treasurer, for example, could sign 

committee's reports. Moreover, wi

an assistant treasurer, a committe

could continue to accept contributions and make expenditures even i

the office of treasurer were vacan

How does the committee name an

assistant treasurer? By filing an

amendment to the Statement of

Organization (following the same

procedures described above). Note

that your committee may name an

assistant treasurer at any time.
FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMrvllSSION Volume 16, Num

MUR SUMMARIES

MUR 2823: Excessive contributio

received by candidate committ

2:4

COURT CASES

FEC v.

- Franklin, 1:13 - Furgatch (83-0596-GT(M)), 

800 LINE

Combined dues/solicitation

statements, 1:17

Designating a principal campaign

committee, 1:19

New treasurer, 2:9

When reimbursements are required 

SSF fundraising, 2:8

v. FEC - NRA (89-3011), 2:7

ADVISORY OPINIONS

1989-21; Fundraising by sole

proprietor in cooperation with

candidates, 1:9

1989-25: preemption of state law

limiting party spending on beh

of candidates, 1:10

1989-26: Automatic bank transfer

from contributor'S account to

candidate committee's account,

1:11

1989-27: Act's preemption of sta

law governing solicitations by

state employees, 2:2

1989-29: PAC established by com

owned by foreign principal, 2

1989-30: payment to senator for

teaching course, 2:4

This cumulative index lists

summaries of advisory opinions,

court cases, and MURs that have

appeared in the Record during 19

as well as 800 Line articles. T

first number in each citation re

to the "number" (month) of the

Record issue; the second number,

following the colon, indicates t

page number in that issue.

February 1990

EXPLANATION & JUSTIFICATIONS FOR

FEC REGULATIONS: 1975 - PRESENT

The Commission has recently

updated its compilation of

Explanation and Justifications

(E&Js) that have been issued for

proposed FEC regulations since 1975.

The E&JS accompany regulations

submitted by the FEC to Congress and

explain the origin and intent of the

regulations proposed.

Designed as a loose-leaf binder

insert, the compilation contains the

following:

o E&Js for all current regulations,

as well as for older rules that

have been revised or deleted;

o E&Js for rules that never took

effect, along with the text of the

proposed rules;

a A citation index identifying all

E&Js applicable to each regulation;

o A subject index to help locate

topics addressed by more than one

E&J;

o A conversion table showing the

widespread changes in FEC

regulations resulting from the

1979 amendments to the Federal

Election Campaign Act; and

o An appendix that lists previous

citations for current regulations.

The E&J compilation is a useful

reference tool for attorneys,

accountants and others who work

regularly with federal election law.

The recent updates will be mailed

automaticaly to current subscribers.

The Commission notifies subscribers

of available updates and applicable

copying fees as they are issued.

The volume costs $25.00. To

order and get on the mailing list

for future updates, call the.FEC's

Public Records Office at 800/424-

9530 or 202/376-3140.

10
February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Number 

ELECTION LAW CONFERENCE SERIES

In March the Federal Election Commission will hold two

conferences on campaign finance laws:

Arizona Regional Conference

On March 8 and 9 the FEC and the Arizona Secretary of state's

Office will hold a regional conference on campaign finance laws at the

Safari Resort in Scottsdale, Arizona. The conference will include

workshops on candidate campaigns, party and PAC activity,

contributions and reporting.

Commissioners and staff members from the FEC and the Arizona

Secretary of State's Office will conduct the sessions and answer

questions about federal and state election rules.

The $50 registration fee includes all materials, lunch and

refreshments.

Washington, D.C., Candidate Conference

On March 30, the Commission will host a conference at the

washington Court on Capitol Hill for candidates and staff members

preparing for the 1990 elections. workshops will be conducted by

Commissioners and FEe staff members; a representative of the Internal

Revenue Service will speak about election-related tax issues.

The $65 registration fee includes all materials, lunch and

refreshments.

TO receive a registration form for either of these conferences, call

the FEe at 800/424-9530 or 202/376-3120.

11
CHANGE OF ADDRESS?

February 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMfVlISSION Volume 16, Num

Political Committees

Registered committees automatically receive the Record. Any

change of address by a registered committee must, by law, be made

in writing by filing an amended FEC Form 1 (statement of

Organization) with the Clerk of the House, Secretary of the Senate

or the FEC, as appropriate.

other Subscribers

Record subscribers (who are not registered committees), when

notifying us of a change of address, should include the following

information:

o subscription number

o Name of person receiving the Record

o Old address

o New address

FEDERAL ELECTiON COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Officiar Business

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commissio

Permit Number G-31