FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 EStreet NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 17, Number 1

RmJIATIOOS

1 proposed Allocation Revisions

2 Effective Date of New Regulations

3 Clarification: Allocation of Intrastat

Phone Calls by Presidential Campaigns

8 FEDERAL BmISTER OOTICES

3 ADVISORY OPINlWS

STAFF

3 Richard C. Thomas: In Memoriam

6 ~STICS: 1992 Presidential Campaign

6 COORl' CASES: New Litigation

PUBLIC PUNDIt«;

6 Fulani Eligible for 1992 Matching Fund

7 FEC Sets Matching Fund Submission Date

13 COMPLIANCE: MURs Released to the Publ

TABLE OF CCNIDll'S

800 LINE

8 National Nominating Conventions:

Delegate Selection Rules

12 National Nominating Conventions:

Business Donations and Discounts

Beporting Cooments Also SOUght

The Commission is also seeking commen

on the allocation reporting rules in

(continued

15 INDEx:

account's payment of the allocated

expense (as in the current rules) but

would close 60 days (rather than the

current 30 days) after the payment was

made. This proposed revision would

amend 11 crn 106.5(g) and l06.6(e).

4. Finally, the draft rules would amend

11 CFR 106.S{f) and 106.6(d) by allowin

committees 60 days after a fundraising

activity to recalculate the federal/non

federal ratio and to make corresponding

transfers between their federal and

nonfederal accounts.

December 1991

.REGULATIONS

proposed Changes

The rulemaking notice seeks comments on

the proposed changes described below.

Please note that the third and fourth

changes would apply to all committees

subject to the allocation rules, including

national party committees, separate segregated funds and nonconnected committees.

1. One proposed change would allow state

and local party committees to add an

additional nonfederal point to their

ballot composition ratios computed under

11 CFR 106.5(d). (The ratio determines

the allocation of adndnistrative and

generic voter drive expenses over a

two-year federal election cycle.)

2. Another change to 11 CFR 106.5{d) would

allow state and local party committees

to include nonfederal points for local

offices in their ballot ratios if partisan local candidates are expected on the

ballot in any regularly scheduled election during the two-year congressional

election cycle. This change would codify the conclusion reached in AO 1991-

25.

3. A third proposed change would expand

from 40 days to 70 days the window

during which the nonfederal account

could reimburse the federal account for

the nonfederal share of an allocated

expense. The reimbursement window would

open 10 days before the federal

PBOPQSID REVISI<H; 'lU ALLOCATIW RlJLFS

The Commission is seeking comments on

proposed changes to its regulations on the

allocation of federal and nonfederal

expenses at 11 crn 106.5 and 106.6. The ag~ncy published the draft rules in a

Notice of proposed Rulemaking that appeared

in the Federal Register on November 14

1991. Copies of the notice are available

from the Public Records Office. Comments

are due by December 16, 1991, and should be

submitted in writing to Susan E. Propper,

Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20463.
Federal Election COIIIDission, 999 E street, !H, washington, IX: 20463

800/424-9530 202/219-3420 202;219-3336 (TOO)

December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

anticipation of future changes that may be

considered after the 1991-92 cycle closes.

The agency requests suggestions as to how

the Schedule H forms could be modified to

streamline reporting while still per.mitting

effective monitoring of the allocation

process.

Background: ASDC Petition

The proposed rulemaking responds to a

petition filed by the Association of State

Democratic Chairs (ASDC) on March 26, 1991.

The petition sought reconsideration of the

allocation regulations in three areas:

(1) the ballot composition ratio; (2) payment, recordkeeping and reporting procedures; and (3) the requirement that state

party committees allocate administrative

expenses throughout the two-year election

cycle. The Commdssion published a notice

seeking comments on the petition on April

24, 1991 (56 FR 18780) and received 45

comments in response.

The Commission believes it would be

premature to reopen the entire allocation

rulemaking before the end of the 1992 election cycle. At that time, the Commission

and the regulated entities will be in a

better position to evaluate what adjustments may be needed. However, after

considering the petition and comments, the

Commission decided to reopen the rulemaking

in the limited areas described under

"Proposed Changes,·l above.

EFFECl'1VE llM'E OF NDf RmJIATI(R;

The following revisions to FEC rules

became effective on November 6, 1991:

BuIes on Excess caupaign Funds

The revisions reflect amendments to

2 U.S.C. S439a under the Ethics Reform Act

of 1989. under that Act, grandfathered

candidates (Members of Congress who held

office on January 8, 1980) may no longer

convert unlimited excess campaign funds to

personal use. The revised rules make clear

that the prohibition on the personal use of

excess funds also applies to noncash

John Karren PlcGarry, Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott

'lhaDas J. Josefiak

Danny L. McDonald

Scott E. 1tlomas

Volume 17, Number 

campaign assets. The final rules and thei

explanation and justification were published in the July 25, 1991, Federal Regis

ter (56 FR 34124). See also the summary i

the September 1991 Record, page 5.

BuIes on Redesignations, Reattributions an

Joint Fundraising

These revisions are contained in the

rulemaking for publicly funded candidates

(see below), but they apply to all committees. In addition to revising several

aspects of the joint fundraising rules, th

revisions require committees to retain doc

umentation showing that a redesignation or

reattribution was received within 60 days

of the committee's receipt of the contribu

tion. For a summary of the revisions, see

the September 1991 Record, page 2.

BuIes for Publicly Funded Presidential

candidates

The final rules principally revise

procedures for allocating primary election

expenses to the state spending limits (see

following article), although other public

funding rules have been changed as well.

The Commission published the final rules

and their explanation and justification in

the Federal Register on July 29, 1991 (56

FR 35898). See also the Record summary, September 1991, page 2.

BuIes on Matching Fund Sul::missions and

certification Procedures

These rules apply only to Presidential

candidates receiving primary matching

funds. '!he rules were revised to bring th

schedule for submissions and certification

into conformance with Department of Treasury rules. under those rules, which were

adopted to address a possible shortfall in

the public funding program, Treasury will

make matching fund payments only once a

month. (See article on page 7.) The fina

matching fund rules and their explanation and justification appeared. in the July 25,

1991, Federal Register (56 FR 34130). See

also the Record swnmary in the August 1991

issue, page 2.

walter J. stewart, Secretary of the Senate,

Ex Officio Commissioner

Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of

Representatives, Ex Officio Commissioner

2
December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

CLNUFICATICW FOR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS:

ALLOCATICJtI OF IN'.l'RA5TA'l'E PIDm CALLS

The new rules on Presidential public

fundingl/ contain revisions to 11 CFR

106.2, Which governs state allocation of

expenditures by primary election campaigns

receiving matching funds. To avoid any

misunderstanding, campaigns should note

that charges for all intrastate phone calls

are subject to allocation.

The revised rules continue to require

allocation of overhead expenses of a state

or regional office, including "telephone

service base charges." 11 CFR 106.2(b) (2)

(iii) (D). "Telephone service base charges"

are defined, in turn, to include charges

for intrastate phone calls other than.

charges related to a special telephone

program under 11 CFR 106.2(b)(2)(iv).

The special telephone program regulation replaces the former exemption for

interstate phone calls. The Commdssion's

Explanation and Justification, however,

states that the special program provision

replaces the earlier rules for interstate

and intrastate telephone calls and

"requir[esl allocation only if intrastate

or interstate telephone calls [are] part of

a special telephone program••• 1I~/ (Similar

language also appeared in the Record summary of the final rules, September 1991,

page 3.)

.The language in the Explanation and

Justification was meant to make clear that

a special telephone program can include

intrastate as well as interstate calls.

This language does riot exempt other intrastate calls from allocation; charges for

those calls are still allocable as overhead

expenses under paragraph (iii)(D) of the

new regulations.

The ComDdssion sent a letter clarifying·

this point to representatives of Presidential campaigns that have indicated an

interest in the matching fund program.

campaigns that have not received the letter

may request a copy. Call Susan Propper,

Assistant General Counsel, at 800/424-9530

or 202;219-3690.

I The final rules and their Explanation and

Justification were published in the Federal

Register on July 29, 1990 (56 FR 35898).

The rules became effective on November 6,

1991.

2see 56 Federal Register at 35900.

3

Volume 17,Number 

IN MEXlRIAM

Richard Clark Thomas, the FEC's

Director of State Relations, died of

cancer on November 2. He was 54.

Memorial services were held in washington, DC, and Rutland, Vermont. He

will be missed by his coworkers at

the Commdssion.

As state coordinator, Mr. Thomas

served as liaison with secretaries of

state and local election officials.

He also directed the compilation of

the FEe's annual Combined Federal/

state Disclosure Directosr and the

Federal Election series of official

election results.

Before coming to the FEC in 1977,

Mr. Thomas was elected four times as

Vermont's Secretary of state, from

1969 to 1977. He also served as the

executive director of the Vermont

Republican state Committee.

He worked on the campaign and

Senate staffs of Senator Winston L.

prouty (R-VT) in 1964 and 1965 and

was a reporter for F.W. Dodge Corporation in New York from 1960 to 1963.

Mr. Thomas was born in Maine and

. grew up in Rutland, Vermont. He was

a 1959 graduate of Middlebury College

and attended Georgetown University

Law Center.

ADVISORY OPINICJtI RlQJESTS

Recent requests for advisory opinions

(AORs) are listed below. The full text o

each AOR is available for review and comment in the FEC's Public Records Office.

AOR 1991-34

Sale of access to data base by party

committee. (Date Made Public: October 2

1991; Length: 6 pages)

AOR 1991-35

Application of allocation rules if nonfederal account of SSF pays for its own

administrative expenses. (Date Made

Public: October 23, 1991; Length: 6

pages)

(Advisory Opinions continued
December 1991 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

ADVISORY OPINICN SUMMMIES

AD 1991-22: preemption of Minnesota PUblic

Funding statute

Because the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the FECA or the Act) is the sole authority

for the regulation of federal campaign

finance activity, it preempts a Minnesota

statute that provides state public funding

to u.s. House and Senate candidates who

agree to abide by spending limits.~/

Minnesota Statute

The Minnesota Congressional Campaign

Reform Act, effective January 1, 1991,

authorizes the payment of state public

funds to Congressional candidates who

qualify for the general election ballot in

Minnesota. Minn. Stat. §§10A. 40-10A.51.

The significant features of the statute

are:

a To be eligible to receive state public

'funds, U.S. House and Senate candidates

rust sign an agreement to limit their

spending during the federal election

year. Senate candidates who sign the

agreement are subject to a $3.4 million

spending limit, House candidates to a

$425,000 limit, as adjusted for inflation. Eligible candidates may each

receive public funds in the amount of 25

percent of the relevant expenditure

limit, although the candidate rust match

that amount in contributions from other

sources.2/ A federal candidate who

exceeds the spending limit may be fined

up to 400 percent of the amount spent

over the limit.

o If both major party federal candidates

for a given office agree to the spending

limit, neither is entitled to state

public funds, but the candidates must

still abide by the spending limit.

a I f one candidate agrees to the limit but

has a major party opponent who does not,

neither candidate is subject to the

spending limit, but the first candidate

is still entitled to the public funding

grant.

1The advisory opinion was requested by the

Minnesota Independent Republican party,

three incumbent federal candidates seeking

reelection in Minnesota, and three members

of the Minnesota legislature who do not

appear to be federal candidates.

2As an incentive to contributors, the state

will refund up to $50 of an individual's

contribution to a federal candidate who has

agreed to the spending limit.

4

Volume 17, Number 1

Legislative History of Federal Preemption

The Act states that its provisions

"supersede and preempt any provision of

State law with respect to election to

Federal office." 2 U.S.C. §453. In

addressing this provision, the Conference

Committee report specifically states that

"Federal law occupies the field with

respect to ...limitations on campaign expenditures, the sources of campaign funds used

in Federal races, the conduct of Federal

campaigns, •.. but does not affect the

States' rightsll in other areas such as

voter fraud and ballot theft. H.R. Rep.

No. 93-1438, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 69 (1974).

FEC regulations at 11 CFR 108.7 largely

incorporate the Conference Report language.

Subsequent to the enactment of the 1974

FECA amendments (which prescribed limits on

expenditures by all federal candidates) and

the 1976 Buckley decisiony (which ruled

that, absent public financing, expenditure

limits were unconstitutional), Congress

considered expenditure limits for all

federal elections, but it has chosen to

enact such limits, with concomitant public

funding, for Presidential elections only.

Preemption of Minnesota statute

By providing state revenues directly to

federal candidates4/ and by enforcing

expenditure limits-; the Minnesota statute

seeks to regulate an area under the sale

authority of federal law. The Act therefore clearly preempts the Minnesota law as

applied to federal candidates.

(Date issued: October 7, 1991; Length:

8 pages)

AD 1991-27: Exclusion of california Local

Offices in Ballot Ratio

The California Democratic Party (COP) may

no longer include one nonfederal point for

partisan local candidates in its ballot

composition ratio due to a recent Supreme

Court ruling. The effect of the ruling wa

to reinstate a california law that prohibits party committees from engaging in

partisan activities on behalf of local

3BUckley v. Valeo, 424 u.S. 1 (1976).

4Although the Commission has concluded that

state revenues may be deposited in a party

committee's federal account (see, for exam

ple, ADs 1991-14, 1988-33, 1983-15, 1982-

17, 1980-103 and 1978-9), that is a separate issue from state regulation of federal

campaign finance through a public funding

mechanism.
December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

candidates. The law had previously been

invalidated by an appeals court decision,

which the Supreme Court vacated.

The ballot composition method allows a

state party c~ttee to include one nonfederal point for all "partisan local

candidates" on the ballot. 11 CFR l06.5(d)

(l)(ii). In AD 1991-6, issued to COP in

April 1991, the Commission determined that

CDP could include this nonfederal point in

its ratio.

The opinion explained California

history concerning party support of nonpartisan local offices. Under Article II,

section 6(a) of the california Constitution, local offices are "nonpartisan."

Until 1986, that provision had been interpreted by the courts to permit political

parties to support local candidates; only

party nominations were prohibited. But, in

1986, the state constitution was amended

with the addition of section 6(b) : "No

political party•••may endorse, support or

oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office."

That provision, however, was rendered

inoperative by a 1990 court of appeals

decision.11 Hence, in AD 1991-6, the

Commission concluded that CDP could include

a nonfederal point for local offices, since

it was not then under any constraints to

avoid partisan activity in local races.

The Commission noted, however, that it

might have to reconsider this conclusion,

depending on the Supreme Court's decision

in the case.

On June 17, 1991, the Supreme Court

vacated the appeals court decision.21

Section 6(b) was therefore reinstated on

the date the High Court ruling became

final, July 12. The Court decision

prompted COP to seek a second advisory

opinion on the same issue. The Commission

concluded that COP may no longer include a

point for partisan local offices in its

ballot composition ratio.

COP must recalculate its ballot composition ratio as of August 1, 1991. In its

next report, COP must file a new Schedule

H-1 reflecting the adjusted ratio, which

1The court held that section 6(b) violated

the first and fourteenth amendments of the

u.s. Constitution. Geary v. Renne, 911

F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 1990)(en bane).

2concluding that the case was not ripe for

resolution, the Court did not reach the

merits but, instead, remanded the case to

the lower courts with instructions to

dismiss without prejudice. Renne v. Geary, 111 S.ct. at 2336.

5

Volume 17, Number 1

must be applied to allocable disbursements

for goods and services received after July

3l.

If section 6(b) is held invalid or

otherwise rendered inoperative through a

future legal action, COP may once again

include a point for local candidates. Th

adjusted ratio would be effective retroactively from January 1, 1991.31 (Date

Issued: October 25, 1991; Length: 3

pages)

NJ 1991-31: Oulrity Donations Made in

Name of candidate

The Porter Gass Re-Election Team, a 1992

House campaign committee, does not have to

report four donations to charity made in

his name by an individual responding to a

Committee solicitation because the Commit

tee received nothing of value as a result

of the donations.

In response to a letter soliciting

contributions to Congressman Gass's 1992

campaign, Michael Tracy sent the Committee

photocopies of four $50 checks to

children's charities, with a notation on

each check: "Donation in name of Porter

Goss - member of Congress. II

The donations are not considered

contributions received by the Commdttee

because the committee did not receive "any

thing of val.ue," 2 U.s.C. §431(8)(A)(i);

11 CFR 100. 7(a) (1). The Committee did no

actually receive the checks. Nor did it

receive the funds indirectly by exercising

control over them. The Committee did not

participate in Mr. Tracy's decision to mak

the donations or in the selection of the

charities. Additionally, the Commdttee

took no action to publicize the donations.

In these circumstances, when the use o

the candidate's name was neither consented

to nor ratified by the Committee, the

C011'II1'Ii.ttee has not received a contribution

and has no reporting obligations with

respect to the donations.

The Commission expressed no views on

the possible application of House rules or

tax laws to the donations, as these areas

are outside the FEC'S jurisdiction. (Date

issued: october 11, 1991; Length: 3

pages)

3The effective date of the allocation

rules. on that date, section 6(b) was

inoperative by virtue of the 1990 appeals

court decision.
FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COIVII\J1ISSI01\J Volume 17, Number 12

enjoin defendant from further violations of

§441b(a); and award the FEC its costs in

the action.

u.s. District Court for the District of

Minnesota, Civil Action No. 3-91-588 (EJD),

September 27, 1991.

ACTIVITY OF 1992 PBESIDBNTIAL CAMPAIGNS

By the end of September 1991, 10

campaigns of 1992 Presidential candidates

raised $2.7 million and spent $1.5 million.

This financial activity was far below the

activity of 1988 campaigns at the end of

September 1987, when 17 campaigns raised

$70 million and spent $54.5 million. That . election was an open seat race, with no

incumbent seeking reelection.

The 1991 activity was reported by eight

Democratic and two minor party campaigns.

President George Bush's reelection campaign

did not report having any financial activity as of september 30. The next reports

filed by the 1992 campaigns will cover

activity through the end of 1991 and will

be due by January 31, 1992.

An FEC press release of October 30

lists receipt and disbursement data for

1992 Presidential campaigns that reported

receiving at least $40,090 from outside

sources. (Data are also provided for the

campaign of one candidate who has already

been nominated by his party.) To order a

copy of the release, call the Public

Records Office: 800/424-9530 (ask for

Public Records) or 202/219-4140.

roLANI ELIGIBLE FOR PRIMARY MA'l'CEID«; FUNDS

Lenora B. Fulani, a minor party candidate, became the first 1992 Presidential

candidate to qualify for primary matching

funds. On October 31, 1991, the Commission

determined that Ms. Fu1ani and her campaign

committee satisfied the requirements for

matching fund eligibility. Ms. Fulani is

seeking the nomination of five minor

parties. (During her 1988 Presidential

campaign, she received $922,106 in primary

matching funds.)

Under the matching fund program, eligible candidates. receive matching federal

6

",>.COil~fr;~£isES· ',~<, "-_"~'-, \~_"') '_ .. -';;',·A __ ',,~, """,," .-• , ?; < '".> <r - ~.'

/,

December 1991

NDl LITIGA.TICtl

FEe v. People & Politics, Inc.

The FEe asks the court to declare that

defendant made corporate contributions in

violation of 2 U.S.C. §441b(a) by

distributing almost 16,000 free copies of

its magazine, People & Politics - 1988

Minnesota Voter's Guide, to political

commdttees and to agents, of committees and

candidates. The FEC also asks the court

to: assess a civil penalty; permanently

FEe v. caulder

Alleging that Michael Caulder converted

$51,600 in commdttee funds to his own

personal use, the FEe asks the court to

declare that Mr. Caulder violated 2 U.S.C.

§432(b)( 3) by conmingling the funds of a

political conmittee, the Alerted Democratic

Majority, with his personal funds. The FEC

further asks the court to: assess a civil

penalty for a knowing and willful violation; permanently enjoin defendant from

future violations of §432(b)(3); and award

the FEC its costs in the action.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of pennsylvania, Civil Action No.

91-CV-5906, September 20, 1991.

Jordan v. FEe

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a) (8) (A),

Absalom F. Jordan asks the court to declare

that the FEC's dismissal of his complaint

was contrary to law because:

a His complaint did not, as the Conmission

had concluded, request the agency to

reconsider its decisions in prior complaints, and he was not a party to those

complaints; and

o Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and its

separate segregated fund did violate

2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(A) by soliciting

contributions from individuals who were

not "memoera," (In his complaint, he had

alleged that the individuals did not

qualify as solicitable members because

they lacked the requisite voting rights.)

Plaintiff additionally asks the court

to order the FEe to conform to this

declaration within 30 days by instituting

enforcement proceedings against HCI.

u.s. District Court for the District of

columbia, Civil Action No. 91-2428,

September 25, 1991.
Matching FUnd SUbmission and Certification

Dates for 1992 candidates

NOTE: payments certified on December

27, 1991, will be paid by the u.s. Treasury

on January 2, 1992. Treasury will generally make payments within 48 hours of the

certification date.

lcandidates may present one submission and

one resubmission on each date. The submis

sion and certification dates do not apply

to threshold submissions, which may be submitted at any time. (A threshold submission is the first submission a campaign

must make in order to establish eligibility

for matching funds; it tm.1st contain in

excess of $5,000 in matchable contribution

raised in each of 20 states.)

FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSIOI\J

January 29

February 26

March 31

December 27

December 27

December 27

FEe certification

to Treasury

.January 31

February 28

March 31

April 29

May 29

June 30

July 31

August 31

september 30

October 30

November 30

December 31

Volume 17, Number 12

1993 Dates

January 4

February 1

March 1

January 2

February 3

March 2

April 1

May 1

Jooe 1

July 1

August 3

September 1

October 1

November 2

December 1

1992 Dates

1991 Dates

OCtober 1

November 1

December 2

Subnission Datel

7

FEe SETS MA'l'CIIIIG FlH> SUBMISSIm DM'E5

The Commission recently established the

monthly deadlines by which Presidential

primary campaigns must make their matching

fund submdssions (i.e., contributions

submitted for matching funds1/). The

agency also set the corresponding dates on

which the FEC will certify payment of

matching funds in the amount of the matchable contributions contained in a submdssian. The U.S. Treasury will generally

make payments to campaigns within 48 hours

of the FEC's certification.

The Commission sent the submission and

certification schedule to Presidential campaigns and also published it in the Federal

Register on November 13, 1991. The schedule is reprinted opposite.

The monthly schedule was necessitated

by a Department of Treasury decision,

adopted in new rules, to make matching fund

payments only once a month. The Treasury

rules were written to address the possibility of a shortfall in the Presidential

Election campaign Fund. (See article on

shortfall projections in the October 1991

Record. )

IThe federal government will match up to

$250 per contributor, but only contributions from individuals are matchable.

December 1991

dollars for a portion of the contributions

they raise. The federal government will

match up to $250 per contributor, but only

contributions from individuals qualify for

matching. TO establish eligibility for the

program, a candidate must submit documentation showing that he or she raised in

excess of $5,000 in matchable contributions

in each of at least 20 states (i.e., over

$100,000). This threshold submission is

reviewed by the FEC's Audit Division before

the Commission makes its determination.

The candidate must also submit a letter

'(a "9033 letter") certifying that he or she

will comply with the law.

Presidential candidates may establish

their eligibility for matching foods during

1991 and, once eligible, submdt additional

contributions for matching foods (called

matching fund submdssions) on specified

dates. However, the U.S. Treasury will not

make matching fund payments until January

2, 1992. candidates may continue to make

matching fund submissions each month

through March 1, 1993. (See following

article. )
December 1991 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

FFDERAL RmIS'l'ER r«7l'ICES

Copies of Federal Register notices

are available from the Public Records

Office.

1991-16

Filing Dates for Pennsylvania Special

Election (56 FR 51896, October 16,

1991)

1991-17 . 11 CFR Parts 9034, 9036 and 9037:

Matching Fund SubmiSsion and Certification Procedures for Presidential

Primary Candidates Final Rule:

Announcement of Effective Date (56 FR

56570, November 6, 1991)

1991-18

11 CFR Parts 100, 102, 106, 110, 116,

9001-9007, 9012 and 9031-9039: Public

Financing of Presidential Primary and

General Election Candidates~ Final

Rule: Announcement of Effective Date

(56 FR 56570, November 6, 1991)

1991-19

11 CFR Parts 102 and 113: Use of

EXcess Funds Final Rule: Announcement of Effective Date (56 FR 56570,

November 6, 1991)

1991-20

Schedule of Matching Fund Submission

Dates and certification Dates for 1992

Presidential Candidates (56 FR 57644,

November 13, 1991)

1991-21

11 CFR Part 106: Allocation of Federal and Non-Federal Expenses; Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 57864,

November 14, 1991)

8

Volume 17, Number1

".. .... '~)':;aoo:ijiii~:;' :, -".", .. ,o~;-\c r:~ ':-:'i.1

': ::: T C' _,-~.

NATI<H\L I'OIINATIN3 a::tNENl'I~: DELEXiATE

SELECTIW RIJLES .

This article explains the FEC rules

that apply to individuals seeking selection

as delegates to a Presidential nominating

convention.

Reprints of this article may be ordered

from the FEC--call 800/424-9530 or 202;219-

3420.

Definitions of Delegate and Delegate

Calmittee

The term "delegate" means an individual

who is seeking selection as a delegate, or

who has already been selected as a delegate at any level of the delegate selection'process (local, state or national).

11 eFR 110.14(b)(1).

A "delegate camrl.ttee" is a group that

raises or spends funds to influence the

selection of delegates. It may be a group

of delegates or a group that supports

certain delegates. 11 CFR 110.14(b)(2).

FEe Reporting

By Registered Delegate CaImittees. A

delegate committee becomes a "po.lLt.Lca'l

committee" under federal law once it

receives contributions or makes expenditures exceeding $1,000 in a calendar year.

11 CFR 100.5(a) and (e)(5), 110.14(b)(2).

At that point, the committee must register

with the FEC within 10 days and begin

filing periodic FEe reports on committee

receipts and disbursements. 11 eFR

102.1(d) and 104.1(a). All pre-registration activity must be disclosed in the

committee's first report. 11 CFR 104.3(a)

and (b).

Note that a delegate committee that has

triggered status as a federal political

committee must include the word IIdelegatell

or IIdelegatesll in its name. It may also

include the name of the Presidential candidate it supports. 11 CFR 102.14(b)(1).

By Individual Delegates and unreqistered Delegate C<:IllInittees. Individual

delegates, and delegate committees that

have not qualified as "political conunittees, It are not required to register or file

regular reports. But, if they make independent expenditures exceeding $250, they

must disclose the expenditures on FEC Form

5. 11 CFR 109.2(a). (Independent expenditures are discussed later in this article.)
December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlrvllSSION Volume 17, Number 12

•

•

COntributions and Expenditures

Funds raised and spent for delegate

selection activity are considered contributions and expenditures made for the purpose

of influencing a federal election. (A

national nominating convention is a federal

election. 11 eFR lOO.2(e).) As such, the

funds are subject to the federal law's

prohibitions and limits.l/ 11 CFR

110.14(c)(1). For exampIe, a delegate Brost

use funds permissible under federal law to

pay for travel to attend the national convention and related food and lodging

expenses.

Contribution Prohibitions and Limits

Please note that the prohibitions and

lintits apply to contributions of goods and

services (in-kind contributions) as well as

monetary contributions. 11 eFR lOO.7(a}(1)

(ii) and (Hi).

Prohibitions. Individual delegates and

delegate committees may not accept any contributions from prohibited sources. 11 CFR

110.14(c) (2}.

The following entities are prohibited

from making contributions:

o Banks and other corporations (including

nonprofit corporations);

o Labor unions;

o Citizens of foreign countries (except

"green .card" holders-those admitted to

the U.s. for permanent residence}; and

o Federal government contractors (such as

partnerships and sole proprietors with

federal contracts). 11 eFR 110.4(a),

114.2(b) and (c), and 115.2.

Limits on Contributions to Delegates:

o contributions to a delegate callDittee are

subject to an aggregate limit of $5,000

per calendar year. 11 CFR 110.14(g)(1).

o COntributions to an individual delegate

are not subject to any per delegate

limit, but see entry below. Note that

contributions to a delegate from the

commdttee of a Presidential candidate

receiving public funds count against the

lBallot access fees paid by a delegate or

delegate conunittee to a political party are

not considered contributions or expenditures; nor are administrative payments made

by a party commdttee for sponsoring a

convention or caucus to select delegates.

Nevertheless, these fees and payments must

be made from funds that comply with the

limits and prohibitions. 11 CFR 1l0.14(c)

(ll(i) and (H).

9

candidate's expenditure limits•2/ 11 CFR

110.14(d). - o COntributions from an individual to a

delegate or delegate comttee count

against the donor's $25,000 annual limit

on total contributions. 11 CFR llO.5(b),

110.14(d)(1) and (g){2).

Limits on Contribltions by Delegates to

candidates. When a delegate or delegate

conunittee makes an expenditure that benefits a Presidential or other federal candidate,3/ the expenditure may result in an

in-kind contribution to that candidate, as

explained later in this article. Such

contributions--or anything of value given

to the candidate--are subject to the

contribution limits. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(1).

A delegate or delegate committee may

contribute a maximum of $1,000 to a federal

candidate, per election. 11 CFR llO.1(b)

(l) • The primary and general are considered separate elections but, in the case of

Presidential candidates, the entire primary

season is considered only one election.

11 CPR llO.1(j)(1).

Note that contributions to candidates

are reportable by the candidate's committee. For this reason, when making an inkind contribution, the delegate or delegate

committee should notify the candidate's

cornmittee of the monetary value of the inkind contribution so the committee can

report it. In-kind contributions, in

addition to counting against the contribution limit, also generally count against a

publicly funded candidate's expenditure

limits.

Expendi.tures for Delegate Selection On!y

Expenditures made by delegates and

delegate cOIlllllittees solely to further their

selection are not considered contributions

to any candidate and are not chargeable to

a publicly funded candidate's spending

limits. This type of expenditure might

include, for example:

o A conununication which advocates the

selection of delegates only~ or

a Travel and subsistence expenses related

to the delegate selection process and the

(continued)

2Publicly funded Presidential primary candidates are subject to an overall spending

liInit and a spending limit in each state.

11 eFR 9035.1-

3A federal candidate is a candidate seeking

election to the Presidency, the Vice Presidency, the U.s. Senate or the u.s. House of

Representatives. 11 CFR 100.4.
December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COfVlrJlISSION Volume 17, Number 1

national nominating convention. 11 erR

llO.14(e)(1) and (h)(l).

Dual-Purpose Expendi.tures for

camami.catians

An individual delegate or a delegate

committee may pay for communications that

both:

o Advocate the selection of the individual

delegate or the delegates promoted by the

delegate committee; and

o Refer to, provide information on, or

expressly advocate the election of a

Presidential candidate (or candidate for

any public office). 11 CFR 110.l4{f) and

(i).

Depending on certain factors explained

below, a portion of a dual-purpose expenditure may have to be allocated as an in-kind

contribution or an independent expenditure

OIl behalf of any federal candidate mentioned in the ad. (Allocation is discussed

later on this page. )

Moreover, the communication may have to

include an advertising notice, as explained

on page 11.

Materials Distributed by Volunteers.

Dual-purpose expenditures for campaign materials such as pins, bumper stickers,

handbills, brochures, posters and yard

signs are not considered in-kind contributions on behalf of the federal candidate

mentioned in the materials as long as the

materials are used in connection with

volunteer activities (i.e., are distributed

by volunteers) and are not conveyed through

public political advertising.~/ 11 eFR

110.14(£)(1) and (i)(l).

Public Ads: In-Kind Contributions. A

portion of a dual-purpose expenditure is

considered an in-kind contribution to the

referenced candidate if the communication:

o Is conveyed through public political advertising (or is not distributed by

volunteers); and

o Is made in cooperation or consultation

with, or at the request or suggestion of,

the Presidential candidate {or other

4ror purposes of the delegate regulations, public political advertising is conveyed through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, billboards, direct mail or similar fo~ of general public communication.

Direct mail means mailings by cOll11lercial

vendors or mailings made from lists not

developed by the individual delegate or

delegate commdttee. 11 CFR 110.14(f)(2},

(f)(4), (i)(2) and (i)(4).

10

federal candidate) or the candidate's

campaign.

The contribution counts against a

publicly funded presidential candidate's

expenditure limits. 11 CFR 110.14(£)(2)(i)

and (i)(2)(i).

Public Ads: Independent Expenditures.

A portion of a dual-purpose expenditure for

a communication that is conveyed through public political advertising is considered

an independent expenditure (rather than an

in-kind contribution) on behalf of the

candidate if the communication:

o Expressly advocates the election (or

defeat) of the candidate; who is clearly

identified; and

o Is not made with the cooperation or prior

consent of, or in consultation with, or

at the request or suggestion of, the

candidate or the candidate's campaign. Independent expenditures are not subject to the contribution limits and are not

chargeable to a publicly funded Presidential candidate's expenditure limits.

11 CFR 110.14(f)(2)(ii) and (i)(2)(ii).

Note, however, that all independent expenditures must carry an advertising

notice (page 11). Note also the reporting

requirements for individual delegates and

unregistered delegate committees (page 8).

For more information on independent expenditures, consult part 109 of FEe regulations or call the coltltlission.

Allocation of Dual-PIlrpose Expenditures. To determine the portion of a dualpurpose expenditure that is considered an

in-kind contribution or an independent

expenditure on behalf of the candidate, the

expenditure must be allocated between the

delegate or delegate committee and the

candidate. The portion allocated to the

candidate must be in proportion to the

benefit reasonably expected to be derived,

based on factors such as the amount of

space or time devoted to the candidate in

the communication. 11 eFR l06.l(a).

Expenditures to Reproduce candidate

fllaterials

Expenditures by an individual delegate

or delegate commdttee to reproduce (in

whole or in part) or disseminate materials

prepared by a Presidential candidate's

committee (or other federal candidate

committee) are considered in-kind contributions to the candidate. Although subject

to contribution limits, this type of contribution is not chargeable to a publicly

funded Presidential candidate'S spending

limits as long as the expenditure was not

made in consultation or coordination with,
December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Number 12

or at the request or suggestion of, the

candidate or the candidate's campaign.

11 CFR 110.14(f)(3) and (i)(3). If the

materials are conveyed through public

political advertising, they must include a

notice, as explained below.

Advertising NOtices

A communication must clearly and conspicuously display a notice (often referred

to as a disclaimer notice) if the communication:

a Expressly advocates the election or

defeat of a clearly identified federal

candidate or solicits contributions; and

o Is conveyedthrough public political

advertising.51 11 CFR 110.11(a)(1).

The wording of the notice depends on

whether the communication is authorized by

the candidate or the candidate's campaign.

Authorized by candidate. If the communication is authorized by the candidate's

campaign, it must display the following

notice:

"Paid for by [name of delegate or delegate conunittee] and authorized by [name of

candidate's committee]. n 11 CFR 110.11 (a)

(1)(ii) .

NOt Authorized by candidate. If the

communication is not authorized by the

candidate's campaign (as in the case of an

independent expenditure), it must display

the following notice:

trpaid for by [name of delegate or delegate committee] and not authorized by any

candidate or candidate's committee."

11 eFR 110.11(a)(I)(iii).

Affiliation and Delegate CooIIIi.ttees

Committees that are established,

financed, maintained or controlled by the

same person or group of persons are considered to be affiliated committees. A

delegate committee may be affiliated with

the committee of a Presidential candidate

or with another delegate committee, as

explained below.

Delegate committees need to be aware of

the rules on affiliation because affiliated

committees are considered one political

committee for purposes of the contribution

5For purposes of the advertising notice

regulations, the definition of public political advertising is generally the same as

the definition in footnote 4, except that

posters and yard signs are also listed as

examples of public political advertising.

11 CFR 110.11(a)(1).

11

limits: They share the same limits on

contributions received and contributions

made. 11 CFR 110.3(a)(1). (There is,

however, no limit on funds transferred

between affiliated committees. 11 CFR

l02.6(a)(1)(i).)

Between Delegate and Presidential C<Dmittees. If a delegate commi.ttee-including an unregistered committee--is

affiliated with the committee of a publicly

funded Presidential candidate, all of the

delegate committee's expenditures count

against the Presidential candidate's

expenditure limits.

In determining whether a delegate

committee and a Presidential committee are

affiliated, the Commission may consider,

among other factors, whether:

o The Presidential campaign6/ played a

significant role in forming the delegate

commi.ttee;

o Any delegate associated with a delegate

committee has been or is on the staff of

the Presidential committee;

o The committees have overlapping officers

or employees;

o The Presidential committee provides funds

or goods to the delegate committee in a

significant amount or on an ongoing basis

(not including a transfer of joint fundraising proceeds);

o The Presidential campaign suggests or

arranges for contributions to be made to

the delegate committee;

o The committees show similar patterns of

contributions received;

o One committee provides a mailing list to

the other committee;

o The Presidential campaign provides ongoing administrative supPort to the delegate conunittee;

o The Presidential campaign directs or

organizes the campaign activities of the

delegate conunittee; and

o The Presidential campaign files statements or reports on behalf of the delegate committee. 11 CFR 110.14(j); see

also Advisory Opinion 1988-1.

Between Delegate Conmittees. Factors

that indicate affiliation between delegate

committees are listed at 11 CFR 100.5(g).

11 eFR 110.14(k).

6Campai gn refers to the candidate, his or

her committee or other persons associated

with the commi.t tee.
December 1991 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

NM'Iaw:. CC!M!NI'ICJ:IlS: BUSINESS

~am AND DIscaN1'S

FEC public funding rules permit businesses, including incorporated businesses,

to provide funds, goods, services and

discounts in connection with the national

Presidential nominating conventions of the

major parties. The 1992 Democratic and

Republican conventions will be held,

respectively, in New York City (July 13-16)

and Houston (August 17-20).1/

The rules generally perilii.t business

donations and discounts given to advance

commercial interests. Note, however, that

the scope of permdssible activities is

different for each of the following

categories of businesses: banks,2/ local

businesses,3/ retail businesses and local

retail businesses.

Advisory opinions cited in this article

may be ordered from.the Public Records

Office.

Local Business Donations to Host CClIIIDittee

Local businesses (excluding banks) may

donate funds, goods and services to a ho~t

committee4/ for the following purposes: . o To promte the suitability of the city as

a convention site;

o TO defray the host committee's administrative expenses (e.g., salaries, rent,

travel, Hability insurance);

IThe major parties have each received $10.6

Ddllion in public funds for their 1992

conventions and will receive a cost-ofliving adjustment in 1992.

2FEC rules define "bank" to include a state

bank, a federally chartered depository

institution (including a national bank) or

a depository institution insured by the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or

the National Credit Union Admdnistration.

11 CFR 100.7(b)(11) and 100.8(b)(12).

3A local business is a business located

within the convention city's metropolitan

statistical area. 11 CFR 9008.7(c)(2)(iv)

and (d)(2)(iv).

4A host conrnittee is a local nonprofit

organization (such as a civic association,

business league, chamber of commerce or

convention bureau) that encourages conunerce

in the convention city and wishes to

project a favorable image of the city to

convention attendees. 11 CFR 9008.7(d)(I).

Host committees are required to register

and report their receipts and disbursements

with the FEC. 11 CFR 9008.12(a}.

12

Volume 17, Number 1

o To welcome convention attendees (e.g., b

providing information booths, receptions

or tours) and

o To facilitate commerce (e.g., by providing convention attendees with shopping or

entertainment guides or with the promotional items described in the next

section).5/ 11 CFR 9008.7(d)(2).

For exailiple, in NJ 1980-21, the

Conunission said that the New York yankee

Baseball Club could donate tickets to the

convention host committee for distribution

to delegates because the donation would

assist the host committee in welcoming the

delegates to New York.

Additionally, local retail businesses

(excluding banks) may donate funds and

services to the host committee to help

defray the costs of holding a convention

(e.g., facilities, transportation,

accommodations) as long as the donation is

proportionate to the commercial return the

business reasonably expects to receive

during the life of the convention (one week

before the opening and three days after the

closing). 11 CFR 9008.7(d)(3).

Local Business PrClllDtional Items

Local businesses--including banks--may

give convention attendees promotional items

of nominal value such as maps, pens, tote

bags, discount coupons or sample products

that bear the business's name. (Promotional items may also be sold at nominal

charge. ) The items must be offered in the

ordinary course of business for promotiona

purposes only. The business may distribute

the items, or they may be distributed by

the host cormnittee or the party's convention committee. 11 CFR 9008.7(c)(2).

Discounts by Retail Businesses

Local and non-local retail businesses

(excluding banks) may provide discounts to

the party's national comrnittee for the

convention. A business may offer to reduce

the price of its products, materials,

services or space, provided that the

discount is made in the ordinary course of

business (Le., the discount must be

comparable to discounts offered to other

kinds of conventions of similar size and

duration). 11 CFR 9008.7(c)(1).

It should be noted that, in AO 1988-25

the Commdssion approved a General Motors

5Individuals and local labor unions (i.e,

unions located within the city's metropolitan statistical area) may also make

donations to a host comrnittee for these

purposes. 11 CFR 9008.7(d)(2).
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Number 12

MUR 3022

Respondents (all in CA): (a) Log Cabin

PAC, Michael R. Tripp, treasurer (AKA

Californians for Individual Rights and

Civil Liberties); (b) San Diego County Log

Cabin Club; (c) Richard Reinsch

Complainant: FEe inttiated

SUbject: Excessive and earmarked contributions; deposit of nonfederal funds in

federal account

Disposition: (a) $1,700 civil penalty;

(b) no reason to believe; (c) $350 civil

penalty

MUR 3043

Respondents (both in DC): (a) Alliance of

Families for Christian Values, Inc., Eugene

C. Johnson, President; (b) Bradley S.

O'Leary

Complainant: National Republican Congressional Conunittee (DC)

SUbject: Improper use of contributor

information on disclosure reports

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

but took no further action

MUR 2681

Respondents: wayne Walker for congress,

and its treasurer (TX)

caoplainant: Jack R. Roach (TX)

SUbject: Failure to file report on time

and to amend statement of organization;

inadequate disclosure of loans and disbursements; use of improper reporting form

Disposition: Reason to believe but took no

further action

MUR 3106

Respondents: Washington state Democratic

Central Committee, Clay Bleck, treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Contributions from unregistered

organizations; corporate and union contributions

Disposition: $2,000 civil penalty

(continued)

PImS RELFASED TO THE PUBLIC

Listed below are MURs (FEe enforcement

cases) recently released for public review.

The list is based on the FEC press releases

of OCtober 7, 17, 21 and 28, 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.

13

6Government agencies at all levels may also

defray convention costs. 11 CFR

9008. 7(b) (1)•

corporate Donations to Convention City

Commission regulations permit a municipal corporation (a city) to help finance

the costs of holding a nominating convention (e.g., the convention hall, transportation, law enforcement, hotel accommodations).6/ The city must pay the fair

market value for convention expenses unless

a normal business discount applies. 11 ern

9008.'" (b) (1).

In advisory opinions, the Commission

said that a city could finance such

expenses through a special municipal fund

created to attract and promote conventions

and other events to the city--not just the

nominating convention. Corporations and

individuals could donate to the fund, but

donations could not be designated for a

particular convention. ADs 1983-29 and

1982-27.

December 1991

program under which local GM dealers loaned

cars at no charge to the Republican and

Democratic national party committees for

their 1988 nOminating conventions. The

Commission's permission was based on

several factors, among them:

o aM had an established practice of providing similar vehicle loan programs for

nonpolitical conventions and events;

o The services provided to the convention

committees were proportionate in value to

services provided in similar situations;

e The promotional benefits to GM were not

outweighed by the value of the services;

and

o The conventions offered GM unique promotional (as opposed to political)

opportunities.

•

•

•
December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

lIIlJR 3112

Respondents (all in GA): (a) Sam R. Jones~

(b) Friends of Sam Jones, A.S. Quinn,

treasurer; (c) Harold Mays~ et al. (d)-(h)

COOIPlainant: Charles Schroder, Executive

Director, Democratic party of Georgia

Subject: Contributions in names of others;

excessive contributions

Disposition: (a) No reason to believe~

(b){1) no reason to believe (contributions

in names of others); (b)(2) took no action

(other allegations); (c)(1) no reason to

believe (excessive contributions in names

of others; (c)(2) took no action (other

allegations); (d)-(h) no reason to believe

(contributions in names of others)

MUR 3135/3131

Respondents: (a) National Republican Senatorial Committee, James L. Hagen, treasurer

(DC); (b) Republican Senatorial Inner

Circle 1990, James L. Hagen, treasurer

(DC); (c) Republican Senatorial Inner

Circle 1990-91, James L. Hagen, treasurer

(DC); (d) 57 candidate eommdttees and

treasurers

CClDplainants (both in DC): Common Cause

(3135); Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (3131)

Subject: Excessive party contributions;

joint fundraising

Disposition: (a)-(d) No reason to believe

MUR 3154

Bespondents (all in TX): (a) John W.

Bryant: (b) John Bryant for Congress, Ken

Molberg, treasurer: (c) John W. Bryant

Campaign Committee, Ken Molberg, treasurer ~:Jerry Rucker (TX)

subject: Transfer from nonfederal account:

excessive contributions; inadequate disclosure; failure to amend Statement of Organization on time

Disposition: (a) No reason to beHeve;

(b)(1) no reason to believe (disclosure):

(b)(2) reason to believe but took no

further action (amendment); (e)(1) reason

to believe but took no further action

(disclosure and amendment); (c)(2) no

reason to believe (excessive contributions)

MUR 3198

Respondents (all in WA): (a) Thomas S.

Foley: (b) Committee to Re-Elect Tom Foley,

Leona W. Dexter, treasurer; (c) Inland

Power & Light Company

Complainant: William Albert Johns (WA)

SUbject: Corporate contribution

Disposition: (a)-(c) No reason to believe

.MlJR 3209

Respondents: Tom Delay Congressional

Committee, Jack R. Roach, treasurer (TX)

14

Volume 17,Number 

. .

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file report on time

Disposition: $1,100 civil penalty

MUR 3243

Respondents: .Keep HOpe Alive Political

Action Committee, Marion o. Greene, treasurer (DC)

COmplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file report on time

Disposition: $3,400 civil penalty

MlJR 3274

Respondents: Committee to Elect James

McClure Clarke to congress, James H. Lee,

treasurer (NC)

complainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour notices

Disposition: $750 civil penalty

MlJR 3300

Respondents: NCNB Corporation Political

Action Conunittee; J. Mark Le9gett, treasurer (NC)

Coaplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file report on time

DisPJsition: $495 civil penalty

MlJR 3304

Respmdents: Pennzoil Political Action

Committee, Robert L. Springfield, treasure

(TX)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file report on time

Disposition: $375 civil penalty

MlJR 3331

Respondents: National Democratic policy .

Committee, Katherine Jenkins, treasurer

(DC)

OOmplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file report on time

Disposition: $500 civil penalty

MUR 3336

Respondents: Trudy Coxe for Congress

Committee, Mary F. Allard, treasurer (RI)

complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour notices

Disposition: $1,500 civil penalty

MUR 3338

Respondents: Friends of Matt Matsunaga,

Howard Y. Ikeda, treasurer (HI)

OOmplainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour notices

on time

disposition: $2,000 civil penalty

MUR 3355

Respondents: Mike Brown for Congress

Committee, Michael D. Brown, treasurer (OK

complainant: Thomas N. Edmonds
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

December 1991

Subject: Failure to disclose debts

Disposition: Reason to believe but took no

further action

MUR 3357

Respondents: Frazer for Congress

Committee, Edward M. Eddleman, treasurer

(MD)

COmplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour notices

on time

Volume 17, Number 1

Disposition: $1, sao civil penalty

MlJR. 3364

Respondents: Hudson Valley Political

Action Conunittee, Marilyn Enison, treasure

(NY)

CCDplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Knowingly accepting labor organi

zation contributions

Disposition: $750 civil penalty

The first number in each

citatton refers to the nnumber"

(month) of the 1991 Record

issue in which the article

appeared; the second number,

following the colon, indicates

the page number in that issue.

ADYISCla' OPINICHS

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 party's federal account of funds

mistakenly deposited in state

account, 3:9

1990-29: Return to federal

account of funds transferred

to state account, 4:5

1990-30: Designation of postelection contributions to

retire debts, 4:6

1991-1: Credit card contributions to nonconnected PAC of

federal contractor

partnership, 5:4

1991-a: Disposition of possibly

illegal funds raised through

900-line telephone calls, 5:5

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; preemption 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 on loans made by

candidate, 7: 5

1991-10: candidate's use of

assets jointly held with

spouse, 6:8

1991-12: Transfer from candidate's multi-purpose committee to campaign committee,

8:6

1991-13: Labor union jointly

established by two other

unions, 7:5

1991-14: State tax checkoff

funds used for party's

federal activity, 8:7

1991-15: Party committee's

transfer to correct federal

account's overpayment of

allocated expenses, 8:7

1991-16: Sale/Use restriction

applied to FEC forms filed

under Indiana law, 8:8

1991-17: Corporate sponsorship

of "good citizenship" video

tape featuring Member of

Congress, 8:9

1991-18: Telemarketing services

provided by corporate vendor,

9:1

1991-19: Employee payroll

deductions after corporate

merger, 9:8

1991-20: procedures for service

bureau providing 900-1ine

fundraising services, 10:6

1991-21: Terminating PAC's

payment of remaining funds to

individual, 10:8

1991-22: Preemption of Minnesota public funding statute,

12:4

1991-23: Donation of raffle

prize to trade association by

nonmember corporation, 10:8

lS

1991-24: candidate-advocacy

cOlllllUllications by trade associations to members, 10:9

1991-25: 1991 special election

and local elections: ballot

composition change, 10:9

1991-26: Services for 900-1ine

fundraising, 11:2

1991-27: Exclusion of California local offices in ballot

ratio, 12:4

1991-28: Videotaped twiceyearly solicitation, 11:4

1991-31: Charity donations made

in name of candidate, 12:5

CDJRT CASF$

Dole v. International

Association Managers, Inc.,

6:9

FEe v ,

- Aure for Congress, 2: 7

- ca der, 12:6 - Dramesi for Congress, 3:10 - Fletcher, Friends of

Isaiah, 4:6 - Lawson, 6:10 - r;egr::Tech, Inc., 3:11 - Mann for Congress

Committee, 5:7

- Mid-America conservative

PAC, 2:10 - NRA Political Victory FUnd,

3:10 - National Organization for

Women, Inc., 11:1 - National Republican

Senatorial Committee, 6:10 - people &politics, Inc.,

12:6 - Political Contributions

Data, Inc., 2:8; 5:7; 10:11 - populist Party, 8:11 - Schaefer, Friends of, 1:8 - smith, Dennis, for

Congress, 5:7 - Speelman, 3:10 - Webb for Congress

Comnittee, 2:10

(continued)
December 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

- West Virginia Republican

state Executive Committee,

3:10

- Working Names, Inc. (90-

l009-GAG and 87-2467-GAG),

5:7

v , FEe

---::COllUllOn cause; National

Republican Senatorial

Committee, Appellant (90-

5317), 1:7

- Faucher and Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc. 5:8;

11:1 - International Association

Managers, Inc., 7:8 - Jordan, 12:6 - aepuEIican party of

Kentucky, 7:8 - SChaefer, 6:11

- spannaus (91-0681), 6:11 - Stern, 2:7 - White, 11:2 Ste~General Electric

CQIlJ?a!lY, 7:6

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

800 LINE

Allocating expenses through ballot composition, 2:1

Debt reUrement by candidate

ccmnittees, 4:7

PACs: allocating federal and

nonfederal expenses, 6:1

National nominating conventions: business donations and

discounts, 12:12

National nominating conventions: delegate selection

rules, 12:8

Redistricting, 8:12

Staff advances and salaries,

2:6

Travel, 11:4

Volume 17, Number 1

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31