February 1992

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 18, Number 2

PUBLIC FUNDING·

FEe INTRCnJCES amcmFF EOOCATIW ADS

AND 8C7.l'LDm

At a January 3, 1992, press conference

held at the National Press Club in washington, DC, FEe Chairman Joan o. Aikens

announced the start of a taxpayer education

effort to help taxpayers "make an informed

choice" when filling out the checkoff question on federal income tax forms. The project, timed to coincide with the mailing of

1991 tax forms to 110 million households,

features public service announcements and a

toll-free telephone line to oPder a free

brochure on the checkoff program (800/486-

8496). .

liThe first question that \-;e taxpayers

will face when filling out those forms asks

if we want to dedicate a dollar of our

taxes to the Presidential election c~

paign," the Chairman stated. She went on

to say that it is the FEC's responsibility

to make sure taxpayers know the facts about

the checkoff before checking "yes" or "no."

Citing the results of a market research

study conducted a year ago, she said that,

while few taxpayers understand how the

Presidential tax checkoff works, many are

interested in learning moce about it.

The FEe first responded to this

interest through public service announcements aired in March and April 1991. This

year's effort, which again features radio

and television public service spots in

English and Spanish, has added a print ad

for which the FEC is seeking public service

placement in magazines and newspapers (see

back page). The media ads publicize the

new toll-free number for ordering the brochure, Which explains why Congress established Presidential public funding and how

checkoff dollars are spent. Additionally,

the FEe has asked computer companies that

produce tax preparation software to program

a "help" command to provide facts about the

checkoff.

FUND SJIORl'FALL ASSURID IN 1996

On January 3, 1992, FEe Chairman Joan

D. Aikens armounced that a J;hortfall i.n the

Presidential Election Campaign Fund for the

1992 elections was now considered unlikely

but warned that a 1996 shortfall "is virtu

allv assured" unless Congress takes action

The Chaicman reported on the status of the

Fund at a press conference to launch a tax

payer education program (see previous

article) •

(continued

PUBLIC FUND~

1 Taxpayer Education Effort

1 Shortfall in 1996

6 LaRouche Denied Matching FUnds

6 Kemp Repayment Hearing

4 PUBLIC APl'FAR.ANCES

4 Upcoming Conferences in Ft., CA and DC

POBLlCATI(WS

7 History of Presidential Fund Act

7 MJDITS: Dukakis and Bush

8 RmJIATICfiS: Final Rules on Bank Loans

10 JlJNISORY OPINICl'fS

REPCRl'S

10 FAGs and party Committees: Pre-Election

Reporting for Presidential Primaries

12 FEDEImL REUISTER Wl'ICE'S

800 LINE

12 Registration by Candidates and Their

Comndttees

13 OEPLI1INCE: mRs Released

15 INDEX
February 1992 FEDERALElECTION COMMISSION

1992 Funding

The Chairman explained that a 1992

shortfall was unlikely because matching'

fund requests received in December and

January were smaller than had been anticipated. Last August, the FEe had projected that Jarnwry and February matching

fund payments would total $18 million.

However. the actual January payment was

$6.4 million, and requests for February

payments totaled $3 million (see Chart 1).

The forecast was also improved by the

fact that total checkoff receipts deposited

in the Fund in 1991 declined much less than

had been anticipated.!/ Moreover, the

inflation rate was loWer than had been

anticipated, which decreased the demand on

the Fund.

At the time of pJblication, the balance

of the Fund was $10.3 million-enough to

cover the February payments. (See Chart 2,

page 4.) This amount represents the net

balance, after the set aside of $110.45

million needed for the general election and

conventions.2/ Additional dollars checked

off by taxpayers this year on 1991 returns

are expected 'Co replenish the Fund for the

remainder of the 1992 primary campaign season.

1996 Funding

The Chairman explained, however, that a

1996 shortfall was certain to OCCl.lr. "one

reason, I' Mrs. Aikens said, "is a structural

flaw in the checkoff program." Payments to

candidates and convention committees are

1The FEC's Fund estimates were based on an

expectation that checkoff dollars would

decline by $2 million. In fact, they

declined by approximately $200,000.

2The Democratic and Republican parties

received most of their public funds-$10.6

D1illion each-in July 1991. The parties

will receive a small payment early in 1992

to adjust the 1991 funding for inflation.

Volume 18, Number 2

indexed to inflation, but the dollar checkoff is not. For example, the 1974 law

established the general election grant for

each major party nominee at $20 million, ee

adjusted for inflation. This year, each

party nominee will receive nearly $55 million, representing a 280 percent increase

over the $20 million base amount. Yet the

dollar checkoff has remained the same.

Chairman Aikens said that 1996 candidates

"could qualify for more than twice the

amount of available checkoff dollars. As a

result, there may not be any public money

available for the primary election canr

paigns in 1996, not because of a lack of

taxpayer participation [in the checkoff

program], but because of the effects of

inflation." (See Chart 3, page 5.)

Stressing that only legislative action

could preserve the public funding program,

she noted three possible solutions the FEe

had submitted to congress: indexing the

checkoff to inflation; supplementing or

replacing the checkoff with traditional

appropriations; or treating the Fund as a

non-discretionary entitle~nt account.

Federal Election CtmDission, 999 E Street, NW, washington, IX: 20463

800/424-9530 202/219-3420 202/219-3336 (TOV)

-roen D. Aikens, Chairman

Scott E. 'lbomas, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott

Danny L. IICIlOna1d

John, Warren McGarry

Trevor Potter

walter J. Stewart, Secretary of the Senate,

EK Officio Commissioner

Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of

Representatives, Ex Officio Cooudssioner2
February 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 2

Chart 1

Matching Funds

January - February 1992

_ February Requests

_ January Payments

Millions of Dollars

$4.0 .--------------

$0

$2.0 I-------------~-----------

$1.5 1-----------

$1.01-----

$3.0 I----------------'--~-

$0.51-----

$3.5 ...--------'------------------~

$2.5

Brown Clinton Harkin Kerrey Tsongas Wilder Buchanan Bush Fulani

3
February 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18,Number2

Chart 2

Status of Presidential Election

Campaign Fund on January 6, 1992

(06 ." ",<I Funds Remaining

_ February Matching Fund Requests .

_ January Matching Fund Payments

_ General Election and Convention Funding

NOTE: Approximately $19 million will be added to the

fund during February, March and April.

Millions of Dollars

$150,.--.------------

$120

4

PUBLIC APPFAlW«ES

2/3 The .Amedcan University

Washington, DC

Commissioner John Warren McGarry

Michael G. Dickerson, Chief

Public Records Branch

2/14 Washington Center for Politics &

Journalism

washington, DC

Commissioner Scott E. Thomas

Michael G. Dickerson, Chief

Public Records Branch

2/25 First Christian Church

Washing-ton, DC

Micha@l G. Dickerson, Chief

Public Records Branch

Dorothy L. ~tcheon, Public

Information Specialist

2;28 Republican Party of california

Burlingame, Califonlia

Craig M. Engle, Executive

Assistant to Commissioner

Lee Ann Elliott

3;27 Tiger Bay Club

Tallahassee, Florida

Chairman Joan D. Aikens

~FEC~

The FEe is planning to hold three

campaign finance conferences in upcoming months. AS yetI the dates and

Florida and California conference

cities have not been determined; look

for details in future issues.

March conference in Florida;

" April conference in california " These conferences will offer workshops for House and Senate candidates

and their committees, party coDUnittees, and PAGs established by corporations, trade associations and labor

organizations.

May Coqx>rate;'Labor conference in OC

This one-day conference in Washington, DC, will focus on corporations,

trade associations, labor organizations and their PACs.
February 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 2

Chart 3

Presidential Campaign Fund:

Money Available and Spent *

Millions of Dollars

$250

$200

$150 ]-----------

$1001----------

$50

so

_ Actual FundsAvailablet

_ Actual Disbursements*

§~~ Projected F=unds Available

Projected Disbursements

1976

Actual

19S0

Actual

1964

Actual

1988

Actual

1992

Projected

1996

Projected

• The Commission used the following assurnptons and estimates in making its projections: (1) a 5 percent inflation rate fo

calendar years 1992-1995; (2) estimated 1992 election cycle payouts to primary candidates based on submissions made in

1991; (3) estimated 1996 election cycle payouts to primary candidates based on 1988 figures adjusted for inflation; (4) in

1996. no incumbent candidate {wide-open field); (5) in 1992 and 1996, no payouts to independent or third party candidates 

convennons.

t "Actual Funds Available" means the balance at the end of the year beiorethe Presidential election year plus election yea

checkoff receipts.

t "Actual Disbursemenls" means disbursements from the Fund during the Presidential election year.

5
February 1992 .FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

IARax:BE DI!N1I!'D MMQUN:; P\H) ELIGIBILITt

on DeceJ:lber 19, 1991, the Corrnnission

made an in!Hal detttmination that Lyndon

H. LaRouche, Jr:., was ineligible to receive

matching funds for his 1992·Presidential

primary campaign. The decision was based

on Me. LaRoucher s past abuse of the public

funding law, his current status as an imprisoned, convicted felon, and the agency's

statutory obligation to protect public

funds.

AIthough Me. LaRouche's threshold

submission for matching funds included the

required letter of agreements and certifications in which he promised to comply with

the law,l/ the Commission .dtd not believe

the letter could be accepted on its face,

based on Mr. LaROuche's record in previous

publicly financed 'campaigns. under FEe

regulations at 11 eFR 9033.4(b), ·when

evaluating a candidate's eligibility for

matching funds, the Commission may consider

a candidate's past ecctces, Among past actions the Commission

considered were MI. LaRouches 1988 criminal conviction for fraudulent fundraising

practices; his previous violations of the

Matching payment Account Act.. evidenced by

nuraerous enforcement matters and'law suits;

and his repudiation of previous letters of

candidate agreements and certifications.

'!he record-shewed that Mr. LaRouche, over

the course of four presidential eatI1paigns,

had established a pattern of submitting

false information to the Commission, fraudulently inducing individuals to contribute

and submitting contributions for matching

that lacked the requisite intent donors

to make a campaign contribution.

The Commission also considered the

impact of Mr. LaRouche's crimina1,conviction and imprisonment on the viability of

his current Presidential campaign. Thirty~

six states prohibit a' currently illlprisoned

felon from appearing 'on their ballots. The

practical difficulties faced by Mr. LaRouche's 1992 campaign, which call into

question the seriousness of his candidacy,

reinforced the agency's decision to denY

his eligibility for matching funds.

The LaRouche campai9fl may respond to

this initial determination within 30 days;

I The original letter, submitted on November

18, 1991, was initially rejected by the

!'EC's office of General Counsel because of

qualifying language added by the LaRouche

campaign; on December 2~ the campaign submitted a revised letter which, on its face,

met the legal requirements.

6

Volume 18, Number 2

the Commission will consider the campaign's

response when making its final determdnation.

IIEARIN3 Ql Q:MP REPAtMmI' DE'I'I!:RMINI\T~

In an open session on December 10,

1991, John J. Duffy, counsel for the Jack

Kemp for President C~ttee, challenged

the Commission's initial detenmination that

the commdttee repay $187,069 in primary

matching funds to the u. S. Treasury. The

committee had received $5.985 mdllion in

matching funds for then-Congressman Kemp's

1988 Presidential campaign. , .'!'he requested repayment, ,mich was

based on the final audit report,1/ consisted of: $60,259, the pro rata portion

of amounts spent in excess of the Iowa and

New Hampshire expenditure limits; and

$126,811, the total of stale-dated conwittee checks that were never cashed.Y

the committee's written response to the

initial repayment determination contested

several findings in the final audit

report. In his presentation before the

Corrunission, Hr. Duffy focused on one particular issue: the FEe's allocation of

certain amounts spent by Campai9Il for Prosperity (CFP). a leadership PAC associated

with Congressman Kemp, to the Iowa and New

Hampshire expenditure limits.

CFP paid $2,498 in costs associated

with certain appearances made by Mr. Kemp

at Iowa and New Hatopshire events that took

place during september and November 1986,

shortly before he announced his Presidential candidacy. Based on CFP'6 disclosure reports and documentation submitted

by the Kemp Committee and eFP in response

to CO!1lmission subpoenas, the agency con--

eluded that Mr. Kemp's appearance at these

events was testing-the-waters. activity in

connection with his prospective Presidential candidacy. CFP's payments therefore

constituted i~kind contributions to the

Kemp COmmittee when Mr. Kemp became a candidate. A portion of the payments ($1..78Z)

was chargeable to the state expenditure

limits.

I The audit report was SUI'lUTlarized in the

September 1991 Record.

21n its written response, the Committee

said that it has resolved $80,511 in staledated checks, providing documentation for

some and stating its intention to subnit

doCumentation for the remaining checks at a

later date.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

February 1992

Mr. Duffy maintained that the appearances did not qualify as testing-the-waters

activity, based on the Commission's determination in AO 1986-6.3/ He also said that

the timing of an appearance should not in

and of itself lead to a determination that

the activity was a testing-the-waters or

campaign event.

The commission will consider the

- Committee's oral and written responses when

it makes a final repayment determination,

which will be accompanied by a Statenent of

Reasons.

PUBLICATIONS

PEe: PUBLISHES LIOOAL mS'lORY OF PUID N::r

In January 1992, the me published the

Legal His~ of the Presidential Election

campaign Act, which traces thE! development of the P\lblic ftmding law fron 1966,

when the first public funding. legislation

was enacted, through 1980, when the current

law was amended to increase the public

funding entitlement for ftlajor party

conventions. .

The 1966 law (Pub. L. 89-909), like the

current law, provided for a Presidential

Election campaign Fund. consisting of

dollars checked of on income tax returns.

However, the law became inoperative a year

later because no budget was authori:zed or

appropriated for its implementation. Floor

debates on Presidential funding and proposed legislation continued until Congress

passed the Revenue Act of 1971 (Pub. L.

92-178), which fanned the basis for the

public funding system in effect today.

Compiled and edited by the FEe's

library staff, the Legal History reprints

the bills, accompanying reports and floor

debates from. which the present law was

derived. It also includes the main body of

a 1957 report on campaign finance activity

in the 1956 general election (the Gore

Report) •

The two-volwre compilation is hard

bound with back pockets for placement of an

index, which will be published in the

310 AO 1986-5, the ColTImission concluded

that a leadership PAC could pay for a

potential candidate's expenses related to

party building and PAC fundraising provtded

that any references to the individual's

potential candidacy were incidental to the

activity.

7

Volume 18, Number 

future. The Legal History has been distributed to federal depository libraries

(state, university and major metropolitan

libraries). It may also be ordered from

the U.S. Government Printing Office at a

cost of $67 for the set. When ordering,

include the title and stock number (052-

006-00051-1) • Checks should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. Mail the

order to: SUperintendent of reeceents,

U.S. GOVernment printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

AUD.ITS·

AtDIT IW'ORI~ m 1968 IXJlWQS 1\ND BUSH

CNlPAI~ m:LEASID

In November and December 1991, the FEe

released to the public three more final

audit reports on 1988 Presidential caepaigns that -received public funds •.!I- The

audit reports contain the Commission's

initial determinations concerning the

amount of public funds tile campaigns must

repay to the U.S. Treasury, based on audit

findings. These initial determinations are

briefly SUQrnarized below.

If the initial determinations are not

disputed within 30 days, they become final.

If a campaign does dispute an initial

determination, the ConPdssion will consider

the response before making a final repayment determination.

n.tkakis Primary canpaign

In the' final audit report on the

Dukakis for President Cbmmittee, Inc.,

the Corranission made several iniHal repayment determinations that amounted to an

overall repayment of $492,164. The Commit

tee had received $9.040 million in primary

matching funds. The total repayment

consisted of ,tile-following amounts:

0$82,171, the pro rata'portion of $277,053

the Comnittee spent in excess of the Iow

expenditure limit;

o $17,319, the pro rata portion of $58,392

spent in excess of the New Ha!rg;:lshire

expenditure limit;

o $314,640, representing matching funds to

which the candidate wee not entitled (the

candidate was in a surplus position on

( continued>

ITo date, the Conunission has completed 21

audit reports on 1988 publicly funded campaigns; the remaining 3 audit reports are

in progress.
February 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

his date of ineligibility, and the

$314,640 natching fund payment was JMIde

after that date);

o $35,634, the pro rata portion of $120,146

in surplus funds that remained after the

conunittee had paid its debts; and

o $42,400. the total of stale-dated

committee checks that were never cashed.

The Dukakis COmmittee made a partial

repayment of $485,000 to the u.s. Treasury

on April 1, 1991, le~vin9 $7,164 as yet

unpaid.

DuJtakis General Election eaupa.ign

The final audit report on the Dukakis/

Bentsen commdttee, Inc. and·the campaign's

legal and comp~iance fund contained one

repayment determination: $334,683 repayable

as interest earned on public funds minus

taxes. The committee made the repayment on

February 14, 1991, satisfying the obligation.

Bush Gene,;a1 EQection CCUlplign

with respect to Bush-Quayle 88, Inc.'

(the Committee) and the campaign's legal

and compliance fund. the Commission'S

initial repayment determinations totaled

$126,510, which consisted of the following

amounts:

o $95,909 in ~xcessive reimbursements ftom

media firms for press travel;2/

o $30,101 in nonqualified campaign

expenses; and

o $500 for a stale-dated check that

remained outstanding.

Additionally, the audit final report

found that the Comnti ttee had' exceeded the

$46.1 million expenditure lintit by

$218;604. The Coromission recommended that,

to resolve the excessive amount, the Committee reduce its expenditures by receiving

a reimbursement from the compliance fund

for expenses which could have been paid by

the fund as exempt compliance costs. The

Committee was required to submit a copy of

the reimbursement check.

2The $95,909 repayment is the difference

between the reimbursements received from

media firms 'equal to 110 percent of actual

media travel costs Ithe maximum billable

amount) and 103 percent of those costs

(costs plus a 3 percent allowance for

administrative expenses). This difference

is considered profit and is therefore

repayable.

8

Volume 18, Number 2

REGULATIONS

FINAL lIJLBS (If BANK W!\NS "

On December 20, 1991, the Commission

sent to congress final revisions to the

bank loan regulations at lL CFR lOO.1(bl

(11) and lOO.B(b)(12), The agency also

transmitted to congress new forms that

implement additional reporting requirements

under revised 11 ern 104.3ldL

'I'he Record will announce the effective

date of the new rules when the Commission

prescribes them, following the expiration

of 30 legislative days in each House of

Congress. 2 U.S.C. S438(dl. The new forms

will become effective on the same date as

the rules.

The final rules and their explanation

and justification were published in the

Federa1.Register on December 27, 1991 (56

FR 67118).

The revisions provide guidance on when

a loan from a lending institution is made

"on a basis which assures repayment. M

They addition~lly clarify that lines of

credit ace subject to the same requirements

as other bank loans. Moreover, the revised

rules focus 00. the restructuring, rather

than the settlement, of bank loans and consider each restructuring a new loan.

CUrrent Rules

The current regulations at 11 CFR

lOO.7(b)(U) .and lOO.B(b)(12) apply to

loans from lending institutions such as

state or federally chartered banks, federally insured savings and loan associations

and federally insured credit unions. under

those rules, which are based on 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(B)(vii), 'a loan from a lending

institution is permissible if it is made in

accordance with applicable banking laws and

in the ordinary course of business. The

regulations define when a loan is made in

the ordinary course of business: (1) the

loan bears the usual and customary interest

rate of the lending institution for the

category of loan involved; ('2) it is evidenced by a written instrument; (3) it is

Subject to a due date or amortization

schedule; and (4) it is made on a basis

which assures repayment.

The revised rules clarify this fourth

condition.

Revised Rules: Methods of A5suring

Repayment

Under new sections 100.1(b)(1l)(i) and

(ti) and lOO.8(b)(12)(i) and (ii), a loan
February 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMM~SSION Volume 18, Number 2

.

is made on a basis which assures repayment

if it is obtained undec either of tWQ

authorized methods or a combination of the

two.

Method 1: Traditional Collateral,

Cosi9J1ers. A loan is made on a basis which

assures repa~nt if it is obtained using

traditional types of collateral and/or

secondary sources of repayment such as

guarantors or cosigners. 11 CFR lOO.7(b)

(ll)(i)(A) and 100.8(b)(12) (i)(A).

Examples of traditional sources of

collateral include: ownership in real

estate, personal property, goods, negotiable insttuments, certificates of deposit,

chattel papers, stocks, accounts receivable

and cash on deposit. For a loan to be made

on a basis which assures repayment, the

recipient candidate or political committee

must document that the lending institution

has a per-fected security interest in the

collateral. (This means that the lender

has taken the legal steps necessary to

protect its interest in the collateral.)

Moreover, the fair market value of the

collateral on the date of the loan must

equal or exceed the amount of the loan and

i1J1Y senior liens. - with respect to secondary sources, an

endorsement or guarantee of a loan is considered a contribution by the endorser or

guarantot and is thus subjeet to the law's

prohibitions and limits on contributions.

Method 2: FUture Receipts. under

11 eFR lOO.7(b)(11)(i)(B) and lOO.8(b)(12)

(i) (B), a loan is also considered to be

made on a basis which assures repayment if

it is obtained using future receipts as

collateral, such as anticipated contributions, interest income and, in the case of

presidential candidates, public financing

payments. The loan may not exceed a

reasonable estimate of anticipated receipts

based on documentation provided by the

borrawer candidate or coounittee to the

lender (e.g., cash flow charts, financial

plans) • The borrower must also provtde the

lender with a written agreement in which

the borrower pledges future funds as

collateral and promises to deposit pledged

funds in a separate account for the repayments. If public financing payments are

pledged, the candidate or committee must

authorize the u.s. secretary of t~ Treasury to deposi t the payments di rectly into

the account. The account may be established at the lending institution or at

another institution that meets the campaign

depository requirements of 11 CFR 103.2.

9

In the latter case, the lender must have

access to the account, and the other institution must be notified of this assignment.

The lender and borrower are free to structure the account in any manner consistent

with the repayment terms.

For example, under a loan agteement,

the borrower may agree to repay $50,000 of

a $100,000 loan using future receipts at a

rate of $10,000 a month for five months.

The borrower must demonstrate that $10,000

will be available in the account at the

time each payrrent falls due. additional funds deposited in the account for

any reason (e.g., public funding payments)

may be wi thdrawn and used fo:r other purposes. Moreover, if any part of the loan

is repaid from another source, that amount

may be withdrawn from the repaYJMnt

account.

Assurance Criteria Not filet. When a

loan is not obtained under the authorized

methods discussed above, the COtllnission

will consider the totality of the circumstances in determining 'Whether the loan was

made on a basis which assures repayment.

11 CFR lOO.7Cb)(1l)(iii') and

lOO.8(b)(12){iii).

Reporting- Requirements. New paragraphs

(d) (1-) through (d)( 3) have been added to

the current reporting rules at 11 eFR

104. 3(d) . The new provisions require additional information on bank loans to show

whether or not a loan or line of credit was

made on a basis which assures repayment.

The committee discloses this information on

new Schedule C-l or C-P-l, which supplement

SChedules C and Schedule C-P. (The "F" indicates that the fonn is used by Presidential committees.) A Schedule C-l or C-P-l

must be filed with the next due report for

each bank loan Obtaine4 or line of credit

established during the reporting period. A

committee must additionally file a new

schedule each time the terms of a loan or

line of credit are restructured and each

time a draw is made on a line of credlt ,

'The new schedule requires a coJM1ittee

to provide the following:

o A copy of the lending agreement (either

the original agreement or the restructured agceement); .

o Information as to the basis on which the

loan was obtained or line of credit was

established, and, if it was not obtained

or established under one of the authorized methods, a statement demonstrating

that it was nevertheless made on a basis

whi ch assures repayment; and

(continued)
February 1992 FEDERAL-ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 2

o certification from the lender that the

infottttation reported by the cOlm\ittee is

correct, that the teems of the loan or

line of credit do not favor the cammdttee

over other borrowers; and that the bank

is aware of, and has complied with, FEe

regulations on bank loans.

,ADVISORY~OPI~IONS

MNlSOR¥ oP]Jl[~ llEJUESTS

Recent reqv.ests for advisory opinions

(AORs) are listed below. The full text of

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

AOR 1992-1

Campaign's payment of salary to candidate

for personal living expenses. (Date Made

Public: January 7, 1992; ~ngth: 4 pages)

JlOR 1992-2

Retroactive reallocation of staff salaries

as fundraising expenses, (Date I1ade 1ic~ January 13, 1992; Len9th~ 8 pages)

AOR 1992-3

corporation's payment of fringe benefits to

employee on unpaid leave to conduct campaign. (Date MaM Publiet Janua~ 13,

1992; Length: 4 pages)

1lOR 1992-4

caropaign' 5 payment of candidate's personal

living expenses and payment of salary to

candidate's "-'ife. (Date Made Public:

January 16. 1992; Length: 2 pages)

KJ 1991-35: Application of Allocation

Rules Mhen SSF's Ncnfederal

Account Pays Its Own

Administrative Expenses

The California Farm Bureau Federation

(eFBF) , a nonprofit corporation, sponsors a

separate segregated fund (Farm PAC) that

maintains both a federal and a nonfederal

account. If the nonfederal account reimburses eFBF. for the nonfederal portion of

Fann PAC's administrative expenses, while

eFBF continues to pay for the federal

account' s portio~, the expenses wi 11 not be

subject to FEC allocation rules at 11 CFoR

106.6{b)(1).

Neither- the Federal Election Campaign

Act nor FEe regulations require a connected

10

organization to pay the administrative and

fundra~sin9 expenses of its. SSF's ~ederal

and nonfedetal accounts. Therefore, eFBF's

proposal to pay only those expenses attrilr

utable to Farm PAC's federal account is

permissible. Moreover, while FEe regulations require allocation by SSFs that pay

their own administrative and fundraising,

expenses•. the allocation rules apply only

if, the federal and nonfederal accounts

share the payment of these expenses. Because ereF will continue to pay the federal

iccount r s expenses, no allocation is required (assuming the expenses are within

the excepted categories that may be paid by

a connected organization under 11 CFR ,

114.1(b)).

The Commission expressed no opinion as

to the possible application of California

state law to the proposed payments by the

nonfederal account since those issues, if

any, are outside the FEe's jurisdiction.

(Date Issued: December 13, 1991; Length:

3 pages)

REPORTS "

PACS AND PAR'l'i" COIMI'l'TEES: PRE-ELEC'TI<JiI'

REPOOTIN3 Fal PRESIDJ!NTIAL PRDWU:ES

£lACs and party conni.ttees filing on a'

quarterly basis in 1992 have to file preprimary reports if they make a contribution

or expenditure in connection with a prima ry

election during the applicable reporting

period. 11 eFR l04.5(c)(1)(ii). A

reporting period begil1s the day after the

close of books for the last report filed

and continues through the close of books

for the pre-election report. This pre-primacy reporting requirement

applies to presidential as well as Congres- sional primaries, The reporting dates for

House and Semtte primaries were published

in the January issue. The table on the

next page lists reporting dates for the

February and March Presidential primaries.

Reporting dates for the remaining Presidential pt"imari(!s will be published in a

future issue.

Please note that a Presidential caucus

or convention held by a major party at the

state or local'lovel is not considered an

"election" for reporting: purposes. 11 CFR

lOO.2(e). Therefore, pre-primary reports

are not required. N) 1979-7L
February 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number.2

• f'E8Rl.1ABY AND MRCEJ PRESIDENl'IAL PRDWUES:

PBE-PR:I!'WtY REPOR'l'ING DA.'IES FOR PACS AND PARTY CQIIIITmES FILIN3 UlAR'l'ERLy

EleetiooDay State or Territory Close of Books-V

Re<J./Cert. eY

Mailing Oat Filing Dat~1

p:ebruary 18 New Hampshire January 29 February 3 February 6

February 25 south Dakota February 5 February 10 February 13

March 3 Colorado February 12 February 1111 February 20

Maryland

Georgia

March 7 . South 'Carol ina February 16 February 21 February 24

March 10 Florida February 19 FebruarY 24 February 27

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Mississippi

OklahoIlB.

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Texas

March 15 Puerto Rico February 24 February 29 March 3 _

March 17 Illinois February 26 March 2 March 5

Michigan

• March 24 ConnecticUt -March 4 March 9 March 12

•

IThis date indicates-the end'of the reporting period.. A reporting petiod always begins the

~y ~fter the closing date of the last report filed.

2.Reports sent by re9iste~ed or 'certifi~d mail tlIUst be postmarked by the mailing date.

Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

3Not e that the last day for a registered/certified postmark is a federal holiday, _when post

offices are closed. The report should therefore be postmarked before that date.

11
February 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL REGISTER

copies of Federal Register notices are

available frOll the Public Records Office.

1991-22

11 eFR Part 114: Campaign Travel on

Corporate Aircraft; Notice of Disposition

of Rulemaking Petition (Common Cause) (56

FR 64566, December II, 1991)

1991-23

Rulemaking Petition: Congressman William

Thomas; Notice of Availability (56 FR

66866, December 26, 1991)

1991-24

11 ern Parts 100 and 104: Loans from

Lending Institutions to Candidates and

Political Comnntitees; Final Rule;

Transmdttal to Congress (56 FR 67118,

December 27, 1991)

800 LINE

IlI!X;IS'mATICH BY C1lNDIDM:'ES lIND

'rBEIR CDIMI'r:1'EES

This article explains when candidates

and their principal campaign committees

(and other authorized committees) are

required to register with the FEC. The

requirements apply both to new candidates

and to candidates who have run in a previous election and are seeking election in

1992 or a future election.

rmE: Registration with the FEC does

not rrean that the individual has qualified

for the ballot, Ballot access requirements

are governed by state law; for information,

consult the state authority (generally, the

secretary of state's office).

candidate Designation of PC'incipal ~iCJR

Cmmittee

Individuals running for federal office

must designate a principal campaign committee within 15 days of becoming a "candidate. w 11 CFR 101.1(a) and 102,12(a).

This requirement applies to candidates who

have never run before and to candidates in

previous elections Who have qualified as

candidates for a future election.

Definition of cancu.date. An individual

becomes a candidate when the individual and

12

Volume 18, Number2

persons,authorized to conduct campaign

activity on his or her behalf receive over

$5,000 in contributions or make over $5,000

in expenditures. 11 eFR 100.3(a)(1) and

(2) •

Unauthorized campaign activity on

behalf of a candidate may also trigger

candidate status unless the individual

disavows the activity by writing a letter

to the FEe within 30 after being notified

by the agency that the unauthorized

activity has exceeded $5,000. 11 eFR

100.3(01(31 and 102.13(0)(2).

Note that funds raised and spent to

"test the waters" for a possible candidacy

do not count against the $5,000 reqtst.ration threshold until the individual decides

to run for office or conducts activities

that indicate he or she is actively CaD;-

paigning rather than testing the waters.

11 ern lOO.7(b)(1) and 101.3. (Examples of

activity indicating that an individual has

decided to become a candidate are described

at 11 CPR 100.7(b)(ii).)

Designation of Coamittee. Candidates

designate a principal campaign comnittee by

filing a statement of Candidacy on FEC Form

2 (or a letter containing the same information) • .Remember, the form must be filed

within 15 days after becoming a "candidate." 11 CFR 101.1(a).-

-Registration by principal Cculpaign

Cc:mnittee

Within 10 days after it has been

designated by the candidate, the principal

campaign committee or other authorized

committee must register by filing a statement of Organization on FEC Form 1. 11 ern

102.1(a). Please note that the name of the

committee must include the candidate's

name. 11 eFR 102.14(0).

candidates WhO Ran in Previous Elections

A candidate who ran in 1990 or another

previous election must file a new FEe Form

2 within 15 days after qualifying as a

candidate in the 1992 election or other

future election. The candidate may either

designate a new principal campaign committee or redesignate his or her previous

principal campaign committee (if it has not

terminated). A newly designated committee

will receive a new FEe identification number. while a redesignated. committee retains

its original number.

If the candidate redestqnates an existing commdttee, the committee need only

amend its Statement of Organizaticn within

10 days to reflect any new information

(e.g., a change in the committee's name or
COMPLIANCE

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

February 1992

address). '!'he amendment may be filed

either by using FEe Fom 1 or by writing a

letter noting the changes. 11 ern

l02.2{a)(2). Redesignated committees are

reminded that, if outstanding debts remain

from a previous election, the committee

must continue to report the debts as well

as contributions that have been designated

by contributors to retire them. 11 eFR

104.11; see also 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3) and (4)

and 110.2(b)13) and 14).

Where to File Forms 1 and 2

U.S. House candidates and their principal campaign committees file their statements and amendments with the Clerk of the

House; U.S. senate candidates and their

principal campaign committees file with the

Secretary of the Senate; Presidential

candidates and their principal campaign

committees file with the FEe. 11 CFR Part

105.

Copi<Js of statements and amendments

must also be filed with state officers.

House and Senate campaigns file in the

state in which the candidate seeks election. 2 U.S.C. §439(a)(2)(B). Presidential campaigns file in the states in which

expenditures are made. 11 eFR 108.2.

Volume 18, Number2

other Authorized c~ttees

In addition to a principal campaign

committee, other authorized committees may

be designated by a candidate to receive

contributions and make expenditures on his

or her behalf. The following steps must be

taken:

o The candidate designates the authorized

committee by filing an FEe Form 2 (or

letter) with the principal campaign commtttee •. 11 CFR 101.l(b) and

102.13(a)(1) .

o Within 10 days of being designated by the

candidate, the authorized cceedeeee must

register by filing an FEC Faun 1 with the

candidates principal campaign comatt.tee ,:

11 CFR 102.1(b). (The name of the

comMdttee must inclUde the candidate's

name. 11 eFR 102.14(a).)

o The principal campaign committee, in

turn, files both documents (Forms 1 and

2) with the appropriate federal and stateoffices, as explained alxrve.

Where to Obtain Forms

FEe rcrns 1 and 2 may be obtained by

calling the FEe (800/424-9530 or 202;219-

3420). Staff are also available to answer

questions.

•

JUtS RBLE'ASED 'IO 'mE PUBLIC

Listed below are !'IURs (FEC

enforcement cases) recently

released for public review.

The list is based on the FEe

press releases of November 6,

U, 13 and 20, 1991. riles on closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records

Office.

unless othe~isc noted,

civil penalties resulted froo

conciliation agreements reached

between the respondents and the

commission.

IIIJR 2644

Reapondents: (~) Texans for

sweeney, Myles Sweeney, treasurer] (b) W. Temple Webber, Jr.

(TX); (c) Cyrus Ansary (MOl;

(d) R. John Stanton, Jr. (nC) i

(ej Kathy Perry (TX); (f) Gerald R. Ford-New Leadership Committee, gharyn Sheldon, treasurer (DC)i (g) Texas Commerce

Bancshares. Inc. (TX)

o:mplainant: John Griffin, Jr.

(TXI

Subject: EXcessive and corporate contr'Lbutdcnar failure to

disclose contributions .

accurately

Disposition: (a)-(e) No probable cause to believe; (f) and

(q) no reason to believe

MUR 3053

Respondents (both in VAl:

(a) National Conservative

Foundation, Maiselle Dolan

Shortley, chairman; (b) National Conservative Political A~tion Committee, ~bert L.

Shortley, treasurer

CQlllPlainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Corporate contribution

Disposition: (a) and (b) Reason to believe but took no further action

JIIJR 3138

Respondents: First Amendment

Crisis 'reea

canplainant: George T. Tyler

(MOl

Subject: Failure to register

and report; disclaimer

13

Dlspoaiticn: Reason to believe

but took no further action

JCUR 3158

Respondents (all in MOl:

(a) Jack Buechner; (b) Jack

Buechner for Ccnqress , Robert

A. llUtton, Jc., treasurer;

(e) Thomas White; (d) Boatmen'S

National Bank; tel White Diversified, Inc.; et al. (f)-(o)

CCIIp1ainant: Joan Kelly Horn

IMOI

SUbject: LOans; contributions

in the names of others; excessive and corporate contributions; inaccurate disclosure

Disposition: (a) No reason to

believe; (b){l) no reason to

believe (corporate contributions and contributions in the names of others); (b) (2) reason to believe but took no further 

action (disclosure and contri-·

butions); (c)-Ie) took no action; (f)-to) no reason to

believe

(continued)
February 1992 FEDERALELEC1lON COMMISSIOI\J

_3199

Respondents (both in NC):

(ll) Odom. for U.S. Senate. M.

RObert Farris, treasurer;

(b) Thomas L. Cdom (A1(A

nrountain" OdOlrl)

caaplainant: J1m McDuffie (NC)

SUbject: Failure to file

reperes on time; debt settlements

Disposition: (a) Reason to

believe but took no further

action; (b) no reason to

believe

JIlUR 3206

ReSpmdent.s: (a} Dornan in '88,

Committee, Robert K. Dornan,

creesueer (CA.), (b) Mrs. Edward

S. serecn (NY); (e) Dan L.

Wirth (CAl

complainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Excessive ccrrtrfbutions

Disposition: (a) $2,100 civil

penalty; {bl reason to believe

but took no further action;

(cj $400 civil penalty

MUR '3254

Respondents: California Young

Republican PAC, E. Daniel

Dellicompaqni, treasun[

CO!lpbinant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

reports on time

Disposition: Reason to believe

but took no further action

l'lUR 3260

Resporrlents: (a) Maryland

Medical political Action

Committee, Joseph J. Harrison,

treasurer; (b) Medical and

Chirurgical Faculty oe MurylMd'

CCXDp1ainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Corporate contribution

Disposition: (a) and (b) No

probable cause to believe

JIItJR 3269

l!.espondents: Senate Comrlittee

for Twile9ar, stanley E. Johnson, treasurer (101

CClIlplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-

hour notices

Disposition: $1,000 civil

penalty

Km 3283

N£pCIndent8: Consolidated Rail

corporation Gxd GoYert"lllMMlt

Fund (Conrail Good Government

E\md), David M. Levan, treas- urer (PA)

ceap1ainant: 'FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $250 civil

penalty

JlIlR 3285

ReBpOJdmts: Ducho$sois Industries tnc. Political Action

COlIDittee, L.S. Minkel, treasurer IIL)

COqllainant: FBC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report

Oiaposition: $175 civil

penalty

JIIVR 3293

Respondents: lUE Committee on

Poli'tical Education, International Union of Electronic,

ElectriCal, Salaried, Machine

and Furniture Workers, AfL-CIO,

Edward Firl;l, creasurec (DC)

CCIIplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: rarture to file

report on time

Disposition: $850 civil

penalty

JIIVR 3311

Respordents: Utah Republican

Pacty (Federtll Account), Dan E.

James, treasurer

CCIIplainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file

reports on time

Disp:»ition: $1,500 civil

penalty

MUR 3344

Respoo;:lents: xansas ceeccreerc

State Commi ttee, Randall K.

"Randy" Rathbun, treasurer C~lainant: ~C initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $900 civil

penalty

J!Ult 3352

Respondents: -scberer for

Congress, peter J. Welk,

treasurer (Nl»

CoIIIplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to fib 48-

hour notices

Di9p)6iUon: $l,OOO civil

penalty

'JlIJR 3354

Respondents: (a) Cult Aware- ness Network (IL); (b) John

Overinqton (wv)

CcIIIp1ainant: Bruce "M. Director

(VAl

Subject: Expenditures for

cotmnunications

Disposition: (a) and (b) No

reason to believe

14

,

Volume 18, Number2

Klll 3356

RespcJXients (all in CA):

(a) salomon for Congress Committee, Cary Davidson, treasurer; (b) Ale'lander Cappello;

(el Len Fischj (d) Jack

Salzberg

Complainant: Julius Glazer

(CAl

S\lbject: Excessive contributions

Disposition: (al-(d) Reason to

believe but took no further

action

MVR 3359

Respondents: Wellstone for

senate, Richard S. Kahn, treas- urer (MN)

Coaplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-

hour notices

Disposition: $6,000 civil

penalty

JII1R 3371

Respondents: Patsy T. Mink

Campaign Committee, Helen

Wiegert, treasurer (HI)

CClDplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-

hour notices

Disposition: $3,800 civil

penalty

MUR 3381

Respondents: (a) Citizens

Coalition for Responsible

Government (FL); (b) Palm Beach

Civic Association, Inc.

Caaplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Corporate contributions

Di8p)sitioo: (a) $1,500 civil

penalty; (b) no reason to

believe

JlIJR 3386

Resp:n:lents: American ASsociation for Marri<lg& and F9mily

'Iherapy~ Breffni Barrett,

tr'easurer' (DC)

COIIp1ainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

repoIt on time

Disposition: $500 penalty

,JIIJR ,3389

Respondents.: M1eric:an SystellS

COrporation Political Action

CODIIlittee, Jack Baker, treas- ure-r (VA)

O"JI'Plainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $501) civil

penalty
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

February 1992

JIIJR 3393 ~epcndents: DSC ceeeentca-,

tions Corporation Political

Action Committee, John Roberts,

treasurer (TX)

COIIIp1ainant: TEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $500 civil - penalty

1'IJR 3394

Respondents: First Chicago

Corp. Government Affairs c/o

'!be First: National Bank of

Chicago, Frank J. Bouska,

treasurer

CCIIIp1ainant: FEe iniHated

SUbdect: Failure to file

report' on time

Disposition: $500 civil

penalty

3395

Roepondents: Fi rat Interstate

Bank of California Political

Action Colmlittee, Betsy Graves,

treasurer

CCIIlplainant: FEe in!tiated

SUbject: f'ailure to file

report on time

Disposition: $500 civil

pezulty

I'IlJR 3397

Respcmdents: Louisiana Coalition Against Raciso and Na~ism

political Action Committee,

Inc., Jane Buchsbaum, treasurer

C~ainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to file

reportDisposition: Reason to believe

but took no further action

I'IJR 3400

Respondents: National Council

of Senior Citizens Political

Action CoJmnittee, Lawrence T.

SlDedley, treasurer (DC)

Calplainant: f'EC initiated SUbject~ Failure to file

report on time

Disp:lSition: $1,250 civil

penalty

Jg}R 3401

Bespaden.ts: ZACOPAC, Joe L.

Lozano, treasurer (TX)

COAplajnant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $500 civil

penalty

RJR 3402

Respondents: Harris COrporation-Federal Political Action

ComaUttee, George E. Lane,

treasurer (FL)

Camplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $900 civil

penalty

JIIUR 3403

Respondent6: Healthtrust

Inc.-The Hospital Company

political Action Committee,

Michael A. Roban, ar., treasurer ('IN)

COropl.aiilant: FEe initiated

INDEX

Volume 18, Number 2

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time , Disposition: $500 civil

penalty

JIIUR 3410

Respondents: Political Participation Fund of COntinental

Illinois Corporation, S.

Nelson, treasurer

CCllllp1ainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $1,100 civil

penalty

JIlVR 3411

Reapcndents: Public Set'\,ldties

Association Political Action

Committee, Micah S. Green,

treasurer (DC)

COllIplainant: esc initiated

SUbject:' Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $500 civil

penalty

Ml1R 3414

Responiellts: UNC Incorporated

Public Responsibility FUnd,

Gregory M. Bubb, treasurer (MO)

CoIIIplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

DiSposition: $500 civil

penalty

•

The first number in each citation

refers to the "number" (month) of the 1992

Record issue in which the article appeared;

the second number, following the colon,

dndi cabea the page mercer in that Issue,

ADVISORY OPINICfiS

1991-29: Contributions received and made by

corporation's employee pledge program,

1: 4

1991-33: Allocation of expenses when party

commdttee admdnisters primary election,

1:6

1991-34: Comndttee sale of 'access to voter

data base as ongoing venture, 1:6

1991-35: Application of allocation rules

when SSF's nonfederal account pays its

own admdnistrative expenses, 2:10

eu.s . Government Frinting Office, 1992 - 3<2-292/12030 15

COURT CASES

FEC v,

- AFSCME-fQ, 1:7

- NRA Political Victory Fund, 1:7

'v , FEe

- Akins, 1:8 - COiMiiOn Cau::;e (91-2914), 1:9

REroRl'IOO

House 'and senate pre-primary dates, 1:14

PACs and parties: Presidential pre-primary

dates, 2:10

SChedule for 1991, 1:10

aoo LINE

Last-minute contributions: 48-hout;' notices

required, 1:18

Registration by candidates and their

committees, 2:12
February 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR All TAXPAYERS

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN TAX CHECKOFF

MakeAn

Inlonned Dloice.

Volume 1B, Number 2

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Cornmtssion

PermitNumber G-31

The first question on '/Our federal income tax form asks

ifyou wantadollarofyourtaxes to be used forthe

Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

KNON THE FPCTS FIRST...

• Presidential C<Jldidales who aceeptlhese public funds must limil1tleir campaign spenlling.

• GandJdates running inNovember whoaceept pub'ic funds C3flnot accept any private

cooliibutions tmm individuals orpofrtil:a1 groups.

• rne $1 tax chacKoIf isme sole source for the pub'ic funding ~f presidential elections

and the tun<ls Gan only be IJSed fur le(jtimll.te campaign elqlenses.

ForMom fnflJrmstion CliJ The Toll-Free 11Ix Check(1ffHotline,

1..800..486..8496

Official Business

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC20463