January 1996 Federal Election Commission Volume 22, Number 1

Table of Contents

Commissioners

1 1996 Chairman and Vice

Chairman Elected

1 Message from the Chairman

Court Cases

2 U.S. Chamber of Commerce v.

FEC

3 Center for Responsive Politics v.

FEC

3 New Litigation

Reports

5 Reports Due in 1996

8 Federal Register Notices

Public Funding

13 Presidential Fund Shortfall

Regulations

13 Revised Disclaimer Rules

14 Advisory Opinions

Compliance

15 MURs Released to the Public

16 Index

A Message from FEC

Chairman Lee Ann Elliott

This year will be a busy Presidential election year but the FEC will

continue to focus on its primary goal

of service to the regulated community.

We urge you to take advantage of

the many services we offer. If you

have a question about any phase of

the Act or our regulations, please call

an information specialist on our toll

line: 800/424-9530. Your question

will receive prompt attention.

If you file with us, contact your

analyst in the Reports Analysis Division. He or she can help you with

reporting problems. This is particularly important if you receive a

Request For Additional Information.

FEC publications on many phases

of the election process are available

to you by mail or by Flashfax. Call

Flashfax at 202/501-3413 to request

the publication you want and it will

be faxed to you quickly; this service

operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A high priority for the FEC in 1996

is preparing for electronic filing. We

have commissioned a study to help us

plan for a comprehensive program.

We are moving ahead on our internal

computer capabilities and hope to be

fully computerized shortly. We are

making every effort to be more

efficient and user friendly.

We welcome your comments and

suggestions.

Commissioners

1996 Chairman and Vice

Chairman Elected

On December 7, 1995, the

Commission unanimously elected

Lee Ann Elliott as FEC Chairman

and John Warren McGarry as FEC

Vice Chairman. Mrs. Elliott, who

was the 1995 Vice Chairman,

succeeds Danny L. McDonald as

Chairman.

Before her original appointment,

Mrs. Elliott was vice president of

Bishop, Bryant & Associates, a

political consulting firm. Prior to

that, she was an executive of the

American Medical Political Action

Committee. Mrs. Elliott was on the

board of directors of the American

Association of Political Consultants

and on the board of the Chicago

Area Public Affairs Group, of which

she is a past president. She was also

a member of the Public Affairs

Committee of the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce. She is a recipient of the

Award for Excellence in Serving

Corporate Public Affairs from the

National Association of Manufacturers.

A native of St. Louis, Mrs. Elliott

graduated from the University of

Illinois. She also completed Northwestern University’s Medical

Association Management Executive

(continued on page 2)
2

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD)

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Dario Bard, Editor

Commissioners

(continued from page 1)

Program and is a Certified Association Executive.

Newly elected Vice Chairman

McGarry has extensive experience

in the federal election process.

Before his appointment to the FEC,

Mr. McGarry served as special

counsel on elections to the Committee on House Administration and as

chief counsel to the U.S. House of

Representatives’ Special Committee

to Investigate Campaign Expenditures. Prior to his work with Congress, Mr. McGarry was assistant

attorney general for Massachusetts,

serving as trial attorney and appellate advocate.

After graduating cum laude from

Holy Cross College, Mr. McGarry

did graduate work at Boston University and earned a J.D. degree from

Georgetown University Law

School. ✦

Court Cases

Chamber of Commerce of

the U.S.A., et al. v. FEC

On November 14, 1995, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia reversed the district

court’s dismissal of this case (see

page 1 of the December 1994

Record) and ordered the court to

issue appellants appropriate declaratory relief.

This case involved the FEC’s

regulatory definition of “member.”

FEC regulations allow membership

organizations to use their corporate

funds to send political communications and solicitations, but only to

their administrative and executive

personnel and to persons who qualify

as “members” under federal election

law.1

 To qualify as a “member”

under FEC regulations a person must

have a significant financial interest in

the organization, or pay regular dues

and possess the right to vote either

directly or indirectly for at least one

representative in the organization’s

highest governing body, or possess

the right to vote for all members of

the organization’s highest governing

body. 11 CFR 114.1(e)(2).

Background

In 1976, FEC regulations defined

an organization’s “members” as “all

persons who are currently satisfying

the requirements for membership”

in the organization. 11 CFR 114.1(e).

In subsequent years, court decisions

and advisory opinions established

that political communications and

solicitations financed with corporate

monies could only be sent to persons

who have a significant financial or

organizational attachment to the

membership organization.

In 1993, the FEC adopted new

rules to reflect these precedents.

1 This is an exception to the general ban

on the use of corporate money in

connection with federal elections.

2 U.S.C. §441b.

These rules clarified that a person

will be considered a “member” for

purposes of the Act if that person:

• Has some significant financial

attachment to the organization

beyond the mere payment of dues,

such as a significant investment or

ownership stake; or

• Is obligated to make regular dues

payments and has the right to vote,

either directly or indirectly, for at

least one representative in the

membership organization’s highest

governing body; or

• Is entitled to vote directly for all

who sit on the organization’s

highest governing body. 11 CFR

114.1(e)(2).

When these new regulations took

effect, the Chamber of Commerce of

the U.S.A. and the American Medical Association (AMA ) submitted

Advisory Opinion Requests (AORs)

1994-4 and 1994-12 to the Commission, asking about the “member”

status of their members. The Commission responded to the AORs by

stating that the six Commissioners

could not reach a consensus on the

status of more than 200,000 Chamber members and nearly 45,000

AMA members; these persons paid

dues to their respective organizations but lacked voting rights. See

the August 1994 Record, Alternative Disposition AOR 1994-4 on

page 8 and AO 1994-12 on page 6.

Not satisfied with this result, the

Chamber and the AMA challenged

the FEC’s revised definition of

“member” in the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia. That

court ruled that:

• The case was not ripe for review

because neither plaintiff had

suffered harm by the rule;

• Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring

this suit because the rule did not

present a reasonable threat of

prosecution to them; and

• The FEC’s definition of “member”

was entitled to deference because

it was a permissible construction

of that term by the Commission.
3

January 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (467 U.S.

837, 1984).

Appeals Court Decision

The court of appeals found that

the Chamber and the AMA did have

standing to argue their case before

the court: “In the last federal election, appellants, not surprisingly, felt

constrained to alter their prior

practice—they ceased political

communications with those constituents who did not qualify as ‘members’ under the Commission’s new

rule. And counsel for the Commission agreed . . . that he would not

advise the Chamber and the AMA to

ignore the rule.” Thus, the issue

brought before the court was ripe for

review because it caused both the

Chamber and the AMA harm.

Further, the Chamber and the

AMA had standing to bring this suit

because, although an FEC enforcement decision had not been issued

against them, there was a credible

threat of enforcement if they chose

to ignore the regulation. Additionally, the possibility that appellants’

First Amendment rights were chilled

by the FEC’s regulations conferred

standing upon appellants. Virginia v.

American Booksellers.

The court found that the FEC’s

rules presented “serious constitutional difficulties” because they

precluded “appellants from communicating on political subjects with

thousands of persons, heretofore

regarded by the Commission as

members.” Thus, although the court

did not disagree with the district

court’s conclusion that the FEC was

entitled to deference under the

Chevron doctrine, the court reasoned that the conflict between the

rules and the First Amendment

warranted judicial review.

At issue here, in the court’s view,

was whether the FEC’s rule accorded with the Supreme Court’s

opinion in FEC v. National Right to

Work Committee (459 U.S. 197,

1982). There, the Court ruled that

“members of nonstock corporations

were to be defined . . . by analogy to

stockholders of business corporations

and members of labor unions . . .

[which] suggest[ed] that some relatively enduring and independently

significant financial or organizational attachment is required . . . ”

The appeals court concluded that

the FEC’s new rule did not square

with the Supreme Court’s opinion in

NRWC: “[I]mplicit in the Commission’s rule is the view that dues, no

matter how high, are not by themselves a manifestation of a significant financial attachment.” The

court said that the FEC’s position

reads the disjunctive “or” between

“financial” and “organizational” as

if the Supreme Court had used the

conjunctive “and.”

Furthermore, the court held that,

“It is... quite illogical to regard

someone who has one share of stock

in a public corporation, which can

be sold in minutes, as more significantly attached to the organization

than a person or entity who pays

$1000 or even $100,000 (as is the

case for some Chamber members) in

annual dues.”

The court also criticized the

rule’s voting requirement. It noted

that the nearly 45,000 AMA members in question are subject to

sanction by the organization should

they violate the organization’s

Principles of Medical Ethics. “It

might be thought, that for a professional, placing oneself in such a

position is the most significant

organizational attachment.”

Lastly, the court noted that the

rule treats some labor unions and

federated rural electric cooperatives

differently, exempting them from its

new definition of “member.” The

court noted that this question had

not been squarely presented on

appeal, but stated that it was not

satisfied with the FEC’s claim that

the separate treatment was consistent with the Act’s legislative

history. Without further elaboration,

the court stated, it “would determine

that these exemptions make the

regulation arbitrary and capricious.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia (94-5339),

D.Ct.No. 94-2184, November 14,

1995. ✦

Center for Responsive

Politics v. FEC

On November 9, 1995, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia dismissed this case.

The Center for Responsive

Politics (CRP) and its executive

director, Ellen Miller, brought this

suit alleging that the FEC acted

contrary to law when, in a recent

rulemaking (60 FR 31854, June 16,

1995), it failed to repeal regulations

that permit publicly funded Presidential candidates to accept private

contributions for their general

election legal and compliance fund.

The court ruled that the CRP and

Mrs. Miller lacked standing to bring

this suit. Neither the CRP nor Mrs.

Miller suffered harm that could be

directly traced to the FEC’s action.

Additionally, neither one was

qualified to bring suit since their

alleged injury was outside the

statute’s “zone of interest” in this

case.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia, 95-1464,

November 9, 1995. ✦

New Litigation

Maine Right to Life Committee,

et al. v. FEC

The Maine Right to Life Committee (MRLC) and Mr. Hugh T. Corbett

ask the court to issue declaratory

judgments that the FEC’s new

definition of “express advocacy” at

11 CFR 100.22(b) is unconstitutional because, they allege, it chills

the speech of MRLC and prevents

Mr. Corbett from receiving information he wants—both guaranteed

(continued on page 4)
4

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996

rights under the First Amendment.

MRLC also argues that 11 CFR

100.22(b) is vague and thus allows

the FEC to exceed its statutory

authority, making 11 CFR 100.22(b)

unconstitutional under the Fifth

Amendment as well.

Plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin

the FEC from enforcing this regulation against MRLC.

Background

According to the complaint filed

with the court, MRLC is a nonprofit

membership corporation established

for the purpose of advocating prolife stances. Mr. Corbett is a U.S.

citizen who wishes to receive

MRLC’s newsletter, Life for ME,

despite not being an MRLC member.

Life for ME is distributed to all

MRLC members and is made

available to the general public. The

October 1994 edition of Life for ME

contained articles that set forth state

and federal candidates’ positions on

abortion and discussed the importance of the November 1994 general

election.

Defining Express Advocacy

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits corporations

from making expenditures in

connection with federal elections.

2 U.S.C. §441b.

In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens

for Life (MCFL) (479 U.S. 238,

1986), the Supreme Court ruled that,

for the purposes of this statutory

prohibition on corporate expenditures, the term “expenditure” must

be interpreted to mean a payment

for a communication that expressly

advocates the election or defeat of a

clearly identified candidate. The

Court cited the examples of express

advocacy that it had listed in

Buckley v. Valeo: “vote for,”

“elect,” “support,” “cast your ballot

for,” “Smith for Congress,” “vote

against,” “defeat,” “reject.” Only

those corporate expenditures that

included express advocacy, the

Court concluded, were subject to the

expenditure prohibition at §441b.

The challenged regulation in this

case, 11 CFR 100.22(b), includes in

its definition of “express advocacy”

the phrases listed in Buckley plus

any communication that, taken as a

whole and with limited reference to

external events, can only be interpreted by reasonable persons as

expressly advocating the election or

defeat of a clearly identified candidate or group of candidates.

Challenges to 11 CFR 100.22(b)

Plaintiffs in this case challenge

the legality of 11 CFR 100.22(b) on

a number of grounds.

First, they contend that Buckley

specifically prohibits an interpretation of “express advocacy” based on

the audience’s understanding of the

message. The FEC’s definition at

11 CFR 100.22 relies in part on a

reasonable person’s interpretation of

the message.

Second, plaintiffs argue that the

regulation, by stating that the

communication should be viewed as

a whole, grants the FEC the leeway

to interpret the meaning of a communication based on more than its

mere language. Buckley, plaintiffs

argue, requires explicit words of

advocacy to be present in order for a

communication to be subject to the

§441b prohibition.

Third, plaintiffs challenge the

FEC’s assertion that communications that advocate actions such as

donating time or money to candidates constitute express advocacy.

Plaintiffs argue that Buckley referred

only to communications that advocate action at the ballot box.

Fourth, plaintiffs contest the

FEC’s assertion that communications commenting on a candidate’s

character, qualifications or accomplishments may constitute express

advocacy if, when viewed in

context, they can have no other

reasonable meaning. The Buckley

decision, argue plaintiffs, does not

sanction this approach.

Fifth, plaintiffs contend that, by

not clarifying what is meant by

“limited reference to external

events,” the regulation is unconstitutionally vague.

Finally, plaintiffs argue that 11

CFR 100.22(b) restricts MRLC’s

right to produce newsletters and

candidate surveys because the

organization does not qualify for the

exemptions from the prohibition on

corporate expenditures found at

11 CFR 114.10. In that provision,

adopted at the same time as 100.22(b),

a nonprofit corporation may be

exempt from the ban, for the

purposes of making independent

expenditures,1 if it satisfies a series

of criteria, one of which is having a

policy of not accepting donations

from corporations and labor organizations. MRLC has accepted

corporate donations and intends to

continue doing so.

Plaintiffs conclude that 11 CFR

100.22(b) empowers the FEC to use

its discretion in a discriminatory and

arbitrary way. Plaintiffs contend this

has a chilling effect on their speech

since the regulation does not draw a

distinct line between what the FEC

would deem legal and what it would

consider a violation of 11 CFR

100.22.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Maine, 95-261-B,

November 22, 1995. ✦

1 An independent expenditure is an expenditure made without any coordination with a candidate’s campaign for a

communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate for federal office.

The FEC added the exemption at

11 CFR 114.10 in accordance with the

MCFL decision, which held that

qualified nonprofits are allowed to

make independent expenditures.

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)
5

January 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Reports

Reports Due in 1996

This article on filing requirements for election year 1996 is

supplemented by the reporting

tables that follow.

It is the responsibility of the

committee treasurer to file required

reports on time. To assist treasurers,

the Commission sends committees

FEC reporting forms and notices of

upcoming reporting deadlines.

For further information on

reporting or to order extra reporting

forms, call the FEC: 800/424-9530

or 202/219-3420.

All Committees: Year-End

Reports Covering 1995 Activity

All committees must file a 1995

Year-End report due January 31,

1996.

Authorized Committees

of Candidates

1996 House and Senate Candidates. Authorized committees of

1996 House and Senate candidates

file the following reports:

• Quarterly reports; 1

• A pre-primary report;

• Pre- and post-general election

reports (if the candidate participates in the general election); and

• 48-hour notices on contributions of

$1,000 or more received after the

20th day, but more than 48 hours,

before the day of each election in

which the candidate participates.

These notices are due within 48

hours of the committee’s receipt of

the contribution. 11 CFR 104.5(a)

(1) and (f).2

Note: Committees are required to

file election reports and 48-hour

notices even if the candidate is

unopposed in the election. Moreover,

these reporting requirements still

apply even if a primary or general

election is not held because the

candidate is unopposed or received

a majority of votes in the previous

election. However, no report is

required for a primary election that

is not held because the candidate

was nominated by a caucus or

convention,3

 for which a preelection report would have already

been filed. See 11 CFR 110.1(j).

Other House and Senate Candidates. Committees authorized by

House and Senate candidates who

ran or intend to run in a year other

than 1996 file on a semiannual

basis. 11 CFR 104.5(a)(2).

Presidential Candidates. All

committees authorized by Presidential candidates must file on either a

monthly or a quarterly schedule.

11 CFR 104.5(b)(2).

A Presidential committee wishing

to change its filing schedule should

notify the Commission in writing.

Presidential committees active in

the 1996 race that have received

contributions or made expenditures

aggregating $100,000 or that

anticipate this level of activity file

2 Since 48-hour notices do not have to

be signed by the treasurer, they may be

sent by mailgram, telegram or telefacsimile (fax) machine in order to meet

the 48-hour requirement. AO 1988-32.

Fax numbers for: the Clerk of the House

—202/225-7781; Secretary of the Senate

—202/224-1851; FEC—202/219-3880

(see page 8, footnote 4 regarding

possible point of entry change). Note:

Other reports and statements may not

be faxed.

3 A pre-convention report is required

only if the convention has authority to

nominate. See 11 CFR 100.2(e).

1 Note that an authorized committee of a

1996 candidate must file on a quarterly

basis in 1996 even if the candidate

withdraws before participating in the

primary. However, such a committee

would not have to file a pre-primary

report (or other election reports) unless

the candidate’s name remained on the

ballot.

FEC v. DSCC (95-2881)

The FEC brings this suit before

the court alleging that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) violated 2 U.S.C.

§441a(h) and 11 CFR 110.2(e) by

making $17,500 in excessive

contributions to the 1992 campaign

of U.S. Senator Wyche Fowler, Jr.,

from Georgia. The FEC requests

that the court assess a $17,500 civil

penalty for this violation, as provided for in 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(6)(B).

This matter arose out of the 1992

Georgia election for U.S. Senator.

Under Georgia law, unless a candidate garners a majority of the

general election vote, the top two

general election vote getters faceoff

in a runoff election. This situation

occurred in 1992. The DSCC

contributed $17,500 to Senator

Fowler’s campaign before the

general election and then contributed another $17,500 after the

general election when Senator

Fowler advanced to the runoff

election. Under 2 U.S.C. §441a(h)

and 11 CFR 110.2(e), national

committees of a political party share

one $17,500 contribution limit per

Senate candidate per election cycle.

The FEC, after investigating a

complaint (MUR 3701) on this

matter, filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, found

probable cause to believe that the

DSCC exceeded its contribution

limit under 2 U.S.C. §441a(h) and

11 CFR 110.2(e). The FEC was

unable to reach an agreement with

the DSCC to resolve this matter and

so filed this suit.

U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Georgia,

Atlanta Division, 95-2881, November 7, 1995. ✦

(continued on page 6)
Guide to 1996 Reporting

All committees must also file a 1995 year-end report, due January 31, 1996.

Required Reports

Pre- Pre- PostType of Filer Semiannual Quarterly Monthly Primary1 General General

House and Senate Campaigns ✓ ✓✓✓

of 1996 Candidates required only if candidate runs in election

Other House and Senate ✓

Campaigns

Presidential Campaigns 2 ✓ ✓✓

Anticipating Activity required only if candidate

of at least $100,000 runs in election

Presidential Campaigns 2 ✓ ✓✓ ✓

With Activity required only if candidate runs in election

less than $100,000

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓✓

Filing Monthly filed in lieu of November and

December monthly reports

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓✓✓

Filing Quarterly 3 required only if committee required

makes contributions or regardless

expenditures in connection of activity

with election during the

reporting period 4

1 Category also includes pre-convention and pre-runoff reports.

2 Presidential committees that wish to change their filing frequency during 1996 should notify the Commission in writing.

3 PACs and party committees that filed on a semiannual basis in 1995 file on a quarterly basis in 1996. To avoid the need to file

pre-primary and pre-runoff reports, these committees may change to monthly filing if they first notify the Commission in writing.

Committees may change filing frequency only once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

4 A reporting period begins with the close of books for the last report filed and ends with the closing date for the applicable

report.

on a monthly basis. If the candidate

runs in the general election, the

campaign must file pre-and postgeneral election reports in lieu of the

monthly reports due in November

and December.

Presidential committees active in

the 1996 race with financial activity

under $100,000 file on a quarterly

basis. They must also file pre- and

post-election reports for the elections they run in.

Presidential committees retiring

debts from previous campaigns may

file on either a monthly or a quarterly schedule.

PACs and Party Committees

PACs (separate segregated funds

and nonconnected committees) and

party committees that filed on a

semiannual basis during 1995 now

file on a quarterly basis. Monthly

6

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996

Reports

(continued from page 5)
filers continue on the monthly

schedule. PACs and party committees

may, however, change their filing

schedule, as explained later in this

section.

Note that all PACs, whichever

schedule they follow, are subject to

the 24-hour filing requirement for

last-minute independent expenditures (also explained later).

Quarterly Filers. A PAC or party

committee that files on a quarterly

basis must additionally file a postgeneral election report. 11 CFR

104.5(c)(1)(i) and (iii).

Quarterly filers may also have to

file pre-convention, pre-primary, prerunoff and pre-general election

reports. The requirement to file a

pre-election report is triggered if the

committee makes a contribution or

expenditure in connection with the

election during the applicable

reporting period. 11 CFR 104.5(c)

(1)(ii). A reporting period begins the

day after the close of books for the

last report filed and continues

through the close of books for the

pre-election report.

Note that, although the FEC

sends committees notices of upcoming reporting deadlines for quarterly

reports and general election reports,

the agency does not send PACs or

party committees pre-election

reporting notices for Congressional

conventions, primaries or runoffs.

Monthly Filers. Unlike quarterly

filers, PACs and party committees

filing on a monthly basis do not file

pre-election reports for conventions,

primaries or runoff elections. They

must, however, file pre- and postgeneral election reports and a YearEnd report, which are filed in lieu of

October, November and December

monthly reports. 11 CFR 104.5(c)(3).

Changing the Filing Schedule.

PACs and party committees filing

on a quarterly schedule may change

to a monthly schedule in order to

avoid having to file pre-convention,

pre-primary and pre-runoff reports.

The committee must first notify the

1995 Year-End Report

Note: All committees file this report.

Report Period Covered Filing Date 1

Year-End Closing date January 31, 1996

of last report

through 12/31/95

1996 Monthly Reports

Report Period Covered Filing Date 1

January January 1-31 February 20

February February 1-29 March 20

March March 1-31 April 20

April April 1-30 May 20

May May 1-31 June 20

June June 1-30 July 20

July July 1-31 August 20

August August 1-31 September 20

September September 1-30 October 20

Pre-General3 October 1-16 October 24

Post-General Oct. 17-Nov. 25 December 5

Year-End Nov. 26-Dec. 31 January 31, 1997

1996 Quarterly Reports 2

Report Close of Books Filing Date 1

1st Quarter March 31 April 15

2nd Quarter June 30 July 15

3rd Quarter September 30 October 15

Year-End December 31 January 31, 1997

Pre- and Post-Election Reports

for November 5 General Election 2

Report Close of Books Filing Date 1

Pre-General 3 October 16 October 24

Post-General November 25 December 5

1 Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the filing date

(except in the case of the pre-general election report; see footnote 3). Reports sent

by other means must be received by the filing date. 11 CFR 104.5(e).

2 House candidates should be aware that legislation is currently being considered to

change where they file—from the Clerk of the House to the FEC. All registered

candidate committees will receive prior notices instructing them where to file.

3 If sent by registered or certified mail, the pre-general must be postmarked by

October 21.

7

January 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

(continued on page 8)
Commission in writing. The notification should accompany a report

filed under the committee’s current

reporting schedule. A committee

may change its filing frequency only

once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

24-Hour Reports on Independent

Expenditures. Any PAC (including

a monthly filer) that makes independent expenditures in connection

with any election (convention,

primary, runoff, general) may have

to file a 24-hour report. This report

is required when a committee makes

independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th

day, but more than 24 hours, before

the day of the election. The report

must be filed within 24 hours after

the expenditure is made. For more

information on the 24-hour reporting requirement, see 11 CFR

104.4(b) and (c) and 104.5(g). See

also “Where to File” (below) for

special filing requirements.

Where to File

Committee treasurers must file

FEC reports with the appropriate

federal and state filing offices.

Please note that:

• The addresses for the federal

offices (FEC, Clerk of the House

and Secretary of the Senate) appear

in the instructions to the Detailed

Summary Page of FEC Forms 3

and 3X.

• A list of state filing offices is

available from the Commission.

House and Senate Candidate

Committees. Principal campaign

committees file with the Clerk of the

House or the Secretary of the

Senate, as appropriate. 11 CFR

105.1 and 105.2.4

The principal campaign committee must also file a copy of every

report and statement (including 48-

hour notices) with the filing office

of the state in which the candidate

seeks election. 2 U.S.C. §439(a)(2)

(B); 11 CFR 108.3.

Presidential Candidate Committees. Principal campaign committees

of Presidential candidates file with

the FEC. 11 CFR 105.3.

The principal campaign committee

must also file a copy of each report

and statement with the filing office

of each state in which the committee

makes expenditures. 2 U.S.C. §439(a)

(2)(A); 11 CFR 108.2.

Candidate Committees with More

Than One Authorized Committee. If

a campaign includes more than one

authorized committee, the principal

campaign committee files, with its

own report, the reports prepared by

the other authorized committees as

well as a consolidated report (FEC

Form 3Z or page 5 of FEC Form 3P,

as appropriate). 11 CFR 104.3(f).

PACs and Party Committees.

Generally PACs and party committees file with the FEC. There are,

however, exceptions:

• Committees supporting only House

candidates file with the Clerk of

the House;

• Committees supporting only

Senate candidates file with the

Secretary of the Senate; and

• PACs file 24-hour notices disclosing independent expenditures on

behalf of House and Senate

candidates with the Clerk of the

House and the Secretary of the

Senate, as appropriate. 11 CFR

104.4(c) and 104.5(g).

PACs and party committees must

also file a copy of each statement

and report with the appropriate state

filing office:

• Committees making contributions

or expenditures in connection with

House and Senate candidates file

in the state in which the candidate

seeks election. The committee is

required to file only that portion of

the report applicable to the candidate (e.g., the Form 3 Detailed

Summary Page and the schedule

showing the contribution or

expenditure). 2 U.S.C. §439(a)

(2)(B); 11 CFR 108.3.

• Committees making contributions

or expenditures in connection with

Presidential candidates file in the

states in which the Presidential

committee and the donor committee have their headquarters.

11 CFR 108.4.

• Committees making independent

expenditures on behalf of Presidential candidates (including those

disclosed in 24-hour notices) file

in the state in which the expenditure is made. 11 CFR 104.4(c)(1),

104.5(g) and 108.2. ✦

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

1995-21

11 CFR 110: Communications

Disclaimer Requirements; Final

Rule Correction (60 FR 61199,

November 29, 1995)

1995-22

Schedule of Submission Dates for

Statements of Net Outstanding

Campaign Obligations Required

of 1996 Presidential Candidates

Post Date of Ineligibility (60 FR

61700, December 1, 1995)

1995-23

11 CFR 100, 102, 109, 110 and

114: Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity; Express

Advocacy and Coordination with

Candidates; Final Rule (60 FR

64260, December 14, 1995)

Reports

(continued from page 7)

4House candidates should be aware that

legislation is currently being considered

to change where they file—from the Clerk

of the House to the FEC. All registered

candidate committees will receive prior

notices instructing them where to file.

8

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996
Pre-Election Reporting Dates:

1996 Primary and Runoff Elections

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*Alabama June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23

Runoff: June 25 June 5 June 10 June 13

*Alaska August 27 August 7 August 12 August 15

American Samoa 1 November 5 October 16 October 21 October 24

Runoff: November 19 October 30 November 7 ∆ November 7

Arizona September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

*Arkansas May 21 May 1 May 6 May 9

Runoff: June 11 May 22 May 27 ◊ May 30

California March 26 March 6 March 11 March 14

*Colorado August 13 July 24 July 29 August 1

Connecticut 2 September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

*Delaware September 7 August 18 August 23 August 26

District of Columbia May 7 April 17 April 22 April 25

Florida September 3 August 14 August 19 August 22

Runoff: October 1 September 11 September 16 September 19

* States holding 1996 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡ Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the

filing date.

∆ The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mailing date would fall one day before the primary was held.

◊ Note that the last day for a registered/certified postmark is a federal holiday, when post offices are closed. The report should

therefore be postmarked before that date.

1 In American Samoa, if a runoff is not held, the November 5 election is considered the general election, and a post-general

election report is therefore required. If a runoff is held, the November 19 election is considered the general election, with the

post-general reporting dates as follows: close of books, December 9; mailing/filing date, December 19.

2 In Connecticut, each party will hold a convention (dates not available yet) that has the authority to nominate a candidate; preconvention reporting is therefore required. If a candidate is so nominated at a convention, and the nomination is not challenged,

the nominee does not participate in the primary and has no contribution limit or reporting requirements for the primary. 11 CFR

110.1(j)(4); see also AO 1982-49.

9

January 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*Georgia July 16 June 26 July 1 July 4 °

Runoff: August 6 July 17 July 22 July 25

Guam September 7 August 18 August 23 August 26

Hawaii September 21 September 1 September 6 September 9

*Idaho May 28 May 8 May 13 May 16

*Illinois March 19 February 28 March 4 March 7

Indiana May 7 April 17 April 22 April 25

*Iowa 3 June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23

*Kansas August 6 July 17 July 22 July 25

*Kentucky May 28 May 8 May 13 May 16

*Louisiana September 21 September 1 September 6 September 9

General: November 54 October 16 October 21 October 24

*Maine June 11 May 22 May 27 ◊ May 30

Maryland March 5 February 14 February 19 ◊ February 22

*Massachusetts September 17 August 28 September 2 ◊ September 5

*Michigan August 6 July 17 July 22 July 25

*Minnesota September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

* States holding 1996 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡ Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the

filing date.

◊Note that the last day for a registered/certified postmark is a federal holiday, when post offices are closed. The report should

therefore be postmarked before that date.

°Note that the filing date is a federal holiday. Because filing dates are not extended when they fall on nonworking days, the

report should be received by the appropriate filing offices by July 3, the Wednesday before (or sent by registered or certified

mail and postmarked by that date).

3 In Iowa, a party may, under certain circumstances, have the option of holding a convention to nominate a candidate for the

general election. In that case, a pre-convention report would be required instead of a pre-primary report.

4 A post-general election report is also required. Note that if a candidate is unopposed in the general election, his or her committee nevertheless has a contribution limit for the general and is required to file pre- and post-general election reports. 11 CFR

110.1(j)(3) and AO 1984-54.

10

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996
Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*Mississippi March 12 February 21 February 26 February 29

Runoff: April 2 March 13 March 18 March 21

Missouri August 6 July 17 July 22 July 25

*Montana June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23

*Nebraska May 14 April 24 April 29 May 2

Nevada September 3 August 14 August 19 August 22

*New Hampshire September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

*New Jersey June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23

*New Mexico June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23

New York September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

*North Carolina May 7 April 17 April 22 April 25

Runoff: June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23

North Dakota June 11 May 22 May 27 ◊ May 30

Ohio March 19 February 28 March 4 March 7

*Oklahoma August 27 August 7 August 12 August 15

Runoff: September 17 August 28 September 2 ◊ September 5

*Oregon May 21 May 1 May 6 May 9

Pennsylvania April 23 April 3 April 8 April 11 5

Puerto Rico GOP primary: March 3 February 12 February 17 February 20

Democratic primary: March 10 February 19 February 24 February 27

*Rhode Island September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

*South Carolina June 11 May 22 May 27 ◊ May 30

Runoff: June 25 June 5 June 13 ∆ June 13

* States holding 1996 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

∆ The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mailing date would fall one day before the primary was held.

◊ Note that the last day for a registered/certified postmark is either a federal holiday or a Sunday, when post offices are closed.

The report should therefore be postmarked before that date.

5 The April quarterly report is waived for committees filing the Pennsylvania pre-primary report. See 11 CFR 104.5(a)(1)(iii)(C)

and (c)(1)(i)(C).

11

January 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*South Dakota June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23

Runoff: June 18 May 29 June 6 ∆ June 6

*Tennessee August 1 July 12 July 17 July 20 °

*Texas March 12 February 21 February 26 February 29

Runoff: April 9 March 20 March 25 March 28

Utah 6 June 25 June 5 June 10 June 13

Vermont September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

*Virginia 7 June 11 May 22 May 27 ◊ May 30

Virgin Islands September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

Runoff: September 24 September 4 September 12∆ September 12

Washington September 17 August 28 September 2 ◊ September 5

*West Virginia May 14 April 24 April 29 May 2

Wisconsin September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29

*Wyoming August 20 July 31 August 5 August 8

* States holding 1996 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

∆ The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mailing date would fall one day before the primary was held.

◊Note that the last day for a registered/certified postmark is a federal holiday, when post offices are closed. The report should

therefore be postmarked before that date.

°Note that the filing date is a Saturday. Because filing dates are not extended when they fall on nonworking days, the report

should be received by the appropriate filing offices by July 19, the Friday before (or sent by registered or certified mail and

postmarked by the mailing date).

6 In Utah, pre-convention reporting is required for the Republican convention on May 4 (close of books, April 14; mailing date,

April 19; filing date, April 22), the Libertarian convention on May 11 (close of books, April 21; mailing date, April 26; filing

date, April 29), the Democratic convention and the Independent Patriot Party convention (dates for the latter two conventions

are not available yet). A candidate receiving at least 70 percent of the convention vote becomes the party’s nominee and does not

participate in the primary. In that case, the nominee has no contribution limit or reporting requirements for the primary. 11 CFR

110.1(j)(4); see also AOs 1992-25 and 1978-30.

7 In Virginia, each party within a Congressional District decides whether to hold a primary or a convention. If a convention is

held, pre-convention reporting is required. Information on convention dates for House races is not yet available. With respect to

the Senate races, the Democrats will hold a convention on June 8 (reporting dates: close of books, May 19; mailing date, May 24;

filing date, May 27, which is Memorial Day—see footnote ° above). The Republicans will hold a primary on June 11 (reporting dates

shown in table).

12

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996
Public Funding

Public Funding Shortfall in

Early 1996

Since February 1995, the Record

has reported on the possibility of a

cash flow problem in early 1996 that

would affect matching fund payments

to this year’s Presidential candidates.1

 The anticipated shortfall

now seems certain, with the latest

estimates predicting matching

payments of 58.5¢ per certified

dollar. This is only a temporary cash

flow problem, however, and the

Status of Presidential Election Campaign Fund

As of 10/95 Estimates for 1/96

Fund balance: $145,916,195 $146,638,502

Balance set aside: $124,280,064 $124,280,064*

Balance available

for primary candidates: $ 21,636,131 $ 22,358,438

Certified submissions: $ 26,013,826 $ 38,222,569**

Shortfall: $ 4,377,695 $ 15,864,131

* This includes set-asides for general-election payments and for an inflation adjustment for the $24,048,000 in payments made in July 1995 to the Democratic and

Republican national party committees to fund their 1996 conventions.

**This $38,222,569 figure includes certified submissions received through November

1, 1995, and the submission requests received since then, which have yet to be

certified by the FEC.

fund should recover by spring, at

which time all certified candidates

will receive all of their entitlements.

The accompanying table shows

latest figures available. The cash

flow problem can be attributed

mostly to three factors:

• The front loading of this year’s

primary fundraising was unprecedented ($38 million in entitlements for January 1996 compared

to $6 million for January 1992);

• The taxpayer checkoff increase

from $1 to $3 did not take effect

until 1994; and

• Current U.S. Treasury regulations

require that monies for the general

election be set aside before any

primary election disbursements are 1 See page 2 of the February 1995 made. ✦

Record and page 1 of the November

1995 Record.

Regulations

Commission Revises

Disclaimer Rules

Revised disclaimer rules at

11 CFR 110.11(a) were published in

the Federal Register, accompanied

by an Explanation and Justification,

on October 5, 1995 (60 FR 52069).1

They became effective on December

20, 1995 (60 FR 65515).

The FEC requires disclaimers on

communications that expressly

advocate the election or defeat of a

clearly identified federal candidate,

or solicit contributions, through any

form of public political advertising.

In most instances the disclaimer must

state both who paid for the communication and whether it was authorized by any candidate or authorized

committee. Such communications

dispersed over the Internet or other

technologies not explicitly mentioned in the rules are subject to

these regulations. See Advisory

Opinions 1995-9 and 1995-35.

The changes in the rules address:

• Disclaimers for coordinated party

expenditures;

• When a mailing constitutes “direct

mail” for disclaimer purposes;

• Which exempt activities require

disclaimers;

• Disclaimers on items that are part

of a package; and

• What constitutes a “clear and

conspicuous” disclaimer.

Coordinated Party Expenditures

Disclaimers on communications

paid with coordinated party expenditures must identify the committee

that actually paid for the communication, regardless of whether the

committee is spending against its

13

January 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

1 A correction notice to the rules’

preamble was published in the Federal

Register on November 29, 1995 (60 FR

61199). This correction did not alter

the actual text of the rules.

(continued on page 14)
14

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996

own limit or against an amount

assigned to it by another committee.

11 CFR 110.11(a)(2)(i).

When a coordinated party

expenditure is made before the date

of the party’s nomination, the

communication need only state who

paid for it; no authorization statement

is required. 11 CFR 110.11(a)(2).

“Direct Mailing” Definition

A direct mailing is a form of

general public political advertising

that requires a disclaimer. The

revised rules define “direct mailing,” for disclaimer purposes only,

to be any mailing of more than 100

substantially similar pieces of mail.

11 CFR 110.11(a)(3).

Exempt Party Activities and

Coattail Support

Exempt state and local party

activities (slate cards, campaign

materials and phone banks for

Presidential nominees)(11 CFR

100.8(b)(10), (16) and (18)) and

communications that fall under the

coattail exemption (11 CFR 100.8

(b)(17)) are now required to carry a

“paid for” disclaimer. Being exempt

from the contribution and expenditure limits does not exempt these

communications from the disclaimer

requirement. 11 CFR 110.11(a)(4).

Exempt Items

Some communications are

exempt from the disclaimer requirement for practical reasons. For

instance, small items and wearing

apparel such as T-shirts and baseball

caps and certain small administrative

items need not carry a disclaimer.

The latter two have been added to

the list at 11 CFR 110.11(a)(6).

“Clear and Conspicuous”

Disclaimers must be clear and

conspicuous. The revised rules state

that a disclaimer is not clear and

conspicuous if it is hard to read or if

it is placed so as to be easily overlooked. 11 CFR 110.11(a)(5).

Items as Part of Package

Each item that would require a

disclaimer if distributed separately

must carry a disclaimer, even if it is

part of a package of materials.

11 CFR 110.11(a)(5)(ii).

Televised Communications

The FEC’s revised disclaimer

rules incorporate the Federal

Communication Commission’s

disclaimer-size requirements.

Televised political advertisements

must carry a written disclaimer that

appears in letters equal to or greater

than four percent of the vertical

picture height. This disclaimer must

be on the screen for a duration of four

seconds. 11 CFR 110.11(a)(5)(iii).

Ordering Copies of the Final Rule

 Copies of the final rule and the

explanation and justification (60 FR

52069) along with other related Federal Register notices may be obtained

by either calling the FEC at 800/424-

9530 or through the FEC’s automated

Flashfax system: dial 202/501-3413

and request document 231. ✦

Regulations

(continued from page 13)

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1995-38

Corporate Vendor and

Nonconnected PAC With

Common Officer

The Entrepreneurs Fund (the

Fund), a nonconnected PAC, may

contract with Washington Policy

Associates (WPA) for management

and fundraising services provided

all business is billed at the usual and

normal charge. The fact that WPA’s

president is the treasurer of the Fund

does not preclude this arrangement.

Jeffrey C. Smith, WPA’s president, and a number of private

individuals intend to form the Fund

for the purpose of supporting federal

candidates from both parties who

support policies favorable to entrepreneurs. Mr. Smith states that

WPA’s arrangement with the Fund

“would be exactly the same as the

one WPA has with its [other clients].”

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and FEC regulations do

not preclude arrangements between

political committees and corporate

vendors solely because the vendor is

owned or controlled by a committee

officer. Indeed, past advisory opinions (AOs) have permitted arrangements resembling the one posed by

Mr. Smith. See AOs 1995-8, 1994-8,

1992-24 and 1991-37.

In the present case, the Fund

intends to pay WPA for its services

on a monthly retainer basis. Such

payment must reflect the usual and

normal charges for all services provided. Similarly, if WPA extends

credit to the Fund, the credit extension must be made in WPA’s ordinary

course of business and under terms

similar to those offered by WPA to

debtors of similar risk and size.

The Commission expressed no

opinion regarding the tax ramifications of Mr. Smith’s proposed

arrangement as these issues are not

within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Date Issued: November 30, 1995;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1995-44

Applicability of 48-hour notice

requirement to each Presidential

primary and caucus (Forbes for

President; November 28, 1995; 3

pages plus 6-page attachment)

AOR 1995-45

Ballot access expenditures made by

publicly funded Presidential candidate as qualified campaign expenditures (Dr. John Hagelin; November

29, 1995; 2 pages)
15

January 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

AOR 1995-46

Personal-use rules as applied to the

purchase of a candidate’s autobiography (Friends of Senator D’Amato;

December 6, 1995; 3 pages. ✦

Alternative Disposition of

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1995-39

Requester, Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee, withdrew

this AOR, which posed questions

with respect to the disaffiliation of

county and state party committees. ✦

Compliance

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently released for public review. This listing

is based on the FEC press release of

October 6 and November 8, but it

does not include three MURs in which

the Commission took no action. Files

on closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

MUR 2561

Respondents: (a) Michael Schaefer

(CA); (b) Friends of Schaefer,

Michael Schaefer, treasurer (CA);

(c) Mary E. Huerta (NV); (d) Charles

Schwab and Co., Inc. (CA); (e) Jay

R. DeMiranda (CA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Excessive contribution;

corporate contribution; failure to

continuously report debt; failure to

file Statements of Candidacy and

Organization timely; failure to file

disclosure reports timely

Disposition: (a-b) Probable cause to

believe, litigation initiated May 1991

and final judgment issued April 1992:

$3,000 civil penalty and injunction;

(c) reason to believe, but took no

further action; (d-e) took no action

MUR 3471

Respondents: Harvey Gantt for

Senate Campaign Committee,

Bobby T. Martin, treasurer (NC)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

corporate contributions;

failure to file 48 hour reports

Disposition: $25,000 civil penalty

MURs 3620/3617/3658/4010

Respondents: (a) Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee,

Donald J. Foley, treasurer (DC);

(b) Abrams Committee (FKA

Abrams ’92), Lawrence B. Buttenwieser, treasurer (NY); (c) Feinstein

for Senate ’94, Michael J. Barrett,

treasurer (CA); (d) Sanford for

Senate Committee, Alton G. Buck,

treasurer (NC); (e) Senator Dianne

Feinstein (CA); (f) Yeakel for Senate

Committee, Sidney D. Rosenblatt,

treasurer (PA); (g) The Kamber

Group (DC); (h) Lynn Cutler (DC)

Complainants: National Republican

Senatorial Committee (DC) (3620/

3658/4010); U. S. Senator John

Seymour Committee (CA) (3617)

Subject: Failure to report earmarked contributions; excessive

contributions; corporate contribution

Disposition: (a-d) $75,000 civil

penalty; (b-d) reason to believe, but

took no further action (receipt of

excessive contributions; failure to

report receipt of earmarked contributions); (e-f) no reason to believe;

(g-h) reason to believe, but took no

further action (corporate contribution)

MUR 3832

Respondents: Nassau County

Democratic Committee, David

Kremer, treasurer (NY)

Complainant: Congressman David

A. Levy, Levy for Congress Committee (NY)

Subject: Failure to register and report;

corporate contributions; disclaimers

Disposition: $4,800 civil penalty;

committee to register and report

MUR 3886/Pre-MUR 290

Respondents: (a) Herbert F. Collins

(MA); (b) Bush-Quayle ’92 Primary

Committee, Inc., and Bush-Quayle ’92

Compliance Committee, Inc., J. Stanley

Huckaby, treasurer of both (VA)

Complainants: Herbert F. Collins

(MA) (Pre-MUR 290); Center for

Responsive Politics (DC) (3886)

Subject: Exceeding the annual

$25,000 contribution limit (1992);

excessive contributions

Disposition: (a) $20,000 civil

penalty; (b) no reason to believe

MUR 3944

Respondents: (a) Congressman

Daniel E. Hamburg (CA);

(b) Committee to Elect Dan Hamburg, Ted Loring, treasurer (CA);

(c) The Hamburg Trust, Steve

Hamburg, trustee (MO); (d) Mendocino Book Company et al. (CA);

(e) Carrie Hamburg (CA); (f) Bill

Graham Presents et al. (CA);

(g) Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne

and Holly Near (CA)

Complainant: National Republican

Congressional Committee (DC)

Subject: Personal use of campaign

funds; excessive contributions;

corporate contributions; disclaimers

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action (excessive

contributions; personal use of

campaign funds); (b) reason to

believe, but took no further action

(excessive contributions; personal

use of campaign funds; certain

corporate contributions); no reason

to believe (disclaimers; certain

corporate contributions); (c) reason

to believe, but took no further action

(excessive contributions); (d) reason

to believe, but took no further action

(corporate contributions); (a-d) sent

admonishment letters; (e) no reason

to believe; (f-g) no reason to believe

MUR 4192

Respondents: (a) President William

J. Clinton (DC); (b) Clinton for

President Committee, J.L. “Skip”

Rutherford, treasurer (AR);

(c) Clinton/Gore ’92 General

(continued on page 16)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Election Compliance Fund, J.L.

“Skip” Rutherford, treasurer (AR)

Complainants: Alan Gottlieb et al.

(WA) and (NY)

Subject: Transfer of certain contributions received by primary committee

to general election compliance fund;

submission of inaccurate statement of

net outstanding campaign obligations

Disposition: (a-c) Failed to find

reason to believe (transfer of certain

contributions received by primary

committee to general election

compliance fund); (a-b) failed to

find reason to believe (submission

of inaccurate statement of net

outstanding campaign obligations)

MUR 4206

Respondents: American Portland

Cement Alliance Political Action

Committee, Richard C. Creighton,

treasurer (DC)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: $3,675 civil penalty

MUR 4226

Respondents: Common Language

America PAC, George W. Wilson

Jr., treasurer (MD)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action

MUR 4228

Respondents: Coopers & Lybrand

PAC, Allen J. Weltman, treasurer

(DC)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: $3,900 civil penalty

MUR 4231

Respondents: Communications

Satellite Corporation (COMSAT);

COMSATPAC, James M. Carroll,

treasurer (MD)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: $850 civil penalty ✦

Compliance

(continued from page 15) Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1995 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

1995-38: Corporate vendor and

nonconnected PAC with common

officer, 1:14

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-2881), 1:5

_____ v. FEC

– Center for Responsive Politics, 1:3

– Chamber of Commerce of the

U.S.A., et al., 1:2

– Maine Right to Life Committee, 1:3

Reports

Schedule for 1996, 1:5

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 1996