November 2002 Federal Election Commission Volume 28, Number 11

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 BCRA Takes Effect

3 Final Rules on Electioneering

Communications

6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on BCRA Reporting

Reports

1 Post-General Reporting Reminder

2 Massachusetts State Filing Waiver

5 Hawaii Special Election

12 Georgia Runoff Election

Compliance

8 MUR 4530, et al.: Foreign National

Contributions in 1996 Election

Audits

10 2000 Presidential Primary and

Convention Audits

Alternative Dispute Resolution

10 ADR Program Becomes

Permanent

12 ADR Update

11 Public Appearances

Statistics

13 Party Fundraising Growth

Continues

Administrative Fines

14 Committees Fined for Late and

Nonfiled Reports

Outreach

14 Roundtable

15 Federal Register

15 Index

Compliance Regulations Reports

Post-General Reporting

Reminder

The 30-day Post-General Election

report is due on December 5. The

Post-General report covers activity

from October 17 (or from the close

of books of the last report filed)

through November 25. The following committees must file this report:

• All registered PACs and party

committees—even committees

with little or no activity to disclose. Monthly filers must submit

this report in lieu of the November

monthly report.1

• Authorized committees of federal

candidates running in the general

election, including committees of

unopposed candidates. Note that

because the reporting period for

the Post-General report spans two

election cycles, candidate committees should use the Post-Election

Detailed Summary Page (FEC

Form 3, Pages 5-8) instead of the

normal Detailed Summary Page.

In order to be considered timely

filed, reports sent electronically

must be received by the Commission, and pass the validation test,

1 Monthly filers should not file a

November monthly report in addition to

the Post-General report.

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 2)

BCRA Takes Effect

Many provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

(BCRA) take effect November 6,

2002. With the exception of the

national party committees’ soft

money rules, the rules taking effect

on November 6 do not apply to

activity resulting from elections held

before November 6th, including

general election runoffs and recounts. However, after November 5,

committees, organizations and

individuals must otherwise comply

with provisions of the BCRA, as

appropriate, for all of their other

activity, including activity related to

the upcoming special general

election in Hawaii. See related

article on page 5.

BCRA Requirements that Become

Effective November 6

Provisions that take effective on

November 6 include:

• A ban on the use of nonfederal

funds by national party committees, including funds raised or

spent for the purpose of building or

purchasing a party office building;

• Rules governing fundraising and

disbursements by state, district and

local party committees—including

the raising and spending of socalled “Levin funds;”
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

2

before midnight on the December 5

filing deadline. A committee

required to file electronically that

instead files on paper reporting

forms will be considered a nonfiler.

Reports sent by regular first-class

or overnight mail, or by hand

delivery, must be received by the

Commission’s close of business on

the filing deadline. Reports sent via

registered or certified mail must be

postmarked on or before December

5 to be considered timely filed. A

committee sending its reports via

registered or certified mail should

keep its mailing receipt with the

U.S. Postal Service postmark as

proof of filing.

Additional Information

For more information on 2002

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the

January 2002 Record, page 4;

• Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 (press 1, then 3) or 202/694-

1100;

• Fax the reporting tables to yourself

using the FEC’s Faxline (202/501-

3413, document 586); or

• Visit the FEC’s web page at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/report.htm to

view the reporting tables online.✦

—Amy Kort

Reports

(continued from page 1)

Commission Certifies

Massachusetts for State

Filing Waiver

The Commission has certified

that Massachusetts qualifies for a

state filing waiver.1

 Consequently,

federal committees and candidates

in Massachusetts no longer have to

file copies of their federal reports

with the Massachusetts Secretary of

the Commonwealth.✦

—Amy Kort

1 The Commission has certified that the

following states and territories qualify

for filing waivers: Alabama, Alaska,

American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgin

Islands, Virginia, Washington, West

Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Committees that file their reports at the

FEC need not file copies in these states.

Guam, Montana and Puerto Rico are

not currently in the State Filing Waiver

Program.

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

David M. Mason, Chairman

Karl J. Sandstrom, Vice Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

• Rules defining and governing

“federal election activity;”

• Rules governing nonfederal

fundraising by federal candidates

and officeholders;

• Restrictions on donations to and

solicitations for 501(c) and socalled “527” organizations by

party committees, federal candidates and federal officeholders; 1

• Requirements for the funding and

reporting of “electioneering

communications;” 2

• Prohibitions on contributions by

minors;

• Strengthened prohibitions on

contributions, expenditures,

independent expenditures and

disbursements for electioneering

communications by foreign

nationals; 3

• Additional requirements for

disclaimers accompanying radio,

television and print campaign

materials;

• Increases to the civil penalties for

violations of the ban on contributions in the name of another and

the expansion of the prohibition on

fraudulent misrepresentation;

• The codification of several aspects

of the current regulatory test for

the permissible use of campaign

1 All of the above rules relating to the

use of nonfederal funds are addressed

in the Commission’s “Final Rules on

Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Nonfederal Funds or Soft

Money” (67 FR 49064, July 29, 2002).

These rules are summarized in the

September 2002 Record, page 1.

2 The Commission approved final rules

on “electioneering communications”

on September 26, 2002. See related

article on page 3.

3 The Commission published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking( NPRM) on

contribution limitations and prohibitions in the August 22, 2002, Federal

Register (67 FR 54366). The NPRM is

summarized in the September 2002

Record, page 11.
November 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Final Rules on Electioneering

Communications

On October 10, 2002, the Federal

Election Commission (FEC) approved final rules to implement

provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regulating

television or radio communications

that refer to a clearly identified

federal candidate and are distributed

to the relevant electorate within 60

days prior to the general election or

30 days prior to a primary.

These rules do not affect the 2002

election cycle or any runoff elections or recounts that result from the

November 5, 2002, elections.

The final rules and their Explanation and Justification were published

in the October 23, 2002, Federal

Register (67 FR 65190) and are

available on the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/

rulemakings/

electioneering_communications.htm.

 “Electioneering Communication”

Defined

An electioneering communication

is any broadcast, cable or satellite

communication which fulfills each

of the following conditions:

The communication refers to a

clearly identified candidate. A

communication refers to a clearly

identified federal candidate if it

contains the candidate’s name,

nickname or image, or makes any

unambiguous reference to the

person or their status as a candidate,

such as “the Democratic candidate

for Senate.” 11 CFR 100.29(b)(2).

The communication is publicly

distributed. Generally, a communication is publicly distributed if it is

disseminated for a fee by a television station, radio station, cable

television system or satellite system.

In the case of Presidential and

Vice-Presidential candidates, the

communication is publicly distributed if it can be received by 50,000

or more people:

(continued on page 4)

funds by candidates and officeholders; 4

• Rules on independent and coordinated expenditures by political

committees;

• The definition of coordination

between a candidate or political

party and a person making a

communication; 5

• Reporting requirements for

independent expenditures;

• Increased contribution limits to

candidates opposing self-financed

candidates under the BCRA’s socalled “Millionaires’ Amendment;” and

• New requirements for inaugural

committees.

The BCRA’s increases to the

contributions limits do not become

effective until January 1, 2003.

Thus, the current contribution limits

will remain in effect throughout

2002.

Commission Rulemakings

The BCRA requires all implementing regulations to be promulgated by December 22, 2002. To

date, the Commission has approved

rules that eliminate or restrict

nonfederal financial activity (“soft

money”) for national, state and local

party committees. Additionally, the

Commission has approved final

rules concerning electioneering

communications (67 FR 65190,

October 23, 2002). In conjunction

with these final rules, the Commission has also approved interim final

rules with a request for comments

pertaining to the Federal Communications Commission database on

electioneering communications (67

FR 65212, October 23, 2002).

Comments concerning the interim

final rules are due on January 21,

2003.

The Commission has also published Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking on coordinated and

independent expenditures, contribution limitations and prohibitions and

other issues, including disclaimers,

fraudulent solicitation, civil penalties and the personal use of campaign funds by officeholders and

candidates. The Commission intends

to approve and publish the interim

final rules implementing the Millionaires’ Amendment in December.

Additional Information

The FEC web site (www.fec.gov)

now has a BCRA section, which

provides links to:

• The Federal Election Campaign

Act, as amended by the BCRA;

• Summaries of major BCRA-related

changes to the federal campaign

finance law;

• Summaries of current litigation

involving challenges to the new

law;

• Federal Register notices announcing new and revised Commission

regulations that implement the

BCRA, including NPRMs;

• Information on educational

outreach offered by the Commission; and

• The Commission’s calendar for

rulemakings.

Visit www.fec.gov and click on

the BCRA icon.✦

—Amy Kort 5 On September 24 the Commission

published in the Federal Register an

NPRM proposing rules to implement

statutory changes relating to coordination and to independent and coordinated expenditures. A summary of the

NPRM is available in the October 2002

Record, page 4.

4 On August 29 the Commission

published in the Federal Register an

NPRM proposing rules to implement

statutory changes relating to disclaimers, fraudulent solicitations, permissible and prohibited uses of campaign

funds and civil penalties (67 FR

55348). The NPRM is summarized in

the October 2002 Record, page 1.
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

4

• In a state where a primary election

or caucus is being held within 30

days;

• Anywhere in the United States

during the period between 30 days

prior to the nominating convention

and the conclusion of that convention; or

• Anywhere in the United States

within 60 days prior to the general

election. 11 CFR 100.29(b)(3)(ii).

The Commission will publish on

its web site a list of the applicable

event in each state that triggers the

30-day period for Presidential and

Vice-Presidential candidates.

Electioneering communications

are limited to paid programming.

The station must seek or receive

payment for distribution of the

communication. Both infomercials

and commercials are included

within the definition. 11 CFR

100.29(b)(3)(i).

The communication is distributed

during a certain time period before

an election. Electioneering communications are transmitted within 60

days prior to a general election or 30

days prior to a primary election for

federal office, including elections in

which the candidate is unopposed. A

“primary election” includes any

caucus or convention of a political

party which has the authority to

nominate a candidate to federal

office. 11 CFR 100.29(a)(2).

This condition regarding the

timing of the communication applies

only to elections in which the

candidate referred to is running.

In the case of Congressional

candidates only, the communication

is targeted to the relevant electorate. The communication targets the

relevant electorate if it can be

received by 50,000 or more people

in the district (in the case of a U.S.

House candidate) or state (in the

case of a Senate candidate) that the

candidate seeks to represent. 11

CFR 100.29(b)(5).

The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) will provide on

its web site the information necessary to determine whether a communication can be received by 50,000

people. Under interim rules promulgated by the FEC, if this information is not yet available, the person

making a communication may argue

that it could not have been received

by 50,000 people of the relevant

electorate. 1 To make this argument,

they may:

• Use written documentation from

the entity that transmitted the

communication;

• Demonstrate that the communication is not distributed on a station

located in a metropolitan area; or

• Demonstrate that the person

possesses information which leads

them to reasonably believe that the

communication could not be

received by 50,000 or more people

in the relevant area.

Exemptions

The regulations at 11 CFR

100.29(c)(1) through (6) exempt

certain communications from the

definition of “electioneering communication:”

• A communication that is disseminated through a means other than a

television station, radio station,

cable television system or satellite

system. For example, printed

media—including newspapers,

magazines, bumper stickers, yard

signs and billboards—are not

included, nor are communications

over the Internet, e-mail or the

telephone;

• A news story, commentary or

editorial broadcast by a television

station, radio station, cable television system or satellite system.

However, the facilities may not be

owned or controlled by a political

party, political committee or

candidate, unless the communication satisfies the exemption for

news stories at 11 CFR 100.132(a)

and (b);

• Expenditures or independent

expenditures that must otherwise

be reported to the Commission;

• A candidate debate or forum or a

communication that solely promotes a debate or forum. Communications promoting the debate or

forum must be made by or on

behalf of the sponsor;

• Communications by state or local

candidates that do not promote,

support, attack or oppose federal

candidates; and

• Communications by 501(c)(3)

organizations. However, these

organizations are still barred from

participating in partisan political

activity by the Internal Revenue

Code. Making electioneering

communications may jeopardize

their tax-exempt status.2

Application

Corporations and Labor Organizations. Corporations and labor

organizations are prohibited from

making or financing electioneering

communications to those outside of

their restricted class. 11 CFR

114.2(b)(2)(iii).3

Regulations

(continued from page 3)

1 The interim rules were published in

the October 23, 2002, Federal Register

(67 FR 65212), and are open to public

comments until January 21, 2003. The

full text of the final rules and the

Explanation and Justification is

available on the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/register.htm and from the

FEC faxline at 202-501-3413 (document 358).

2 For further information on 501(c)(3)

organizations, contact the Exempt

Organizations division of the IRS at 1-

877-829-5500.

3 Generally, the restricted class

comprises the executive and administrative personnel and their families. It

also includes a corporation’s stockholders and their families, or a labor or

membership organization’s members

and their families. See 11 CFR 114.1(c)

and (e).
November 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Further, they may not provide

funds to any person if they know,

have reason to know or are willfully

blind to the fact that the funds are

for the purpose of making electioneering communications. 11 CFR

114.14(a) and (c).

However, the separate segregated

fund (PAC) of a corporation may

make electioneering communications. 11 CFR 114.5(i).

Qualified Nonprofit Corporations. Qualified nonprofit corporations (QNC) may make

electioneering communications. To

qualify, the entity must be a nonprofit corporation incorporated

under 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4) that is

ideological in nature and qualifies

for exemptions under 11 CFR

114.10.

If a QNC makes electioneering

communications that aggregate in

excess of $10,000 in a calendar

year, it must certify that it is eligible

for the QNC exemption. The

certification must include the name

and address of the corporation and

the signature and printed name of

the individual making the qualifying

statement. It must also certify that

the corporation meets the standards

of a QNC, either by satisfying all of

the qualifications at 11 CFR

114.10(c)(1)-(5), or through a court

ruling pursuant to 11 CFR

114.10(e)(1)(i)(B). The certification

is due no later than when the first

electioneering communications

report is required to be filed. 11

CFR 100.29(e).

QNCs still may not make contributions to federal political committees, nor may they accept any funds

from corporations or labor organizations. 11 CFR 114.10(d)(2) and (3).

Also, these regulations do not

supercede any section of the Internal

Revenue Code regarding 501(c)(4)

organizations. 11 CFR 100.29(i).

“527” Organizations. The

prohibition against the use of

corporate funds to make or finance

electioneering communications does

not apply to certain organizations

incorporated under 26 U.S.C. §527.

Incorporated state party committees and state candidate committees

registered as 527 organizations are

exempt from the corporate prohibition provided that the committee:

• Is not a political committee as

defined at 11 CFR 100.5;

• Incorporates for liability purposes

only;

• Does not use any funds donated by

corporations or labor organizations

to fund the electioneering communication; and

• Complies with the FEC’s reporting

requirements for electioneering

communications. 11 CFR

114.2(b)(2)(iii).

Unincorporated, unregistered

“527” organizations may also make

electioneering communications,

subject to the disclosure requirements and the prohibition against

corporate and labor funds.

Individuals, Partnerships and

PACs. Individuals, partnerships and

PACs may make or finance electioneering communications, provided

that certain conditions are met.

Those that accept funds provided by

corporations or labor organizations

may not use those funds to pay for

electioneering communications, nor

may they give these funds to another

1Reports filed electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filing

date. A committee required to file electronically that instead files on paper

reporting forms will be considered a nonfiler. Reports filed on paper and

sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date;

reports sent by any other means (including reports sent via first class mail

and overnight delivery) must be received by the Commission’s close of

business on the filing date.

2 The reporting period for the Post-General Election report spans two

election cycles. For this report only, candidate committees should use the

Post-Election Detailed Summary Page (FEC Form 3, Pages 5-8) instead of

the normal Detailed Summary Page.

Hawaii Special Election Reporting

 The Special General Election to fill the U.S. House seat of the late

Representative Patsy T. Mink in the Second Congressional District will be

held on November 30, 2002. Committees active in this election must comply

with provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) that

take effect November 6 (see related article, page 1). Note that 48-hour notices

are required of authorized committees that receive contributions of $1,000 or

more between November 11 and November 27. Committees (including PACs)

involved in this election must follow the reporting schedule below.1

Committees Involved in the Special General Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Pre-General Report November 10 November 15 November 18

Post-General Report 2 December 20 December 30 December 30

Year-End Report December 31 January 31 January 31, 2003

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

6

Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on BCRA

Reporting

On October 10, 2002, the Commission approved a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

addressing reporting issues raised in

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act of 2002 (BCRA), including the

reporting of:

• Independent expenditures;

• Electioneering communications;

and

and $10,000 reporting thresholds

have been reached; and

• Require filers to certify that the

expenditure was independent from

a political party committee and its

agents, as well as from any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Under the proposed rules, the

date that a communication is

publicly distributed or otherwise

publicly disseminated would serve

as the date that a person or committee must use to determine whether

the total amount of independent

expenditures has, in the aggregate,

reached or exceeded the threshold

reporting amounts of $1,000 or

$10,000. The NPRM asks whether

expenditures and contracts to make

expenditures for communications

that have not yet been publicly

disseminated should be included

when determining whether a reporting threshold has been reached. The

Commission also requests comments on issues such as whether

independent expenditures should be

aggregated for the purposes of 48-

hour reports on a per-election basis

within the calendar year or on an

election-cycle basis within the

calendar year.

Electioneering Communications

The BCRA requires persons who

make electioneering communications that aggregate more than

$10,000 to file disclosure statements

with the Commission within 24

hours of the disclosure date. 2

U.S.C. §434(f)(1). Under the

proposed rules, the disclosure date

would be:

• The first day in a calendar year

that an electioneering communication is publicly distributed, once

the person making the communication has made disbursements or

executed contracts for the direct

costs of producing or airing

electioneering communications

aggregating in excess of $10,000;

or

• Any subsequent day in the calendar year that an electioneering

to defray the costs of making an

electioneering communication. 11

CFR 114.14(b).

They must be able to demonstrate

through a reasonable accounting

procedure that no prohibited funds

were used to pay for the electioneering communication. 11 CFR

114.14(d).

Disclosure Requirements

The final rules on electioneering

communications do not include the

final rules on reporting these

communications. A consolidated

rulemaking on reporting is forthcoming. See related article below.

However, the statute does require

that electioneering communications

which cost more than $10,000 must

be disclosed to the FEC within 24

hours of the disclosure date.4

Additional Information

The full text of the final rules and

the Explanation and Justification is

available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/register.htm and

from the FEC faxline at 202-501-

3413 (document 353).

—Phillip Deen and

Dorothy Yeager

4 “Disclosure date” will be defined in

the consolidated rulemaking on

reporting.

Regulations

(continued from page 5)

• State and local party office building funds.

The proposed regulations also

address changes to the filing schedules of House and Senate committees and national party committees.

The NPRM was published in the

October 21, 2002, Federal Register

(67 FR 64555), and is open to public

comments until November 8, 2002.

Independent Expenditures

The BCRA requires political

committees and other persons who

make independent expenditures at

any time during a calendar year—up

to and including the 20th day before

an election—to disclose this activity

within 48 hours each time that the

expenditures aggregate $10,000 or

more. This reporting requirement is

in addition to the requirement to file

24-hour notices of independent

expenditures each time that disbursements for independent expenditures aggregate at or above $1,000

during the last 20 days—up to 24-

hours—before an election. 2 U.S.C.

§§434(b), (d) and (g).

The proposed rules address when

and how such reports should be

filed. For example, the proposed

rules would:

• Require that all 24- and 48-hour

reports of independent expenditures be filed with the Commission, including reports of

independent expenditures supporting and opposing Senate candidates;

• Require that these reports be

received by the Commission by the

filing deadline, in which case

certified or registered mail would

not be a viable filing option;

• Allow filers to file by fax, e-mail

and electronic filing;1

• Explain when and how independent expenditures should be

aggregated for the purpose of

determining whether the $1,000

1 Electronic filers must file all reports

and statements electronically.
November 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

communication is publicly distributed, once the person has made

disbursements or executed contracts for the direct costs of

producing or airing electioneering

communications aggregating in

excess of $10,000 since the last

disclosure was made.

The Commission would require

the electioneering communication to

be reported by the end of the day

following the disclosure date. The

Commission seeks comments on

this interpretation.

Additionally, the proposed rules

address such issues as how to

define:

• “The direct costs associated with

the producing or airing of an

electioneering communication.”

The Commission proposes to

include in the regulations an

exhaustive lists of such costs, and

seeks comments on whether other

costs should be included, or

whether the list should not be

exhaustive.

• “Any person sharing or exercising

control over the activities” of the

person making an electioneering

communication disbursement. The

BCRA requires that such individuals be disclosed. The Commission

requests comments on whether the

definition of such individuals

should focus on the person’s

activities or on his or her role in

the organization, such as that of an

officer, director or partner.

• Funds given to individuals or

organizations, other than a political

committee, for the purpose of

funding electioneering communications. The Commission asks

whether these funds should be

considered “donations” rather than

“contributions” under the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act).

Finally, the proposed rules

address disclosure and

recordkeeping requirements for

individuals and organizations that

make disbursements for electioneering communications. For example,

the Commission proposes that

organizations that report electioneering communications, including

qualified nonprofit organizations,

must disclose the names of donors

whose contributions aggregate in

excess of $1,000 during the calendar

year, regardless of whether the

communication was paid out of a

segregated bank account.

Filing Frequency for House and

Senate Committees and National

Party Committees

The proposed rules would

implement the BCRA’s requirement

that all principal campaign committees of House and Senate candidates

file quarterly in non-election years

as well as in election years. 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(2)(B).

As a result, House and Senate

campaign committees would no

longer be able to file on a semiannual basis during non-election

years. This requirement would not,

however, affect the principal

campaign committees, or other

authorized committees, of Presidential candidates.

Moreover, while non-authorized

committees may choose to file

quarterly or monthly, under the

BCRA national party committees

must file on a monthly basis in all

years and are no longer allowed to

change their filing schedule in nonelection years. 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(4)(B). Thus, under the

Commission’s proposed rules,

national party committees would no

longer be able to file on a quarterly

basis in election years and semiannually in non-election years. The

proposed rules would also apply to

national Congressional campaign

committees, and the Commission

seeks comments on whether these

committees should be specifically

included in the regulations.

Funds for Party Office Buildings

Commission regulations on

nonfederal funds (or “soft money”)

that become effective on November

6 provide that donations used by a

state, district or local party committee for the purchase or construction

of an office building are subject to

state law if they are donated to a

nonfederal account. However, if

funds or things of value are contributed to or used by the party’s federal

account to buy or build an office

building, then the amounts donated

are contributions under the Act. 11

CFR 300.12 and 300.35. The

proposed reporting rules would

clarify that any funds or things of

value received by a federal account

and used for the purchase or construction of an office facility,

regardless of any specific contributor designation, are contributions

and not treated any differently from

other funds or goods donated to the

federal account.

Comments

The full text of the NPRM is

available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/register.htm and

from the FEC faxline, 202/501-

3413.

All comments should be addressed to Mr. John Vergelli, Acting

Assistant General Counsel, and

must be submitted in either written

or electronic form by November 8,

2002. The Commission recommends

that comments be submitted via email. E-mail comments should be

sent to BCRAreport@fec.gov and

must include the full name and

postal service address of the

commenter. Comments that do not

contain this information will not be

considered. Faxed comments should

be sent to 202/219-3923, with a

printed copy follow-up to insure

legibility. Mailed comments should

be sent to the Federal Election

Commission, 999 E Street NW,

Washington, DC 20463. No oral

comments can be accepted.✦

—Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

8

Compliance

MUR 4530, et al.

Foreign National

Contributions in 1996 Election

On September 20, 2002, the

Commission made public its final

action on MUR 4530, et al., enforcement cases that relate primarily

to foreign activity in connection

with the 1996 elections. The combined enforcement actions resulted

in $719,500 in civil penalties. In

addition, committees were required

to disgorge certain prohibited funds.

Individuals, corporations and

political committees face civil

penalties for soliciting, making and/

or accepting prohibited foreign

national contributions, contributions

in the name of another, corporate

contributions and excessive personal

contributions. Respondents include

Charlie Trie, John Huang, Pauline

Kanchanalak and the Hsi Lai

Buddhist Temple, which was

assessed the largest single fine —

$120,000. Penalties for recipient

political committees—principally

the Democratic National Committee

(DNC)—stem from their acceptance

of prohibited contributions which they

failed to refund when they became

aware the funds were illegal.

While the number of respondents

involved in these matters precludes

comprehensive coverage in the

Record, examples of the violations

are provided below. In addition, a

chart listing all of the respondents

and civil penalty amounts appears

at right.1

Contributions from Foreign

Nationals

Foreign nationals are prohibited

from contributing anything of value

to influence an election for political

Respondent

ACPC, Inc.

American Eco Corp.

Chung, Chien Chuen “Johnny”

Clinton/Gore ’96 Primary Committee,

Inc. and Joan Pollitt, Treasurer.

DNC Services Corporation /

Democratic National Committee

and its Treasurer

Gandhi, Yogesh

Glicken, Howard

Global Resources Management, Inc.

Green, Ernest & Phyllis Caudle-Green

Ho, Jack / J&M International, Inc.

International Buddhist Progress Society,

Inc. d/b/a/ Hsi Lai Buddhist

Temple

Huang, John

Green Stamp America, Inc. f/k/a Japan

Green Stamp America, Inc.

Kanchanalak, Pauline

Kim, Chong

Kronenberg, Duangnet

Lee, Robert

Pagan, Gilberto

Psaltis, Georgio / Psaltis Corporation /

Christine Warnke / Hogan &

Hartson LLP / Michael Cheroutes

T&W Arts and Crafts (USA), Inc.

Trie, Yah Lin “Charlie”

Zhan, Keshi

Amount

$25,000

$40,000

$21,000*

$2,000

$115,000

$2,500*

$5,000

$0*

$65,000

$2,500

$120,000

$95,000*

$70,000

$25,000*

$15,000*

$20,000

$250*

$1,250

$67,500

$8,000

$7,000*

$12,500

MUR 4530, et al. Civil Penalties

office, including federal, state or

local office, either directly or

through any other person. 2 U.S.C.

§441e(a) and 11 CFR 110.4(a). A

foreign national is defined, in part, as

an individual who is not a citizen of

the United States and is not lawfully

admitted for permanent residence, as

defined by 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(20). See

also 2 U.S.C. §441e(b).

Georgios Psaltis, a Greek foreign

national, was the sole owner of the

Psaltis Corporation. The Psaltis

Corporation made $50,000 in

contributions to the DNC. The

Psaltis Corporation had no U.S.-

derived income at the time of the

contributions. Rather, the funds

were provided, at least in part, by

Mr. Psaltis himself. Christine

Warnke, Michael Cheroutes and

Hogan & Hartson LLP were also

parties to the conciliation agreement. The Commission determined

that there was probable cause to

believe that Ms. Warnke, a DNC lay

fundraiser, violated the prohibition

by soliciting, accepting or receiving

Mr. Psaltis’ contributions. The

Commission also determined that

1

 In addition, the Commission found

probable cause to believe, but took no

further action against six respondents;

and found reason to believe, but took no

further action with respect to 34 others.

* The Commission reduced this civil penalty determination based on

documentation of the respondent’s financial condition.
November 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

there was reason to believe that Mr.

Cheroutes violated the foreign

national prohibition and probable

cause to believe that Hogan and

Hartson violated the ban.

In another instance, Gilberto

Pagan, a citizen of the Dominican

Republic, contributed $5,000 to the

DNC using a check drawn on the

Royal Bank of Canada. Although

the DNC was informed of Mr.

Pagan’s status as a foreign national,

the check was not timely refunded

or disgorged.

Direction of funds by Foreign

Nationals

It is unlawful for any foreign

national to direct, dictate, control or

directly participate in the decisionmaking process of any person,

including domestic corporations,

with regard to decisions concerning

the making of contributions in

connection with any elections for

any local, state or federal office. 11

CFR 110.4(a).

ACPC, Inc., is incorporated in the

state of Delaware. In 1996, its

president was Alfredo Riviere, a

Venezuelan national. On April 16,

1996, ACPC made a corporate

contribution of $50,000 to the DNC.

Mr. Riviere participated in the

decision to make the contribution,

and the contribution was thus made

in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441e(a).

Contributions in the Name of

Another

It is unlawful for any person to

make a contribution in the name of

another person, to knowingly permit

his or her name to be used to effect

such a contribution or to knowingly

accept such a contribution to

influence a federal election. 2

U.S.C. §441f and 11 CFR 110.4(b).

Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, a U.S.

citizen, was among those found to

have violated this provision. He

made numerous contributions to the

DNC directly, through his wife, his

companies and other U.S. residents.

These contributions were then

reimbursed with funds primarily

from a foreign national, Ng Lap

Seng, a citizen of China who resides

in Macau.

Pauline Kanchanalak, a foreign

national and President of Ban Chang

International (USA), Inc., channeled

over $700,000 through Duangnet

Kronenberg and Praitun

Kanchanalak, both permanent U.S.

residents, to the DNC and other

political committees. These funds

came from the treasuries of Ban

Chang International and its U.S.

subsidiary, and from the personal

funds of Pauline Kanchanalak and

other foreign nationals. The resulting contributions were not only

from prohibited foreign and/or

corporate sources, but also contributions in the name of another.

John Huang, Vice-Chairman for

Finance for the DNC, solicited,

accepted or received some of the

prohibited foreign and corporate

contributions in the name of another. He reimbursed contributions

to Democratic campaigns in California with corporate funds and funds

from Indonesia.2

Prohibited Corporate

Contributions

The Federal Election Campaign

Act prohibits corporations from

making contributions or expenditures in connection with any election of any candidate for federal

office. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). In

addition, corporations are prohibited

from facilitating the making of

contributions to federal candidates.

11 CFR 114.2(f)(1). Facilitation

means using corporate resources or

facilities to engage in fundraising

activities in connection with federal

elections.

The Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple, a

California corporation, hosted a

fundraising event on April 29, 1996,

that was attended by Vice President

Al Gore. The Temple incurred

$4,424.13 in out-of-pocket expenses

for the event—a prohibited in-kind

corporate contribution.

Temple funds were also used to

reimburse over $120,000 in contributions made in the name of another

to the DNC’s federal account and to

other federal committees. For

example, Venerable Yi Chu, a

corporate officer of the Temple,

collected $5,000 checks for the

DNC from 11 individuals, ten of

whom were reimbursed with checks

drawn on the Temple’s bank

accounts.

Excessive Personal Contributions

Individuals may contribute no

more than $1,000 per election to any

candidate’s campaign for federal

office. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A).

In 1995, Chien Chuen “Johnny”

Chung reimbursed 20 individuals in

the amount of $1,000 each for

admission to a Clinton/Gore ’96

fundraiser. The reimbursements

resulted in not only contributions in

the name of another, but also a

$20,000 excessive contribution from

Mr. Chung to the Clinton/Gore

campaign.

Failure to Timely Refund or

Disgorge

In addition to his excessive

contributions in the name of another, Chien Chuen “Johnny” Chung

pled guilty in 1998 to conspiracy to

violate 2 U.S.C. §§441a and 441f in

connection with making $20,000 in

conduit contributions to Clinton/

Gore ’96, among other charges.

Since Commission regulations

require political committee treasurers to refund within 30 days any

deposited contributions that are later

discovered to be illegal, the Commission determined that, in light of

his guilty plea and the related media

attention, the treasurer for Clinton/

Gore ’96 had a responsibility to

refund or disgorge Mr. Chung’s

contributions. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(2).

The campaign’s treasurer did not

timely return or disgorge these

funds.✦

—Phillip Deen

2 Mr. Trie, Ms. Kanchanalak and Mr.

Huang have each pled guilty to

violations of federal law.
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

10

Commission Makes Final

Determination on 2000

Presidential Primary and

Convention Audits

The FEC recently made final

determinations of the amount of

money that the Hagelin and Quayle

Presidential primary campaigns and

the Reform Party 2000 Convention

Committee must repay to the U.S.

Treasury for public funds they used

during the 2000 elections. The

Commission made its determination

after conducting audits of the

committees, as required under the

Presidential Election Campaign

Funds Act and the Presidential

Primary Matching Payment Account

Act. 26 U.S.C. §§9007(a), 9008(g)

and 9038(a).

Hagelin Committee

John Hagelin’s 2000 primary

committee, Hagelin 2000, did not

receive primary matching funds in

excess of its entitlement and need

not make repayments to the Treasury. The Commission’s audit

found, however, that Hagelin 2000

accepted prohibited corporate and

excessive contributions. First, the

committee failed to pay in advance

for travel on a corporate-owned

airplane, as required by Commission

regulations. 11 CFR 114.9(e). In

paying for the air travel up to a

month after flying, Hagelin 2000

accepted $18,242 in corporate

contributions during the time that

the bills were outstanding. Second,

Hagelin 2000 made untimely

reimbursements to the Natural Law

Party for its share of payroll and

overhead expenses. These late

reimbursements resulted in $71,943

in excessive in-kind contributions

from the Natural Law Party during

the time that the repayments remained outstanding. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(2)(A). Hagelin 2000 later

reimbursed the Natural Law Party

for all but $4,307 of its share of

payroll and overhead expenses, and

the campaign disclosed this amount

as an in-kind contribution from the

party.

Quayle Committees

Dan Quayle’s 2000 Presidential

primary committee, Quayle 2000,

Inc., did not receive matching funds

in excess of its entitlement, but must

repay to the Treasury $5,307,

representing stale-dated checks.

Additionally, the audit found that

Quayle 2000, Inc., received an

excessive contribution from a

political action committee, Campaign America, Inc., when the

campaign paid for furniture, computer and telephone equipment

acquired from that committee six

months after receiving it. The value

of these goods, $58,906, was a

contribution from the Campaign

America committee during the time

the payment was outstanding. As a

multicandidate committee, Campaign American, Inc., could only

contribute $5,000 to a candidate’s

primary committee. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(2)(A). Finally, the audit

found that Quayle 2000, Inc., failed

to properly disclose a $45,000

candidate loan. Moreover, the

committee did not properly report

information about a one million

dollar line of credit obtained from a

lending institution, the line of

credit’s subsequent increase to

$1.75 million or draws on the line of

credit. The committee subsequently

filed amended reports.

Reform Party 2000 Convention

Committee

The Reform Party 2000 Convention Committee (the Convention

Committee), which organized the

Reform Party’s national Presidential

nominating convention in Long

Beach, California, must repay the

Treasury $333,558, primarily

representing payments it made for

activities and services not related to

that convention. Most of this

amount represents funds paid to a

consulting firm that did not perform

services for the nominating convention but instead appeared to have

worked on an Emergency National

Convention in Las Vegas. In March

2000 the U.S. District Court for the

District of Virginia, Lynchburg

Division, concluded that the Las

Vegas Convention was not a

properly-convened convention of

the Reform party. Thus, payments

associated with the Las Vegas

convention were not expenses for

which the Convention Committee

could use public funds. See the May

2000 Record, page 9.✦

—Amy Kort

Audits

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

Alternative Dispute

Resolution Program

Becomes Permanent

Based on the success of its twoyear-old ADR Pilot program, the

Commission voted on September

12, 2002, to establish a permanent

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Office (ADRO). The Commission

also approved a report, prepared by

outside consultants, chronicling the

Pilot program’s success in meeting

its goals of:

• Increasing the number of complaints and referrals processed by

the Commission;

• Reducing the time required to

process complaints and referrals;

• Reducing the cost of processing

complaints; and

• Increasing respondents’ satisfaction with the Commission’s
November 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

handling of complaints and

referrals.1

The ADR Process

ADRO reviews and evaluates

complaints forwarded to it from the

Office of General Counsel (OGC),

the Audit Division, the Reports

Analysis Division or the Commission itself to determine whether the

case is appropriate for the ADR

program. If ADRO concludes that a

case is appropriate for its consideration, the Commission reviews the

case and determines whether it

should be permanently assigned to

ADRO. In order for a case to be

assigned to ADRO, the respondents

involved must:

• Express a willingness to engage in

the ADR process;

• Set aside the statute of limitations;

and

• Participate in bilateral negotiations

and, if necessary, mediation.

Once the Commission determines

that a case should be assigned to

ADRO for processing, the Office

sends the respondents a letter

notifying them of the availability of

the ADR option. The bilateral

negotiations offered in the first

phase of ADR are oriented toward

reaching an expeditious resolution

in a manner that is both agreeable to

the respondent and in compliance

with the Federal Election Campaign

Act (FECA). Any resolution

reached in negotiations is submitted

to the Commission for final approval.

Negotiated settlements definitively resolve the matter and effectively close the case before the

Commission. If a resolution is not

reached in bilateral negotiation, the

case is either returned to OGC or,

upon mutual agreement of the

respondents and ADRO, sent to

mediation. Mediators are selected

from an FEC panel of experienced

mediators from the private sector. If

no agreement is reached during

mediation, the case then returns to

OGC for processing. All cases

involved in the ADR process remain

confidential until closed by the

Commission and placed on the

public record. ADR-negotiated

agreements do not set precedent for

other cases.

Results from the Pilot Program

The initial year of the ADR

Program (Oct. 1, 2000, through

Sept. 30, 2001) was evaluated by the

outside consultants of ADR Vantage, Inc., a national conflict

management and resolution firm,

who found that the “ADR Program

has enabled the Commission to

increase significantly the number of

cases processed.” During the

program’s first year, the ADR

Office processed 61 cases, of which

47 were concluded with negotiated

agreements. The ADR Pilot program

brought these cases from referral to

conclusion within an average of 148

days. ADRO’s goal is to handle

these cases even more expeditiously

and bring them to conclusion within

77 days.

ADR Vantage, Inc., interviewed

respondents and members of the

election bar and concluded that 90

percent of those interviewed believed they saved time and money

using the ADR program.

Additionally, ADR-negotiated

settlements focus on both remedial

penalties and educational activities.

ADR-negotiated settlements may

contain civil penalties, as well as

non-monetary terms of settlement

designed to encourage corrective

action, such as the respondents’

participation in an FEC conference.

Many ADR respondents commented

1 Another goal of the Pilot Program

was to assure satisfaction with the

effectiveness of the mediation process.

However, at this time no ADR cases

have proceeded to mediation, and thus

the report did not comment on this

aspect of the program. (continued on page 12)

Public Appearances

November 6, 2002

The Federalist Society, Columbia

Law School Chapter

New York, New York

Commissioner Smith

November 9, 2002

American University, Center for

Congressional and Presidential

Studies

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Mason

November 11, 2002

Center for National Security Law,

University of Virginia School of

Law

Charlottesville, Virginia

Commissioner Smith

November 12, 2002

Michigan State University,

Program in Public Policy and

Administration

East Lansing, Michigan

Chairman Mason

November 12, 2002

American Council of Young

Political Leaders

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Thomas

November 14, 2002

Delphi International

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Mason

November 15, 2002

National Association of Business

Political Action Committees

Naples, Florida

Commissioner Toner
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

12

ADR Program Update

The Commission’s Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR) program

recently resolved an additional case,

involving numerous respondents

and negotiated settlements.

In response to a complaint

alleging violations of the Federal

Election Campaign Act’s (the Act)

contribution limits, prohibition on

corporate contributions and report1Reports filed electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filing

date. A committee required to file electronically that instead files on paper

reporting forms will be considered a nonfiler. Reports filed on paper and

sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date;

reports sent by any other means (including reports sent via first class mail

and overnight delivery) must be received by the Commission’s close of

business on the filing date.

2 The reporting period for the Pre-Runoff report spans two election cycles.

For this report only, candidate committees should use the Post-Election

Detailed Summary Page (FEC Form 3, Pages 5-8) instead of the normal

Detailed Summary Page.

3 Note that the registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday.

The report should be postmarked before that date.

Georgia Runoff Election Reporting

 A General Election Runoff may be held in Georgia for federal candidates in

races where no candidate wins 45 percent of the vote in the general election.

The runoff election, if held, will be on November 26, 2002. Although the

runoff election will occur after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

(BCRA) takes effect on November 6, the BCRA’s rules will not apply to this

election. Note that 48-hour notices are required of authorized committees that

receive contributions of $1,000 or more between October 17 and November 2

for the general election and between November 7 and November 23 for the

runoff election. Committees (including PACs) involved in these elections

must follow the reporting schedule below.1

Committees Involved in Both the General and Runoff Elections Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Pre-General Report October 16 October 21 October 24

Pre-Runoff Report November 6 2 November 11 3 November 14

Post-Runoff Report December 16 December 26 December 26

Year-End Report December 31 January 31 January 31, 2003

ing requirements, the Commission

determined that allegations against

the Friends and Farmers for Rich

Rodriguez for Congress Committee,

and a nine other named individuals

and businesses, were unsubstantiated.

Two other respondents in this

case, GFW Power Systems Company, Inc., and Danell Brothers,

Inc., each acknowledged having

made a contribution based on the

belief that the contribution was

that they “especially liked that the

ADR process offers an educational

opportunity that will make respondents less likely to commit similar

violations in the future.”

Commission Chairman David

Mason said that the “ADR program

has proven to be an important

contributor to the FEC’s civil law

enforcement efforts. ADR has

expanded the reach of our enforcement efforts, resolved complaints

quickly and promoted compliance

with campaign finance laws through

an emphasis on remedial and

preventative action.”

Chairman Mason concluded,

saying “I look forward to working

with the ADR Office, our General

Counsel and my colleagues to

expand the ADR program appropriately in order to promote further

compliance with and better enforcement of the FECA and related

statutes.”

Additional Information

More information about the ADR

program is available in the

Commission’s Alternative Dispute

Resolution brochure. The brochure

is available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/pages/adr.htm.

You may also call the FEC’s

Information Division to request that

a brochure be mailed to you. Call

800/424-9530 (press 1, then 3) or

202/694-1100.✦

—Amy Kort

legal. Each respondent received a

full refund of the contribution and,

in an effort to resolve this matter,

agreed to issue a corporation

directive to senior management

concerning the Act’s prohibition on

corporate contributions and expenditures in connection with any

federal election. (ADR 027; MUR

5062)✦

—Amy Kort

Alternative Dispute

Resolution

(continued from page 11)
November 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Democratic Party Receipts Republican Party Receipts

18-Month Democratic and Republican Party Fundraising—1996-2002

Statistics

Party Fundraising Growth

Continues

Democratic and Republican

national party committees raised

$412.1 million in federal funds

during the first 18 months of the

2002 election cycle, representing a

12 percent increase from the same

period in 2000. In addition, national

party committees reported $308.2

million in nonfederal receipts during

this period, a 21 percent increase

over 2000 levels. These increases

are especially significant given that

parties typically raise more funds in

Presidential campaign cycles than in

non-Presidential campaigns.

The largest fundraising increases

were found among Republican party

committees, whose federal receipts

totaled $283.4 million, up 19

percent from 2000 levels. Soft

money fundraising by Republican

national committees reached $181.8

million, a 40-percent increase.

Democratic party committees raised

slightly more soft money than in the

2000 Presidential cycle—$126.4

million, up two percent. Democratic

hard money receipts declined one

percent to $128.7 million.

Among the national party committees, both parties’ Senatorial

campaign committees reported large

increases in both federal and

nonfederal funds. Soft money

fundraising also increased sharply

for the National Republican Congressional Committee, while both

the Democratic National Committee

and the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee raised less

soft money in the first 18 months of

this campaign than in the previous

cycle.

The chart below details Democratic and Republican party committees’ federal and nonfederal

fundraising, dating back to the 1996

election cycle. National parties will

no longer be permitted to raise or

spend soft money after November 5,

2002, as a result of the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). See

related article, page 1.

Additional Information

A press release dated September

19, 2002, provides detailed information about the financial activity of

the Democratic and Republican

parties. The press release is available:

• On the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/news.html;

• From the Public Records office

(800/424-9530, press 3) and the

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

2); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 and request document 615).✦

—Amy Kort

0

100

200

300

400

500

 1996 1998 2000 2002

Millions of Dollars

Nonfederal

Federal

0

100

200

300

400

500

 1996 1998 2000 2002

Millions of Dollars

Nonfederal

Federal
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

14

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1 This civil money penalty has not been collected.

2 This penalty was reduced from $4,000 based on the number of 48-hour

notices not filed.

3 The Commission took no further action in this case.

Committees Fined for

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently

publicized its final action on ten

new Administrative Fine cases,

bringing the total number of cases

released to the public to 446.

Civil money penalties for late

reports are determined by the

number of days the report was late,

the amount of financial activity

involved and any prior penalties for

violations under the administrative

fine regulations. Penalties for late

reports—and for reports filed so late

as to be considered nonfiled—are

also determined by the financial

activity for the reporting period and

any prior violations. Election

sensitive reports, which include

reports and notices filed prior to an

election (i.e., 12 day pre-election,

October quarterly and October

monthly reports), receive higher

penalties. Penalties for 48-hour

notices that are filed late or not at all

are determined by the amount of the

contribution(s) not timely reported

and any prior violations.

The committees and the treasurers are assessed civil money penalties when the Commission makes its

final determination. Unpaid civil

money penalties are referred to the

Department of the Treasury for

collection.

The committees listed in the chart

above, along with their treasurers,

were assessed civil money penalties

under the administrative fine

regulations.

Closed Administrative Fine case

files are available through the FEC

Press Office, at 800/424-9530 (press

2), and the Public Records Office, at

800/424-9530 (press 3).✦

—Amy Kort

Administrative

Fines 1. Committee to Elect Thomas Cramer $652 1

 2. Feinstein for Senate $3,900 2

 3. Friends of Bob Graham Committee ____ 3

 4. Golden State PAC $401

 5. Jim Humphreys for Congress $7,200

6. Joe Turnham for Congress (1998 Committee)

(Now known as Friends of Joe Turnham) $1,800

 7. Ohio Dental Association PAC $3,475

8. Texas Republican Congressional Committee

(AKA Victory 2000) ____ 3

 9. T.E.A.M. PAC $2,000

10. 1199 Service Employees International Union Federal

Political Action Fund $10,000

FEC Roundtables

On December 4, 2002, the

Commission will host a roundtable

session on the FEC’s new regulations governing “Electioneering

Communications.” This roundtable

is limited to 35 participants, and will

be conducted at the FEC’s headquarters in Washington, DC. The

roundtable will begin at 9:30 a.m.

and last until 11:00. Please arrive no

later than 9:15, in order to allow for

security screening.

Outreach Registration is $25 and will be

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Please call the FEC

before registering or sending money

to be sure that openings remain in

the session. Prepayment is required.

The registration form is available at

the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm and

from Faxline, the FEC’s automated

fax system (202/501-3413, request

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 (press 1,

then 3) or 202/694-1100.✦

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

December 4 Electioneering Communications • Political

9:30 - 11 a.m. • Definition of organizations

Electioneering Communication • PACs

• Who may fund such • Tax-exempt

communications organizations

• Reporting requirements • Consultants to above

• Exemptions
November 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2002 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “1:4” means

that the article is in the January

issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

Alternative Disposition of 2001-15,

3:9; 2001-20, 3:9

2001-13: National committee status

of party committee, 1:11

2001-16: Extension of 70-day

window for transferring funds for

allocable expenses after suspension of party fundraising due to

national emergency, 2:1

2001-17: Reporting contributions

made via single check split

between federal and nonfederal

accounts, 3:5

2001-18: Affiliation between LLC

PAC and PACs of corporate

owners in 60-40 joint venture, 3:7

2001-19: Non-preemption of state

law prohibiting political

committee’s bingo license, 3:8

2002-1: Coalition of minor parties

supporting candidate(s) who

together gain five percent of vote

not eligible for Presidential public

funding, 4:3

2002-2: Preemption of state law

barring lobbyist from fundraising

for Congressional candidate who

is member of Maryland General

Assembly, 4:4

2002-3: State committee status, 6:6

2002-4: Name and Abbreviation of

SSF, 6:7

2002-6: State committee status, 7:4

2002-8: Return of federal funds

from nonfederal account to

federal account, 9:13

2002-9: Disclaimer exception

applied to political ads sent via

short messaging service, 10:8

2002-10: State committee status,

9:14

Compliance

Administrative Fine program

extended, 1:13

Alternative Dispute Resolution

program made permanent, 11:10

Cases resolved under Alternative

Dispute Resolution program, 7:6;

9:16; 10:9; 11:12

Committees fined under Administrative Fine program, 1:13; 2:7;

3:11; 5:5, 6:10; 8:6; 9:18; 11:14

MUR 4530, et al.: Foreign National

Contributions in 1996 Election,

11:8

MUR 5041: Contribution in the

name of another made by corporation, 8:5

Nonfilers, 6:5; 7:7; 10:9

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFL-CIO, 2:3; 3:5

– Alliance for Democracy, 5:3

– Baker, 4:3

– Beaumont, 3:4

– Common Cause and Democracy

21, 2:4

– Echols, 5:3; 6:4

– Friends for Houghton, 9:15

– Graham, 7:5

– Judicial Watch, Inc., and Peter F.

Paul, 3:3

– McConnell, 5:3; 6:4

– Miles for Senate, 3:1

– NRA, 5:3

– Schaefer, 9:16

– Stevens, 10:7

– Wertheimer, 1:12

FEC v. _____

– Democratic Party of New Mexico,

7:5

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 8:2

– Specter ’96, 5:3

– Triad Management Services, 8:4

Regulations

Administrative fines, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 6:2

Allocation of candidate travel

expenses, interpretation, 3:2

BCRA reporting, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11:6

BCRA takes effect, 11:1

Brokerage loans and lines of credit,

final rules, 7:2

Candidate debates, petition for

rulemaking, 6:4

Civil penalties, no increase, 3:2

Contribution and expenditure

definitions, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 7:3; final rules, 9:9

Contribution limitations and prohibitions, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 9:11

Coordinated and independent

expenditures, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 10:4

Disclaimers, fraudulent solicitation,

civil penalties and personal use of

campaign funds, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 10:1

“Electioneering Communications,”

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

9:10; final rules, 11:3

Independent expenditure reporting,

final rules, 5:2; effective date, 7:1

Soft money rules, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6:1; final

rules, 9:1

Index

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office, on the FEC web

site at http://www.fec.gov/

register.htm and from the FEC

faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2002-19

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act of 2002 Reporting (67 FR

64555, October 21, 2002).

Notice 2002-20

Final Rules and Explanation and

Justification on Electioneering

Communications (67 FR 65190,

October 23, 2002).

Notice 2002-21

Interim Final Rules on FCC

Database on Electioneering

Communications with Request

for Comments (67 FR 65212,

October 23, 2002).

(continued on page 16)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Pre-Paid Standard

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2002

Use of Internet, public hearing, 3:1

Reports

Alaska and Iowa certified for state

filing waiver, 7:1

April reporting reminder, 4:1

Georgia runoff election, 11:12

Hawaii special election, 11:5

Independent expenditure reporting,

new forms, 6:9; effective date 7:1

Iowa convention reporting, 7:4

IRS filing requirements, 1:11; 6:8

Louisiana primary, 8:1

North Carolina primary, 8:2

October reporting reminder, 10:1

Post-General reporting reminder,

11:1

Massachusetts state filing waiver,

11:2

Reports due in 2002, 1:2

Virginia convention reporting, 5:6

48-hour notice periods for 2002

primaries, 3:10

Index

(continued from page 15)