July 2002 Federal Election Commission Volume 28, Number 7

Table of Contents

Reports

1 Commission Certifies Alaska and

Iowa for State Filing Waiver

4 Iowa Convention Reporting

Regulations

1 Independent Expenditure

Reporting, Effective Date

2 Brokerage Loans and Lines of

Credit, Final Rules

3 Contribution and Expenditure

Definitions, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

3 Federal Register

4 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

5 Graham v. FEC

5 New Litigation

Audits

5 Audit of Rod Grams for U.S.

Senate Committee

Alternative Dispute Resolution

6 ADR Program Update

Compliance

7 Nonfilers

7 Index

Compliance Reports Regulations

Independent Expenditure

Reporting, Effective Date

The Commission’s new rules

regarding the reporting of lastminute independent expenditures

became effective June 13, 2002. See

Federal Register Announcement of

Effective Date (67 FR 40586, June

13, 2002). This effective date also

applies to the Commission’s revised

independent expenditure reporting

forms, Form 5 and Schedule E of

Form 3X.

The new rules reflect a statutory

requirement that 24-hour notices

disclosing last-minute independent

expenditures of $1,000 or more be

received by the Commission or the

Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, within 24 hours of the time the

independent expenditure is made.

Filers may send 24-hour notices by

fax or e-mail, unless the filer

participates in the Commission’s

electronic filing program and is thus

required to file all reports electronically. Under the new regulations, in

lieu of notarization filers must selfverify, under penalty of perjury, the

independence of the expenditure

reported. Since notarization is no

longer required, the Commission

will no longer require a paper follow

up of Schedule E and Form 5 for

committees who file electronically.

(continued on page 2)

Commission Certifies

Alaska and Iowa for State

Filing Waiver

The Commission has certified

that Alaska and Iowa qualify for a

state filing waiver.1

 Consequently,

federal committees and candidates

in these states no longer have to file

copies of their federal reports with

the Alaska Lieutenant Governor’s

Office or the Iowa Ethics and

Campaign Disclosure Board.✦

—Amy Kort

1

 The Commission has certified that the

following states and territories qualify

for filing waivers: Alabama, Alaska,

American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,

New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands,

Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,

Wisconsin and Wyoming. Committees

that file their reports at the FEC need

not file copies in these states.

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 2002

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)

David M. Mason, Chairman

Karl J. Sandstrom, Vice Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Additional Information

You may view the final rules as

they appeared in the March 20,

2002, Federal Register (67 FR

12834) on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/register.htm.

Free copies are also available by

fax—call the FEC Faxline at 202/

501-3413 and request document

250. For a summary of the new

rules, see the May 2002 Record,

page 2. ✦

—Amy Kort

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

Final Rules on Brokerage

Loans and Lines of Credit

On May 23, 2002, the Commission approved final rules governing

the use of brokerage loans and other

lines of credit by candidates for

federal office. The rules implement

an amendment to the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

(PL 106-346) that excludes from the

definition of contribution “a loan of

Examples of routine living expenses

include but are not limited to:

• Household items or supplies, such

as food, furniture and accessories;

• Funeral, cremation or burial

expenses;

• Clothing, other than clothing

purchased to attend campaignrelated events or appearances;

• Tuition payments, other than those

associated with training related to

the campaign;

• Mortgage, rent, utilities and

residential maintenance;

• Investment expenses, such as

acquiring securities on margin, if

no amount of the proceeds are used

for the campaign;

• Charitable donations, unless the

candidate receives compensation

for services to the charitable entity

that become personal funds of the

candidate and then are used for the

purpose of influencing the

candidate’s election for Federal

office; and

• Travel expenses unrelated to the

campaign.11 CFR

100.7(b)(22)(iii). See also 11 CFR

113.1.

Loans used exclusively for

routine living expenses do not need

to be reported by the campaign. 11

CFR 100.7(b)(22) (iii)(A). If the

proceeds of a loan are used partly

for routine living expenses and

partly for campaign purposes, the

portion that is used for the campaign

must be reported. However, if a

third party, other than the

candidate’s spouse, repays, guarantees, endorses or co-signs a loan for

routine living expenses, the loan is

subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of

the Act and Commission regulations. 11 CFR 100.7(b)(22)(iii)(C).

Repayment and Reporting

Under the new rules, the

candidate’s authorized committee

will have the option of repaying

loans derived from a candidate’s

brokerage account or other line of

credit directly to the lending institumoney derived from an advance on

a candidate’s brokerage account,

credit card, home equity line of

credit, or other line of credit available to the candidate.” The new

rules, published in the June 4, 2002,

Federal Register (67 FR 38353),

will take effect following the 30

legislative day Congressional

review period. The Commission will

announce the effective date in the

Federal Register.

Endorsers, Guarantors and Cosigners of Candidate Loans

Under the new rules, candidates

may use funds derived from an

advance on their brokerage account

or other line of credit to finance

their campaigns, if the extension of

credit is:

• In accordance with applicable law;

• Under commercially reasonable

terms; and

• From persons who make these

loans in the usual and normal

course of their business. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(22).

When these conditions are met,

the lending institution is not considered to have made a contribution to

the campaign.

Generally, an endorser, guarantor

or co-signer of a loan is considered

a contributor for the amount that he

or she is liable. However, when a

candidate’s spouse is the endorser,

guarantor or co-signer of an unsecured loan, the spouse is not considered a contributor if the candidate

uses only one-half of the available

credit in connection with the

campaign or, in the case of secured

loans, no more than the amount

equal to the candidate’s share of the

collateral. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(22)(ii)(B).

Loans for Routine Living

Expenses

The new rules also contain a

provision permitting the use of loans

derived from a candidate’s brokerage account or other line of credit

for “routine living expenses.”
July 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

tion or to the candidate. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(22)(iv). All such loans

used in connection with the

candidate’s campaign must be

reported by the committee. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(22)(iii)(D). The committee

must report the loan from the

candidate as a receipt and report

repayment of the loan to the candidate as a disbursement. 11 CFR

104.3(a)(3)(vii)(B) and

(b)(2)(iii)(A).

The candidate may choose to

contribute rather than loan the

proceeds to the authorized committee. In either case, the funds are

reported as an itemized entry on

Schedule A. If the funds are designated as a contribution, then the

committee cannot repay the underlying loan to the financial institution.

11 CFR 113.2(d).

If the funds are designated as a

loan, the committee’s repayment to

the lending institution or the candidate is reported as an itemized entry

on Schedule B. The committee is

not required to report repayments by

the candidate to the lending institution. 11 CFR 104.9(f). The loan

from the candidate to the authorized

committee must also be continually

reported on Schedule C or C-P until

it is extinguished. In the report

covering the period when the loan

was obtained, the committee must

also submit a Schedule C-1 or C-P-1

for the loan or line of credit.

Unlike other loans, when reporting loans derived from a brokerage

account, credit card, home equity

line of credit or other line of credit,

the committee is not required to

submit the loan agreements to the

Commission. The candidate must,

however, retain certain records

relating to the loan for three years

after the date of the election for

which he or she was a candidate.

Additional Information

The full text of the final rules

appears in the June 4, 2002, Federal

Register at 67 FR 38353. This

document is available from the

FEC’s Public Disclosure Office (call

800/424-9530, press 3) through FEC

faxline (dial 202/501-3413 and

request document 246) and on the

FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov/register.htm.✦

—Gary Mullen

Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on Contribution

and Expenditure Definitions

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act of 2002 removed the office

facility exception for national party

committees from the Federal

Election Campaign Act’s (the Act)

definition of “contribution.” U.S.C.

§431(8)(B). The Commission

proposes to amend its regulations to

reflect this statutory change, and

also to reorganize the regulations

that define “contribution” and

“expenditure” to make these definitions easier to locate and read.1

 On

June 14, 2002, the Commission

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in the Federal Register

(67 FR 40881), seeking comments on

these proposed changes. The deadline

for comments is July 12, 2002.

Proposed Reorganization of 11

CFR 100.7 and 100.8

The Commission proposes to

remove the current sections of its

regulations that define contributions

and expenditures—11 CFR 100.7

and 100.8—and replace them with

four new subparts of 11 CFR part

100 that would separately describe:

• Items that are contributions;

• Items that are not contributions;

• Items that are expenditures; and

• Items that are not expenditures.

Except as noted below, no

changes would be made to the

current definitions of “contribution”

and “expenditure” as a result of the

proposed reorganization.

Proposed Amendments to the

Definitions of “Contribution” and

“Expenditure”

Currently, Commission regulations state that anything of value

given to a national party committee

for the purpose of constructing or

purchasing an office facility is not a

contribution or expenditure. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(12) and 100.8(b)(13). The

proposed rules would make clear

that this exception to the definitions

of “contribution” and “expenditure”

no longer applies to national party

committees. The rules would then

state that anything of value given to

a nonfederal account of a state, local

or district party committee to

purchase or construct an office

facility is not a contribution or

expenditure, provided that these

funds are subject to Commission

regulations governing the use of

nonfederal funds.

1

 The Commission published a separate

rulemaking on May 20, 2002, to

address the impact of this statutory

change on state and local party

committees. See “Prohibited and

Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal

Funds or Soft Money” (67 FR 35654).

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office, on the FEC web

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

register.htm and from the FEC

faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2002-8

Final Rules on Brokerage Loans

and Lines of Credit (67 FR

38353, June 4, 2002).

Notice 2002-9

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Reorganization of Regulations

on Contributions and

Expenditures (67 FR 40881, June

14, 2002).

Notice 2002-10

Announcement of Effective Date

on Independent Expenditure

Reporting (67 FR 40586, June 13,

2002).

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 2002

4

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2002-6

Status of State Party as State

Committee of Political Party

The Green Party of California

satisfies the requirements for state

committee status.1

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) defines a state committee as “the organization which,

by virtue of the bylaws of a political

party, is responsible for the day-today operation of such political party

at the State level, as determined by

the Commission.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(15). In order to achieve state

committee status under Commission

regulations, an organization must

meet two requirements. It must

have:

• Bylaws or a similar document that

“delineates activities commensurate with the day-to-day operation”

of a party at a state level; and

• Ballot access for at least one

federal candidate who has qualified as a candidate under Commission regulations.

The Green Party of California

meets both requirements. It satisfies

the first requirement because its

bylaws set out an identifiable

organizational structure with

varying responsibilities. The bylaws

delineate activity commensurate

with the day-to-day functions of a

political party on the state level and

are consistent with the state party

rules of other political organizations

that the Commission has found to

1

 The Green Party of California is

affiliated with the Green Party of the

United States, which is a national

committee of a political party. See AO

2001-13.

2

 In previous advisory opinions determining state committee status, the

Commission considered either the

bylaws or other governing documents

of a state party organization. AOs

2000-39 and 2000-35. In reviewing

state party affiliates of qualified

national party committees, the Commission considered a state affiliate

agreement or correspondence from the

national party that attested to the role

the state affiliate played “commensurate with the day-to-day operation of [a

political party] on a State level.” See

AOs 1999-26 and 1992-30.

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2002-7

Political fundraising services

provided by Internet Service Provider

(ISP) (Careau & Co. and Mohre

Communications, May 6, 2002)

AOR 2002-8

Return of funds transferred from

candidate’s federal campaign

committee to his state exploratory

committee (David Vitter for Congress, June 7, 2002)✦

Regulations

(continued from page 3)

In addition, the proposed regulations would incorporate another

recent amendment to the Act, which

exempted from the definition of

contribution a loan derived from an

advance on a candidate’s brokerage

account, credit card, home equity

line of credit or other available line

of credit.

Additional Information

The full text of the notice is

available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/register.htm and

from the FEC faxline, 202/501-

3413. Public comments must be

submitted, in either written or

electronic form, to Rosemary C.

Smith, Assistant General Counsel.

Comments may be sent by:

• E-mail to reorganization@fec.gov

(e-mailed comments must include

the commenter’s full name, e-mail

address and postal address);

• Fax to 202/219-3923 (send a

printed copy follow-up to ensure

legibility); or

• Overnight mail to the Federal

Election Commission, 999 E Street

NW, Washington, DC 20436.✦

—Amy Kort

3

 An individual becomes a candidate for

the purposes of the Act once he or she

receives contributions aggregating in

excess of $5,000 or makes expenditures

in excess of $5,000. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(1)

and 11 CFR 101.1.

satisfy this requirement for state

committee status.2

The Party satisfies the second

requirement—ballot access for a

federal candidate—in that Ralph

Nader and Susan Benjamin gained

ballot access in the 2000 California

elections as the Party’s Presidential

and Senatorial candidates, respectively. Both candidates meet the

requirements for becoming a federal

candidate under 2 U.S.C. §441a(d).3

Date Issued: May 16, 2002;

Length: 3 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

Reports

(continued from page 1)

Iowa Convention Reporting

On June 14, 2002, the Iowa

Republican Party officially announced that, because the results of

the primary election proved inconclusive, it will now hold a district

convention on June 29, 2002, to

select its general election nominee

in the 5th Congressional District.

Given the late announcement of the

convention date, the Commission is

requiring committees involved in

the convention to disclose all of

their convention-related activity on

their July 15 quarterly report.✦

—Amy Kort
July 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Graham v. FEC

On April 25, 2002, the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, Western

Division, granted the plaintiffs’

motion to dismiss this complaint

with prejudice. The complaint, filed

September 14, 2001, had appealed 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. See the

December 2001 Record, page 3.

U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas,

Western Division, 4-01-CV-00635

(SWW).✦

—Amy Kort

Court Cases

New Litigation

FEC v. Democratic Party of New

Mexico

On April 2, 2002, the Commission filed a complaint in the U.S.

District Court for the District of

New Mexico alleging that the

Democratic Party of New Mexico

(the Party) and its treasurer, Judy

Baker, violated the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) by:

• Making excessive contributions

and excessive coordinated expenditures on behalf of the Friends of

Eric Serna Committee (the Serna

Committee) (2 U.S.C.

§§441a(a)(2)(A), 441a(d)(3));

• Using nonfederal funds to influence a federal election (2 U.S.C.

§441b and 11 CFR 102.5(a)(1)(i));

and

• Failing to report expenditures that

were coordinated with the Serna

Committee (2 U.S.C. §434(b)).

On May 15, 2002, the Commission amended its complaint to

include allegations that the Serna

1

 The Commission began its investigation of the Party and the Serna Committee in response to an administrative

complaint. After attempting for at least

30 days to reach a conciliation agreement with the defendants, the Commission filed this court complaint. 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(4)(A)(i).

Audits

Audit of Rod Grams for U.S.

Senate Committee

On May 31, 2002, the Commission approved the final audit report

on the Rod Grams for U.S. Senate

Committee (the Committee). The

report found that between January 1,

1999, and December 31, 2000, the

Committee accepted excessive

contributions and failed to correctly

document redesignations and

reattributions.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits individuals

and unregistered organizations from

making contributions to any federal

candidate that exceed $1,000 per

election. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A). If

a campaign receives an excessive

contribution, the treasurer may ask

the contributor to redesignate the

excessive portion to another election, or may ask the donor if the

(continued on page 6)

Committee violated the Act by

knowingly accepting direct and inkind contributions that exceeded the

limits of the Act.1

 2 U.S.C. §441a(f).

Background. On May 13, 1997, a

special election was held in New

Mexico to fill a vacant seat in the

House of Representatives. No other

governmental office was included

on the ballot. The Commission’s

complaint alleges that the Party

assigned an employee to work with

the Serna Committee during its

campaign to win the special election

seat, and that this employee attended

Serna Committee staff meetings,

met regularly with its campaign

manager to discuss the campaign’s

plans and needs and developed the

field campaign plan for both the

Serna Committee and the Party.

The Party was entitled to spend

$36,800 on behalf of the Serna

Committee—the coordinated party

expenditure limit in 1997 for House

candidates in New Mexico was

$31,810, and the Party could also

make $5,000 in direct contributions

to a candidate committee. 2 U.S.C.

§§441a(a)(2)(A) and 441a(d)(3)(B).

The complaint alleges that the

Party’s expenditures during the

special election campaign totaled

approximately $217,311, and that

these expenditures were coordinated

with the committee and were for

activities that urged the public to

vote for the only Democratic

candidate running in that election.

According to the complaint, the

expenditures by the Party were

coordinated with the Serna Committee, and thus were in-kind contributions subject to the Act’s

contribution limits. The Party,

however, reported only approximately $15,127 as being coordinated with the Serna Committee and

reported the rest, approximately

$202,184, as spending relating to

both federal and nonfederal elections. It funded $173,800 of this

amount from its nonfederal account.

Relief. The Commission asks that

the court:

• Permanently enjoin the Party and

the Serna Committee from violating these provisions in the future;

• Order the Party to transfer

$173,800 from its federal to its

nonfederal account and to file

corrected reports that accurately

describe its coordinated expenditures for the 1997 special election;

and

• Assess appropriate civil penalties

against the Party and its treasurer

and against the Serna Committee.

U.S. District Court for the

District of New Mexico, 02-0372.✦

—Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 2002

6

Audits

(continued from page 5)

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently

resolved twelve 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.

• The Commission reached agreement with John Carroll, the Carroll

2000 Committee and its treasurer,

Brian Yomono, concerning a

complaint alleging the personal use

of campaign funds. The ADR

Office concluded that the violation

alleged in the complaint was

unsubstantiated. The Commission

concurred by dismissing this

matter. (ADR 019; MUR 5157)

• The Commission reached agreement with Ferren for Congress and

its treasurer, J. Richard Grear,

concerning a complaint alleging

disclaimer requirement violations

and the failure to file disclosure

reports. The respondents agreed to

work with Commission staff to

terminate the committee. (ADR

023; MUR 5022)

• The Commission decided to

exercise its prosecutorial discretion

and dismiss the matters concerning

Florio for Senate and its treasurer,

George R. Zoffinger, Friends for

George Fallon and its treasurer, F.

Schindlar, and the Camden County

Democratic Committee and its

treasurer, Christopher T. Morris.

(ADR 028 and 029; MURs 5064

and 5065)

• The Commission reached agreement with the Becker for Congress

Committee and its treasurer,

Robert G. Moyer, concerning a

complaint alleging disclaimer

requirement violations and the

failure to report contributions. The

respondents acknowledged their

failure to include a disclaimer on a

handout and their responsibility for

monitoring the committee’s

campaign material. In order to

better understand the requirements

and responsibilities placed on

federal election campaign committees, the respondents agree to

attend an FEC-sponsored seminar

for campaign committees. (ADR

039; MUR 5096)

• The Commission reached agreement with Cynthia McKinney for

Congress and its treasurer, Elyria

Mackie, concerning a complaint

alleging the failure to report

contributions and the violation of

U.S. House of Representatives

ethics regulations. The ADR

Office concluded that the alleged

violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) were

unsubstantiated. The Commission

concurred by dismissing this

matter. (ADR 043; MUR 5149)

• The Commission reached agreement with Lazio 2000, Inc., and its

treasurer, Anthony J. Picirillo,

concerning a complaint alleging

the failure to pay for services

rendered to the campaign and to

accurately report disbursements.

The ADR Office found nothing to

contribution was intended to be a

joint contribution attributable to

more than one person. 11 CFR

110.1. In the event that the committee does not receive a written

redesignation or reattribution within

60 days, it must refund the money to

the contributor. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(3).

Redesignations and reattributions

must be correctly reported on the

committee’s Form 3, and the

treasurer must keep records of the

transaction. If a committee does not

retain a written record of a

redesignation or reattribution, then it

is not effective and the original

designation or attribution controls.

11 CFR 110.1(l)(5).

During the period in question, the

Committee received excessive

contributions totaling $157,378

from 237 individuals— $138,924

for the primary election and $18,454

for the general election. In addition,

the Committee received eight

excessive contributions from

unregistered organizations, totaling

$2,975, all of which were for

primary activity.

The Committee indicated on its

FEC reports that it had redesignated

or reattributed many of the excessive contributions it received, but

the Commission found that the

Committee did not have written

documentation supporting such

redesignations and reattributions.

Of the $138,924 that the Committee

received in excessive contributions

for the primary, $27,743 represented

untimely redesignations and

reattributions, $26,882 represented

untimely refunds and $84,299

represented contributions that

lacked adequate redesignation and

reattribution documentation. Of the

$18,454 in excessive general

contributions, there were $1,500 in

untimely redesignations and

reattributions, $600 in untimely

refunds and $16,354 in contributions lacking adequate redesignation

and reattribution documentation.

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

The Audit staff also determined that

the Committee paid for primary

election expenses with contributions

that, according to the Committee’s

database, had been designated for

the general election.

The Committee noted that staff

turnover and malfunctioning

electronic filing software contributed to its difficulties in keeping

accurate records. The Commission

recommended that the Committee

refund $100,653 to the individual

contributors, $2,975 to the unregistered organizations and provide

evidence of the refunds. The Committee has since proven that it made

refunds of $4,415 to individuals,

leaving the remaining discrepancies

unresolved.✦

—Kate Miller
July 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

substantiate a violation of the Act

as alleged in the complaint. The

Commission concurred by dismissing this matter. (ADR 048; MUR

5174)

• The Commission reached agreement with Susan Bass Levin for

Congress and its treasurer, Patrick

Brennan, concerning a complaint

alleging the failure to file timely a

Statement of Candidacy and a

Statement of Organization. The

ADR Office concluded that the

violations alleged in the complaint

were unsubstantiated. The Commission concurred by dismissing

the matter. (ADR 049; MUR 4966)

• The Commission reached agreement with the Livingston County

Republican Central Committee and

its treasurer, Sylvia Bashore, and

Friends of Tim Johnson and its

treasurer, James Bray, concerning

a complaint alleging excessive

contributions. The Livingston

County Republican Central

Committee and its treasurer

obtained a refund and agreed to

adopt and maintain guidelines,

including FEC regulations, governing committee contributions to

federal campaigns. They also

agreed to participate in a

roundtable discussion on the

relevant provisions and requirements of the Act. The Friends of

Tim Johnson and its treasurer

refunded the contribution, acknowledged accepting the contribution and agreed to send a

representative to a Commissionsponsored seminar. (ADR 050;

MUR 5139)

• The Commission reached agreement with Lazio 2000, Inc., and its

treasurer, Anthony J. Picirillo,

concerning a complaint alleging

the failure to pay for services

rendered to the campaign and to

accurately report debt. The ADR

Office found nothing to substantiate a violation of the Act as alleged

in the complaint. The Commission

concurred by dismissing this

matter. (ADR 053; MUR 5179)

• The Commission reached agreement with the Mike Bilirakis for

Congress Committee and its

treasurer, Anthony C. Samarkos,

concerning a complaint alleging

the personal use of campaign

funds. The ADR Office concluded,

following a review of the complaint and the response, that the

complaint should be dismissed.

The Commission agreed to dismiss

this matter. (ADR 056; MUR

5200)

• The Commission reached agreement with the Democratic Party of

Illinois concerning corporate

contributions. The respondent

agreed to pay a $1,500 civil

penalty and acknowledged that it

could not demonstrate compliance

with the Act because it lacked

documentation showing that each

contribution in question was from

permissible individual funds and

not corporate funds. The respondent did produce documentation

showing that all the contributions

at issue were refunded to the

contributors or disgorged to the

U.S. Treasury. (ADR 057)✦

—Amy Kort

Nonfilers

The following committees failed

to file pre-primary reports for the

primary elections held on June 4,

2002, in Alabama, Mississippi,

Montana, New Jersey and New

Mexico:

1. Committee for Andy Kissner;

2. Friends of Roger Wicker 2002;

3. Gordon for Congress;

4. Montana for Johnson; and

5. Ross for Congress.

On April 29, 2002, the Commission notified committees involved in

these primaries of their potential

filing requirements. Committees that

failed to file reports by the May 23

due date were notified on May 24

Compliance

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

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2002 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 2001-15,

3:9; 2001-20, 3:9

2001-13: National committee status

of party committee, 1:11

2001-16: Extension of 70-day

window for transferring funds for

allocable expenses after suspension of party fundraising due to

national emergency, 2:1

2001-17: Reporting contributions

made via single check split

between federal and nonfederal

accounts, 3:5

2001-18: Affiliation between LLC

PAC and PACs of corporate

owners in 60-40 joint venture, 3:7

2001-19: Non-preemption of state

law prohibiting political

committee’s bingo license, 3:8

Index

(continued on page 8)
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

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 2002

2002-1: Coalition of minor parties

supporting candidate(s) who

together gain five percent of vote

not eligible for Presidential public

funding, 4:3

2002-2: Preemption of state law

barring lobbyist from fundraising

for Congressional candidate who

is member of Maryland General

Assembly, 4:4

2002-3: State committee status, 6:6

2002-4: Name and Abbreviation of

SSF, 6:7

2002-6: State committee status, 7:4

Compliance

Administrative Fine program

extended, 1:13

Cases resolved under Alternative

Dispute Resolution program, 7:6

Committees fined under Administrative Fine program, 1:13; 2:7;

3:11; 5:5, 6:10

Nonfilers, 6:5; 7:7

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFL-CIO, 2:3; 3:5

– Alliance for Democracy, 5:3

– Baker, 4:3

– Beaumont, 3:4

– Common Cause and Democracy

21, 2:4

– Echols, 5:3; 6:4

– Graham, 7:5

– Judicial Watch, Inc., and Peter F.

Paul, 3:3

– McConnell, 5:3; 6:4

– Miles for Senate, 3:1

– NRA, 5:3

– Wertheimer, 1:12

FEC v. _____

– Democratic Party of New Mexico,

7:5

– Specter ’96, 5:3

Regulations

Administrative fines, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 6:2

Allocation of candidate travel

expenses, interpretation, 3:2

Brokerage loans and lines of credit,

final rules, 7:2

Candidate debates, petition for

rulemaking, 6:4

Civil penalties, no increase, 3:2

Contribution and expenditure

definitions, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 7:3

Independent expenditure reporting,

final rules, 5:2; effective date, 7:1

Soft money rules, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6:1

Use of Internet, public hearing, 3:1

Reports

Alaska and Iowa certified for state

filing waiver, 7:1

April reporting reminder, 4:1

Independent expenditure reporting,

new forms, 6:9; effective date 7:1

Iowa convention reporting, 7:4

IRS filing requirements, 1:11; 6:8

Reports due in 2002, 1:2

Virginia convention reporting, 5:6

48-hour notice periods for 2002

primaries, 3:10

Index

(continued from page 7)