March 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 3

Table of Contents

Electronic Filing

1 FEC Invites Comments on

Electronic Filing

800 Line

2 Allocating Expenses for Generic

Voter Drives Conducted by Third

Parties

Compliance

3 MUR 3774

4 MUR 4648

4 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

7 Shrink PAC v. Nixon

8 Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc. v. FEC

9 New Litigation

 10 On Appeal?

Outreach

9 Conferences

Public Funding

 10 FEC Approves Matching Funds

Reports

 10 Ten More States Certified for

State Waiver

 11 48-Hour Notices

 12 Nonfilers

FEC Web Site

 12 FEC Adds Open Agenda

Documents to Web Site

Statistics

 12 Semiannual PAC Count

Party Activities

14 2000 Coordinated Party

Expenditure Limits

 15 Public Appearances

 16 Index

Electronic

Filing

FEC Invites Comments on

Electronic Filing

“Suggestion Box”

In the interest of ensuring the best

FEC electronic filing system

possible, the Commission is pleased

to provide you with an electronic

filing “suggestion box.” The Commission invites you to e-mail to

electronic@fec.gov any suggestion

that you think would improve the

current electronic filing system.

Advantages to Beginning Early

The electronic filing office would

like to remind those committees

which will be filing electronically in

2000 or 2001 that there are significant advantages to beginning now

while the year is still young.

• For the many committees that will

be required to file electronically

beginning in January 2001, 1

switching to the new system now

will be much easier than waiting

until the end of the year. Changing

or upgrading software systems and

becoming comfortable with them

are more easily done over the

course of a year than a few weeks

before a filing deadline.

• Starting early minimizes data

entry, which saves time and

decreases the possibility for errors.

• The overall ease of using the

electronic filing system and the

built-in file validator also increase

productivity and help reduce filing

errors.

• Electronic reports can be amended

in a matter of minutes.

• The automatic fax or e-mail

confirmation of receipt arrives

moments after filing to let you

know that your report has been

received by the FEC.

Calendar Year Commitment

Another reminder from the

electronic filing office: filing

electronically is a year-long commitment. Commission regulations

require that, once a committee files

electronically, it must continue to

do so for the rest of the calendar

year. 11 CFR 104.18(a).

For more information, or to

download the free FECFile 3

software, visit the Commission’s

Web site at www.fec.gov/

electron.html. ✦

1

 In the next few months, the Commission will announce electronic filing

thresholds. Any committee that exceeds

or expects to exceed these thresholds in

2001 will be required to file electronically in 2001. It is expected that

approximately 2,000 committees will be

required to file electronically.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2000

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Darryl R. Wold, Chairman

Danny L. McDonald, Vice

 Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Jennifer A. Han, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

The Commission emphasized this

point in two recent enforcement

actions. The FEC found probable

cause to believe that the California

Democratic Party (CDP) and the

National Republican Senatorial

Committee (NRSC) violated the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) and Commission regulations

on allocating generic voter activity

when they failed to allocate, between their federal and nonfederal

accounts, payments made to outside

organizations to conduct generic

voter drives. Both the CDP and the

NRSC made payments to the

organizations to conduct the drives,

but they made the payments entirely

with nonfederal funds. In the case of

the CDP, the matter was resolved in

court, when the U.S. District Court

for the Eastern Division of California issued a consent order and

judgment in which the CDP agreed

to pay a civil penalty of $70,000

and to transfer $354,500 from its

federal account to its nonfederal

account. The district court earlier

had found constitutional the

Commission’s application of this

requirement to the CDP’s voter

drive disbursements. See FEC v.

California Democratic Party, 13

F.Supp.2d 1031 (1998).

The matter involving the NRSC

(MUR 3774) was settled by a

conciliation agreement between the

FEC and the NRSC. In that agreement, the NRSC agreed to pay a

civil penalty of $20,000 and to

transfer $88,207.60 from its federal

account to its nonfederal account.

Allocation Ratios

State and local party committees

use the ballot composition method

when allocating generic voter drive

expenses. Costs are allocated

according to the ratio of federal

offices to total federal and

nonfederal offices expected to be on

the ballot in the next federal general

election held in the state or geographic area of the committee. With

certain exceptions, the allocation

ratio must be calculated at the

Allocating Expenses for

Generic Voter Drives

Conducted by Third Parties

Commission Actions

A party committee must use

federally permissible funds for at

least a portion of the costs of

generic voter drives conducted prior

to an election in which both federal

and nonfederal candidates appear on

the ballot. 11 CFR 106.5(a)(2)(iv).

This is the case even when a party

committee, instead of conducting a

voter drive itself, provides funds to

a third party, e.g., a nonprofit

corporation, to conduct the drive.

The party committee may choose to

pay all of the costs of the voter drive

with federally permissible funds or

to allocate the costs between federal

and nonfederal monies in accordance with the party committee’s

allocation ratio.

800 Line beginning of the two-year election

cycle (for example, in January 1999

for the 1990-2000 cycle).1

 The

committee calculates the ratio by

assigning points to the federal and

nonfederal offices to be listed on the

general election ballot. The federal

allocation percentage is obtained by

dividing the number of federal

points by the total number of points.

11 CFR 106.5(d)(1).

House and Senate campaign

committees of a national party

allocate costs for generic voter

drives according to the ratio of

funds spent on behalf of federal

candidates to total money spent on

behalf of federal and nonfederal

candidates during a two-year federal

election cycle. The calculation

includes only funds contributed to—

or spent on behalf of—specific

candidates. The calculation does not

include overhead or other generic

costs not attributable to any particular candidate. A minimum of 65

percent of such costs must be

allocated as federal expenses.

National party committees use a

fixed ratio when allocating generic

voter drive expenses. At least 65

percent of such expenses must be

allocated as federal expenses during

a Presidential election year; in other

years, at least 60 percent must be

allocated as federal. 11 CFR

106.5(b).

For a summary of FEC v. California Democratic Party, et al., see

page 4 of the December 1999

Record. For a summary of MUR

3774 involving the National Republican Senatorial Committee, see

page 3 of this issue of the Record. ✦

1

 There are five states—Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and

Virginia—for which the calculation

method is different because those states

do not hold federal and nonfederal

elections during the same year. See 11

CFR §106.5(d)(2).
March 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

A national party committee, such

as the NRSC, must allocate expenses for generic voter drive

activities2

 between its federal and

nonfederal accounts according to the

formula set out at 11 CFR

106.5(c)(2): a minimum of 65

percent of these costs must be

allocated to the federal account.

(The Act does not, per se, prohibit

the disbursement of nonfederal

funds by a party committee to

nonparty organizations.)

The Commission found probable

cause to believe that the NRSC’s

disbursements of 100 percent

nonfederal funds to the NRLC in

1994, which the NRLC used to

finance GOTV activities, was not in

accordance with the Act or Commission regulations. Had the NRSC

conducted this activity itself, it

would have had to finance these

activities with a minimum of 65

percent federal funds. The NRSC

contended that no violations occurred or were proven by the record

in this matter. However, in order to

settle the matter, the NRSC and Mr.

Huckaby agreed to not further

contest the Commission’s probable

cause findings that it had violated 2

U.S.C. §§441a(f) and 441b(a) and

11 CFR 102.5(a)(1)(i), 106.5(c) and

106.5(g)(1)(i). ✦

2

 Generic voter drives include voter

identification, voter registration, and

get-out-the-vote drives, or any other

activity that urges the general public to

register, vote or support candidates of a

particular party or associated with a

particular issue, without mentioning a

specific candidate. 106.5(a)(2)(iv).

Compliance

MUR 3774

Failure to Allocate Expenses

Between Federal and

Nonfederal Accounts for

Get-Out-the-Vote Drive

Conducted by Third Party

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and Stan

Huckaby, its treasurer, have paid a

civil penalty of $20,000 and will

transfer $88,207.60 from the

NRSC’s federal account to its

nonfederal account for failing to

allocate, between its federal and

nonfederal accounts, payments

made to a third party to conduct getout-the-vote drives (GOTV).

Background

Between October 31 and November 4, 1994, the NRSC disbursed a

total of $175,000 from its

nonfederal account to the National

Right to Life Committee (NRLC),

which made payments of at least

$135,704 for GOTV phone calls

targeting pro-life supporters in

states with elections that included

federal candidates. The supporters

were reminded to vote in a U.S.

House or Senate election and then

informed as to which candidate(s)

supported or opposed abortion.

While the scripts did not mention

party affiliation, those federal

candidates named who supported

abortion were all Democrats, and

those who opposed it were all

Republicans.

Although the NRSC attached a

cover letter to each disbursement

instructing the NRLC that it could

not “utiliz[e] any of this money in

any way to influence a federal

election” and contended that it did

not specify how the funds should be

used, the NRSC knew and intended

that the nonfederal funds it transferred to the NRLC would be used

for GOTV activities in connection

with elections that included federal

candidates. The NRSC considered

pro-life supporters to be a key

Republican constituency. 1

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits corporations

and labor organization from making

contributions in connection with

federal elections. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

Each organization, including a

party committee, that finances

political activity in connection with

both federal and nonfederal elections, and has established separate

federal and nonfederal accounts,

must make all disbursements in

connection with federal elections

from its federal account. Only funds

subject to the Act’s prohibitions and

limitations can be deposited into the

federal account. 11 CFR

102.5(a)(1)(i). See also 11 CFR

106.5(a). The nonfederal account,

however, can accept corporate

contributions prohibited by 2 U.S.C.

§441b and contributions in excess of

the limits prescribed by 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a).

1

 In addition to these disbursements, the

NRSC made a number of other disbursements from its nonfederal account

to other organizations for purposes of

GOTV activities conducted prior to four

elections held in 1992 and 1993.

Altogether, in connection with the 1992

and 1993 elections, the NRSC disbursed a total of $665,000 in

nonfederal funds to the National Right

to Life Committee, the American

Defense Foundation and the Coalitions

for America, three nonprofit corporations exempt from federal income taxes

under 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4).

(continued on page 4)

How to Obtain a

Taxpayer ID Number

To obtain a taxpayer ID number,

please call the IRS at 800/TAXFORM (800/829-3676). Taxpayer

ID numbers are not available

through the FEC.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2000

4

AO 1999-32

Indian Tribe’s Utility

Authority Treated as

Separate from the Tribe

The Tohono O’odham Nation, an

Indian tribe, may make contributions to influence federal elections

even though its Utility Authority

(TOUA) is a government contractor,

because TOUA is a separate entity

from the Nation

TOUA is an unincorporated

entity that provides utility services

on the Nation’s territories. Its

customers include Federal agencies,

such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Under 2 U.S.C. §441c, it is

unlawful for a Federal contractor to

make contributions in connection

with a federal election. TOUA

qualifies as a federal contractor

because it has a utility service

contract with a government agency;

therefore, it may not make contributions. However, TOUA is a separate

entity from the Nation. Consequently, the Nation is permitted to

make contributions.

Although TOUA is not a corporation (and thus not formally separate

from the Nation), the Commission

concluded that it can be treated as a

separate entity based on the following considerations:

• TOUA has its own bank account,

employees, personnel policies,

employee benefits and legal

counsel.

• In other areas of the law, tribal

commercial entities receive

specialized and unique treatment.

• TOUA enjoys autonomous attributes considered significant in

other litigation cases: TOUA is

patterned on a public service

corporation with a management

board comparable to a corporate

board of directors. A majority of

this management board may come

Advisory

MUR 4648 Opinions

Failure to Disclose Purpose

of Expenditures and Other

Violations

The New York Republican

Federal Campaign Committee (the

Committee), its current treasurer,

Michael Avella, its Chairman,

William D. Powers, and Jeffrey T.

Buley have paid a $128,000 civil

penalty for failing to properly report

disbursements, for failing to maintain proper records, and for making

disbursements in the form of cash

rather than by check—all during the

1994 and 1996 election cycles. This

is the largest civil penalty ever paid

by a national or state party committee.

All political committees are

required to report, inter alia, the

purpose of every expenditure.

“Purpose” means a brief statement

or description of why the disbursement was made. 11 CFR

104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). On its 1994 30-

Day Post-General Report, the

Committee reported the “purpose”

of six disbursements to Committee

personnel totaling $60,000 as being

for “election day expenses.” Commission regulations expressly hold

that the statement “election day

expenses” is not a sufficient description for reporting the purpose of a

disbursement. 11 CFR

104.3(b)(3)(i)(B). After receiving

notification from the Commission

that it had misreported the purpose

of these disbursements, the Committee amended its report.

On its 1996 30-Day Post-General

Report, despite previous instruction

from the FEC, the Committee again

misreported the purpose of eight

disbursements to Committee

personnel totaling $22,500 as being

for “election day expenses.” After

once again receiving notification

from the Commission, the Committee amended its report.

Compliance

(continued from page 3)

In both instances, Mr. Buley

obtained a combined total of

$72,500 in cash ($50,000 in 1994

and $22,500 in 1996) through

checks made out to himself and

others. Mr. Buley disbursed the cash

in one lump sum to Mr. Powers on

the day before the day of the general

election in each year. Mr. Powers

then disbursed the funds in amounts

over $200 to numerous individuals

who in turn disbursed the funds to

others. In both cases, the Committee

only reported the payees of the

initial checks as recipients of

disbursements.

The Committee failed to report

the full names and addresses and the

amounts of disbursements to

recipients of disbursements of $200

or more, in violation of 2 U.S.C.

§434(b) and 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3).

With respect to keeping records

on $82,500 spent in 1994 and 1996,

the Committee failed to maintain

receipts, invoices or canceled

checks for disbursements in excess

of $200. It also failed to keep

records of the names and addresses

of those to whom it had made these

disbursements, along with the dates,

amounts and purposes of the

disbursements. Both record-keeping

failures violated 2 U.S.C. §432(c)(5)

and 11 CFR 102.9(b)(1) and (2).

Additionally, in 1994 and 1996,

the Committee, Mr. Buley and Mr.

Powers each made disbursements in

excess of $100 in the form of cash,

rather than by check, in violation of

2 U.S.C. §432(h)(1).

The Commission entered into a

conciliation agreement with the

respondents after finding probable

cause to believe that they had

knowingly and willfully violated the

Act. The agreement accepted by the

Commission in settlement of this

matter did not contain admissions

by the respondents that they had

knowingly and willfully violated the

Act. ✦
March 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

from outside the Nation, and no

member of the Nation’s council

may be a member of TOUA’s

board. TOUA does not have the

power to appropriate the general

funds of the Nation. 1

The Nation would not, however,

be able to make contributions if it

received any revenues from TOUA.

See Advisory Opinion 1998-11.

This opinion supersedes the

portion of Advisory Opinion 1993-

12 concerning the analysis of

procurement contracts between

tribal enterprises and the federal

government. The superseded portion

concluded that the procurement

contracts between an Indian tribe

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs

made the tribal authority a federal

contractor, for purposes of the

Federal Election Campaign Act.

Issued: January 28, 2000; Length:

9 pages. ✦

AO 1999-33

Delayed Transmittal of

Payroll Deductions

MediaOne PAC, a separate

segregated fund (SSF), may deposit

payroll deduction contributions,

despite a delay in the transmittal of

the funds. However, the PAC must

amend its past reports to disclose the

contributions as receipts for the

periods in which the payroll deductions occurred.

Under FEC regulations, an

organization that sponsors an SSF—

the connected organization—may

collect and forward contributions to

the PAC, including contributions

made through payroll deduction

(thereby acting as a “collecting

agent”). 11 CFR 102.6(b)(1) and

(2). The connected organization

must forward individual contributions of $50 or less to the PAC

within 30 days. Larger contributions

must be forwarded within 10 days,

and must include the name and

address of the contributor and the

date the connected organization

received the contribution. For

contributions over $200, the connected organization must also

provide the contributor’s occupation

and employer. 11 CFR 102.6(c)(4)

and (5) and 102.8(b)(1) and (2).

MediaOne instituted a payroll

deduction program for its PAC in

January 1998, at which time the

majority of the company used a

centralized payroll system. On

October 1, 1999, MediaOne discovered that one of its regional payroll

offices—not yet part of the centralized system—had been collecting

PAC contributions, but had not

forwarded the funds to the PAC.

The regional office had collected

nearly $8,000 from 20 employees

between January 1998 and August

1999.

Based on the unique circumstances, MediaOne PAC may

deposit the delayed contributions, so

long as it amends its past reports to

reflect the date that the regional

office received each contribution.

As a monthly filer, MediaOne PAC

may need to amend up to 20 reports.

These amendments must be filed

within 30 days of the PAC’s receipt

of the advisory opinion. In addition,

the PAC must include, with each

amended report, an explanation of

the changes and why they were

necessary and a reference to this

advisory opinion.

Three factors were essential to

this decision:

• MediaOne PAC discovered an

error and asked for guidance in a

timely manner;

• The error appeared to have been

inadvertent; and

• The amounts of the contributions

at issue were not large.

The Commission cautioned that

its conclusions in this opinion

should not be viewed as a precedent

for any other situation involving

delayed transmittal of contributed

funds.

Issued: January 28, 2000; Length:

5 pages. ✦

AO 1999-36

Fundraising Via Electronic

Checks and Internet Fund

Transfers

Under recently revised regulations, candidates may collect

contributions (including matchable

contributions to Presidential candidates) via electronic check transmitted over the Internet, using a system

developed by Advantage, a Maryland corporation. Advantage plans

to offer federal candidates a system

for receiving contributions over the

Internet via electronic check using

electronic funds transfer. The

system will work as follows:

1. The option of contributing to the

campaign via electronic check

will be built into the campaign’s

Web site.

2. The Web site will permit online

contributions by credit card or by

“online check.”

3. If the donor clicks on the “online

check” option, a contribution

form will appear on the screen. It

will include the disclaimer and

“best efforts” language required

by Commission regulations and

the source restrictions and

contribution limitations of the

Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act).

4. To contribute, the donor will

complete the form by providing

his or her name, address, various

phone numbers, e-mail address,

occupation and employer, and

either a social security number or

driver’s license number. The

Web site will prompt the donor to

provide any missing information.

(continued on page 6)

1

 See Navajo Tribe v. Bank of New

Mexico, 700 F.2d.1285 (10th Cir. 1982)

and Navajo Tribal Utility Authority v.

Arizona Department of Revenue, 608

F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1979).
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2000

6

vided by the contributor to a

database of information about

problem checking accounts.

11. Once the contributor information is accepted by the Web site,

an Automated Clearing House

(ACH) debit entry will be

submitted through the system of

a third party processor to a bank

offering electronic funds transfer

services. This “originating

financial institution” has its own

Federal Reserve System line

account, allowing it to clear

transactions with other banks

over the “fed wire.” The

originating financial institution

directly debits the bank account

of the donor. Seventy-two hours

later, the originating financial

institution will directly credit the

bank account of the campaign.

12. Within seconds, a confirmation

of the transaction will be generated to the donor on the screen

and via e-mail. The donor’s

Web browser will then be transferred back to the candidate’s

Web site.

13. After the electronic check

“clears,” that is, the campaign’s

account is credited, the campaign will receive, on a timely

basis, in electronic form or on

paper, all necessary information

about the contribution for inclusion (electronically if

possible) in the campaign’s

database used to generate its

reports to the Commission.

Confirmation will also be

received by the campaign via email.

14. For purposes of itemizing an

electronic contribution, the date

of receipt of the contribution

will be the date of the credit to

the campaign’s account.

15. Each participating campaign

will pay fees to Advantage for

the use of this system.

For purposes of Presidential

federal matching payments, the term

contribution means “a gift of money

made by a written instrument....”

When a contribution is made by

credit card or debit card over the

Internet, Commission regulations

define “written instrument” to mean

an electronic record of the transaction created and transmitted by the

cardholder, and including the name

of the cardholder and the card

number, which can be maintained

electronically and reproduced in a

written form by the recipient

candidate. 11 CFR 9034.2(b).

In the case of a contribution made

by credit or debit card made over

the Internet, the term signature

means the full name and card

number of the donating cardholder,

entered and transmitted by the

cardholder. 11 CFR 9034.2(b) and

(c). Contributions made by credit or

debit card are matchable provided

that the committee submits evidence

that the contributor has affirmed that

the contribution is from personal

funds and not from funds otherwise

prohibited by law. 11 CFR

9034.2(c)(8)(ii).

These regulations describing the

matchability of credit or debit card

contributions are applicable to

contributions made by the online

electronic check system described

above.

The screening procedures in

Advantage’s proposal are well

within the “safe harbor” discussed

in Advisory Opinion 1999-9 for

matchable contributions. See also

AO 1999-22. The procedures will

permit a Presidential campaign to

submit evidence that the contributor

has affirmed that the contribution is

from personal funds.

The documentation requirements

developed for credit and debit cards,

as discussed in the Commission’s

Guideline for Presentation in Good

Order, also apply to the on-line

check system. See 11 CFR

9033.1(b)(9). The information

required from third party processors

documenting the transmission of

funds in a credit or debit card

situation will also be required where

an electronic check transaction is

5. Once the information is complete,

the donor’s Web browser will

connect with the Web site of

eMoney, an electronic payment

processing company.

6. The donor then will receive, via

email, within a few seconds, a

digital signature authentication

code.

7. The site will display a check form

in which the donor enters his or

her check number, uniform bank

routing (ABA) number, account

number, bank name and the

digital signature authentication

code.

8. The form will ask the donor to

check a series of boxes attesting

that the contribution is made with

federally permissible funds, is

within the contribution limitations of the Act and consists of

the donor’s personal funds; and

that the donor is not a minor, a

corporation, a labor organization,

a national bank or a federal

contractor. The Web site will

prompt the donor to correct any

missing or inaccurate information, or to cancel the transaction.

9. The donor will then be asked to

“submit contribution.” The site

will inform the donor if the

amount exceeds the contribution

limits. Before the contribution is

processed, the Internet payments

processing company will automatically screen the accuracy of:

• The donor’s ABA transit

 number;

• The checking account

 number;

• The check number; and

• The donor’s phone

 number.

 All of this information will be

transmitted in encrypted form.

10. The candidate may choose an

additional screening process that

compares the information proAdvisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)
March 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2000-1

Partially paid leave of absence

for candidate who is employee of

law firm (Angel Taveras, January

19, 2000)

AOR 2000-2

Campaign payment to candidate

for use of office space and equipment owned by candidate (Rick

Hubbard for U.S. Senate, January

27, 2000)

AOR 2000-3

Candidate appearance before

members of membership organization at event paid for by its PAC

(American Society of Anesthesiologists, January 28, 2000)

AOR 2000-4

Solicitation of individual share

account holders of credit unions by

national association of credit unions

(National Association of Federal

Credit Unions, January 28, 2000) ✦

Court Cases

Shrink PAC v. Nixon

On January 24, 2000, the Supreme Court issued a ruling reaffirming the distinction set out in

Buckley v. Valeo between expenditures and contributions, and upholding the constitutionality of

contribution limits. Furthermore, the

Court rejected the argument that the

Missouri government was required

to provide concrete evidence

substantiating a need for limits to

curtail corruption or the appearance

of corruption. The Court concluded

that the threat of corruption, and

public concern about that threat,

were sufficient.

Shrink Missouri Government

PAC (Shrink PAC) and Zev David

Fredman, a candidate for Missouri’s

Republican nomination for state

auditor in 1998, filed suit alleging

that Missouri contribution limits

(ranging from $275 to $1075 to

candidates for state office) violated

their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court,

relying on Buckley v. Valeo, sustained the statute in a summary

judgment, finding that limits on

political contributions were based

on the belief that large contributions

raise suspicions of influence peddling, which tend to undermine

citizens’ confidence in government

integrity.

The district court rejected the

respondents’ claim that inflation

since the Buckley decision had

rendered the state limit unconstitutional today.

In reversing the district court’s

decision, the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals held that Missouri had to

demonstrate that it had a compelling

interest and that the contribution

limits at issue served that interest.

Missouri claimed a compelling

interest in avoiding corruption or the

perception of corruption caused by

large campaign contributions. The

transmitted through a third party

processor.

Additionally, Advantage must

provide to Presidential campaigns

seeking matching funds (and these

committees must provide to the

Commission) each contributor’s

checking account number and bank

transit number for that account. As

an agent of the political committee it

assists, Advantage is required to

furnish, to any client Presidential

committee receiving matching

funds, all documents and records

that may be necessary for the

Commission to conduct its audit of

that committee. See 26 U.S.C.

§9033(a)(1),(2),(3); see also 11 CFR

9033.1(b), 9033.11, and 9033.12.

Date Issued: January 14, 1999;

Length: 12 pages. ✦

appeals court, however, found this

insufficient and required Missouri to

provide demonstrable evidence that

genuine problems resulted from

contributions that exceeded the

statutory limits. It ruled that the

state’s evidence was inadequate for

this purpose.

The Supreme Court, in its

opinion delivered by Justice Souter,

reversed the Eight Circuit’s decision

and held that Buckley v. Valeo, a

1976 Supreme Court decision, was

the authority for comparable state

limits on contributions to state

political candidates.

The Buckley court struck down

the Act’s $1,000 limit on independent expenditures made by individuals on behalf of candidates for

federal office, maintaining that the

limits infringed upon the free speech

and association guarantee of the

First Amendment and the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth.

By contrast, the Buckley Court

upheld provisions limiting individual contributions to a candidate

to $1,000 per election. The Court

drew a line between independent

expenditures and contributions,

treating expenditure restrictions as

direct restraints on speech but

saying, in effect, that limiting

contributions to candidates did not

violate an individual’s right to free

speech. The Buckley Court found

the prevention of corruption and the

appearance of corruption to be

constitutionally sufficient justification for the contribution limits at

issue.

In this case, the Supreme Court

rejected the appeals court’s requirement that the government demonstrate that corruption among public

officials is real, and not merely

conjectural. Acknowledging that

conflicting academic studies both

assert and deny that large contributions to candidates change candidates’ positions, the Court

concluded that there is little reason

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

8

Court Cases

(continued from page 7)

Virginia Society for Human

Life, Inc. v. FEC

On January 4, the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia, Richmond Division (the

District Court), granted the Virginia

Society for Human Life’s (VSHL’s)

motion for summary judgment.

After finding the regulation at 11

CFR 100.22(b) to be “blatantly

unconstitutional” under Buckley v.

Valeo, the District Court issued an

order prohibiting the FEC from

enforcing it “against the VSHL or

against any other party in the United

States of America.”

VSHL is a nonprofit, tax-exempt

membership corporation, which

accepts corporate contributions. The

group plans to distribute voter

guides to the general public in

connection with the upcoming

federal election cycle. The guides

will outline VSHL’s stance on

abortion-related issues and tabulate

candidates’ positions on these

issues. Although VSHL alleges that

the voter guides will not expressly

advocate the election or defeat of a

particular candidate, VSHL acknowledges that recipients of the

voter guide could reasonably

determine VSHL’s preference for

one of the candidates over the

others.

The regulation at 11 CFR

100.22(b) defines express advocacy

as a communication that, when

taken as a whole and with limited

reference to external events (such as

proximity to an election), can only

be interpreted by a reasonable

person as unambiguously advocating the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate.

The FEC adopted the regulation

on the basis of the Ninth Circuit’s

decision in FEC v. Furgatch, in

which the court concluded that

“speech need not include any of the

words listed in Buckley [v. Valeo,

such as “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” “cast your ballot for,” “Smith

for Congress,” “vote against,” etc.]

to be express advocacy under the

[Federal Election Campaign] Act,

but it must, when read as a whole,

and with limited reference to

external events, be susceptible of no

other reasonable interpretation but

as an exhortation to vote for or

against a specific candidate.”

Relying on Buckley v. Valeo, the

district court concluded that the

regulation at 100.22(b) was unconstitutional despite the Ninth

Circuit’s holding in Furgatch. The

district court said that the Buckley

court defined express advocacy as

“communications that in express

terms advocate the election or defeat

of a clearly identified candidate for

federal office,” and thus funds spent

on such advocacy could be regulated

by the FEC. On the other hand, the

district court said, funds spent on

issue advocacy could not be regulated by the FEC because “discussion of public issues and debate on

the qualifications of candidates are

integral to the operation of the

system of government established

by our Constitution.” According to

the district court, the Buckley court

stated that, although the distinction

between express advocacy and issue

advocacy could be “fuzzy,” express

advocacy should not be classified

“according to an audience’s reasonable interpretations of the communication at issue.”

The district court held that, by

allowing the FEC to regulate

advocacy based upon the understanding of the audience rather than

the actual message of the advocate,

the regulation at 100.22(b) fails the

Buckley test. Moreover, the district

court concluded, the regulation

empowers the FEC to regulate issue

advocacy, which was “clearly

forbidden by Buckley.” The district

court also pointed out that even the

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Furgatch

“acknowledges that express advocacy must contain a ‘clear plea for

action,’ but the regulation contains

no such requirement—it in fact is

broader than Furgatch, which itself

runs afoul of Buckley.”

Finally, concluding that “First

Amendment protections do not

cease at the boundaries of the

Eastern District,” the court stated

that it is “unwilling to perpetuate the

state of uncertainty faced across the

land by potential participants in the

public arena” and therefore enjoined

the FEC from enforcing 11 CFR

100.22(b) “against VSHL or any

other party in the United States of

America.”

In February, the Commission

voted to appeal the court’s decision

that the VSHL had standing to sue

the FEC and the court’s order

prohibiting the FEC from enforcing

11 CFR 100.22(b) against any party

in the United States. ✦

to doubt that sometimes large

contributions will corrupt our

political system and no reason to

doubt a corresponding suspicion

among voters.

Further, the Court found no

support for the respondents’ arguments that Missouri’s contribution

limits were so different from those

sustained in Buckley as to raise a

new issue about the adequacy of the

Missouri limits. In fact, the Court

found no indication that contribution

limits had a dramatic adverse effect

on the funding of campaigns and

political associations and, thus, no

evidence that the limitations had

prevented candidates from raising

the resources necessary for effective

advocacy.

Justice Stevens filed a concurring

opinion. Justice Breyer filed a

concurring opinion, in which Justice

Ginsburg joined. Justice Kennedy

filed a dissenting opinion. Justice

Thomas also filed a dissenting

opinion, in which Justice Scalia

joined. ✦
March 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

New Litigation

Christine Beaumont, et al. v. FEC

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc.

(NCRL), a non-profit corporation,

and four individuals — Christine

Beaumont, a resident of North

Carolina, and Loretta Thompson,

Stacy Thompson and Barbara Holt,

— all members of the board of

directors of NCRL filed suit against

the FEC for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs rely on a recent

Fourth Circuit decision, North

Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v.

Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705 (4th Cir.

1999), in support of their claim.

They assert that Section 441b of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act), which prohibits corporations

from making contributions or

expenditures in connection with a

federal election, is unconstitutional

because it makes no exception for

nonprofit, ideological corporations.

The lawsuit also challenges the

constitutionality of two FEC regulations: one that prohibits all corporations from making contributions (11

CFR 114.2(b)) and another that

creates an exemption from the ban

on corporate expenditures for

certain nonprofit corporations,

pursuant to the Supreme Court’s

decision in FEC v. Massachusetts

Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238

(1986) (11 CFR 114.10). Plaintiffs

ask the court to:

• Declare that 2 U.S.C. §441b’s

prohibition of corporate contributions and expenditures is overly

broad and unconstitutional on its

face or as applied to NCRL;

• Declare that 11 CFR 114.2(b)’s

prohibition of corporate contributions, and 114.10’s exemption

allowing certain nonprofit corporations to make independent expenditures, are facially unconstitutional or are unconstitutional under

5 U.S.C. §706 or as applied to

NCRL; and

Regional Conference (includes

candidate, corporate/labor and

party workshops)

Date: March 8-10, 2000

Location: Miami, FL

(Sheraton Biscayne Bay)

Registration: $240

Corporate and Labor

Conference

Date: April 6-7, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill)

Registration: $265

Membership and Trade

Association Conference

Date: May 16-17, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hilton Crystal City)

Registration: To be determined

FEC Conference Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Issue a permanent injunction

barring the FEC from enforcing the

Act and 11 CFR 114.2(b) and

114.10 against the plaintiffs with

regard to contributions to federal

candidates and independent

expenditures expressly advocating

the election or defeat of federal

candidates.

NCRL alleges that it accepts an

insignificant amount of donations

from other corporations. According

to the complaint, NCRL has purposes other than the promotion of

political ideas and engages in

business activities which it alleges

are incidental to its overall purposes.

The corporation claims that it

wishes to make contributions to, and

independent expenditures on behalf

of, federal candidates before the

2000 general election.

U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of North Carolina,

Northern Division, 2:00-CV-2-

BO(2), January 3, 2000. ✦

FEC v. Friends for Fasi

Frank F. Fasi was a former

Mayor of Honolulu and gubernatorial candidate in Hawaii. Friends for

Fasi was and is Mr. Fasi’s campaign

committee.

The Commission’s civil complaint alleges that Mr. Fasi and his

campaign committee violated

section 441e of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) by accepting prohibited contributions from

foreign nationals in the form of

reduced rental costs for space

owned, managed and/or controlled

by foreign nationals at the time of

the alleged violations.

The Commission asks the court

to:

• Declare that Mr. Fasi and Friends

for Fasi violated 2 U.S.C. §441e

(which prohibits foreign national

contributions in connection with

any election in the United States);

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2000

10

Ten More States Certified for

State Waiver

Ten more states have been

certified by the Commission as

being qualified for the state filing

waiver: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey,

New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia. This

brings the total number of states

certified to 33.

In the certified states, the public

will now be able to review and copy

campaign finance reports of most

federal candidates by accessing the

FEC’s Web site (www.fec.gov) on

computers located at the state’s

• Enjoin Mr. Fasi and Friends for

Fasi from accepting contributions

in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441e; and

• Assess appropriate civil penalties

against Mr. Fasi and Friends for

Fasi. ✦

On Appeal?

DSCC v. FEC (96-2184 and 95-

0349)

On December 17, 1999, the FEC

appealed this case to the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit. The FEC is

challenging the district court’s final

order that the DSCC had constitutional standing to sue the FEC and

that the Commission unlawfully

delayed completing the administrative complaints the DSCC had filed

with the Commission. ✦

Reports

Public Funding

The FEC Approves Matching

Funds

The FEC certified $5,613,822.13

in February in Federal Matching

Funds to seven Presidential candidates for the 2000 election. The U.S.

Treasury Department will make

partial payments later this month.

This raises to $39,633,318.37 the

total amount of federal funds

certified thus far to eight Presidential candidates eligible to receive

federal primary matching funds.

The chart at right lists the amount

certified to each candidate, along

with the cumulative amount certified to date. Because there are

insufficient funds to pay these

amounts, the Department of Treasury calculates a reduced amount for

Candidate Certification Cumulative

January 2000 Certifications

Gary L. Bauer (R) 1 $287,444.43 $4,251,803.47

Bill Bradley (D) $1,820,417.73 $10,164,271.56

Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform) $509,860.65 $2,882,056.91

Al Gore (D) $874,082.99 $11,944,792.81

Alan L. Keyes (R) $316,004.75 $1,557,439.10

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) $90,077.76 $823,845.48

John S. McCain (R) $1,715,933.82 $5,906,584.04

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

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

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

each campaign. Reduced payments

will continue until the fund has been

replenished, at which time each

campaign will receive the amount it

is due. ✦

campaign finance records office.

The Commission approved the

State Filing Waiver Program on

October 14, 1999. Under this

program, states that meet certain

criteria set out by the Commission

no longer have to receive and

maintain paper copies of most FEC

reports in their state’s campaign

finance records office. Additionally,

most committees no longer have to

file copies of their reports in the

certified states. *

 Note, however, for

the present time, the waiver does not

to apply to reports filed by the

campaigns for U.S. Senate candidates.

For more information on the

waiver, please see page 2 of the

January 2000 Record. ✦

*

 The Commission previously certified

Arkansas, California, Delaware,

Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska,

New Hampshire, New York, North

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, U.S. Virgin

Islands, Washington, West Virginia and

Wisconsin.

Court Cases

(continued from page 9)
March 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

State Election Date 48-Hour Notice

Period

Alabama 6/6/00 5/18 - 6/3/00

Runoff 6/27/00 6/8 - 6/24/00

Alaska 8/22/00 8/3 - 8/19/00

American Samoa 11/7/00 10/19 - 11/4/00

Runoff 11/21/00 11/2 - 11/18/00

Arizona 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

Arkansas 5/23/00 5/4 - 5/20/00

Runoff 6/13/00 5/25 - 6/10/00

California 3/7/00 2/17 - 3/4/00

Colorado 8/8/00 7/26 - 8/11/00

Connecticut 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

Delaware 9/9/00 8/21 - 9/6/00

District of Columbia 5/2/00 4/13 - 4/29/00

Florida 9/5/00 8/17 - 9/2/00

Runoff 10/3/00 9/14 - 9/30/00

Georgia 7/18/00 6/29 - 7/15/00

Runoff 8/8/00 7/20 - 8/5/00

Guam 9/2/00 8/14 - 8/30/00

Hawaii 9/23/00 9/4 - 9/20/00

Idaho 5/23/00 5/4 - 5/20/00

Illinois 3/21/00 3/2 - 3/18/00

Indiana 5/2/00 4/13 - 4/29/00

Iowa 6/6/00 5/18 - 6/3/00

Kansas 8/1/00 7/13 - 7/29/00

Kentucky 5/23/00 5/4 - 5/20/00

Louisiana 11/7/00 10/19 - 11/4/00

Runoff 12/9/00 11/20 - 12/6/00

Maine 6/13/00 5/25 - 6/10/00

Massachusetts 9/19/00 8/31 - 9/16/00

Michigan 8/8/00 7/20 - 8/5/00

Minnesota 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

Mississippi 3/14/00 2/24 - 3/11/00

Runoff 4/4/00 3/16 - 4/1/00

Missouri 8/8/00 7/20 - 8/5/00

Montana 6/6/00 5/18 - 6/3/00

Nebraska 5/9/00 4/20 - 5/6/00

Nevada 9/5/00 8/17 - 9/2/00

New Hampshire 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

New Jersey 6/6/00 5/18 - 6/3/00

New Mexico 6/6/00 5/18 - 6/3/00

New York 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

North Carolina 5/2/00 4/13 - 4/29/00

Runoff 5/30/00 5/11 - 5/27/00

North Dakota 6/13/00 5/25 - 6/10/00

Ohio 3/7/00 2/17 - 3/4/00

Reporting Last-Minute

Contributions: 48-Hour

Notices

Campaign committees must file

special notices, called 48-hour

notices, disclosing contributions of

$1,000 or more received less than

20 days, but more than 48 hours,

before any election in which the

candidate is running. The Commission has, however, exempted from

this requirement, those Presidential

candidates who file their reports on

a monthly basis. See AO 1995-44.

The FEC or the Secretary of the

Senate must receive the notice

within 48 hours of the committee’s

receipt of the contribution. This rule

applies to all types of contributions

to any authorized committee,

including in-kind gifts or advances

of goods or services; loans from the

candidate or other non-bank

sources; and guarantees or endorsements of bank loans to the candidate

or committee.

Committees may file their 48-

hour notices using FEC Form 6.

Alternatively, a committee may use

its own paper or stationary for the

notice, provided that it contains the

following information:

• The candidate’s name and the

office sought;

• The identification of the contributor; and

• The amount and date of receipt of

the contribution.

Committees may fax the notice to

the appropriate office using the

following numbers: FEC, 202/219-

0174; Secretary of the Senate, 202/

225-1851.

A last-minute contribution must

also be itemized in the committee’s

next scheduled report. 11 CFR

104.5(f).

The period covered by 48-hour

notices is listed in the chart to the

right for every state. ✦

(continued on page 12)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2000

12

State Election Date 48-Hour Notice

Period

Oklahoma 8/22/00 8/3 - 8/19/00

Runoff 9/19/00 8/31 - 9/16/00

Oregon 5/16/00 4/27 - 5/13/00

Pennsylvania 4/4/00 3/16 - 4/1/00

Puerto Rico 11/14/99 10/26 - 11/11/00

Rhode Island 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

South Carolina 6/13/00 5/25 - 6/10/00

Runoff 6/27/00 6/8 - 6/24/00

South Dakota 6/6/00 5/18 - 6/3/00

Runoff 6/20/00 6/1 - 6/17/00

Tennessee 8/3/00 7/15 - 7/31/00

Texas 3/14/00 2/24 - 3/11/00

Runoff 4/11/00 3/23 - 4/8/00

Utah 6/27/00 6/8 - 6/24/00

Vermont 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

Virginia 6/13/00 5/25 - 6/10/00

Virgin Islands 9/9/00 8/21 - 9/6/00

Washington 9/19/00 8/31 - 9/16/00

West Virginia 5/9/00 4/20 - 5/6/00

Wisconsin 9/12/00 8/24 - 9/9/00

Wyoming 8/22/00 8/3 - 8/19/00

Nonfilers

Crane for Congress Committee

and Billy K. McMinn, as treasurer,

failed to file the 1999 Year End

Report. The FEC is required by law

to publicize the names of nonfiling

candidate committees. 2 U.S.C.

§438(a)(7). The agency pursues

enforcement actions against

nonfilers on a case-by-case basis. ✦

Reports

(continued from page 11)

FEC Adds Open Agenda

Documents to Web Site

On February 1, 2000, the FEC

added agenda documents for its

open public meeting to its Web site

at www.fec.gov. To see the documents, click on ‘Campaign Finance

Law Resources’ on the home page.

At the bottom of the next page, click

on ‘Commission Meetings.’ Documents will be found under the date

of the meeting at which they were

discussed, in the order they were

slated for the meeting.

The Commission regularly holds

its public meeting on Thursday

mornings beginning at 10 a.m. at its

building at 999 E Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. At these meetings

Semiannual PAC Count

Shows Increase Since 1999

According to the FEC’s semiannual survey taken January 1, the

number of federally registered

political action committees (PACs)

has increased slightly since July 1,

1999, bringing the total number of

registered PACs to 3,835.

Corporate PACs remain the

largest category, with 1,548 committees, followed by nonconnected

with 972, trade/membership/health

with 844, labor with 318, corporations without stock with 115 and

cooperatives with 38.

The chart on the next page shows

the number of PACs in existence

since the end of 1974.

For additional information, visit

the FEC’s Web site (www.fec.gov)

or request a copy of the agency’s

January 14 press release (call 800/

424-9530 and press 3 for the Public

Records Office or press 2 for the

Press Office). ✦

Statistics

Commissioners discuss and vote on

staff drafts of Commission responses to Advisory Opinion

requests, staff proposals for final

audit reports, regulatory proposals

and other policy matters.

The FEC’s Web site was first

launched in February 1996. Images

of reports filed by Presidential

campaigns, House campaigns, PACs

and political party committees were

added in January 1998, and expanded to include the previous

1995-96 cycle reports later that year.

The full texts of all Advisory

Opinions issued since 1977 have

been available online since August

of 1999. ✦

FEC

Web Site
13

March 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Corporate

Nonconnected

Trade/Membership/Health

Labor

Other

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

PAC Count

1974 - Present
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2000

14

Party

Activities

1

 In states that have only one U.S.

House Representative, the coordinated

party expenditure limit for the House

nominee is $67,560, the same amount

as the Senate limit.

Authority to Make Coordinated Party Expenditures on

Behalf of House, Senate and Presidential Nominees

National Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of House,

Senate and Presidential nominees. May

authorize 1

 other party committees to make

expenditures against its own spending

limits. Shares limits with national congress

sional and senatorial campaign committees.

State Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of House

and Senate nominees seeking election in the

committee’s state. May authorize 1

 other

party committees to make expenditures

against its own spending limits. May be

authorized 1

 by national committee to make

expenditures on behalf of Presidential

nominee that count against national commit

tee’s limit.

Local Party Committee May be authorized 1 by national or state

party committee to make expenditures

against their limits.

1 The authorizing committee must provide prior, written authorization specifying the

amount the committee may spend.

2000 Coordinated Party

Expenditure Limits

The 2000 coordinated party

expenditure limits are now available. They are:

• $13,680,292 for Presidential

nominees;

• $33,780 for House nominees; 1

 and

• A range from $67,560 to

$1,636,438 for Senate nominees,

depending on each state’s voting

age population.

Party committees may make

these special expenditures on behalf

of their 2000 general election

nominees. National party committees have a separate limit for each

nominee, but they share their limits

with their national senatorial and

congressional committees. Each

state party committee has a separate

limit for each House and Senate

nominee in its state. Local party

committees do not have their own

separate limit. One party committee

may authorize another party committee to make an expenditure

against its limit. Local committees

may only make coordinated party

expenditures with advanced written

authorization from another committee.

Coordinated party expenditure

limits are separate from the contribution limits; they also differ from

contributions in that the party

committee must spend the funds on

behalf of the candidate rather than

give the money directly to the

campaign. Although these expenditures may be made in consultation

with the candidate, only the party

Calculating 2000 Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits

Amount Formula

Presidential Nominee $13,680,292 2¢ x VAP 1 x COLA2

Senate Nominee See table on The greater of:

facing page $20,000 x COLA or

2¢ x state VAP x COLA

House Nominee in States

with Only One Representative $67,560 $20,000 x COLA

House Nominee in Other States $33,780 $10,000 x COLA

Nominee for Delegate or

Resident Commissioner 3 $33,780 $10,000 x COLA

1VAP means voting age population. VAP figures are not yet official.

2COLA means cost-of-living adjustment. The 2000 COLA is 3.378. This figure is

official.

3American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands elect

Delegates; Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner.
15

March 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for

2000 Senate Nominees

Voting Age Population Expenditure

State (in thousands) Limit

Alabama 3,304 $223,218

Alaska* 423 $67,560

Arizona 3,444 $232,677

Arkansas 1,891 $127,756

California 24,222 $1,636,438

Colorado 2,991 $202,072

Connecticut 2,454 $165,792

Delaware* 571 $67,560

Florida 11,541 $779,710

Georgia 5,731 $387,186

Hawaii 896 $67,560

Idaho 901 $67,560

Illinois 8,947 $604,459

Indiana 4,414 $298,210

Iowa 2,150 $145,254

Kansas 1,955 $132,080

Kentucky 2,995 $202,342

Louisiana 3,182 $214,976

Maine 963 $67,560

Maryland 3,862 $260,917

Massachusetts 4,707 $318,005

Michigan 7,303 $493,391

Minnesota 3,504 $236,730

Mississippi 2,016 $136,201

Missouri 4,069 $274,902

Montana* 659 $67,560

Nebraska 1,222 $82,558

Nevada 1,318 $89,044

New Hampshire 897 $67,560

New Jersey 6,140 $414,818

New Mexico 1,244 $84,045

New York 13,756 $929,355

North Carolina 5,710 $385,768

North Dakota* 474 $67,560

Ohio 8,413 $568,382

Oklahoma 2,476 $167,279

Oregon 2,489 $168,157

Pennsylvania 9,141 $617,566

Rhode Island 750 $67,560

South Carolina 2,930 $197,951

South Dakota* 535 $67,560

Tennessee 4,143 $279,901

Texas 14,325 $967,797

Utah 1,422 $96,070

Vermont* 454 $67,560

Virginia 5,208 $351,852

Washington 4,270 $288,481

West Virginia 1,403 $94,787

Wisconsin 3,902 $263,619

Wyoming* 353 $67,560

* In these states, which have only one U.S. House Representative, the spending limit

for the House nominee is $67,560, the same amount as the Senate limit. In other

states, the limit for each House nominee is $33,780.

committee making the expenditure—not the candidate committee—

must report them. (Coordinated

party expenditures are reported on

FEC Form 3X, line 25, and are

always itemized on Schedule F,

regardless of amount.)

The accompanying tables include: information on which party

committees have the authority to

make coordinated party expenditures; the formula used to calculate

the coordinated party expenditure

limits; and a listing of the state-bystate coordinated party expenditure

limits. ✦

Public Appearances

March 3-4, 2000

The Federalist Society at Harvard

Law School

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Commissioner David Mason

March 17-19, 2000

Center for Public Integrity

Park City, Utah

Bob Biersack

March 24, 2000

Western Carolina University

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner David Mason

March 29, 2000

Tonbridge School

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner David Mason

March 31,2000

The Voting Integrity Project

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner David Mason
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2000

16

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2000 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number, following the colon, indicates

the page number in that issue. For

example, “3:4” means that the article

is in the March issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1999-24: Web site sponsored by

LLC featuring information on

candidates, 1:17

1999-29: Fundraising exemption

from state limits for direct mailing

by Presidential committee, 1:19

1999-30: Application of allocation

ratio in state with single house

legislature, 1:20

1999-31: Application of one-third

rule to prizes and premiums used

in connection with payroll deduction, 1:21

Index 1999-32: Indian tribe’s utility

authority treated as separate from

the tribe, 3:4

1999-33: Delayed transmittal of

payroll deductions, 3:5

1999-34: Use of campaign funds to

finance charity event, 2:2

1999-35: Soliciting for SSF through

electronic deduction system, 2:4

1999-36: Fundraising via electronic

checks and Internet fund transfers,

3:5

Compliance

MUR 3774: Failure to allocate

expenses between federal and

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

party, 3:3

MUR 4322 and 4650: Violations by

candidate, campaign committees,

treasurer and relative, 2:1

MUR 4648: Failure to disclose

purpose of expenditures and other

violations, 3:4

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9

– DSCC, 1:2

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 3:8

FEC v. _____

– Friend for Fasi, 3:9

Other

– Fireman v. USA, 1:13

– Mariani v. USA, 1:3

– Shrink PAC v. Nixon, 3:7

Regulations

Coordination, 1:14

Reports

Reports due in 2000, 1:5

State Filing Waiver, 1:2; 2:5