December 2001 Federal Election Commission Volume 27, Number 12

Table of Contents

800 Line

1 Reporting Communications to the

Restricted Class

Court Cases

1 Committee for a Unified

Independent Party, Inc. v. FEC

2 New Litigation

3 On Appeal

Reports

5 Oklahoma Special Election

Reporting

Audits

6 Audit of Missouri Democratic

State Committee

8 Audit of Sharpless 2000

8 Advisory Opinions

Alternative Dispute Resolution

12 ADR Program Update

Outreach

13 Roundtable

13 Regional Conference in San

Francisco for Candidates, Parties

and PACs

14 FEC Announces Spring

Conferences

14 Public Appearance

Compliance

14 Nonfiler

14 Index

Compliance 800 Line Court Cases

Reporting Communications

to the Restricted Class

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits corporations

and labor organizations from using

their general treasury funds to make

contributions or expenditures in

connection with federal elections. 2

U.S.C. §441b(a). However, corporations and labor organizations may

engage in other activities that are

exempt from the Act’s definitions of

contribution and expenditure. One

such activity is the distribution of

express advocacy1 communications

to the organization’s restricted

class.2

 Such communications may,

for example, take the form of a

candidate appearance before the

members of a union or a publication

1

 Express advocacy communications

are communications that expressly

advocate the election or defeat of a

clearly identified federal candidate. 11

CFR 100.22.

2

 For purposes of distributing communications, the restricted class of a

corporation or labor organization

consists of the organization’s executive

and administrative staff, stockholders/

members and the families of the

aforementioned groups. 11 CFR

114.5(g).

Committee for a Unified

Independent Party, Inc.

(CUIP) v. FEC

On October 10, 2001, the U.S.

District Court for the Southern

District of New York granted the

Commission’s motion to dismiss

this case, finding that the Committee

for a Unified Independent Party,

Inc. (CUIP), along with the political

parties and individuals who filed

suit (collectively the Plaintiffs),

lacked standing to challenge the

Commission’s debate regulations.

Plaintiffs had asked the court to find

that the FEC’s debate regulations

are not authorized by the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and violate the First and Fifth

Amendments.

The regulations in question, 11

CFR 110.13 and 114.4(f), permit

nonprofit corporations to stage

candidate debates and to accept

donations from corporations and

labor unions to defray the costs of

those debates. This exemption from

the general prohibition against

corporate or union contributions and

expenditures is based on a statutory

provision that permits “nonpartisan

activity (by corporations or unions)

designed to encourage individuals to

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2001

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

David M. Mason, Vice Chairman

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Bradley Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Acting Assistant

 Staff Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

New Litigation

Friends for Houghton v. FEC

On September 13, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S.

District Court for the Western

District of New York. The complaint appeals a civil money penalty

the Commission imposed on Friends

for Houghton (the Committee) for

failure to file the Committee’s 2000

Pre-Primary Report.

According to the allegations in

the complaint, Congressman

Houghton was a candidate in the

New York primary held September

12, 2000. As a result, his campaign

committee was required to file a

pre-primary report due August 31.

On September 1, the Commission

sent a notice to the Committee

indicating that it may have failed to

file its pre-primary report, and that it

would have four business days from

the date of the notice to file the

report. Because of the Labor Day

holiday, the fourth business day

after September 1 was September 8.

The Committee filed the report on

that day.

sent to the executives and stockholders of a corporation.

Corporations and labor organizations must report disbursements for

these communications to the restricted class if:

• The communication contains

express advocacy (note, however,

that if the communication is

primarily devoted to subjects other

than express advocacy—that is, if

the communication deals with

issue advocacy only—then no

reporting is required); and

• The costs for a particular type of

election (e.g., all primary elections) aggregate over $2,000.

If both of the above criteria are

met, the corporation or labor

organization must report the costs of

the communications on FEC Form

7. 11 CFR 104.6(a).

Filing Form 7

FEC Form 7 must be filed

quarterly during a calendar year in

which a regularly scheduled general

election is held (or, in the case of a

special election, Form 7 should be

filed in accord with the reporting

schedule for that election), beginning with the first reporting period

during which the aggregate costs for

a particular type of election (e.g., all

primary elections) exceed $2,000.

The corporation or labor organization must continue to file quarterly

and pre-general election reports if it

makes additional disbursements for

communications (containing express

advocacy) in connection with the

same primary, special or run-off

election. 11 CFR 104.6(b).

For each communication the

report must contain:

• The type of communication (e.g.,

direct mail, telephone, telegram);

• The date(s) of the communication;

• The candidate’s name, office

sought and whether the communication was for a primary or a

general election;

• Whether the communication was

in support of, or in opposition to, a

particular candidate; and

• The cost of the communication.

FEC Form 7 is available on the

FEC web site (www.fec.gov/

reporting.html).

—Gary Mullen

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

800 Line

(continued from page 1)

vote or to register to vote.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(ii).

In order to have standing to bring

a case in federal court, the plaintiffs

must satisfy a three-part test. The

plaintiffs must:

1. Allege personal injury;

2. Show that the injury is fairly

traceable to the defendant’s

allegedly unlawful conduct; and

3. Show that the injury is likely to

be redressed by the relief that the

plaintiffs request.

In this case, the court found that

the plaintiffs that were political

parties lacked standing because

they either were not injured as a

result of the regulations or could

not trace their injury directly to the

regulations. Likewise, the CUIP,

an organization interested in

sponsoring multilateral debates,

could not show an injury that was

traceable to the debate regulations.

The court also found that the

plaintiffs who were individual

voters, minor party supporters or

former candidates lacked standing

to challenge the regulations.

Having found that Plaintiffs lacked

standing, the court ordered the case

closed without considering the

merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

See the July 2000 Record, page 8.

U.S. District Court, Southern

District of New York, 00 CIV 3476

(BSJ) (JCF)

—Amy Kort
December 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Graham v. FEC

On September 14, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, Western

Division. The complaint appeals a

civil money penalty the Commission

imposed on the Dewayne Graham

for Congress Committee (the

Committee) and Everett Martindale,

as the Committee’s treasurer, for

failure to file the Committee’s 2000

October Quarterly Report. According to the allegations of the complaint, the Committee attempted to

file a termination report in July of

2000, but the Commission did not

act on the termination report until

November 2000.

In August 2001, the Commission

found reason to believe that the

Committee and Mr. Martindale had

violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a), which

requires the timely filing of reports

by political committees, by not

filing an October 2000 Quarterly

Report. The Commission assessed a

civil penalty in the amount of $900

in accordance with 11 CFR 111.43.

Plaintiffs claim that the Commission failed to act on the

Committee’s termination request in

a timely fashion and has taken an

“arbitrary and unconscionable

position” in assessing the civil

penalty, thus violating the plaintiffs’

constitutional rights. Plaintiffs ask

the court to exempt them from the

Commission’s rulings and fines

based upon the plaintiffs’ extenuating circumstances.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, Western Division, 4-01-CV-00635.✦

—Amy Kort

On Appeal

Hooker v. Sundquist, et al.

On September 25, 2001, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit affirmed the October 18,

2000, judgment of the United States

District Court for the Middle

District of Tennessee dismissing this

case. The court of appeals agreed

with the district court that:

• John Jay Hooker was barred from

challenging the constitutionality of

the Presidential Election Campaign

Kean for Congress Committee v.

FEC

On September 18, 2001, the Kean

for Congress Committee (the

Committee) asked the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia to

find that the Commission’s failure to

act on the Committee’s administrative

complaint was contrary to law.

1

 Election sensitive reports are those

filed immediately before an election

and include pre-primary, pre-special,

pre-general, October quarterly and

October monthly reports. (continued on page 4)

Under the Commission’s Administrative Fine program, electionsensitive reports1

—including

pre-primary reports—are considered

late if they are filed after their due

date, but more than four days before

an election. Committees filing later

than that are considered nonfilers.

On October 17, 2000, the Commission found reason to believe that

the Committee and its treasurer had

violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a), which

requires the timely filing of reports

by political committees. Having

filed its pre-primary report less than

five days before the election, the

committee was considered a

nonfiler. The Commission assessed

a civil money penalty in the amount

of $9,000 in accordance with 11

CFR 111.43.

In its complaint, the Committee

argues that the Commission should

have considered it a late filer instead

of a nonfiler, reducing its civil

money penalty to $3,850.

The Committee asks that the court:

• Declare that the Commission’s

determination that the Committee

and its treasurer violated 2 U.S.C.

§434(a), and its assessment of a

civil money penalty of $9,000,

were arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion and otherwise

not in accordance with law;

• Prevent the Commission from

designating the Committee a

nonfiler and from enforcing the

civil money penalty of $9,000; and

• Order the Commission to modify

both its determination that the

Committee is a nonfiler and its

assessment of the civil money

penalty.

U.S. District Court for the

Western District of New York, 01-

64444.✦

—Jim Wilson

The Committee’s administrative

complaint, filed on June 1, 2000,

alleged that the Council for Responsible Government (CRG), a Virginia

corporation, had secretly funded

campaign mailings in an attempt to

influence the New Jersey Congressional Seventh District Republican

primary. The Committee contended

that the campaign mailings violated

the Federal Election Campaign

Act’s prohibition on corporate

contributions and also lacked the

disclaimer required on public

communications. 2 U.S.C. §§ 441b

and 441d. The Committee also

asked the Commission for injunctive

relief to prevent the CRG from

continuing to engage in the alleged

prohibited activity.

The Committee contends that, as

of September 18, 2001, the FEC had

not taken any action on its complaint, and asks that the court:

• Declare the FEC’s failure to act

within 120 days of the filing of the

complaint contrary to law;

• Order the FEC to bring itself into

compliance with the law within 30

days; and

• Grant any further relief as the court

deems just and proper.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia,

1:01CV01979.✦

—Gary Mullen
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2001

4

FEC v. Public Citizen, Inc., et al

On October 10, 2001, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit ruled that Public Citizen,

Inc., and its separate segregated

fund, Public Citizen’s Fund for a

Clean Congress (the Fund), violated

2 U.S.C. §441d(a) by failing to

include a disclaimer stating that

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

FEC v. Toledano

On September 27, 2001, James

Toledano appealed this case to the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit. The appeal challenges the

June 6, 2001, decision of the U.S.

District Court for the Central

District of California, which imposed a $7,500 civil penalty on Mr.

Toledano after finding that he had

violated 2 U.S.C. §432(b)(2). This

provision requires persons who

receive contributions for a political

committee in excess of $50 to

forward these contributions to the

committee’s treasurer within 10

days after receiving them.

See the July 2001 Record, page 8.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, 01-56762.✦

—Amy Kort

Fund Act and the Presidential

Primary Matching Payment

Account Act in this case because

he had unsuccessfully challenged

those statutes in previous litigation; and

• Mr. Hooker lacked standing to

bring this case because he had not

alleged that he himself had suffered a concrete, particularized

injury.

This case was originally captioned Hooker v. All Contributors,

et al. See the August 2000 Record,

page 15, and the April 2001 Record,

page 8.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit, 00-6580.✦

—Amy Kort

their independent expenditures had

not been authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. This

ruling reversed the decision on this

issue by the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of Georgia,

which had granted summary judgment to the defendants in September

1999. See page 2 of November

1999 Record.

District Court Decision. The FEC

had alleged that the Fund failed to

include the disclaimer required by 2

U.S.C. §441d(a) in television

advertisements and printed flyers

that expressly advocated the defeat

of former Representative Newt

Gingrich. The statute states that,

whenever a person makes an

independent expenditure, the

communication must disclose both

the name of the person who paid for

the communication and the fact that

the communication was not authorized by any candidate or

candidate’s committee. 2 U.S.C.

§441d(a). Although the Fund

identified who paid for the ads, it

did not include a disclaimer stating

whether or not the communications

had been authorized by a candidate.

The district court, however, held

that the disclaimer stating that the

communications were paid for by

the Fund, combined with the Fund’s

disclosure reports to the FEC,

rendered the candidate authorization

statement unnecessary. The district

court ruled that the statute violated

the First Amendment because it was

broader than necessary to achieve

this goal.

Appeals Court Decision. The

FEC argued that 2 U.S.C. §441d(a)

served the governmental interest in

protecting the integrity of the

electoral process by immediately

informing the voters whether a

political advertisement was attributable to a candidate or to other

persons, including the candidate’s

supporters. The appeals court agreed

and ruled that the statute was

narrowly tailored to serve the stated

governmental interest because it

applied only to candidate elections

and was limited to communications

that expressly advocated the election

or defeat of a clearly identified

candidate. As a result, the court

found that the disclaimer requirements in 2 U.S.C. §441d(a) did not

“impermissibly infringe on Public

Citizen’s First Amendment rights to

free speech.”

The appeals court vacated the

district court’s grant of summary

judgment for Public Citizen and

remanded the case to the district

court to grant summary judgment to

the FEC on its §441d(a) claims and

to determine appropriate relief for

the violations.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit, 99-14823.✦

—Kate Miller

Campaign Guides

Available

 For each type of committee, a

Campaign Guide explains, in

clear English, the complex

regulations regarding the activity

of political committees. It shows

readers, for example, how to fill

out FEC reports and illustrates

how the law applies to practical

situations.

 The FEC publishes four

Campaign Guides, each for a

different type of committee, and

we are happy to mail your

committee as many copies as you

need, free of charge. We

encourage you to view them on

our web site (go to www.fec.gov,

then click on “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” and then scroll

down to “Publications”).

 If you would like to place an

order for paper copies of the

Campaign Guides, please call

800-424-9530, press 1, then 3.
December 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Oklahoma Special Election Reporting

Committees Involved Only in the Special Primary Election on

December 11, 2001, Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Primary Report November 21 November 26 November 29

Year-End Report December 31 January 31 January 31

If Only Two Elections are Held, Committees Involved in Both

the Special Primary on December 11, 2001, and the Special

General on January 8, 2002, Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Primary Report November 21 November 26 November 29

Pre-General Report December 19 December 24 December 27

Year-End Report — Waived —

Post-General Report1 January 28 February 7 February 7

April Quarterly Report March 31 April 15 April 15

If Three Elections are Held, Committees Involved in Only the

Special Primary on December 11, 2001, and the Special

Runoff on January 8, 2002, Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Primary Report November 21 November 26 November 29

Pre-Runoff Report December 19 December 24 December 27

Year-End Report December 31 January 31 January 31

Committees Involved in the Special Primary on December

11, 2001, the Special Runoff on January 8, 2002, and the

Special General on February 12, 2002, Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Primary Report November 21 November 26 November 29

Pre-Runoff Report December 19 December 24 December 27

Year-End Report — Waived —

Pre-General Report1 January 23 January 28 January 31

Post-General Report March 4 March 14 March 14

April Quarterly Report March 31 April 15 April 15

1

Since PACs and parties must aggregate activity on a calendar-year basis,

they must disclose activity for reporting

periods that span 2001 and 2002 using

two separate reporting forms. If the

Special General is held January 8,

2002, these committees will file their

Post-General report on two forms—one

form to cover the 2001 activity (labeled

as the Year-End report) and another to

cover only 2002 activity (labeled as the

Post-General report). Both reporting

forms must be filed by the filing date for

the Post-General report listed in the

chart at right. If the Special General is

held February 12, 2002, these committees will file their Pre-General report

on two forms—one form to cover the

2001 activity (labeled as the Year-End

report) and another to cover only 2002

activity (labeled as the Pre-General

report). Both reporting forms must be

filed by the filing date for the PreGeneral report listed in the chart at

right.

Oklahoma Special Election

Reporting

The Special Election to fill the

U.S. House seat being vacated by

Congressman Steve Largent in the

First Congressional district of

Oklahoma will be held on February

12, 2002. The Special Primary will

be December 11 and the Special

Runoff, if needed, will be January 8.

In the event that a Special Runoff

Election is not necessary, the

Special General Election will be

held on January 8, 2002, instead of

February 12, 2002.

Authorized committees of

candidates running in these elections

and other political committees—

including PACs—that support these

candidates and do not file monthly

must file special election reports.1

Committees involved in any of these

elections should consult the accompanying chart for filing information.

Reports

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2001

6

Audit of Missouri

Democratic State Committee

On August 23, 2001, the Commission approved the final audit

report on the Missouri Democratic

State Committee (the Committee).

The report found that between

January 1, 1997, and December 31,

1998, the Committee:

• Mishandled earmarked contributions;

• Exceeded its coordinated party

expenditure limit;

• Received excessive contributions;

• Mishandled the payment of

allocable expenses and the deposit

of rebates; and

• Failed to report debts.

Earmarked Contributions

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, a contribution

that is given to an intermediary or

conduit and earmarked for a particular candidate is considered a contribution from the contributor to the

candidate. The intermediary or

conduit must forward the contribution within 10 days and must report

the original source and the intended

recipient of the earmarked contribution in its FEC disclosure reports. 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(8); 11 CFR 110.6

and 102.8.

The Committee received $183,

8101

 in contributions that contributors appeared to have earmarked for

the Nixon Campaign Fund, the

principal campaign committee for

Senatorial candidate Jay Nixon.

While the contributor checks were

made payable to the Missouri

Democratic State Committee, some

deposit batches were marked

“Nixon $” or contained Nixon

Note that 48-hour notices are

required of authorized committees

when they receive contributions of

$1,000 or more less than 20 days—

but more than 48 hours—before any

election in which the candidate is

running. For the Special Primary,

48-hour notices are required for

contributions received between

November 22 and December 8. If

only two elections are held, 48-hour

notices are required between

December 20 and January 5 for

contributions received for the

Special General. If a Special Runoff

is held, 48-hour notices are required

for contributions received between

December 20 and January 5 for the

Special Runoff and between January

24 and February 9 for the Special

General.

Reports filed electronically must

be submitted by midnight on the

filing date. A committee required to

file electronically that files instead

on FEC paper reporting forms will

be considered a nonfiler.

Reports filed on paper and sent

by registered or certified mail must

be postmarked by the mailing date;

reports sent by any other means

(including reports sent via first class

mail) must be received by the

Commission’s close of business on

the filing date.

For more information about any

of these filing requirements, please

call the FEC’s Information Division

at 800/424-9530 (press 1, then 3) or

202/694-1100.✦

—Amy Kort

Audits

1

 The Committee received an additional

$171, 500 in earmarked contributions

that were deposited in the committee’s

nonfederal account.

Campaign Fund return address

envelopes. Some contributions listed

Mr. Nixon’s name on the check

memo line, and one contribution

included a letter to Mr. Nixon

stating “enclosed is my check in the

amount of $1,000.00 to aid in your

campaign.” The Committee did not

forward these contributions to the

Nixon Campaign Fund and did not

disclose them as earmarked contributions on its FEC reports.

The notations and correspondences included on the checks and

in the deposit batches indicate that

some contributors believed their

contributions would be spent on

behalf of Mr. Nixon. In that case,

the Committee received earmarked

contributions. The contributions in

question may have been part of a

“tally” system, in which committees

record the amount of money a

particular candidate has helped raise

for the committee. The Commission

has determined that this practice is

permissible so long as the contributions are in no way earmarked for a

particular candidate and the contributor is not led to believe that the

contribution will benefit a specific

candidate. The Commission also

determined, however, that tallying

could result in the receipt of earmarked contributions from contributors who intended their

contributions to be used for a

specific candidate.

Of the 78 earmarked contributions that the Committee received,

28 included funds from contributors

who had already given Mr. Nixon’s

campaign the maximum amount

allowed under the Act’s contribution

limits. An additional 26 contributions were in amounts that on their

face exceeded the contribution

limits. Thus, most of these contributions would have resulted in excessive contributions to the Nixon

Campaign Fund if the Committee

had forwarded them.

Coordinated Party Expenditures

Under the Act and Commission

regulations, national party commitReports

(continued from page 5)
December 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

2

 The Committee stated that it was not

aware of any requirement to obtain

permission from the donor in order to

transfer part of a contribution to a

nonfederal account. Commission

regulations do not expressly provide for

the option of transferring the excessive

portion of a contribution to a

nonfederal account. The Commission

did not require the refund of the

excessive contributions in this case

because the language of the Request for

Additional Information (RFAI), which

the Commission initially sent to the

Committee, may not have fully clarified

the requirements for transfers of

excessive contributions.

3

 The Committee stated that Commission rules do not specifically prescribe

how a committee should dispose of a

vendor’s refund of a previously

allocated expense. For examples of

how refunds and rebates may be

reported, see the Campaign Guide for

Political Party Committees, page 61.

tees and state party committees may

make coordinated party expenditures in connection with the general

election campaigns of federal

candidates. These expenditures do

not count against the contribution

limits but are subject to separate

coordinated party expenditure

limits. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d)(1) and (3).

11 CFR 110.7(b) and (c).

The 1998 coordinated party

expenditure limit for Senate candidates in Missouri was $260,140. 2

U.S.C. §441a(c)(1) and d(3). Thus,

the Committee and the Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee

(DSCC) could each spend this

amount toward Mr. Nixon’s 1998

general election campaign.

Prior to the election, the DSCC

transferred $79,000 of its expenditure limit to the Committee, raising

the Committee’s limit to $339,140.

However, the Committee’s coordinated party expenditures on behalf

of Mr. Nixon totaled $372,840. The

DSCC later transferred an additional

$40,000 of its coordinated party

expenditure limit to the Committee.

The final audit report found that the

Committee had exceeded its coordinated party expenditure limit by

$28,700, because the DSCC did not

authorize the transfer of this final

portion of its expenditure limit until

May 25, 2001— seven months after

the election.

Excessive Contributions

If a committee receives a contribution that appears to be excessive,

the treasurer must, within 10 days,

either return the contribution or

deposit it and seek a redesignation

or reattribution. In doing so, the

committee must offer the contributor the option of a refund. If the

contributor does not provide the

redesignation or reattribution, the

committee treasurer must, within 60

days of receipt of the contribution,

refund the contribution to the

contributor. 11 CFR 103.3.

Between January 1, 1997, and

December 31, 1998, the Committee

received $62,965 in excessive

contributions. For seven of the

contributions, excessive portions—

totaling $61,000—were transferred

to a nonfederal account. However,

at the time of the transfers, the

Committee failed to notify the

contributors of the transfer or

inform them that refunds could be

requested. In April 2000, the

Committee obtained written authorization for the transfers from four of

the seven contributors. The committee later refunded the remaining

$1,965 in excessive contributions to

contributors who had not authorized

the transfers.2

Allocation of Shared Expenses

Under Commission regulations,

committees that maintain separate

federal and nonfederal accounts

must pay all allocable expenses

from the federal account. Funds may

be transferred from the nonfederal

to the federal account only to cover

the nonfederal portion of these

allocable expenses. 11 CFR

106.5(g)(1)(i). Similarly, if a

committee receives a refund or a

rebate of an allocable expense, the

refund or rebate must be deposited

in a federal account. The refund or

rebate must then be allocated

between the federal and nonfederal

accounts using the same allocation

ratio used to allocate the original

payment. See AO 1995-22.

The final audit report found that

the Committee paid $189,571 from

its nonfederal accounts to cover

allocable administrative and generic

voter drive expenses. The federal

portion of these expenses was

$54,976. No refund from the

nonfederal accounts to the federal

accounts was necessary, however,

because the federal accounts had

overpaid their share of allocable

expenses by $194,000, according to

the Commission’s testing of shared

activities originating from the

federal accounts. The Committee

filed Schedules H4 (Joint Federal/

Nonfederal Activity Schedule) to

disclose the payments for allocable

expenses that were made from the

nonfederal account.

The Committee also received and

deposited in its federal accounts

$24,130 in vendor refunds and

rebates. The refunds and rebates

were related to payments for shared

federal and nonfederal expenses.

The nonfederal share of the refunds

and rebates was $17,132; however,

the Committee did not reimburse the

nonfederal accounts for their share.

Again, no refund was necessary

because the nonfederal share of the

refunds and rebates was offset by

the amount that the federal accounts

had overpaid their share of allocable

expenses.3

Reporting Debts

Between January 1, 1997, and

December 31, 1998, the Committee

failed to report debts totaling

$140,673. The Committee later filed

amended Schedules D to disclose

these debts.✦

—Amy Kort

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2001

8

Audit of Sharpless 2000

On October 16, 2001, the Commission approved the final audit

report of Sharpless 2000 (the

Committee), the principal campaign

committee of John Sharpless. The

report found that, during the 2000

election cycle, the Committee did

not:

• Redesignate, reattribute or refund

excessive contributions in a timely

manner; and

• Maintain a cancelled check,

invoice or bill for disbursements in

excess of $200.

Excessive Contributions

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, an individual

may contribute $1,000 per election

to a federal candidate. If a campaign receives an excessive contribution, the treasurer may request a

written redesignation of the excessive portion or may ask the donor if

the contribution was intended to be

a joint contribution attributable to

more than one person. 11 CFR

110.1. If the treasurer does not

receive a written redesignation or

reattribution within 60 days of the

original receipt of the contribution,

the treasurer must refund the

contribution to the contributor. If a

political committee receives a

written redesignation or

reattribution statement, but does not

retain it, the redesignation or

reattribution is not effective. 11

CFR 110.1(l)(5).

The Committee received $20,056

in excessive contributions from 41

individuals. The Committee did

not, however, receive written

redesignation or reattribution letters

from any of the 41 contributors

within the 60 day time period for

redesignations and reattributions.

The Committee produced letters

from 23 contributors, representing

$9,431 in contributions, stating that

primary contributions in excess of

$1,000 and up to $2,000 were

intended for the general election.

These letters were, however,

obtained by the Committee long

after the 60 day time period expired.

The contributions were not refunded, and after November 15,

2000, the Committee did not

maintain sufficient funds to refund

these contributions.

The Committee contends that

they were careful to ensure that no

contributor made contributions in

excess of $2,000, and the Committee assumed that contributions in

excess of $1,000 made on or before

the primary election were meant for

the general election.

The Commission did not accept

the Committee’s explanations. The

Act establishes a $1,000 contribution limit for each election, not an

overall $2,000 limit. 2 U.S.C.

441a(a). Moreover, undesignated

contributions made on or before the

date of an election are attributed to

that election. Finally, if excessive

contributions are not redesignated or

reattributed within 60 days, they

must be refunded.

The Committee has neither

refunded the excessive contributions

nor has it disclosed them on Schedule D as debts owed.

Disbursement Documentation

The Act requires treasurers of

political committees to keep a

receipt, invoice or cancelled check

for each disbursement over $200

that a political committee makes.

The Committee did not maintain a

canceled check, invoice or bill for a

material number of disbursements in

excess of $200. The Committee’s

bank account arrangement did not

provide for the bank to return

cancelled checks, which significantly contributed to this problem.

In response to the Commission’s

interim audit report, the Committee

provided copies of the cancelled

checks.✦

—George Smaragdis

Audits

(continued from page 7) Advisory

Opinions

AO 2001-12

Preemption of State Law

Governing Contributions to

Building Fund; Use of

Building Fund

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin (DPW) may accept corporate

donations to a building fund for the

purchase, renovation or construction

of a headquarters facility, despite

state laws prohibiting such donations. The party may use these funds

to finance capital improvements to

its facility, as defined by the Internal

Revenue Code, when the capital

expenditures are made in connection

with the purchase, renovation or

construction of a headquarters

facility. DPW may also use the

building fund to pay the salary of an

employee whose sole responsibility

is to raise money for the fund. DPW

may not, however, use the building

fund to pay off the balance of the

lease on its current building.

Background

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act and Commission

regulations, anything of value given

to a state committee or national

committee of a political party

specifically designated to defray the

costs incurred for construction,

purchase or renovation of an office

facility is not considered a contribution or expenditure, provided that

the facility is not acquired to

influence the election of any particular candidate for federal office. 2

U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(viii); 11 CFR

100.7(b)(12), 100.8(b)(13) and

114.1(a)(2)(ix). Based on this

exemption, the Commission has

allowed state party committees to

accept corporate and labor union

donations to a building fund for the

purchase or construction of an office
December 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

 The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names

of political action committees

(PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

 To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free under the “Using

FEC Services” icon at the FEC’s

web site—http://www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

 registered PACs showing each

 PAC’s identification number,

 address, treasurer and

 connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

 organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

 identification number ($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., NW.

facility. AOs 2000-01, 1997-14,

1993-9, 1991-5, 1986-40 and 1983-

8.

In keeping with these precedents,

DPW intends to accept corporate

donations to its building fund and

would not report these contributions

to the FEC. Wisconsin state law,

however, limits and in some cases

prohibits contributions to candidates

and political parties. Specifically,

Wisconsin law limits the amount

that an individual may contribute to

a party to $10,000 and prohibits any

corporate contributions to political

parties.

Preemption of State Law

The Act “supersede[s] and

preempt[s] any provision of State

law with respect to election to

Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. §453; 11

CFR 108.7(a). Specifically, with

regard to limitations on campaign

expenditures, sources of campaign

funds and reporting and disclosure

of political contributions, the Act

preempts state law.

In five advisory opinions issued

to state parties regarding building

funds, the Commission has concluded that federal regulations

preempt state prohibitions on

corporate contributions. AOs 1998-

8, 1997-14, 1993-9, 1991-5 and

1986-40. Because DPW’s situation

is materially indistinguishable from

previous cases that the Commission

has considered, DPW may accept

corporate donations and other

donations in excess of state limits

for its building fund. State disclosure requirements are not preempted

or superseded.

Use of Building Fund

The Commission has determined

that building funds may be used to

pay:

• The principal and interest of a

mortgage for the purchase, renovation and/or construction of the

building;

• The salary, fees and other expenses

of an employee or consultant

whose sole responsibility is to

raise money for the building fund;

and

• The cost of capital improvements

to the office facility, as defined by

the Internal Revenue Code, when

these costs are paid in connection

with the purchase, renovation or

construction of a headquarters

facility. AOs 2001-1, 1998-8,

1993-9 and 1998-7.

DPW may therefore use the

building fund to pay these expenses.

However, DPW may not use its

building fund to pay off the remainder of the lease on its current

headquarters. The building fund

exemption is restricted to expenses

relating directly to the purchase,

construction or renovation of a

facility. It does not cover leases. See

AOs 1988-12 and 1983-8.

Date Issued: October 25, 2001;

Length: 6 pages.✦

—Phillip Deen

AO 2001-14

Allocation of Payments for

Employee’s Salary, Benefits

and Cell Phone Usage

The Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee (the

Committee) may use a combination

of allocation ratios to allocate

monthly payments for the salary,

benefits and cell phone usage of an

employee who manages media

relations for the committee and

organizes multiple fundraising

events and projects. Normally these

expenses would be allocated as

administrative expenses. In this

case, however, the employee will

record the amount of time he spends

each month on non-fundraising

matters and on each fundraising

event and project, and the Committee will use this record to determine

how much of the employee’s salary,

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2001

10

benefits and cell phone usage should

be allocated as fundraising expenses.

Allocation

Under Commission regulations, a

party committee that establishes

both federal and nonfederal accounts must allocate certain types of

expenses between the two accounts.1

Types of expenses that must be

allocated include:

• Administrative expenses, “including rent, utilities, office supplies,

and salaries, except for such

expenses directly attributable to a

clearly identified candidate”; and

• Direct costs of fundraising programs or events for both federal

and nonfederal elections, including

“disbursements for solicitations of

funds and for planning and administration of actual fundraising

events.” 11 CFR 106.5(a)(2)(i) and

(ii). See also 11 CFR

106.5(a)(2)(iii) and (iv).

Administrative Expenses. State

and local party committees that

choose to pay a portion of their

administrative expenses from a

nonfederal account must allocate

their administrative expenses

according to the “ballot composition

method.” 11 CFR 106.5(d). Under

this method, a committee determines its ballot composition ratio at

the start of the election cycle. The

ballot composition ratio is based on

the ratio of federal offices to total

nonfederal and federal offices

expected on the ballot in the next

general election to be held in the

committee’s state or locality. 11

CFR 106.5(d)(1)(i).2

Fundraising Expenses. Fundraising

costs must be allocated according to

a ratio that is determined for each

particular fundraising event or

program. Fundraising costs for a

given program or event are allocated

according to the “funds received

method”—the ratio of funds received by the federal account to the

total receipts for the event or

program.

Before each program or event,

the committee estimates this ratio

based on its reasonable prediction of

its federal and nonfederal revenue

for the program or event. Any

payments for the fundraiser made

prior to the actual program or event

are allocated according to this

estimated ratio. 11 CFR 106.5(f)(1).

Within 60 days after the program or

event, the committee must adjust the

ratio so that it reflects the actual

ratio of funds received. If the

nonfederal account has paid more

than its share, the committee must

transfer funds from its nonfederal to

its federal account in order to reflect

the adjusted ratio. If the federal

account has paid more than its

share, the committee may transfer

funds from the nonfederal account

to the federal account as appropriate. Such a transfer must occur

within 60 days after the program or

event. 11 CFR 106.5(f)(2). 3

Allocating Employee’s Salary,

Benefits and Phone Costs

The salary of a party employee

would normally be allocated according to the ballot composition

formula because the category of

“salaries” is specifically listed in

Commission regulations as an

example of an administrative

expense. However, Commission

regulations also include as direct

costs of fundraising the planning

and administration of individual

fundraising events.

In this case, where a committee

employee spends a portion of his

salaried time organizing individual

fundraising events or programs, the

Committee may consider the salary

and benefits paid to that employee

for his time spent on the fundraisers

to be fundraising expenses. Thus,

the Committee may allocate the

portion of the employee’s time

devoted to each fundraising event or

program using the funds received

method. The Committee may also

1

 A committee may also choose to make

such disbursements entirely from its

federal accounts. 11 CFR 106.5(a)

2

 The regulations at 11 CFR

106.5(d)(1)(i) list the relevant federal

and state offices and explain how they

should be counted for the purposes of

the ratio. Commission regulations also

allow a local party committee to

include up to two additional nonfederal

offices if any partisan local candidates

are expected on the ballot in any

regularly-scheduled election during the

two year congressional election cycle,

as well as one additional generic

nonfederal point. 11 CFR

106.5(d)(1)(ii).

3

 In the case of a telemarketing or

direct mail campaign, the “date” of the

program is the last day of the

telemarketing campaign or the date on

which the final direct mail solicitations

are made. 11 CFR 106.5(f)(1) and (2).

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record starting

with January 1996 are available

through the Internet as PDF files.

Visit the FEC’s World Wide Web

site at http://www.fec.gov and

click on “What’s New” for this

issue. Click “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” to see back issues. Future Record issues will be

posted on the web as well. You

will need Adobe® Acrobat®

Reader software to view the publication. The FEC’s web site has

a link that will take you to Adobe’s

web site, where you can download

the latest version of the software

for free.

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)
December 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

include the portion of the

employee’s cell phone usage directly

related to each fundraising event or

program in its assessment of

fundraising expenses to be allocated

according to the particular allocation

ratio for that event or program. The

Committee can use the ratio of the

employee’s hours worked on a given

fundraiser to the employee’s total

hours worked for the month to

determine the portion of cell phone

usage devoted to that fundraiser.4

Any expenses for the director’s time

or cell phone usage that are related

to fundraising in general, but are not

attributable to any particular

fundraising event or program,

should be treated as administrative

expenses and allocated according to

the Committee’s ballot composition

method. See AO 1992-2.

Determining the Monthly Ratio

In order to arrive at the portion

that the federal and nonfederal

accounts would pay of the

employee’s monthly salary, benefits

and cell phone usage, the Committee

plans to have the employee complete

a time sheet each month. The

employee will use the time sheet to

account for the percentage of his

total monthly hours spent on each

project. The Committee will then

apply the appropriate allocation ratio

to the portion of hours worked on

each type of activity (i.e.,

nonfundraising activities and

individual fundraising events and

programs).

For example, if the employee’s

salary were $6,000 per month, the

employee spent 40 percent of his

monthly hours on a particular

fundraising event, and the allocation

ratio for that event were 20 percent

federal and 80 percent nonfederal,

the Committee would compensate

the employee for that 40 percent of

his monthly hours as follows:

• The formula for the federal

account’s portion would be .4 (the

40 percent of hours that the

employee spent on the fundraising

event) multiplied by $6,000 (the

employee’s monthly salary)

multiplied by .2 (the 20 percent

that is the federal account’s portion

of total receipts from the

fundraiser) to equal $480.

• The formula for the nonfederal

account’s portion would be .4 (the

40 percent of hours that the

employee spent on the fundraising

event) multiplied by $6,000 (the

employee’s monthly salary)

multiplied by .8 (the 80 percent

that is the nonfederal account’s

portion of total receipts from the

fundraiser) to equal $1,920.

The Committee would make the

appropriate transfer of funds between the federal and nonfederal

accounts within 60 days after the

close of the program or event in

order to ensure that the allocation

ratio reflects the final ratio of funds

received for that event.

To account for the balance of the

employee’s total monthly salary, the

Committee would apply this method

to the portion of monthly hours

spent on each activity:

• Non-fundraising matters would be

allocated between the federal and

nonfederal accounts according to

the ballot composition method;

• Fundraising events and projects

that benefited only the federal

account would not be allocated,

but rather be paid for entirely from

the federal account (see AO 1992-

2); and

• Fundraising events and projects

that benefited only the nonfederal

account need not be allocated, but

rather may be paid for entirely

from the nonfederal account.✦

Date Issued: October 15, 2001;

Length: 7 pages.

—Amy Kort

4

 The permission granted in this opinion

does not extend beyond the Committee’s

costs specified in the opinion.

FEC Expands Acceptance of Credit Cards

 The Federal Election

Commission now accepts

American Express, Diners Club

and Discover Cards in addition to

Visa and MasterCard. While most

FEC materials are available free

of charge, some campaign finance

reports and statements, statistical

compilations, indexes and

directories require payment.

Walk-in visitors and those

placing requests by telephone

may use any of the above-listed

credit cards, cash or checks.

Individuals and organizations

may also place funds on deposit

with the office to purchase these

items. Since pre-payment is

required, using credit cards or

funds placed on deposit can speed

the processing and delivery of

orders. For further information,

contact the Public Records Office

at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or 202/

694-1120.

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2001-18

Affiliation between LLC PAC

and SSF of one of its two corporate

owners (BellSouth Corporation,

November 1, 2001)

AOR 2001-19

Federal preemption of state law

that prohibits use of bingo as

fundraising device for federal

account of local party committee

(Oakland Democratic Campaign

Committee, November 2, 2001)✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2001

12

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently

resolved seven additional cases

under the Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) program. The

respondents, the alleged violations

of the Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and the penalties

assessed are listed below.

1. The Commission reached

agreement with Dr. John Templeton,

Jr. concerning Dr. Templeton’s

contributions in excess of the

$25,000 annual contribution limit.

Dr. Templeton obtained refunds

from five recipient committees so

that his aggregate yearly contributions would not exceed that limit.

2. The Commission reached

agreement with the Robert Casey,

Jr. for Auditor General Committee

and its treasurer, Thomas

Ostrowski; the Committee to Elect

Ed O’Brien and its treasurer,

Stephen Dobrosky; and the Citizens

for Ron Kink committee and its

treasurer, Joseph Brimmeier,

concerning excessive contributions,

failure to file a Statement of Organization and the receipt of a contribution from an unregistered

organization:

• The Robert Casey, Jr. for Auditor

General Committee and Mr.

Ostrowski acknowledged their

mistake and misunderstanding of

the Act. They agreed to make no

further excessive contributions to

federal elections and to pay a $600

civil penalty.

• The Committee to Elect Ed

O’Brien and Mr. Dobrosky

refunded the excessive contribution that they had received and

agreed to attend an FEC seminar

for campaign committees.

• Citizens for Ron Kink and Mr.

Brimmeier refunded the excessive

contribution that they had received. They also agreed to work

with the Commission’s Reports

Analysis Division (RAD) to

conclude their reporting responsibilities and file for termination.

3. The Commission reached

agreement with the Flitter 2000

Committee and its treasurer, Thomas A. Monahan, and the Erie

County Democratic Party Committee and its treasurer, Ric Coluzzi,

concerning excessive contributions

and the failure to register and report

as a committee and to report in-kind

contributions. All respondents

acknowledged that they violated the

Act:

• The Flitter 2000 committee and

Mr. Monahan refunded $1,000 to

the local party committee and

agreed to pay a $250 civil penalty.

The respondents will work with

RAD to properly terminate the

committee.

• The Erie County Democratic Party

committee and Mr. Coluzzi agreed

to pay a $250 civil penalty and to

have a committee representative

attend an FEC seminar on political

committee requirements by July

30, 2002.

4. The Commission reached

agreement with the Senn 2000

committee and its treasurer, Rudi

Bertschi, concerning the use of

nonfederal funds in connection with

federal elections. The respondents,

having already reimbursed the
December 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Outreach

FEC Roundtable

The Commission will host a

roundtable session in January 2002.

See the table below for more details.

Roundtable

Reporting Requirements for 2002

• Deadlines

• Pitfalls to avoid

• House and Senate campaigns

• PACs

• Political party committees

• Lawyers, accountants and

consultants to above

Date Subject Intended Audience

January 9, 2002

9:30 - 11:00 a.m.

John F. Zamparelli; the Markey for

Congress Committee and its treasurer, Marie C. Carbone; and the

Richard E. Neal for Congress

Committee and its treasurer,

Michael Hall. The ADR office

determined that allegations of

excessive contributions, contributions in the name of another and

contributions that exceeded the

annual $25,000 contribution limit

were unsubstantiated.

7. The Commission reached

agreement with the American

Animal Husbandry Coalition PAC

and its treasurer, Sharon McFarland,

concerning their failure to file

reports with the Commission and to

accurately report receipts and

expenditures and their continued

fundraising after the committee had

filed for termination. The respondents acknowledge their reporting

errors and agree to work with RAD

to correct the reports and to terminate the committee.

Closed ADR-negotiated settlement summaries are available from

the Public Records Office at 999 E

Street, NW., Washington, DC

20463. The Public Records Office

may also be contacted at 800/424-

9530 (press 3).✦

—Amy Kort

Regional Conference in San

Francisco for Candidates,

Parties and PACs

In early February, the Federal

Election Commission will hold a

comprehensive, two and one-half

day regional conference in San

Francisco. This conference is

designed to help federal political

committees understand and comply

with the federal campaign finance

law. The conference will provide an

overview of the basic provisions of

the federal election law and discuss

specific requirements that apply to:

• House and Senate campaigns;

• Political parties; and

FEC roundtables, limited to 12

participants per session, are conducted at the FEC’s headquarters in

Washington, DC.

The registration fee is $25, and

participants will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis. Please

contact the FEC before registering

or sending money to be sure that

openings remain in the session.

Prepayment is required. Registration

forms and information are available:

• Online at http://www.fec.gov/

pages/infosvc.htm;

• By phone—call 800/424-9530

(press 1. then 3) or 202/694-1064;

and

• From Faxline, the FEC’s automated fax system —call 202/501-

3413 and request document 590.✦

—Amy Kort

• Corporate, labor and trade association PACs (as well as their sponsoring organizations).

The conference will feature

interactive workshops presented by

Commissioners and experienced

FEC staff. A representative from the

Internal Revenue Service will also

be available to answer electionrelated tax questions. The FEC

certifies that an application is

pending for approval of this activity

for MCLE credit by the State Bar of

California.

The conference will be held

February 5-7, 2002, at the Grand

Hyatt Hotel in San Francisco,

California. The registration fee for

the conference is $375. The fee,

which covers the cost of the conference, reception, materials and

meals, must be received by January

14, which is also the last day to

cancel and still receive a full refund.

A late registration fee of $10 will be

added for payments received on or

after January 15, 2002.

A room rate of $218 is available

for hotel reservations made by

January 14. To received this special

rate, call the Grand Hyatt Hotel at

415/398-1234 and mention that you

are attending the FEC conference.

After January 14, room rates are

subject to availability. The hotel is

located downtown on Union Square,

near cable cars, Chinatown and the

shopping district.

(continued on page 14)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2001

14

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2001 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

Alternative disposition of 2001-5,

5:6

2000-24: Preemption of state

election law mandating fixed

allocation ratio for administrative

and voter drive expenses, 2:2

2000-27: Status of party as state

committee, 3:6

2000-28: Disaffiliation of trade

associations and their PACs, 2:3

2000-30: Nonconnected PAC’s

receipt and use of securities, 5:1

2000-32: Reporting uncollectable

loan, 1:9

2000-34: Name and acronym of

SSF, 2:5

2000-35: Status of party as state

committee, 1:10

2000-36: Disaffiliation of nonconnected PACs, 2:5

2000-37: Use of campaign funds to

purchase and present Liberty

Medals, 2:6

2000-38: Registration of party

committee due to delegate

expenses, 2:7

2000-39: Status of party as state

committee, 2:8

Registration

Conference registrations will be

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Attendance is limited,

and other FEC conferences have

sold out in the past, so please

register early.

For registration information:

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an email to

toni@sylvestermanagement.com.

—Amy Kort

Outreach

(continued from page 13) Compliance

Nonfiler

The Joe Grimaud for Congress

Committee filed its pre-primary

report for the October 30, 2001,

special primary election in South

Carolina on paper rather than

electronically. As a result, under the

Commission’s mandatory electronic

filing regulations, the report was not

considered to have been filed by the

October 18 due date. The Commission sent a Mandatory Electronic

Filing Notice on October 19, 2001,

notifying the committee that its

paper filing was not valid and that it

must file its report electronically.

The mandatory electronic filing

regulations require any committee

that receives contributions or makes

expenditures in excess of $50,000 in

the current calendar year, or that

reasonably expects to do so, to

submit its reports electronically.

Reports filed on paper do not satisfy

the reporting obligation for these

filers. 11 CFR 104.18 (a)(2).

On September 24, 2001, the

Commission notified principal

campaign committees involved in

South Carolina’s special primary

and run-off elections of their

potential filing requirements.

Committees that failed to file

reports by the October 18 due date

were notified on October 19 that

their reports had not been received

and that their names would be

published if they did not respond

within four business days.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act requires the Commission to

publish the names of principal

campaign committees if they fail to

file 12 day pre-election reports and

the quarterly report due before the

candidate’s election. 2 U.S.C.

437g(b) and 438 (a)(7). The agency

may also pursue enforcement

actions against nonfilers and late

filers under the Administrative Fine

program on a case-by-case basis.✦

—Amy Kort

FEC Announces

Spring Conferences

Conference for Candidate and

Party Committees

Date: March 2002

Location: Washington, D.C. Area

(To Be Announced)

Conference for Corporations

Date: April 22-24, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Conference for Trade

Associations

Date: May 22-24, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Conference for Member and

Labor Organizations

Date: June 26-28, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Public Appearance

December 5, 2001

American University

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Wold
December 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

2000-40: Donations to legal defense

fund of Member of Congress, 3:7

2001-1: Use of political party’s

office building fund to pay

building renovation costs and

fundraising expenses of building

fund, 4:5

2001-2: Status of party as state

committee, 4:6

2001-3: Use of campaign funds to

purchase an automobile for

campaign purposes, 5:5

2001-4: Use of electronic signatures

for PAC contributions by payroll

deduction, 6:6

2001-6: Status of party as state

committee, 6:7

2001-7: Nonaffiliation of LLC PAC

with SSFs of member companies

of the LLC, 8:6

2001-8: Campaign committee’s

purchase of candidate’s book for

distribution to contributors, 8:9

2001-9: Former Senator’s use of

excess campaign funds to pay

expenses resulting from media

inquiries made after his term

expired, 9:1

2001-10: Employment of

candidate’s spouse by campaign

committee, 9:4

2001-11: Late transfer from

nonfederal to federal account of

state party committee after bank

transfer problem, 10:1

2001-12: Preemption of state law

governing contributions to

building fund; use of building

fund, 12:8

2001-14: Allocation of payments for

employee’s salary, benefits and

cell phone usage, 12:9

Compliance

Committees fined under Administrative Fines Program, 2:6, 4:7, 5:7,

6:5, 7:8, 9:6, 10:5, 11:6

MUR 4594: Prohibited Foreign

National Contributions, 6:8

MUR 4762: Prohibited union

contributions and other violations,

2:9

MUR 5029: Contributions in the

name of another made by corporation and government contractor,

2:10

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFL-CIO and DNC Services

Corp./DNC, 9:8

– Beaumont, 2:8, 3:2, 5:6, 6:9

– Buchanan, 1:10

– Committee for a Unified Independent Party, Inc., et al, 12:1

– Cunningham, 8:4

– DNC, 2:8. 3:2

– Dole, 5:6

– Friends for Houghton, 12:2

– Judicial Watch, 10:3

– Kean for Congress, 12:3

– Kieffer, 7:7

– Miles for Senate, 3:3

– Nader, 4:8, 6:9

– Natural Law Party of the United

States of America, 1:10, 2:8, 3:2

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 11:1

FEC v. _____

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 8:1

– Friends for Fasi, 6:8

– NRA, 8:3, 10:3

– Public Citizen, Inc., et al, 12:4

– Toledano, 7:8, 12:4

Other

– Hooker v. All Campaign Contributors, 1:10

– Hooker v. Sundquist, 4:8, 12:3

Regulations

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on definition of

“political committee,” 4:1

Final rules for general public

political communications coordinated with candidates and party

committees; independent expenditures, 1:2, 6:3

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

brokerage loans and lines of

credit, 9:1

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

reporting of independent expenditures and last-minute contributions, 6:1

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

use of Internet in federal elections, 11:1

 “Political committee” definition

rulemaking held in abeyance, 11:3

Reports

Amendments to Statements of

Organization, 2:1

Arkansas special election, 9:5

Arizona state filing waiver, 6:10

California special election, 3:5

Committees required to file tax

returns, 3:4

Florida special election, 7:4

July reporting reminder, 7:1

Massachusetts special election, 7:6

Nevada state filing waiver, 2:2

Oklahoma special election, 12:5

Pennsylvania special election, 4:5

Reports due in 2001, 1:4

South Carolina special election,

10:4

Virginia special election, 5:6

FECFile Help on Web

 The manual for the Commission’s FECFile 4 electronic filing

software is available on the

FEC’s web site. You can download a PDF version of the manual

at http://herndon.sdrdc.com/

fecfile4.pdf.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Presorted Standard

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper