August 2003 Federal Election Commission Volume 29, Number 8

Table of Contents

1 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

1 AFL-CIO and DNC Services

Corp./DNC v. FEC

3 Stevens v. FEC

3 New Litigation

Information

9 IRS Launches New Political

Organization Filing and

Disclosure Web Site

Statistics

10 House and Senate Campaign

Spending

Administrative Fines

11 Committees Fined for Late and

Nonfiled Reports

Alternative Dispute Resolution

11 ADR Program Update

Election Administration

12 NVRA Report Sent to Congress

Public Funding

13 Convention Funds for Democratic

and Republican Parties

13 Commission Certifies Dean for

Primary Matching Payments

Publications

14 Updated Brochures Available

Outreach

14 Conferences in Chicago and San

Diego

14 State Outreach Training

15 Index

Compliance Court Cases

AFL-CIO and DNC Services

Corp./DNC v. FEC

On June 20, 2003, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit upheld the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia’s decision in this case.

The appeals court found that the

FEC’s practice of disclosing documents obtained during an investigation was based on a regulation that,

“while not contrary to the plain

language of the statute, is nevertheless impermissible because it fails to

account for the substantial First

Amendment interests implicated in

releasing political groups’ strategic

documents and other internal

materials.”

Background

On June 17, 1997, the Commission found reason to believe that the

plaintiffs had violated the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

during the 1995-96 election cycle

(MURs 4291, et al.). At the conclusion of its investigation, the Commission voted to take no further

action on MURs 4291, et al., and to

close the files. In keeping with its

long-standing practice of disclosing

the investigatory record once a

MUR is closed, the Commission

AO 2003-5

Federal Candidate’s or

Officeholder’s Participation

in Membership Organization

Fundraising Events

The National Association of

Home Builders of the United States

(NAHB), and its separate segregated

fund (SSF), BUILD-PAC, hold

events in conjunction with NAHB’s

annual convention that raise money

for BUILD-PAC and raise funds and

awareness for NAHB’s “Voter

Mobilization” program. As part of

these events, federal candidates and

officeholders may:

• Attend a meeting for NAHB

members to discuss national policy

issues and solicit funds for

BUILD-PAC;

• Attend a forum to discuss national

policy issues with representatives

from firms and individuals who

have donated to the Voter Mobilization program; and

• Attend an NAHB members’

sporting event and make specific

Advisory

Opinions

(continued on page 5) (continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2003

2

planned to make public a portion of

the investigatory file.

The plaintiffs claimed that public

disclosure of the files would cause

irreparable injury by revealing

confidential information and by

chilling the plaintiffs’ future efforts

to engage in political activities. The

plaintiffs asked the Commission not

to make the documents public;

however, the Commission denied

their requests on the grounds that

the Commission’s regulations under

the Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) required disclosure of the MUR files.

District Court Decision

The plaintiffs had requested

summary judgment from the district

court, arguing, among other things,

that disclosure of the documents

would violate the confidentiality

provision of the Act, which states

that:

“Any notification or investigation

made under [the enforcement]

section shall not be made public by

the Commission or by any person

without the written consent of the

person receiving such notification or

the person with respect to whom

such investigation is made.” 2

U.S.C. §437g(a)(12)(A).

The Commission had argued that

the Act only protects the confidentiality of ongoing investigations.

Once a MUR is closed, the Act

requires the Commission to make

public the conciliation agreement or

the Commission’s determination

that the Act has not been violated. 2

U.S.C. §437g(a)(4)(B)(ii). The

Commission asserted that the Act’s

confidentiality provision was

intended to protect a MUR respondent from disclosure of the fact that

the respondent was under investigation. When the Commission made

public its MUR determination, it

would also reveal the fact that the

respondent had been investigated,

leaving nothing to be protected by

the confidentiality provision. 2

U.S.C. §437g(a)(12)(A).

The district court, however,

concluded that the plain language of

the Act barred the Commission from

publicizing investigative materials

and, thus, that the Commission’s

interpretation of the statute ran

counter to Congressional intent. 2

U.S.C. §437g(a)(12)(A). The court

found that the Act’s provision

requiring that MUR determinations

be made public was a limited

exception to the Act’s confidentiality provision, not a directive to end

the protection of that provision.

Moreover, the court concluded that

publication of the materials would

violate 11 CFR 111.21(a), which

implements the Act’s confidentiality

provision. See the February 2002,

Record, page 3.

Appeals Court Decision

The appeals court carried out its

deliberations under the framework

developed by the U.S. Supreme

Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.

Natural Resources Defense Council.

467 U.S. 837 (1984). In the Chevron

framework, when a court reviews an

agency’s interpretation of the statute

which it administers, the court must

address two questions:

• Whether Congress has directly

spoken on the question at issue;

and

• In a case where the statute is silent

or ambiguous with respect to the

specific issue, whether the

agency’s approach is based on a

permissible construction of statute.

The first question in this case was

whether the Act provides a clear

indication of Congressional intent

regarding the disclosure of investigatory materials from closed

investigations. The Commission

argued that 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(12)(A) was silent on

whether materials from closed

investigations could be released.

The plaintiffs argued that this

provision requires the Commission

to keep investigatory files confidential even after the closing of an

investigation. According to them,

the permissible disclosures are

limited to those set out in a separate

section of the Act (2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(4)(B)(ii)) that requires the

Commission’s disclosure of signed

conciliation agreements and its

findings that a violation has not

occurred.

The court determined that since the

statute itself appears to support two

plausible interpretations, it is ambiguous enough to proceed to the second

stage of the Chevron analysis.

In examining whether, in the

absence of Congressional intent, the

Commission’s disclosure policy

represents a reasonable construction

of the statute, the court noted that

“[C]ourts . . . balance the burdens

imposed on individuals and associations against the significance of the

governmental interest in disclosure

and consider the degree to which the

government has tailored the disclosure requirement to serve its interests.”

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

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)

Ellen L. Weintraub, Chair

Bradley A. Smith, Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 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
August 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

As mentioned above, the plaintiffs argued that the disclosure of the

files would cause them irreparable

injury by revealing confidential

information and by chilling their

future efforts to engage in political

activities. The Commission argued

that its disclosure regulation at 11

CFR 5.4(a)(4) was justified by

deterring future violations of the

Act, and by providing public

accountability for the Commission’s

actions. Additionally, the Commission argued that it was entitled to

deference, as its disclosure policy

represented a long-standing practice.

However, the court found that the

regulation’s requirement that all

investigatory materials not already

exempted by FOIA be disclosed was

not sufficiently tailored “to avoid

unnecessarily burdening the First

Amendment rights of the political

organizations it investigates,” like

the plaintiffs.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 02-

5069.

—Jim Wilson

New Litigation

Cox for U.S. Senate, Inc., et al. v.

FEC

On May 30, 2003, Cox for U.S.

Senate and its treasurer, John H.

Cox, filed a complaint in the U.S.

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin

the Commission from enforcing

against them its final determination

that they failed to file two 48-Hour

Notices and its assessment of a civil

money penalty. The plaintiffs also

challenge the constitutionality of the

William J. Stevens, et al. v.

FEC

On June 5, 2003, the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois granted the Commission’s

motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’

complaint. The complaint had

challenged the Commission’s final

determination that the Libertarian

Party of Illinois (LPI) and its former

treasurer William J. Stevens had

failed to file timely the committee’s

2001 mid-year report and the

assessment of a civil penalty. 2

U.S.C. §434(a). See the October

2002 Record, page 7.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the

statute of limitations because they

had not appealed the Commission’s

determination within the 30-day

time period allotted by the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act). 2

U.S.C. §437g(a)(4)(C)(iii). The

court also denied the plaintiffs’

request to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs had asked to add 2 U.S.C.

§437h as a basis for jurisdiction, in

order to challenge whether the

Commission has jurisdiction over

the types of funds disclosed in the

LPI’s reports. The plaintiffs argued

that the FEC required them to report

local and state activity on the midyear report. The court stated that the

mid-year report appeared only to

require the LPI to report federal

contributions and disbursements,

with the exception of requiring LPI

to report shared federal/nonfederal

operating expenditures. The court

explained that in Buckley v. Valeo

the Supreme Court had already

found the compelled disclosure of

federal campaign finance activity to

be constitutional. The court further

reasoned that if the plaintiffs wanted

to contest the activity on their report

that the Commission used to determine the civil penalty, they should

have made this challenge through

the Commission’s administrative

process.

The court granted the

Commission’s motion to dismiss

and denied the plaintiffs’ crossmotion for summary judgment.

U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, 02-C3291.✦

—Amy Kort

Commission’s administrative fine

schedule at 11 CFR 111.44.

Background. Mr. Cox was a

Senate candidate in the 2002

elections. He made personal loans to

his campaign on March 5 and March

12, 2002, both of which fell within

the 48-Hour Notice period for

contributions received during the 20

days before—up to 48-hours

before—an election. The plaintiffs

did not file 48-hour notices disclosing these loans, which totaled

$219,507.47.

On September 18, 2002, the

Commission found reason-tobelieve (RTB) that the plaintiffs

violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a), which

requires the timely filing of reports.

The RTB notice identified three

contributions for which 48-Hour

Notices were required but were not

filed, including the two loans and a

$5,000 contribution from another

source. Based on the FEC’s schedule of administrative fine penalties,

the Commission calculated a civil

penalty of $22,770, which represented $100 for each nonfiled notice

plus 10 percent of the dollar amount

of the contributions not disclosed.

The plaintiffs challenged the RTB

finding under the administrative

process provided for in Commission

regulations. 11 CFR 111.35-111.37.

On April 15 the FEC Reviewing

Officer recommended that the

Commission make a final determination that the plaintiffs violated 2

U.S.C. §434(a) and assess a reduced

civil money penalty of $22,150,

based on the two loans. The Commission adopted the Reviewing

Officer’s recommendation and made

a final determination on April 29.

Court Complaint. In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the

court should set aside the

Commission’s finding and assessment of the civil penalty because

their failure to file was inadvertent.

The plaintiffs assert that the purpose

of election sensitive reports is to

eliminate surprise on the part of

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2003

4

campaigns who would not otherwise

know about opponents’ pre-election

fundraising. According to the

complaint, Mr. Cox publicly

announced his intention to make the

loans, and the plaintiffs’ failure to

immediately disclose the

committee’s actual receipt of the

loans did not contravene the purpose

of 2 U.S.C. §434(a). Furthermore,

the plaintiffs contend that basing the

amount of the fine on the dollar

amount of the contribution in

question does not distinguish

between honest mistakes and

egregious violations. The plaintiffs

also argue that circumstances the

committee faced just prior to the

election, while not qualifying as

“extraordinary circumstances” under

Commission regulations, justify the

complete or substantial waiver of

the civil money penalty.

In addition, the plaintiffs ask the

court to find that the schedule of

penalties under the Commission’s

administrative fines regulations is

unconstitutional because it violates

the Fifth and Sixth Amendment

rights to due process. The plaintiffs

claim that the penalties assessed

under the fine schedule are so severe

that they become criminal penalties,

and that the fine schedule is arranged to treat one-time offenders

with large amounts of contributions

more harshly than repeat offenders

with little activity to report.

Relief. The plaintiffs ask the court

to:

• Declare the penalties set forth at 11

CFR 111.44 unconstitutional;

• Enjoin the Commission from

enforcing its final determination

and assessment of a civil penalty

against the plaintiffs; and

• Set aside the final determination

and vacate the civil money penalty.

U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, 03C-3715.✦

—Amy Kort

FEC v. Dear for Congress

On June 5, 2003, the Commission

filed a complaint in the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of

New York against Dear for Congress, Inc., Dear 2000, Inc., Friends

of Noach Dear ’93 and these

committees’ treasurer Abraham

Roth. The complaint alleges, among

other things, that:

• Dear for Congress, Dear 2000 and

Mr. Roth accepted hundreds of

thousands of dollars in prohibited

contributions;

• Dear for Congress, through Mr.

Roth, filed FEC reports showing

that more than $300,000 in excessive contributions had been

refunded to contributors when, in

fact, none of the refunds had been

made when the report was filed,

and over $200,000 remains to be

refunded; and

• Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth

accepted numerous money orders,

purportedly from individual

contributors, that were not made

by the persons identified on the

money orders.

The Commission asks the court

for a civil penalty, declaratory and

injunctive relief and for the maximum civil penalty for each violation.

Background. This complaint

arose from FEC administrative

matters under review 4935 and

5057. The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) limits the

aggregate amount that a person may

contribute to a federal candidate,

and it prohibits any person from

making a contribution in the name

of another person and any person

from knowingly accepting such a

contribution. 2 U.S.C. §§441a(f) and

441f. The Act also bars corporations

and unions from making contributions from treasury funds to influence a federal election and any

person from knowingly receiving

such a contribution. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(a). Committees and their

treasurers are also required to file

timely and accurate campaign

finance disclosure reports. 2 U.S.C.

§§434(b)(4)(F), 434(b)(8) and

434(a)(6)(A). On May 1, 2003, the

Commission found probable cause

to believe that the defendants had

violated these provisions of the Act,

and it filed this suit after failing to

reach a conciliation agreement with

the defendants. 2 U.S.C.

§§437g(a)(4)(A) and (a)(6)(A).

Court Complaint. Mr. Dear was

an unsuccessful House candidate in

the 1998 New York primary, and

Dear for Congress was his campaign

committee. During the campaign,

Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth

accepted several sets of sequentially

numbered money orders, purportedly from some 47 individuals,

totaling approximately $40,000.

However, the Commission alleges

that Dear for Congress campaign

staff executed at least some of these

money orders. Several money orders

were signed in the same handwritCourt Cases

(continued from page 3)

FEC Accepts Credit

Cards

 The Federal Election

Commission now accepts

American Express, Diners Club

and Discover Cards in addition to

Visa and MasterCard. While most

FEC materials are available free

of charge, some campaign finance

reports and statements, statistical

compilations, indexes and

directories require payment.

Walk-in visitors and those

placing requests by telephone

may use any of the above-listed

credit cards, cash or checks.

Individuals and organizations

may also place funds on deposit

with the office to purchase these

items. Since pre-payment is

required, using credit cards or

funds placed on deposit can speed

the processing and delivery of

orders. For further information,

contact the Public Records Office

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

694-1120.
August 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

ing, and many of the individuals

whose names appear on the money

orders deny making contributions to

the committee or contributions via

money order. Moreover, the Commission alleges that in accepting

these contributions, Mr. Roth failed

to comply with the statutory requirement to examine the legality of each

of these facially irregular contributions. 2 U.S.C. §432(b)(1).

The Commission also alleges that

during the 1998 election cycle, Dear

for Congress and Mr. Roth accepted

approximately $564,000 in excessive contributions and did not

refund or redesignate the contributions within the 60-day period set by

Commission regulations. 11 CFR

103.3(b)(3). Dear for Congress and

Mr. Roth also accepted impermissible campaign contributions from

several corporations, totaling about

$12,000. Moreover, the committee

and Mr. Roth have still not refunded

approximately $200,000 in excessive contributions, and the complaint describes a number of

reporting violations by Dear for

Congress and Mr. Roth, including

falsely reporting refunds of impermissible contributions.

The complaint further alleges that

Mr. Dear’s nonfederal campaign

committee made an excessive

contribution to one of his federal

campaign committees. In addition to

running for the House in 1998, Mr.

Dear also campaigned for a New

York City council seat. Friends of

Dear was his campaign committee

for that election, and Mr. Roth

served as treasurer. In December

1999, Mr. Dear established Dear

2000 to serve as his principal

campaign committee for his campaign to win a House seat in the

2000 primary. Mr. Roth again

served as treasurer. During 1999

Friends of Dear purchased an

opinion poll for $40,000 and

contributed the results to Dear 2000.

The Commission alleges that once

Mr. Dear became a candidate for

federal office, the donation of the

opinion poll resulted in an excessive

solicitations for the Voter Mobilization program.1

Background

For a number of years NAHB, an

incorporated membership organization, has conducted a Voter Mobilization program, which consists of

partisan communications to NAHB

members and their families and

communications to the general

1 The Commission determined that a

plan to invite the Secretary of Housing

and Urban Development to an event is

not subject to the limitations of the

BCRA or the Act, because the Secretary

is not a federal candidate or elected

officeholder and, as such, is not subject

to the Act’s provisions regarding

participation at events and solicitations. 11 CFR 100.3 and 100.4.

in-kind contribution from Friends of

Dear, which could only contribute

$1,000 per election to Dear 2000.

The Commission alleges that Mr.

Roth knowingly accepted this

excessive contribution on behalf of

Dear 2000 and also failed to report

the contribution on the committee’s

first financial disclosure report, due

January 1, 2000.

Relief. The Commission asks the

court to:

• Declare that the defendants

violated these provisions of the

Act;

• Assess appropriate civil penalties;

• Order Dear for Congress and Mr.

Roth to disgorge to the U.S.

Treasury all unrefunded excessive

contributions, prohibited corporate

contributions and contributions in

the name of another; and

• Permanently enjoin the defendants

from further similar violations of

the Act.

U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of New York,

03CV2897.✦

—Amy Kort

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 1)

public concerning issues significant

to the home building industry. The

program focuses on voter registration, voter turn-out and direct

communication with candidates and

officeholders. NAHB supports the

program with funds from its operating account, which accepts donations that are not subject to the

limits and prohibitions of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act). NAHB identified some of its

Voter Mobilization activities as

falling within the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002’s

(BCRA) definition of “federal

election activity.” See 2 U.S.C.

§431(20)(A). Under the BCRA, if a

501(c) organization such as NAHB

participates in voter registration,

voter identification, get-out-the-vote

or generic campaign activity, a

federal candidate or officeholder

may only solicit funds to support

this activity if the solicitation is

made solely to individuals and the

amount solicited from any individual does not exceed $20,000

during any calendar year. 11 CFR

300.65(b).

Further, the Act has long restricted fundraising by incorporated

membership organizations for their

SSFs, and the BCRA has added new

restrictions on the role that federal

candidates and officeholders or their

agents can play in raising funds. See

2 U.S.C. §441i(e). For example,

federal candidates and officeholders

may not solicit funds in connection

with an election unless the funds are

subject to the limits and prohibitions

of the Act. 11 CFR 300.61 and

300.62.

Analysis

Attending a members’ meeting

and soliciting for BUILD-PAC. A

federal candidate or officeholder

may speak at a meeting for NAHB

members and may be listed as a

“featured guest” in pre-event

materials distributed to the

organization’s restricted class, as

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2003

6

long as the materials do not constitute a solicitation for nonfederal

funds. See 11 CFR 114.3(a), (c)(1)

and (c)(2).

The candidate or officeholder

may also solicit contributions to

BUILD-PAC at the members’

meeting, because the solicitations

would be for federally permissible

contributions.2

Attending a national policy issues

forum. A federal candidate or

officeholder may also speak at a

meeting for representatives of firms

or individuals who have made

donations to the Voter Mobilization

effort, and may be listed as a

featured guest in the pre-event

material so long as the material is

not a solicitation for nonfederal

funds. Merely attending or speaking

at the event would not constitute a

solicitation.

Attending a membership sporting

event and raising funds for BUILDPAC or Voter Mobilization. NAHB

intends to hold an event for its

members, such as a golf tournament.

In addition to attending the event

and being listed in promotional

materials as a featured player, a

federal candidate or officeholder

may solicit contributions on behalf

of BUILD-PAC or the Voter

Mobilization program. When

soliciting contributions to BUILDPAC, the candidate or officeholder

must again comply with the Act’s

requirements for solicitations on

behalf of an SSF.

Solicitations for the Voter

Mobilization program would

constitute solicitations for voter

registration and other activities,

some of which will constitute

federal election activity under 2

U.S.C. §431(20)(A)(i) and (ii).

Thus, a federal candidate or office- 3 The Commission noted that its

analysis and opinions turned on the

conduct of the federal candidate or

officeholder and would not be affected

by any advice or instruction that NAHB

planned to give the candidate or

officeholder.

AO 2003-10

Solicitation of Nonfederal

Funds by a Relative of a

Federal Candidate

Rory Reid, son of U.S. Senator

Harry Reid, may raise nonfederal

funds for the Nevada State Democratic Party without being considered an agent of Senator Reid, even

if he has acted and continues to act

as the Senator’s fundraising agent in

certain circumstances. Rory Reid’s

fundraising activities will only be

attributed to a federal candidate or

officeholder if he is acting on the

authority of that candidate or

officeholder.

Background

Rory Reid is a Commissioner of

Clark County, Nevada, and plans to

raise funds on behalf of the Nevada

State Democratic Party. He would

include his name on invitations and

solicitations, make personal appearances at state party fundraisers,

place fundraising calls and personally solicit contributors.

Nevada state law permits the

party to solicit and accept funds

which are prohibited under federal

law, including unlimited amounts

from individuals, corporations and

labor organizations. Commissioner

Reid would raise these federally

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

2 The solicitation must also meet the

requirements for any solicitation on

behalf of an SSF, described at 11 CFR

part 114.

holder may only make a “specific

solicitation” on behalf of the Voter

Mobilization program, solely

soliciting individuals in amounts

that do not exceed $20,000 during

any calendar year. 11 CFR

300.65(b).3

Date Issued: June 26, 2003;

Length: 7 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

prohibited funds for deposit in the

state party’s nonfederal account.

“Agency”

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations prohibit federal candidates and officeholders from

soliciting, receiving, directing,

transferring or spending funds in

connection with a federal or

nonfederal election, unless the funds

are subject to federal limits and

prohibitions. 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1).

Agents of a federal candidate or

officeholder are subject to the same

requirements. An “agent” of a

federal candidate or officeholder is

any person who has actual authority,

either express or implied, to solicit,

receive, direct, transfer or spend

funds in connection with any

election. 11 CFR 300.2(b)(3). Also,

an agent must be acting on behalf of

the candidate or officeholder. 67 FR

49083.

Relevance of Prior Relationships

Though Commissioner Reid is

the son of the Senator and may have

conducted fundraising for the

Senator in the past, neither is

sufficient to make Commissioner

Reid an agent of the Senator.

Simply being the son of the

Senator is not sufficient to make

him an agent of the campaign. An

agency relationship must be accompanied by actual authority to

conduct the fundraising activity on

behalf of the campaign.

Likewise, previous fundraising

activity on behalf of the Senator

would not make Commissioner Reid

an agent of the Senator’s campaign.

The definition of an agent is limited

to when the person is acting pursuant to the actual authority of the

federal candidate or officeholder. 11

CFR 300.2(b). If Commissioner

Reid does not have actual authority

to act on behalf of Senator Reid

when soliciting nonfederal funds for

the state party, then previous

fundraising activity is not, in itself,

sufficient to prohibit the Commis-
August 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

sioner from raising nonfederal

funds.

Relevance of Contemporaneous

Activity

Commissioner Reid may also

raise nonfederal funds for the state

party even if he is an agent of the

Senator’s federal campaign at other

times. The Senator may at times

grant Commissioner Reid actual

authority on behalf of his campaign

to conduct fundraising. So long as

the Commissioner’s fundraising for

the state party is not done on the

authority of the Senator, then it is

permissible under federal law. 67

FR 49083.

Date Issued June 16, 2003;

Length: 6 pages.✦

—Phillip Deen

AO 2003-13

Qualification of “Membersin-Training” as Members of

an Incorporated

Membership Organization

ORTHPAC, the separate segregated fund (SSF) of an incorporated

membership organization, may

solicit its “Members-in-Training.”

Members-in-Training qualify as

members of the organization

because they can be sanctioned by

ORTHPAC and the overwhelming

majority of Members-in-Training

eventually become “Members” of

the organization.

Background

ORTHPAC is the SSF of the

American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), an incorporated membership organization. AAO has

many different levels of membership, one of which is “Members-inTraining.” According to the bylaws

of the AAO, Members-in-Training

must hold a degree of Doctor of

Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy

(or an equivalent degree) and must

satisfy other requirements. As with

all membership categories, Members-in-Training affirmatively

accept an invitation to join the

Analysis

AAO Members-in-Training

satisfy the first two criteria for

membership set forth in Commission regulations: they meet certain

professional requirements for

membership and affirmatively

accept the invitation to join the

organization. They do not, however,

have any participatory rights in the

governance of the organization, pay

dues or have any significant financial attachment to AAO. Therefore,

Members-in-Training do not fully

satisfy the specific membership

standards in the Commission’s

regulations. However, the regulations allow the Commission to

decide on a case-by-case basis

whether or not persons who do not

meet the specific requirements for

membership may nonetheless be

treated as members because they

have a relatively enduring and

independently significant financial

or organizational attachment to the

organization. 11 CFR 100.134(g)

and 114.1(e)(3).

The Commission regulations

regarding membership were derived

from the Circuit Court decision in

Chamber of Commerce v. FEC. In

that case, the court noted that being

subject to sanction by an organization might be considered “the most

significant organizational attachment.” 69 F.3d at 605. Moreover,

the statistics show that a vast

majority of Members-in-Training

become full members, which

indicates an enduring relationship.

Given that Members-in-Training are

subject to sanction by AAO, and

given that an overwhelming majority of Members-in-Training become

full members, the Commission

determined that Members-inTraining qualify as members under

the Act. As such, they may be

solicited by ORTHPAC.

Date issued: June 2, 2003;

Length: 8 pages.✦

—Gary Mullen

organization. Members-in-Training

do not pay dues or have any voting

rights under the bylaws, but they are

subject to the AAO’s Code of Ethics

and may be sanctioned by the

organization.

According to the AAO, 80

percent of all ophthalmology

residents are Members-in-Training.

Upon successful completion of the

residency program, a Member-inTraining is invited to become an

Active Member/Fellow of the

Academy, and 93 percent of all

ophthalmologists in the U.S. are

AAO members.

Regulations

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act), a corporation, or a separate segregated fund

established by a corporation, may

only solicit contributions from its

restricted class. 2 U.S.C.

§441(b)(4)(A). In the case of

incorporated membership organizations, the restricted class includes

the executive and administrative

staff of the organization, members

and the families of those two

groups. Commission regulations

define “member” to include all

persons:

1. Satisfying the requirements for

membership in an organization;

2. Affirmatively accepting an

invitation to join the organization; and

3. Meeting one of the following

criteria:

• Having some significant

 financial attachment to the

 organization, such as a signifi-

 cant investment or ownership

 stake; or

• Paying membership dues at

 least annually; or

• Having a significant organiza-

 tional attachment to the mem-

 bership organization that

 includes affirmation of mem-

 bership on at least an annual

 basis and direct participatory

 rights in the governance of the

 organization.

11 CFR 114.1(e)(2). (continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2003

8

1 However, a magazine article that

described the process for an employee

to establish automatic monthly deductions to the PAC, provided a telephone

number to call for more information

and included several positive references to the convenience of using the

automatic deduction system would be a

solicitation. AO 1999-6. Likewise, a

solicitation would result from a

corporate newsletter’s description of

PAC fundraising activities that quoted

the fund’s chairman as commending the

enthusiasm of employees who participated. AO 1979-13.

AO 2003-14

Distribution of Apron Pins

Bearing PAC Name

Home Depot, Inc.’s political

action committee, The Home Depot

Better Government Committee

(Home Depot PAC), may distribute

to PAC contributors apron pins with

the Home Depot logo and the word

“PAC.” Given the design of the

pins, their small size and nominal

value and the limited manner in

which they are likely to be displayed

by recipients, the pins do not by

themselves encourage or facilitate

the making of a contribution and

thus do not constitute a solicitation

for the PAC. Home Depot PAC may

also send a letter accompanying the

pin thanking the recipient for his or

her contribution.

Background

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act), a corporation or its PAC may solicit contributions to the PAC from the

corporation’s restricted class, which

consists of the corporation’s executive and administrative personnel,

its stockholders and their families.

Such a solicitation would include,

beyond a straightforward request for

funds, encouraging support for the

PAC or facilitating contributions to

it. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4); 11 CFR

114.1(c) and 114.5(g). Solicitations

beyond the restricted class are

generally prohibited.

Home Depot PAC intends to

distribute apron pins to members of

its restricted class as a token of

appreciation for making a contribution to the PAC. The pin is about

one and one-half inches long and

depicts the dome of the U.S. Capitol

atop the Home Depot logo with the

word “PAC” underneath the logo.

Each pin is worth less than 50 cents.

Home Depot distributes numerous

apron pins to its employees for

various purposes, and the PAC pin

would be similar in size to these

1988-2, 1983-38, 1982-65, 1980-65

and 1979-66. In one instance, the

Commission found that a trade

association posting of PAC reports

“without comment or embellishment” on an access-restricted

bulletin board was a “passive

conduit of information” that did not

constitute a solicitation because it

did not encourage support of the

PAC or facilitate contributions. AO

1988-2.

In this case, the PAC apron pin

by itself does not encourage or

facilitate the making of a contribution. The PAC apron pins would do

little more than convey information

that might generate an inquiry,

given that:

• The PAC apron pins consist of the

Home Depot logo with the Capitol

Dome and the word “PAC”;

• The PAC apron pins are of nominal value;

• Home Depot has a tradition of

distributing apron pins;

• The PAC pin is unlikely to be

conspicuous among the other pins

worn; and

• The pins will only have limited

exposure to people outside or

inside the restricted class.

As long as Home Depot and

Home Depot PAC do not monitor

the display of PAC pins or otherwise violate the Act’s restrictions

against coercion, the distribution of

the PAC apron pins for display on

the shop aprons of members of the

restricted class is permissible and

does not constitute a solicitation for

contributions to the Home Depot

PAC under 2 U.S.C. §441b. See also

2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(3) and 11 CFR

114.5(a).

In addition, the Home Depot

PAC may send a letter when distributing the pins explaining that the pin

is a token of appreciation for PAC

contributions. The letter will only be

sent to members of the restricted

class who have already contributed

to the PAC. Under the Act, corporations and their PACs are generally

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

pins. The pins would be sent to the

recipients at their homes along with

a note thanking them for their

contribution. Neither Home Depot

nor its PAC would have further

communication with the recipients

regarding the apron pin.

Every Home Depot employee

receives and orange shop apron, but

only store employees are required to

wear them on a daily basis. Home

Depot PAC estimates that only six

percent of the pins will be distributed to store employees. The

overwhelming majority of recipients

only wear their aprons for ceremonial purposes at quarterly corporate

meetings. Therefore, approximately

94 percent of the pins would be

worn only for ceremonial purposes

before members of the restricted

class, if at all. Given Home Depot’s

long tradition of issuing apron pins

and their customary display, it is

unlikely that recipients would wear

the pins other than on their shop

aprons. Home Depot and the Home

Depot PAC would not encourage or

discourage recipients from wearing

the apron pin.

Analysis

In past advisory opinions the

Commission determined that a

communication regarding PAC

activity is not a solicitation as long

as the information provided neither

encourages readers to support the

PAC nor facilitates contributions to

the PAC.1

 AOs 2000-7, 1991-3,
August 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

permitted to solicit and otherwise

communicate with members of the

restricted class. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2)(A).

Date Issued: June 20, 2003;

Length: 4 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 2003-19

Permissibility of national party

committee’s sale of old office

equipment and furniture in arm’s

length transactions under the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of

2002 (Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, Inc., June 27,

2003)✦

Information

IRS Launches New Political

Organization Filing and

Disclosure Web Site

On July 1, 2003, the Internal

Revenue Service launched the new

Political Organization Filing and

Disclosure web site at www.irs.gov/

polorgs (IRS Keyword: political

orgs). The new web site makes it

easier for political organizations to

electronically file required documents and greatly improves the

public’s access to them. The web

site was developed to reflect

changes in the filing requirements

for section 527 political organizations required by Public Law 107-

276 (November 2002).

While political committees filing

with the FEC are not required to file

IRS Form 8871, Political Organization Notice of Section 527 Status,

and Form 8872, Political Organization Report of Contributions and

Expenditures, readers of the FEC

Record may represent organizations

that have an IRS filing requirement

or may be interested in searching

notices and reports filed with the

IRS by political organizations.

The new web site, which is more

user friendly and simpler to navigate, contains two major components: the Political Organization

Filing Center and the Political

Organization Disclosure Page.

The features of the Political

Organization Filing Center include:

• Electronic filing of Form 8871;

• Electronic filing of Form 8872;

• Immediate electronic acknowledgment of filing;

• On-screen help;

• The ability to accept data uploads

from financial software;

• The ability to save data for viewing, completion and submission at

a later time; and

• The ability to view and print

submitted forms.

The Political Organization

Disclosure page offers an improved

tool to support public disclosure of

political activity, allowing for a

better informed public. The Political

Organization Disclosure page can be

used to search paper and electronic

filings of Forms 8871 and Forms

8872, as well as paper filings of

Form 990, Return of Organizations

Exempt from Income Tax, filed by

political organizations. Searches of

paper filings and previously filed

data are limited, but the system

alerts the user to the boundaries of

any search and gives tips on how to

achieve the best results. However,

from this point forward, the new

web site will capture all of the

information electronically filed by

political organizations, thus significantly expanding the range and

amount of searchable information.

Users can conduct three different

types of searches:

• The Basic Search locates information about political organization by

name, the date the report was

received or by the EIN (Employer

Identification Number).

• The Advanced Search has the

ability to go beyond the Basic

Search by locating a political

organization that filed electronically by all fields, such as name of

the organization’s contact person,

the amount of a contribution or the

name of a contributor.

• The Popular Search provides easy

access to routine information. A

user simply chooses one of the

predefined searches, such as a

listing of all organizations that

filed any Form 8871 on the

previous day, persons making

yearly contributions in excess of

an amount the user determines or

persons receiving payment in

excess of an amount the user

determines.

In addition to the search capabilities, a user can download the entire

database of electronically submitted

Forms 8871 and Forms 8872.

Users can locate the new Political

Organization Filing and Disclosure

web site by entering the IRS Keyword “political orgs” from the main

page of the IRS web site

(www.irs.gov) or by typing in the

direct web site address of

www.irs.gov/polorgs.

More information is available via

the:

• IRS web site: www.irs.gov;

• Political Organization Filing and

Disclosure web site (includes

information on filing requirements): www.irs.gov/polorgs (IRS

Keyword: political orgs)

• IRS toll free number: 1-877-829-

5500. Staff at this number answer

questions about tax law filing

requirements for political organizations and are available from 8:00

a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.✦

—Submitted by the Internal

 Revenue Service
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2003

10

House and Senate

Candidates Spent $936

Million on 2002 Campaigns

During 2001-2002, House and

Senate candidates spent a total of

$936.4 million on their campaigns.

The 2,097 candidates who participated in Congressional primary and

general election campaigns raised a

total of $969.5 million dollars

during those two years, 7 percent

below the record financial activity

in the Congressional campaigns of

the 2000 elections.

An unusual set of campaigns in

large states during 2000 led to

extraordinary spending in that

campaign, and all of the decline in

Congressional campaign activity for

the 2002 elections was found among

Senate races. During 2001-2002,

Senate candidates raised $326.1

million and spent $322.4 million,

about 25 percent below 2000 levels.

House candidates, by contrast,

increased their financial activity

during 2001-2002, raising $643.3

million (5 percent above 2000

totals) while spending $613.9

million (up 7 percent from the

previous election).

Contributions from individuals

totaled $536.8 million, which, at 55

percent of total receipts, represent

the largest source of funds for both

House and Senate candidates.

Contributions from PACs totaled

$274.3 million, or 28 percent of

receipts. Candidates themselves

provided $110.2 million, which

represented 11.4 percent of all

funding.

Senate campaigns took in 66

percent of their receipts from

individual contributors, while House

campaigns took in 50 percent of

their receipts from individuals.

PACs, on the other hand, contributed a larger percentage of receipts

for House candidates than for

Senate candidates, 33 percent as

compared to 18 percent. Nevertheless, PAC contributions were the

only major source of receipts that

increased in Senate campaigns

between 2000 and 2002, growing by

nearly 16 percent to $60.2 million.

PACs gave House campaigns

$214.1 million, 11 percent more

than in 2000. The charts below

show the funds raised by winning

House and Senate candidates in the

past five election cycle, along with

the percentage of these funds

contributed by PACs.

Statistics

0

100

200

300

400

500

94 96 98 00 02

Total Funds Raised

Funds from PACs

House Candidates

0

100

200

300

400

500

94 96 98 00 02

Senate Candidates

Total Funds Raised and Funds from PACs for Winning House and Senate

Candidates—1994-20021

Millions of Dollars Millions of Dollars

1 Note that the totals are higher for House candidates than for Senate candidates because of the substantially higher number of

House races in each election cycle.
August 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Committees Fined for

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently

publicized its final action on 15 new

Administrative Fine cases, bringing

the total number of cases released to

the public to 605, with $840,966 in

fines collected.

Civil money penalties for late

reports are determined by the

number of days the report was late,

the amount of financial activity

involved and any prior penalties for

violations under the administrative

fines regulations. Penalties for late

reports—and for reports filed so late

as to be considered nonfiled—are

also determined by the financial

activity for the reporting period and

any prior violations. Election

sensitive reports, which include

reports and notices filed prior to an

election (i.e., 12 day pre-election,

October quarterly and October

monthly reports), receive higher

penalties. Penalties for 48-hour

notices that are filed late or not at all

Administrative

Fines

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1

This penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the report.

2

This penalty has not been collected.

3

The committee filed a paper copy of report but was required to file electronically.

4

The Commission took no further action in this case.

1. Bob Condon for Congress Committee $521

 2. Briggs for Congress $9002,3

 3. City PAC April Quarterly 2002 $900

 4. City PAC July Quarterly 2002 $550

 5. Cohen & Grigsby PAC $350

 6. Hudson Valley PAC $1,350

 7. Keyes 2000, Inc. $9002

 8. Maximus Inc., PAC (MAXPAC) $650

 9. Montana for Johnson July Quarterly 2002 $9001,2

10. Montana for Johnson 12 Day Pre-Primary 2002 $2,0002

11. Political Action Council of Educators

(United Teachers—Los Angeles) $343

12. Raczkowski for Senate $4,200

13. Salt PAC $3,5002

14. Skorski for Congress _____4

15. Voters for Choice/Friends of Family Planning $2,550

Additional Information

A June 18, 2003, news release

provides additional information—

including overall summaries of

Congressional campaigns based on

political party affiliation and

candidate status, comparable

statistics for seven campaigns cycles

and “top 50” rankings of candidates

in various categories. The news

release is available:

• On the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/news.html;

• From the Public Records office

(800/424-9530, press 3) and the

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 and request document 615).✦

—Amy Kort

are determined by the amount of the

contribution(s) not timely reported

and any prior violations.

The committees and the treasurers are assessed civil money penalties when the Commission makes its

final determination. Unpaid civil

money penalties are referred to the

Department of the Treasury for

collection.

The committees listed in the chart

above, along with their treasurers,

were assessed civil money penalties

under the administrative fines

regulations.

Closed Administrative Fine case

files are available through the FEC

Press Office, at 800/424-9530 (press

2), and the Public Records Office, at

800/424-9530 (press 3).✦

—Amy Kort

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently

resolved four additional cases under

the Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) program. The respondents,

the alleged violations of the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and the penalties assessed are listed

below.

1. The Commission reached

agreement with the Bexar County

Democratic Party and its treasurer

Art A. Hall concerning the

committee’s failure to continuously

disclose debt and its misreporting of

cash-on-hand. The respondents

(continued on page 12)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2003

12

agreed to work with staff from the

Reports Analysis Division to file

amended reports as required. The

committee will also appoint a staff

person to serve as compliance

officer and have that individual

develop a manual on reporting

requirements. (ADR 079)

2. The Commission reached

agreement with Transcore Holding,

Inc., concerning its failure to

register and report with the Commission and making excessive

contributions, corporate contributions and contributions in the name

of another. The respondent agreed to

pay a $1,500 civil penalty and to

adopt and distribute to appropriate

personnel a corporate policy advising officers and directors that they

are prohibited from consenting to

any corporate contribution or

expenditure to influence an election.

The respondent will also send a

representative to an FEC-sponsored

conference within the next year.

(ADR 080; Pre-MUR 407)

3. The Commission reached

agreement with the Ashcroft 2000

Committee and its treasurer Garret

Lott concerning the committee’s

failure to continuously report a

disputed debt. The respondents

agreed to pay a $1,000 civil penalty

and to file amended reports to

reflect the disputed debt, which they

will continue to report until the debt

is resolved. (ADR 091; MUR 5298)

4. The Commission dismissed the

matter concerning 21st Century

Democrats, formerly registered as

“Democrats 2000,” and its treasurer

Michael Lux. The ADR Office

concluded that allegations regarding

excessive contributions and the

respondents’ failure to register with

the Commission were unsubstantiated. (ADR 092; MUR 5308)✦

—Amy Kort

Alternative Dispute

Resolution

(continued from page 11)

Election

Administration

Commission Submits NVRA

Report to Congress

On June 30, 2003, the Commission approved the Office of Election

Administration’s report to Congress

documenting the impact of the

National Voter Registration Act of

1993 (NVRA) during the 2001-2002

election cycle, and making recommendations for improvements in

election administration.

The report found overall that

there are 147,843,598 individuals

currently registered to vote in the 44

states covered by the Act and the

District of Columbia.1

 According to

the study, during the 2001-2002

election cycle:2

• Nationwide, 37,473,694 registration applications or transactions

were processed. Over half—

19,703,912—were new registrations (i.e., registrations new to the

local jurisdiction, as either firsttime registrants or registrations

across jurisdictional lines).

• Voter registration applications

received through motor vehicle

offices during 2001-2002 yielded

the highest volume of applications

ever reported by a single registration method mandated by the

NVRA, accounting for 42.77

percent of the total number of

registration applications received

in the U.S.

• Mail registration programs accounted for 27.64 percent of the

1 Six states are exempt from the provisions of the NVRA: Idaho, New

Hampshire, North Dakota, Minnesota,

Wisconsin and Wyoming.

2 These figures do not include registrations in most of November and all of

December of 2002. Registration activity

is generally higher in election cycles

with Presidential campaigns.

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names

of political action committees

(PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

 To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

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

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free at www.fec.gov/

pages/pacronym.htm.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

registered PACs showing each

PAC’s identification number,

address, treasurer and

connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

identification number ($7.50).

The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., NW.
August 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

3 The Help America Vote Act transfers

the responsibility for this report to the

U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The transfer will take effect once the

new commission is established.

Public Funding

Democratic and Republican

Parties Certified for

Convention Funding

The Democratic and Republican

convention committees will each

receive $14,592,000 from the U.S.

Treasury for planning and conducting their respective 2004 Presidential nominating conventions. On

June 27, 2003, the Commission

certified that the parties’ convention

committees have met all eligibility

requirements for public funding. 26

U.S.C. §9008(g) and 11 CFR

9008.3(a)(3) and (4).

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act permits all eligible

national committees of major and

minor parties to receive public funds

to pay the official costs of their

Presidential nominating conventions. Each major party convention

committee is entitled to receive $4

million,1

 plus an adjustment for

inflation (since 1974). 26 U.S.C.

§9008(b)(1) and 11 CFR 9008.4(a).

Initial payments are made by the

U.S. Treasury on or after July 1 of

the year preceding the Presidential

election. Payments for an additional

cost-of-living adjustment will be

made in 2004. In exchange for

public funding of the conventions,

committees agree to certain requirements, including spending limits,

the filing of periodic disclosure

reports and detailed audits by the

Commission.

1 Originally, the limit was $2 million,

plus COLA. That figure was increased

to $3 million, plus COLA, for the 1980

conventions and to $4 million, plus

COLA, for the 1984 conventions.

total number of applications

received during the reporting

period.

• The states reported that 8.74

percent of registration applications

were duplicate requests for registration by successfully registered

voters. The remaining 38.68

percent of the transactions were

primarily changes of names and

addresses. A total of 15,009,935

names were deleted from the

registration lists under the

NVRA’s list verification procedures, while another 20,596,513

registrants were declared “inactive.”

The NVRA also requires the

Commission and the Office of

Election Administration to make

recommendations for the administration of elections under the

NVRA. The Help America Vote Act

of 2002 incorporated, in whole or in

part, three of the Commission’s

previous recommendations.3

 In the

current report to Congress, the

Commission reiterated its recommendations that:

• The U.S. Postal Service create a

new class of mail for “official

election material,” provided at the

most reduced rates possible for the

first class treatment of this mail,

and provide space in their postal

lobbies free of charge to state and

local election officials for voter

registration material; and

• States develop and implement an

on-going, periodic training program for relevant motor vehicle

and agency personnel regarding

their duties and responsibilities

under the NVRA as implemented

by the state’s law.

The full NVRA report to Congress is available on the FEC web

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

nvrareport2002/

nvrareport2002.pdf.✦

—Amy Kort

Commission Certifies Dean

for Primary Matching

Payments

On July 3, 2003, the Commission

certified that Howard Dean’s

Presidential primary committee,

Howard Dean/Dean for America, is

eligible to receive Presidential

primary matching payments. 26

U.S.C. §9033(a) and (b); 11 CFR

9033.1 and 9033.3.

Under the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act, the

federal government will match up to

$250 of an individual’s total contributions to an eligible Presidential

primary candidate. A candidate

must establish eligibility to receive

matching payments by raising in

excess of $5,000 in each of at least

20 states (i.e., over $100,000).

Although an individual may contribute up to $2,000 to a primary

candidate, only a maximum of $250

per individual applies toward the

$5,000 threshold in each state.

Candidates who receive matching

payments must agree to limit their

spending and submit to an audit by

the Commission.

The public funding portion of

Presidential elections is financed by

the Presidential Election Campaign

Fund, which receives funds through

dollars voluntarily “checked off” by

taxpayers on federal income tax

forms. The major parties received

$13, 512,000 for the 2000 conventions and $12, 364,000 for 1996.

The 2004 Democratic National

Convention Committee, Inc., will

hold its convention in Boston, MA,

July 26-29, 2004. The Committee

on Arrangements for the 2004

Republican National Convention

will have its convention in New

York, NY, August 30 through

September 2, 2004.✦

—Amy Kort

(continued on page 14)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2003

14

Conferences in Chicago and

San Diego

In September and October the

Commission will hold conferences

for House and Senate campaigns,

political party committees and

corporations, labor organizations,

trade associations, membership

organizations and their respective

PACs. The conferences will consist

of a series of workshops conducted

by Commissioners and experienced

FEC staff who will explain how the

federal campaign finance law, as

amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),

applies to each of these groups.

Workshops will specifically address

rules for fundraising and reporting,

and will explain the new provisions

of the BCRA. A representative from

the IRS will also be available to

answer election-related tax questions.

Conference in Chicago

The Commission will hold a

conference in Chicago, IL, September 9-10, 2003, at the Millennium

Knickerbocker Hotel. The registration fee for this conference is $385,

which covers the cost of the conference, materials and meals. A $10

late fee will be assessed for registration forms received after August 18.

The Millennium Knickerbocker

Hotel is located at 163 E. Walton

Place. A room rate of $169 per night

is available to conference attendees

who make room reservations on or

before August 18 and identify

themselves as attending the FEC

conference. Call 800/621-8140 or

312/751-8100 to make reservations,

or access the Millennium

Knickerbocker’s reservations web

page via the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences.

Conference in San Diego

The FEC will hold a conference

in San Diego, CA, October 28-29,

2003, at the Hyatt Regency Islandia.

The registration fee is $385, which

covers the cost of the conference,

materials and meals. A $10 late fee

will be assessed for registration

forms received after October 6.

The Hyatt Regency Islandia is

located at 1441 Quivira Road. A

room rate of $159 per night is

available for conference attendees

who make reservations on or before

October 6. To make reservations

call 800/233-1234 and state that you

are attending the FEC conference, or

access the Hyatt Regency Islandia’s

reservations web page via the FEC

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

pages/infosvc.htm#Conferences.

Registration Information

Conference registration information is available online. Conference

registrations will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis.

Attendance is limited to two attendees per organization. FEC conferences are selling out quickly this

year, so please register early. For

registration information:

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail to

lauren@sylvestermanagement.com.✦

—Amy Kort

Outreach

Publications

Updated Brochures Available

The Commission has revised its

brochures on “Contributions,”

“Foreign Nationals” and “Special

Notices on Political Ads and

Solicitations” to reflect changes to

the federal campaign finance law

made by the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The

updated brochures are available on

the Commission’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov/brochures.html.

Given that the upcoming Supreme Court decision in McConnell

et al. v. FEC et al. may affect

portions of the BCRA, the Commission does not intend to print copies

of these brochures or other forthcoming publications for mass

distribution. Instead, the publications will be available on the FEC

web site. A limited number of

printed copies will also be available

for those without Internet access. To

request a printed copy, call the

Information Division at 800/424-

9530 (press 1, then 3) or 202/694-

1100.✦

—Amy Kort

No payments may be made from

the Matching Payment Account

before January 1 of the Presidential

election year. In December 2003,

the Secretary of the Treasury will

certify eligible candidates’ full

entitlements based on a review of

the matching payment submissions

through December 1, 2003.✦

—Amy Kort

Public Funding

(continued from page 13)

FEC to Hold State

Outreach Training

FEC staff will visit Austin, TX,

Denver, CO, and Nashville, TN,

in early August to hold free

training sessions for federal

candidates, party committees and

PACs. Information on these

sessions is available on the FEC

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

pages/infosvc.htm#Conferences.

To register, call 800/434-9530

(press 1, then 3) or send an e-mail

to info@fec.gov.
August 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2003 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

2002-12: Disaffiliation of corporations and their PACs, 2:8

2002-14: National party

committee’s lease of mailing list

and sale of ad space and trademark license, 3:5

2002-15: Affiliation of trade associations, 4:8

2003-1: Nonconnected committee’s

allocation of administrative

expenses, 4:9

2003-2: Socialist Workers Party

disclosure exemption, 5:1

2003-3: Solicitation of funds for

nonfederal candidates by federal

candidates and officeholders, 6:1

2003-4: Corporation’s matching

charitable contribution plan, 6:3

2003-5: Federal candidate’s or

officeholder’s participation in

membership organization

fundraising events, 8:1

2003-6: Transfer of payroll deduction authority, 7:4

2003-7: State leadership PAC’s

refund of nonfederal funds, 7:5

2003-10: Solicitation of nonfederal

funds by relative of federal

candidate, 8:6

2003-13: Qualification of “Members-in-Training” as members of

membership organization, 8:7

2003-14: Distribution of apron pins

bearing PAC name, 8:8

Compliance

ADR program cases, 2:11; 3:3;

5:10; 7:10; 8:11

Letter notification procedures, 3:2

Administrative Fine program cases,

1:25; 2:13; 3:4; 5:7; 7:6; 8:11

MUR 5187: Corporate reimbursements of contributions, 1:22

MUR 5208: Facilitation by national

bank, 2:1

MUR 5270: Failure to accurately

report disbursements and cash-onhand, 6:7

Public hearing on enforcement

procedures, 6:7; 7:7

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFC-CIO and DNC Services

Corp./DNC, 8:1

– Cox, 8:3

– Cunningham, 1:19

– Greenwood for Congress, 4:4

– Hawaii Right to Life, Inc., 1:20

– Lovely, 3:4

– Luis M. Correa, 5:5

– McConnell et al., 6:1

– Stevens, 8:3

FEC v. _____

– Beaumont, 1:20; 7:1

– California Democratic Party, 5:5

– Dear for Congress, 8:4

– Fulani, 2:8

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 2:8;

5:5

– Toledano, 1:20

Regulations

Administrative fines, final rules, 4:1

BCRA reporting, final rules, 1:14

BCRA technical amendments, 2:6

Biennial limit, clarification, 2:1

Brokerage loans and credit lines, 2:4

Contribution limits increase, 1:6

Contribution limits and prohibitions;

delay of effective date, 2:6

Coordinated and independent

expenditures, final rules, 1:10

Disclaimers, fraudulent solicitation,

civil penalties and personal use of

campaign funds, final rules, 1:8

Leadership PACs, NPRM, 2:4

Millionaires’ Amendment, interim

final rules, 2:2

Public Presidential funding and

conventions, NPRM, 5:1; postponement of hearing date, 6:9;

public hearing, 7:8

Index

(continued on page 16)

BCRA on the FEC’s

Web Site

 The Commission has added a

new section to its web site

(www.fec.gov) devoted to the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

of 2002 (BCRA).

The page provides links to:

• The Federal Election Campaign

 Act, as amended by the BCRA;

• Summaries of major BCRA-

 related changes to the federal

 campaign finance law;

• Summaries of current litigation

 involving challenges to the new

 law;

• Federal Register notices

announcing new and revised

Commission regulations that

 implement the BCRA;

• BCRA-related advisory

 opinions; and

• Information on educational

 outreach offered by the

Commission, including

upcoming Roundtable sessions

 and the Commission’s

2003 conference schedule.

 The section also allows

individuals to view the

Commission’s calendar for

rulemakings, including dates for

the Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking, public hearings,

final rules and effective dates for

regulations concerning:

• Soft money;

• Electioneering Communications;

• Contribution Limitations and

 Prohibitions;

• Coordinated and Independent

 Expenditures;

• The Millionaires’ Amendment;

• Consolidated Reporting rules;

 and

• Other provisions of the BCRA.

 The BCRA section of the web

site will be continuously updated.

Visit www.fec.gov and click on

the BCRA icon.
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 August 2003

Index

(continued from page 15)

Reports

April reporting reminder, 4:1

Draft forms and e-filing formats

available for public comment, 1:2

Filing form 3Z-1, 7:2

New forms available, 3:1

July reporting reminder, 7:1

Reports due in 2003, 1:3

Statements of Candidacy/Organization for authorized committees, 3:2

Texas special election reporting, 4:4