Volume 17, Numbe

SPECIAL ELECTIctiS

3 Correction: Illinois Special Reportin

PUBLIC APPEMANCES

3 Staff Visits to Raleigh, Baton Rouge a

Salt Lake City

3 July Public Apperances

4 ADVISORY OPINIOOS

COOFERm«:E SURVEY IN 'mIS ISSUE

please take the time to fill out

the short survey on the next to the

last page of this issue. It concerns upcoming FEe conferences in

Boston and Chica90. Your response

will help the agency design workshops best suited to your needs.

The Commission would also appreciate responses to a survey recently

mailed to nonconnected PACs about a

possible Washington, DC conferencp..

1 PUBLIC FONDD«i: Final Treasury Rules

CClJRT CASES

6 stern v. General Electcic Company

B New Litigation

9 AUDITS: Gepharclt for President

TABLE OF CXN1'ENI'S

11 JULy REPORTIN:i

CLFARIrGkXJSE

10 voting place Accessibility

12 CCttPLIANCE: MURs Released to the Pub

13 et:m'ERmCE SURVEY

16 INDEX

Washington DC 20463

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

July1991 999E Street NW

Treasury's Full Set-Aside

Under 26 U.S.C. §9037(a), funding for

the conventions and the general election

nominees takes priority over funding for

(continued, p. 2)

l Th C . . ha . e ommlSSlon s estlmated that in 1992

the Fund will be about $3 million dollars

short of the amount needed to make matching

fund payments in full. However, candidates

should receive full payment sometime in

1993.

2The Treasury regulations appear to establish a monthly payment schedule regardless

of whether thece is a shoctage in the Fund.

However, Treasury staff have indicated to

the FEe that Treasury would provide payments more frequently if a shortfall did

not occur. The Commission recently

requested a written opinion from the

Secretary of the Treasury to clarify this

point.

TRF.ASURY AI'X)P'l'S FINAL RULES

00 PUBLIC FUND]N; PAYImfI'S

On May 10, 1991, the Department of T~easury, Internal Revenue Service, published final rules on the financing of

Presidential elections (26 CFR Pacts 701

and 702; see 56 FR 21596).

The new rules explain how Treasury will

handle payments from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the event of a fhortfall of checkoff dollars in the Fund.

Treasury will first set aside the full

amount of estimated funds needed for the

conventions and general election candidates, disbursing the remaining funds to

primary candidates on a pro rata basis.

One provision in the new rules changes

the payment schedule for primary matching

funds. Treasury will now make matching

fund payments to primary campaigns only

once a month, at the end of the month.

Under the old system, Treasury made payments soon after the Commission certifie~

them, which was usually every two weeks.
Federal Election Coomission, 999 E Street. NW, Washington, DC 20463

600/424-9530 202/376~3120 202/376-3136 (TOO)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Num

Treasury Response. Treasury rejec

the partial set-aside approach because 

the possibility that the Fund balance 

FEe P~~l. In written comments 

testimony, the FEe had reconunended th

Treasury adopt a partial set-aside approach. Instead of setting aside 100 

cent of estimated funds for the conven

and general elections, the FEe had pro

that Treasury set aside a smaller amou

that would take into account a conserv

estimate of checkoff dollars that 'woul

deposited in the Fund fra;n. January 1 o

election year throuqh 'July or August (

general election paytOOnts are made)" 

Comncission said that a partial set-asid

for the 1992 elections would provide m

money to pdmary candidates during the

crucial early months of the campaign w

still ensuring full funding4for the co

tions and general election.

The difference between the amount 

tified and the amount actually \;)aid to 

candidate would be carried over to the 

month. The unpaid entitlement would b

added to the next month's certification

$1,000,000 $200,000 X $2,000,000 = $100,000

would therefore receive only $100,000, 

shown below:

FEe's Partial set-Aside;

Not .Adopted

3see article in the March 1991 issue.

4me Commission estimates that primary

matching fund certific~tions in January

1992 will total $19.2 million. Under

Treasury's rule, only $14.5 million wi

available to make the payments. under 

partial set~aside approach, $16.2 milli

would have been available.

walter J. stewart, Secretary of the Senat

Ex Officio commissioner

oonnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House o

Representatives, Officio Commdssione

2

John warren McGarry, Chai rman

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott

'l'haaa6 J. Josefiak

nanny L. McDonald

Scott E4 'l'homas

July 1991

Balance in account

Amount certified last day of month

for candidate x Tbtal certified for

all candidates that

month

primary candidates. Treasury interprets

this provision to mean that the full amount

of estimated payments for the conventions

and general election candidat~s must be set

aside by January 1 of the Presidential

election year.

Specifically, Treasury will set aside

convention and general election funds by

transferring moneys from the P(esidential

Election Campaign Fund to a Nominating

Convention Account (first priot'ty) and to a

General Election Account. (second priority).

The Treasury, in consultation with the FEC,

will determine the estimated amount needed

for these two accounts.

The dollars remaining in the Fund after

the full set-aside will be deposited into

the primary Account. Checkoff dollars

deposited in the Fund after January 1 will

also be transferred to -:he Primary Account.

The transfer of additional funds into the

primary Account may take place only through

September 30 of the year following the

Presidential election; checkoff dollars

deposited into the Fund afteJ that date

must be reserved for the next Presidential

election.

In the event of a shortfall--if the

amount of matching funds certified by the

COlmIission for payment to prima~ candidates in one month exceeds the dollars in

the primary Account as of the last day of

that month-each candidate will receive a

pro rata share of available funds rather

than the full amount certifled. The pro

rata payment will be determined by the

following formula:

For example, in a given month, the Cammission certifies $200,000 for Candidate x.

At the end of that month, the fund balance

is $1,000,000 but certifications for all

candidates total $2,000,000. candidate X
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17,Nurro

JULy PUBLIC APPEARANCES

FBC STAFF TO VISIT RALEIGH, B.J\Im Ram

AND SALT LME CITY

In August 1991, FEe public affairs

specialists will be holding informal

meetings in the above cities to help

candidates, party committees and PACs

comply with the federal campaign law.

Anyone interested in scheduling a meetin

should call either of the specialists

listed for your location. Call 800/424-

9530 or 202/376-3120. At the time this

issue went to press, the dates for the

visits had not yet been set, but the

specialists can provide further information.

a Raleigh, North Carolina

Patricia Klein and Greg Scott

o Baton Rouqe, Lauisiana

Janet Hess and DOrothy Hutcheon

o salt Lake City, utah

Ian Stirton and Kathlene Martin

7/15 National Association of Count

Recorders and Clerks

Salt Lake Ci tyI utah

Michael G. Dickerson

Chiefr Public Records

1)28-31 Iowa State Association of

County Auditors

Burlington, Iowa

penelope S. Bonsall

Clearinghouse Director

Janet C. McRee, Clearinghouse

ditures in connection with the general

election during the following period: T

day afte~ the closing date of the last

report filed, through July 22 (the repo

coverage dates). The report is due Augu

1.

o Committees that file the post-general

election report do not file a mdd-year

report.

o Committees that do not file the postgeneral election report must file a m

year report that is due July 31 'and th

covers the following period: the day

after th@ closing date of the last rep

filed, through June 30.

3

July 1991

be insufficient to cover the general election payments should actual checkoff deposits to the Fund be less than anticipated.·

Although acknowledging that this possibility could be mitigated by reducing payments

to primary candidates to allow a margin for

error, _Treasury said that "permitting this

possibility to exd st;" would. be inconsistent

with its interpretation of the statute.

carmittees 'lbat Did Not File

the Pre-General Report

A PAC or party conmittee that did not

file the pre-general election report for

the Illinois special will nevertheless have

to file the post-gener:al election report if

the committee makes contributions .or expenCOOIIlittees that Filed

the Pre-Genera1 Report

If a PAC or party committee filed the

pre-general election report that was due on

June 201 the commdttee will also have to

file a post-general election report if it

makes contributions or expenditures in connection with the general election between

June 13 and July 22 (the report r s coverage

dates) • The report is due August 1.

o committees that file the post-election

report do not file a mid-year report.

o Commdttees that do not file the postelection report must file a mid-year

report that is due July 31 and that

covers the period from June 13 through

June 30.

amRECTIat: BEI'ORrIN3 FOR

ILLIWIS SPBCIAL ELECTICN

PACs and. party conmittees should note

an important correction to the April 1991

ReCord chart on reporting dates for the

Illinois special election (page 4). The

last sentence in footnote 3 should read:

"Therefore, the mid-year report is waived

for those committees required to file the

Illinois post-general (not pre-general) election report. ,j .

The material below provides clarification on reporting by PACs and party committees in connection with the July 2 Illinois

special general election.

(rm'E; Authorized committees of candidates running in the July 2 special election are automatically required to file

both the pre- and post-general election

reports. The mid-year report is waived for

these committees.)
JUly!

1991 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

ADVISORY OPDUOO' RlQJESTS

Recent ~equests for advisory opinions

(AORs) are listed below. The full text of

each A.OR is available for review and comment in the FEe's Public Records Office.

1\OR 1991-18

payment arrangement between telemarketing

vendor and committee. (Date Made Public:

May 22, 1991; Length: 17 pages plus

22-page attachment)

Am 1991-19

payroll deductions for employee contributions to SSF after corporate reorganization. (Date Made Public: June 14, 1991;

Length: 2 pages)

NJIIISORY OPINIW SUMARIES

AD 1991-5; party Office Building Futxii

preemption Issues

The Tennessee Democratic Party (TDP) may

accept corporate donations to a separate

building fund account. Although the Federal Election campaign Act (the Act) preempts

any Tennessee law that 'Would prohibit corporate donations to the account, the Act

does not preempt reporting requirements

under state law.

Corporate Donations to Building f\IIld

Under an exemption in ,the Act and FEe

regulations, a donation to' a national or

state political party to defray the cost of

constructing or purchasing an office building is not a contribution or an expenditure

as long as:

o The donation is specifically designated

for this purpose i and

o The building will not be used to influence any particular federal election.

2 U.S.C. §431{8}{B)(viii}; 11 CFR

lOO.7{b)(12), lOO.8(b)(l3) and

114.1(a)(2)(ix).

TOP indicated it will comply with these

conditions; therefore, it may accept corporate donations to the building fund. See

AD 1986-40.

Reporting

FEC rules provide that building fund

donations need not be reported if made to a

conmittee that is not a "political conmittee" as defined under 11 CFR 100.5 (Le., a

federal political commi.ttee). The donations TDP intends to solicit for its bui1d4

Volume 17,Numb

iog fund will not meet any of the conditions for the deposit of funds in a poli

cal committee account (i.e., a federal

account) :

o The donations will not be designated f

the federal account1

o They will not result from a solicitati

that expressly states that the funds w

be used in connecti on with a federal

election; and

o Contributors will not be informed that

their donations are subject to the Ac

limitations and prohibitions. 11 ern

102.S(a){2) .

Thus, TOP will have to deposit building

fund donations in a separate account.

Because the separate account will not be

considered a "political colmlittee" under

federal law. the donations need not be

reported to the FEe. AO 1986-40.

preemption Issues

The Act and FEe rules "supersede and

preempt any provision of State law wi th

respect to election to Federal office."

2 U.S.C. §453. FEe rules specify three

areas in which federal law supersedes st

law:

o The organization and registration of

political committees supporting federa

candidates;

o The disclosure of receipts and expend

tures by federal candidates and politi

committees; and

o The limitations on contributions and

expenditures regarding federal candida

and political commdttees. 11 CFR 108

The Act's pmvision on party building fu

speaks to these three al:eas.

Congress explicitly decided not to

place any prohibitions or limits on

building fund donations. In addition,

there is no indication in the legislativ

history that Congress intended to limit

this exemption only to the allocated f!d

al portion of building fund donations.

Therefore, the Act and FEe rules, which

exempt party building fund donations fro

the corporate prohibition, pr~empt the

application of any state or local law

lIn the case of exemptions for certain

local party activities, Congress did lin

the exemptions to the allocated federal

portion of the expenses. See Report of 

Committee on House ~nistration, Fede

E:lection CatIPC'ign Act Amendments of 1979

H.R. Rep. No. 96-422, 96th Cong., 1st Se

8-10 (1979). See also 11 CFR 100.1(b)(9

(15)(ii), (17)(ii) and 100.6(b){lO),

(16){ii) and (18)(ii).
July 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

prohibiting corporate donations to a

building fund.

By contrast, any Tennessee law that

requires reporting of building fund receipts and disbursements would not be preempted. The Commission has construed the

Act and Congressional intent as requiring

only national party committees to disclose

such activity at the federal level. 11 CFR

104.8 (f) and 104. 9{d/. A state law requiring disclosure of a state party's building

fund activity would not encroach upon a

regulatory area occupied by the Act.

Commissioners Lee Ann Elliott and

Thomas J. Josefiak issued dissenting opinions. (Date issued: May 3, 1991; Length:

8 pages, including dissents)

N:) 1991-9: Retroactive Interest Payments

on Loans Made by candidate

The Hoagland for Congress Committee may pay

Congressman Peter Hoagland interest on

loans he made to the Comrndttee for his 1988

campaign, but only on the unpaid balance as

of July 23, 1990, when the Committee entered a wdtten agreement to pay interest

to the candidate. The COlmlittee may not

pay retroactive interest on amounts that

had already been repaid by that date, since

the" Committee had not previously disclosed

any interest rate for the loans.

Repayment of loans made by the candidate and payment of commercially reasonable

interest on such loans are both generally

treated as committee operating expenditures

rather than as the convarakon of excess

campaign funds to the candidate's personal

use, which is prohibiteQ (ex£ept for

"grandfathered" candidates). 2 U.S.C.

S439a; 11 CFR 100.1(a)(1), 100.8(a)(1)(i)

and 113.2(d). See also AD 1986-45.

In this case, however, the committee

failed to disclose any interest rate on the

loaDS until after the Committee executed a

promissory note on July 23, 1990. therefore, interest charged on amounts that had

already been repaid by that date would represent a prohibited conversion of excess

funds to the candidate's personal use. AD

1977-58. The Committee may, however, pay

accrued interest at a commercially reasonable rate on the unpaid balance of the

loans as of July 23, 1990, until the loans

are repaid. ('I11.e candidate planned to

charge interest at 8.47 percent per year,

lcongressman Hoagland does not qualify for

the personal use exemption for ugrandfathered" candidates because he was not a

Member of Congcess on January S, 19S0.

5

Volume 17, Numbe

the "applicable federal rate published by

the Internal Revenue Service around the

time of the execution of the note.") '!he

Committee'S execution of the note, as wel

as the disclosuce of the interest rate in

reports filed after that date/ is similar

to a renegotiation of the loans.

With respect to bank loans obtained b

Me. Hoagland, it appears from the Committee's repo rts that in 1989 he repaid the

loans to the bank directly. That repayme

now appears on the Commdttee's reports as 

loan owed to the candidate. However, because the Committee did not report the

interest h~ paid to the bank as a new loa

owed to the candidate, he is prohibited

from recovering interest that accrued

before the date of the promissory note.

The note indicated that the Cournittee

owed the candidate $10,500 for his repayment of the bank loans. The Contnittee ma

pay him interest accruing on this loan fro

the time of the note (July 1990) until th

loan was repaid in November 1990. The

candidate may charge the same interest ra

as the bank, 11.5 percent.

The coromittee should report interest

payments as operating expenditures, itemi

ing each payment separately on Schedule B

See 11 eFR l04.3(b)(4)(i) and (iii) and A

1986-45, note 4.

(Date issued: May 14, 1991; Length: 

pages)

AO 1991-13: Labor union Jointly Established by Two Otller unions

A pcoposed separate segregated fund (SSf)

to be formed by the New York State Public

Employees Federation AFL-CIO (PEFl would 

affiHated with the SSFs of two unions th

jointly established and exercise equal

control over PEF",but that are not themselves affiliated. Per's committee would

share contribution limi ts with the corcrrli

tees of the other two unions: For each

contribution made by PEF's committee, ha

would be apportioned to the limi t of one

union •s committee, and hal f to the

other's.

PEF was established by two internatio

al unions that are not affiliated with ea

other: the American Federation of Teach

(Al"T) and the Se'rvice Employees International Union (SEIU). PEF is a local uni

of both unions. This situation is analo

gous to AO 1987-34/ which concerned two

unaffiliated pa-rent corporations that

formed a joint venture partnership. In

that case, the Commission determined tha

third corporation, wholly owned by the

joint venture partnership, was affiliated

(continue
FEDERAL8£CTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Num

STERN v , GmERAL ELECTRIC C<I'IPANY

On January 28, 1991, the u.s. Cour

Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled th

the Federal Election Carapaign Act (the 

does not preempt state law doctrine on

corporate waste (924 F. 2d 472). Philip 

Stern, a General Electric (GE) stockho

filed suit alleging that GE's funding o

its separate segregated fund (GEjPAC)

constituted a waste of corporate asset

under state law. The district court ha

dismissed the allegations, ruling that 

were preempted by the Act. Reversing t

district court decision on this issue, 

appeals court held that the Act did no

preempt Mr. Stern's 6111egations of corp

rate waste. The court, however, dismi

the allegations on other grounds but g

ed Me. Stern leave to replead. -With

respect to Mr. Stern's allegations tha

violated federal lobbying and anti-brib

statutes, the appeals court affirmed th

district court's dismissal of the claim

Allegations of Corporate Waste

Mr. Stern alleged that GE's paymen

GEVPAC's administrative and solicitatio

expenses constituted a waste of corpor

assets under state law because:

o GS did not realize any benefit from

2p EF--COPE and PEF's new conmittee would

also have to identify each other as af

iated committees.

specific cases, if agreed to by all thr

SSFs and if PEF's committee provided w

ten instructions to the recipient cand

dates or committees to allow them to m

tor the limits. 2 U.S.C. §441a(f); 11 

102.9(al and 102.9(c). PEF's commdttee

would have to Ite@p a copy of the writte

instructions for three years after the

contribution was reported. 11 eFR

104.l4(b); see also 11 eFR l02.9(b)(1) 

lQ2.9(c).

Finally, AFT-COPE and SEW-COPE wo

have to list PEF's committee as an aff

ated committee on their statements of O

ganization. PEF's committee would sim

ly have to identify the other iwo comm

tees as affiliated commdttees. 2 U.S

5433(b)(2); 11 CFR I02.2(a)(1)(ii).

(Date issued: May 20, 1991; Length

pages)

- --- - -----~--~----

6

July 1991

with both parent corporations because the.

partnership was equally owned and controlled by both parents. In this case, the

Commission similarly determined that PEr is

affiliated with both AFT and SEIU, based on

factors indicating that PEF is "established, fimmced, maintained or controlled" by

AFT and SEIU. 11 eFR lOO.5(gl(2), (4)(ii)

and llO.3(a)(11(ii), (3)(ii).

An affiliation aqreement signed b¥ all

three unions provides evidence of the

affiliated relationship between PEr and the

other two unions. The agreement explicitly

states that PEF was "jointly created and

jointly financed" by AM' and SEIU. The

agreement also provides for AFT's and

SEIU's continuing authority over the structure and operation of PEF.

By virtue of PEF's affiliation with the

other two unions, PEF'S comHUttee would be

affiliated with the committees of thr other

two unions (AFr-COPE and SEIU-COPE). This

conclusion stands despite PEF's assertaon

that the two unions would not be involved

in the contribution activity of PEr's c~

mittee. AFI'-COPE and SEW-COPE r however,

are oot affiliated with each other, based

on the facts presented in the advisory

opinion request.

PEr's commdttee would immediately

qualify as a multicandidate corrmdttee upon

its establishment bec6luse its affiliates--

AFT-COPE and SEIU-COPE--have qualified.

ADs 1986-42 and 1980-40. PEF's commdttee,

however, would have to share its contribution limits with the other two committees.

Half of each contribution made by PEF's

committee would apply to the limit of AFTCOPE, and half would apply to the limit of

SEIU-COPE. p.,{) 1981-34. For example, if

PElF'S committee made a $50{l contribution to

61 candidate, $250 would count toward the

limit shared with AFT-COPE, and $250 would

count toward the limit shared by SEIIJ-COPE.

Moreover:, if AFT-COPE or SEI1J-COPE contributed up to the liod t to a candidate for an

election ($5,000), PEF's committee would

not be able to contribute to that candidate

for that election. The limits shared by

PEP's colt'mi.ttee would apply retroactively

to contributions toade by the other two

COJ\lIIittees before PEF est6lblished its

committee. AD 1985-27.

An alternative apportionment of the

contribution limits could be applied in

. - ~- -- - - - ------ --------- ~is conclusion applies to any committee

established by PEr. PEF has already established one committee, PEF-COPE, which

considers itself affiliated with AFT-COPE

and SEW-COPE.
July 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

GE/pAC's contributions to incumbent

candidates since they were made without

regard to the candidates' positions on

issues of concern to GE: and

o GE's payments for administrative and

solicitation expenses were excessive in

relation to the amount of contributions

the PAC collected.

In response, GE argued that the allegations should be dismissed because they fell

within the FEC's exclusive jurisdiction

under 2 U.S.C. §437c(b)(l). (Under that

provision, the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the Act.)

The appeals court rejected this argument

because Mr. stern's allegations focused on

GE's waste of corporate assets under state

law rather than o~ whether GE's activities

violated the Act.

In reversing the district court holding

that the allegations of corporate waste

were preempted by the Act, the appeals

court pointed out the "narrow wording" of

statute's preemption clause: the Act

preempts "any provision of state law with

respect to election to Federal office."

2 U.S.C. S453. The court said' that Congress did not intend the Act to preellq)t the

entire field of corporate political spending. That would result in a total absence

of regulation on the appropriate amounts

that corporations may spend on their PACs,

since the Act is silent on this issue.

the court found that state regulation

of corporate waste did not conflict with

federal law in this case. The Act's provision allowing a corporation to pay for

the costs of administering and soliciting

contributions to a PAC (2 U.S.C. §441b(b)

(2)(C)) was designed to limit, rather than

encourage, cOl:porate political spending "in

order to preserve the integl:ity of the

political process•..•Thos, state-law regulations that tend to reduce a cotporation's

support of its political action committee

do not impede the FECA's goals."

The court, however, dismissed Mr.

stern's allegations of corporate waste

IMr. stern, in August 1988, filed an administrative complaint with the FEC alleging

that GE's support of its PAC resulted in

prohibited corporate expenditures because

GE/pAC'S contributions were made for lobbying rather than for political purposes.

When the FEC dismissed the complaint, Mr.

Stern filed suit challenging the decision.

In August 1989, a district court upheld the

Commission's dismissal (see November 1989

Record, p. 4) and a court of appeals affirmed (see February 1991 issue, p. 7).

7

Volume 17, Number

because he failed to allege fraud or "bad

faith" on the part of the Cot\'()atly's directors. The court, however, granted Me. 2

Stern leave to replead these allegations.

other Allegations

The court of appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of Mr. stern's

allegation that GE's administrative and

solicitation payments for GEjPAC were actually lobbying expenditures that should have

been reported pursuant to the Federal Regu

lation of Lobbying Act. Mr. stern had

alleged that the failure on the part of GE

directors to comply with this statute exposed GE to prosecution under 2 U.S.C. §269

and therefore constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. The appeals court disagreed,

finding that GE's spending did not constitute "direct conununication" with governmen

officials and therefore was not subject to

the lobbying statute.

Similarly, the court of appeals upheld

the district court's dismissal of Mr.

stern's allegation that GE directors

exposed GE to liability by acquiescing in

GE/pAC'S violation of the federal antibribery statute. Mr. stern had claimed

that certain GEjPAC contributions violated

the statute because they were given to

"qrandfathered" Members of Congress with

the knowledge that the contributions might

be converted to the candidate's personal

use under 2 U.S.C. §439a. The appeals

court said that because such use is lawful

under the Act, the contributions did not

violate the anti-bribe~ statute (18 U.S.C

§203). Moreover, n[clrirninal intent under

section 203 turns not on what the contributor expects the recipient to do with the

money, but rather on what the contributor

expects to receive for that money."

(Court Cases continued

2Mr• Stern recently filed a new suit

against GE directors.
July 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

NDf LITIGM'IDoJ

Republican party of ltentucky v. FEe

The Republican Party of Kentucky asks

the court to declare that the Commission's

failure to act on its complaint is contrary

to law and to order the agency to take

action within 30 days.

In October 1990, the Party filed an

administrative complaint with the FEC

alleging that the Democratic party of Kentucky violated the contribution and party

expenditure limits of the Federal Election

campaign Act. The original complaint also

named as respondents the Sloane for Senate

Committee, the Association of Trial Lawyers

of America and its PAC, and the firm of

Greer, Margolis, Mitchell & Associates,

Inc. In November 1990, the Party provided

new information to the agency and amended

its complaint to add the Democratic National Commlttee and Mary Bingham as respondents. Alleging that the FEC has failed to

take action on its complaint, the party

filed suit under 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8){A),

which permits a complainant to peti tion the

court if the ComUssion fails to act on an

administrative complaint within 120 days.

u.s. District Court of the District of

Columbia, Civil Action No. 91-1064, May 10,

1991.

FEe v. Friends of Schaefer

The FEC asks the court to declare that

Friends of Schaefer, the principal campaign

committee of Michael schaefer, and its

treasurer, Mr. Schaefer himself:

o Failed to file statements of Candidacy

and Organization on time, in violation of

2 U.S.C. SS432(e)(1) and 433(a);

o Accepted excessive contributions totaling

$29,500, in violation of §441a(f);

o Failed to continuously report a $30,000

debt, in violation of S434(b)(8)i

o Accepted a $28,000 corporate contribution, in violation of §441b; and

o Failed to file mid-year and year-end

reports on time, in violation of

§434(a) (2).

The FEe also asks the court to assess a

civil penalty against defendants, permanently enjoin them from further similar1 violations and award the FEe its costs.

U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of California, Civil Action No.

91-65o-GT-CM, May 15, 1991.

1Mr. schaefer recently filed suit against

the FEC in bankruptcy court; see the June

1991 issue, p. 11.

8

Volume 17, Nu

Inte~tional Association

Managers, Inc. v. FEe

International Association Manager

Inc. (IAM) and 13 other plaintiffs--fi

other corporations and eight individu

associated with IN1 or the other corp

tions--ask the court to review the FE

conduct in an enforcement case (MUR 2

Plaintiffs in this case were named re

ents in MUR 29M, which the FEe is st

investigating to determine whether th

probable cause to believe the respond

violated several provisions of t£e Fe

Election Campaign Act (the Act). Pl

tiffs allege that the FEC has unconst

tionally interpreted and administered 

Act's enforcement provisions (2 U.S.C

§437g) in its handling of MUR 2984.

Plaintiffs also ask the court to

require the FEe to:

o Inform every person the agency cont

in connection with MUR 2984 that th

does not prohibit their discussion 

FEC's investigation with plaintiffs

o Notify plaintiffs of any additional

alleged violations:

o Provide every deponent in MUR 2984 

copy of his or her transcript; and

o promptly conclude the investigation 

regard to the five original respond

named in the MUR.

With respect to the other nine re

ents named in the MUR, plaintiffs ask 

court to enjoin the FEC from conducti

further investigation until it conclu

its investigation relevant to the fiv

original respondents.

U.S. District Court for the Distr

Arizona, Phoenix Division, Civil Acti

91-804 PHX RGS, May 20, 1991.

(on May 21, 1991, plaintiffs file

motion to transfer this case to the j

who heard two earlier suits, now clos

that were filed by the FEC against th

original respondents in MUR 2984: FE

Robert Johnson et al. and FEC v. Nati

Association of Real Estate Appraisers

Inc., et a1. (Civil Action Nos. 90~70

PGR and 90-880 PHX PGR). In these ea

cases, defendants complied with an Au

1990 bench order requiring deposition

a september 1990 court order requirin

numerous subpoenaed documents. Defen

1Specifically, the FEC found reason t

believe that respondents had violated 

disclaimer provision (§44ld(a)); the

contribution limits (§44la (a) II)(A»; 

prohibition on corporate contribution

(§441b(a); and the ban on contributi

made in the name of another (§441f).
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Numb

-National campaiqn" Exemption. The

Committee reduced its total costs alloc

to Iowa by 25 percent, expiaining that 

percent should be allocated to the natio

spending limit since the Iowa campaign 

the national campaign were "inextricabl

intertwined. 11 However, because the law

does not provide for such a "national c

pai9f1" exemption, the Cotmlission disallo

the exemption and re-allocated $178,910 

the Iowa limit ,

Polling Expenses. The Commission

determined that $19,288 in travel expen

associated with a polling consultant sh

have been allocated to Iowa. The Comm

argued that the costs were not allocabl

because none of the travel involved a s

in Iowa for £ive consecuti ve days. The

five-day rule , however, applies only to

campaign staff, not consultants.

The Committee spent $36,001 to cond

focus group surveys in Iowa but did not

allocate these costs to the Iowa limit,

arguing that the product of a focus gro

has a broad national application. The

Commission determined that expenses for 

focus groups were not allocable to Iowa

Nor were $93,250 in consultant fees pai

the polling firm for other activities.

(continu

staff salaries. As a usult of aud

findings, the Commission found that $30

in Iowa staff salaries and related expe

(FICA payment and insurance benefi ts)

should have been allocated to the ~owa

limit. The audit report noted that the

Commlttee used a standard lO-percent

compliance exemption for a portion of i

Iowa payroll, but applied a lOO-percent

exemption to certain other salaries and

consulting fees. However, if a committ

uses the standard 10-percent exemption, 

must be applied consistently. (See 11 

106.2(c)(5) and the FEe's Financial Con

and Compliance MMual for PreSIdent.-tal

Primary Candidates, page 28.)

With respect to the Committee's nat

al staff, the audi t report found that

$6,549 in additional salaries and FICA 

ments should have been allocated to Iow

because the employees worked in Iowa fo

five or 1I\0re consecuti ve days. (See 11 

l06.2(b)(2)(ii}.)

Allocation of £Kpenditures to

Iowa Spending Limit

Based on the audit findings summari

below, the ccmunission allocated an addi

tional $531,457 to the amount the Oomm

had allocated to the Iowa limit.

9

July 1991

later asked the eDUct to e~pedite the FEe's

investigation in MUR 2984. On May 1, 1991.

citing its lack of jurisdiction, the court

denied the motion. ('I'he eaclier cases were

not summarized in the Record, which normally does not cover subpoena enforcement

suits..) The denial prompted defendants to

file the above sui t against the FEe. For

another related suit, See Dole v. International Association Managet·s-; Inc., June

1991 issue, page 9.) --

-------

7

lIn calculating the repayment amount, Audit

staff reduced the amount spent in excess of

the Iowa limit {$1,270,936) by $14,870,

which represented bills for expenditures

not paid as of the last day that matching

funds remained in the Cornmi ttee rs account.

FEe imlZl\SES GEPtmROT AUDIT REPORT

On June 18, 1991, the Commission

released the final audit report on the

Gephardt for President Committee, Inc.

Congressman ~phardt received $3.396

million in primary matching funds for his

1988 Presidential campaign. Based on the

results of the audit, the Commission made

an initial dete~ination that the Committee

repay a total of $126,383 to the U.s.

Treasury for exceeding the Iowa expenditure

limit (see below).

If the Committee does not dispute the

initial dete~nation within 30 days, the

repayment amount becomes final and is payable within 90 days of the initial determination. 11 CFR 9038.2(c) and (d).

Final audit reports are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

calculation of Repayuent ~t

The Commission determined that the

Gephardt C~ttee had made $1,270,936 in

expenditures that were allocable to the

Iowa spending limit of $775,218. The

Committee therefore overspent the limdt by

$495,718.

FEe Audit staff fPPlied a formula to

the excessive amount to determine what

portion of that amount ~s paid with public

funds as opposed to private contributions

in the Committee's account. (The formula

is explained at 11 eFR 9038.2(b)(2)(iii).)

The formula yielded a repayment amount of

$126,383.
FEDERALELECllON COMNIISSION Volume 17, Numb

Wl'IMi PLACES IIJRE ACCESSIBLE

"00 ELDERLY, HAlt)ICAPPED

Testifying before the U.s. House SU

committee on Elections, FEe Chairman Joh

WaLten MCGarry presented a report showin

that S4 percent of some 136,043 nationwi

polling places were accessible to the el

erly and the hancUcapped in 1990. He no

the improvemnt over the past two elections. In 1988, 79 percent of evaluated

polling places met accessibility require

ments, and in 1986 only 73 percent were 

compliance.

The report, Polling Place Accessibi

in ~~990 General ;;lections, was prepa

by the FEe's Clearinghouse on Election

Administration. In his May 14, 1989, te

tiIllOny, Chairman McGarry said that inacc

sible polling places tend to occur in

sparsely populated, rural and mquntainou

areas, where facilities are few, and in

huge suburban sprawl~. Wher:e pdvate hom

are used.

According to the report, of the 22,1

places found inaccessible in 1990, 13,31

(60 percent.) had unramped stairs. Other

problems included obstructed passages an

inadequate parking.

As Chairman McGarry noted. the repo

predicts that polling place accessibilit

will continue to improve as a ~esult of

Congressional redistricting, Which often

leads to new voting facilities. The pas

sage of Americans with Disabilities Act,

which ~ll become effective in 1992, wi

also encourage alternatives to ir~ccessi

sites.

The 1990'report is the third progres

report iSSUed under the Voting Accessib

ity for the Elderly and Handicapped ACt 

1984. Under that Act, the FEe must issu

two more reports covering the 1992 and 1

elections. '!he FEe is responsible for

conducting surveys on accessibility and

compiling the results, it has no jurisdiction over polling places.

For further infol:"m6tion. call 800/42

9530 and ask for the Clearinghouse or ca

the office directly (202/376-5670). The

TeD number is 202/376-3136; out-af-state

callers may reverse the charges.

10

July 1991

Telemarketing Expenses. t'hi:1! Ccmnittee

paid a vendor $100,542 for a telemarketing p~og~am directed to Iowa voters but failed

to allocate $15,408 in vendor fe~s and

charges for calls roade to wrong or disconnected numbers, clainting that these

expenses did not influence the nomnation

crocess, The Commission, however, viewed

the expenses as part of the total cost of

the prosram and therefore alloc~ted $15,408

to Iowa.

The Commdttee similarly should have

allocated $28,512 in fees paid to a vendor

providin9 telemarketing materials used in

Iowa and an additional $5,466 in another

telemaIketing program. .

Mditional Allocations and .Adjustments.

The Com.ission determined that $192,205 in

additional costs should have been allocated

to the Iowa limit for various categories of

expenses. Additional amounts allocable to

the Iowa limt were reduced, however, by

$19,192 in compliance and fundraising

exemptions verified by audit staff.

~ia ExpenseS. The audi t report

revealed that, while the Committee had

allocated the costs of media time buys to

Iowa, it had not allocated a IS-percent

vendor commission. In response to this

finding, the Commdttee provided audit staff

wi th an amendment to its vendor agreement

that waived the IS-percent coll\mission from

the end. of December 19B7 through the date

of the Democratic New Hampshire primary.

Instead of a cammdssion, the Co~tt~e was

to pay a $110.000 consulting fee. .The

audit report noted that the amendment

substituted a cost that is not normally

allocable to state spending limits (the

$110,000 fee) for an allocable cost (the

IS-percent commdssionl. The commission

decided that some portion of the fee was

allocable to.lowa. In the absence of

Committee records providing information on

this point, the Commission determined that

$74,236 was allocable to lOW<), an amount

representing the allocable portion of the

IS-percent commission specified in the

original agreement.
7/15/91

10/15/91

1;31/92

7/20/91

8/20/91

9/20/91

10/20/91

11/20/91

12/20/91

1/31/92

7/31/91

1/31/92

Volume 17, Numbe

4/1~6/30

7/1-9/30

10;1-12/31

6/1-6/30

7/1-7/31

8/1-8/31

9/1-9/30

10/1-10/31

11/1-11/30

12/1-12/31

1/1/91-6/30/91

7/1/91-12/31/91

I The reporting period begins on the day

following the closing date of the last

report filed. If the report is the first

report filed by the committee, however, th

report must disclose any activity that

occurred before the committee registered

and, in the case of an authorized

committee, before the individual became a

candidate.

2Reports sent by registered or certified

mail must be postmarked by the filing dat

otherwise they must be received by that

date. 11 eFR 104.5(e).

2nd Quarter

3ed Quarter

Year-end

1991 Quarterly Reports

2nd-4th Quarter ACtivity

(Note: Quarterly reporting option

available to Presidential coomittees only)

Report Period coveredl Filing Date

Report Period Covered1 Filing Date

Mid-year

Year-end

Report Period Covered! Filing Date

1991 Semiarmual Reports

July

August

September

OCtober

November

December

Year-end

Further Information

Call the Commission for further informatio

on reporting (800/424-9530 or 202/376-

3120).

sions of filing deadlines under any circum

stances. Failure to file a report on time

could result in enforcement action by the

Commission.

1991 Monthly Reports

June-December ACtivity

11

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Quarterly Report (Presidential CalmiUees)

Presidential committees filing on a

quarterly (rather than monthly) basis must

file a second quarter report due July 15,

1990. The report covers the period from

April 1 through June 30.

Where to File

Instructions on where to file reports

are given on the back of the Summary Page

of the reporting form. A list of state

filing offices is available from the

Commission.

Monthly Report

PACs, party committees and authorized

committees of Presidential candidates that

have chosen to file on a monthly basis must

file a report due July 20, 1991, that

covers the period from June 1 through June

30.

Late Filing

The Federal Election Campaign Act does

not permit the Commission to grant exten-

~._ ~·,_··_r ~~.

• ~. < '~

, . < • •

. . . . - / . ~'~r ~. _~ . -

Mid-Year Report

The mid-year report is due July 31,

1991. This report must be filed by:

o AUthorized commdttees of House and Senate

candidates; and

a PACs and party cornndttees that file on a

semiannual (rather than monthly) basis.

The mid-year report covers activity

from January 1 through June 30. There are

two exceptions to the January 1 opening

date:

o If the mid-year report is the committee's

first report, the reporting period begins

on the date of the committee's first

activity. In the case of an authorized

committee, that date may occur before the

individual became a candidate.

o If the corrraittee filed a previous report

disclosing 1991 activity (such as a

special election report), coverage for

the mid-year report begins with the day

following the closing date of the last

report filed.

please note that the mid-year report is

waived for committees filing either the

post-election report in connection with the

Illinois special general election (see

article on page 3) or the pre-primary

report in connection with the Arizona

special election.

July 1991
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Num

l«JR 2918

Respondents: (a) Wallace, Dover & Dix

P.A. (AR); (b) wallace, Dover & Dixon 

J. Cal McCastlain, treasurer (AR)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Corporate contribu~ions

Disposition: (a) and (b) Reason to b

but took no further action

MUR 3033

Respondents: (a) Commonwealth Bancsh

Corporation, William D. Davis, Chairm

(PA); (bl Commonwealth Bancshares pol

Action Committee (federal), Eileen Joh

treasurer (PA)

Complainant: Referral by the Comptro

of the Currency, Administrator of Nat

Banks (NY)

SUbject: Failure to disclose activity

accurately; improper solicitations

Disposition: (a) and (b) $2,000 civi

penalty

MUR 3090

Respondents: Common Cause (oc)

complainant: william B. Canfield, II

Counsel, National Republican Senatori

Conunittee (DC}

Subdect: Failure to disclose indepen

expenditures and in-kind contribution

corporate expenditures; disclaimers;

failure to register and report

Disposition: No reason to believe

(continued, 

ftUR 2724/2718/2698

Respondents: (a) Jack Dav!s (IL) ;

(b) Davis for Congress Committee (fed

Jack Davis. treasurer (ILl; (cl Jack D

Davis Commcittee (state), Jack Davis, t

urer (IL); (d) Will County Republican 

tral Committee, John P. Karubas, treas

\

(IL)

COI1lplainant: Richard M. Bates, Execu

Director, Democratic Congressional cam

Committee (DC) (2698 and 2718); Martin 

Gleason (IL) (2724)

SUbject: Failure to disclose receipts 

expenditures adequately; failure to fi

reports on time; failure to register o

time; prohibited in-kind contributions 

state commi ttee

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe bu

took no further action; (b) and (c) $2

civil penalty; (d) no reason to believ

12

July 1991

HURS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC

Listed below are MURs (FEC enforcement

cases) recently released for public review.

The list is based on the FEC press releases

of April 29, May 13 and May 20, 1991.

Files on closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

unless otherwise noted, civil penalties

resulted from conciliation agreements

reached between the respondents and the

Commission.

MUR 1662/1545

Respondents: (a) Beatty for Congress Committee, Edward Myers, Jr., treasurer (NY);

(b) Committee to Re-Elect Congressman Leo

C. Zeferetti, Eileen Deering, treasurer

(NY); (c) Brooklyn Democrats (federal),

Alan Lebowitz, treasurer (NY); (d) Friends

of Ed Towns, Vivian Y. Bright, treasurer

(NY)

cOIIplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file reports on time;

excessive contributions; inaccurate and

incomplete disclosure

Disposition: (a) $15,000 civil penalty

assessed against Mr. Myers (u.S. court of

appeals); (b) $300 civil penalty; (c)

$1,000 civil penalty; (d) $100 civil

penalty (case was closed in 19B8)

MUR 2695

Respondents: (a) California Lieutenant

Governor Leo McCarthy; (b) McCarthy for

U.S. Senator, Lance Olson, treasurer;

(c) californians for McCarthy committee,

Lance Olson, treasurer

CClIIJPl.ainant: Robert W. Naylor, Chairman,

California Republican party

Subject: Failure to designate committee on

time; corporate and union contributions;

failure to register and report; failure to

disclose in-kind contributions

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe but

took no furthe r action; (b) (1) probable

cause to believe but took no further action

(in-kind contributions)t (b)(2) no probable

cause to believe (corporate and union

contributions); (c) no probable cause to

believe
Co

Name

Address

Committee

2. I cannot come to Boston or Chicago, 

would Ilke to attend an FEe conferen

(name city below)

3. I would like to receive more informati

the Boston/Chicago (circle one or bot

conference. Please send an invitation 

1. What length of conference would you

prefer?

02 days

o 1 1/2 days

01 day

where?

SURVEY ON UPCOMING CONFERENCES

If so, when?

3. How many years have you worked with the

campaign finance law?

[l less than one

:::J 1-3 years

"--J 4-6 years

:::J 7-10 years

::::J more than 10 years

4. Have you ever attended an FEe

conference?

eyes

o no

1. Please check the type of organization you

are associated with:

o Candidate committee

o Party committee

o Separate segregated fund

o Corporation

D Labor organization

:::J Trade association

:::J Membership organization

2. What is your role in the organization?

:::J Candidate

o Treasurer

n Campaign worker

o Attorney

o Accountant

o Bookkeeper

D Other

We would appreciate your taking a few minutes to answer this two-page survey. Simply remo

page, staple it closed and drop it in the nearest mailbox. No postage is required. If possible, w

would like to hear from you within the next two weeks.

The Federal Election Commission will be holding regional conferences in Boston and Chicago 

fall. The conferences will offer workshops for House and Senate candidate committees, politic

party committees and separate segregated funds. The Commission would like your input to h

plan useful and interesting workshops for those in attendance.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

•

I

I

I

I

I

I

•
- - - ..... .~.~. 

. . . • .... I , _

. . -- -~ --~-- ~- - , - - - - - - - , - - - - - - .. - - - - - - -,-, -_.

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY nilE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

NO POST

NECESSA

MAILED I

UNITED S

IIIII1

Party Committees

o Contributions

o "Exempt activity"

o Coordinated expenditures

o Volunteer activity

o PAC support

D Fundraising

o Joint fundraising

o Allocation of federal and nonfedera

expenses

o Reporting

o Other

General

o Recent trends in FECA issues

o Using the Public Records Office

D The FEe enforcement process

o Filing a complaint

o FEC aids to committees

o FEC organization

o Ethics laws

o Internal Revenue Service rules for

political committees

o Other

Fold Here

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL

FIAST CLASS PERMIT NO. 12976 WASHINGTON, DC

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, DC 20463

OFFICIALBUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

Candidate Committees

o Contributions

o Independent expenditures

o PAC support

o Party support

o Corporate/labor support

o Volunteer activity

o Fundraising

o Joint fundraising

o Reporting

o Advances made by committee staff

o Transfers of funds between authorized

committees

o Debt reduction and settlement

o Other

Check the topics that would be of interest to you.

Separate Segregated Funds

o Independent expenditures

o Contributions

o Solicitation rules

o Collecting agents

D Allocation of federal and nonfederal

expenses

D Reporting

o Partisan and nonpartisan

communications

o Use of corporate/labor facilities

L Other
July 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

JIIUR 3115

Respondents: (a) Texans for sweeney, Myles

SWeeney, treasurer; (b) catherine Sweeney

(TX); (c) Barbara webber (TX)

complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Excessive contributions

Disposition: (a) and (b) $1,000 civil penalty (joint conciliation agreement); (c) no

reason to believe

MUR 3141

Respondents: Sibley for Congress, David M.

Sibley, treasurer (T,Kl

complainant: FEe initiated

SUbdect: Failure to file reports on time

Disposition: $1,000 civil penalty

ftUR 3165

Respondents: Southern California Coalition

for Responsible Government, Harold B. Nelson, treasurer

Complainant: Eugene L. Ferguson, campaign

Manager, Committee to Re-Elect Congressman

Dana Rohrabacher (CA)

SUbject: Failut"e to file reports on time

Disposition: Reason to believe but took no

further action

1"IUR 3173

Respondents: Reynolds for Congress 1990,

Earl s. worthington, treasurer (IL)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour reports

and to amend statement of organization

Disposition: $2,500 civil penalty

J«JR 3194

Respondents: (a) Michael Georgiou (VA);

(b) Abdelaziz Gren (VA)

Complainant: Referral by U.S. DepartJnent

of Justice

SUbject: Contributions in the name of

another

DispoSition: (a) and (b) Reason to believe

but took no further action

MUR 3200

Respondents: Dan Marriott for congress,

Brian C. McGavin, treasurer (UT}

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour reports

Disposition: $1,020 civil penalty

MUR 3215;3156

Respondents: Mike Easley for Senate

committee, John R. McArthur, treasurer (NC)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour reports

Disposition: $2,000 civil penalty .

15

Volume 17, Number 

3232/3186/3139

Respondents: General oevelopment Corporation Better Government PAC, Franzine

Shields, treasurer (FL)

Complainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file reports on time

Disposition: $3,100 civil penalty

JIIJR 3235

Respondents: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRa

PAC, Alan Berman, treasuret" (NY)

Oomplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file report on time

Disposition: $325 civil penalty

MUR 3236

Respondents: Wolpe for Congress, Marilyn

S. Graber, treasurer (MI)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 4B-hour reports

Disp::lsition: $1 , 650 civil penalty

MUR 3238

Respondents: Thomas Dyson (TX)

complainant: William B. canfield, III,

Legal counsel, National Republican Senato

ial COmmittee (DC)

SUbject: Failure to registet" and report

(re Republican Presidential Task Force)

Disposition: No reason to believe but

reported matter to U.s. Postal Service

KUR 3245

Respondents: Friends of Congressman Hoch

brueckner, Mary M. Schumacher, treasurer

(NY)

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour reports

Disposition: Reason to believe but took n

fUt"ther action
Volume 17, Num

- Political Contributi

Data, Inc., 2:8; 5:7 - Schaefer, Friends of

- Smith, Dennis, for

congress, 5:7

- Speelman, 3:10 - Webb for Congress

CoJllllittee, 2: 10

- West Virginia Repub

State Executive COm

3:10

- working Names, Inc. 

1009-GAG and 87-2467

5:7

v. FEe

------=-cormnon cause; Nation

Republican Senatoria

corami ctee , Appellant 

5311), 1:7

- Faucher and Maine Ri

Life Committee, Inc. 

1832), 5:8

- International Assoc

Managers, Inc" 7:8 - Republican party of

Kentucky, 7:8 - Schaefer, 6:11 - spannaus (91-0681), 

- Stern, 2:7

stern-v:-General Electri

Coapmy, 7:6

800 LINE

Allocating expenses thro

ballot composition, 2:

Debt retirement by candi

committees, 4:7

PACs: allocating federal 

nonfedera1 expenses, 6

Staff advances and salar

2:6

BUlk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commissi

Permit Number G-31

1991-3: PAC newsletter distributed outside restricted

class, 6:6

1991-4: payment to senate

employee for two-week

teaching appointment, 5:6

1991-5: party office building

fund; pre(!owticn issues, 7:4

1991-6: Calculating ballot

composition ratios; allocating pre-1991 expenses, 6:6

1991-8: Payment to Senator for

radio series, 6:8

1991-9: Retroactive interest

payments an loans made by

candidate, 7:5

1991-10: Candidate'S use of

assets jointly held with

spouse, 6:8

1991-13 l Labor union jointly

established by two other

unions, 7:5

caJRT CASES

Dole v. International

Association Managers, Inc.,

6:9

FEe v ,

- AugUStIne for Congress, 2:7

- Dramesi for conaress, 3:10 - Fletcher, Feie s of

Isaiah, 4:6

- Lawson, 6:10

- Le9'i-Tech, Inc., 3:11

- Mann for congres~

Coonittee, 5:7 - Mid-America Conservative

PAC, 2:10 - National Republican

Senatorial committee, 6:10 - NRA Political Victory rund,

3:10

July 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

The first number in each

citation refers to the "number"

(lllOflth) of the 1991 Record

issue in which the article

appeared; the second number,

following the colan, indicates

the page number in that issue.

ADVISORY CIlINI(N;

1990-14: AT&T'S 900-line

fundraising service, 2:4

1990-19: vendor/committee

relationship; sale and

repurchase of fundraising

items, 1:8

1990-22: Blue Cross/Blue

Shield's solicitation of

member plans' personnel, 1:9

1990-25: Parent corporation's

obligations to labor

organization under

twice-yearly provisions, 2:5

1990-26: Sale of campaign

asset: personal use of excess

funds after November 30,

1989, 3:7

1990-27: Transfer to p"rty's

federal account of funds

mristakenly deposited in state

account, 3:9

1990-29: Return to federal

account of funds transfeered

to state account, 4:5

1990-30: Designation of postelection contributions to

retire debts, 4:6

1991-1: Credit card

contributions to nonccnnected

PAC of federal contractor

partnership, 5: 4

1991-2: Disposition of possibly

illegal funds raised through

900-line telephone calls, 5:5