November 1996 Federal Election Commission Volume 22, Number 11

Table of Contents

Court Cases

1 Perot ’96 and Natural Law Party

v. FEC and CPD

5 On Appeal?

6 FEC v. Survival Education Fund

7 FEC v. Murray for Congress

7 FEC v. Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign Committee

7 DSCC v. FEC (96-2109)

8 New Litigation

Regulations

1 Best Efforts Regulations

2 Final Rules on Electronic Filing

4 Rulemaking on Independent

Expenditures by Party Committees

Reports

3 Post-Election Report Due

December 5

Public Funding

3 FEC Denies Requests to Suspend

Public Funds for Clinton and Dole

Statistics

3 18-Month PAC Statistics

4 Federal Register Notices

Election Administration

5 New Publications

8 Advisory Opinions

Information

13 Flashfax Menu

Commission

15 Commission Joins Inter-American

Union

15 Index

Court Cases Regulations

(continued on page 5)

(continued on page 1)

FEC Seeks Public Comment

on Changes to “Best Efforts”

Regulations

The Federal Election Commission seeks comments on proposed

revisions to two aspects of its “best

efforts” regulations. This section of

the law ensures that political

committees use their best efforts to

obtain and report names, addresses,

occupations and employers of

people who contribute more than

$200 in a year to committee coffers.

See 2 U.S.C. §§431(13), 432(i) and

434(b)(3)(A).

The Commission has proposed

one change in response to the recent

court decision in Republican

National Committee v. FEC, 1 which

found the required notice concerning “best efforts” to be inaccurate

and misleading.” See 11 CFR

104.7(b). The court concluded that

the statute only calls for committees

to use their best efforts to collect the

information. They may report

whatever information donors choose

to provide.

The revisions would require

committees, under 11 CFR

104.7(b)(1), to include an accurate

1 76 F.3d 400, 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996),

petition for cert. filed on other issues

(Sept. 9, 1996).

Perot ’96 and Natural Law

Party v. FEC and the

Commission on Presidential

Debates

On October 4, 1996, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit upheld a lower

court ruling that dismissed lawsuits

against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Commission

on Presidential Debates (CPD). The

suits had been filed by two Presidential hopefuls who, among other

things, sought to participate in the

Presidential debates.

The Complaints

One suit was filed by Ross Perot

and Pat Choate, the Presidential and

Vice Presidential candidates for the

Reform Party, and Perot ’96. A

similar suit was filed by the Natural

Law Party (NLP) and its Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, John Hagelin and Mike

Tompkins.

The two campaigns filed the suits

in U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia after the CPD excluded

the candidates from a list of participants for three nationally televised

debates. Previously, in September,

Perot ’96 and the NLP had filed

administrative complaints with the

FEC, but, because of procedures set
2

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996

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 for the

hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Stephanie Fitzgerald, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

(continued on page 4)

1 See Public Law 104-79, section 1(a),

109 Stat. 791 (December 28, 1995).

Final Rules on Electronic

Filing

On August 15, 1996, the FEC

published new rules implementing

an electronic filing system for

campaign finance reports filed with

the agency (61 FR 42371). The

electronic filing system will be in

place in time for the 1997-98

election cycle (i.e., for reports

covering activity after December 31,

1996).

Electronic filing will be a voluntary system available to committees

that file with the FEC. Senate

campaigns and other committees

that file with the Secretary of the

Senate do not have the option of

filing electronically.

A law passed in 1995 requires the

FEC to implement an electronic

filing system.1 The system is

intended to result in cost savings

statement of the law’s requirements

in all solicitations. The Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking offers two

examples that would satisfy the

notice requirement and seeks

comment on whether it would be

preferable to require political

committees to use one or the other.

The examples are:

• “Federal law requires us to use our

best efforts to collect and report

the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of

individuals whose contributions

exceed $200 in a calendar year.”

• “To comply with Federal law, we

must use best efforts to obtain,

maintain, and submit the name,

mailing address, occupation and

name of employer of individuals

whose contributions exceed $200

per calendar year.”

Committees may substitute their

own wording for the “best efforts”

statement as long as it complies with

federal guidelines.

Another proposed change to the

regulations would clarify in 11 CFR

104.7(b)(3) that separate segregated

funds (SSFs) are expected to report

contributor information that their

connected organizations already

have. In some situations it may be

more efficient for SSFs to obtain

missing contributor information

from the connected organization—

such as a corporation, labor organization, trade association,

cooperative or membership organization—than from contributors.

The Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking was published in the

Federal Register on October 9, 1996

(61 FR 52901).

The deadline for comments,

which must be in writing, is December 6. The FEC is extending the

usual 30-day deadline for comments

because of the Presidential election.

Comments should be addressed to

Susan E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463. ✦

and increased efficiency for both

filers and the FEC. It is also intended to provide the public with

more complete on-line access to

reports on file with the FEC.

The effective date of the regulations on electronic filing will be

announced in the Federal Register

and the Record.

Eventually, the Commission will

begin accepting reports submitted

through telecommunications, but

right now diskettes are the only

acceptable medium.

A committee that chooses to file

electronically must comply with the

requirements listed below.

One-Year Commitment

Generally, a committee that

begins filing its reports electronically must continue to do so for the

remainder of the calendar year.

However, the FEC will waive this

requirement if it determines that

extraordinary circumstances make it

impracticable for the committee to

continue filing electronically. 11

CFR 104.18(a).

Standard Format

The report must conform to the

FEC’s Electronic Filing Specification Requirements, which describe

how the data must be organized.

11 CFR 104.18(b). The technical

specifications can be downloaded

from the Commission’s home page

at http://www.fec.gov.

Validation Checks

Before submitting an electronic

report, a committee must check it

against the FEC’s validation software to make sure that the files can

be read by the agency’s computer

system. The program also checks to

see if the report includes the required information and if the

summary page figures track those

on the detailed summary page. The

agency will not accept reports that

do not pass the validation program.

11 CFR 104.18(c). The validation

software will be available free from
3

November 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Post Election Report Due

December 5

The 30-day post-election report

for the November 5 general election

must be filed by the following

committees:

• All registered PACs and party

committees (both quarterly and

monthly filers 1

)—even committees

with very little or no activity to

disclose; and

• Authorized committees of federal

candidates in the general election,

including committees of unopposed candidates.

The report covers activity from

the closing date of the committees’

last report through November 25.

The report must reach the appropriate federal and state filing offices

by Thursday, December 5. If sent by

registered or certified mail, however, the report will be filed on time

if postmarked by December 5. ✦

1 The post-general election report is

filed in lieu of the monthly report

covering November activity.

Reports

Public Funding

FEC Denies Requests to

Suspend Public Funds for

Clinton and Dole

The Commission recently denied

requests to stop matching fund

payments to the Clinton and Dole

Presidential campaigns.

In June 1996, the Democratic

National Committee requested that

the agency suspend matching fund

payments to Dole for President, Inc.

(the Dole Committee), alleging that

the committee had forfeited its

entitlement to the funds because it

had overspent the $37.1 million

limit on primary spending.

In July 1996, the Dole Committee

requested the suspension of matching funds to the Clinton/Gore ’96

Primary Committee on the grounds

that the committee had exceeded the

spending limit.

In both cases, the FEC said that

the allegations were too speculative

to meet the strict standard in these

cases: information demonstrating

that a candidate has knowingly and

substantially exceeded the expenditure limit. See 11 CFR 9033.3.

The Commission will be able to

determine whether the allegations

are accurate when it conducts the

mandatory audits of the public

funding recipients. ✦

Statistics

18-Month PAC Statistics

Political action committees

(PACs) contributed $126.5 million

to federal candidates between

January 1995 and the end of June

1996, an increase of almost $17

million over the 18-month period in

the last election cycle (1993-94).

Statistics show that the Republican candidates received more PAC

contributions than Democratic

candidates, a departure from previous cycles.

PAC Contributions to Candidates

Through June 30 of Election Year

1994 Cycle 1996 Cycle

Dems $72.0 million $54.7 million

Repubs $37.8 million $71.6 million

With respect to House candidates,

incumbents continued to get a much

higher percentage of PAC contributions than challengers and open-seat

candidates. Labor and nonconnected

PACs, however, increased the

percentage of their contributions

that went to House challengers.

The table and graphs are based on

a September 27 news release on 18-

month PAC activity. The release is

available through Flashfax (202/

501-3413; document 532) and on

the FEC’s home page at http://

www.fec.gov. ✦

Percentage of PAC Contributions

Received by House Incumbents 1

Through June 30 of Election Year

Percentage of PAC Contributions

Received by House Challengers 1

Through June 30 of Election Year

1 Figures limited to PAC contributions

given to candidates seeking election in

cycle.

2 Figures do not include PAC contributions from the following categories of

connected organizations: trade/

membership/health, nonstock corporations and cooperatives.

3 Nonconnected PACs do not have any

connected organizations.

1994

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Corp. Labor Noncon.

1994

0%

10%

20%

30%

Corp. Labor Noncon.

1996

1996

2 3

2 3
Regulations

(continued from page 2)

Rulemaking on Independent

Expenditures by Party

Committees

On October 3, the Commission

voted to initiate a rulemaking

[deletion] on independent expenditures to address any special circumstances presented by party

committees (11 CFR Part 109 and

Section 110.7). The rulemaking will

address significant issues raised by

the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in

Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee v. FEC, 116

S.Ct. 2309 (June 26, 1996).1

 (See

also court case summary on page 7.)

The Court held that “political parties

are capable of making independent

expenditures on behalf of their

candidates for federal office and that

such expenditures are not subject to

the coordinated expenditure limits

found in section 441a(d) of the

F[ederal] E[lection] C[ampaign]

A[ct].” 116 S.Ct. 2312-15. The FEC

had argued that party committees

were incapable of making independent expenditures because of their

close ties to candidates.

To conform its regulations with

the Court’s decision, the Commis1 Although the Colorado Republican

litigation remains ongoing, the issue of

what constitutes an independent

expenditure by a party committee is no

longer part of the case.

2 The Commission sought comments on

the petition (61 FR 41036, August 7,

1996) but received none.

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1996-19

11 CFR Part 104: Recordkeeping

and Reporting by Political

Committees: Best Efforts; Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (61 FR

52901, October 9, 1996)

sion has already repealed 11 CFR

110.7(b)(4). 61 FR 40961, August 7,

1996. That provision had prohibited

national and state party committees

from making independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate for the

U.S. House of Representatives or

the U.S. Senate. The technical

amendment became effective

August 7, 1996 (61 FR 40961).

The agency’s decision to initiate

the new rulemaking was in response

to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee and the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The committees

requested that the FEC amend its

rules to provide “meaningful guidance” on independent expenditures

by national party committees.2

The Commission expects to

consider draft rules on party committee expenditures in early 1997. ✦

the FEC starting in December. It

will also be available for downloading from the FEC’s home page.

Signature Requirements

For each report submitted electronically, a committee must also

submit a statement, signed by the

treasurer or designated assistant

treasurer, verifying that the signer

examined the report and that the

report is true, correct and complete

to the best of the signer’s knowledge

and belief. A committee may submit

either the original paper copy of this

statement or a digitized copy stored

as a separate file on the disk.

11 CFR 104.18(e).

Third-Party Signatures

The schedules, forms and documents listed below have special

signature requirements. Therefore,

in addition to providing the required

data within the electronic report, a

committee must submit either the

paper document or a digitized

version stored as a separate file on

the disk. 11 CFR 104.18(f).

• Schedule C-1 (Loans and Lines of

Credit from Lending Institutions),

which must be signed by the

lender, and copies of loan agreements required to be filed with

Schedule C-1;

• Schedule E (Itemized Independent

Expenditures), which must be

notarized;

• Form 5 (Report of Independent

Expenditures Made and Contributions Received), which must be

notarized; and

• Form 8 (Debt Settlement Plan),

which must include the signatures

of creditors involved in the plan.

Amended Reports

A committee must submit a

complete version of an amended

report with amended entries flagged

electronically so the FEC and the

public will know which portions

have been revised. 11 CFR

104.18(d).

Preservation of Reports

For each electronic report filed,

the treasurer must retain a machinereadable copy of the report for three

years (as required under 11 CFR

104.14(b)(2)). A copy of a report

stored on a diskette would qualify as

a machine-readable copy. In addition, the committee must retain the

original of any signature page

submitted to the FEC in a digitized

format. 11 CFR 104.18(g). ✦

4

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996
Election

Administration

New Publications

The FEC’s Office of Election

Administration recently published

several new reports and resumed

publication of the Journal of

Election Administration. Each of

these publications is available for

free from the Office of Election

Administration. Call 800/424-9530

(press 4) or 202/219-3670.

• Ensuring the Accessibility of the

Election Process gives election

officials guidance on meeting the

accessibility requirements of the

Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act of

1989 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990.

• Simplifying Election Forms and

Materials gives advice on how to

simplify election registration

materials to make them more

reader friendly.

• Federal Election Law 96 summarizes federal laws pertaining to

registration, voting and public

employee participation in the

electoral process.

• Election Directory 96 provides

names, addresses and telephone

numbers of state election officials

and national associations of

election officials. It provides the

same information for federal

agencies and House and Senate

committees that are involved in the

election process.

• Journal of Election Administration, Volume 17, 1996, is the first

issue to be published in some

years. The Election Administration

Office intends to resume Journal

publication on an annual basis. The

new issue focuses on special

voting populations: convicted

felons, the homeless and college

students. An article on American

citizenship answers common

questions on who qualifies as a

U.S. citizen or a U.S. national. ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

(continued)

forth in the Federal Election Campaign Act (the FECA or the Act),

resolution of those complaints was

not expected before the debates

started in October.

Both suits contended that the

CPD had violated FEC rules governing nonpartisan candidate

debates at 11 CFR 113.10 and the

Perot suit alleged that the CPD’s

acceptance of corporate donations to

pay for the debates violated the

Act’s ban on corporate contributions

at 2 U.S.C. §441b.

The Perot suit asked the court:

• To instruct the FEC to order the

CPD to invite the Reform Party

nominees to the scheduled debates

or to cancel all the debates being

staged by the CPD;

• To find that the CPD does not

qualify for the exemption permitting certain corporations to use

corporate money to conduct

candidate debates, and that the

CPD failed to file as a political

committee and accepted excessive

contributions;

• To prevent any additional corporate contributions to or expenditures by the CPD for the purpose

of intervening in the 1996 Presidential campaign by sponsoring

Presidential debates;

• To find that the CPD violated

11 CFR 110.13(c) by making party

affiliation the sole criterion for

selecting participants and for

failing to use “objective criteria”

as required by the FEC rules in

selecting participants;

• To find that the CPD violated

11 CFR 110.13(a) by selecting

only the two major parties’ political candidates;

• To find that the FEC unlawfully

delegated authority to the CPD to

establish the criteria for selecting

participants in the debates;

• To find that the FEC’s regulations

governing candidate debates at

11 CFR 110.13 are outside the

scope of the agency’s authority;

and

• To find that the FEC and CPD

violated Mr. Perot’s and Mr.

Choate’s Constitutional rights

under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The NLP suit asked the court:

• To enter a temporary restraining

order and issue preliminary and

permanent injunctions, preventing

the CPD from staging the debates

unless it selects debate participants

using pre-existing, objective

criteria and to provide the court

with a list of those criteria; or, in

the alternative,

• To order the FEC, prior to the

debates, to take action on the

administrative complaint that

contended that the CPD had

violated FEC regulations.

District Court Decision

The court combined the suits for

oral argument and dismissed both

cases on October 1, 1996.

The court concluded that it had

no jurisdiction in the matter. First,

On Appeal?

Appealed?

Albanese v. FEC No

U.S. Supreme Court denied Sal Abanese’s petition for the

Court to hear the case. The district court had dismissed the

case, and the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling

that Mr. Albanese did not have standing to challenge the

constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act. See the

May 1996 Record, page 4, and the July 1995 Record, page 8.

5

November 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
6

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996

Court Cases

(continued from page 5)

FEC v. Survival Education

Fund

On September 3, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the Southern

District of New York issued a

consent order imposing a $2,000

penalty against the Survival Education Fund, Inc., for failing to comply

with the disclaimer rules of 2 U.S.C.

§441d(a)(3). The Commission

alleged that the Survival Education

Fund (SEF) had failed to include the

required disclaimer notice in a July

1984 fundraising letter soliciting

contributions to defeat a candidate

for federal office.

In a 1995 decision, the Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit had

ruled that the SEF was within the

class of nonprofit advocacy corporations whose independent expenditures the Supreme Court, in FEC v.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life,

Inc., had found to be exempt from

the overall ban on corporate expenditures (2 U.S.C. §441b(a)). With

respect to the disclaimer issue,

however, the appellate court had

as mandated by Congress, the FEC

has exclusive jurisdiction to hear

complaints alleging violation of the

Act, and the plaintiffs have no

private right of action against the

CPD. Second, the FEC has 120 days

to act on an administrative complaint before the court may become

involved. 2 U.S.C. §437g.1

In addition, the court weighed the

potential damage to Mr. Perot, Dr.

Hagelin and their running mates

from not participating in the debates

and found that such damage could

be partially remedied in later court

proceedings—for example, before

the next Presidential election four

years from now—and that the

damage they incurred did not

“outweigh the public interest in

allowing the debates to go forward

without interference.”

Specifically as to Mr. Perot’s

arguments, the court also found no

likelihood of success on the merits

of the claim that the CPD had

violated the candidate’s Constitutional rights because he had not

shown that the CPD is a state actor 2

or that the FEC had delegated any of

its authority to the CPD. Also, the

court upheld the FEC regulations at

11 CFR 110.13(a) that allow

nonprofit, nonpartisan corporations

to stage debates in certain circumstances and, under 11 CFR 114.4(f),

to accept contributions from corporations to put on such events without

the funds being considered illegal

campaign contributions or expenditures.

Appeals Court Decision

Because of expedited procedures,

the appeals court heard the case two

days after the district court handed

down its ruling. The appeals court

affirmed the lower court’s decision

that it lacked jurisdiction to take

action on the alleged violation of the

Act or to order the FEC to resolve

the complaints prior to the CPDsponsored debate on October 6. In

explaining this decision, the court

said, “Congress could not have

spoken more plainly in limiting the

jurisdiction of federal courts to

adjudicate claims under the FECA.”

The court said, “We assume that in

formulating these procedures

Congress...knew full well that

complaints filed shortly before

elections, or debates, might not be

investigated and prosecuted until

after the event.”

The NLP’s arguments that the

delay would cause “irreparable

harm” to its candidates and that the

impending debates constituted

extraordinary circumstances,

requiring a waiver of the Act’s

procedures, were rejected by the

court. Further, the court said that if

it were to enjoin the CPD from

carrying off the debates or selecting

participants, it might risk violating

the CPD’s First Amendment rights.

The court also rejected Mr.

Perot’s allegation that the FEC had

delegated its authority to the CPD

by prescribing regulations that allow

organizations that are staging

debates to create their own “objective criteria” to determine who may

participate. See 11 CFR 110.13(c).

The court said, “A regulation’s use

of a term that may be susceptible to

differing interpretations does not

automatically result in a delegation

of authority to entities that it

governs.” The court also observed

that even if the FEC were to immediately revise its debate regulations

(in response to the complaint), the

agency could not complete the task

in time for the debates. Under the

FECA, new regulations do not

1 Section 437g(a)(8) allows a complainant to file suit against the FEC only for

dismissing his complaint or for failing

to act on it within 120 days after the

complaint was filed.

2 Only government entities (or state

actors), not private groups, are subject

to the Constitutional violations alleged

by Mr. Perot.

become effective until 30 legislative

days after the FEC transmits them to

Congress.

With regard to Mr. Perot’s

challenge to the debate regulations

themselves, the appeals court

observed that the district court had

not had the benefit of the administrative record and that the issue had

not been fully briefed. Consequently, the appeals court vacated

the district court’s decision upholding the regulation and remanded the

claim to the district court with

instructions to dismiss without

prejudice. (Mr. Perot would then be

free to file a new suit on the same

issue.) In all other respects, the

appeals court affirmed the district

court’s order.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit (96-

5287 and 96-5288), U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

(96-2196 and 96-2132).

6
7

November 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

FEC v. John J. Murray for

Congress Committee

On September 10, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania issued a

consent order that the defendant

committee, an authorized committee

of a 1994 Congressional candidate

in Pennsylvania, violated 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(6)(A) by failing to file a 48-

hour notice disclosing the receipt of

a $100,000 loan from the candidate.

Under the 48-hour notice provision,

a candidate committee must file a

notice providing information on any

contribution of $1,000 or more it

receives after the 20th day but more

than 48 hours before an election.

The committee must file the notice

within 48 hours of receiving the

contribution.

The court awarded the FEC a

$15,000 penalty but, because of the

committee’s financial circumstances

(its lack of assets and $350,000

debt), the court suspended payment

of all but $3,000.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 96-4490. ✦

FEC v. Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign

Committee

On September 20, 1996, the

Court of Appeals for the 10th

Circuit decided not to expedite

litigation on whether the statute’s

coordinated party expenditures

limits (2 U.S.C. §441d(a)) are

constitutional because the issues

were “too important to be resolved

in haste.” The Colorado Republican

committee had urged the court to

make a quick decision on the

constitutionality of the 441a(d)

limits and related issues. The court

said that inevitably the Supreme

Court itself would have to resolve

the issues but that complex factual

questions first needed to be researched. The court therefore

remanded the case to the Colorado

district court to consider the issues

after further factfinding.

In its June 1996 decision in this

case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled

that a radio advertisement paid for

by the Colorado Republican committee qualified as an independent

expenditure rather than as a coordinated party expenditure and, as

such, was constitutionally protected

speech that could not be subject to

spending limits. The Supreme Court

did not address the Colorado

Republican Committee’s constitutional challenge to the 441a(d)

expenditure limits but instead

remanded consideration of the

broader issues to the lower courts.

(See the August 1996 Record.)

U.S. Supreme Court (95-489),

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th

Circuit (93-1433 and 93-1434), U.S.

District Court for the District of

Colorado (89-1159). ✦

DSCC v. FEC (96-2109)

On October 9, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia dismissed this case in an

expedited decision prompted by the

nearness of the November general

election. The court said that it could

not rule on how party committees

may make expenditures that are

“independent” because the FEC has

not yet addressed the issue in a

rulemaking or an advisory opinion.

The Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee (DSCC) and

the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee (DCCC)

wanted the court to rule that their

proposed expenditures qualified as

“independent expenditures” and

therefore were outside any spending

limits. But the court said that the

FEC “has been granted primary

jurisdiction and therefore should be

given an adequate opportunity to

address the issues raised by Plaintiffs.”

Background

In a June 26, 1996, decision, the

Supreme Court held that political

parties were capable of making

“independent expenditures,” thus

reversing the FEC’s long-held

presumption that party expenditures

on behalf of candidates were

“coordinated” with candidates and

thus subject to contribution or

expenditure limits. Colorado

Republican Federal Campaign

Committee v. FEC, 116 S. Ct. 2309

(1996).

In July the DSCC and the DCCC

asked the FEC to revise agency

regulations in time for the November election to explain how party

committees, with their traditionally

close contacts with candidates,

could make independent expenditures. The Commission agreed to

conduct the rulemaking but said it

could not revise the rules in time for

the 1996 election cycle.

In July the committees also

formally requested an FEC advisory

(continued)

7

found that the SEF violated the

disclaimer provisions by not identifying itself as the sponsor of the

solicitation letter. (See the December 1995 Record for a summary of

this decision.)

The court of appeals had remanded the case to the district court

for appropriate action.

The parties agreed to the district

court’s imposition of the $2,000

penalty and dismissal of the case.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit (94-6080), U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania (89-

0347). ✦
8

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996

opinion (AOR 1996-30) to answer

questions on their proposed independent expenditures, such as

whether past contacts between party

staff and candidates’ campaign staff

would compromise the independence of the expenditures, or

whether the party committees could

erect a “Chinese Wall” to segregate

staff chosen to work on independent

expenditure campaigns.

An advisory opinion drafted by

the FEC’s Office of General Counsel and voted on in late August

failed to win approval by the

required four-vote majority of

Commissioners.

In September, the plaintiffs filed

suit asking the court to find that

their proposed expenditures would

qualify as independent expenditures.

The committees claimed that they

were forced to file suit because the

FEC’s failure to issue formal

guidance would expose them to

possible penalties under the Federal

Election Campaign Act should they

pursue their independent expenditure program.

Court Decision

The court ruled that the plaintiffs

had standing to file suit because

they suffered injury: “the chilling of

First Amendment rights” and “a

creditable threat of prosecution.”

However, the court said, it was

unable to rule on the substance of

the case because the FEC had not

yet taken any final agency action

that could be reviewed by a court.

The court said that the plaintiffs “are

asking the Court to ‘step into the

Commission’s shoes’ and issue the

advisory opinion and final rules

which it was unable to provide.”

The court noted that Congress

intended the FEC to interpret the

statute first, before the courts.

The court therefore granted the

FEC’s motion to dismiss the case.

The DSCC and DCCC subsequently asked the U.S. Court of

Court Cases

(continued from page 7)

New Litigation

NRCC v. FEC (96-2295)

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) asks

the court to find that the FEC’s

failure to act on NRCC’s administrative complaints within 120 days

is contrary to law under 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(8)(A).

The NRCC has filed three

complaints with the Commission

alleging that the AFL-CIO and

allied labor organizations are

engaged in making massive expenditures directly coordinated with

Democratic candidates. The NRCC

claims that these expenditures have

resulted in millions of dollars in inkind contributions from prohibited

labor dues, in violation of 2 U.S.C.

§441b(a).

Claiming that the FEC’s “unreasonable delay” in failing to act on

the three administrative complaints

(filed in February, March and April

1996) exposes the committee to

irreparable injury, the NRCC

petitions the court to order the FEC

to take action within 30 days.

The NRCC simultaneously

moves for an expedited discovery

schedule so that the case can be

decided before the election.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 96-2295,

October 3, 1996. ✦

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1996-25

Seeking Employer

Information from Union

Members Without

Permanent Employment

The Seafarers Political Activity

Donation (SPAD), the separate

segregated fund of the Seafarers

International Union, must provide

some employer information when

itemizing contributions even though

their members—merchant seamen

who work aboard U.S.-flag vessels—frequently change employers.

If a contributor states that he or she

is currently “on the beach” rather

than currently assigned to a vessel,

SPAD may report the contributor’s

employer as “various U.S.-flag

vessel operators.” In this situation,

listing the contributor as simply

“unemployed” would be somewhat

inaccurate.

A merchant seaman generally

works for a shipping company only

for the duration of the trip—a few

months or less. After the trip, the

Union member returns to the

“beach,” waits for his name to reach

the top of the hiring list, and then

returns to work, usually for a

different company. To deal with this

“rotary crewing” arrangement,

which prevents SPAD from using a

conventional payroll deduction

program, SPAD collects contributions deducted from the Union’s

employer-funded vacation plan.

(Vacation plan funds are a permissible source of contributions; see

AOs 1980-74, 1980-69 and 1979-

60.)

At the time a contribution is

deducted, the contributor is usually

between assignments and unemployed. Because of this special

circumstance, SPAD wished to

forgo seeking the employer identification from contributors whose

Appeals for the District of Columbia

to review the lower court’s judgment on an expedited basis so the

case could be resolved before the

election. That court, however, on

October 11, 1996, denied the

request to expedite the appeal.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit (96-

5291), U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia (96-2019). ✦
9

November 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

annual contributions exceed $200.

(The other required contributor

information—name, address and

occupation—is easily available to

SPAD.) Alternatively, SPAD

proposed to include in the Seafarers

vacation pay application form a

request for information regarding

current employment. (The request

would ask: “Are you currently

sailing or assigned to a vessel on the

date of this application?” The

member could check either “No, I

am ‘on the beach,’” or “Yes, I am

currently working for ________.”)

Like any other political committee, SPAD must follow the “best

efforts” regulations by requesting

contributor information in its

solicitations. 11 CFR 104.7(b)(1).

Because of the special employment

circumstances of the Union’s

members, SPAD is required to use

its alternative proposal to fulfill its

obligations. If a contributor checks

yes and names the current employer,

SPAD must disclose that employer

when itemizing the contribution. If a

contributor checks no, SPAD may

simply report that the contributor is

employed by “various U.S.-flag

operators.”

If a contributor fails to provide

SPAD with any employer information, it must make a follow up

inquiry. 11 CFR 104.7(b)(2). Date

Issued: September 12, 1996:

Length: 5 pages. ✦

AO 1996-34

Use of Campaign Funds

for Travel of Congressman’s

Family

Representative William M.

Thornberry may use funds from his

campaign committee to pay travel

expenses for his wife to attend the

Republican National Convention

and for his family to accompany

him on a final campaign swing

through the 13th Congressional

district in Texas.

Although he was not a delegate to

the Republican convention, the

AO 1996-36

Application of Contribution

and Spending Limits

to Court-Ordered Elections

Candidates in several Texas

Congressional districts who won

March 12 primaries—the results of

which were later nullified by a

federal court—have a separate set of

contribution limits for (1) the March

12 primary; (2) a “defunct” general

election campaign that ended

August 5 (the date of the court

decision); (3) a November 5 special

general election (open to all candidates, not just March 12 primary

winners); and (4) a December 10

runoff (if the candidate has to

participate in a runoff). Coordinated

party expenditures made on or

before August 5 do not count

against the $30,910 limit for the

November 5 special general election

in each district. (There is no separate coordinated party expenditure

limit for the runoff.)

Background

On August 5, 1996, the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Texas redrew the

boundaries of 13 U.S. Congressional

districts due to a previous court

decision that three of those districts

were the result of racial gerrymandering. Vera v. Bush, No. H-94-

0277. (The redrawn districts are 3,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29

and 30.) The court ordered that

special general elections—open to

all candidates—be held on November 5 in those districts. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes

in a November 5 special election, a

special runoff election will be held

in that district on December 10,

1996, between the top two votegetters in the November 5 election.

The FEC answered several

questions concerning the application

of the contribution and expenditure

limits in this unique situation. The

questions were posed by Democratic

(continued)

Congressman, who is up for reelection, planned on attending the

convention and bringing his wife

and children. In addition, four days

before the election, he planned to

take a campaign tour with his family

through major cities in his district.

Candidate committees may not

convert campaign funds to the

personal use of a candidate or of any

other person. See 11 CFR 113.1(g)

and 113.2(d). Federal Election

Commission guidelines find that

personal use of campaign funds is

“any use of funds in a campaign

account...that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or

duties as a Federal officeholder.”

See 11 CFR 113.1(g).

FEC rules list examples of what

constitutes personal use. But, when

the use in question is not listed, as in

travel expenses, Commissioners

make a determination on a case-bycase basis.

At the convention, Congressman

Thornberry planned to meet with

major donors, attend Republican

committee functions and communicate with his constituents. He

considered his wife’s attendance at

the convention an integral part of

this reelection effort. Consequently,

the travel expenses of the Congressman and his wife would be directly

related to his campaign.

Similarly, the travel expenses

incurred by his entire family for the

campaign tour would be related to

his reelection efforts because the

family would play a significant role

in the political receptions and

fundraising events taking place

during the trip.

In both cases, the candidate could

use campaign funds to cover the

travel expenses because the expenditure would not be for personal use.

The campaign committee should

report the expenses as operating

expenditures in its filings with the

FEC.

Date Issued: September 12, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦
10

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996

March 12 primary winners in five of

the affected districts.1

Treatment of Contributions

for March 12 Primary

A contribution made to a candidate running in the March 12

primary election remains a contribution for purposes of the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

because the contribution, at that

time, was made to influence a

federal election. 11 CFR

100.7(a)(1). Surplus contributions

remaining from the March 12

primary may be transferred to the

candidate’s campaign for the

November 5 special general election. 11 CFR 110.3(c)(3). No

contributor redesignations are

necessary because surplus primary

contributions do not have to be

aggregated with contributions

received for the November 5

election.

Contributions Made After

Primary But Before Court

Decision

Because the effect of the court’s

August 5 decision was to create a

new general election campaign

period beginning on August 6 and

lasting until November 5, any

contributions made during the

defunct general election campaign—

from March 13 through August 5—

do not apply to contributions limits

for the November 5 special election.

(However, a candidate is not

allowed to collect contributions

designated to retire August 5 net

debts outstanding. See 11 CFR

110.1(b)(3) and 110.2(b)(3).)

This situation is distinguishable

from that in AO 1982-22, in which a

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

candidate, before the primary

election, changed his district

because of a court decision altering

district boundaries. He did not

receive any additional contribution

limits because his electoral position

essentially remained unchanged. By

contrast, the Texas court decision

nullified the results of the March 12

primary elections and placed each

candidate in a new electoral situation whereby he or she was no

longer the party’s nominee but

instead a candidate in an election

that could involve other candidates

of the same party.

Application of $25,000 Limit

to Contributions

For the reason given under

“Treatment of Contributions for

March 12 Primary,” contributions

made for that primary count toward

an individual’s $25,000 limit under

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(3) and 11 CFR

110.5. Contributions for the regular

or special November election also

count toward the $25,000 limit. The

Act contains no “hardship” exception allowing increases to the

$25,000 limit when unforeseen

election events develop.

Contributions for Special Runoff

Election

A committee may accept contributions designated for the December

10 runoff election before there is an

established necessity for the runoff

(i.e., before the November 5 election

results are in) provided that the

committee uses an acceptable

account method to distinguish

between general election contributions and runoff contributions. AO

1983-39.

Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

Political party committees may

make limited coordinated expenditures in connection with the general

election campaign of candidates.

The national party committee and

the state party committee may each

spend $30,910 for the 1996 general

election campaign of a House

candidate. 2 U.S.C. §§441a(d) and

441a(c); 11 CFR 110.7 and

110.9(c).

In the case of the affected Texas

districts, there are, in effect, two

general elections: the regular

general election that was to have

been held November 5 and the

special November 5 general election

ordered by the court. In this situation, any coordinated party expenditures made before August 6 do not

have to be attributed to the $30,910

limit for the November 5 special

election. However, there is no

separate coordinated party limit

available for the December 10

runoff. AO 1993-2; Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee v.

FEC, No. 93-1321 (D.D.C. Nov, 14,

1994).

Date Issued: September 20, 1996:

Length: 7 pages. ✦

AO 1996-37

Application of Contribution

Limits to Court-Ordered

Elections

Kevin Brady, a U.S. House

candidate from the 8th Congressional district of Texas, has a

separate contribution limit for a

special November 5 general election

ordered by the court on August 5.

Contributions made on or before

August 5 for the regular general

election (also scheduled for November 5 but now cancelled) do not

count against Mr. Brady’s limit for

the special general election. The

court-ordered election is a separate

election with separate contribution

limits from those originally in effect

for the regular general election. In

the event Mr. Brady has to participate in a special runoff election on

December 10 (to be held between

the top two vote-getters in the

November 5 special if no candidate

wins a majority of votes), a separate

contribution limit will also apply for

that election.

1 The candidates are: Sheila Jackson

Lee, Martin Frost, Ken Bentsen, Gene

Green and Eddie Bernice Johnson; they

currently represent the 18th, 24th, 25th,

29th and 30th Districts of Texas,

respectively.
11

November 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

On August 5, a federal district

court redrew the boundaries of 13

Congressional districts in Texas—

an action resulting from an earlier

court determination that three of

those districts were the result of

racial gerrymandering. Vera v.

Bush, Civ. Action No. H-94-0277

(S.D. Tex. August 5, 1996). One of

the affected districts is the 8th,

where Mr. Brady is a candidate. The

court ordered that special general

elections be held on November 5 in

the redrawn districts. The special

general elections are open to all

candidates, including those who lost

or never participated in earlier

primary races.

Before the court decision, Mr.

Brady participated in a March 12

primary election, won an April 9

primary runoff and conducted a

general election campaign for nearly

four months as the Republican

nominee.

Because the earlier elections

cannot be regarded as void, Mr.

Brady had a separate contribution

limit for the regular general election.

Mr. Brady’s situation changed,

however, on August 5, when the

court ordered a new, special general

election. Contributions made after

August 5 count against the limit for

the new general election. In addition, contributions made to Mr.

Brady’s committee for the March 12

primary or April 9 runoff do not

have to be redesignated by the

contributors for the special general

election. 11 CFR 110.3(c)(3).

Mr. Brady’s situation is distinguishable from that of the candidate

in AO 1982-22, who changed his

district because of a court decision

that altered the boundaries of the

district. That candidate, unlike Mr.

Brady, was in the same electoral

position that he was in before the

court decision because he changed

districts before the primary.

Mr. Brady’s situation is not

materially distinguishable from that

in AO 1996-36 (summarized above).

He may therefore rely on that

1 The affiliated relationship is based on

the following facts: all members of

ASHA are required to be members of

NMHC; ASHA’s activities are funded

by NMHC from membership dues paid

to NMHC; ASHA itself was founded by

the NMHC Board and persons associated with NMHC; and the two organizations have significant personnel in

common. These facts indicate that

ASHA was established by NMHC and

continues to be financed and maintained by NMHC. 11 CFR 110.3(a)(3)

(ii)(D) (E), (G), (H) and (I).

(continued)

AO 1996-38

Solicitable Class

of Nonconnected PAC

Affiliated with SSF

The American Seniors Housing

Association (ASHA), an unincorporated association, is affiliated with

the National Multi Housing Council

(NMHC), an incorporated trade

association. Because of this affiliation, a nonconnected political

committee established by ASHA

would be affiliated with NMHC’s

separate segregated fund (NMHC

PAC). The new PAC (Seniors

Housing PAC), as an affiliate of a

NMHC PAC, would have to limit its

solicitations to the NMHC PAC’s

restricted class.

A nonconnected committee,

unlike a separate segregated fund

(SSF), is normally not limited in

persons it may solicit for contributions (except, of course, those

persons prohibited from making any

contributions to influence federal

elections). However, in earlier

advisory opinions, the Commission

determined that the SSF solicitation

restrictions applied to the PAC of a

partnership that was an affiliate of a

corporation with an SSF. AOs 1992-

17 and 1989-8. Contributions to the

partnership PAC could be solicited

only from the shareholders or

owners and the executive and

administrative personnel (and

families) of the corporation and the

partnership. 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1).

The Seniors Housing PAC, as a

nonconnected committee, could

avoid the solicitation restrictions

only if (1) either NMHC or ASHA

had no sponsoring relationship to

the PAC; or (2) ASHA were not

affiliated with NMHC. Neither of

these is true.

With regard to the first point,

ASHA—whose personnel formed

the Seniors Housing PAC to achieve

ASHA’s legislative goals—does

have a sponsoring relationship to the

PAC. With regard to the second

point, based on the relationship

between ASHA and NMHC, the two

are affiliated.1

Solicitations for contributions to

the Seniors Housing PAC would

therefore be limited to: the executive and administrative personnel

(and families) of NMHC and

ASHA; the unincorporated members

of NMHC (all of whom are also

members of ASHA); and the

executive and administrative

personnel and shareholders (and

families) of those incorporated

NMHC members who give separate

and specific solicitation approval, as

set out in 11 CFR 114.8(c). Any

solicitation approval granted by a

corporate member of NMHC would

cover solicitations from both the

Seniors Housing PAC and the

NMHC PAC. (A solicitation

approval granted to Seniors Housing

PAC only would still count as a

solicitation approval given to

NMHC, so the corporate member

could not grant solicitation approvals to any other trade association for

that calendar year.)

Because of the affiliated relationship between NMHC and ASHA,

NMHC could use its corporate funds

to pay for the exempt administrative

and solicitation costs of the Seniors

Housing PAC. However, in that

event, the Seniors Housing PAC

opinion for answers to related

questions.

Date Issued: September 20, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦
12

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996

would have to identify NMHC as a

connected organization on its

Statement of Organization. Regardless, Seniors Housing PAC should

identify NMHC PAC as an affiliated

committee on its Statement of

Organization.

Date Issued: October 4, 1996:

Length: 6 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

1 In AO 1982-35, the Commission was

careful to distinguish the situation from

the one presented in AO 1980-57, in

which a candidate sought to prevent the

electorate from voting for an opponent

by challenging the opponent’s ballot

petitions in court. In that case, the

candidate’s efforts related, not to

defending his own ballot position, but

to disqualifying another person. The

Commission concluded that, in that

situation, the funds raised were

contributions as defined by the Act.

AO 1996-39

Legal Fees Related to Ballot

Access

Funds received and spent to pay

legal expenses stemming from

challenges to candidate Susan

Heintz’s access to the primary ballot

are not considered contributions or

expenditures provided the funds are

placed in an account that is separate

from her Congressional committee

(Heintz for Congress). The committee itself may not establish the

account or conduct the fundraising.

If this is done, corporate funds may

be accepted to defray the expenses.

Past advisory opinions present

similar situations where individuals,

faced with legal actions contesting

their access to the ballot, needed to

raise funds to pay for associated

legal costs. In AO 1982-35, the

Commission said that filing a

lawsuit to challenge a party rule that

would prevent a candidate’s ballot

access was “a condition precedent to

the candidate’s participation in the

primary election.” 1

 The Commission concluded that funds raised to

pay the litigation costs were outside

the purview of the Federal Election

Campaign Act. See also AO 1983-

37.

Similarly, previous advisory

opinions provide guidance on how

to collect donations to pay for legal

costs. The entity that engages in the

fundraising must be separate and

independent from the candidate’s

principal campaign committee, and

solicitations should be accompanied

by a letter stating the purpose of the

fund and noting that no donations to

the fund will be used to influence

any federal election. Such solicitations should be conducted completely separately from campaign

solicitations. See AOs 1990-23 and

1983-30.

Date Issued: October 4, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

AO 1996-40

Contributions of Campaign

Funds to Nonprofit

Organizations

Retiring Missouri Representative

Mel Hancock may direct the remainder of his campaign committee

funds to the nonprofit Taxpayers’

Survival Association (TSA).

Congressman Hancock is not

seeking reelection this year and

anticipates a fund balance in

Hancock for Congress committee

accounts. He also is the president

and chairman of the board for the

taxpayer association, which he

formed in 1977.

Federal Election Commission

rules allow campaign funds to be

donated to nonprofit organizations

covered by §170(c) of the Internal

Revenue Code so long as those

funds are not converted for personal

use. See 11 CFR 113.1. Congressman Hancock’s donation complies

with this regulation because TSA is

a §170(c) organization and because

the donation does not represent

personal use.

While he heads the TSA, which is

a tax-exempt educational foundation, Congressman Hancock receives no payment for his duties and

does not anticipate drawing a salary

from the association after he retires

from Congress. Further, none of

Congressman Hancock’s family will

receive financial compensation from

the association. While the TSA may

hire an executive director in the

future, none of the congressman’s

present or former staff members is

being considered for the position.

Date Issued: September 26, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

AO 1996-41

Broadcasting Views

of Candidates for Federal

and State Offices

A.H. Belo Corporation, in

conjunction with PBS affiliate

stations, may produce and broadcast

television programs that feature

candidates for federal and state

office.

Belo owns seven television

stations in six states and, in conjunction with PBS affiliates in each of

the areas, proposes to feature

congressional and gubernatorial

candidates who are running in

districts that encompass viewing

audiences of the various stations.

Under the federal election law, a

corporation is prohibited from

making contributions or expenditures in connection with a Federal

election. 2 U.S.C. §441b. But, the

FECA exempts from this prohibition

expenditures for “any news story,

commentary, or editorial distributed

through the facilities of any broadcasting station...unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any

political party, political committee,

or candidate.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(i). Thus, a bona fide

news entity is free to publish or

broadcast candidate-related material

contained in news stories and

editorials as long as it is not owned
13

November 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

or controlled by a party, a political

committee or a candidate.

Belo satisfies the basic criteria

for the news exemption. It is a bona

fide press entity as described in FEC

regulations. None of Belo’s seven

television stations is owned by a

political party, committee or candidate and all appear to be actively

involved in local news coverage.

And Belo’s proposal constitutes

genuine news activity, as set out

below.

Under Belo’s plan, each candidate will be taped separately, will be

asked the same question and will

have five uninterrupted minutes to

respond. Belo staff will devise the

question in consultation with the

staffs of the PBS stations, but

without input from the candidates or

their committees.

When two or more candidates

seek the same seat, Belo will select

candidates to participate in the

broadcasts based on “pre-established objective criteria for public

support and credibility.” More than

two candidates seeking the same

seat may be invited to participate in

the broadcasts if they meet the

criteria.

The candidate segments will be

combined by each station’s news

division into a program expected to

run one hour. In some markets,

where there are a number of candidates, the programs may be aired in

two episodes. The order of appearance for the candidates will be

determined by lot, but candidates

who are seeking the same office

always will appear in the same

broadcast.

The broadcasts will be shown

during times normally devoted to

news or public affairs programming

and will run unedited and without

interruptions.

Based on its description of the

broadcasts it plans to produce, the

Commission found that Belo,

operating through its owned and

operated stations, is acting as a press

entity and, therefore, is conducting

activity that is permissible under

FEC regulations.

Because Belo’s proposal falls

within the press exemption, it is not

subject to the Commission’s debate

regulations at 11 CFR 110.13.

(Under those rules, a staging

organization must sponsor a face-toface meeting of two or more candidates to avoid making a prohibited

corporate contribution.) Consequently, Belo is free to broadcast the

responses of all the candidates who

participate in the programs even if

some other candidates decline to

appear.

Date Issued: October 4, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1996-42

PAC disaffiliation following

corporate spin off (Lucent Technologies Inc.; September 24, 1996;

14 pages plus 113-page attachment)

AOR 1996-43

Qualification as a state committee of

a political party and support of

Presidential nominee (The Green

Party of New York State; September

25, 1996; 2 pages plus 9-page

attachment)

AOR 1996-44

Use of campaign funds for moving

expenses (Congressman Charles

Wilson; October 1, 1996; 2 pages)

AOR 1996-45

Use of campaign funds to sponsor

community seminar (Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard;

October 11, 1996; 2 pages) ✦

Information

Flashfax Menu

Flashfax documents may be ordered

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by

calling 202/501-3413 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 1996 on

Disk

309. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

310. Internet Access to the FEC

311. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expenditures320.

Local Party Activity

321. Corporate/Labor Facilities

322. Trade Associations

323. Foreign Nationals

324. The $25,000 Annual Contribution Limit

325. 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

(continued)
14

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996

Information

(continued from page 13)

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Filing a Complaint

345. 1996 Reporting Dates

346. 1996 Congressional Primary

Dates

347. 1996 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 Campañas

403. Federal and State Campaign

Finance Laws

404. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408. Index for 1995 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

532. 1995-6 PAC Finances

1996 Presidential Election

550. 1996 Presidential Primary Dates

551. Selected 1996 Campaign Names

and Addresses

552. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

553. 1996 Matching Fund Certifications and Convention Fund

Payments

554. 1996 Presidential General

Election Ballots

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

1007. Part 100.7, Contribution

1008. Part 100.8, Expenditure

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

1021. Part 102.17, Joint Fundraising

by Committees Other Than SSFs

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

1047. Part 104.7, Best Efforts

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

1101. Part 110.1, Contributions by

Persons Other Than Multicandidate Political Committees

1102. Part 110.2, Contributions by

Multicandidate Committees

1103. Part 110.3, Contribution

Limitations for Affiliated

Committees and Political Party

Committees; Transfers

1104. Part 110.4, Prohibited Contributions

1105. Part 110.5, Annual Contribution

Limitation for Individuals

1106. Part 110.6, Earmarked Contributions

1107. Part 110.7, Party Committee

Expenditure Limitations

1108. Part 110.8, Presidential Candidate Expenditure Limitations

1109. Part 110.9, Miscellaneous

Provisions

1110. Part 110.10, Expenditures by

Candidates

1111. Part 110.11, Communications;

Advertising

1112. Part 110.12, Candidate Appearances on Public Educational

Institution Premises

1113. Part 110.13, Nonpartisan

Candidate Debates

1114. Part 110.14, Contributions to

and Expenditures by Delegates

and Delegate Committees

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. Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Campaigns

229. Candidate Debates and News

Stories

230. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

231. DSCC and DCCC Rulemaking

Petition

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. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of

Multicandidate Status
15

November 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1996 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

1995-38: Corporate vendor and

nonconnected PAC with common

officer, 1:14

1995-40: Disaffiliation of PACs, 3:7

1995-41: Preemption of state

disclosure requirements, 2:3

1995-42: Using campaign funds to

pay child-care expenses, 2:3

1995-43: Refunding legal fees to

candidate committee, 3:8

1995-44: Presidential primary

candidate excused from filing 48-

hour notices, 3:8

1995-45: Qualified campaign

expenses for ballot access, 3:9

1995-46: Purchase of candidate’s

book by his campaign, 3:9

1995-47: Use of campaign funds for

travel to party’s Presidential

nominating convention, 5:7

1995-48: Preemption of Georgia law

limiting receipt of contributions,

3:10

1995-49: Status of a state affiliate of

national party committee, 6:6

1996-1: Corporate partisan communications, 5:7

1996-2: Providing free on-line

accounts to candidates, 6:6

1996-3: Determining political

committee status, 6:7

1996-4: Public funding shortfalls

and bridge loans, 5:8

1996-5: Returning illegal contributions, 5:9

1996-7: Public funding certifications, 5:9

1996-8: Local party committees and

building funds, 7:6

1996-9: Building a library center

with excess campaign funds, 6:7

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 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

4411. Section 441a

4412. Section 441b

4413. Section 441c

4414. Section 441d

4415. Section 441e

4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

601-41. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-41

700. Brochure

701-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

801-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

901-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

(continued)

Commission Joins

Inter-American Union

The Federal Election Commission has become a member of the

Conference of the Inter-American

Union of Electoral Bodies.

The organization is composed of

the top election officials of all

South and Central American

countries, some of their

neighboring islands and Canada.

The conference meets every two

years to discuss issues related to

electoral systems.

1996-10: Corporate employees as

stockholders, 7:7

1996-11: Incumbent appearances at

convention of membership

organization, 7:9

1996-12: Criteria for qualified

campaign expenses, 7:10

1996-13: Property owned by limited

liability company used for

campaign events, 8:6

1996-14: Use of excess campaign

funds for moving expenses, 7:11

1996-15: Discarding envelopes used

to mail reports to state, 7:11

1996-16: Defining a news entity, 7:11

1996-17: Cars provided as official

vehicles of convention, 7:12

1996-18: Conduit accounts, 8:7

1996-19: Use of campaign funds for

travel to Presidential nominating

convention: wife and children, 8:8

1996-20: Use of campaign funds for

travel to Presidential nominating

convention: chief of staff, 8:8

1996-21: Membership organization

communications, 8:9

1996-22: Public funding for nonmajor party candidates, 8:10

1994-23: Disaffiliation of reorganized corporations and their

PACs, 9:4

1996-24: Use of campaign funds for

certain legal expenses, 8:10

1995-25: Seeking employer information from union members

without permanent employment,

11:8

1996-26: Corporation as collecting

agent for PAC of affiliated

association, 9:5

1996-27: Qualifying as state party

committee, 9:6

1996-28: Personal use of campaign

funds by former Member, 10:5

1996-29: In-kind contributions

designated for more than one

election, 10:5

1996-33: Exchange of contributions

between federal candidate and

state candidates, 10:5

1996-34: Use of campaign funds for

travel of Congressman’s family,

11:9
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

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 1996

Index

(continued from page 15)

1996-36: Application of contribution and spending limits to courtordered elections, 11:9

1996-37: Application of contribution limits to court-ordered

elections, 11:10

1996-38: Solicitable class of

nonconnected PAC affiliated with

SSF, 11:11

1996-39: Legal fees related to ballot

access, 11:12

1996-40: Contributions of campaign

funds to nonprofit corporation,

11:12

1996-41: Broadcasting views of

candidates for federal and state

offices, 11:12

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Christian Action Network, 10:1

– Christian Coalition, 9:1

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 8:1; 11:7

– DSCC (95-2881), 1:5

– GOPAC, 4:1

– Hartnett, 4:12

– Kalogianis, 10:2

– Legi-Tech, 4:9

– McCallum, 9:2

– Murray for Congress, 8:5; 11:7

– National Right to Work, 4:11

– Parisi, 3:6

– Survival Education Fund, 11:6

– Wofford, 6:4

_____ v. FEC

– Albanese, 5:4; 11:00

– Buchanan, 6:4

– Center for Responsive Politics, 1:3

– Chamber of Commerce, 1:2

– Clifton, 5:6; 7:1; 9:3

– Common Cause (94-02104), 5:5

– DSCC (95-0349), 7:5

– DCCC (96-0764), 6:4

– DCCC (96-2109); 11:7

– Grover, 7:6

– Hooker, 3:7

– Jordan, 4:12

– ME Right to Life Committee, 1:3; 4:9

– MN Citizens Concerned for Life,

3:6; 6:3

– Natural Law Party, 11:1

– Perot ’96, 11:1

– RNC (94-1017), 4:10; 9:3

– NRCC (96-2295), 11:8

– Reilly, 8:5

– Stockman, 2:9; 10:2

– Whitmore, 3:6

On Appeal?, 5:6; 7:6; 9:3; 11:5

Reports

Electronic filing system, 2:2; 11:2

Point of entry change for House

candidates, 2:1

Reporting reminders, 4:3; 6:1;10:1;

11:3

Schedule for 1996, 1:5

Special elections, 2:5; 3:2; 7:16;

10:7; 10:8

800 Line

Ballot access payments, 2:8

Bundling by individuals, 8:2

Conventions, permissible corporate

and labor activity, 2:7

– correction, 9:4

Filing tips, 5:1

Last- minute independent expenditures: 48 hour notices, 9:3