November 1995

Table of Contents

Regulations

MCFL Rules Take Effect

Public Funding

Cash Flow Problem in Presidential

Fund Expected

5 Lugar, Specter and Wilson

Declared Eligible

5 Lenora B. Fulani for President

Repayment Adjusted Based on

FEC Investigation

Special Elections

2 California, Illinois and Oregon

Compliance

6 Wilson Committee Incurs $90,000

Civil Penalty for Unreported

Transactions

7 MURs Released to the Public

Court Cases

8 White v. FEC

8 New Litigation

9 Advisory Opinions

II Federal Register Notices

Statistics

13 House Republicans Report Large

Fundraising Gains

14 GOP Receipts More Than Double

Democratic Party Receipts

Audits

15 Friends of Marc Little Audit

Report

15 Index

Federal Election Commission

Regulations

MCFL Rules Take Effect

The FEC's new rules on the

definitions of "qualified nonprofit

corporations" and "express advocacy" became effective on October 5

(60 FR 52069, October 5, 1995).

These rules address issues raised

by the Supreme Court's decision in

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for

Life. See page 4 of the February

1987 Record for a summary of this

decision. Under the new rules,

nonprofit corporations may make

independent expenditures provided

they meet certain criteria. One

criterion requires that they be

organized for the purpose of promoting political ideas and not for

the purpose of pursuing business

activities. Qualified nonprofits are

the only type of corporation that

may make independent expenditures.

The regulations also provide greater

guidance regarding when communications contain "express advocacy,"

a key term when determining if a

communication is subject to federal

disclaimer requirements, prohibitions

on corporate expenditures or rules

governing independent expenditures.

Refer to page 1 of the August

1995 Record for a detailed explanation of these rules. Alternatively,

order a free copy of the regulations

from the FEC's Information Division : call 800/424-9530. •

Volume 21, Number 11

Public Funding

Cash Flow Problem in

Presidential Fund Expected

A cash flow problem in the

Presidential Election Campaign Fund

will result in partial matching fund

payments to Presidential primary

election candidates in early 1996.

Although the Fund's overall

balance in January 1996 will be at

least $143 million-more than

enough to cover first-ro und payments to candidates-the U.S.

Treasury requires that general

election grants and inflation adjustment payments for party nominating

conventions be set aside before

matching payments to pri mary

election candidates are disbursed.

Consequently, only an estimated

$22.5 million will be available for

matching fund payments to Presidential primary election candidates

on January 1, 1996. This will be

insufficient to cover the year's first

round of matching fund payments to

certified candidates. As of October

I, 1995 , the Commission had

received submissions from seven

certified candidates totaling $21.4

million. That figure does not include

threshold submissions currently

under review from President Bill

Clinton and Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

Under present rules, when

matching fund certifications exceed

(continued on page 5)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1995

Reporting Dates for California Special Elections:

December 12 General (with Runoff February 6, if Necessary) I

J California does not hold primary elections during special election contests. All

candidatesfor this House seat will compete in the general election on December 12.

A candidate must garner a majority ofthe vote to win the general election. If a

single candidate fails to do so, a runoff election among the top vote getters-the top

vote getter from each qualified political party and any qualifying independent

candidates-will be held on February 6, 1996.

2 The close ofbooks is the end ofthe reporting period. The period begins with the

day after the closing date ofthe last report filed. Ifthe committee is new and has not

previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before

the committee registered and, ifapplicable , before the individual became a candidate.

3 Reports sent by registered or certified mail are considered to be fil ed on time if

they are postmarked by this date.

4 This is a consolidated Post-General and Year-End report.

5 Should there be a runoff election, participating candidates must file the Pre-Runoff

report as two separate reports-onefor 1995 activity and one for 1996 activity. This

is because, under the law, a single FEC report may not cover activity spanning more

than one calendar year. Candidates filing Pre-Runoffreports need not file a YearEnd report since the Pre-Runoffreporting period encompasses the Year-End

reporting period.

Reporting by Candidate

Committees

Individuals who become "candidates" under the Federal Election

Campaign Act must file disclosure

reports. Candidate status is triggered

when campaign activity exceeds

$5,000 in either contributions or

expenditures. 2 U.S.c. §431 (2). At

that point, the candidate and the

principal campaign committee

become subject to the Act's registration and reporting requirements. See

the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees.

Normally, candidate committees

file semiannually in odd-numbered

(nonelection) years. Principal

campaign committees of candidates

• For Oregon, general election on

January 30, 1996, with primary

elections for all parties to be held

December 5, 1995; to fill U.S.

Senate seat vacated by Senator

Bob Packwood.

This article explains the reporting

requirements for committees involved

with these special elections (see the

accompanying tables). It also

provides information on contribution

and coordinated party expenditure

limits, and committee transfer issues

that arise during a special election.

If you have any questions about

this article or about special election

issues, please call the FEC at 8001

424-9530 or 202/219-3420.

November 30

January 11

January 25

January 25

March 7

Reg.lCert.

Mailing Date 3 Filing Date

November 27

January 11

January 22

January 22

March 7

November 22

December 31

December 31

January 17

February 26

Close

of Books 2

Pre-General

Post-GenerallYear-End"

Pre-Runoff '95 5

Pre-Runoff '96

Post-Runoff

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

2021219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

2021219-3336 (TDD)

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Dario Bard, Editor

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Trevor Potter, Commissioner

ScottE. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Special .

Elections

California, llIinois and Oregon

Schedule Special Elections for

Late '95, Early '96

The states of California, Illinois

and Oregon have scheduled the

following special elections:

• For California, general election for

all candidates on December 12,

1995, with possible runoff election

on February 6, 1996, among

highest vote getters should no

candidate win a majority (no

primary election for this contest);

to fill U.S. House seat vacated by

Congressman Norman Mineta of

the 15th congressional district;

• For Illinois, general election on

December 12, 1995, with primary

elections for all parties to be held

November 28, 1995; to fill U.S.

House seat vacated by Congressman Mel Reynolds of the 2nd

congressional district; and

2
November 1995 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Reporting Dates for Dlinois Special Elections:

November 28 Primary and December 12 General

I The close ofbooks is the end ofthe reporting period. The period begins with the

day after the closing date ofthe last report filed. Ifthe committee is new and has not

previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before

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

2Reports sent by registered or certified mail are considered to be filed on time if they

are postmarked by this date.

3 The mailing date is the same as the filing date here because otherwise the mailing

date wouldfall one day before the primary election.

4 This line shows the reporting datesfor a consolidated Post-GenerallYear-End

report.

5 Committees not participating in the general election are not required to file a PostGeneral Election report, but they must file a regular Year-End report.

I contributions; loans (other than bank

loans); guarantees and endorsements

of bank loans; and contributions,

personal loans and endorsements of

bank loans made by the candidate.

2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(A); 11 CFR

100.7(a).

For information on the content of

the notice, see 11 CFR 104.5(f) and

the Campaign Guide.

I Reporting by Party Committees

and PACs

Semiannual filers. Party committees and PACs tiling on a semiannual (rather than monthly) basis are

subject to special election reporting

if they make previously undisclosed

contributions or expenditures in

connection with any special primary

or general election by the close-ofbooks date shown in the reporting

tables. 11 CFR 104.5(c)(l)(ii) and (h).

Monthly filers. PACs filing on a

monthly basis are not required to file

pre- and post-special election reports

seeking to win a special election,

however, must file the appropriate

reports as shown in the accompanying tables.

Pre- and post-election reports.

All candidates must file pre-primary

reports. Only candidates who win a

party nomination or otherwise

qualify to run in the general election

are required to file pre- and postgeneral election reports.

Forty-eight-hour notices. Principal campaign committees must file

48-hour notices on contributions of

$1,000 or more received between

the 20th day and 48 hours before the

date of any election in which the

candidate participates. The notice

must be received by the federal and

state filing offices within 48 hours

of the campaign's receipt of the

contribution. 2 U.S.c. §434(a)(6)(A);

11 CFR 104.5(f).

This requirement applies to all

contributions of $1 ,000 or more,

including: monetary and in-kind

but may have to file 24-hour reports,

as explained below. See 2 U.S.c.

§434(a)(9); 11 CFR 104.5(h)(2).

Twenty-Four-Hour Reports on

Independent Expenditures

All PACs and persons making

independent expenditures in connection with a special election may

have to file 24-hour reports. This

report is requ ired if the committee

or person makes independent

expenditures aggregating $1,000 or

more between the 20th day and 24

hours before the date of an election.

The report must be filed within

24 hours after the expenditure is

made . For more information, see

11 CFR 104.4(b) and (c) and

104.5(g). See also "Where to File"

for special filing requirements.

Where to File

Filing with federal authorities.

Princip al campaign committees file

reports and 48-hour notices with the

Clerk of the House of Representatives for House elections or the

Secretary of the Senate for Senate

elections. Noncandidate committees

supporting both House and Senate

candidates file with the FEC.

Noncandidate committees supporting only House candidates file with

the Clerk of the House . Those

supporting only Senate candidates

file with the Secretary of the Senate.

11 CFR 105.1 and 105.4.

Twenty-four-hour reports on

independent expenditures are filed

with the Clerk of the House for

House elections and the Secretary of

the Senate for Senate elections.

11 CFR 104.4(c)(3).

Addresses and further filing

instructions are provided on the

back of Form 3 and Form 3X.

Filing with state authorities.

Copies of all reports and notices,

including 48-hour notices and 24-

hour reports, must simultaneously

be filed with appropriate state

elections officials. 2 U.S.c. §439(a)(l)

and (a)(2)(B); 11 CFR 108.5.

Addresses and telephone numbers can

(continued on page 4)

November 16

November 30

January 11

January 31

November 13

November 30 3

January 11

January 31

Reg.lCert.

Mailing Date 2 Filing Date

November 8

November 22

December 31

December 31

Close

of BooksI

Pre- Primary

Pre-General

Post-GenerallYear-End 4

Year-EndS

3
Reporting Dates for Oregon Special Elections:

December 5 Primary and January 30 General

Close Reg.JCert.

of BooksI Mailing Date 2 Filing Date

Pre-Primary November 15 November 18 November 20

Year-End 3 December 31 January 31 January 31

Pre-General '95 4 December 31 January 16 January 18

Pre-General '96 January 10 January 16 January 18

Post-General February 19 February 29 February 29

J The close ofbooks is the end ofthe reporting period. The period begins with the

day after the closin g date of the last report filed. Ifthe committee is new and has not

previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before

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

2Reports sent by registered or certified mail are considered to be filed on time if

they are postmarked by this date.

J Candidates not participating in the January 30, 1996, special general election must

file a Year-End report by January 31, 1996.

4 Candidates parti cipating in the January 30, 1996, special general election must fil e

two Pre-General reports. This is because, under the law, a single FEC report may

not cover activity in more than one calendar year. It should be noted that the PreGeneral report for 1995 activity doubles as the 1995 Year-End report.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Special Elections

(continu ed from page 3)

be obtained via Flashfax: dial 2021

501-3413 and request document 303.

Party conunittees and PACs need

file only that portion of the report

applicable to the candidate seeking

election in that state (e.g., the

Summary Page and the schedule

showing the contribution or expenditure). 2 U.S.c. §439(a)(2)(B).

Contribution Limits and Transfers

Contribution limits. There is a

separate contribution limit for each

election in which a candidate participates (primary, general, runoff).

11 CFR 110.1(j)(l) and 11O.2(i)(l).

Monie s left overfrom a previous

federal campaign. Candidates with

leftover monies from a 1994 campaign for federal office may transfer

1994 monies to their 1995 campaigns provided they have fulfilled

all 1994 obligations. Such contributions may be transferred without

redesignations from contributors.

Transferred 1994 contributions do

not count against the contributor's

limits for the special elections.

Simultaneous campaigns. Candidates simultaneously active in a

1995 special election and a 1996

election for some other federal

office must maintain separate

campaign conunittees. II CFR

110.3(c)(7). Transfers of funds from

one conunittee to the other may

occur only after the candidate has

ended one campaign. These transferred contributions count against

the contributors' limits for the other

campaign and are aggregated with

contributions the contributors

already made to that campaign.

Consequently, monies may not be

,

November 1995

transferred if they would cause a

contributor to exceed his or her

contribution limit to the recipient

committee. II CFR 110.3(c)(5).

Prohibition on transfers from

nonfederal campaigns. Campaigns

of candidates participating in special

elections should note that transfers

from a candidate's nonfederal

campaign to his or her federal campaign are prohibited. 11 CFR llO .3(d).

Coordinated Party Expenditures

The national committee of a

political party and the party's state

conunittees may make limited

coordinated party expenditures in

connection with the general election

campaign of the party's candidate.

2 us.c §441a(d). The state

committee's spending limit is

separate from the national committee's limit. 11 CFR 110.7(b)(l).

For the Illinois House special

election and the California House

special general election, the coordinated party expenditure limit is

$30,060. A definite coordinated

party expenditure limit for the

Oregon Senate special election is

not yet available because the voting

age population (VAP) and the cost

of living adj ustment (COLA) figures

for 1996 are not yet calculated.

Party committees, however, should

note that , based on 1995 YAP and

COLA figures, the limit would be

$138 ,516 for Oregon; the 1996

adjustments will only increase this

limit and the California limit should

there be a runoff (the runoff and the

general election share one limit)...

4
November /995

Public Funding

(continued from page 1)

the amount of money available, each

candidate receives a pro-rata share

of his or her original certification.

For example, if certifications for

matching funds in January tot aled

$2 5 million, and only 90 percent of

that figure or $22.5 million were

av ailable, each candidate would

receive 90 percent of his or her

certified amount. The remaining 10

pe rcent for each candidate would be

paid in subsequent months as new

funds become ava ilable.

This shortfall is anticipated because

of the Fund' s low reserves. The Fund

has benefited from only two years of

the tax checkoff increase from $1 to

$3, which took effect in 1994.

The Commission expects the

Fund to recover by next spring as a

result of tax checkoff deposits made

in the early months of 1996. Until

then, candidates should be able to

secure some form of bridge loans

from their banks. The Commission's

certification and the expectation that

tax checkoffs will replenish the

Fund should help in this regard.

Other information on the Fund:

• The Fund's balance is currently

$143.2 million (grants of $24

million to the two major parties for

their nominating con ventions have

already been disbursed).

• The Fund received $64.3 million

from January 1, 1995 , through the

end ofJuly 1995. This figure is

about $3 million less than the fund

received in 1994 during a comparable period. If deposits into the

Fund in the remaining months of

1995 follow past patterns, the

Commission expects a bal ance of

$ 146.9 million at the end of 1995 .

• Assuming general election grants

to the two major party nominees

total $123.7 million and the

inllation adjustment for the party

nomin ating conventions is about

$700,000, roughly $22.5 million

should be availab le for primary

ca ndidates in January 1996...

Lugar, Specter and Wilson

Declared Eligible For

Matching Funds

On August 30 , the FEC certified

1996 Presidential hopefuls Senator

Richard G. Lugar and Governor

Pete Wilson ' as eligible to receive

public matching funds. Senator

Arlen Specter received certification

on August 31. Thus far, seven 1996

Presidential candidates have qualified for public funding. In addition

to the three mentioned above,

Senator Phil Gramm, Governor

Lamar Alexander, Senator Robert

Dole and Mr. Patrick Buchanan

have all been certified by the FEe.

These candidates will receive their

first payment from the Presidential

Public Funding Program in January

1996.

To establish eligibility for the

Presidential public funding program,

a candidate must submit documentation showing that he or she has

raised in excess of $5,000 in matchable contributions in each of at least

20 states. Only contributions received

from individuals, and only up to $250

of a contributor's total, are matchable. This threshold submission is

reviewed by the FEC's Audit

Division. The candidate mu st also

certify that he or she will abide by

spending limits, use funds for

campaign-related expen ses onl y,

agree to an FEC audit and otherwise

co mply with the election law.

Once Presidential candidates

establish eligibility for matching

funds, they may submi t additional

contributions for match ing fund

consideration on a monthly basis.

The fed eral government will match

an eligible campaign's match able

contributions on a dollar-fo r-dollar

basis...

J On September 29, 1995, Governor

Wilson withdrew from the 1996

Presidential race.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

I Lenora B. Fulani for President

Repayment Adjusted Based

on FEe Investigation

On August 3, 1995 , as part of an

ongoing FEC investigation, the

Commission made an initial determin ation that Dr. Lenora B. Fulani's

1992 principal campa ign committee,

the Lenora B. Fulani for President

committee, rep ay $612,557 to the

U.S. Treasury .I This amount comprises rep ayments of: $381 ,172 for

nonqualified campaign expenses

disbursed to certain vendors; $98,096

for nonqualified campaign expenses

that reporte dly were disbursed to

individuals but cannot be traced;

and $133,289 for public funds

received in excess of entitlement.

The Allegations

The FEC is investigating the

committee based on allegations

made by Ms. Kellie Gasink, a

former campaign worker.' Ms.

Gasink contended that Dr. Fred

Newman , Dr. Fulani ' s campaign

manager, used a network of 13

vendors and other entities he

contro lled to funnel committee

funds to him sel f.

According to Ms. Gasink, these

vendors bill ed expenses to the

(continued on pag e 6)

I This initial repayment determination is

separate and in addition to the initial

determination contained in the Final

Audit Report; that report set the

committee 's repayment obligation at

$1,394 (the pro-rata portion of$3,235

in lost money orders). The committee

paid this amount to the U.S. Treasury

without dispute. See page 6 ofthe June

1994 Record f or a summary ofthe

Final Audit Report.

2See page 9 of the December 1994

Record (AD 1994-32) and page 8 ofthe

April 1995 Record (AD 1995-1)for

summa ries of advisory opinions related

to Ms. Gasink 's allegations. See also

page 11 of the August 1994 Record and

page 12 ofthe June 1995 Record for

articles on a related law suit (FuJani v ,

FEC).

5
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Public Funding

(continued from page 5)

committee that were either inflated

or fabricated.'

She also claimed that Dr. Newman

embezzled committee funds by reporting that certain individuals received

salary payments and reimbursements

when actually they did not.

Nonqualified Disbursements to

Vendors

The FEe's investigation discovered that a number of individuals

involved with the vendors allegedly

controlled by Dr. Newman were

also involved with the New Alliance

Party, which nominated Dr. Fulani

for the Presidency in 1992. Additionally, most of these 13 vendors

had only two mailing addresses

among themselves.

The FEC requested additional

documentation from the committee

and testimonial evidence from its

treasurer and Dr. Newman to rebut

the allegations of fraud. Both Dr.

Newman and the committee treasurer invoked their Fifth Amendment

rights. The committee and vendors

did make some of their records

available for FEC review, but

delayed doing so until after the date

the FEC had set as a deadline.

Consequently, the FEC did not have

a chance to thoroughly review most

of these documents before the

Commission issued this initial

repayment determination. RevelaJ Dr. Newman allegedly controlled

these organizations through an umbrella organization called the Interna -

tional Workers Party (IWP). The IWP

allegedly founded the New Allian ce

Party (NAP), the party that nominated

Dr. Fulani for the Presidency in 1992.

Ms. Gasink claimed that the IWP,

which purportedly disbanded in 1979

after the NAP wasformed, actually

remained intact and went "underground." She alleged that most IWP

members own and operat e "businesses" in New York City, and that

other IWP members are assigned to

work at these businesses.

6

tions gleaned from these documents

will be addressed before the Commission votes to make a final

repayment determination.

Based on the information available at the time, the FEC inferred

that Ms. Gasink's allegations with

respect to the 13 vendors in question

were true . Therefore, the Commission made an initial determination

that the committee repay $381,172,

representing public funds used to

make the disbursements to the

vendors in question.

Nonqualified Disbursements to

Individuals

The committee disbursed

$1,429,377 to 769 individuals for

the following stated purposes:

payroll, salary, clerical services,

reimbursements, petition services,

organizing services and expenses.

Ms. Gasink and two other individuals deny that they received certain

payments that the committee

reported as disbursements to them.

The committee's treasurer

admitted to the FEC that she and her

staff sometimes cashed people's pay

and reimbursement checks for them.

She stated that in such instances she

or a member of her staff would

write the payee's name on the back

of the check and then sign their own

name underneath it. They would

then cash the check and relay the

cash to the payee. The committee

treasurer said that she did this for

persons who did not have bank

accounts and for whom it would be

an inconvenience to get to the

committee's bank. She also said that

these persons preferred to be paid in

cash but, because of the FEe's

documentation requirements, she

felt she had to issue a check in order

to create a record of the payment.

The FEC decided that a disbursement made by a check that had a

second endorsement by the treasurer

or a member of her staff required

additional documentation to prove

that the money went to the reported

payee. The FEC found 567 doublyNovember 1995

endorsed checks, totaling $227,691.

The committee did not offer further

documentation with regard to these

disbursements. The Commission

determined, therefore, that the

committee had to repay $98,096 to

the U.S. Treasury-the pro-rata

portion of the $227,691, representing the public funds used to make

the disbursements.

Excess Matching Funds

The committee received public

matching funds after August 20,

1992, the candidate's date of

ineligibility, because it documented

that it was in a deficit position. In

light of the findings of this investigation, the FEC reevaluated the

committee's entitlement to postdate-of-ineligibility matching funds.

Since some of the debts (i.e . those

owed to Dr. Newman-controlled

vendors) and some of the payments

(i.e. the doubly-endorsed checks)

are now viewed as nonqualified

campaign expenses, the FEC

determined that the committee must

repay $133,289 in matching funds

received in excess of entitlement. •

Compliance

MUR3972

Wilson Committee Incurs

$90,000 Civil Penalty for

Unreported Transactions

The Wilson Committee agreed to

pay a $90,000 civil penalty for

failing to report loans and other

transactions it had with the candidate. By omitting this activity from

its reports, the committee violated

various reporting requirements at

2 U.S.c. §434(b).

The committee is Congressman

Charles Wilson's (Representative

from Texas's second district)

principal campaign committee. This

matter was referred to the FEC by
November 1995

the Justice Department's House

Bank Task Force.

During the 1988 and 1990 House

campaigns, the committee made

four personal loans to the candidate

totaling $26,500. 1 These loans were

later repaid by the candidate. The

committee, however, failed to report

any of these loan disbursements and

all but one of the repayment receipts.

On December 27,1989, the

committee advanced $10,000 to

Congressman Wilson to defray the

expens e of a trip he took to the

former U.S.S.R. Congressman

Wilson later reimbursed the committee. The committee did not report

this advance and only reported one

partial reimbursement made by

Congressman Wilson.

Similarly, in 1988 and 1989 the

committee failed to report three

payments totaling $4,125 for

Congressman Wilson's personal

hotel and travel expenses, and for

noncampaign-related catering costs.

Nor did the committee report the

subsequent reimbursements it

received from the candidate.

In addition to the $90,000 civil

penalty, the committee agreed to

amend its reports to disclose the

transactions discussed above.•

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently

released for public review. This

listing is based on the FEC press

releases of September 6 and 21. Files

on closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

MUR 2595/2379

Respondents: (a) Populist Party

(DC) and Bob Richards for President Committee, Washington, D.C.,

Willis Carto, treasurer of both;

1 Since January 1993, members of

Congress have been prohibitedfrom

using campaign funds for any personal

purpose.

(b) Liberty Lobby, Inc. (DC);

(c) Cordite Fidelity , Inc. (DC);

(d) Willis Carto (DC); (e) Blayne E.

Hutzel (DC); (f) Maureen Salaman

for Vice President Committee,

Willial Campbell Douglass, treasurer (GA); (g) Committee to Defend

Liberty Lobby, Inc. (DC); (h) Fred

Seipold (AZ); (i) David Sasser (ID);

(j) Mary Booker (TX) (deceased);

(k) Evelyn Adaska (CA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (Audit)

Subject: Corporate contributions;

excessive contributions

Disposition: (a-e) Probable cause to

believe, litigation initiated March

1992, Final Consent Order and

Judgment issued April 21, 1995:

$20,000 civil penalty (corporate and

excessive contributions); (f-g)

probable cause to believe, but took

no further action (excessive and

corporate contributions); (h-i)

reason to believe, but took no

further action (excessive contributions; corporate contributions); (j-k)

reason to believe, but took no further

action (excessive contributions)

MUR3570

Respondents: (a) New York State

Democratic Committee, Rosemary

Conway, treasurer (NY); (b) Dump

D' Amato in '92! Committee, James

Luce, treasurer (NY)

Complainant: William D. Powers,

Chairman, New York Republican

State Committee (NY)

Subject: Failure to report contributions and expenditures; excessive

contributions; failure to file disclosure reports; failure to file 24 hour

independent expenditure reports;

disclaimers

I Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action (failure to

report contributions and expenditures; excessive contributions); (b)

reason to believe, but took no

further action; (a-b) sent admonishment letters

MUR3921

Respondents: (a) Ken Bell for

Congress Committee, Ken Bell,

acting as treasurer (NC); (b) Mark

Federal Election Commission RECORD

N. Poovey, treasurer, Ken Bell for

Congress Committee (NC)

Complainant: FEC initiated (1990

Audit)

Subject: Failure to amend Statement of Organization; failure to

itemize receipts and disbursements;

failure to provide contributor

information ("best efforts ")

Disposition: (a) Probable cause to

believe, but took no further action;

(b) reason to believe , but took no

further action

MUR3960

Respondents: (a) Whitfield for

Congress Committee, E.O.

Whitfield, treasurer (KY); (b) E.O.

Whitfield (KY); (c) The Honorable

Ed Whitfield (KY)

Complainant: Steve Hamrick,

Steve Hamrick for Congress (KY)

Subject: Disclaimers

Disposition: (a) $1,675 civil

penalty ; (b) reason to believe, but

took no further action; (c) no reason

to believe

MUR 3972lPre MUR 283

Respondents: (a) The Wilson

Committee (TX); (b) Amy S. Trites,

as treasurer and in her individual

capacity

Complainant: Referral by U.S.

Department of Justice

Subject: Failure to disclose loans to

candidate; failure to report disburse -

ments; failure to report an advance

to a candidate; failure to report loan

repayments, repayment of advance,

and refunds; failure to report debts

Disposition: (a) $90,000 civil

penalty; committee to file amended

. reports; (b) reason to believe, but

took no further action

MUR3979

Respondents: Santorum '94, Judith

M. McVerry, treasurer (PA)

Complainant: Rick Bloomingdale,

Executive Director, Pennsyl vania

Democratic State Committee (PA)

Subject: Failure to provide contributor information ("best efforts")

(continued on page 8)

7
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance

(continued fro m page 7)

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter

MUR 4019

Respondents: (all in PA): (a) TelSave, Inc., and its president, Daniel

Borislow; (b) various individuals;

(c) Congressman Jim Greenwood

and Greenwood for Congress,

Robert O. Baldi, treasurer

Complainant: John P. Murray,

Murray for Congress (PA)

Subject: Corporate contributions;

contributions in the names of others

Disposition: (a-b) $30 ,000 civil

penalty; (c) took no action

MUR4094

Respondents: Ortiz for Congress,

Frank A. Tompkins (TX)

Complainant: Erol A. Stone, Stone

for Congress (TX)

Subject: Disclaimers

Disposition: Rea son to believe, but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter

MUR4112

Respondents: (a) The Honorable

James Merrill Jeffords (VT); (b)

Jeffords for Vermont, James A.

John ston, treasurer (VT)

Complainant: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Robert F.

Bauer, General Counsel (DC)

Subject: Personal use of campaign

funds ; failure to itemize disbursements (credit card charges) accurately

Disposition: (a) reason to believe,

but took no furth er action (personal

use of campaign funds); (b) reason

to believe, but took no further action;

sent admonishment letter; committee to amend 1993 Year-End report

MUR4147

Respondents: (a) The Honorable

Karen L. Thurman (FL); (b) Thurman

for Congress, Joseph Matus, treasurer

(FL); (c) United Parcel Servi ce of

America, Inc . (GA)

Complainant: Sumner R. Waite (FL)

Subject: Corporate contributions

8

Disposition: (a-c) No reason to

believe

MUR4207

Respondents: Sisisky for Congress,

Mark B. Sisisky, treasurer (VA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

report ($50 ,000 candidate loan)

Disposition: $6,500 civil penalty

MUR4219

Respondents: Dan Frisa for Congress

Committee, Patrick H. O'Sullivan,

trea surer (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

report timely; failure to file 48-hour

reports

Disposition: $10,500 civil penalty

MUR 4221

Respondents: Political Club for

Growth, Lisa B. Nelson, treasurer

(VA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timel y

Disposition: $3,200 civil penalty"

I

Court Cases

White v.FEe

On September 9, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia dismi ssed this case. Mr.

William D. White brought this suit

against the FEC for not taking final

action within 120 days in Matt ers

Under Review (MURs)l 3706, 3709 ,

I MURs are FEC enforce ment cases.

The FEe's Office ofGeneral Counsel

opens MURs based on complaints

alleging violations of election law.

These complaints may come from the

FEe's Audit Division or Reports

Analysis Division, or some external

source such as the Departm ent of

Justi ce or, as in this case, an interested

individual or committee.

November 1995

3710,3713,3714 and 3612, six

compl aints he filed with the agency

between September and November

1992. The Commission dismi ssed

and closed these cases in 1993.

Accordingly, the court dismissed

Mr. White's suit.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 93-0771 ,

September 6, 1995. ..

New Litigation

Buchanan for President v. FEC

Mr. Buchanan and his 1992

Presidential campaign, Buchanan

for President, Inc ., petition the court

to review the Commission's final

repayment determination.

Mr. Buchanan accepted public

funding I for his 1992 campaign for

the Republican Presidential nomination. The FEC administers the

Presidential Primary Mat ching

Payment Account Act, which

requires candidates receiving publi c

funds to abide by overall and stateby-state expenditure limits, and to

undergo an FEC audit at campaign' s

end.

At the conclusion of its audit

process, the FEC determined,

among other things, that the

Buchanan committee had spent

$ 18,891 in public money for purposes not related to the campaign

and that the committee had received

$274,423 in public money in excess

of its entitlement. Publ icly funded

campai gns must return such monies

to the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. Buch anan and his committee

dispute the FEe's findings and,

under 2 U.S.c. §9041 , bring their

case directly before the U.S. Court

I The Buchanan campaign received

these monies fr om the President ial

Election Campaign Fund. This Fund is

entirely supported by the designations

oftaxpayers who direct, through the

check-offfound on the top halfofIRS

income tax return f orms, that $3 be

deposited in the Fund.
November /995

of Appeals for the District of

Columbia.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia; 95-1458;

September 5, 1995. ..

Bush-Quayle '92 v, FEC

The Bush -Quayle '92 Primary

Committee, the Bush-Quayle '92

General Committee and the BushQuayle '92 Compliance Committee

all filed separate petitions for

review , asking the court to review

the Commission's final repayment

determination for the primary

committee.

The Bush -Quayle '92 Primary

Committee accepted public funding'

for the 1992 Presidential primary

elections. The FEC administers the

Presidential Primary Matching

Payment Account Act, which requires

candidates receiving public funds to

abide by overall and state-by-state

expenditure limits, and to undergo

an FEC audit at campaign's end.

At the conclusion of its audit

process, the FEC determined,

among other things. that the primary

committee had spent $106,929 in

public money for purposes not

related to the primary election and

that the committee had received

$216,853 in public money in excess

of its entitlement. Publicly funded

campaigns must return such monies

to the U.S. Treasury.

The committees dispute the

FEC's findings and, under 2 U.S.C.

§9041, bring this case directly

before the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; 95-1430, 95-1431

and 95-1432; August 22, 1995...

J The Bush/Quayle campaign received

these monies from the Presidential

Election Campaign Fund. This Fund is

entirely supported by the designations

oftaxpayers who direct. through the

check-offfound on the top half ofIRS

income tax return forms. that $3 be

deposited in the Fund .

Center for Responsive Politics v,

FEC

The Center for Responsive

Politics (CRP) asks the court to find

that the FEC acted contrary to law

in failing to abolish regulations that

permit publicly funded Presidential

candidates to accept private contributions for their general election

legal and compliance (GELAC)

funds. The FEC's revised rules

governing the public financing of

Presidential elections were published in the Federal Register June

16,1995 (60 FR 31854); these

revised rules retain the GELAC

fund provisions, which have been in

effect since 1980.

The CRP contends that, by

allowing candidates to establish

GELAC funds, the FEC has created

a loophole that enables candidates to

circumvent the public financing

statutes' limits on expenditures and

private contributions.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia, 95-1464,

September 7, 1995...

FEC v. Hartnett for U.S. Senate

The FEC asks the court to order

Hartnett for U.S. Senate and Mr.

Paul Meierer, Jr., its treasurer, to

pay:

• An outstanding balance of $7,937

on a $9,000 civil penalty agreed

upon in a conciliation agreement;

• Accrued interest on this amount,

calculated from October 30, 1994,

the date the full amount was due ;

and

• An additional $5,000 civil penalty,

the maximum amount prescribed

by 2 U.S.c. §437g(a)(6)(A) for

failing to abide by a conciliation

agreement.

Hartnett for U.S. Senate was Mr.

Thomas Forbes Hartnett's principal

campaign committee in 1992.

Candidate committees that receive a

contribution in excess of $1,000

between 20 days and 48 hours

before an election in which the

Federal ElectionCommission RECORD

candidate is participating must

report it within 48 hours of its

receipt. 2 U.S.c. §434(a)(6)(A). The

committee entered into a conciliation agreement with the FEC on

September 30, 1994, to resolve

issues related to its failure to abide

by this provision. As part of this

conciliation agreement, the committee and its treasurer agreed to pay a

$9,000 civil penalty by October 30,

1994. A balance of $7,937 remained

unpaid as of the date of this law

suit's filing.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 1:95CY01829,

September 25, 1995...

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1995-28

Solicitations by Membership

Association

Noncorporate associate business

members of the American Health

Care Association (AHCA) may be

solicited for contributions to

AHCA-PAC. Associate business

memberships are a type of AHCA

membership open to individuals,

corporations, partnerships, limited

liability companies and other

entities. Although corporations are

barred from making contributions,

their restricted class employees'

may be solicited by AHCA provided

the corporate member grants prior

approval. Further, corporate members may donate funds to AHCAPAC to defray its administrative and

solicitation costs.

(continued on page I 0)

I A corporation 's restricted class

includes its executive and administrative personnel, its stockholders and the

families of both groups.

9
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

To qualify under II CFR 114.1(e)

as a solicitable member of a membership association, a member must:

• Pay regular dues and be entitled to

vote for at least one member of the

association's "highest governing

body" or for those who choose at

least one member of that body; or

• Have a significant financial

attachment to the association in

addition to the payment of dues; or

• Have the right to vote directly for

all those on the association's

highest governing board; or

• Have an organizational and

financial attachment to the association that is significant enough to

qualify as a "member," as determined by the Commission on a

case-by-case basis.

Associate business members pay

regular dues to AHCA and have the

right to vote for two delegates to the

AHCA's House of Delegates, AHCA's

highest governing body. Therefore,

associate business members qualify

as "members" for PAC solicitation

purposes. II CFR 114.I (e)(2)(ii).

Corporations are barred from

making contributions or expenditures

in connection with a federal election .

2 U.S.c. §44lb(a). Associate

business members that are corporations may not therefore make

contributions to AHCA-PAC. Their

restricted class employees, however,

may be solicited for contributions to

AHCA-PAC provided the corporate

member gives AHCA-PAC prior

approval. II CFR 114.8(d).

Costs associated with the establishment of a membership association's

PAC, the PAC's administration and

the solicitation of contributions to the

PAC are not considered contributions

or expenditures. A corporation that is

an associate business member of

AHCA may therefore donate to an

administrative fund established to

defray these costs.

Date Issued: September 29, 1995;

Length: 8 pages...

10

AO 1995-29

Disbursement of Funds

Donated by Convicted

Defrauder to CourtAppointed Receiver

The principal campaign committee of Representative Christopher

Cox of California may disburse to a

court-appointed receiver funds

donated by a contributor believed to

have obtained them fraudulently.

The Commission ruled that such a

disbursement would not be viewed

as being for anyone's personal use.

Background

In 1988 and 1990, the Cox

committee received contributions

from William E. Cooper. He and

two other owners of the First

Pension Corporation pled guilty in

1994 to defrauding thousands of

investors. The First Pension Ad Hoc

Investors' Committee, a committee

working with the defrauded investors, believes Mr. Cooper's contributions to the Cox committee were

made with ill-gotten funds. The

Investors' committee has therefore

asked the Cox committee to refund

the contributions to the receiver

appointed by the court. '

The Commission does not

consider such a payment from the

Cox committee to the receiver to be

a "refund" for the purposes of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act). This is because the payee in

this case is a court-appointed

receiver and not a contributor, and

because the payment is not mandated as a refund of excessive or

prohibited contributions.

Personal Use Rules

Since such a payment is not a

refund under the Act, the Commission examined the proposed payment with respect to the rules on

I The receiver was appointed by the

court to oversee companies affiliated

with First Pension and to recover

assetsfor the benefit ofthe defrauded

investors.

November 1995

personal use of committee funds.

The Act and Commission regulations provide that the candidate or

his campaign committee may use

excess campaign funds for any

lawful purpose, but may not convert

the funds to the personal use of the

candidate or any other person.

2 U.S.C. §439a ; II CFR 113.2(d).

Regulations define "personal use"

generally as "any use of funds in a

campaign account of a present or

former candidate to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any

person that would exist irrespective

of the candidate 's campaign or

duties as a Federal officeholder."

II CFR 113.I(g).

In this case, the request for the

payment stems from the fact that

Mr. Cooper contributed an equivalent amount to the Cox committee.

The request would not have been

made had Mr. Cox's campaign not

received Mr. Cooper's contribution.

Additionally, the payment to the

receiver does not constitute a

personal use of campaign funds by

Mr. Cox , the defrauded investors

who will eventually receive the

money, or anyone else because the

request for payment is being made

in concert with an effort by a U.S.

District Court to recover the assets

lost by the defrauded investors, and

is in fulfillment of that purpose.

Reporting the Disbursement

The Cox Committee should

report the disbursement to the

receiver under the category of

"Other Disbursements." II CFR

I04.3(b)(2)(vi)(A). Since the

disbursement will exceed $200, it

should be itemized with a disclosure

of the recipient, the date, the amount

and the purpose. The committee

should state the purpose with a short

explanation referring to this advisory

opinion . II CFR 104.3(b)(4)(vi).

Date issued: September 14, 1995

Length: 6 pages. ..
November /995

AO 1995-30

Satellite Broadcast Expenses

Not Allocated to Presidential

Campaign's State Limits

Senator Arlen Specter's 1996

Presidential campaign committee

need not allocate expenses for

satellite news conferences to the

expenditure limit of any particular

state, but the committee must

allocate these expenses to its

national expenditure limit. The

satellite broadcast does not specifically fit the definition of media

expenses or overhead expenses,

both of which must be allocated to

state expenditure limits under

11 CFR 102.6(b)(2)(iii)(D).

The campaign intends to rent

satellite broadcast facilities for a

designated period of time and pay a

fee covering both satellite uplink

and studio time.

Senator Specter, located in

Washington, D.C, will be linked to

television media representatives

located in one or several states. The

reporters will ask questions, and the

senator will answer them just as he

would in an ordinary face-to-face

press conference. He will have no

control over the content of reporters' questions.

The campaign will also send

press releases to television news

organizations nationwide so that

they have the opportunity to monitor

the interviews and use the videotape , just as when a press conference occurs in a given state.

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act, a Presidential

candidate who becomes eligible for

matching payments to finance a

campaign for the Presidential

nomination of a political party is

subject to expenditure limits.

2 U.S.c. §441 a(b) and 26 U.S.c.

§9035. These limits include a

national limit and sublimits for each

state based on its voting age population . 2 U.S.C. §441a(b)(l)(A).

Commission regulations state that

print and broadcast media advertisements must be allocated to one (or

more) state limits. Also included in

state limit categories are expenditures

for mass mailings and campaign

materials directed at a particular

state, overhead expenses, expenditures for special telephone programs

and certain public opinion poll

expenses. 11 CFR 106.2(b)(ii), (iii),

(iv), and (v).

The satellite broadcast expenses

proposed by Senator Specter's

Presidential campaign would not be

viewed as advertisement costs. First ,

the campaign expects the audience

to be restricted to media representatives. Additionally, the proposal

does not ensure that any news media

organizations will take the opportunity to interview the candidate, and

it does not allow the campaign to

control the use of interview materials. Nor do the expenses fit the

definition of state office overhead

expenses or any other specific

category defined in 11 CFR

102.6(b)(2)(iii)(D). Consequently,

Arlen Specter '96 is not required to

allocate the satellite broadcast

expenses described in his request to

the state-by-state expenditure limit.

It must, however, count them

against the national limit.

Date issued: September 22, 1995;

Length: 4 pages...

AO 1995-31 and AO 1995-32

Permissible Funding Sources

for Host Committees

The San Diego Host Committee

for the 1996 Republican Presidential

nominating convention (AO 1995-

31) may accept donations from a

bank's holding company and from a

wholly-owned bank subsidiary such

as a mortgage company.

Similarly, Chicago's Committee

for ' 96, the host committee for the

1996 Democratic Presidential

nominating convention (AO 1995-

32), may accept donations from a

bank's holding company, a whollyowned bank subsidiary, a company

wholly-owned by a bank ' s holding

Federal Election Commission RECORD

company and a credit union .

Donations from these sources are

legal as long as: (l) the contributing

company is located or has a branch

office in the corresponding convention city; and (2) the contributing

company can demonstrate that its

revenue is suffic ient to cover the

amount of its donations without

relying on monies derived from a

bank. The host committees may also

accept personal donations from the

presidents of these entities so long

as these individuals reside in the

corresponding convention city.

The host committees may not,

however, accept donations from a

bank chartered pursuant to state law,

even if it is located in a convention

city.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits banks and

corporations from making donations

in connection with federal elections.

2 U.S.c. §441b(a).

(continued on page 12)

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEe's Public

Records Office .

1995-12

Filing Dates for the Illinois

Special Election s (60 FR 50623,

September 29, 1995)

1995-13

11 CFR 100. 106, 109 and 114:

Express Advocacy, Independent

Expenditures, Corporate and

Labor Organizat ion Expend itures;

Final Rule, Announcement of

Effective Date (60 FR 52069,

October 5, 1995)

1995-14

11 CFR 110: Disclaimers; Final

Rule (60 FR 52069, October 5,

1995)

1995-15

Filing Dates for the Oregon

Special Elections (60 FR 53374,

October 13, 1995) •

II
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

There are exceptions to this ban,

however. Local businesses and

organizations, including corporations and labor organizations, may

make donations to host committees

for certain limited purposes, such as:

defraying administrative expenses

such as salaries, rent, travel and

liability insurance; promoting the

suitability of their city as a convention site; welcoming convention

attendees; providing the use of an

auditorium or convention center;

providing transportation and law

enforcement; and other similar

convention-related facilities and

services. II CFR 9008.52(c).

The companies and the credit

union described by the host committees have branches located in the

corresponding convention cities.

They qualify, therefore, as local

businesses.

Banks are not included in the

exception for donations to host

committees. 2 U.S.c. §441b(a). The

Commission purposely made this

distinction to ensure that donations

to defray convention expenses are

commercially rather than politically

motivated. The host committees

may not, therefore, accept donations

of any kind from any kind of bank,

irrespective of whether it is a

national, state or local bank .

The Commission notes that the

term "bank" as it is used in 11 CFR

9008.52 does not encompass credit

unions. The credit union is therefore

a permissible source of donations.

The other companies are also

permissible sources because, even

though they are associated with

banks, their donations would be

funded with monies that are not

derived from banks and because

their donations would be used to

promote their respective convention

cities and provide certain services

and facilities rather than to influence

the outcome of a federal election.

Lastly, host committees may

accept donations from local indi12

viduals. 11 CFR 9008 .52(c). Since

the presidents of the companies and

the credit union reside in convention

cities, their donations may be

accepted by the corresponding host

committee.

A host committee that accepts

donations must abide by the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the Act. 2 U.S.c.

§437 and 11 CFR 9008 .51(b).

Date Issued: September 22, 1995;

Length: 3 pages (AO 1995-31) and

5 pages (AO 1995-32)...

AO 1995-33

Sending PAC Solicitations

Through an Executive's

Secretary

The Coastal Employee Action

Fund , the separate segregated fund

(or PAC) of the Coastal Corporation, may send to secretaries who

routinely handle correspondence for

their supervisors, who are executives, electronic newsletters containing PAC solicitations. Such

transmissions, however, must be

accompanied by a clear note to the

secretary, informing him or her that

the material is intended for the

corporate executive.

A corporate PAC may freely

solicit only members of its connected corporation's restricted class.

This includes the corporation's

executive and administrative

personnel, its stockholders and the

families of these groups. 2 U.S.c.

§441b(b)(4)(A)(i).

In the case at hand, the secretary

is receiving the solicitation as part

of a communication intended for his

or her executive supervisor. The

secretary is therefore merely an

intermediary, functioning in accordance with his or her usual and

normal duties. Based on the nature

of the function of the secretaries in

this case, the PAC may send them

the newsletter, complete with

solicitations, so long as the secretaries are informed that it is intended

Novemb er 1995

for their executive supervisors. This

may be done through a computer

cover note .

Date Issued: September 22, 1995;

Length: 3 pages...

AO 1995-35

Internet Solicitations by

Presidential Committee

Alexander for President, Inc.,

Governor Lamar Alexander's

principal Presidential campaign

committee for 1996, may solicit

contributions over the Internet as

long as certain conditions are met.

These solicitations must include the

proper disclaimers and requests for

contributor information, as required

of all written solicitations.

Under the committee's proposal,

contributors solicited over the

Internet will be instructed to send

their checks via the U.S. Postal

Service to the committee treasurer at

campaign headquarters.

The solicitation will include the

disclaimer: "Paid for by Alexander

for President, Inc." This disclaimer

complies with the requirements at

2 U.S.c. §44ld(a)(l) and II CFR

110.11(a)(l)(i).

The solicitation will also include

a request for contributor information, stating that this information is

required of contributors who, in the

aggregate, contribute more than

$200 to the committee in a calendar

year; this request meets the requirements of 11 CFR 104.7(b)(l ). The

committee indicates that it will send

a follow-up mailing to any contributor whose contribution does not

include this information. This

fulfills the committee's obligation

under the "best efforts" provisions.

11 CFR 104.7(b)(2).

A contribution solicited over the

Internet will be considered just like

any other contribution for matching

fund purposes.

Date Issued : September 22, 1995;

Length: 5 pages...
November /995 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Contributions Received from Individuals and PACs by Winners

of '92 and '94 House Elections: First Six Months of '93 and '95

These pie graphs are provided here as a supplement to the press release of

September 1. They are based on data contained in the release. Note that in

1993, the House consisted of 195 returning and 63 freshmen Democrats, and

129 returning and 47 freshmen Republicans. Presently, the House is composed of 187 returning and 15 freshmen Democrats, and 159 returning and 73

freshmen Republicans.

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests

(AORs) are available for review and

conunent in the Public Records Office.

AOR1995-36

Disaffiliation of PACs connected

with joint venture partnership and a

new corporation (AK Steel ; September 13, 1995; 5 pages plus l-page

attachment) • 1Returning Republicans --- Republican Freshman

_ _ _IReturning Democrats

_ Democratic Freshman

Statistics Contributions from Individuals

1995

($21.7 Million)

1995

($21.7 Million)

$8.9M

$8.8M

1993

($17 Million)

$1.6M

1993

($14.5 Million)

$4.3M

Contributions from PACs

House Republicans Report

Large Fundraising Gains

Based on campaign finance

reports filed with the FEC, the 232

Republicans in Congress raised

$28.1 million in the first six months

of 1995. During the same period of

time in the last election cycle (the

first six months of 1993), 176

Republican members of Congress

raised $12.9 million. The 1995

increase over 1993 can be attributed

to the 73 Republican freshmen, who

accounted for $10.4 million of the

$28 .1 million total.

House Democrats, however, had

a less successful first six months.

Their receipts during that time

dropped from $21.1 million for 258

members of Congress in 1993 to

$17.4 million for 202 members of

Congress in 1995.

Meanwhile, 1996 House challengers and open-seat candidates

have raised $3.2 million dollars,

divided equally between 24 Democrats and 50 Republicans.

An FEC press release issued on

September 1 contains this and other

information, including rankings of

House members for the following

categories: total receipts, contributions received (from individuals and

from PACs), disbursements, cash on

hand and debts owed . A copy of this

(continued on page 14)

/ 3
Federal Election Commission RECORD

. November 1995

Democratic and GOP National Party Federal Account Receipts:

Totals for First Six Months of '95 ...

NRSC

RNC

NRCC

Statistics

(continued from page J3)

release may be ordered through the

Flashfax system as part of a package

on House and Senate fundraising in

the first six months of 1995; use a

touch tone phone to dial 202/501-

3413 and request document 630.

The accompanying pie graphs

show the share of individual and PAC

contributions received by House

incumbents. They are based on figures

derived from the data contained in

the September 1 press release. •

. .. and Broken Down by Committee and by Source

($52.0 Million)

Republican National Cmtee.

Nation al Republican Senatorial Cmtee .

Nation al Republican Congressional Cmtee.

GOP Receipts More Than

Double Democratic Party

Receipts

In the first six months of this

election cycle Republican national

party committees reversed a downward trend by significantly outpacing the fundraising efforts of their

Democratic counterparts. Receipts

for the Republican National Committee, the National Republican

Senatorial Committee and the

National Republican Congressional

Committee totaled $52 million in

the first half of 1995-a 43 percent

increase over the first six months of

the previous election cycle.

By contrast, the Democratic

National Committee, the Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee and

the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee raised a total of

$20.4 million in the first half of 1995,

a 10 percent increase over the first six

months of the previous election cycle.

Individual contributors accounted

for 92.5 percent of the GOP's $52

million and 78.8 percent of the Democratic party's $20.4 million in receipts.

With regard to "soft money, " I the

J "Soft money " refers to funds raised and

spent outside the limits and prohibitions

ofthe federal election law. This includes

contributions that exceedfederal limits

and corporate and/or labor organization

treasury funds. Such monies may not be

used in connection with federal elections.

NRCC DCCC but may be used for other purposes.

_Other

i I Individual

($20.4 Million)

Democratic National Cmtee.

Democratic Congressinoal Campaign Cmtee .

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmtee.

RNC DNC NRSC DSCC

o

5

10

15

20

Millions of $

25

14
November 1995

Republican national committees

raised $ I6.8 million while the Democrats raised $10.8 million during the

first six months of 1995. During the

same time period in the previous

election cycle, the Democrats raised

$8.6 million and the Republicans

raised $6.5 million in soft money.

This information and more is

contained in a September 1, 1995,

FEC press release. To obtain a copy

of this press release, contact the

Office of Public Disclosure (800/

424-9530) or use the Flashfax

service (202/501-3413) and request

document 631.

The accompanying graphs are

based on data contained in the press

release. ..

Audits

Friends of Marc Little Audit

Report

An FEC audit of Friends of Marc

Little, Mr. Marc Little's principal

campaign committee during his

1994 bid for the U.S. House seat in

Florida's 3rd district, found that the

committee:

• Failed to maintain adequate

records for its disbursements. The

audit found no record other than an

entry on a bank statement for

$17,447 in disbursements and

found no canceled check, invoice

or receipted bill for $34,898 in

disbursements in excess of $200 .

AdditionaIly, the committee did

not provide documentation for

$12,237 in in-kind contributions.

• Received $4,803 in prohibited

corporate contributions.

• Received $3,000 in excessive

contributions from one contributor.

In its FEC reports, the committee

wrongfuIly attributed the excessive

amount to three other contributors.

In response to the findings, Mr.

Little said that as the candidate he

was not responsible for maintaining

the records and that he did not have

the time or the money to obtain the

required documentation, or to

research or refund excessive or

prohibited contributions.

This audit was conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.c. §438(b), which

authorizes the Commission to

conduct audits of any political

committee that files reports that fail

to meet the threshold level of

compliance set by the Commission.

Subsequent to a final audit report,

the FEC may choose to pursue

unresolved issues in an enforcement

matter. ..

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the "number" (month) of

the 1995 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indicates the

page number in that issue. For example , " 1:4" means that the article

is in the January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1994-33: Calling card solicitations,3:5

1994-34 : Consolidating membership

association PACs following a

merger, 3:7

1994-35 : Terminating reporting

obligations, 5:5

1994-36 : Solicitation of stockholders in an employee-owned

company, 5:5

1994-37: Allocating between federal

and nonfederal campaigns, 3:7

1994-39: Solicitation of affiliates by

a membership organization, 3:8

1994-40 : Storing records on microfilm, 3:9

1995-1: Respondents and the

confidentiality provisions, 4:8

1995-2: Membership organization's

solicitation of representatives of

Federal Election Commission RECORD

member firms, 6:3

1995-3: Running simultaneous

Senate and Presidential campaigns,4:8

1995-5: Use of contributor lists

derived from FEC reports, 4:9

1995-7: Candid ate's personal

liability for bank loan, 6:4

1995-8: Committee's rental of

candidate-owned office and

equipment, 6:5

1995-9: Operating a political

committee in cyberspace, 6:6

1995-10: Ownership of committee

records, 6:7

1995-11: Status of limited liability

company, 6:8

1995-12: Affiliation and cross

solicitation between trade association federation and state associa -

tions, 8:9

1995-13: Definition of member

applied to membership association, 8:10

1995-14: Operating a PAC booth at

a joint convention, 8:11

1995-15: Foreign-owned subsidiary:

earmarked contributions and

payroll deductions, 8:12

1995-16: Attaining national party

status, 9:3

1995-17 : Trade association federation and affiliated state and local

units; donation of raffle prizes and

one-third rule, 9:4

1995-18 : Campaign funds given for

portrait of former House Committee Chairman, 8:13

1995-19: Discovering illegal

contributions in a committee's

treasury , 9:5

1995-20: Campaign funds used for

travel expenses of candidate's

family, 8:14

1995-21: Campaign' s use of funds

awarded in law suit, 9:6

1995-22: Reporting reimbursements

of aIlocated expenses, 10:6

1995-23: Paying legal expenses with

campaign funds, 9:6

1995-24: Proceeds from sale of

candidate's book used for debt

retirement, 10:7

1995-25: AIlocation of costs for ads

(continued on page 16)

15
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index

(continued from page J5)

in support of party's agenda, 10:7

1995-26: Campaign funds may not

be used for club dues, 10:8

1995-28: Solicitati ons by membership association, 11:9

1995-29: Disbursement of funds

donated by convicted defrauder to

court-appointed receiver, 11:10

1995-30: Satellite broadcast expenses not alloca ted to Presidential campaign's state limits, 11:11

1995-31 and 1995-32: Permissible

funding sources for host committees, 11:II

1995-33: Sending PAC solicitations

through an executi ve's secretary,

11:12

1995-35: Internet solicitations by

Presidential committee, 11:12

Compliance

$25,000 Annual contribution limit, 4:1

Contribution limits (MURs 3886

and 3929), 10:1

MUR 2884 : Reporting misstatements and excessive contributions, 7:2

MUR 3452 : Excessive contributions, 6:8

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington , DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300 *

Printed on recycled paper

MUR 3540: Corporate facilitation, 1:2

MUR 3650: Loan guarantors, 1:2

MUR 3972: Unreported transactions

between candidate and campaign, 11 :6

MUR 4016/4076: Reporting earmarked contributions, 7:2

Court Cases

FEC v. _ _

- Branstool, 6: 12

- Christian Action Network, 9:2

- Citizens for Wofford, 6:13

- Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 8:1

- Free the Eagle, 8:5

- Fulani (94-446 1), 6: 12

- Hartnett for U.S. Senate, 11:9

- Michigan Republ ican State

Committee, 5:4

- Montoya, 2:7; 5:4

- NRA Political Victory Fund, 2: 1

I _ National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-1612), 4:4; 8:4

- Populist Party, 7:9

- RUFFPAC, 8:5

- Williams, 4:5

v.FEC

- Albanese, 7:8

- Buchanan for President, 11:8

- Bush-Q uayle '92, 11:9

- Center for Responsive Politics, 11:9

November / f;95

- Condon, 3:5

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (93-132 1), 1:10

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-0349), 4:8

- Dukakis, 7:9

- Freedom Republicans, 2:6

- Froe lich, 8:5

- Fulani (94-1593), 4:6

- Lytle, I:10, 2:7

- National Republi can Senatorial

Committee (94-5148), 5:4

- Robertson, 4:6

- Simon, 7:9

- White, 11:8

- Whitmore, 2:7

- Wilson, 2:7; 5: I

McIntyre v. Ohio, 6:12

Rove v. Thornburgh, 4:7

Reports

Pilot program for electronic filing

gets underway, 9:1

Reports due in October, 10:2

Schedule for 1995, 1:4

Spec ial elec tions for CA, IL and

OR, 11:2

800 Line Articles

Administrative termination, 2:9

Corporate facilitation, 6:I

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31