October 2003 Federal Election Commission Volume 29, Number 10

Table of Contents

Compliance

1 MUR 4931: Corporate

Contributions and Contributions in

the Name of Another

3 Policy Statement on Deposition

Transcripts in Nonpublic

Investigations

Reporting

1 October Reporting Reminder

18 Puerto Rico Primary Election

Reporting

4 Federal Register

Regulations

4 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Party Committee Phone Banks

5 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Political Committees’ Mailing

Lists

7 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

13 FEC v Freedom’s Heritage Forum

13 Cannon v. FEC

13 Greenwood for Congress v. FEC

Alternative Dispute Resolution

15 ADR Program Update

15 Public Appearances

Statistics

16 Semiannual PAC Count Shows

Decrease in 2003

16 Congressional and Party

Fundraising Climbs

Outreach

18 October Conference in San Diego

MUR 4931

Corporate Contributions and

Contributions in the Name of

Another

The Commission recently entered

into conciliation agreements with

Audiovox Corporation (Audiovox),

its Executive Vice President Philip

Christopher, six of its executives

and several other individuals and

Audiovox distributors, resulting in

civil penalties of $849,000—the

highest cumulative civil penalty in

the history of the Commission. This

matter was referred to the Commission by the U.S. Department of

Justice on March 2, 1999. The

conciliation agreements settle

violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) resulting

from the reimbursement of individuals’ contributions to federal candidates, both by Audiovox and its

subsidiaries and personally by Mr.

Christopher. The agreements

provide, among other penalties, that

Audiovox and six of its executives

will pay $620,000 and Mr. Christopher will pay $130,000 from his

personal funds.

The Act prohibits corporations

from making contributions or

expenditures from their general

Compliance Reports

October Reporting

Reminder

All principal campaign committees of House and Senate candidates

must file quarterly in non-election

years as well as in election years,

and, as a result, must file a report by

October 15. 11 CFR 105.4(a).

Committees that file on a monthly

basis, including all national party

committees and certain political

action committees and state, district

and local party committees, have a

report due on October 20. (See the

April 2003 Record, page 5, for more

information on monthly filing for

state, district and local party committees.)

New Reporting Forms and

Software

Earlier this year, the Commission

approved new and revised reporting

forms and software that conform to

the reporting requirements of the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of

2002 (BCRA). All committees,

individuals and other persons must

use the new and revised forms or

software for all reports. Paper copies

of these forms will be sent to

registered political committees who

file on paper, and may also be

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

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)

Ellen L. Weintraub, Chair

Bradley A. Smith, Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

downloaded from the Commission’s

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

reporting.html. Instructions for

filling out the new and revised

forms are also available at this web

address.1

Under the Commission’s mandatory electronic filing regulations,

individuals and organizations that

receive contributions or make

expenditures in excess of $50,000 in

a calendar year—or expect to do

so—must file all reports and statements with the FEC electronically.

Electronic filers who instead file on

paper or submit an electronic report

(either by direct transmission or on

diskette) that does not pass the

Commission’s validation program

will be considered nonfilers and

may be subject to enforcement

actions, including administrative

fines.2

Senate committees and other

committees that file with the

Secretary of the Senate are not

subject to the mandatory electronic

filing rules, but may file an unofficial electronic copy of their reports

with the FEC in order to speed

disclosure. All reports, whether they

are filed with the FEC or with the

Secretary of the Senate, must be

filed using the new and revised

reporting forms and/or software.

Additional Information

For more information on 2003

reporting dates:

• See the reporting table in the

January 2003 Record;

• Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

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

1100;

• Fax the reporting tables to yourself

using the FEC’s Faxline (202/501-

3413, document 586); or

• Visit the FEC’s web site at

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

view the reporting tables online.✦

—Amy Kort

Reports

(continued from page 1)

1 Paper filers should use the

Commission’s old reporting forms to

file amendments to reports that were

originally filed using these forms.

2 Electronic filers should use Version 5

of FECFile or other software that

supports the new format to file all

reports and amendments.

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

treasury funds in connection with

any election of any candidate for

federal office. 2 U.S.C.§441b. In

addition, the Act prohibits making

contributions in the name of another, knowingly permitting one’s

name to be used to effect such a

contribution and knowingly accepting such a contribution. Further, no

person may knowingly help or assist

any person making a contribution in

the name of another. This prohibition also applies to any person who

provides the money to others to

effect contributions in their names. 2

U.S.C. §441f.

During 1995 through 1999, Mr.

Christopher solicited federal campaign contributions from officers

and employees of Audiovox and its

subsidiaries, as well as from others,

including distributors of Audiovox

products. Mr. Christopher authorized payments of corporate funds to

reimburse a number of individuals

for their contributions. For example,

he authorized payments to distributors of Audiovox products, which in

turn used those funds to reimburse

executives who had made contributions. Moreover, executives from an

Audiovox subsidiary that Mr.

Christopher is the president of,

Audiovox Communications Corporation (ACC), submitted expense

reports to ACC in order to receive

reimbursements for contributions.

Mr. Christopher signed expense

reports submitted by three ACC

executives.

In addition, James Maxim, a vice

president of another Audiovox

subsidiary, Quintex Mobile Communications Corporation (Quintex),

used Quintex’s petty cash account to

reimburse himself and others for

contributions made at Mr.

Christopher’s request. Moreover,

Quintex’s President, Aris

Constantinides, directed his Assistant Vice President, Gloria Pisano,

to write eight contribution checks to

federal candidates from Quintex’s

petty cash account and used these

checks to attend a political

fundraiser with Quintex vendors.

Ms. Pisano’s name appeared on the

checks, along with the company’s

address.

In addition to authorizing the use

of corporate funds to reimburse

contributors, Mr. Christopher used

his personal funds to reimburse

contributions made by Sophia

Cotizia, the Executive Director of

the International Coordinating

Committee Justice for Cyprus, a
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Greek-Cypriot organization of

which Mr. Christopher is president.

In the conciliation agreement

entered into by Audiovox and six of

its executives, the respondents

admitted to or acknowledged

violations of the Act. In addition to

agreeing to pay the civil penalty, the

respondents also agreed to cease and

desist from further violations of the

Act. Audiovox has written letters to

those campaigns that received

impermissible contributions directing these committees to disgorge the

contributions to the U.S. Treasury.

Audiovox waived any claims to

refunds of the contributions.

Audiovox also adopted a policy to

educate its subsidiaries and current

and future employees about the

prohibitions on making corporate

contributions to political candidates

and reimbursing individuals for their

campaign contributions. The

respondents agreed to continue to

take such measures to prevent

similar violations in the future.

Mr. Christopher, in his conciliation agreement, admitted to violating the Act by assisting Audiovox in

making corporate contributions in

the names of others, by consenting

to those contributions and also by

reimbursing Ms. Cotizia for contributions she made at his request. In

addition to paying the civil penalty,

Mr. Christopher agreed to cease and

desist from violating the Act and to

waive any claim to refunds of the

contributions he personally reimbursed. Mr. Christopher sent letters

to the recipient committees directing

them to disgorge the funds to the

U.S. Treasury.

Seven additional respondents,

including three of Audiovox’s

distributors, acknowledged violations of the Act’s prohibitions on

corporate contributions and contributions in the name of another and

agreed to pay a total of $99,000 in

civil penalties.

—Amy Kort

Commission Issues Policy

Statement on Deposition

Transcripts in Nonpublic

Investigations

On August 14, 2003, the Commission issued a Statement of Policy

announcing a change in its enforcement practices to allow deponents to

obtain a copy of the transcript of

their own deposition so long as there

is no good cause to limit the deponent to an opportunity only to

review and sign the transcript. The

Statement of Policy was published

in the August 22, 2003, Federal

Register (68 FR 50688).

Background

When the Commission’s attorneys take a deponent’s sworn

testimony at an enforcement deposition, only the deponent and his or

her counsel may attend. Under the

Commission’s historic practice, the

deponent has the right to review and

sign the transcript. 11 CFR

111.12(c); see also 2 U.S.C.

§437d(a)(4). In the past, a deponent

who was also a respondent could not

obtain a copy of, or take notes while

reviewing, his or her own transcript

until the General Counsel transmitted a brief recommending that the

Commission find probable cause to

believe that the respondent had

violated, or was about to violate, the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act). See 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(3).

Deponents who were not respondents had no opportunity to review

their own transcripts until the matter

was closed.

In its enforcement proceedings,

the Commission is governed, in

part, by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, a

“person compelled to submit data or

evidence is entitled to retain or, on

payment of lawfully proscribed

costs, procure a copy of a transcript

thereof, except that in a nonpublic

investigatory proceeding the witness

may for good cause be limited to

inspection of the official transcript

of his testimony.” 5 U.S.C. §555(c).

In the past, the Commission has

considered all open investigations to

fall within this “good cause”

exception, based on the potential for

deponents to share their testimony

with third parties. The Commission

has also been mindful that the Act

requires that ongoing investigations

be kept confidential.

On June 11, 2003, the Commission held a public hearing on its

enforcement practices. At the

hearing several commenters suggested that the Commission allow

deponents who are also respondents

to obtain copies of a transcript

immediately after the deposition.

Commenters also cited other

government agencies that conduct

nonpublic investigations and have

adopted a more narrow interpretation of the APA’s “good-cause”

exception.

New Policy

Beginning on August 22, 2003,

deponents in enforcement matters

may obtain, upon request, a copy of

the transcript of their own deposition. The Commission determined

that it can maintain the integrity of

its investigations even if the current

practice is altered, so long as access

to transcripts may still be denied if it

determines that good cause exists

for doing so, and so long as thirdparty witnesses (or deponents who

are also respondents in matters with

multiple respondents) are granted

access to their transcripts subject to

the confidentiality requirements of

the Act.

Under the new policy, deponents

may now make written requests for

their transcripts at any time after the

deposition concludes. The Office of

General Counsel will review the

request. Absent good cause to the

contrary, it will notify the deponent

and the court reporter in writing that

the deponent may obtain a copy of

the transcript, at his or her own cost,

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

4

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office, on the FEC web

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

register.htm and from the FEC

faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2003-13

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Multicandidate Committees

and Biennial Contribution Limits

(68 FR 50488, August 21, 2003)

Notice 2003-14

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Candidate Travel (68 FR

50481, August 21, 2003)

Notice 2003-15

Statement of Policy Regarding

Deposition Transcription in

Nonpublic Investigations (68 FR

50688, August 22, 2003)

Notice 2003-16

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Party Committee Telephone

Banks (68 FR 52529, September

4, 2003)

Notice 2003-17

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Mailing Lists of Political

Committees (68 FR 52531,

September 4, 2003)

from the court reporter. If the

Associate General Counsel or her

deputy determines there is reason to

invoke the good-cause exception

and restrict access to the transcript,

the Office of General Counsel will

notify the deponent and the

Commission.✦

—Amy Kort

Regulations Compliance

(continued from page 3)

Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on Party

Committee Phone Banks

On August 28, 2003, the Commission approved a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

addressing phone banks conducted

by national, state and local party

committees on behalf of Presidential

nominees. In Presidential election

years, party committees conduct

phone banks to get out the vote or

otherwise promote the party and its

candidates. The scripted message

might ask an individual to vote for

the named Presidential candidate

and then make a general promotional reference to the party’s other

candidates. For example, the caller

might say: “Please tell your family

and friends to come out and vote for

President John Doe and our great

Party team.” The Commission

sought comments on two alternative

approaches to how the cost of such a

phone bank should be attributed to a

Presidential candidate.

Proposed Rules

The proposed rules would apply

to phone bank communications that:

• Refer to no clearly identified

candidate other than the Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate;

• Refer generally to the other

candidates of the Presidential

nominee’s party without clearly

identifying them; and

• Do not solicit contributions.

The new rules would not apply,

and no amount would be attributed

to the Presidential candidate, if the

phones were operated by volunteers

and if the other conditions described

in 11 CFR 100.89 and 100.149 were

satisfied.

Alternative A. Under one proposal, 50 percent of the disbursement for the phone bank must be

attributed to the Presidential and

Vice-Presidential nominees. The

remaining 50 percent of the cost

would not be attributable to any

federal or nonfederal candidate. If

the party committees paid for the

entire cost of the phone bank (rather

than having the Presidential

candidate’s committee pay a portion

of the cost), the 50 percent attributed to a candidate that is publicly

funded may be, in some cases, either

a coordinated expenditure or an

independent expenditure. If the

candidate is not publicly funded, it

may be either an in-kind contribution to the candidate or a coordinated or independent expenditure. 2

U.S.C. §§441(d) and 431(17).

Alternative B. Under the other

proposal, 100 percent of the disbursement must be attributed to the

candidate as a coordinated or

independent expenditure or an inkind contribution.

Under either alternative, the

entire expense must be paid solely

with federal funds.1

 The Commission sought comment on which of

these two alternatives is preferable,

or on whether the percentage should

be based on the actual space or time

used to refer to the nominee or on

some other factor.

The Commission also sought

comment on a proposal to apply

either of the attribution formulas to

broadcast and print media. In

addition, the NPRM asked whether

the formula should apply to House

and Senate candidates as well as to

Presidential candidates.

Coordinated Party Expenditures

Under Commission regulations, a

state party committee may make

1 Barring the unlikely event that the

phone bank will involve 500 or fewer

calls, the message would be a public

communication that promotes a clearly

identified federal candidate and, thus,

must be financed entirely from federal

funds. 11 CFR 300.33(c)(1). All

payments by national party committees

must be from federal funds. 11 CFR

300.10(a)(1).
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

coordinated party expenditures on

behalf of a Presidential or VicePresidential candidate only if the

national party committee has

assigned to the state committee in

writing an amount of its spending

authority sufficient to cover the

expenditure. See 11 CFR 109.32(a)

and 109.33(a). The Commission

asked whether the proposed rule

should refer to this requirement, or

whether it is understood that the

proposed rule would not exempt

state, district or local party committees from the requirement. The

Commission also sought comment

on whether the requirement that

party expenditures not be made

from contributions designated to a

particular federal candidate should

be included in the proposed rule.

See 2 U.S.C. §§431(8)(B)(xi)(3) and

(9)(B)(ix)(3); 11 CFR 100.89 and

100.149.

Additional Information

The NPRM was published in the

September 4, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 52529), and is available

on the Commission’s web site at

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

The Comment period for this NPRM

closed on September 25, 2003. The

Commission plans to hold a public

hearing on these proposed rules on

October 1 if sufficient requests to

testify are filed with the

Commission.✦

—Amy Kort

(continued on page 6)

Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on Political

Committees’ Mailing Lists

On August 28, 2003, the Commission approved a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on

proposed additions to its rules

covering the sale, rental and exchange of political committee

mailing lists. The proposed rules

address:

• When the proceeds from a political

committee’s rental or sale of its

mailing list, or an exchange of

mailing lists, results in a contribution to that committee;

• A candidate’s personal use of his

or her authorized committee’s

mailing list; and

• The sale or rental of a mailing list

by the authorized committee of a

publicly funded Presidential

candidate.

Rental, Exchange and Sale of

Mailing Lists

Under Commission regulations,

when goods or services are provided

to a political committee at less than

the usual and normal charge, the

difference between the usual and

normal charge and the amount the

committee pays is an in-kind

contribution to the committee and

subject to the limits, prohibitions

and reporting requirements of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act). See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1).

The regulations also provide that the

entire amount paid as the purchase

price for a fundraising item sold by

a political committee is a contribution. 11 CFR 100.53. The proposed

rules would allow political committees to rent or sell their mailing lists

to other persons, including other

political committees. The resulting

payments would not be considered

contributions as long as certain

conditions are met.

Rental. The proposed regulations

would require a political committee

to ascertain the usual and normal

charge for the rental of its mailing

list before renting it. The NPRM

requested comments on proposed

rules to require that, for the purchaser to avoid making a contribution, a mailing list (or list portion)

must be rented or sold at the previously ascertained usual and normal

charge in a bona fide arm’s length

transaction within commercially

reasonable contractual terms,

including terms that address the use

of the list by the renter or purchaser.

BCRA on the FEC’s

Web Site

 The Commission has added a

new section to its web site

(www.fec.gov) devoted to the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

of 2002 (BCRA).

The page provides links to:

• The Federal Election Campaign

 Act, as amended by the BCRA;

• Summaries of major BCRA-

 related changes to the federal

 campaign finance law;

• Summaries of current litigation

 involving challenges to the new

 law;

• Federal Register notices

announcing new and revised

Commission regulations that

 implement the BCRA;

• BCRA-related advisory

 opinions; and

• Information on educational

 outreach offered by the

Commission, including

upcoming Roundtable sessions

 and the Commission’s

2003 conference schedule.

 The section also allows

individuals to view the

Commission’s calendar for

rulemakings, including dates for

the Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking, public hearings,

final rules and effective dates for

regulations concerning:

• Soft money;

• Electioneering Communications;

• Contribution Limitations and

 Prohibitions;

• Coordinated and Independent

 Expenditures;

• The Millionaires’ Amendment;

• Consolidated Reporting rules;

 and

• Other provisions of the BCRA.

 The BCRA section of the web

site will be continuously updated.

Visit www.fec.gov and click on

the BCRA icon.
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

6

The Commission also asked whether

the regulations should define the

factors a committee should use to

determine the usual and normal

charge for renting or selling its

mailing list.

In addition, the NPRM sought

comments on proposed factors

describing commercially reasonable

terms for renting a list, such as

whether:

• The person leasing the list is

permitted to use it only within a

reasonable time period;

• Any delayed use permitted in the

leasing agreement is based on

reasonable business considerations; and

• The agreed upon use comports

with the usual and normal practices of the list industry and the

lessee’s established practices and

procedures.

The Commission requested

comments on whether the presence

of a bona fide arm’s length transaction should be required under the

proposed rules, particularly if the

mailing lists are rented out at the

usual and normal charge and under

commercially reasonable terms.

Moreover, the Commission asked

whether it should conclude that this

requirement could not be satisfied if

committees of the same candidate,

or party committees of the same

political party, rented mailing lists

from each other, or if a candidate’s

authorized committee rented a

mailing list from an unauthorized

committee such as that candidate’s

leadership PAC.

In addition, the Commission

considered whether the new regulations should draw a distinction

between a mailing list developed

over time by the political committee

for its own use and one developed to

generate revenue.

Sale. The proposed rules would

establish conditions—similar to

those for the rental of a mailing

list—under which the proceeds from

the sale of a political committee’s

mailing list would not be a contribution by the purchaser to the committee. However, the Commission

noted that, unlike the rental of a list,

the outright sale of a mailing list by

an ongoing political committee

would be unusual. The NPRM asked

whether the sale of a mailing list by

a committee that is not in the

process of terminating is so unusual

that it would be per se commercially

unreasonable.

Proceeds from rental or sale.

Under the proposed rules, a rental or

sale transaction that did not comply

with the conditions described above

would be considered fundraising.

Thus, the entire amount of the sale

price or rental charge paid to the

political committee (not just the

difference between the usual and

normal charge and any amount paid

in excess of that charge) would be

considered an in-kind contribution

to the committee and would be

subject to the limits and source

prohibitions of the Act. See 11 CFR

100.53. The Commission sought

comments on whether the proposed

rules should instead set the amount

of the contribution as the amount

paid in excess of the usual and

normal charge for the transaction.

Reporting and recordkeeping.

The proposed rules would require

that proceeds from the rental or sale

of a mailing list that are not considered contributions under these rules

must be reported as “other receipts.”

The rules would also require

committees to maintain sale and

rental agreements and documentation of the usual and normal charge

for the list. The Commission sought

comments on how to ascertain and

document the fair market value of

lists that are not listed in the SRDS

Direct Marketing Lists Source.

Allocation of Rental Proceeds.

Finally, the Commission asked

whether, in a case where a list is

developed with federal and

nonfederal funds, the full proceeds

from the sale or rental of that list

may be deposited in the committee’s

federal account.

Exchange. The Commission has

previously determined that when a

political committee that is exchanging mailing lists, or list portions,

with another entity makes an

exchange of equal value, a contribution is not made to the political

committee. See AOs 2003-16, 2002-

14, 1982-41 and 1981-46. Under the

proposed rules, an exchange would

not be considered a contribution or a

reportable receipt if it is an exchange of equal value and the

exchange is a bona fide arm’s length

transaction with commercially

reasonable terms. “Equal value”

would be defined as the usual and

normal rental value of each list, as

well as the agreed upon use by the

organization and other services

provided.

Regulations

(continued from page 5)

FEC Accepts Credit

Cards

 The Federal Election

Commission now accepts

American Express, Diners Club

and Discover Cards in addition to

Visa and MasterCard. While most

FEC materials are available free

of charge, some campaign finance

reports and statements, statistical

compilations, indexes and

directories require payment.

Walk-in visitors and those

placing requests by telephone

may use any of the above-listed

credit cards, cash or checks.

Individuals and organizations

may also place funds on deposit

with the office to purchase these

items. Since pre-payment is

required, using credit cards or

funds placed on deposit can speed

the processing and delivery of

orders. For further information,

contact the Public Records Office

at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or 202/

694-1120.
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

AO 2003-11

State Party Committee’s

Payment of Employee

Benefits

The Michigan Democratic State

Central Committee (MDSCC) may

treat its employee-specific fringe

benefits in the same manner as it

treats salaries and wages for the

purposes of determining whether the

expense should be paid from federal

or nonfederal funds. Additionally,

MDSCC’s nonfederal accounts may

make a one-time reimbursement to

its federal accounts for federal funds

expended for employee-specific

fringe benefits compensating work

performed since January 1, 2003.

MDSCC has treated fringe benefits

as allocable administrative expenses

since this date and paid a portion of

the expenses from its federal

accounts. However, during this

period no employee has spent more

than 25 percent of his or her compensated time on activities in

connection with a federal election,

and thus no employee’s salary,

wages or benefits were required to

be paid from federal funds. See 11

CFR 300.33(c)(2).

Background

Under the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), state,

district and local party committees

must use only federal funds to pay

the salaries and wages of an employee who spends more than 25

percent of his or her compensated

time in a given month on federal

election activity (FEA) or activities

in connection with a federal election. Salaries and wages for employees who spend 25 percent or less of

their compensated time on such

activities must be paid with funds

that comply with state law. 2 U.S.C.

§431(20)(A)(iv); 11 CFR

106.7(c)(1) and (d)(1) and

300.33(c)(2).

MDSCC has treated employeespecific “fringe benefits” consisting

of retirement benefits, health

insurance, disability insurance, life

insurance and standard payroll taxes

as administrative expenses, and

allocated these expenses according

to its fixed allocation ratio. 11 CFR

106.7(c)(2). Since January 1, 2003,

no employee has spent more than 25

percent of his or her compensated

time on activities in connection with

a federal election. Thus, to compensate employees for work performed

(continued on page 8)

If, on the other hand, a political

committee makes an exchange that

is not of equal value, any excess

amount given to the political

committee would be considered a

contribution to the committee.

While the proposed regulations

governing the sale or rental of

mailing lists by political committees

would treat a sale or rental at greater

than the usual or normal charge as a

fundraising activity, the proposed

rule for the exchange of mailing lists

would treat an unequal exchange as

a good or service provided at less

than the usual or normal charge.

Consequently, only the difference in

value between the use of the two

mailing lists exchanged would be an

in-kind contribution. The Commission sought comments on whether

this characterization of the exchange

of mailing lists of unequal value is

appropriate.

Conversion of Mailing List to

Personal Use

The proposed rules would

explicitly ban a candidate’s conversion to personal use of his or her

campaign committee’s mailing list.

In the alternative, the Commission

sought comments on whether a

candidate’s receipt of proceeds from

the rental or sale of a mailing list

could be permissible under the Act’s

personal use prohibitions, depending

on whether the candidate incurred

the cost for developing or purchasing the list. See 2 U.S.C. §439a.

Publicly Financed Campaigns

Under the proposed rules, an

authorized committee of a publicly

financed Presidential candidate may

sell or rent its mailing list only if the

list’s fair market value is included as

an asset on the statement of net

outstanding campaign obligations

(NOCO) and statement of net

outstanding qualified campaign

expenses (NOQCE), and the sale or

rental complies with the abovedescribed proposed regulations as to

list rental or sale. The proposed

rules explain how fair market value

would be determined for the NOCO

and NOQCE statements:

• For primary candidates, the list

would be valued at either the usual

and normal rental revenue that the

committee would receive if it

rented out the list over an 18

month period beginning on the

date of ineligibility or the usual

and normal sale price at this date;

and

• For general candidates, the list

would be valued at either the usual

and normal rental revenue that the

committee would receive over a 12

month period beginning on the

date of the general election or the

usual and normal sale price on that

date

Additional Information

The NPRM was published in the

September 4, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 52531), and is available

on the Commission’s web site at

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

The Comment period for this NPRM

closed on September 25, 2003. The

Commission plans to hold a public

hearing on these proposed rules on

October 1 if sufficient requests to

testify are filed with the

Commission.✦

—Amy Kort

Advisory

Opinions
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

8

during this time, MDSCC has paid

all expenses that strictly constitute

salaries and wages from its

nonfederal account, but has paid

employees’ fringe benefits from a

mix of federal and nonfederal funds.

Analysis

Treatment of fringe benefits.

Funds spent by state party committees for the employee-specific fringe

benefits described above fall into

the category of compensated time.

The fringe benefits provided by

MDSCC—like salaries and wages—

are easily attributed to the employee

who benefits from them, and there is

no evident reason to distinguish

between monetary compensation

paid directly to the employee and

employee-specific compensation

provided in another form. Moreover,

prior to the enactment of the BCRA,

Commission regulations and

advisory opinions did not treat

salary and wages differently than

the costs of employee-specific

fringe benefits for allocation purposes. See 11 CFR 106.5(a)(2)(i)

and AOs 2001-14 and 1992-2. Thus,

when an MDSCC employee spends

25 percent or less of his or her

compensated time during a month

on FEA or activities in connection

with a federal election, these fringe

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

AO 2003-15

Legal Fees Related to

Election System

Donations to a legal expense trust

fund (the Fund) established by U.S.

Representative Denise Majette for

the sole purpose of defending

against a lawsuit challenging

Georgia’s open primary election

system are not subject to the limits,

restrictions and reporting requirements of the Federal Election

Campaign (the Act), because the

donations are not in connection with

a federal election. Thus, corporate

and union donations may be solicited for the Fund, so long as the

donations are not raised or spent by

a political committee and other

fundraising procedures are followed.

Background

Following Representative

Majette’s victory in the 2002

Democratic primary in Georgia’s 4th

U.S. Congressional District, five

supporters of the defeated incumbent filed suit in federal court

challenging Georgia’s open primary

election system. The initial complaint asked the court to enjoin

Georgia officials from conducting

the general election, and, after

Representative Majette’s victory in

the general election, the complaint

was amended to seek a special

primary and a special general

election for the seat now held by

Representative Majette. The plaintiffs initially named Representative

Majette as a defendant, but later

amended their complaint to exclude

her. Nevertheless, she incurred legal

expenses seeking dismissal of the

complaint, and she continues to

incur legal fees related to monitorbenefits may be paid entirely from

the nonfederal account. In the

alternative, if the funds deposited in

MDSCC’s federal account on or

after January 1, 2003, and in the

future, are permissible under

Michigan law, these fringe benefits

may be paid in whole or in part from

the federal account. See 11 CFR

106.7(c)(1) and (d)(1).

Reimbursement from nonfederal

account. Under Commission

regulations, a state party committee

may transfer funds from its

nonfederal account to its federal

account only to cover the nonfederal

portion of a payment for an allocable expense. The transfer must be

made no more than 10 days before

and no more than 60 days after the

payments for which they are designated are made by the committee.

11 CFR 106.7(f)(2)(i). Transfers

from the nonfederal account to the

federal account made outside this

window are presumed to be loans

from the nonfederal to the federal

account, in violation of the Federal

Election Campaign Act. 11 CFR

106.7(f)(2)(ii).

In the past, however, following

major changes in the allocation

regulations, the Commission has

allowed retroactive adjustment or

allocation reimbursements that

would otherwise fall outside of the

permissible transfer window. In

these cases, the Commission

recognized that a brief period of

adjustment should be granted on a

case-by-case basis to committees

acting in good faith. Similarly, in

this case MDSCC’s request comes

in response to significant changes to

the allocation rules implemented

when the BCRA took effect on

November 6, 2002. Thus, MDSCC

may make a one-time transfer of

nonfederal funds to its federal

account to cover the portion of

fringe benefits paid by that account

for employees’ compensated time

worked since January 1, 2003, even

though much of the transfer relates

to fringe benefit payments made

more than 60 days ago. This onetime transfer must be made within

30 days of MDSCC’s receipt of this

advisory opinion and must be

disclosed on the committee’s next

regularly scheduled report.

Date issued: August 7, 2003;

Length: 6 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

Use FEC Faxline to obtain FEC

material fast. It operates 24 hours

a day, 7 days a week. Hundreds

of FEC documents—reporting

forms, brochures, FEC regulations—can be faxed almost immediately.

Use a touch tone phone to dial

202/501-3413 and follow the instructions. To order a complete

menu of Faxline documents, enter

document number 411 at the

prompt.
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

1 The Commission determined that

Representative Majette’s methods for

soliciting and depositing the funds were

sufficient because they were similar to

those approved in AO 1996-39. (continued on page 10)

ing the ongoing litigation. These

fees now exceed $90,000.

Analysis

In previous advisory opinions,

the Commission has determined that

funds received and spent to pay

legal expenses stemming from

challenges to a candidate’s access to

the primary ballot were not contributions or expenditures, provided

the funds were placed in an account

that was separate from the principal

campaign committee and the

committee itself did not establish

the account or conduct the

fundraising. See AO 1996-39.

Similarly, previous advisory

opinions provide guidance on how

to collect donations to pay legal

costs. The entity that engages in the

fundraising must be separate and

independent from the candidate’s

principal campaign committee, and

solicitations should be accompanied

by a letter stating the purpose of the

fund and noting that no donations to

the fund will be used to influence

any federal election. Such solicitations should be conducted separately

from campaign solicitations. See

AOs 1983-21 and 1981-13.

The Bipartisan Campaign Act of

2002 (BCRA) amended the Act to

prohibit federal candidates and

officeholders from soliciting,

receiving, directing, transferring or

spending “funds in connection with

an election for Federal office,

including funds for any Federal

election activity, unless the funds

are subject to the limitations,

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.” Amendments

under the BCRA do not, however,

change the results of these past

advisory opinions.

The Commission found no

indication in the legislative history

of the BCRA that Congress intended

the new fundraising restrictions to

change long-standing interpretations

found in Congressional policy and

Commission advisory opinions

concerning legal defense funds. In

fact, after it enacted the BCRA, the

U.S. House of Representatives

adopted a House Rule that permits

Members to accept donations for

their legal expense funds subject to

certain restrictions. H.R. Res. 5,

108th Cong. (2003).

Therefore, in this case donations

to and disbursements by the Fund

for the sole purpose of defending

against this lawsuit are not subject

to the limits and prohibitions of the

Act. 2 U.S.C. §§441a and 441b. Nor

are they subject to the Act’s reporting requirements, so long as they are

not deposited in Representative

Majette’s campaign accounts. 2

U.S.C. §434.1

Date issued: August 14, 2003;

Length: 5 pages.✦

—Kathy Carothers

AO 2003-16

Affinity Credit Card

Program Between National

Bank and National Party

Committee

Providian National Bank

(Providian) may offer an affinity

credit card program (the Affinity

Program) that gives credit card

holders the option of making

political contributions to a national

party committee using rewards and

rebates that cardholders have earned

through the use of their credit cards.

The proposed program will not

result in any prohibited contributions under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act). Therefore,

Providian may enter into an agreement with any national party to

implement the Affinity Program.

Background

Standard benefits provided by a

bank to an affinity sponsor include

background information on

cardholders and co-branding

opportunities. Under Providian’s

plan, any national party that serves

as a sponsor will be given the

opportunity to receive contributions

from affinity cardholders. The

arrangement will be commercially

reasonable and arrived at through an

arm’s length negotiation between

Providian and the national party

committee.

Unlike previous proposed credit

card arrangements that were not

approved by the Commission,

Providian’s Affinity Program

includes a rebate credit card and

bonus feature. Cardholders may

choose to forward rebates and

bonuses they accumulate by the

using their card through Providian

to the national party committee.

Three types of affinity credit cards

will be test marketed: a basic card, a

rebate card and a value added card.

For the basic card, the cardholder

will not receive any rebate or value

added benefit. The rebate card,

however, will enable cardholders to

acquire rebates by charging purchases or accruing finance charges

on their accounts. Rebates will be

forwarded to the national party

committee if the cardholder elects to

make a voluntary contribution and

sent to the account holder if he or

she does not. The national party

committee sponsoring the Affinity

Program will pay all expenses

related to transmitting or forwarding

the check, making automated

transactions or using other commercially reasonable means of forwarding the contribution to the party

committee. Finally, the affinity card

or value added card will offer

cardholders incentives for frequent

use of their credit cards. Incentives

may be redeemed for air flights,

travel, hotel stays, merchandise and

entertainment. Although the national

party committee will not be involved with this part of the incentive

program, cardholders will be offered

the opportunity to earn additional

points if they contribute a certain
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

10

amount to a national party committee. The national party committee

will pay third-party vendors the fair

market value of any rewards

claimed by cardholders as a result of

the additional rewards or incentives

earned.

In addition to the preceding

benefits, the Affinity Program will

offer a bonus feature with all three

types of cards. Providian will pay

cardholders a certain fixed dollar

amount when they have charged a

certain number of purchases or a

certain dollar amount on an affinity

credit card. Cardholders will be

given the option of receiving the

accrued bonuses or forwarding them

to the national party committee.

The national party committee will

not be charged for the services

provided by Providian under the

Affinity Program, but the committee

will provide a mailing list and the

use of its trademark in exchange for

the services rendered.1

 In addition,

the national party committee will

pay the fair market value charged to

non-affinity sponsors for advertisements placed in Providian’s communications to cardholders or

prospective cardholders.2

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

The Act and Commission

Regulations

Under the Act, “a national

committee of a political party

(including a national congressional

campaign committee of a political

party) may not solicit, receive, or

direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds

or any thing of value, or spend any

funds, that are not subject to the

limitations, prohibitions, and

reporting requirements of this Act.”

2 U.S.C. §441i(a)(1). Furthermore,

the Act prohibits national banks

from making a “contribution or

expenditure in connection with any

election to a political office, or in

connection with any primary

election or political convention or

caucus held to select candidates for

any political office.” 2 U.S.C.

§441b(a).

In past advisory opinions, the

Commission concluded that proposals for affinity credit card programs

resulted in banks making impermissible contributions to local and

national party committees. See AOs

1988-12 and 1979-17. However, the

Commission concluded that contributions made by individuals using

“900-line” services and

telemarketing arrangements were

permissible under the Act because

individuals, not the telemarketing

firms, made contributions to the

political committees. The

telemarketing firms, which collected

fees from political committees only

for phone services, served as a passthrough for the contributions.3

Conclusions

In this case, the Affinity Program

proposed by Providian is more

analogous to the “900-line” services

and telemarketing arrangements

described above than past proposed

affinity credit card programs, which

the Commission found impermissible. The goods and services

1 The party will also pay the aforementioned fees and expenses, as well as the

costs for the reward points for value

added cards that are directly attributable to contributions made by

cardholders, and any expenses related

to the transmission of funds to the

committee.

2 Providian does not generally charge

affinity sponsors for ad space. The

national party committees’ ads will not

contain the names of federal candidates

or refer to elections, and will provide

appropriate disclaimers describing the

limits and prohibitions of the Act.

Additionally, a disclaimer will appear

that indicates that the communication

was paid for and authorized by the

national party committee.

4 Advisory Opinion 1986-41 examines

incentives that were offered to employees in the form of bonuses that were

found impermissible by the Commission

under the Act.

3 See AOs 1995-34, 1991-26, 1991-20,

1990-14 and 1990-1.

provided by the national party

committee and Providian will be

equal exchanges of bargained-for

consideration in a commercial

transaction, and the contributions

resulting from rebates and rewards

will be made by the individual

cardholders and not Providian.

Types of credit cards. Affinity

basic credit cards will not involve a

contribution from Providian to the

national party committee as long as

the exchange of the use of the

committee’s mailing list and trademark for Providian’s services

rendered to the committee are of

equal value.

Affinity rebate cards will also not

result in a contribution from

Providian because rebates that have

vested are the property of the

cardholder. When an individual

elects to make contributions to the

national party using such rebates,

they will be treated as contributions

from personal funds. The proposed

“bonus feature” is permissible for

similar reasons.

Finally, affinity value added

credit cards are permissible because

the national party committee will

pay the fair market value of rewards

offered to value added cardholders,

where they have made contributions

to the committee through their credit

card. Therefore, Providian will not

provide an impermissible incentive

to its cardholders for their contributions.4

 Furthermore, contributions

arising out of the use of the affinity

value added credit cards will be

made directly by the cardholders.

Advertising. Solicitations through

advertising do not result in prohibited contributions from Providian to

the national party committee so long

as the committee pays the same rate

and advertises under the same terms

and conditions as non-affinity
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

5 (continued on page 12) See 11 CFR 114.2(f)(1).

sponsors who purchase similar ad

space. Providian should not incur

any additional processing expenses

involved with the production or

dissemination of materials from the

committee sponsoring the Affinity

Program.

Contributor Information. A

political committee is required to

disclose certain contributor information, such as the contributor’s name,

address, occupation and employer. 2

U.S.C. §§ 431(13) and

434(b)(3)(A). The Commission

suggests that Providian obtain this

information and forward it to the

national party committee at the time

that the contribution is authorized

from the affinity credit cardholder.

Other provisions of the Act.

Providian’s proposed activities do

not constitute improper facilitation

of the making of contributions to the

national party committee under 11

CFR 114.2(f), provided that these

activities are in Providian’s ordinary

course of business as a commercial

vendor and it charges the national

party committee the usual and

normal rate for its services.5

 All

contributions made through the

Affinity Program must comply with

the limits and prohibitions of the

Act. Individual cardholders may

make contributions as long as they

do not exceed the $25,000 annual

limit or the $57,500 biennial limit,

and they are not foreign nationals,

minors or government contractors

under 2 U.S.C. §§ 441e, 441k and

441c.

Date issued: August 14, 2003;

Length: 9 pages.✦

—Michelle Ryan

AO 2003-19

National Party Committee’s

Sale of Office Equipment

The Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee (DCCC) may

sell its used office equipment and

furniture to corporations, labor

organizations and other sources

prohibited from contributing to a

national party committee. So long as

certain conditions are met, proceeds

from the sale will not be a prohibited contribution, donation, transfer

of funds or anything of value under

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act).

Background

Following renovations at the

Democratic Party headquarters, the

DCCC plans to sell its outdated and

incompatible equipment and furniture in arm’s length transactions at

fair market value. Among the

purchasers may be corporations,

labor organizations and other

prohibited sources.

Analysis

Under the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act, national party committees may not “solicit, receive, or

direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds

or any other thing of value, or spend

any funds, that are not subject to the

limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of this Act.” 2

U.S.C. §441i(a). Corporations and

labor organizations are prohibited

sources under the Act. See 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2).

In the past, the Commission has

used certain criteria to determine

whether a market transaction by a

national party committee would

constitute a prohibited receipt of

funds. See AO 2002-14. Applying

those criteria to this case, the DCCC

may sell its office equipment and

furniture at a price that does not

exceed the usual and normal charge

because:

• The goods were purchased for

everyday business and not as a

means of raising funds;

• The goods have an ascertainable

market value; and

• It is an isolated disposal of unwanted and depreciated committee

assets, and thus is not inherently

susceptible to use for political

fundraising.

In addition, to ensure that the

assets are sold for the usual and

normal charge, the sale may not be

advertised in any contribution

solicitation.

Payments received through these

transactions are not subject to the

Act’s contribution limits and may

come from otherwise prohibited

sources. The payments will be

considered federal funds and may be

used by the DCCC for federal

election purposes.

Concurring Opinion

Commissioner Thomas submitted

a concurring opinion on August 22,

2003.

Date issued: August 25, 2003;

Length: 4 pages.✦

—Phillip Deen

AO 2003-20

Officeholder Solicitation for

Scholarship Fund

U.S. Representative Silvestre

Reyes may solicit donations for a

scholarship fund established in his

name by the Hispanic College Fund,

Inc. (HCF), a non-profit corporation. The amounts raised by Representative Reyes on behalf of the

scholarship fund will not be used in

connection with a federal or

nonfederal election and, thus, are

not subject to the limits, prohibitions

and reporting requirements of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act).

Background

The HCF plans to establish a

scholarship fund in Representative

Reyes’ name for the purpose of

providing scholarships to Hispanic

undergraduate students living in El

Paso, Texas. The scholarship will be

need- and merit-based, and will be

awarded based on criteria established by HCF with input from
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

12

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2003-23

Permissibility of earmarking

contributions to party’s “presumptive nominee” for President and

forwarding contributions to nominee

once he or she is identified (WE

LEAD Women Engaged in Leadership, Education, and Action in

Democracy, August 7, 2003)

Representative Reyes. Scholarship

recipients will not be expected to

engage in election activity as part

of, or in exchange for, the scholarship program. Solicitations for the

scholarship will be made via direct

mail using stationery bearing

Representative Reyes’s signature.

Public promotion for the scholarship

will not include any television, radio

or satellite advertising.

Analysis

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act (BCRA) prohibits any federal

candidate or officeholder from

raising or spending any funds in

connection with a federal or

nonfederal election, unless those

funds are within the limits and

prohibitions of the Act. 11 CFR

300.61 and 300.62. The prohibition

is not intended to prevent federal

officeholders or candidates from

soliciting for charitable organizations and organizations that do not

engage in any election activity.

Because HCF’s funds are used

entirely for scholarships and scholarship recipients do not engage in

election activity as part of, or in

exchange for, the scholarship, the

funds are not considered to be used

in connection with a federal or

nonfederal election. Therefore, the

funds raised for HCF by Representative Reyes would not be subject to

the limits and prohibitions of the

Act. Furthermore, Representative

Reyes may sign solicitation letters

on HCF stationery, and the money

he raises for HCF is not subject to

the reporting requirements of the

Act.

Date Issued: August 29, 2003;

Length: 4 pages.✦

—Gary Mullen

1 Similarly, under 11 CFR 114.8(d)(1) a

member corporation must approve any

solicitation for a trade association,

whether the solicitation is conducted by

the trade association, its SSF or “the

corporation or any of its personnel.”

AO 2003-22

Contributions Collected and

Forwarded to Trade

Association SSF by

Executives of Member

Corporations

Executives of member corporations may collect and forward

contribution checks to the SSF of

the American Bankers Association

(ABA), a trade association for the

banking industry, so long as a

payroll deduction or check-off

system is not used. The member

corporations must first give ABA

permission to solicit their restricted

class.

Background

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits corporations

from making any contribution or

expenditure in connection with a

federal election. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

A trade association may, however,

solicit contributions to its SSF from

the restricted class of member

corporations that have given the

trade association specific permission

to do so. A corporation may only

give such permission to one trade

association in a calendar year. 2

U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(D). All contributions must be strictly voluntary

and without coercion. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(3).

In general, corporations, their

officers, directors and other agents

are prohibited from “facilitating” the

making of contributions to candidates or political committees other

than the corporation’s own SSF. 11

CFR 114.2(f)(1). Thus, corporations

cannot use their facilities to

fundraise for other political committees, including collecting and

forwarding contributions by providing a payroll deduction or check-off

system or providing envelopes and

stamps to transmit or deliver

contributions. 11 CFR 114.1(f),

114.2(f)(1) and 114.2(f)(2)(ii).

However, under Commission

regulations, a trade association may

use any method to solicit voluntary

contributions or facilitate the

making of voluntary contributions to

its SSF, except that a member

corporation may not use a payroll

deduction or check-off system for

executive and administrative

personnel contributing to the

association’s SSF. 11 CFR

114.8(e)(3).1

Analysis

The Commission regulations

described above appear to contemplate that executives of member

corporations may collect and

forward contribution checks for the

trade association SSF by means

other than a payroll deduction or

check-off system. Thus, executives

of ABA member corporations may

collect and forward contributions to

ABA’s SSF by using the

corporation’s inter-office mail

system, by hand collection, by

providing envelopes and postage for

contributors to send their checks to

ABA’s SSF or by other similar

means, where those corporations

and the association’s SSF have

complied with 11 CFR 114.5(a) and

114.8(b), (c) and (d).

Date Issued: August 28, 2003;

Length: 3 pages.✦

—Amy Kort
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Cannon v. FEC

On August 18, 2003, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

South Carolina, Columbia Division,

granted the Commission’s motion

for summary judgment in this case.

The plaintiff had appealed a

$5,500 civil money penalty the

Commission imposed on the Joe

Grimaud for Congress Committee

and its treasurer Peter J. Cannon for

failure to file the Committee’s 2001

Year-End Report. Although the

Committee filed the report on paper,

they were required to file electronically. 11 CFR 104.18(a)(1)-(2). Mr.

Cannon alleged that the

Committee’s computer system was

infected with a virus, destroying

their records and preventing them

from filing electronically.

The district court adopted and

incorporated the Report and Recommendation of a U.S. Magistrate

Judge after Mr. Cannon failed to file

an objection to the report with the

district court. In the Report and

Recommendation, the Magistrate

Judge determined that Mr. Cannon

waived all arguments by failing to

file objections with the Commission

during the Commission’s administrative process. The Magistrate

further concluded that the Commission imposed the proper penalty

called for in its regulations, and Mr.

Cannon’s claim that he was unable

to file electronically because of a

computer virus was not an “extraordinary circumstance” under 11 CFR

111.35(b).

U.S. District Court for the

District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, 3:02-4073-24BC.✦

—Amy Kort

Greenwood for Congress v.

FEC

On August 18, 2003, the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania granted

summary judgment in favor of

Greenwood for Congress, Inc. (the

Committee) in this case. Greenwood

(continued on page 14)

Court Cases

FEC v. Freedom’s Heritage

Forum

On August 14, 2003, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Kentucky at Louisville issued an

agreed order regarding Timothy

Hardy’s involvement in this case.

Under the agreement Mr. Hardy, a

Congressional candidate in the 1994

elections:

• Acknowledged that an inadvertent

error by a campaign staff member

caused his committee—without his

knowledge or authorization—to

violate 2 U.S.C. §441b by accepting an in-kind corporate contribution through the use of a corporate

bulk mail permit;

• Agreed to pay the FEC $250

within thirty days of the agreement

pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(6)(B); and

• Agreed to make a good faith effort

to establish procedures to prevent

his campaign from accepting

corporate contributions should he

run for federal office in the future.

The Commission agreed that all

of its remaining claims against Mr.

Hardy are resolved by this agreement. See the May 2003 Record,

page 5, and the August 2002

Record, page 2.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Kentucky at Louisville,

3:98CV-549-S.

—Amy Kort

AOR 2003-24

Nonpolitical, nonprofit advocacy

organization’s use of contributor

information from FEC reports to

create mailing list for organization’s

use (National Center for Tobacco

Free Kids, August 14, 2003)✦

for Congress filed suit against the

Commission on January 22, 2003,

appealing a civil money penalty

assessed against it by the Commission under its administrative fines

regulations for the Committee’s

failure to timely file its 2001 YearEnd Report. 11 CFR 111.30-111.45.

The Committee argued that the

Commission’s determination that

the Committee and its treasurer

violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a) and its

assessment of a $3,100 civil money

penalty were arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion and otherwise

not in accordance with law.

Background

The Committee alleged that it

sent an electronic version of its 2001

Year-End Report on a high-capacity

ZIP disk, along with a paper copy

Campaign Guides

Available

 For each type of committee, a

Campaign Guide explains, in

clear English, the complex

regulations regarding the activity

of political committees. It shows

readers, for example, how to fill

out FEC reports and illustrates

how the law applies to practical

situations.

 The FEC publishes four

Campaign Guides, each for a

different type of committee, and

we are happy to mail your

committee as many copies as you

need, free of charge. We

encourage you to view them on

our web site (go to www.fec.gov,

then click on “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” and then scroll

down to “Publications”).

 If you would like to place an

order for paper copies of the

Campaign Guides, please call

800-424-9530, press 1, then 3.
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

14

version, to the Commission via

overnight delivery on January 29,

2002. The Year-End Report was due

on January 31. The Committee was

required to file its report electronically under the Commission’s

mandatory electronic filing regulations. 11 CFR 104.18(a)(1). Reports

that are required to be filed electronically but are instead submitted

on paper do not satisfy a

committee’s filing requirement. 11

CFR 104.18(a)(2).

While the Commission received a

package containing the paper

version of the report on January 30

(Initial Package), it subsequently

informed the Committee that it had

not received an electronic version of

the report. The Committee then sent

an electronic version of the report

on a ZIP disk, which the Commission received on February 7. On that

same day, a staff member in the

Commission’s Electronic Filing

Office informed Eric Clare, the

Committee’s campaign manager, by

telephone that the Committee’s

filing was rejected because it had

not been submitted on a 3.5 inch

floppy disk and because it was not

accompanied by the required

summary page signed by the

treasurer. Mr. Clare then sent

another copy of the report, on a 3.5

inch floppy disk along with a signed

summary page, which the Commission received and validated on

February 8, 2002.

On June 14, 2002, the Commission found reason to believe (RTB)

that the Committee and its treasurer

had violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a),

which requires the timely filing of

reports by political committees like

Greenwood for Congress. The

Commission assessed a civil money

penalty in the amount of $3,100 in

accordance with 11 CFR 111.43.

After reviewing the Committee’s

response to the Commission’s RTB

finding, the Commission’s reviewing officer recommended that the

Commission make a final determination that the Committee had

violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a) by filing

its 2001 Year-End report eight days

late and that the $3,100 civil penalty

assessed was appropriate. After

reviewing the Committee’s submissions and the recommendations of

the reviewing officer, on December

20, 2002, the Commission voted

unanimously to make the final

determination recommended by the

reviewing officer. The Committee

filed its petition for review of the

Commission’s final determination

on January 22, 2003.

Court Decision

The granting of summary judgment by a court is appropriate where

there is “no genuine dispute of

material fact and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under

the Administrative Procedure Act, a

court can set aside an agency action

it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not

in accordance with the law.” 5

U.S.C. §706(2)(A); Citizens to Pres.

Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401

U.S. 402, 414 (1971).

The court found that the FEC

ignored relevant, although circumstantial, evidence presented by the

plaintiffs during the administrative

challenge. In his affidavit submitted

to the Commission’s reviewing

officer, Mr. Clare claimed to have

sent the Committee’s report on a

ZIP disk in the Initial Package. He

indicated that he weighed the

different items that the Committee

alleged it sent to the Commission.

He reported that a ZIP disk, a hardcopy version of the report with a

binder clip, a copy of the cover

letter and a manila envelope

weighed 2 1/8 pounds. The same

package weighed without the ZIP

disk weighed 1 7/8 pounds, according to Mr. Clare. The Federal

Express airbill for the Initial Package, as filled out by Mr. Clare,

indicated a weight of 2.20 pounds,

and Federal Express listed the

Court Cases

(continued from page 13)

weight of the package as three

pounds. Because Federal Express

will round up to the next whole

number in calculating a package’s

weight, the Committee argued that

this was evidence that the Initial

Package contained a ZIP disk.

The Commission argued that its

determination that the Committee

filed its report late was reasonable

because:

• The Commission relied on statements by staff that the procedures

followed indicated that no disk

was contained in the Initial Package; and

• Later searches of FEC files

revealed no record of the Commission having received the disk in

that package.

Nevertheless, the court held that

the Commission failed “to exercise

independent judgment in arriving at

its decision” in this matter and

“arbitrarily and capriciously determined that the Committee had erred

in failing to include a disk in the

January 30, 2002 package.”

Additionally, the Commission

argued that it was immaterial

whether the Initial Package contained a ZIP disk, because a ZIP

disk is an improper medium and the

report would have been rejected in

any case. The court found, however,

that it is not clear that a ZIP disk is

an improper medium—the language

of the applicable regulation requires

only the submission of the reports

on “computerized magnetic media.”

11 CFR 104.18(a) and(d).

Thus, the court denied the

Commission’s motion for summary

judgment and granted summary

judgment in favor of the Committee.

U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

03-0307.

—George Smaragdis
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently

resolved six additional cases under

the Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) program. The respondents,

the alleged violations of the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and the penalties assessed are listed

below.

1. The Commission reached

agreement with Gerald C. “Jerry”

Weller for Congress and its treasurer Roger Forcash concerning

corporate contributions and excessive contributions. In their negotiated settlement, the respondents

acknowledge that violations of the

Act occurred and agreed to pay a

$2,500 civil penalty. The respondents contend that they refunded

questionable contributions and

provided additional information to

reflect that several of the contributions questioned in the

Commission’s audit were not

prohibited. The respondents also

contend that they retained, on an

ongoing basis, a professional firm to

ensure the committee’s compliance

with the Act’s financial and record

maintenance requirements, including periodic review of those financial systems. The respondents

agreed to appoint an FEC compliance officer. (ADR 101/AR 02-12)

2. The Commission closed the

matter concerning Staton for

Congress, its treasurer Ronald

Payne and Cecil P. Staton, Jr.,

concerning an alleged violation of

the Act’s disclaimer rules. The ADR

Office recommended the case be

closed and the Commission agreed

to close the file. (ADR 128/MUR

5265)

3. The Commission closed the

matter concerning the American

Indian Sovereignty Self Determination and Economic PAC of the

National Indian Gaming Association

and its treasurer John Harte, Pequot

PAC and its treasurer Daniel Little,

Holland and Knight Committee for

Effective Government and its

treasurer Richard M. Gold, Friends

of Jim Oberstar and its treasurer

Joseph Moran, Lockridge Grindal

Nauen Political Fund, Mah Mah Wi

No Min II and its treasurer James

W. Genia, Tunica—Biloxi Indian

PAC and its treasurer Douglas

Burke and Melanie Benjamin. The

matter concerned allegations of

excessive contributions and failure

to disclose affiliated committees.

The ADR Office recommended the

case be closed and the Commission

agreed to close the file. (ADR 131/

MUR 5327)

4. The Commission closed the

matter concerning Mark Kennedy

’02 and its treasurer James Loizeaux

concerning the alleged failure to file

48-hour reports. After a review of

the respondents’ amended report,

the ADR Office concluded that the

alleged violation of the Act was

unsubstantiated. The Commission

concurred by dismissing the matter.

(ADR 119/MUR 5325)

5. The Commission reached

agreement with Ally and Yvonne

Visram concerning corporate

contributions and contributions in

the names of others. In order to

conclude this sua sponte matter and

avoid similar violations in the

future, the respondents agree to

educate themselves on the provisions of the Act—particularly the

prohibitions on corporate contributions to influence federal elections—and to promulgate a

corporate policy affirming this

prohibition. The respondents agreed

to pay a $450 civil penalty. (ADR

122/Pre-MUR 410)

6. The Commission reached

agreement with Pappas Telecasting

Companies, Inc., regarding corporate contributions and excessive

contributions. The respondent’s sua

sponte submission noted steps it

took to refund the contribution in

question 42 days after it was received and that the events in question were reported in the 2002

Year-End report. In order to conclude this matter and avoid similar

errors in the future, the respondent

agrees to adopt and distribute to

corporate officers and appropriate

personnel a policy statement describing the Act’s prohibition

against corporate contributions to

influence federal elections and

advising any officer or director of

the corporation that they are prohibited from consenting to any federal

election contribution or expenditure.

The respondent will also select

appropriate Committee representatives to attend an FEC-sponsored

workshop within 12 months of the

effective date of this settlement.

(ADR 125/Pre-MUR 411)✦

—Amy Kort

Public Appearances

October 6, 2003

Washington and Lee University

School of Law Federalist Society

Lexington, VA

Vice-Chairman Smith

October 12-13, 2003

National Association of

Secretaries of State, National

Conference of State Legislatures

and electionline.org

Hollywood, FL

Penelope Bonsall

October 23-25, 2003

Association of Central and

Eastern European Election

Officials

London, England

Vice-Chairman Smith

Evan Rikyhe
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

16

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected1 Total

Jul. 95 1,670 334 804 43 129 1,002 3,982

Dec. 95 1,674 334 815 44 129 1,020 4,016

Jul. 96 1,645 332 829 43 126 1,058 4,033

Dec. 96 1,642 332 838 41 123 1,103 4,079

Jul. 97 1,602 332 826 41 118 953 3,875

Dec. 97 1,597 332 825 42 117 931 3,844

Jul. 98 1,565 325 820 43 112 897 3,762

Dec. 98 1,567 321 821 39 115 935 3,798

Jul. 99 1,540 318 826 38 115 941 3,778

Jan. 00 1,548 318 844 38 115 972 3,835

Jul. 00 1,523 316 812 39 114 902 3,706

Jan. 01 1,545 317 860 41 118 1,026 3,907

Jul. 01 1,525 314 872 41 118 1,007 3,877

Jan. 02 1,508 316 891 41 116 1,019 3,891

Jul. 02 1,514 313 882 40 110 1,006 3,865

Jan. 03 1,528 320 975 39 110 1,055 4,027

Jul. 03 1,534 320 902 39 110 1,040 3,945

*

Committees with no activity for the election cycle are not included in the mid-year

and year-end PAC count.

1Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On

the other hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general

public, while solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

Semiannual PAC Count

Shows Decrease in 2003

According to the FEC’s semiannual political action committee

(PAC) count, 3,945 PACs were

registered with the Commission on

July 1, 2003. This figure represents

a 82-committee decrease from the

January 1 count.

Corporate PACs remain the

largest category, with 1,534 committees. Nonconnected PACs

remain the second-largest group,

with 1,040 committees. The chart

below shows the complete mid-year

and year-end PAC figures since 1995.

A complete listing of PAC

statistics is available in the agency’s

August 29, 2003, press release. The

press release is available:

Statistics

Congressional and Party

Fundraising Climbs

During the first six months of

2003, fundraising by national party

committees and Congressional

candidates increased, in some cases

substantially, over fundraising

during recent comparable periods.

National Party Committees

During the first half of the year,

Republican party committees raised

1 Prior to the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), national

political parties could also raise

nonfederal funds that were not subject

to the limitations and prohibitions of

the Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act). During the first six months of

2001, Democrats raised $37 million in

soft money while the Republicans

raised $65.5 million. As of November 6,

2002, however, national party committees may only raise and spend federally

permissible funds. 2 U.S.C. §441i(a).

• On the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/news.html;

• From the Public Records office

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

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 ).✦

—Amy Kort

$139.1 million, while the Democratic committees raised $56.4

million. These fundraising levels

represent a 47 percent increase in

receipts for Republicans when

compared to the same period in

2001, and a 39 percent increase for

Democrats. When compared to the

same period in 1999—the last

Presidential cycle—Republicans

registered a 109 percent increase in

receipts, while the Democrats

showed a 48 percent increase.1

Contributions from individuals

constituted the bulk of the receipts

for both parties. Democrats reported

$42.7 million from individuals and

$8.1 million from PACs. Republicans reported $129.1 million from

individuals and $6.7 million from

PACs.

The charts on page 17 detail

Republican and Democratic party

fundraising over several election

cycles specifically from PACs, with

$8.1 million as the highest dollar

amount raised, and from all sources,

with $139.1 million as the highest

dollar amount raised.

House Candidates

The 435 House incumbents

reporting receipts from January to

June raised $92.8 million, a $9.7

million increase from the comparable period for incumbents in 2001.

The 228 Republicans in this group

reported raising $52.1 million, while

205 Democrats raised $40.7 million.

Median receipts for Republican

incumbents were $184,932, com-
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

17

Fundraising for Republican and Democratic Party Committees for First Six Months

of Election Cycle—1993-2003

pared to $150,613 for Democrats.

For the comparable period in 2001,

Republicans had median receipts of

$171,469, and Democrats had

$145,748. For the first six months in

1999, Republicans had median

receipts of $158,803 and Democrats

had $111,699.

The 34 Republican freshmen had

$10.5 million in receipts, while the

20 Democratic freshmen had

receipts of $4.6 million. Median

receipts for Democratic freshmen

had were $206,607, while the

median for Republicans was

$268,265.

Non-incumbents raised a total of

$11.3 million during the first six

months of 2003, with 38 Democrats

raising $1.8 million and 82 Republicans raising $9.5 million. In a

comparable period of 2001, 42

Democrats raised $4.0 million and

52 Republicans raised $3.1 million.

In 1999’s first six months, 81

Democrats raised $6.9 million and

76 Republicans raised $7.2 million.

Senate Candidates

Candidates seeking the 34 Senate

seats up for election in 2004 raised

$75.6 million during the first six

months of 2003. Contributions from

individuals accounted for 62 percent

of this amount, and PAC money

represented 19 percent.

While comparisons of Senate

races are problematic because of

their diversity, mid-year reports

filed by the current class of 63

candidates indicate more

fundraising activity than that during

the first six-month of the past three

election cycles. By comparison, for

the first six months in 1997 (the last

election cycle for the present group

of 34 Senate seats) 58 candidates

reported raising $42.6 million.

Meanwhile, in 2001, 56 candidates

competing for 33 seats raised $43

million.

Additional Information

More information on campaign

finance statistics for January 1

through June 30, 2003, are available

in press releases dated August 21

(House and Senate) and August 28

(party committees). The releases are

available:

• On the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/news.html;

• From the Public Records office

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

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 and request document numbers 618 and 619).

—Amy Kort

0

30

60

90

120

150

 93 95 97 99 01 03

Millions of Dollars

0

2

4

6

8

10

 93 95 97 99 01 03

Millions of Dollars

Funds Raised from PACs Total Funds Raised

Republicans

Democrats
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

18

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2003 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

2002-12: Disaffiliation of corporations and their PACs, 2:8

2002-14: National party

committee’s lease of mailing list

and sale of ad space and trademark license, 3:5

2002-15: Affiliation of trade associations, 4:8

2003-1: Nonconnected committee’s

allocation of administrative

expenses, 4:9

2003-2: Socialist Workers Party

disclosure exemption, 5:1

2003-3: Solicitation of funds for

nonfederal candidates by federal

candidates and officeholders, 6:1

Index

Campaign Finance Law

Training Conference in San

Diego

The FEC will hold a conference

October 28-29, 2003, for House and

Senate campaigns, political party

committees and corporations, labor

organizations, trade associations,

membership organizations and their

respective PACs. The conference

will consist of a series of workshops

conducted by Commissioners and

experienced FEC staff who will

explain how the federal campaign

finance law, as amended by the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of

2002 (BCRA), applies to each of

Outreach

Puerto Rico Primary Election Reporting

 Puerto Rico will hold its primary election on November 9, 2003. All

committees involved in this election must file a pre-primary report, as

described below, except for committees that file on a monthly schedule—

monthly filers continue to file on their regular filing schedule.1 Note that 48-

hour notices are required of authorized committees that receive contributions

of $1,000 or more for the primary election between October 21 and November

6.

Committees Involved in the Primary Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Primary October 20 October 25 October 28

Year-End December 31 January 31 January 312

1 The Commission has issued new reporting forms and software that allow

for reporting under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. All reports must

be filed using the new forms or filing software, as appropriate. Reports filed

electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filing date. A committee required to file electronically that instead files on paper reporting

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

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

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

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

on the filing date.

2 Note that this filing date falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended

for weekends or federal holidays.

these groups. Workshops will

specifically address rules for

fundraising and reporting, and will

explain the new provisions of the

BCRA. A representative from the

IRS will also be available to answer

election-related tax questions.

The conference will be at the

Hyatt Regency Islandia. The

registration fee is $385, which

covers the cost of the conference,

materials and meals. A $10 late fee

will be assessed for registration

forms received after October 6.

The Hyatt Regency Islandia is

located at 1441 Quivira Road on

San Diego’s Mission Bay. A room

rate of $159 per night is available

for conference attendees who make

reservations on or before October 6.

To make reservations call 800/233-

1234 and state that you are attending

the FEC conference, or access the

Hyatt Regency Islandia’s reservations web page via the FEC web site

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

infosvc.htm#Conferences.

Registration Information

Conference registration information is available online. Conference

registrations will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis. FEC

conferences are selling out quickly

this year, so please register early.

For registration information:

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail to

lauren@sylvestermanagement.com.✦

—Amy Kort
October 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

19

2003-4: Corporation’s matching

charitable contribution plan, 6:3

2003-5: Federal candidate’s or

officeholder’s participation in

membership organization

fundraising events, 8:1

2003-6: Transfer of payroll deduction authority, 7:4

2003-7: State leadership PAC’s

refund of nonfederal funds, 7:5

2003-10: Solicitation of nonfederal

funds by relative of federal

candidate, 8:6

2003-11: State party committee’s

payment of employee benefits,

10:7

2003-12: Federal candidate/

officeholder’s support of ballot

initiative, 9:7

2003-13: Qualification of “Members-in-Training” as members of

membership organization, 8:7

2003-14: Distribution of apron pins

bearing PAC name, 8:8

2003-15: Donations to legal expense

trust fund, 10:8

2003-16: Affinity credit card

program between national bank

and national party committee,

10:16

2003-17: Use of campaign funds to

pay for criminal defense, 9:10

2003-18: Impermissibility of

transfer of general election funds

to charitable organization, 9:10

2003-19: National party

committee’s sale of office equipment, 10:11

2003-20: Officeholder solicitation

for scholarship fund, 10:11

2003-22: Contributions collected

and forwarded to trade association

SSF by executives of member

corporations, 10:12

Compliance

ADR program cases, 2:11; 3:3;

5:10; 7:10; 8:11; 9:13; 10:15

Deposition transcripts in nonpublic

investigations, policy statement,

10:3

Letter notification procedures, 3:2

Administrative Fine program cases,

1:25; 2:13; 3:4; 5:7; 7:6; 8:11;

9:12

MUR 4931: Corporate contributions

and contributions in the name of

another, 10:1

MUR 5187: Corporate reimbursements of contributions, 1:22

MUR 5208: Facilitation by national

bank, 2:1

MUR 5270: Failure to accurately

report disbursements and cash-onhand, 6:7

Public hearing on enforcement

procedures, 6:7; 7:7

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFC-CIO and DNC Services

Corp./DNC, 8:1

– Cannon, 10:13

– Cox, 8:3

– Cunningham, 1:19

– Greenwood for Congress, 4:4;

10:13

– Hawaii Right to Life, Inc., 1:20

– Lovely, 3:4

– Luis M. Correa, 5:5

– McConnell et al., 6:1

– Stevens, 8:3

FEC v. _____

– Beaumont, 1:20; 7:1

– California Democratic Party, 5:5

– Dear for Congress, 8:4

– Fulani, 2:8

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 2:8;

5:5; 10:13

– Toledano, 1:20

Regulations

Administrative fines, final rules, 4:1

BCRA reporting, final rules, 1:14

BCRA technical amendments, 2:6

Biennial limit, clarification, 2:1

Brokerage loans and credit lines, 2:4

Candidate travel, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9:4

Contribution limits increase, 1:6

Contribution limits and prohibitions;

delay of effective date, 2:6

Coordinated and independent

expenditures, final rules, 1:10

Disclaimers, fraudulent solicitation,

civil penalties and personal use of

campaign funds, final rules, 1:8

Leadership PACs, NPRM, 2:4

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names

of political action committees

(PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

 To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free at www.fec.gov/

pages/pacronym.htm.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

registered PACs showing each

PAC’s identification number,

address, treasurer and

connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

identification number ($7.50).

The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., NW.

(continued on page 20)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Presorted Standard

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2003

Millionaires’ Amendment, interim

final rules, 2:2

Multicandidate committees and

biennial contribution limits,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

9:3

Party committee phone banks,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

10:4

Political committee mailing lists,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

10:5

Public Presidential funding and

conventions, NPRM, 5:1; postponement of hearing date, 6:9;

public hearing, 7:8; final rules,

9:1

Reports

April reporting reminder, 4:1

Draft forms and e-filing formats

available for public comment, 1:2

Filing form 3Z-1, 7:2

July reporting reminder, 7:1

New forms available, 3:1

October reporting reminder, 10:1

Puerto Rico primary election

reporting, 10:18

Reports due in 2003, 1:3

Statements of Candidacy/Organization for authorized committees, 3:2

Texas special election reporting, 4:4

Index

(continued from page 19)