April 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 4

Compliance Regulations

Electronic Freedom of

Information Act

Amendments: Final Rules

On February 17, the Commission

approved rules and an accompanying Statement of Basis and Purpose

concerning the Electronic Freedom

of Information Act Amendments of

1996 (EFOIA). The Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) provides

public access to all federal agency

records except those that are protected from release by specified

exemptions. 5 U.S.C. §552. The

EFOIA extends coverage of the

FOIA to electronic records and

makes other changes in FOIA

procedures that are designed to

expedite and streamline the process

by which agencies disclose information generally. The EFOIA requires

each agency to make reasonable

efforts to ensure that its records can

be reproduced and searched electronically, except when such efforts

would significantly interfere with

the operation of the agency’s

automated information system. The

Commission has amended its FOIA

rules (11 CFR Part 4) to apply these

statutory changes to its electronic

record and procedures.

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1999-37

PAC Distribution of Express

Advocacy Communications

Through Web Site and

Electronic Mail

X-PAC may post communications containing express advocacy

on its Web site and distribute them

through electronic mail without

making a contribution to any

candidate.

Background

X-PAC has created political

communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of specific

candidates for federal office without

consultation with any candidate’s

campaign or committee. As such,

they are considered independent

expenditures.

The communications, which were

created specifically for electronic

distribution, were developed “inhouse” by X-PAC using commercially available software and will be

hosted on its Web site at no additional cost.

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 4)

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 EFOIA: Final Rules

2 Commission Fails to Open

Rulemaking on Express Advocacy

2 Repayments by Federally

Financed Presidential Primary

Campaigns: Notice of Disposition

3 Testimony on Coordination

3 State Filing Waiver Rules; Seven

More States Certified

1 Advisory Opinions

4 Federal Register

Outreach

5 Public Appearances

 11 FEC Conferences

Court Cases

6 DNC v. FEC

7 FEC v. Christian Coalition

Budget

7 FEC Submits Budget to

Reports

7 Nonfilers

8 April Reporting Reminder

8 Special Reporting Requirements

for Candidates Running in States

With Conventions

8 FEC Zip Codes

Legislation

 10 FEC Submits Legislative

Recommendations

Public Funding

 10 2000 Presidential Spending Limits

 11 Matching Funds

 11 Index
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2000

2

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)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Darryl R. Wold, Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Jennifer A. Han, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

The Commission’s FOIA rules

have also been revised to address

issues that have arisen since the

original rules were adopted. The

most important non-EFOIA change

clarifies which documents are

available in response to a FOIA

request, and which are available to

the general public from the

Commission’s Public Disclosure

Division. The revised regulation

also states that the Commission will

determine within 20 days after

receiving a FOIA request whether to

comply with the request. Previously,

this review period was 10 days.

The rules were published in the

Federal Register on February 24,

2000 (65 FR 9201) and will become

effective on March 27, 2000.

The Commission has already

published a new brochure, Availability of FEC Information, which

serves as the agency’s official guide

to materials available through

EFOIA and elsewhere. This information is required under 5 U.S.C.

552(g). The brochure identifies

specific documents available from

the Commission and describes the

methods for obtaining them.

For a free copy of the brochure,

call the FEC’s Faxline at 202/501-

3414 and request document 534.

Alternatively, you may access the

brochure on the FEC’s Web site at

www.fec.gov/pages/availfec.htm.

Bulk supplies are available from the

Commission, free of charge, by

calling 800/424-9530 (press 1, then

3). ✦

Commission Fails to Open

Rulemaking on Express

Advocacy

On February 9, the Commission

failed to approve a motion by

Commissioner David Mason that the

agency initiate a rulemaking to

repeal the definition of express

advocacy found in subsection “b” at

11 CFR 100.22, the so-called

“reasonable person test.” (Subsection “a” of 100.22, which includes

the so-called “magic words” definition of express advocacy, was not

part of the rulemaking. Under that

subsection, express advocacy is

defined as a message that uses

phrases such as “vote for the

President,” “re-elect your Congressman,” or “Smith for Congress.”)

Subsection b of Section 100.22

states:

Expressly advocating means any

communication that—

(b) When taken as a whole and

with limited reference to external

events, such as the proximity to the

election, could only be interpreted

by a reasonable person as containing

advocacy of the election or defeat of

one or more clearly identified

candidate(s) because—

(1) The electoral portion of the

communication is unmistakable,

unambiguous, and suggestive of

only one meaning; and

Commission Approves Notice

of Disposition on Regulation

Pertaining to Repayments by

Federally Financed

Presidential Primary

Campaign Committees

On March 16, 2000, the Commission decided to make no changes to

the regulation at 11 CFR

9038.2(b)(2)(ii)(A). Under this

provision, the Commission has in

the past required the repayment of

primary matching funds based on a

determination that a publicly funded

candidate or authorized committee

has made expenditures in excess of

the primary spending limits. The

current rule is not being changed

because there is no consensus in

favor of changing the regulation.

The Notice of Disposition was

published in the Federal Register on

March 22, 2000. 65 FR 15273.

(2) Reasonable minds could not

differ as to whether it encourages

actions to elect or defeat one or

more clearly identified candidate(s)

or encourages some other kind of

action.

Commissioner Mason made the

motion in connection with the

Commission’s discussion on

whether or not to appeal the decision in Virginia Society for Human

Life, Inc. v. FEC.

1

 He reasoned that,

if the Commission were to repeal

the provision invalidated in that

case, there would be no need to

appeal the decision. Subsequently,

the Commission decided to appeal

the case. ✦

1

 The U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond

Division, found the regulation at 11

CFR 100.22(b) to be “blatantly

unconstitutional” under Buckley v.

Valeo and issued an order prohibiting

the FEC from enforcing it “against the

VSHL or against any other party in the

United States of America.” For a full

summary on the court decision, see

page 8 of the March 2000 Record.
April 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Commission Hears

Testimony on Coordination

On February 16, the Commission

held a public hearing on proposed

rules concerning coordinated

communications made in support of

or in opposition to clearly identified

candidates that are paid for by

persons other than candidates,

candidates’ authorized committees

and party committees. The Commission also sought comments on

whether the same rules, or a different standard, should apply to

expenditures made by party committees that are coordinated with the

parties’ candidates.1

 Nine witnesses

testified at the hearing. They

represented the Republican National

Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee

and the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, the First

Amendment Project of the Americans Back in Charge Foundation,

In 1998, the Commission issued a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) that raised the argument

that the current provision was

without statutory basis. The NPRM

went on to discuss three alternatives

and focused on the similarities and

differences between the primary

elections and the general election

with respect to the repayment

requirements. For a discussion of

the alternatives, see page 7 of the

January 1999 Record. ✦

the James Madison Center for Free

Speech, the AFL-CIO, The Coalition, the Alliance for Justice and the

Brennan Center for Justice

The concept of “coordinated

expenditures” is important because,

unlike independent expenditures,

coordinated expenditures are

considered in-kind contributions and

are subject to the limitations and

prohibitions of the Federal Election

Campaign Act and Commission

regulations.

The proposed regulations largely

follow the language of the Christian

Coalition2

 decision.

For copies of witness testimony,

call the Public Records Office at

800/424-9530 (press 3). Fourteen

written or electronic comments

received in response to the NPRM

are also available from the Public

Records Office and on the FEC’s

Web site at www.fec.gov. ✦

1

 For a summary of the proposed

regulations, contained in a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), see

page 14 of the January 2000 Record.

The NPRM is available from the Public

Records Office at 800/424-9530 (press

3) or 202/694-1120; through the FEC

Faxline at 202/501-3413 (document

246); and at the FEC’s Web site—

www.fec.gov. The NPRM was published in the December 9, 1999, Federal

Register (64 FR 68951, December 9,

1999).

Commission Approves State

Filing Waiver Rules; Seven

More States Certified for

State Waiver

On March 16, 2000, the Commission approved revisions to its rules

at 11 CFR Part 108 that govern the

filing of campaign finance reports

with state officers and the duties of

state officers concerning the reports.

The rules were published in the

March 22, 2000, Federal Register

(66 FR 15221) and will take effect

following a 30-day legislative

review period before the House and

Senate.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) at 2 U.S.C. §439

requires:

• Candidates and committees to file

copies of their campaign finance

reports with the appropriate state

officer in each state where contributions are received or expenditures are made on behalf of a

federal candidate appearing on that

state’s ballot; and

• States to maintain these documents

for two years.

In 1995, Congress enacted 2

U.S.C. §439(c), which exempts

from these requirements any state

that the Commission determines to

have in place a system that permits

electronic access to and duplication

of reports and statements that are

filed with the Commission.

The new rules provide, inter alia,

that if a state obtains a waiver under

this section, the waiver applies to all

documents that are available on the

Commission’s Web site, regardless

of whether the documents were filed

with the Commission or with the

Secretary of the Senate. They also

drop the requirement that states

maintain such records in paper or

microfilm format for two years.

Finally, they authorize states to

charge a reasonable fee for access to

and duplication of the covered

documents.

 The Commission approved the

State Filing Waiver Program on

October 14, 1999. Under this

program, states that meet certain

criteria set out by the Commission

no longer have to receive and

maintain paper copies of most FEC

reports in their state’s campaign

finance records office. Additionally,

most committees no longer have to

file copies of their reports in the

certified states. Note, however, that

for the present time the waiver does

not to apply to reports filed by the

campaigns for U.S. Senate candidates because those reports are not

currently available on the

Commission’s Web site.

Forty states have been certified as

being qualified for the state filing

waiver. Most recently, the Commission certified seven new states:

2

 For a summary of FEC v. Christian

Coalition, see page 4 of the September

1999 Record. (continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2000

4

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 2000-3

Electronic Freedom of

Information Act Amendments;

Final Rules and Statement of

Basis and Purpose (65 FR 9201,

February 24, 2000)

Notice 2000-4

Filing Copies of Campaign

Finance Reports and Statements

with State Officers; Final Rules

and Transmittal of Regulations to

Congress (65 FR 15221, March

22, 2000)

Notice 2000-5

Public Funding of Presidential

Primary Candidates--

Repayments; Notice of

Disposition and Termination of

Rulemaking (65 FR 15273,

March 22, 2000)

X-PAC will distribute the ads

through e-mail and by having

individuals download them from its

Web site. Viewers will be encouraged to forward the advertisements

to others through their own e-mail

accounts and with a “send this ad to

a friend” link on the X-PAC Web

site.

Reporting Expenses

The costs of registering and

maintaining X-PAC’s Web site, as

well as any costs related to the

purchase and use of computer

hardware and software, are considered overhead expenses. As such,

they must be reported as operating

expenditures, but they do not need

to be reported as part of X-PAC’s

independent expenditures, unless

they are directly attributed to a

particular communication that

expressly advocates the election or

defeat of a clearly identified candidate.

If X-PAC does have such expenses, it would report them on

Schedule E (for Independent

Expenditures) as costs of producing

or distributing an independent

expenditure communication. Costs

of $200 or less to one payee would

be included on line B. Costs over

$200 would be itemized and would

be accompanied by certifications of

independence. See 11 CFR

104.3(b)(3)(vii)(B).

X-PAC has no reporting obligations regarding any downloading of

X-PAC’s political advertisements

since it has no costs or expenses that

are directly attributable to downloading by others. However, XPAC’s initial distribution of such

advertisements through e-mail will

be X-PAC’s own communications

and will be considered independent

expenditures by X-PAC with the

necessary reporting obligations.

American Samoa (considered a state

for purposes of report filing rules),

Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming.1

 In the

certified states, the public can

review and copy campaign finance

reports of most federal candidates

by accessing the FEC’s Web site

(www.fec.gov) on computers

located at the state’s campaign

finance records office. ✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 1)

1

 The Commission previously certified

Alabama, Arkansas, California,

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,

Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, U.S.

Virgin Islands, Washington, West

Virginia and Wisconsin.

Disclaimer

Under the Act and Commission

regulations, public political communications that contain express

advocacy or a contribution solicitation require a disclaimer, stating

who paid for it and which candidate

or authorized committee, if any,

authorized the communication. 2

U.S.C. §441d; 11 CFR

110.11(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv). For

purposes of the disclaimer rules, a

public political communication

includes a direct mailing of more

than 100 pieces that contain a

substantially similar message. In

this case, if X-PAC sends e-mails

containing express advocacy or

solicitations on behalf of a specific

candidate to more than 100 separate

addresses, and the e-mails have

substantially similar content, then

the e-mails must include an appropriate disclaimer in a “clear and

conspicuous manner” to give

adequate notice to the viewer or

reader. The disclaimer is required

even if X-PAC’s expenses do not

exceed the $200 aggregate.

Downloading

X-PAC has no obligation to

collect or provide information

regarding individuals who want to

use the ads for their own Internet

political activity. Furthermore, XPAC is not required to take any

action in stopping foreign nationals

from forwarding the advertisements

since section 441e does not prohibit

the distribution of messages that

expressly advocate the election or

defeat of a clearly identifiable

federal candidate to a list of recipients that may include foreign

nationals. The Act does prohibit,

however, soliciting political contributions from foreign nationals.

Date Issued: February 11, 2000;

Length: 10 pages. ✦

Regulations

(continued from page 3)
April 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

AO 1999-39

Disaffiliation of Separate

Segregated Funds After

Corporate Restructuring

WellPoint Health Networks

Political Action Committee

(WellPAC) and Blue Cross and Blue

Shield Association PAC (BluePAC)

are no longer affiliated due to a

structural reorganization of

WellPAC’s connected organization.

Consequently, they no longer share

limits on the receipt and making of

contributions, and neither of their

connected organizations may solicit

the restricted class of the other’s

organization for PAC contributions.

WellPAC is the separate segregated fund of WellPoint Health

Networks, Inc. Until July of 1996,

WellPAC was known and operated

as Blue Cross of California PAC

(BCC PAC) with Blue Cross of

California (BCC) as its connected

organization. BCC was affiliated

with Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Association (BCBSA); consequently, BCC PAC and Blue PAC

were affiliated at that time.

BCC was originally established

as a nonprofit public benefit corporation. Prior to 1993, the organization that is now WellPoint was

directed or controlled by BCC, and

it operated various plans that were

Blue Cross licensees. Between 1993

and 1996, BCC converted into a forprofit corporation. As a result of this

corporate reorganization, BCC

became a wholly-owned subsidiary

of WellPoint.

WellPoint business operations

extend well beyond those of Blue

Cross. It currently owns 18 operating subsidiaries, two of which do

business under the Blue Cross name

and mark in California. The remaining sixteen operating companies do

business under UNICARE,

WellPoint or other names and marks

in other states.

WellPoint’s transformation from

a company that was primarily

engaged in business under Blue

(continued on page 6)

AO 2000-1

Paid Leave of Absence for

Attorney Seeking Federal

Office

A candidate who is an employee

of a law firm, but who is not doing

any work for the firm, may not

receive a partial salary from the firm

while seeking federal office.

Angel Taveras is currently an

attorney at a law firm, Brown

Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer (Brown

Rudnick), which is a professional

corporation. He is also a candidate

for the U.S. House of Representatives and wishes to take a partially

paid leave of absence during his

candidacy.

Mr. Taveras’s compensation is on

a salary basis, with an annual bonus.

During his absence, Mr. Taveras

will be released from all duties and

responsibilities with the firm. He

will not perform any work for the

firm or its members that will result

in billable hours to the firm’s

clients. Mr. Taveras will, however,

still receive one-half of his usual

salary for the leave period.

Under Brown Rudnick’s paid

leave policy, an attorney may draw

some salary based on his or her time

with the firm, the reason for the

leave and the benefit to the

attorney’s practice and the firm

overall.

Public Appearances

April 4-7, 2000

Center for Democracy and

Technology

Toronto, Canada

Commissioner Karl Sandstrom

Cross to one with significantly more

varied operations provides the

“context of the overall relationship”

for the examination of affiliation

factors. See 11 CFR 110.3(a)(3)(ii).

Although license agreements

remain between Blue Cross and

BCBSA, Blue Cross operations are

now owned by WellPoint and are

one segment of a materially altered

company structure that is significantly engaged in other activities

not related to BCBSA, which

activities even involve some competition with BCBSA entities. The

effect of the license restrictions on

matters addressed in Commission

regulations appears to be outweighed by this structural organization, particularly in view of the fact

that the effect of these restrictions is

limited, as discussed below.

• Blue Cross operations are owned

by WellPoint, which conducts an

extensive portion of its businesses

under the UNICARE name, some

of which even involve competition

with BCBSA entities.

• BCBSA has no significant control

over WellPoint’s board membership; BCBSA has had no role in

the placing of individuals on the

WellPoint board; and the selection

of successor board members is

controlled by the WellPoint board

and shareholders.

• There is only a minor overlap of

present and former employees

between the two corporations.

• BCBSA and WellPoint do not

share the same lobbyists to represent their organizations.

• Although BCBSA provides limited

administrative services to

WellPoint (and to other licensees),

it does so through an “arms length”

transaction (i.e., WellPoint pays

BCBSA for these services and for

the use of the blue cross name and

mark).

Moreover, the continued relationship between BCC and BCBSA

does not change the fact that

WellPAC and BluePAC are no

longer affiliated. WellPoint’s equity

ownership and control of BCC

supersede any control held by

BCBSA.

Issued: February 18, 2000;

Length: 10 pages ✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2000

6

1

 One Commissioner was recused from

the case and one Commission seat was

vacant.

Court Cases

Democratic National

Committee v. FEC

(1:00CV00161)

On January 28, the Democratic

National Committee (DNC) asked

the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia to:

• Declare the FEC’s dismissal of the

DNC’s administrative complaint

against the Republican National

Committee (RNC) and the National Policy Forum (NPF) as

contrary to law, and

• Issue an order directing the FEC to

take appropriate action with regard

to the dismissed complaint.

The DNC’s administrative

complaint charged that the NPF was

a project of the RNC, which the

RNC disguised as a separate taxexempt nonprofit corporation.

According to the DNC, the RNC

Commission regulations provide

that, except for certain legal and

accounting services, the payment of

compensation for the campaign

services of an employee or other

person is a contribution by the

employer or payer. 11 CFR

100.7(a)(3). As an exception to this

rule, Commission regulations allow

a corporation to compensate an

employee for leave time where “the

time used by the employee to

engage in political activity is bona

fide, although compensable, vacation time or other earned leave

time.” 11 CFR 100.7(a)(3)(iii). Mr.

Taveras’s proposal would not be

permissible under this exception.

Rather than earned vacation time or

leave time accrued by an employee,

the proposal entails a discretionary

determination by the firm which is

based, in part, on factors other than

past employment.

Consequently, if the firm were to

approve Mr. Taveras’s proposal and

pay him one-half of his normal

salary for the duration of his candidacy, the firm’s compensation

would be considered a contribution

to Mr. Taveras’s campaign. Because

Brown Rudnick is a corporation, the

payment would be prohibited

pursuant to 2 U.S.C 441b(a), which

prohibits a corporation from making

any contribution or expenditure in

connection with a federal election.

Furthermore, section 113.1(g) of

the regulations provides that payment by a third person of a

candidate’s personal expenses

during the campaign is considered a

contribution by the third person (in

this case, Mr. Taveras’s firm) unless

the payment would be made irrespective of the candidacy. The

regulation notes that payments of

compensation are contributions

unless:

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

• The compensation results from

bona fide employment that is

genuinely independent of the

candidacy;

• The compensation is exclusively in

consideration of services provided

by the employee; and

• The payment does not exceed the

amount of compensation that

would be paid to any other similarly qualified person for the same

work over the same period of time.

Mr. Taveras’s proposal does not

meet these requirements. The basis

for paying one-half of his usual

salary includes factors that are not

related to services that he provides

as part of his employment.

Based on the foregoing, Mr.

Taveras may not receive a partial

salary from his law firm for the

duration of his candidacy.

Date Issued: March 6, 2000;

Length: 6 pages. ✦

conducted activity through the NPF

to evade the requirements of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) and Commission regulations.

The RNC provided nonfederal funds

to the NPF, which then conducted

activities which “would clearly be

covered by the FECA [the Federal

Election Campaign Act] and the

FEC’s regulations if conducted by

the RNC itself.”

The Commission, on a vote of

3-1,1

 declined to make reason-tobelieve findings and open an

investigation into the following

violations alleged by the DNC:

• The RNC’s failure to pay for the

federal portion of the NPF’s

expenses with contributions that

were permissible under the Act;

and

• The RNC’s failure to file public

reports disclosing the NPF’s

receipts and disbursements.

The DNC also filed an amended

administrative complaint alleging

that the RNC had used the NPF as a

means to hide foreign contributions

to the RNC. Specifically, the RNC

had lent more than $2 million to the

NPF and later arranged for a Hong

Kong company to put up collateral

for a bank loan to the NPF. Subsequently, the NPF used those loans to

repay the RNC.

On this alleged violation, the

Commission authorized an investigation.

Following the investigation, the

Commission, on a 3-3 tie vote,

declined to find probable cause to

believe that the RNC had solicited

and accepted an illegal $1.6 million

contribution from a foreign national,

in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441e. The

Commission then dismissed the

complaint and closed the file.

The Commissioners who voted

not to find reason to believe and

probable cause that the RNC had
April 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

FEC v. Christian Coalition

(96-1781)

The FEC and the Christian

Coalition (Coalition) negotiated a

final judgment and order, which the

court issued on February 23, 2000.

Back in August 1999, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia granted in part and denied

in part motions for summary

judgment by both the FEC and the

Coalition. The court granted partial

summary judgment in favor of the

Coalition with respect to all alleged

violations except for the following:

the court found that the FEC was

entitled to a civil penalty for the

Coalition’s express advocacy of

House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s

reelection in 1994 and for the

Coalition’s having provided Oliver

North’s Senate campaign with a

valuable mailing list. The court left

unresolved, however, whether the

Coalition had coordinated its voter

guide activities with the North

campaign. For a summary of FEC v.

Christian Coalition, see page 4 of

the September 1999 Record.

In the final judgment, the court

ordered that:

• The Coalition pay $45,000 to the

FEC, representing a complete

settlement of all outstanding

issues, including civil penalties

and sanctions; and

• Both the FEC and the Coalition

bear their own costs and attorney

fees. ✦

violated the Act had not filed

Statements of Reasons explaining

the basis for their votes at the time

the DNC filed suit. The DNC claims

in its litigation that the failure to file

such a statement was in violation of

the law and Commission regulations

and, therefore, that the

Commission’s dismissal of its

complaint was contrary to law.

Since the suit was filed, however,

Statements of Reasons explaining

both votes have been issued. ✦

Budget

FEC Submits FY2001

Budget to Congress

The FEC submitted its FY2001

budget justification to Congress and

the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). The FY2001

request for $40,960,000 and 356

personnel represents an increase of

7 percent in funding and four

additional personnel over the

FY2000 appropriation by Congress.

The Commission also transmitted

to Congress and the OMB its

FY2001 Performance Plan, retransmitted its FY1998-2003

Strategic Plan in accordance with

the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and included

the most recent status report to

Congress on the 1999

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)

audit recommendations.

The Executive Summary of the

budget request noted that the

requested funds and personnel

would enable the Commission to:

• Complete the audits of publicly

funded Presidential campaigns

within two years after the November 2000 general election.

• Conduct between 40 and 45 Title 2

“for cause” audits per election

cycle as opposed to 20 to 25

conducted in previous election

cycles.

• Maintain a timely and enhanced

campaign finance disclosure

program, including:

 * Improvements in the processing

of reports, the inputting of data

and the review of reports filed

with the FEC;

 * Implementing thresholds for

mandatory electronic filing of

disclosure reports;

 * Providing equipment to state

offices to facilitate their participation in the state waiver program

(see page 2 of the January

Record); and

 * Enhancing the disclosure imaging

system for Internet access.

• Ensure that significant efforts are

made to enforce the disclosure and

limitation provisions of the Federal

Election Campaign Act.

• Complete the revision of the

Voting System Standards and

conduct a national conference of

elections officials to introduce the

new standards.

• Continue progress in implementing

the Administrative Fines Program,

the Alternative Dispute Resolution

Pilot Program and other initiatives

to improve the timeliness of

enforcement actions.

• Continue progress in implementing

the PwC audit recommendations.

• Continue the enhancement of

computer capabilities, including

the FEC’s Web site. ✦

Reports

Nonfilers

The campaign committees listed

in the chart on page 8 failed to file

pre-primary reports in regards to

primary elections that were held on

March 7, 2000, in California, on

March 14, 2000, in Texas and on

March 21, 2000, in Illinois to select

candidates for the U.S. Senate and

House of Representatives. The

reports, which were due 12 days

before the election, were to include

financial activity occurring from

January 1 through February 16 for

the March 7 primary, from January

1 through February 23 for the March

14 primary and January 1 through

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2000

8

Special Reporting

Requirements for Candidates

Running in States With

Conventions

The Federal Election Campaign

Act’s (the Act’s) definition of

election includes “a convention or

caucus of a political party which has

authority to nominate a candidate.”

2 U.S.C. §431(1). Conventions in

the states listed in the chart on page

9 have the authority to nominate.

Therefore, they are considered

elections for purposes of the Act.

Consequently, candidates seeking

nomination in any of these conventions are entitled to a separate

contribution limit for the convention. AO 1978-30. (They also have

to file reports pertaining to the

convention. See below).

In Connecticut and Utah, if a

candidate is not nominated by the

party during the convention, a

primary is held. If a primary is held,

a candidate in such a primary will

have an additional contribution limit

for the primary. AO 1992-25.

Note, however, that if a convenCandidate Office Sought

Allen Rowe for Congress House CA/22

Pegram for Congress House CA/36

Committee to Re-Elect House CA/45

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

Elect Peter Kouvelis House CA/48

Jesse Jackson Jr. for Congress Committee House IL/02

Christensen for Congress House IL/06

Stevenson for Congress House IL/11

Gary L. Harrison for U.S. Congress House TX/05

Jo Ann Matranga for Congress House TX/22

Garza for Congress Committee House TX/23

Eddie Bernice Johnson for Congress House TX/30

April Reporting Reminder

Committees filing on a quarterly

basis must file their first quarterly

report by April 15. Those filing on a

monthly basis have a report due on

April 20.

In addition to filing quarterly

reports, committees of House and

Senate candidates active in the 2000

primary and runoff elections must

file pre-election reports and may

have to file 48-hour notices. PACs

and party committees filing on a

quarterly basis may also have to file

pre-election reports and 24-hour

reports of independent expenditures.

For more information on 2000

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the

January 2000 Record;

• Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 (press 1, then press 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 site at

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

view the reporting tables online. ✦

tion does not have the authority to

nominate a candidate, it does not

count as an election, and candidates

are not accorded a separate contribution limit for that convention. AO

1984-16.

Reports

Candidates involved in a convention (that has the power to nominate) in the states listed in the chart

must file a pre-election report for

the convention. This report must be

filed even if the candidate is unopposed in the convention. AO 1986-

21.

Campaign committees must also

file 48-hour notices disclosing

contributions of $1,000 or more

received less than 20 days, but more

than 48 hours, before the date of the

election. The FEC or the Secretary

of the Senate must receive the notice

within 48 hours of the committee’s

receipt of the contribution. The

period covered by 48-hour notices is

listed in the chart on the next page

for every state holding a

convention. ✦

March 1 for the March 21 primary.

The FEC is required by law to

publicize names of nonfiling

campaign committees. 2 U.S.C.

§438(a)(7). The agency pursues

enforcement actions against

nonfilers on a case-by-case basis. ✦

FEC Zip Code

For reports sent to the FEC

through FedEx, Airborne

Express, UPS and DHL, please

use 20463 or 20004 as the FEC’s

zip code. For all other mail, use

20463.

Reports

(continued from page 7)
April 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Convention Reports

State Election Day Close of Books Mailing Date Filing Date 48-Hour Notice

Period

Connecticut July 17 June 27 July 2 July 5 June 28-July 14

House (D)

Connecticut July 10 June 20 June 25 June 28 June 21-July 7

House (R)

Connecticut July 14 June 24 June 29 July 2 June 25-July 11

Senate (D)

Connecticut July 22 July 2 July 7 July 10 July 3-July 19

Senate (R)

Texas March 25 March 5 March 10 March 13 March 6-March 22

House (Minor Party)

Districts 1-6, 8-9,11-15

17, 19, 21-24, 26-28

Texas March 18 February 27 March 3 March 6 February 28-March 15

House (Minor Party)

Districts 7, 10, 16, 18,

20, 25, 29, 30

Utah May 6 April 16 April 21 April 24 April 17-May 3

(D) and (R)

Utah May 13 April 23 April 28 May 1 April 24-May 10

(Independent American)

Utah May 20 April 30 May 5 May 8 May 1-May 17

(Libertarian)

Virginia To Be Announced
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2000

10

Legislation

FEC Submits Six Priority

Recommendations for

Legislative Action

The FEC submitted to Congress

and the President six priority

recommendations for legislative

action in the area of campaign

finance law—changes to the law

that the Commission unanimously

believes “would have a significant

effect on the election system,” FEC

Chairman Darryl R. Wold wrote in a

cover letter. The recommendations

are summarized below:

1. Election Cycle Reporting of

Operating Expenditures and

Other Disbursements – Place

committee reporting of itemized

operating expenditures and other

disbursements on an electioncycle basis. This would establish

consistency with the reporting of

campaign receipts, which (based

on last year’s legislative change)

will be reported on an electioncycle basis, starting January 1,

2001.

2. Waiver Authority – Grant authority to the Commission to waive

excessive reporting requirements.

3. Monthly Reporting for Congressional Candidates – Give principal campaign committees of

Congressional campaigns the

option of filing monthly reports

so that their reports cover less

activity and are easier to do.

4. Application of the $25,000

Annual Limit – Simplify the

application of the $25,000 annual

limit for individuals, thereby

reducing inadvertent violations

while allowing the Commission

to better monitor compliance.

5. Contributions by Foreign Nationals – Clarify that the prohibition

on foreign national activity

applies to both contributions and

expenditures and to both federal

and nonfederal elections.

6. Lines of Credit and Other Loans

Obtained by Candidates – Clarify

the legality of loans made using

alternative sources of financing,

such as advances on a candidate’s

brokerage account, credit card or

home equity line of credit.”

On March 15, the Commission

submitted 32 supplemental legislative recommendations to the President and Congress. This group

contained recommendations that

address areas that have been problematic and recommendations that

are primarily technical in nature. ✦

Public Funding

2000 Presidential Spending

Limits

Presidential candidates who

accept public funds may each spend

$40,536,000 on their pre-nomination efforts and $67,560,000 during

the general election.

Each of the two major parties will

be able to spend up to $13,680,292

on behalf of their Presidential

nominees, and $13,512,000 on their

conventions. Although the Reform

Party will receive only partial public

funding, it will be subject to the

same expenditure limits for its

Presidential nominee and its convention as the two major parties.

There is an overall spending limit

for the entire pre-convention period

as well as limits for spending in

each state. The limits only apply to

those campaigns that accept federal

funds. Campaigns which forego

federal funding may spend unlimited amounts of money.

The overall “base” spending limit

for Presidential primary campaigns

is $10 million plus a cost-of-living

adjustment (over 1974). For the

2000 primary season, the “base”

spending limit is $33,780,000.

Twenty percent of a campaign’s

fundraising expenses is exempt from

the spending limit. This effectively

raises the amount primary contenders may spend in the pre-convention

period to $40,536,000.

In addition, during the primary

campaign, Commission regulations

exempt another 15 percent of this

“base” spending limit for legal and

accounting costs associated with

complying with the Federal Election

Campaign Act. In the 2000 election,

this will amount to $5,067,000.

Once the campaign is over and is

winding down, all salary and

overhead expenses are exempt from

the limit in addition to the 15

percent of the “base” spending limit

allowed for legal and accounting

costs during the campaign.

The two major party nominees

who qualify for public funding in

the general election will each be

given $67,560,000 for the campaign. This amount derives from a

general election spending limit of

$20 million plus a cost-of-living

adjustment (over 1974). The nominees receive all of their funds from

the U.S. Treasury and may not raise

private contributions for the campaign (other than for certain legal

and accounting costs which are not

subject to the spending limits).

Public funds paid in connection

with the Presidential elections are

derived entirely from the $3 tax

checkoff, an option offered all

taxpayers on their U.S. tax return

forms. ✦
April 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Corporate and Labor

Conference

Date: April 6-7, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill)

Registration: $265

Membership and Trade

Association Conference

Date: May 16-17, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hilton Crystal City)

Registration: $250

FEC Conference Schedule

 The FEC will continue its series of conferences through May. See below for

details. To register for any conference, call Sylvester Management at 800/246-

7277 or send an e-mail to tsylvester@worldnet.att.net. For program

information, call the FEC’s Information Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-

1100. A regularly updated schedule for the conferences and a downloadable

invitation/registration form appear at the FEC’s Web site. Go to http://

www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm for the latest information.

Matching Funds for 2000 Presidential Candidates:

February Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

February 2000 Certifications

Gary L. Bauer (R) 1 $167,589.71 $4,419,393.18

Bill Bradley (D) 2 $1,098,918.35 $11,263,189.91

Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform) $273,885.08 $3,155,941.99

Al Gore (D) $462,769.38 $12,407,562.19

Alan L. Keyes (R) $420,766.00 $1,978,205.10

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) 3 $77,493.45 $901,338.93

John S. McCain (R) 4 $1,077,624.65 $6,984,208.69

Dan Quayle(R) 5 $0.00 $2,012,525.00

1 Gary L Bauer publicly withdrew from the race on February 4, 2000.

2 Bill Bradley publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

3

 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. became ineligible for matching funds on March 6, 2000.

4 John S. McCain publicly withdrew on March 9, 2000.

5 Dan Quayle publicly withdrew from the race on September 27, 1999.

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2000 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “3:4” means

that the article is in the March issue

on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1999-24: Web site sponsored by

LLC featuring information on

candidates, 1:17

1999-29: Fundraising exemption

from state limits for direct mailing

by Presidential committee, 1:19

1999-30: Application of allocation

ratio in state with single house

legislature, 1:20

1999-31: Application of one-third

rule to prizes and premiums used

in connection with payroll

deduction, 1:21

1999-32: Indian tribe’s utility

authority treated as separate from

the tribe, 3:4

1999-33: Delayed transmittal of

payroll deductions, 3:5

1999-34: Use of campaign funds to

finance charity event, 2:2

1999-35: Soliciting for SSF through

electronic deduction system, 2:4

1999-36: Fundraising via electronic

checks and Internet fund transfers,

3:5

1999-37: PAC distribution of

express advocacy communications through Web site and email, 4:1

1999-39: Disaffiliation of SSFs after

corporate restructuring, 4:5

2000-1: Paid leave of absence for

attorney seeking federal office,

4:5

Compliance

MUR 3774: Failure to allocate

expenses between federal and

nonfederal accounts for get-outthe-vote drive conducted by third

party, 3:3

Index
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

Federal Election Commission RECORD Month 2000

MUR 4322 and 4650: Violations by

candidate, campaign committees,

treasurer and relative, 2:1

MUR 4648: Failure to disclose

purpose of expenditures and other

violations, 3:4

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9

– DNC, 4:6

– DSCC, 1:2

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 3:8

FEC v. _____

– Christian Coalition, 4:7

– Friend for Fasi, 3:9

Other

– Fireman v. USA, 1:13

– Mariani v. USA, 1:3

– Shrink PAC v. Nixon, 3:7

Regulations

Coordination, 1:14; 4:3

Electronic Freedom of Information

Act, 4:1

Express Advocacy, 4:2

Repayments by Federally Financed

Presidential Primary Campaign

Committees, 4:2

State Waivers, 4:3

Reports

Reports due in 2000, 1:5

State Filing Waiver, 1:2; 2:5, 4:3