December 1995

Table of Contents

Compliance

MUR 3620: Tallying Programs

and Earmarking Requirements

2 MURs Released to the Public

Court Cases

1 Akins v. FEC

4 FEC v. Survival Education Fund

5 Funk v. FEC

6 New Litigation

Information

3 Primary Dates and Ballot Access

Deadlines Available via Flashfax

13 Flashfax Menu

Audits

7 Republican State Committee of

Delaware

7 Democratic Executive Committee

of Florida

8 People for English

6 Federal Register Notices

8 Advisory Opinions

Conferences

12 Conferences in Chicago and

Washington, D.C. for early 1996

Public Funding

12 Clinton and LaRouche Certified

14 Index

Federal Election Commission

Compliance

MUR3620

Tallying Programs and

Earmarking Requirements

The Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee (DSCC)

agreed to pay a $75 ,000 penalty for

failing to comply with the Federal

Election Campaign Act 's (the Act's)

earmarking' requirements. This

compliance case-MUR 3620

(Matter Under Review 3620)-

stems from the National Republican

Senatorial Committee 's complaint

that the DSCC improperly transmitted and reported earmarked contributions. As a result, the Feinstein

for Senate '94, Abrams '92 and

(continued on page 2)

I The regulations define H earmarking"

as a designation or direct or indirect

instruction resulting in all or part ofa

contribution being made to, or expended on behalfof, a clearly identified

candidate or his or her authorized

committee. Jl CFR JlO.6(b)(1). Any

person who receives an earmarked

contribution must forward it to the

candidate or authorized committee no

later than 10 days after receiving the

contribution. 11 CFR 102.8 and

110.6(b)(2). The intermediary or

conduit ofan earmarked contribution

must report the source ofthe contribution and the intended recipient to both

the FEC and the intended recipient.

Jl CFR §JlO.6(c)(1).

Volume 21, Number 12

Court Cases

Akins, et al. v,FEe

On September 29, 1995, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia ruled that the FEC 's use

of a "major purpose test" to narrow

the definition of "political committee" was valid , that its application of

the "major purpose test" in this case

was reasonable, and that its investigation into the matt ers raised by

appellants was adequate . The court

therefore affirmed the district

court's ruling dismissing appellants'

complaint that the FEe's actions

were contrary to law .

Background

On January 9,1989, Mr. James E.

Akins and his colleagues (former

ambassadors, congressmen and

government officials) filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that the

American Israel Public Affairs

Committee (AlPAC), a nonprofit

corporation, qualified as a political

committee under the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act).

Appellants asserted, inter alia , that

because ALPAC had made expenditures and contributions in excess of

$1,000 in a year for the purpose of

influencing federal elections, it was

a political committee and as such

was subject to the Act's contribution

limits and financial disclosure

(continued on page 3)
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

Sanford for Senate committees

allegedly accepted excessive

contributions from individuals who

had already made the maximum

contribution to their campaigns.

At issue was the OSCC "tally"

program, which enabled "maxedout" contributors to express support

for particular candidates by tallying

their OSCC contribution to those

candidates. The OSCC then credited candidates for raising money

for the OSCC's coordinated expenditure?program and other activities.

2 U.S.c. §441a(d). It was OSCC's

stated policy and practice to inform

2Coordinated expenditures differ from

contributions because the party must

spend the funds on behalfofthe

candidate rather than give the money

directly to the candidate . Although they

may consult each other about these

expenditures, only the party committee

making the expenditures-not the

candidate committee-must report them

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD)

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, ViceChairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Trevor Potter, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Dario Bard, Editor

Deborah Levenson, Associate

Editor

2

contributors that it exercised sole

discretion regarding the use of

tallied contributions, but that the

amount "tallied" for a given candidate was a significant factor taken

into account when deciding how

much to spend on that candidate.

The OSCC admitted that it sometimes failed to inform contributors

that its official policy barred acceptance of earmarked contributions.

The OSCC and certain candidate

committees produced and distributed fundraising solicitations which

could be fairly read to solicit

earmarked contributions and which

lacked further clarification and

explanation to avoid such a reading.

For example, one candidate's

solicitation letter said, "For those of

you who have already maxed out to

my campaign, the OSCC tally is an

avenue through which you can offer

more support." Another letter noted:

"As an individual, you can contribute up to $1,000 directly to my

committee. Contributions in excess

of $1,000 must be made payable to

the OSCC and marked for my tally."

During the 1992 and 1994 cycles,

the OSCC raised approximately

$19,500,000 in tallied funds. The

Commission did not determine the

percentage of contributors who

intended that their tallied contributions be earmarked toward specific

campaigns.

Under the election law, when a

contribution is earmarked by a

contributor for a particular candidate, both the conduit and recipient

committees must follow certain

requirements. In this case, the OSCC

failed to treat, as earmarked contributions, those tallied contributions

that had been earmarked for specific

candidates. The contributions were

not forwarded within 10 days, they

were not reported as earmarked by

either the conduit or intermediary

and they were not counted against

the contributors' candidate limits, all

in violation of 2 U.S.c. §44la(a)(8)

and 11 CFR 102.8, 11O.6(b)(2)(ili)

and 11O.6(c)(l) and (2).

December J995

In addition to paying the $75,000

civil penalty, the OSCC agreed to

implement remedial measures in

future operation of the tally program. These measures include

refunding to contributors improperly

handled donations or forwarding

them to the designated candidate in

accordance with 2 U.S.c. §441(a)(8)

and 11 CFR 102.8, 11O.6(b)(2)(iii)

and 110.6(c)(l). Additionally, the

OSCC in its training programs and

solicitation materials agreed to

inform its staff, campaigns and

contributors of its policy not to

accept earmarked contributions.

Finally, the OSCC agreed to review

its fundraising solicitations and

those of candidates to ensure that

they abide by the Act. ..

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently

released for public review . This

listing is based on the FEC press

release of October 20. Files on

closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

MUR3941

Respondents: (a) The Honorable

Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX),

(b) Kay Bailey Hutchinson for

Senate Committee, Kenneth W.

Anderson, treasurer (TX)

Complainant: James C. Currey (TX)

Subject: Personal use of campaign

funds

Disposition: (a-b) Reason to

believe, but took no further action

MUR4003

Respondents: (a) The Honorable

Dan Rostenkowski (IL),

(b) Rostenkowski for Congress

Committee, Leo V. Magrini,

treasurer (IL), (c) Dan Rostenkowski

Campaign Fund, Leo V. Magrini,

treasurer (lL)
December1995

Complainant: Rob Kuzman (FL)

Subject: Personal use of campaign

funds

Disposition: (a-b) Reason to

believe, but took no further action ;

(c) no reason to believe

MUR4186

Respondents: Phoenix Firefighters

Local 493 Fire PAC Comm.ittee,

Michael Gibson, treasurer (AZ)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: $4,000 civil penalty

MUR4220

Respondents: North Carolina

Democratic Election Campaign,

Lyndo Tippett, treasurer (NC)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

report timely

Disposition: $2,000 civil penalty"

Information

Primary Dates and Ballot

Access Filing Deadlines for

1996 Available on Flashfax

Charts of 1996 Presidential and

congressional primary date s and

candidate filing deadlines for ballot

access are available on Flashfax. To

obtain this information, call 202/

501-3413 and place an order for

document #550 for Presidential

information and document #345 for

Congressional information.

Information in the charts was

supplied by state election offices.

The dates listed are still subject to

change by state legislatures or court

challenges. As changes occur, the

list will be updated ...

(Information continued on page 13)

Court Ca es

(continued from page 1)

requirements. 2 U.S.c. §§431(4)(A),

433, 434 and 441a.

The FEC undertook an investigation into the matters raised by Mr.

Akins and concluded that AIPAC

had likely made campaign-related

expenditures in excess of $1,000 in

some years. Nevertheless, the FEC

concluded that AIPAC did not

qualify as a political comm.ittee

because its campaign-related

activities constituted only a small

portion of its overall activities and

were not AIPAC's major purpose.

Rather, the FEC determined that

AIPAC was primarily a lobbying

organization and was therefore not

subject to the Act's contribution

limits or the reporting requirements

applicable to political committees.'

Mr. Akins, unsatisfied with the

FEC's conclusions, brought this

case before the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia, arguing

that the FEC's determination that

AIPAC was not a political comm.ittee was contrary to law. Mr. Akins

challenged the legality of the majorpurpose test, the adequacy of the

FEC's investigation and the FEC's

conclusion that AIPAC was not a

political comm.ittee under the Act.

The district court granted summary judgment, upholding the

FEC's conclusions and ruling that

the major-purpose standard was

legal and that the FEC's investigation was adequate.

Determination of Standing

Before addressing appellants'

claim on the merits, the appeals

court determined appellants had

constitutional standing because they

J The Commi ssion did find that, as a

corporation, AlPAC had violat ed

2 u.s. C. §44Jb, which prohibits

corporationsfrom making contributions

or expenditures in connection with

f ederal elections. However, the Commission unanimously voted to take no

further action.

Federal Election CommissionRECORD

successfully showed "injury in fact

that is fairly traceable to the defendant's action and redressable by the

relief requested." Animal Legal

Defense Fund, Inc. v. Espy, 23 F.3d

496, 498 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Valley

Forge Christian College v. Americans Unitedfor Separation of

Church and State, Inc. 454 U.S.

464,474-75 (1982). In determining

that appellants met this requirement,

the appeals court accepted appellants' argument that lack of information about AIPAC's contributors

and expenditures would impair their

ability, as citizens, voters and

members of the public, to inform

and influence policy makers.

Court's Standard of Review

The appeals court explained that

under 2 U.S.c. §437g(a)(8)(C),

appellants bore "the difficult

burden" of demonstrating that the

Comm.ission's interpretation was

impermissible and contrary to law,

while the Comm.ission had only to

show that its decision concerning

Akins's administrative complaint

was "sufficiently reasonable." The

court said it would "presume that

the Comm.ission's action was valid,

even if the court would have interpreted the Act in a different manner." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.

Natural Resources Defense Council,

Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-45 (1984).

Defining "Political Committee"

The court of appeals determined

that this case centered around the

question of what constitutes a

political comm.ittee. The Act defines

a political comm.ittee as any group

of persons that either receives

contributions or makes expenditures

for the purpose of influencing a

federal election which, in the

aggregate, exceed $1,000 in a year.

2 U.S.c. §43l (4)(A). The Act limits

the amount of money individuals and

other groups can give to political

comm.ittees. 2 U.S.c. §441a(a)(l)(C).

It also requires political comm.ittees

to register with the Comm.ission and

(continued on page 4) .

3
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Ca e

(continued from page 4)

to file financial disclosure reports.

2 U.S.c. §§433 and 434.

Appellants argued that the Act's

definition of a political committee

"depends on a single quantitative

standard: whether its aggregate

contributions are in excess of $1,000

in a calendar year." They asserted

that because the statutory language

is clear, the Commission's interpretation was not entitled to deference

under Chevron. The appellants also

argued that the major-purpose test

conflicted with the fundamental

purposes of the Act.

The FEC argued that the definition of a political committee at

§431(4)(A) was restricted by a

major-purpose test set by Buckley v.

Valeo and FEC v, Massachusetts

Citizensfor Life. Under this test, a

group qualifies as a political committee if, in addition to exceeding

the $1,000 threshold at §431(4)(A),

its major purpose is the nomination,

election or defeat of a candidate.

The court agreed with appellants

that the Act's definition of political

committee is clear. But it also

examined prior court decisions in

order to determine whether the

FEe's use of the major-purpose test

was contrary to law.

The Major-Purpose Test

In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme

Court stated that to fulfill the

purposes of the Act, the term,

political committee, "need only

encompass organizations that are

under the control of a candidate or

the major purpose of which is the

nomination or election of a candidate."

Applying this principle in MCFL

v. FEC, the Court found that although MCFL, a small, incorporated

issue-advocacy group, had made a

$10,000 independent expenditure to

influence federal elections, it had

not violated the corporate prohibi4

tion on independent expenditures in

2 U.S.c. §441b because it possessed

certain characteristics that made it

exempt from that ban.'

The Court attached a corollary to

its ruling: should MCFL's spending

on independent expenditures

become "so extensive that [its]

major purpose may be regarded as

campaign activity," it would become a political committee.

The court of appeals also cited its

own previous ruling in FEC v.

Machinists Non-Partisan Political

League. 3ln that opinion, the court

recognized the constitutional

difficulties inherent in applying the

term political committee to groups

that were neither under the control

of a candidate nor had a major

purpose of promoting or defeating a

clearly identified candidate. Therefore, the appeals court had ruled that

draft groups (groups seeking to

encourage an individual to become a

candidate) were not political committees.

The Appeals Court's Conclusions

The court of appeals found that

because previous court decisions

had "limited the application of [the

Act's] restrictions for political

committee to groups whose majorpurpose is the nomination or

election of a candidate, the FEe's

interpretation of the major-purpose

2 The Court based its holding on three

features ofMCFL, "one ofwhich was

that its purpose was promoting political

activities, not amassing capital. " The

other two features cited by the Court

were the citizens' group 's lack of

shareholders or other persons having a

claim on its assets or earnings and the

policy ofthe group, which was not

formed by a labor union or business

corporation, to refuse contributions

from these entities. Massachusetts

Citizens for Life, 470 UiS. at 24.

JFEC v. Machinists Non-Partisan

Political League, 655 F.2d 380,391-92

(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 896

(1981).

December,J995

test was not contrary to law."

Further, the court concluded that

the Commission correctly applied

the major purpose test in this case

and that the Commission's determination that AIPAC was not a

political committee was not contrary

to law.

Lastly, after a review of the

General Counsel's report, the

appeals court determined that the

FEC conducted a fairly extensive

inquiry into Mr. Akins's claims and

arrived at a reasonable conclusion.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia (94-5088),

D.Ct. No. 92 CVOI864, September

29,1995.•

FEe v,Survival Education

Fund, Inc. et al.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit on September 12,

1995, denied the FEe's claim that

2 U.S.c. §441b prohibited Survival

Education Fund, Inc. (SEF) and

National Mobilization for Survival,

Inc. (NMS) from making independent expenditures in connection

with a federal election. However, it

affirmed the FEe's claim that the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) requires communications

which solicit contributions to

identify who paid for them and to

state whether they were authorized

by a candidate.

On January 12, 1994, the U.S.

District Court for the Southern

District of New York ruled that

defendants' pre-election 1984

communications to the general

public, although "undeniably

hostile" to President Reagan, did not

constitute prohibited corporate

expenditures because they did not

expressly advocate his defeat. The

district court said copies of two

letters distributed by the organizations fell short of express advocacy

because they lacked the necessary

specific wording, such as "vote

against" or "defeat."
Decemb er 1995

Because the district court determined that the letters contained no

express advocacy, it also granted

summary judgment to defendants on

the FEC's claim that SEF and NMS

had failed to comply with the

disclosure requirements of 2 U.S.c.

§441d(a)(3).

Corporate Expenditure

The appeals court declined to

address the express advocacy

question and instead used different

grounds to affirm the district court's

decision that defendants' letter did

not violate the law. The appeals

court accepted SEF's argument that

SEF was within the "classof nonprofit advocacy corporations whose

independent campaign advocacy the

Supreme Court has found to be

exempt from the prohibition in

§441b(a) because of the First

Amendment. The appeals court

relied on the Supreme Court's ruling

in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens

for Life (MCFL) to support this idea.

In that case, the Supreme Court

concluded that the prohibition on

corporate expenditures could not be

applied to independent political

communications made by certain

nonprofit groups. The Court determined that MCFL, a nonprofit

corporation formed for antiabortion

advocacy, had three characteristics

that made it "more akin to voluntary

political associations than business

firms." MCFL, 479 U.S. at 251. The

Court ruled that a corporation was

allowed to make independent

expenditures if:

• Its purpose was promoting political

activities as opposed to amassing

capital;

• It lacked shareholders or other

persons having a claim on its

assets or earnings; and

• It was not formed by a labor or

corporate organization and had a

policy of refusing contributions

from such entities.

The appeals court rejected FEC

arguments that SEF did not qualify

under these terms because, unlike

MCFL, it did not have an express

policy against accepting contributions from corporations or labor

unions, and had in fact accepted

corporate contributions. The court

maintained that the core concerns of

MFCL are the amount of for-profit

corporate funding a nonprofit

receives, rather than the establishment of a policy not to accept

corporate contributions. Day v.

Holahan, 34 f.3d 1356 (8th Cir.

1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 936

(1995). The court determined that

the evidence did not show that SEF

received a significant amount of

corporate contributions.

Disclaimer

With regard to the disclaimer

issue, the appeals court reversed the

district court ruling and upheld the

FEe's arguments that SEF and

NMS violated §441d(a)(3) in a July

1984 mailing. The court found that

even if the communication itself did

not expressly advocate the defeat of

a candidate (Ronald Reagan), it was

a solicitation for funds that "would

be used to advocate President

Reagan's defeat at the polls, not

simply to criticize his policies

during the election year." The letter

read: "your special election-year

contribution today will help us

communicate your views to hundreds of thousands of members of

the voting public (emphasis added),

letting them know why Ronald

Reagan and his anti-people policies

must be stopped."

Section 441 d(a)(3) requires

disclaimers in political communications that either expressly advocate

election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate, or solicit

contributions. The appeals court

only addressed the second category

in this case and concluded that

requiring disclosure of the identity

of a group that is soliciting a

Federal Election Commission RECORD

contribution does not run afoul of

the First Amendment.

The court concluded that §441d

(a)(3) serves several compelling

interests that justify any infringement on SEF's First Amendment

rights. The government has an

interest, the court reasoned, in

ensuring that contributors know

whether they are donating their

money directly to a candidate or,

instead, to independent critics of

another candidate. Further, disclosure of the identity of the sponsor of

a solicitation helps private contributors determine whether a new

contribution would cause them to

exceed their aggregate contribution

limit for that group .

Thus, the application of §441d

(a)(3) to SEF and NMS does not

conflict with the Supreme Court's

recent decision in McIntyre v. Ohio

Elections Commission. In that case ,

the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a state law banning the

distribution of anonymous campaign

literature. The Supreme Court

determined that Ohio "had not

shown that its interest in preventing

the misuse of anonymous electionrelated speech justified a prohibition

of all uses of that speech."

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit (94-6080), D.Ct. No.

89-CIV-0347, September 12,1995. ..

Funk, et ale v, FEe

On August 4, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia dismissed this case for

lack of prosecution.

Plaintiffs had sought a ruling that

the FEe's decision to take no action

on their administrative complaint,

MUR 3625, was contrary to law.

MUR 3625 alleged that the Valencia

National Bank made a prohibited inkind contribution by distributing to

all bank account holders a newsletter featuring an article congratulating bank chairman Howard McKeon

on his 1992 Republican primary

(continued on page 6)

5
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1995

1995-16

Filing Dates for the California

Special Elections (60 FR 55377,

October 31, 1995)

violated the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act).

Central to this case were expenditures for print and broadcast communications made by UEG in

opposition to Mr. Orton's opponent.

UEG reported the expenditures as

independent expendituresI on behalf

of Mr. Orton. However, the FEC

alleges that they were excess

contributions to the Orton campaign

because UEG had coordinated them

with Congressman Orton, in violation of2 U.S.c. §441a(a)(7)(B)(l).

Additionally, UEG failed to

comply with the Act's disclaimer

requirements. They state that when

a public communication advocates

the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate, it must include

a clear and conspicuous disclaimer

indicating whether the communication was authorized by the candidate

or his committee. The disclaimer

must also identify the name of the

person or committee that financed

the expenditure. 11 CFR 109.3 and

110.11; 2 U.S.c. §441d(a).

UEG made four allegedly independent expenditures during the

campaign's final weeks. Although

all four included disclaimers stating

who paid for the ad, none included a

statement as to whether the communication had been authorized by the

candidate or his committee, in

violation of2 U.S .c. §441d(a).

The FEC's complaint lists 10

counts, including the violations

described above and the committees'

failure to report the expenditures as

in-kind contributions, in violation of

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)(i). The

FEC also alleges that UEG filed its

statement of organization late, and

accepted prohibited in-kind corpoI An independent expenditure expressly

advocates the election or defeat ofa

clearly identified federal candidate. An

independent expenditure may not be

made with the candidate 's or authorized campaign committee 's cooperation, consent or consultation, or at their

request or suggestion. 11 CFR. 100.16.

Gottlieb, et al. v. FEC

Plaintiffs ask the court to order

the Commission to take action with

respect to a complaint (MUR 4192)

they filed on March 9, 1995. MUR

4192 alleged that the Clinton

campaign received more than $3

million in excess of entitlement

under the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act.

In the original administrative

complaint, plaintiffs alleged that

President Clinton, The Clinton For

President Committee (primary

committee), its treasurers and the

Clinton/Gore '92 General Election

Legal and Compliance (GELAC)

Fund violated 26 U.S.c. §§9034 and

9037. Plaintiffs also alleged that the

primary committee treated the same

contributions arbitrarily as both

matchable primary contributions

and contributions intended for the

GELAC Fund.

On August 16, 1995 , the Commission failed to adopt a recommendation of its General Counsel and

dismissed MUR 4192 without

finding that a violation of law had

occurred. The plaintiffs therefore

ask the court to find that the Commission's dismissal of MUR 4192

was contrary to law and to order the

Commission to take action in this

matter.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 1:95CVO1923,

October 11, 1995 ...

New Litigation

FEC v, Orton, et al.

The FEC on October 25, 1995,

filed for declaratory and injunctive

relief in U.S. District Court, District

of Utah, Central Division. The case

arose from an administrative

complaint which alleged that

Congressman William H. Orton of

Utah's Third Congressional District,

his 1990 campaign committee, and

Utahns for Ethical Government

(UEG), a political committee, had

1995-17

II CFR 9002: Electoral ColJege

Expenditures; Notice of

Disposition of Petition for

Rulemaking (60 FR 56268,

November 8, 1995)

1995-18

11 CFR 104, 110 and 114: Repeal

of Obsolete Rules; Final Rule and

Announcement of Effective Date

(60 FR 56506, November 9,

1995)

1995-19

11 CFR 9034 and 9038: Public

Financing of Presidential Primary

and General Election Candidates;

Final Rule and Correcting

Amendments (60 FR 57538,

November 16, 1995)

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEe's Public

Records Office.

Court Ca e

(continued from page 5)

victory in the race for California's

25th Congressional District seat.

Plaintiffs also asked the court to

find unconstitutional a provision of

the Federal Election Campaign Act

establishing the District of Columbia as the sole venue for certain

court cases.

For more details about the suit,

see page 9 of the October 1994

Record.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, Civil Action

No. 94-1894, August 4, 1995 ...

1995-20

II CFR 106, 9002-9008, 9032-

9034 and 9036-9039 : Public

Financing of Presidential Primary

and General Election Candidates;

Corrections (60 FR 57537,

November 16, 1995)

6
December 1995

rate contributions made in the names

of others, in violation of 2 U.S.c.

§§441(b), 441a(a)(l)(A), 441a(f),

441d, 44H, 433(a) and 434(b).

The FEC asks the court to assess

civil penalties totaling $94,260

against the defendants. In addition,

Orton for Congress would give up

$10,453 to the U.S. Treasury, the

amount of the excessive contributions the campaign committee

received. UEG would pay $1,800 to

the Treasury, the amount of prohibited contributions it received.

U.S. District Court, District of

Utah, Central Division, No.

2:95CV-0977, October 25, 1995...

Audits '.. . .

Republican State Committee

of Delaware: Final Audit

Report

A final audit of the Republican

State Committee of Delaware found

that the committee improperly

disclosed during calendar years

1991 and 1992 its shared federal and

nonfederal activities, contributions

received and expenditures. It also

received impermissible corporate

funds during this period.

The Commission conducted the

audit pursuant to 2 U.S.c. §438(b),

which states the Commission may

audit any political committee whose

reports fail to meet a threshold level

of compliance set by the Commission.' The final audit report noted

the committee's effort to follow the

recommendations of the interim

audit report.

J Following Commission recommendations does not necessarily preclude the

agency from conducting enforc ement

proceedings with regard to apparent

violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act.

Shared Federal and Nonfederal

Activities

Initially filed committee reports

improperly disclosed or failed to

disclose information about shared

federal and nonfederal activity,

including $212,333 in transfers from

its nonfederal account to its federal

account. In response to the interim

audit report, the committee filed

amended reports that corrected the

public record .

The committee also transferred

from its nonfedera1 account approximately $41,000 in excess of the nonfederal account's portion of shared

expenses. 11 CFR 106.5 and 102.5(a).

The committee later filed an amendment recognizing an outstanding

debt to its nonfederal account.

Disclosure of Financial Activity

In its initial reports, the committee understated its totals for receipts

and disbursements by $214,688 and

$201,299, respectively. Additionally, the committee misstated its

beginning and ending cash and

failed to itemize $32,500 in contributions. Further, the committee

failed to disclose the occupation and

employer of contributors for $37,600

in itemized contributions. Finally,

reported entries for $66,707 in disbursements were either incomplete

or inaccurate. 2 U.S.c. §434(b)(l)-(5).

In response to the interim audit

report, the Committee filed amendments which corrected the public

record.

Receipt of Impermissible Funds

The committee received $4,000

in impermissible funds from the

Republican National State Elections

Committee corporate account.

11 CFR 102.6(a)(ii) and (iv). The

committee refunded this contribution after receiving the interim audit

report...

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Democratic Executive

Committee of Florida: Audit

Report

An FEC audit of the Democratic

Executive Committee of Florida (the

committee) found that, during

calendar year 1991-92, the committee had:

• Improperly reported shared federal

and nonfederal activities;

• Understated reported totals for

receipts and disbursements;

• Failed to disclose contributions

from political action committees

and interest received; and

• Failed to itemize debts and obligations.

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

states the Commission may audit

any political committee whose

reports 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 action.

Shared Federal and Nonfederal

Activities

The committee's reports, as

initially filed, did not properly

disclose information related to its

shared federal and nonfederal

activities. The committee generally

paid for shared activity from its

nonfederal account and then reimbursed its nonfederal account with

federal account funds. In addition,

the Committee failed to disclose

payroll transactions ($820,269) and

other disbursements ($25,738).

Finally, $62,591 of the committee's

nonfederal account expenditures

appeared to have been made in

connection with federal elections.

As a result of the manner in

which the committee managed its

shared activities, transfers between

various federal and nonfederal

accounts totalling $748,413 were

not itemized as required. 11 CFR

106.5 and 102.5(a).

(continued on page 8)

7
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Audits

(continued from page 7)

Discl?sure of Financial Activity,

Receipts and Debts and

Obligations

The committee understated its

total receipts and disbursements by

$797 ,942 and $843,379, respectively, and misstated its beginning

and ending cash totals. Also, the

committee failed to itemize contributions from political action committees ($10,000) and interest

received ($3,967). Finally, debts and

obligations amounting to $31,929

were not disclosed as required.

2 U.S.c. §434(b) . ..

People for English Audit

Report

An FEC audit of People for

English, Mr. Philip S. English's

principal campaign committee

during his 1994 bid for the U.S.

House seat in Pennsylvania's 21st

district, found that the committee:

• Received $4,065 in apparent

excessive contributions from nine

contributors. The committee issued

refund checks to the contributors

but these refunds were not timely,

One $1,000 refund check remains

uncashed.

• Received $3,200 in apparent

corporate contributions from eight

contributors. The committee issued

refund checks to the contributors,

but these refunds were not timely.

One $200 refund check remains

uncashed.

• Failed to disclose in its FEC

reports the addresses of a number

of vendors that received committee

disbursements. The committee has

since filed amended Schedule Bs,

disclosing most of the missing

addresses.

• Failed to disclose in its FEC

reports the occupation and name of

employer of a number of contributors, and failed to demonstrate that

it undertook "best efforts" to

8

obtain this information. The

committee has since filed amended

Schedule As that disclose this

information for some of the

contributors and has submitted

copies of letters sent to the others

requesting the missing information.

• Failed to itemize in its FEC reports

a $13,964 offset to operating

expenditures. The committee has

since filed an amended Schedule A

to correct the public record.

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. ..

Advisory

Opinions

AD 1995-27

Solicitation of Trust Members

of Trade Association

The political action committee

(PAC) of the National Association

of Real Estate Investment Trusts,

Inc. (NAREIT), a trade association,

may solicit contributions from the

restricted class of members organized as business trusts only if the

trusts are organized as corporations

under state law.

The Commission partially

overruled advisory opinion (AO)

1981-52, concluding that contributions by a state-defined trust with no

corporate members need not be

attributed among the trust's beneficial owners. However, the Commission reaffirmed that a trust that has

December J995

beneficial owners that are corporations must ensure that those corporate members do not participate in

the PAC contribution.

Background

Business trusts, which have

certain attributes of both corporations and partnerships, are not

necessarily corporations but are

treated as such for some purposes by

the courts of different states.

In AO 1981-52, the Commission

concluded that NAREIT could

solicit its trust members. However,

AO 1981-52 also determined that

the trust would have to attribute

contributions among all the beneficial owners of the trust. Additionally, owners who would be barred

from making an individual contribution to a federal candidate, such as a

corporation, could not participate in

the trust contribution.

In its request that AO 1981-52 be

overruled, NAREIT cited burdens of

attribution and the similarities

between corporations and trusts.

Membership Association and

Members

NAREIT meets the definition of

"membership association" at

11 CFR l14.l(e)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii).1

Additionally, NAREIT trust members are considered members for the

purposes of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) because

they are required to pay dues and

have the right to elect members to

NAREIT's highest governing body,

1 The Act defines "membership association" as an organization that: (1)

provides for "members " in its articles

and bylaws; (2) solicits members; and

(3) acknowledges members' acceptance ofmembership, such as by

sending them a membership card or

including them on a membership

newsletter list.
December 1995

the Board of Governors.' NAREIT

may therefore solicit contributions

to its PAC from noncorporate

NAREIT members and from the

restricted class of its corporate

members.

Solicitation of NAREIT Trust

Members

Commission regulations at

11 CFR 114.7 state that the corporate status of a professional organization is determined by the laws of

the state in which it is located.

Consequently, REIT trusts in states

that do not consider them corporations cannot be treated as corporations for purposes of the Act. The

AO request cited Maryland and

Delaware statutes, which regard a

business trust as a separate form of

business organization distinct from a

corporation. Accordingly, NAREIT

may not solicit the executive and

administrative classes of the Maryland and Delaware trusts, unless

those individuals or business entities

are themselves members of NAREIT.

The Commission based this decision

on AOs 1988-3 and 1976-63.

NAREIT may, however, solicit

the noncorporate trust itself. It may

direct its solicitation to the trust

member representative with whom

2 Under the Act, a person is a member if

that person satisfies the association's

requirements for membership, accepts

an invitation to join, and has: (1) some

significant financial attachment to the

membership association, such as a

significant investment or ownership

stake; (2) is required to pay dues on a

regular basis and is entitled to vote

directly either for at least one member

who has voting rights on the highest

governing body ofthe association, or

for those who select at least one

member ofthe governing body; or (3) is

entitled to vote directly for all those on

the highest governing body ofthe

membership association. 2 u.s.c.

§114.1(e)(2)(ii).

the trade association usually conducts its activities. NAREIT bylaws

identify one employee of the

member trust who represents the

member and exercises its voting

right. 11 CFR §114.8(d)(3).

Attribution of Contributions by

REIT Trust Members

The Commission partially

overruled AO 1981-52, concluding

that where there are no corporate

beneficial owners of the REIT trust,

contributions need not be attributed

among its beneficial owners. The

Commission reached this conclusion

based on its previous analysis of

limited liability companies. In AO

1995-11, the Commission concluded

that attribution of a contribution

among the members or principals of

a limited liability company was not

required.

The Commission reaffirmed,

however, that the participation of

the corporate beneficial owners of a

trust in political contributions made

by that trust is still prohibited by

2 U.S.c. §441b. AOs 1995-11 and

1981-52. NAREIT trust members

must therefore screen out corporate

participation in the PAC contribution by ensuring that the earnings or

losses of corporate beneficial

owners are unaffected.

The Commission also noted that,

although it is difficult to determine

whether a trust has any corporate

beneficial owners, doing so is not

impossible. If that were the case,

then the trust would be barred from

making political contributions.

The Commission expressed no

opinion regarding tax ramifications.

Date Issued: Oct. 6, 1995;

Length: 10 pages...

Federal Election Commission RECORD

1995-34

Providing 900 Line

Fundraising Services to

Political Committees

Politechs, Inc., an information

provider, may contract directly with

political committees that are not

separate segregated funds to deliver

I an array of 900 line services related

to federal elections.

Politechs' Proposal

Politechs intends to offer the

public and political committees five

services via touchtone prompts:

• Information about a candidate's

positions on various issues will be

available to callers, who may enter

their telephone and fax numbers to

request a call or fax back .

• Politechs will also provide the

committee with a summary of

caller responses to a candidate's

positions.

• Callers may contribute to the

committee by selecting a dollar

amount and entering their credit

card numbers and expiration dates.

• Politechs will communicate to the

committee a caller's interest in

contributing to the committee by

means other than credit card.

• Political committees may also

receive a list of caller names,

addresses, phone and fax numbers.

Politechs will charge the caller up

to $50 for the call itself on a per

minute basis. If the caller makes a

credit card contribution, the committee will receive the amount of the

contribution minus the usual and

normal service charges of the credit

card issuers.

Past Precedents

The Commission noted that

Politechs' proposal entails a broader

range of services than discussed in

previous advisory opinions about

900 line services. The Commission

has addressed responsibilities of

(continu ed on page 10)

9
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinion

(continued from page 9)

long distance providers in AOs

1991-2 and 1990-14, of service

bureaus in AOs 1991-20 and 1990-1,

and of a billing and collection

company performing some service

bureau functions in AO 1991-26.

Politechs' proposal raises a number

of the issues discussed in those

opinions.

Payments by Political Committees

The advisory opinions cited

above state that political committees

must pay the usual and normal

charge for services, including

adequate compensation to third

party vendors, to avoid impermissible corporate contributions.

2 U.S.c. §§441b(a) and 441b (b)(2);

11 CFR 114.2(b), 114.1(a) and

100.7(a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B). The

Commission assumes that Politechs'

and its vendor's usual and normal

fees, as well as the usual and normal

fees passed on to them by third

party vendors, will be included in

the computation of the usual and

normal charge to the committee.

AOs 1991-26, 1991-2 and 1990-1.

Politechs' requirement for advance

payment for setup charges, a deposit

sufficient to cover costs, and

termination of services to prevent

losses exceeding the deposit appear

to ensure that political committees

will not receive in-kind corporate

contributions.

Contribution Information and

Prevention of Unlawful

Contributions

Politechs' proposal entails a

number of functions intended to

identify contributors and prevent

unlawful and excessive contributions. It also avoids a number of the

concerns about contributor identity

addressed in AO 1991-20. The

committee will not receive revenu e

from unidentified sources because a

separate billing company, not a local

exchange carrier, will bill only

identified callers.

10

Although no part of the revenue

from the call itself reaches the

political committee, Politechs still

must obtain the names and addresses of contributors along with

the contribution amounts and dates,

and must forward that information

to the committee. Although the $50

ceiling for calls from the same

telephone number would not trigger

the recordkeeping requirement of

2 U.S.c. §432(c)(2) and 11 CFR

102.9(a)(1) , the contributor may still

make other contributions to a

committee. In those cases, the same .

individual's contributions could

aggregate to more than $200,

triggering further recordkeeping

requirements and the need to report

the contribution date and amount

and the name, address, employer

and occupation of the contributor.

2 U.S.C. §§431(13), 432(c)(3) and

434(b)(3)(A); 11 CFR 100.12,

102.9(a)(2) and 104.3(a)(4)(i).

The Commission suggested,

therefore, that the billing company

reque st that the billed individual

provide, on a form accompanying

the check , his or her occupation and

employer. Alternatively, Politechs

could arrange with the committee to

contact the appropriate contributors

for that information. AO 1990-1,

n.7. The invoice sent to the caller

should make clear to which committee or committees he or she is

contributing and the amount. These

method s enable the contributor to

monitor his or her contribution

totals to a particular committee.

2 U.S.c. §44 1(a)(1)(A) and (C).

Because checks from callers are

political contributions, the company

depo siting these checks should

separate them from the company's

other business receipts by placing

them in a bank account set up for

the politic al committee clients.

2 U.S.C. §432(h)(1) and 11 CFR

103.2 and 103.3(a). The company

needs only one separate account to

contain the proceeds for all the

political committees. Politechs

should tell the committees the

December }{l95

depository 's identity so that each

committee may disclose the depository on an amended Statement of

Organization.

Politechs has proposed adequate

measures for screening out prohibited contributions, as follows:

Further inquiry may be made to the

contributor by Politechs, the collecting entity or the committee to enable

the return of those contributions that

appear to be illegal. The billing

company or service bureau will bill

only identified callers, while the

collecting entity will also review a

form accompanying the check

which provides the caller's name

and addre ss. Also, the recipient

committee should further screen

checks and forms and separate out

those checks which appe ar illegal.

AO 1991-26.

The companies which process

contributions and the political

committees must comp ly with the

time limits for the return of prohibited contributions set out in 11 CFR

103.3(b)(1).

Timely Transmittal of

Contributions and Information

A contribution to an authorized

committee must be forwarded to its

treasurer no later than 10 days after

receipt. If the contribution exceeds

$50, the name and address of the

contributor and the date of receipt

must be forwarded with the contribution . IT the contribution is more

than $200, the employer and occupation must also be forward ed.

The same rules apply to contributions in excess of $50 to nonauthorized committees, which must be

forward ed within 30 days. 2 U.S.c.

§432(b)(1) and (2); 11 CFR 102.8(a)

and (b).

With respect to the payments for

the calls themselves, the time limits

for forward ing contributions and

contributor information do not

apply . This is because no part of the

funds will be transmitted to the

committee and the amount of each

of these contributions will be $50 or
December 1995

less. The information must still be

forwarded at some point to the

political committee for recordkeeping and reporting purposes,

however. The committee must

complete full, timely disclosure

reports and return contributions

which , when aggregated, exceed

legal limits in 2 U.S.c. §44la,

§434(a) and 11 CFR 103.3(b)(3).

Time limits may apply to credit

card contributions, which are

officially received when the political

committee obtains the contributor's

authorization. In this situation, a

contribution is received by the

committee when the subcontractor

contacts the caller and obtains his or

her authorization. AO 1990-4. The

subcontractor should also get

information about a contributor's

employer and occupation if this

information was not obtained in the

initial call.

Reporting

Politechs should advise committees of their reporting obligations

resulting from 900 line transactions.

The committee should include in its

reports the full amount charged to

the caller on his or her credit card,

and itemize those charges where

appropriate . 2 U.S.C. §§434(b)(2)(A)

and (3)(A); II CFR 104.3(a)(2)(i),

(3)(i) and (4)(i). Also, the committee must report as operating expenditures charges for credit card

clearing, processing and related

expen ses. 2 U.S.c. §§434(b)(4)(A)

and (5)(A); II CFR 104.3(b)(3)(i)

and (4)(i); AO 1991-1.

As to the contributions for the

calls themselves, the committee

must report the full amount paid by

a caller as both a contribution and

an operating expenditure. The

amount is an operating expenditure

because Politechs retains the money

for payment to itself and subcontractors. Fees the committee pays

directly to Politechs should also be

reported as operating expenditures.

Date Issued: October 19, 1995;

Length: 13 pages. •

AO 1995-36

DisaffIliation ofPACs

The separate segregated funds

(SSFs or PACs) of AK Steel Corporation and Armco , Inc., may

disaffiliate because Armco no

longer has any ownership interest or

significant role in AK Steel. AK

Steel was formerly Armco Steel

Company, L.P., ajoint venture

partnership between Armco and

Kawasaki Steel Corporation.

Background

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations provide that committees,

including separate segregated funds,

that are established, financed, maintained or controlled by the same

corporation, person or group of

persons, including any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department

or local unit thereof, are affiliated.

Contributions made to or by such

committees are considered to have

been made to or by a single committee. 2 U.S.c. §44Ia(a)(5); II CFR

100.5(g)(2), 11O.3(a)(1), and

II 0.3(a)( I)(ii).

Where an entity is not an acknowledged subsidiary of another

entity, Commission regulations

provide for an examination of

various factors in the context of an

overall relationship to determine

whether one company is an affiliate

of another and whether their respective SSFs are affiliated. II CFR

100.5(g)(4)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J) and

11O.3(a)(3)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J).

AK Steel previously posed the

same question in AO 1994-9. At that

time the Commission determined

that, due to various factors, it was

premature for AK Steel to disaffiliate

from Armco and Kawasaki.

A number of circumstances have

altered the original arrangement

addressed by AO 1994-9. First,

Armco has sold its remaining stock

in AK Steel. Additionally, AK Steel

expanded its Board of Directors,

diminishing the significance of

Armco's earlier role in the reorganiFederal ElectionCommissionRECORD

zation and management of AK Steel.

An election to elect the next Board

of Directors has also taken place.

Further, the separate operations of

Armco and AK Steel since the public

offering of AK Steel stock have

diminished the historical relationship between these two companies.

AK Steel should amend its Statement of Organization to delete Armco

PAC as an affiliated committee, and

Armco PAC should do the same.

Date Issued : November 2, 1995;

Length: 5 pages.•

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1995-37

Status of nonvoting realtor-associate

members as solicitable members of a

trade association (National Association of Realtors; September 21, 1995;

3 pages plus 59-page attachment)

AOR 1995-38

Association management corporation

retained to administer nonconnected

committee (Washington Policy

Associates, Inc.; October 10, 1995;

1 page)

AOR 1995-39

Avoidance of presumption of affiliation between county and state party

committees; ability to disaffiliate

(Los Angeles County Republican

Central Committee; October 10,1995;

8 pages plus 260-page attachment)

AOR 1995-40

Disaffiliation of PACs connected to

formerly affiliated companies

(Continental Airlines; October 16,

1995; 2 pages plus 2-page attachment)

AOR 1995-41

Preemption of state reporting requirement applicable to polling by

federal candidates (Congresswoman

Carolyn Maloney; October 30, 1995;

3 pages plus 5-page attachment)

(continu ed on page 12)

11
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advi ory Opinion

(continued from page 11)

AOR 1995-42

Use of campaign funds to pay

candidate's child care expenses

(Representative Jim McCrery;

November 8, 1995; 1 page)

AOR 1995-43

Applicability of contribution

prohibitions to refund of legal fees

to candidate committee (Arnold &

Porter; November 24, 1995; 2 pages

plus 13-page attachment) ..

Conferences

FEC to Hold Conferences in

Washington and Chicago

Three upcoming FEC conferences in Washington, DC, and

Chicago will offer basic and advanced workshops on the federal

campaign finance law and provide

attendees the opportunity to discuss

problems and questions with FEC

Commissioners and staff, and

representatives of the Internal

Revenue Service.

The FEC has scheduled the

following three conferences:

• January 11-12, 1996, in Washington, DC: Membership/Trade

Association Conference at the

Madison Hotel; $165 registration

fee.

• March 8, 1996, in Washington, DC:

Candidate Conference at the

Madison Hotel; $110 registration

fee.

• April 11-12, 1996, in Chicago, IL:

Regional Conference at the Drake

Hotel for candidates, party committees, corporations, labor

organizations and trade associations; $150 registration fee .

/2

Registration fees include the cost

of all conference materials and two

or three meals (two continental

breakfasts and a lunch), depending

on the length of the conference.

Fees do not include hotel accommodations.

To receive registration materials

and further information, call 8001

424-9530 or 202/219-3420. ..

Public Funding

Clinton and LaRouche

Declared Eligible for

Matching Funds

The FEC has certified President

Bill Clinton and Mr. Lyndon H.

LaRouche, Jr., as the eighth and

ninth Presidential candidates

eligible to receive public matching

funds. President Clinton's campaign

received certification on October 31,

1995; Mr. LaRouche's received

certification on November 2, 1995.

The other seven candidates with

eligible campaigns are Governor

Lamar Alexander, Mr. Patrick

Buchanan, Senator Robert Dole,

Senator Phil Gramm, Senator

Richard G. Lugar, Senator Arlen

Specter and Governor Pete Wilson.'

These candidates will receive their

first payments from the Presidential

Public Funding Program in January

1996.

To establish eligibility for the

Presidential public funding program,

a candidate must submit documentation to the FEC Audit Division

showing campaign receipts 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

IOn September 29, 1995, Governor

Wilson withdrew from the 1996

Presidential race.

December /fJ95

matchable. The candidate must also

certify that he or she will abide by

spending limits and use funds for

campaign-related expenses only.

Additionally, the candidate must

agree to an FEC audit of his or her

campaign and otherwise comply

with election law.

Eligible Presidential candidates

may submit additional contributions

for matching fund consideration on

a monthly basis...

Change of Address

Political Committees

Treasurers of registered

political committees automatically receive the Record. A

change of address by a political

committee (or any change to

information disclosed on the

Statement of Organization) must,

by law, be made in writing on

FEC Form I or by letter. The

treasurer must sign the amendment and file it with the Secretary

of the Senate, the Clerk of the

House or the FEe (as appropriate) and with the appropriate state

office.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers who are not

registered political committees

should include the following

information when requesting a

change of address:

• Subscription number (located on

the upper left comer of the

mailing label);

• Subscriber's name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

Subscribers (other than

political committees) may correct

their addresses by phone as well

as by mail.
December 1995

Information

(continued from page 3)

Flashfax Menu

To order any of these documents,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call 2021

501·3413 on a touch tone phone. You

will be asked for the numbers of the

documents you want, your fax number

and your telephone number. The documents will be faxed shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

301. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC Data

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

308. Combined Federal/State Disclosure Directory 1995 on Disk

309. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances : Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expenditures

320. Local Party Activity

321. CorporatelLabor Facilities

322. CorporatelLabor Communications

323. Trade Associations

324. Foreign Nationals

325. The $25,000 Annual Contribution

Limit

326 . Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Public Funding

330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

331 . The $3 Tax Checkoff

332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

333. Recipients of Public Funding

334. Presidential Fund Tax Checkoff

Status

335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Politic al Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Reports Due in 1995

345. 1996 Congressional Primary Dates

346. Filing A Complaint

347. 1995-6 FEC Regional Conferences

348. 1995-6 Special Election Reporting

Dates

Federal Election Commission

401. The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law

402 . La Ley Federal relativa al Financiamiento de las Campafia s

403. State and Local Elections and the

Federal Campaign Law

404 . Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEe's Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408 . Index for 1994 Record Newsletter

409. Free Publications

410 . Personnel Vacancy Announcements

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

424. List of Reports Available

425. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

426 . National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

427 . National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an Electoral

System

Money in Politics Statistics

525 . 1991-2 Political Money

526. 1995 Mid-Year PAC Count

527 . 1993-4 Congressional

528. 1993-4 National Party

529 . 1993-4 PAC Finances

530 . 1995-6 Congressional

531. 1995-6 National Party

1996 Presidential Election

550. 1996 Presidential Primary

Dates

551. Selected Campaign Names and

Addresses

552. Selected Campaign Finance

Figures

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

Federal Election Commission RECORD

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate

and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating

Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reports

and Statements with State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

111. Part 111, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to Support

Federal Officeholder Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candidates and Political Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

201. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Presidential Nominating Conventions

228. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

229. Express Advocacy; Independent

Expenditures; Corporate and

Labor Organization Expenditures

Forms

361. Form 1, Statement of Organization

362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

365. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

366. Fonn 6, 48-Hour Notice of

:ContributionslLoans Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication

Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of Multicandidate Status

(continued on page 14)

13
441. Section 441

442. Section 442

451. Section 451

452. Section 452

453. Section 453

454. Section 454

455. Section 455

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Information

(continued from page 13)

Schedules

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

372. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

373. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent

Expenditures

375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated

Expenditures

376. Schedules H1- H4, Allocation

377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431

432. Section 432

433. Section 433

434. Section 434

437. Section 437

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

Advisory Opinions

700. Brochure

701. AO 1995-1

702. AO 1995-2

703. AO 1995-3

704. AO 1995-4

705. AO 1995-5

706. AO 1995-6

707. AO 1995-7

708. AO 1995-8

709. AO 1995-9

710. AO 1995-10

711. AO 1995-11

712. AO 1995-12

713. AO 1995-13

714. AO 1995-14

715. AO 1995-15

716. AO 1995-16

717. AO 1995-17

718. AO 1995-18

719. AO 1995-19

720. AO 1995-20

721. AO 1995-21

722. AO 1995-22

723. AO 1995-23

724. AO 1995-24

725. AO 1995-25

726. AO 1995-26

727. AO 1995-27

728. AO 1995-28

729. AO 1995-29

730. AO 1995-30

731. AO 1995-31

14

732. AO 1995-32

733. AO 1995-33

734. AO 1995-34

735. AO 1995-35

736. AO 1995-36

801. AO 1994-1

802. AO 1994-2

803. AO 1994-3

804. AO 1994-4

805. AO 1994-5

806. AO 1994-6

807. AO 1994-7

808. AO 1994-8

809. AO 1994-9

810. AO 1994-10

811. AO 1994-11

812. AO 1994-12

813. AO 1994-13

814. AO 1994-14

815. AO 1994-15

816. AO 1994-16

817. AO 1994-17

818. AO 1994-18

819. AO 1994-19

820. AO 1994-20

821. AO 1994-21

822. AO 1994-22

823. AO 1994-23

. 824. AO 1994-24

825. AO 1994-25

826. AO 1994-26

827. AO 1994-27

828. AO 1994-28

829. AO 1994-29

830. AO 1994-30

831. AO 1994-31

832. AO 1994-32

833. AO 1994-33

834. AO 1994-34

835. AO 1994-35

836. AO 1994-36

837. AO 1994-37

838. AO 1994-38

839. AO 1994-39

840. AO 1994-40

901. AO 1993-1

902. AO 1993-2

903. AO 1993-3

904. AO 1993-4

905. AO 1993-5

906. AO 1993-6

907. AO 1993-7

908. AO 1993-8

909. AO 1993-9

910. AO 1993-10

911. AO 1993-11

912. AO 1993-12

913. AO 1993-13

December 1.995

914. AO 1993-14

915. AO 1993-15

916. AO 1993-16

917. AO 1993-17

918. AO 1993-18

919. AO 1993-19

920. AO 1993-20

921. AO 1993-21

922. AO 1993-22

923. AO 1993-23

924. AO 1993-24

925. AO 1993-25 .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 followinga

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 nonfedera1 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

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
December 1995

1995-7: Candidate'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 associations, 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 allocated 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: Allocation of costs for ads

in support of party's agenda, 10:7

1995-26: Campaign funds may not

be used for club dues, 10:8

1995-27: Solicitation of trust

members of trade association,

12:8

1995-28: Solicitations 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 allocated to Presidential campaign's state limits, 11:11

1995-31 and 1995-32: Permissible

funding sources for host committees, 11:11

1995-33: Sending PAC solicitations

through an executive's secretary,

11:12

1995-34: Providing 900 line fundraising services to political

committees, 12:9

1995-35: Internet solicitations by

Presidential committee, 11:12

1995-36: Disaffiliation of PACs,

12:11

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

MUR 3540: Corporate facilitation,

1:2

MUR 3620: Tallying programs and

earmarking requirements, 12:1

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

FECv.

- Branstool, 6:12

- Christian Action Network, 9:2

- Citizens for Wofford, 6: 13

- Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 8:I

- Free the Eagle, 8:5

- Fulani (94-4461), 6:12

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

Federal Election Commission RECORD

- Michigan Republican State

Committee, 5:4

- Montoya, 2:7; 5:4

- NRA Political Victory Fund, 2: 1

- National Republican Senatorial

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

- Orton, 12:6

- Populist Party, 7:9

- RUFFPAC, 8:5

- Survival Education Fund, 12:4

- Williams, 4:5

v. FEC

- Akins, 12:I

- Albanese, 7:8

- Buchanan for President, 11:8

- Bush-Quayle '92, 11:9

- Center for Responsive Politics,

11:9

- Condon, 3:5

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (93-1321), 1:10

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-0349), 4:8

- Dukakis, 7:9

- Freedom Republicans, 2:6

- Froelich, 8:5

- Fulani (94-1593),4:6

- Funk, 12:5

- Gottlieb, 12:6

- Lytle, I: 10, 2:7

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (94-5148), 5:4

- Robertson, 4:6

- Simon, 7:9

- White, 11:8

- Whitmore, 2:7

- Wilson, 2:7; 5:1

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

Special elections for CA, IL and

OR, 11:2

800 Line Articles

Administrative termination, 2:9

Corporate facilitation, 6: I

15