May 1994

Tab. of Content

Budget

FEC Asks for $3 1.8 Million

Regulations

New Rule on Use of Candidate

Names

3 Petition to BanCompliance Funds

in Presidential Campaigns

3 FECApproves Early Release of

Regulations Agenda Documents

Clearinghouse

2 U.S. Voting Sites Opened for

South African Elections

Publications

2 Disclosure Directory ' 94

3 New Press Officer Appointed

Court Cases

4 FEC v , PCD: Supreme Court

Declines to Review Rul ing on

Attorney Fees

4 Akins v, fEC (92- 1864)

5 New Litigation

Audits

5 Reports on '92 Harkin Campaign

and Democratic Convention

6 Advisory Opinions

Compliance

7 $25,000 Annual Limit

7 MURs Released to the Public

II Nonfilers Published

Statistics

9 Democratic Party Fundraisingon

the Upswing

Special Elections

9 Kentucky Congressional Election

11 Federal Register

11 Index

Federal Election Commission

Budget

FEe Asks for $31.8 Million

to Meet Surging Work Loads

The Commission recently asked

Congress for a $31.8 million budget

and 347 full-time equivalent (PTE)

positions for fiscal year 1995 to

keep pace with an ever increasing

work load. But a proposal from the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) would reduce that request

by $4.6 million. Because the OMB

proposal would not provide for any

pay adjustments, its recommended

staffing level of 294 FTE positions

could not be met. The OMB budget

would, in effect, cut 44 positions

from the current year's authorized

work force and 71 from the FEe's

FY 1995 request.

Testifying before Congressional

committees in March and April,

FEC Vice Chairman Danny L.

McDonald said that the OMB

budget "would constitute a real cut

of almost 15 percent at a time when

our work load is growing acrossthe-board." The Vice Chairman

heads the FEe's Budget Committee.

He testified that "the number of

enforcement matters facing the FEC

continues to grow faster than we can

handle them," He added that, due to

staffing constraints, the Conunission

can audit only 20 percent of the

(continued on page 2)

Volume 20, Num

Regulations

New Rule Will Permit Pro

Title to Oppose Specific

Candidate

Unauthorized political comm

tees, 1 such as PACs and party

committees, will be able to use 

candidate's name in the title of 

special fundraising project or o

communication, if the title clea

indicates opposition to the cand

(e.g., "Citizens Against Doe" o

"Citizens Fed Up with Doe"), T

Conunis sion recently approved 

exception to the current rule, w

bans the use of a candidate's n

in any special project title of an

unauthorized committee.'

The revised rule at 11 CFR

102.14(b)(3) is not yet effectiv

The effective date will be announced in the Federal Registe

the Record after the Congressio

review period (30 legislative d

The Commission adopted th

original rule because of instanc

(continued on p

I An unauthorized committee is an

committee not authorized by a spe

candidate.

1 The revised rule does not affect t

complete ban on the use ofa cand

date 's /lame in the registered nam

an unauthorized committ ee. 11 CF

102,14(a).
Federal ElectionCommission RECORD

Budget

(conunuea from page I )

approximately 100 commi ttees

meet ing the "for ca use" standa rd.

He also pointed out that, when

Congressi o nal campaign spe nding

for the 1992 elec tions inc rease d by

more than 40 pe rcent, "[tjhe sheer

volu me of finan cial activ ity to be

regulated and processed ... overwhe lmed staff reso urces in many

programs." The trend is continui ng.

Candidate spending in 1993 (fo r the

1994 elec tion) has alread y o utpaced

Co ngressional spending in 1991 (for

the 1992 elect ion). The Vice Chairman warned: "More candidates and

more spe nding mea n more demands

on the FEe. Therefore, we must at

least be able to co ntinue staffi ng

levels at 320 full time personnel,"

the number autho rized for the

current fisca l year.

He said that if Congress were to

adopt the OM B proposal, the .FEe

could not afford to invest $4 million

Federa l Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

20212 19·3420

20212 19-3336 (TOO)

Trevor Pouer, Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

LeeAnn Elliott, Commissioner

John Wa rren McGarry,

Commissioner

Seou E. Thomas, Commissioner

Jo hn C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M . Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Step hanie Fttzgeratd, Editor

2

in an electronic filing program for

the larger party commi ttees and

PACs, as suggested by Congression al oversight co mmittees.

Electronic filing would speed data

processing and disclosure and, for

the first time, com puterize ex penditure data. The OM B bud get would

also scuttle plans to update the

FEC's computer system with more

cost-e ffective tec hnology.

The Commission's req uest covers

funding to rep lace the Governmen t

Accounting Office auditors who, in

past Presidential cycles, were loaned

to the FEC to he lp process public

fundi ng req uests. The age ncy has

also requested funds for more

comprehe nsive programs to audit

non-Presidential committees (audits

"for ca use") and to enforce the

$25,000 annual co ntribution limit.

These programs ca n be implemented

only if Congress appro ves the

agency's full fund ing. +

Clearinghouse

U.S. Voting Sites Opened

for South African Elections

Expecting a large voter turn out

for the first all-race elections in its

history, the So uth African Government allowed its citizens living in

the United Sta tes to vote at polling

sta tions set up in 15 U.S. cities.

Votes were cast on April 26, the

voting day for So uth Africans living

abroad. Voting in South Africa took

place on Apri l 27and 28.

Expatriate voting ge nera lly takes

place at a co untry's embassy or

co ns ulate. But So uth Africa so ught a

more accessible system for the April

26 elect ion. given the large num bers

and dispersion of So uth African

nationals in the United States and

the interest in the historic April

elections. South African law does

not permit absentee voting by mail.

May 1

In response to a request from t

Embassy of So uth Africa, the FE

National Clearinghouse on Electi

Administration acted as liaison

between the embassy and loca l

election officials, who helped loc

facilities for 25 polling stations.

Multiple stations were set up in th

larger cities: New York, Chicago,

Los Angeles, San Francisco and S

Diego.

South African offic ials ove rsaw

the elections. +

Publications

Free Copies of Disclosure

Directory Available

During Ap ril, the Commission

released the 1994 edi tion of the

Combined Federal/Slate Disclosu

Directory, which lists the state an

federal offices responsible for pub

disclosure of reports and for dispensing information on the follow

ing topics:

• Cam paign finance

• Personal finances of candidates

and officia ls

• Public financing

• Spe nding on state initiatives and

refere nda

• Lobbying

• Ca ndidates on the ballot

• Election res ults

• Accessibility to polling places

• Election-related enforcement

actions

• Co rporate registrations

The directory lists office addresses, phone numbe rs and fax

numbers and also iden tifies staff

membe rs kno wledgeable in the

subj ect areas.

Limited copies are available fr

of charge from the FEe's Public

Record s Office. Call 800/424-953

or 202/2 19-4 140. +
•

•

May 1994

Regulations

tcontinued fram page IJ

abuse and confusion arising from

unautho rized committees' increasing usc of candidate names in

fundraising projects. Some of these

projects diverted substantial funds

from the named candidates. The

project titles also misled some

contributors into believing they

were giving 10 the named candidate.

Citizens Against David Duke

(CADD), a potential spec ial project

of a committee, had petiti oned the

FEe to repeal the ban on the use of

candidate names, particularly when

a project title opposed a candidate.

CADD and other persons submitting

comments claimed that the ban on

the use of candidate names infringed

upon free speech rights. The Commission said that the rule was

justified because it was designed to

protect the electoral process. At the

same time, the Commission recognized that fraud and abuse were less

likely to occur in cases where the

title of a projec t opposed a candidate.

The agency noted that unauthorized committees were free to

highlight candidate names in their

communications. For example,

while a committee could not establish a fundraising project called

"Citizens for Doe," it could use a

prominent subheading such as "Help

Us Elect Doe to Federal Office."

The final rule and explanation

and justification were published in

the Federal Register on April 12.+

Notice Published on Petition

to Ban Compliance Funds

in Presidential Campaigns

The Commission recently

published a notice of availabi lity

that invited comments on a rulemaking petition seeking to repeal FEC

regulations on compliance funds.' Filed by the Center for Responsive

Politics, the petition for rulemakin g

argues that compliance funds violate

the public funding statute and

"unde rmine the public policy goals

behind the country's Presidential

public financing system."

Under the public funding statute,

Presidential nominees receiving full

public funding for their general

election campaigns must agree to

I See /I CFR IOO.8(b)(15J, 9002./1

(b)(5). 9003.3 (a) and 9035./(c)( I).

Federal Election Commission REC

limit campaign spending to the

amount of their grants and to re

from acce pting private contrib u

for the campaign. FEC regulati

however, permit these campaig

raise private contributions (up t

$ 1.000 per contributor) specific

for compliance funds-separate

accounts used to pay for legal a

accounting expenses incurred to

comply with the law as well as 

specified expenses. The regulat

exempt compliance fund spend

from the expenditure limits.

In its rulemaking petition, th

Center for Responsive Politics 

the Commission to repeal the

regulations, claiming that comp

ance funds have been used to ev

the fundraising prohibition and 

expenditure limits. The Center 

claims that the FEC does not ha

the legal authority to exempt

compliance fund spending from 

statutory expenditure limits.

Written comments on the pe

were due April 29. See 59 FR

14794, March 30, 1994. Copies 

available for review in the FEe

Public Records Office. The Co

mission will review the public

comments when considering th

merits of the petition. +

•

New Press Officer Appointed

Ronald M. (Ron) Harris is the new Press Officer of the Commission.

assuming that post on March 28. He comes to the Commission after serving

as the press director of another independent agency, the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, where he was responsible for the press relations

and information program. From 1987 to 191N, he was communications

director of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Previously,

he was editor of the Capital Energy Lel/er and Thursday Gas Report.

following a stint as press secretary to U.S. Senator Pete Domcnici (R-NMl.

lie began his career as a print journalist in New Mexico, first reporting for

the Portales News-Tribune and later becoming managing editor of the

Carlsbad Current-Argus.

Born in Amarillo, Texas, Mr. Harris was raised in Hobbs, New

Mexico, and graduated from Eastern New Mexico University, Portales,

witha bachelor of arts in journalism and history. He is a United States

Navy veteran (1964 - 1968).

Ron Hartis succeeds Fred Eiland, who served asthe FEe's press

officer for 15years. Mr. Eiland retired at the end of 1993.

FEe Approves Early Pub

Release of Agenda Docum

on Regulations

On March 3. the FEe decide

expand public access to agenda

documents on reg ulations by

releasing them earlier than was

previously the practice. Regula

documents, such as draft rulern

notices, will now be available i

FEC's Public Records Office at 

same time they are circ ulated to 

Commission. The previous prac

restricted public release of regu

tions documents until 11;2 days

before the meeting at which the

document was to be discussed. 

deadline still applies to other ag

(cont inued on pa
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Regulations

(continued from page J)

doc uments except draft adv isory

opinions; see below.)

The early release policy does not,

however, expand the public comment period fo r rulema king projects.

Those who wish to comment on a

rulemaking project should wait until

the draft document has been approved. Th e deadline for writt en

comments on a parti cular project

will continue to be announced in the

Federal Register and the Record.

If mem bers of the public submit

comments o n dr aft fina l rules. the

FEC will simply retu rn them, unless

the agency decides 10 reopen the

public comme nt period through a

forma l Federal Register announcement.

This is the second recent change

of policy on the public release of

agenda documents. In Oc tobe r 1993,

the Commission decided to release

agenda doc uments conta ining draft

advisory opinions one week before

their co nsideratio n by the Ccmmission in a public meeting. (For more

inform ation , see the December 1993

Record, page 6.) +

Court Cases

FEC v, PCD: Supreme Court

Declines to Review Rulin g

on Attnrney Fees

On February 22, the U.S. Supreme

Court denied an FEC petition to

rev iew an appellate co urt judgm ent

holding the agency liable for paying

the opposing party's attorney fees

under the Equal Access to Justice

Act (EAJA). FEC v, Political

Contributions Data, Inc. (PCD), No.

93-999. The FEC must pay peD's

anom eys S54 ,6 10.

Under the EAJA, the government

must pay attorney fees to the

prevailing party in a civil suit unless

4

the COUll finds the governm ent' s

position to have been "substantially

j ustified." In PCD, the district court

found that the Commission's

position was substantially j ustified

and denied PCO 's petition for

attorney fees. PCO appealed, and a

three-judge panel of the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Second Circuit,

over the dissent of one j udge,

reversed the lower court's ruling.

The Second Circuit found that the

FEe's position could not be "substantially ju stified" under the EAJA

because the court had earlier ruled

that the FEe's interpretation of the

Federal Election Campa ign Act was

unreasonable.'

In its Supreme COUll petition, the

FEC argued that the Second Circuit's ruling co ntradicted legislative

intent as we ll as the Supreme

Court's own rulings and those of

other appe llate COUllS. The FEC 's

brief quoted the Supreme COUll in

Pierce v, Underwood, where the

Court observed that a COUll 'S

agreement or disagreement with the

I The FEe had argued that PCD, in

marketing lists containing data 0 ' 1

individua l contributors taken from FEC

disclosure reports, used this protected

information f or "commercial purposes," a violation of2 U.s.c. §438

(a )(4 ) and /I CFR 104.15, Those

provisions prohibit the use of protected

contributor information "[ or the

purpo:se ofsoliciting contributions or

for commercial purposes. " The Second

Circuit, however, narrowly interpreted

the "commercial purposes " prohibition

as applying to solicitations only. (The

court used the examples "soliciting

contributions or selling cars. ..) Tire

court concluded that this construction

.....ould adequately protect the contributor's personal privacy-the only intent

ofthe "commercial purposes " restriction recognized by the court. Because

PCD 's lists lacked mailing addresses

and phone numbe rs and warned against

the illegal use oflhe information. Ihe

court fou nd that Ihe lists were highl)'

unlikely 10 bt used fo r solicitations and

were therefore eumptfrom regulation.

PCD. 995 r.u 383 (ld Cir. 1993).

May 

government "does not establish

whether its position wa s substan

tially justified. Co nce ivably, the

Government could take a positio

that is not substantially justified. 

win; even more likely it could ta

position that is substantially j usti

fied, ye t lose."!

The So licitor General. who fil

a fn end of the court brief suppor

I the FEe s petition. said tha t the

PCD holding "se riously expands 

government's liabi lity for attorne

fees under EAJA." +

Akins v, FEC (92. 1864)

A district COUll recently ruled 

the FEC had properly construed 

term "politica l committee" to me

a group whose contributions or

expenditures exceed $1,000 in a

calendar year and and whose "ma

purpose" is the election of candidates.

The court case stemmed from 

administrative compl aint (MUR

2804) filed by James E. Akin s an

five other individuals agai nst the

American Israel Public Affairs

Committee (AIPAC), an incorpo

rated lobbying group. The complaina nts alleged tha t AlPAC

vio lated the campaign finance law

by making prohibited corpor ate

expenditures. They also claimed 

AIPAC failed to register and repo

as a politic al committee when its

expenditures exceeded $1.000 in 

calendar year. The FEC found

probable cause to believe that

AIPAC made corporate expenditures but took no furth er action. T

agency found no probable ca use 

believe that AIPAC was a politic

committee because its campaign

activity was so small in comparis

with its major purpose. which wa

lobbying.

When the FEC dismissed the

co mplaint. Mr. Akins and the oth

filed a lawsuit against the Comm

1487 U.S 552.569 (/988).
•

•

•

May /9 9_4 _

sion , arguing that the agency should

have relied solely on the plain

wording of the statute to determine

whether AIPAC was a political

committee. Under the statute, a

group becomes a political committee, subjec t to registration and

reporti ng, when its agg regate

expe nditures exceed $ 1,000 in a

cale ndar year. 2 U.S.c. §43 l(4).

Plaintiffs argued that AIPAC clearl y

met that definition, based on the

FEC's finding that expenditures by

AIPAC probably exceeded $1,000.

On March 30, 1994, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia issued its decision. The

court ruled that the FEC was correct

in applying the major purpose test to

AIPAC 's activities.

Summarizing the case law on this

issue, the co urt cited Buckley v.

valeo. in which the Supreme Court

defined the term political committee

to encompass "organizations that are

under the control of a cand idate or

the majo r purpose of which IS the

nomination or election of a candidate. " I The district court observe d

that the Supreme Court narrowed

the statutory definition in order to

protect the co nstitutional rights of

groups formed for issue discussion.

The court noted that, in FEe v.

Massachusetts Citizensfor Life, Inc.

(MCFL), the Supreme Cou rt again

used the major purpose standard to

defi ne politica l committee. In

MCFL, the Court exempted a

narrowly defin ed type of nonprofit

corporation from the prohibition on

corporate expenditures (2 U.S.c.

§44 lb) with the caveat that if the

organization's independent spendin g

became "so extensive that the

organization 's major purpos e

[could ] be regarded as campaign

activity," then it would meet the

definition of political committee.'

Based on these and other cases,

the district court upheld the FEe's

' 424 U.s. t , 79 (/972).

1479 U.S. 238. 262 (/986).

interpretation of the term "political

co mmittee" and also upheld the

FEe's application of the major

purpose test to AIPAC. The agency

had concluded that "AIPAC's

campaign-related expenditures,

while likely [ 0 have exceeded

$1,000 in some years, we re not its

majo r purpose but were made as an

adju nct to, and in support of, the

lobbying effo rts that we re the

organization 's primary focus."

Finding the agency acted reaso nably in dismis sing plain tiffs'

co mplaint, the court granted summary j udgment to the FEc' •

New Litigation

NRSC v. FEC

The Nationa l Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) asks the

court to stop the FEC from taking

enforcement action in MUR 3204,

an internal case in which the agency

found reason to belie ve that the

NRSC had violated the campaign

finance law.

The finding led to an investigation of the allegatio ns and a

"probable cause to believe" recommendation by the FEC's Ge neral

Co unse l. The NRSC, however,

co ntends that the reason to believe

finding (and any action taken as a

result of that find ing) was invalid

because it was made when the

FEC's composition was unconstitutional, according to the appellate

court's ruling in FEe v, National

Rifle Association Political ViCIO/)'

Fund (NRA).I

In that case, the court of appeals

held that the FEe lacked auth ority

to bring an actio n aga inst the NRA

because the composition of the

agency violated the Con stitution' s

separation of powers doctrine. (The

/6 F.3d 82/ (D.C. cu. / 993). petition

for cert. filed, 62 U.SL W. 35/ I (U.S

Jan. 18, 1994, No. 93· lI51). The FEC

has asked the Supreme Court to review

the ruling.

Federal Etecnon Commission RE

court said: "Congress exceeded 

legislative authority when it pl

its agents, the Secre tary of the

Sena te and the Clerk of the Ho

of Representative s, on the inde

dent Commi ssion as non-votin

officio me mbers.") Immediatel 

after the October 1993 NRA ru

the FEC reconstituted itself by

excluding the ex officio memb

The NRSC requests that the

court:

• Issue preliminary and perman

injunctions to stop the FEC fr

proceeding in MUR 3204;

• Order the FEC to dismiss the 

• Determine that " reason to bel

findings made before the age

was reconstituted are void; an

• Rule that the FEe's pursuit o

enforcement actions initiated 

the ex offi cios were members 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

discret ion and contrary to law

U.S. District Court for the

District of Colu mbia , Civil Ac

No. 94-0332, February 23, 199

Audits

FEe Releases Audit Rep

on '92 Harkin Campaign 

Democratic Convention

The Commissio n has thus fa

released seve n audit reports on

partici pants in the 1992 Presid

public funding program. The tw

most recent reports are summa

below . Copies of final audit re

are available from the FEe's P

Records Office.

The final audit reports conta

Commission ' s initial determin

on the amount of public funds 

committ ee must repa y to the U

Treasury. Initial determination

becomes final within 30 days u

the committee disputes the rep

ment in writing,

(continued on p
Federal Elt Clion Commission RECORD

Audits

[conunued from page 5)

Americans for Harkin

Ame ricans for Harkin, Inc., the

1992 Presidential primary campa ign

of Senator Tom Harkin, received

$2.1 million in federal matching

funds. The Commission required the

commi ttee to pay a total of $59,9 11

to the U.S. Treasury , based on

findings from the final audit report.

Ex cessive and Prohibited Contributtons. Under an audit policy

adopted in May 1992, the Comrnission uses a statistical sampling

technique to evaluate a committee's

compliance with the contribution

limits and proh ibition s. The policy

also requires committees to pay

unreso lved prohibited and excessive

amounts to the U.S. Treasury .

Using the sampling technique and

othe r review methods. FEC aud itors

projected that the committee's

prohibited and excess ive contributions amou nted to $33,03 3. Th e

Commission required the committee

to pay that amount to the U.S.

Treasury. The co mmittee argued

that the FEe had no authority 10

require the payment. but the Commissio n was not persuaded by the

arg ument. The commntee also

argu ed that the sampling method

overstated the amount of illegal

contributions it had accepted. The

audit report , however, explained that

the committee apparentl y misunderstood the proced ures used by FEe

aud itors.

Marching Funds Received in

Ex cess of Entitlement. The Commission determined that the committee

had to repay $24,5 95 in matching

funds that exceeded the committee's

entitlement.

State-Dated Checks. The Commission also requ ired the committee

to pay the Trea sury $2,283, representing comm ittee checks that were

never cashed.

Reporting Errors. The audit

revealed that the commi ttee misstated financial activity in se veral

6

reports, made itemization errors and

failed to disclose required inform ation on disbu rsements. The committee also failed to use best efforts to

obtain and report informa tion on

some ind ividual contributors.

omitting the occ upation and ernployer of several donors whose

contributions totaled over $600,000.

The committee amended its reports

to correc t most of these problems.

Dem ocratic Convention

Committee

The 1992 Democratic National

Co nvention Committee, Inc .,

received $ 11.05 million in public

funds for its 1992 nominating

convention in New York. The

Commission determined that the

convention committee had to pay

S,38,163 10 the U.S. Treasury .

Findin gs from the final aud it report

are highlighted below.

StaffAdvances. The commi ttee

apparently accepted S15,418 in

excessive contributions res ulting

from staff adva nces. Alth ough the

committee reimbursed the staff. the

reimbu rsements were not timel y.

Post-Convention Sp en ding . Some

months after the convention, the

committee made several expe nditures that were not considered

permissib le convention expenses,

specifically SI7 ,805 in gifts to

senior staff and party leaders (only

gifts in excess of $ 150 we re considered impermi ssible) and $10.000in

consulting fees for a study on the

role of African Americans at the

1992 convention. Th e Commission

made an initial determi nation that

the committee repay the $27,805

spent on impermissibl e expenditures.

Other Payments. The Commission determined that the committee

had to repay $5,676 in parking

penalties; pay $8 10 in commi ttee

chec ks that were never cashed; and

return $3,872 in unspent public

funds.

Bill Clinton Film . The Commission decided not to req uire repayment of $30.000 spent o n part of the

May /9

prod uction costs for a film biogra

phy of President Clinton shown at

the convention after his nominatio

His cam paign committee paid the

remaining costs and used the film 

his genera l election campaign. Th 

Audit Division took the positi on t

the $30.000payment represe nted 

impermissible use of con ven tion

fund ing for a specifica lly candida 

related expense. The Commission 

however, determined that the pay

ment was a legitimate convention

expense to promote the nominee. 

Advisory

Opinions

AD 199~·2

Federal Law Preempts

Minnesota Law Restricting

Lobbyist Contributions

Under Minnesota law, state

legislators and their aut horized

committees may not acce pt contri

bution s from lobbyists during a

regular legislative sessio n. Federa

law preempts tha t prohib ition as i

appli es to contributions received 

the U.S. Senate campaign commi

tee of Linda Berghn. who is also 

state senator.' As explained in AO

1993-25, which presented a simil

question on Wisconsin law, the

Federal Elect ion Campaign Act a

FEC regulat ions preempt any stat

law that attempts to regu late fede 

campa ign finance activity, includ

contrib utions to fede ral ca ndidate

2 U.S.C. §453; I I CFR 108.7(b).

Th erefore, under the broad preem

I A February 22 opinion issued by 'h

Minnesota Ethical Practices Board

stated that the prohibition would not

cover the federal campa ign commiue

0/a sitting legislator. The Commissi

however, did not know how the p rov

sion would be interpreted by other

Minnesota agencies.
•

•

•

May /994

live powers of the ACL, only federal

law could limit the time during

which a lobbyist could contribute to

the federal campaign of a state

legislator.

Date Issued: March 15, 1994;

Length: 4 pages. +

Advisory Opinion Requests

The advisory opinion requests

(AORs) listed below are available

for review and conunent in the

FEC's Public Records Office.

AOR 1994-5

Individual's qualification as a

candidate for the U.S. Senate under

2 U.S.C. §4J I(2). (Willi am D.

White; March 22, 1994; 6 pages)

AOR 1994-6

Corporate funds used to match PAC

contributions from both restricted

and expanded classes with donations

to a corporate-chosen charity.

(Political Action Coors Employees,

March 30, 1994,4 pages)

AOR 1994-7

Corporate funds used to match PAC

contributions from both restricted

and expanded classes with donations

to charities chosen by contributors.

(The Geon Company, April 6, 1994,

7 pages plus 9-page attachment)

AOR 1994-8

Campaign's lease of office space

and equipment from corporation

owned by candidate and spouse;

allocation of office expenses

between campaign and law office of

spouse. (Friends of Mike Parker for

Congress, April 6, 1994, 2 pages)

AOR 1994-9

Partnership PAC' s receipt of

nonfederal PAC funds; effect on

PAC of partnership's reorganization

as corporation. (Armco Steel, L.P.,

April 8, 1994, 3 pages plus 139-

page attac hment)

AO R 1994-10

Waiver of bank fees and service

charges as part of loan negotiations

with political committees. (Franklin

National Bank, April 15, 1994,

13 pages)

AOR 1994-11

Solicita tion of partnership's exec uLive and administrative employees

by controlling corporate partner

when partnership is a federal

contractor. (FMC Corporation, April

IS, 1994 , 3 pages) .

Compliance

MUR3850

Contributions Exceeding the

$25,000 Annual Limil

In a November 1993 letter to the

FEC, M. Larry Lawrence admitted

that he had inadvertently exceeded

the $25,000 annua l limit on federal

contributions. He said that the

excessive contributions had been

brought to his attention in connection with his nomin ation to be

Ambassador to Switzerland.

Under the law, an individual's

Lotal federal contributions for a

calendar year are limited to $25,000.

2 U.S.C. §44 la (a)(3) . Mr. Lawrence

explained that he had exceeded the

annual limit because he had been

unaware that a contribution to a

candidate counts against the annual

limit for the year of the election,

regardless of when the contribution

was made. In Mr. Lawrence 's case,

in 1987 he made a number of

contributions for 1988 primary and

general election campaigns. Those

contributions, which totaled

$10 ,100, counted against his 1988

annual limit and, when added to

other 1988 contributions, caused

him to exceed his 1988 limit by

$7,179. He voluntarily submitted

payment to the FEC for that amount.

After finding reason to believe

Mr. Lawrence had exceeded the

annual limit, the Commission

Federal Election Commission RE

accepted the $7,179 as payme

c ivil penalty under the terms o

conciliation agreement. +

MUR, Released to the P

Listed below are FEC enfor

ment cases (Matters Under Re

or MURs) recently released fo

public review. They are based 

the FEC press releases of Febr

I I, March 3, 18 and April 8 an

1994. Files on closed MURs a

available for review in the Pub

Records Office.

MUR 2546/2174

Respondents: The Helms Con

tee, Mark L. Stephens, treas

(NC )

Compla inant: FEC initiated

Subject : Excessive contributi

Disposition: $25,000 civil pen

MUR 3183

Respondents (all in CAl: (a) 

ance Coalition of America, In

(b) Insurance Coalition of Am

Political Action Commit tee (tN 

PAC), Lynda L. Regan, treasu

(c) GSL Holding Corporation

successo r in interest to The Re

Group Insurance Marketing C

pany

Compla inant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to register; fa

to establish a separate deposit

failure to file reports on time;

corporate contributions

Disposition : (a) and (b) $30,0

joint civil penalty (all of the ab

(c) $1 1,000 civil penalty (corp

contributions)

MUR 3444

Respondents: Rick Montoya 

United States Senate Committ

Rick Montoya, acting as treas

(NM )

Compla inant: FEC initiated

Subject : Failure to disclose lo

receipt and repayment; failure 

provide amended Statement o

Organization

Disposition: $4,000 civil pena

(continued on p
Federal Election Commission RECORD

- - - --- _ _ _ __M_ay J

Democratic and Republican National Committee I Activity in Year Before Election

'---_---' Receipts

Millions of Dollar Disbursements s

120 r-- ------- ------- - --- ---- - - - ---- - - - ----

1. Federal Receipts and Disbursements

100 /----- - - --r---,

80 1- - - - - 1

60 /----- --- 1

401 - - - - - 1

20 1- - - - - 1

Oem Rep

1985

Oem Rep

1987

Oem Rep

1989

Oem Rep

1991

Oem Rep

1993

Millions of Dollars

20 ,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Federal Cash on Hand and Debts

Oem Rep

1993

11-_ --1 Ending Cas h on Hand

_Debts

Oem Rep

1991

Oem Rep

1989

Dem Rep

1987

Dem Rep

1985

o '------"'-

5 1--- - - - L

15 1----- - - 1

10

I The graphs show the combined activity of each party's three national-level committees: the national, the Senate campaign an

the House campaign committees.

8
May /994 Federal Election Commission RE

3. Nonfederal Receipts and Disbursements

Statistics

Fundraising by Democratic

Party on the Upswing

In 1993 the Democratic national

committees more than doubled the

amounts they raised and spen t for

federal election activity in 199 1, the

previous nonelection year. The

Democratic committees' fundraising

climbed 56 percen t ove r 1991 totals,

while disbursem ents increased by 61

percent. Republican tota ls, by

con trast, stayed abo ut the same.

Graphs 1 and 2 compare national

party federa l activity in nonelection

years.

Because 1993 was a nonelection

year, the national parties' can didatesupport efforts in federal elections

primarily foc used on the special

Millions of Dollars

25

elections. The Democratic national

committees contributed $248,163

directly to federal candidates and

spent $1.6 million in coordinated

party expenditures on their beha lf,

while their Repub lican co unterparts

co ntributed $301, 348 and spent

$ 1.8 million.

As show n in Graph 3, the Democrats surpassed the Republicans in

1993 nonfederal account activity.

These accounts co ntain money

raised outside the limi ts and proh ibitions of the federa l campaign law;

they canno t be used for federal

electio n activity.

The graphs are based on a

March 4 FEC press release comparing the off-election year activity of

the national party committees.

Copies can be ordered from the

Public Records Office: 800/424-

9530 or 20212 19-4140. ..

L....-........---..J Receipts

_ Disbursements

Special

Elections

Kentucky Congressional

Election

Kentucky will hold a specia

general election on May 24 to 

the 2nd Congressional District 

held by the late Co ngress man

Will iam Natc her.

The Republican and Democ

Part ies each selected a nomine

the special general election at

conventions held April 8 and 1

respectively. No pre-convent io

reporting was required.

Candidates running in the sp

election must file pre- and pos

elec tio n reports. PACs and par

committees (excl uding monthl

filers) also have to file pre- and

post-election reports if they m

contributio ns or ex pend itures i

con nec tion with the election d

the coverage dates for those re

Reporting dates are shown bel

For more information, cal1 the 

(800/424-9530 or 202/219-342

• Close of Books: May 4

• Registered/Certified Maili ng 

May 9

• Filing Date: May 12

30-Day Post-Election Report

Post-election reporting app l

only to the special general elec

post-primary reporting is not

required.

• Close of books: June 13

• Registered/Certified Mailing 

June 23

• Filing Date: June 23 ..

12-Day Pre-Election Report

The special election date (M

24) is the same day as the regu

primary elec tion in Ken tucky. 

pre-election reporting dates are 

same.

Dem Rep

1993

5 1--- - --1

oL...-__--!-_

Dem Rep

1991

15 1- - - - - - -j

1O -------l

20 1- - - - - - - - - - - - t- -,-- - - - - -
Federal Election Commissio n RECORD May /

Compliance McSlarrow (VA); Kyle McSlarrow M UR 3735

(continued/ rom page 7) for Congress Respondents: John Jones for

Subject : Disclaimer Congress Comm ittee, Albert V. MUR 3461 Disposition: (a)- (d) No reason to Schulze, treasurer (PA) Respondents: Lonsdale for Senate believe Complainant: FEC initiated '90, Dana Hanson Nehl, treasurer Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

(OR) M UR 3593 contribution notice

Complainant: FEC initiated Respondents: (a) Rick Reed (HI); Disposition: $3,000 civil penalty Subject: Failure to file 48-hour (b) Rick Reed for U.S. Senate, Jennotices; excessive contributions nifer Louise P. Reed, treasurer (HI); MUR 3746

Disposition: $14,000 civil penalty (c) Richard Bellard (CA) Respondents : Hilliard for Congre

M UR 3522 Complainant: Dennis E.W. Campaign, James H. Parker, treaO'Conner (HI) surer (AL) Respondents (all in NV except (b)); Subject: Failure to register and Complainant: FEC initiated

(a) Friends for Bryan, Michael W. report; failure to designate principal Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

Kern, treasurer; (b) Democratic campaign committee; excessive contribution notices

Senatorial Campaign Committee, contribution Disposition: $5,375 civil penalty Donald J. Foley, treasurer (DC); Disposition: (a)-(c) No reason to

(c) Nevada Democratic State believe M UR 3789

Committee, Debbie Todd Johnson, Respondents: (a) Agran for Presi

treasurer; (d) Bilbray for Congress M UR3666 dent '92 Committee, Christopher 

Committee, Robert Goldberg, Respondents: (a) Friends of Jer mi- King, treasurer (CA); (b) Peggy

treasurer; (e) Elias F. Ghanem; fer B. Dunn, Larry Wells, treasurer Mears (CA)

(f) Jody Ann Ghanem; (g) William (WA); (b) Washington State Repub- Complainant: FEC initiated,

E. Bannen: (h) G & B Enterprises lican Party; (c) Jennifer B. Dunn Subject: Excessive contributions

Complainant: Referral from U.S Complaina nt: Krishna Fells (WA) Disposition: (a) and (b) Reason to

Department of Justice Subject: Failure to file Statements believe but took no further action

Subject: Corporate contributions; of Candidacy and Organization on

allocation of federal/state expendi- time; inaccurate reporting; excessive M UR 3813

tures; excessive contributions, contribution Respondents: Citizens for Rush,

contributions in name of another Disposition: (a) Reason to believe Sheila L. Jackson, treasurer (lL)

Disposition : (a) and (b) Reason to but took no further action (report- Complainant: FEC initiated

believe but took no further action ing); no reason to believe (other al Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

(corporate contributions); (c) reason legations); (b) and (c) no reason to notices

to believe but took no further action believe Disposition : $3,700 civil penalty

(corporate contributions and alloca - M UR 3820 tion); (d) reason to believe but took M UR3689

no further action (corporate contri- Respondents: (a) Congressman Ted Respon dents: Spear, Leeds &

butions): (e) and (g) reason to Strickland (OH); (b) Ted Strickland Kellogg Good Government Fund

believe but took no further action for Congress, Wanda Kuhns, Committee, John Cutillo, treasure

(contributions in name of another treasurer (OH) (NY)

and excessive contributions); (f) and Comp laina nt: AI Stauffer (OH) Com plainant: FEe initiated

(h) reason to believe but took no Subject : Disclaimer Subject: Failure to file report on

further action (contributions in name Disposition: (a) and (b) Reason to time

of another); (a)- (h) sent admonish- believe but took no further action; Disposition: $1,100 civil penalty

rnent letters sent admonishment letter M UR3836

M UR 3592 M UR 3728 Respondents: Cynthia McKinney

Respondents (all in VA): Respondents: Nevada State Demo- for Congress, Elyria Mackie,

(a) Congressman James P. Moran; cratic Party, Debbie Todd Johnson, treasurer

(b) Moran for Congress '94, Francis treasurer Complainant: FEC initiated

X. O'leary, treasurer; (c) Mary Sue Complainant: Brian McKay, State Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

Terry; (d) Terry for Virginia Com- Chairman, Nevada Republican Party notices

mittee, Elman P. Gray, treasurer Subject: Failure to file reports on Disposition: $4,000 civil penalty 

Complain ant: Kyle Eugene time M UR3845 Disposition : $ 15,000 civil penalty Respondents: Arlington Demo10
•

•

May / 994

cratic Joint Campaign Committee,

James Kasica, tre asurer (VA)

Comp laina n t: FEC initiated

Su bject: Failure to file reports on

time

Dis position : $ 1,000 civil penalty

M UR 31l-l6

Respon d en ts: John Lewis for

Co ngress Co mmi ttee , Lillian M.

Lewis, treasurer (GA )

Com pla ina nt : FEC initiated

Su bj ect : Failure to file 48-ho ur

contribution notices

Disposit ion: $4,5 00 civil pena lty

MUR3850

Respond ent: M. Larry Lawrence

(CA)

Com plaina nt: Sua sponte

Su bject: Contributions exceeding

$25,000 annua l lirnit

Disposition: $7, 179 civil pena lly

M UR 3926

Respondent: Marv in M. Schwan

(SD)

Com plaina nt : FEC initiated

Su bject: Contributions exc eeding

$25 ,000 an nual limi t

Disposit ion : Reason to be lieve but

took no further action .

Nonnlers Published

The Jo Baylor for Congress

Committee, whose candidate is

running for the House seat in the

10th Co ngre ssional District of

Texas, failed to file the required prerunoff report. (See the FEC press

release of April 8.) The Commission

is required by law to pu blicize the

names of nonfiling authorized

committees. 2 U.S.c. §438(a)(7).

The age ncy pursues enforcement

action against nonfilcrs on a caseby-case basis. +

Federal

Register

Co pies of Federal Register

notices are available from the Publi c

Records Office .

1994- 1

Filing Dates for the Okl ahom a

Special Elections (59 FR 57 69,

Febru ary 8, 1994)

1994- 2

I I CFR Part 104 : Recordk eeping

and Reporting by Political Co mmittees: Best Efforts; Final Rule;

Announcement of Effective Date

(59 FR 10057. March 3. 1994)

1994 -3

I I CFR Part 8: National Voter

Registration Act of 1993; Notice of

Proposed Rulcmakmg (59 FR

112 11. March 10. 1994; correc tions,

59 FR 14022. March 24. 1994)

1994-4

Rulcmaking Petition : Center for

Respon sive Poli tics [re Presidential

Federal Election Commission RE

Comp lia nce Funds]; Notice of

Availability (59 FR 14794, Ma

30, 1994)

1994· 5

I I CFR Part 102: Special Fund

ing Projects and Other Use of

Candidate Names by Unauthor

Co mmittees; Final Rule; Trans

sion to Congress (59 FR 1726 7

April 12, 1994) +

Index

The first number in each cit

refers to the " number" (month

the 1994 Record issue in which 

article appeared. The second nu

following the colon, ind ica tes t

page numbe r in that issue. For

example, " 1:4" means tha t the

article is in the January iss ue o

page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1993-18: Corpor ate plan to fos

political pa rticipation, 2:1

1993 - 19: Retiring 1984 Preside

debt, I:13

1993-20: Purchase and distribu

of candidate biography, 2:3

1993-21: Preemption of Oh io l

2:4

1993-22: Use of exce ss funds b

retired House Member, 3:5

1993-23: PAC disaffil iation, 3

(continued on pa

•

Change of Address

Political Committe es

Treasurers of registered political committees automatically receive the Record. A change of address by a

political committee (or any change to information disclosed on (he Statement of Organization) must, by law, be

made in writing on FEC Form I or by leiter. The treasurer

must sign the amendment and file it with the Secretary of

the Senate, the Clerk of the House or the FEC (as appropriate) and with the appropriate state office.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers who are not registered political

committees should include the following information

when requesting a change of address:

• Subscription number (located on the upper left comer

of the mailing label);

• Subscriber' s name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

Subscribers (other than political committees) may

correct their addresses by phone as well as by mail.
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index

(continued from page II)

1993-24: Definition of member, 4:6

1993-25: Preemption of Wisconsin

law restricting contributions from

lobbyists, 3:7

1994-2: Preemption of Minnesota

law restricting contributions from

lobbyists, 5:6

Court Cases

FEC v. _ _

- Michigan Republican State

Committee, 4:7

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-1612), 1:12; 4:7

- Political Contributions Data, Inc.

(PCD), 5:4

- Survival Education Fund, Inc., 3:I

- Williams, I:12

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street , NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

*Printed on recycled paper

v, FEC

- Akins (92-1864), 5:4

- Center for Responsive Politics,

1:12

- Freedom Republicans, Inc., 3:3

I - Froelich, 2:2

- LaRouche (92-1100), I:12

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee, 5:5

Reports

April reporting, 3:1

Schedule for 1994, 1:4; correction,

2:1

- change in Florida and South

Carolina election dates, 4:6

Special elections

- Kentucky, 5:9

- Oklahoma, 3:7

800 Line Articles

Registration by candidates and their

committees, 1:14

May 

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federa l Election Commissio

Permit Number G-31