September 1995

Table of Contents

Reports

Pilot Program for Electronic

Filing Gets Underway

Publications

Disclosure Directory Now on Disk

Conferences

2 Three FEC Conferences to be

Held in Washington, DC

Court Cases

2 FEC v. Christian Action Network

3 Advisory Opinions

Statistics

7 Midyear PAC Count

Public Funding

7 Convention Funding

Compliance

7 MURs Released to the Public

8 Federal Register Notices

Information

9 Flashfax Menu

10 Index

Federal Election Commission

Reports

Pilot Program for Electronic

Filing Gets Underway

The FEC has invited a number of

PACs, party committees and

candidate committees to participate

in a voluntary pilot program to

develop an electronic filing system

for campaign disclosure reports.

Ultimately, committees would be

able to submit reports via computer,

either on disk or through telecommunications technology. Pilot

program invitees were chosen for

their proximity to the FEC and to

include committees of various types

and sizes with disclosure reports of

varying complexity.

In letters dispatched recently to

the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, 24 members of the House

and Senate, and selected political

action committees, FEC Chairman

Danny L. McDonald wrote:

"[We] want to acquire some

practical, real world knowledge of

what [electronic filing] means to the

political committees who file with

us." He asked the committees, "to

advise us about their current report

preparation and records maintenance

practices."

(continued Oil page 2)

Volume 21, Number 9

Publications

Combined Federal and State

Disclosure Directory 1995

Now Available on Disk

The Combined Federal and State

Disclosure Directory 1995 is now

available on a 3.5" disk for only $5.

This electronic version of the

Directory may be purchased for use

with both IBM and MacIntosh

versions of the following word processing software: Microsoft Word,

WordPerfect and Microsoft Write.

The Directory lists the federal

and state offices responsible for

disclosing and dispensing information on a variety of election-related

topics, as well as lobbying and

corporate registration information.

See page 6 of the May 1995 Record

for a more detailed description of

the Directory.

Disk packages of the Directory

may be purchased at the FEC's

Public Records Office. They may

also be ordered by telephone (800/

424-9530, extension 3, or 202/219-

4140) or by mail (Public Disclosure

Division, Federal Election Commission , 999 E Street, NW, Washington , DC, 20463 ).

A one-page, descriptive and

instructive flyer on the Directory

disk package is available through

the automated Flashfax system. To

receive it via fax, just dial 202/501-

3413 and request document 308. ..
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Reports

(continued from page 1)

This information will assist the

FEC in developing a uniform

electronic filing system that is user

friendly, efficient for the FEC and

cost effective for the taxpayers. At a

later stage, committees may be

asked to provide a representative

sampling of data.

Invitees who volunteer for the

program will have the opportunity

to help shape the structure of the

automated process that will ultimately emerge from the project.

Participant committees, it should be

noted, will still need to submit paper

copies of their FEC disclosure

reports to the appropriate federal

and state offices.•

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

2021219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TOO)

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Trevor Potter, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, StaffDirector

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Dario Bard, Editor

2

Conferences

Three FEC Conferences to

Be Held in Washington, DC

FEC conferences offer basic and

advanced workshops on the federal

campaign finance law and provide

attendees the opportunity to discuss

problems and questions with FEC

Commissioners and staff, and

representatives of the Internal

Revenue Service. For 1995 and

early 1996, the FEC has scheduled

the following three conferences at

the Madison Hotel, Washington, DC:

• December 11-12, 1995: Corporate/

Labor Conference; $165* registration fee;

• January 11-12, 1996: Membership/

Trade Association Conference ;

$165' registration fee; and

• March 8, 1996: Candidate Conference; $110' registration fee.

Additionally, the FEC is hosting

regional conferences in San Antonio, TX (September 7-8 at the La

Mansion del Rio Hotel), San

Francisco, CA (October 23-24, at

the Miyako Hotel) and Chicago, IL

(April 11-12, 1996, at the Drake

Hotel). See page 1 of the July 1995

Record for details on the San Antonio and San Francisco conferences.

To receive registration materials

and further information on these and

other conferences, call 800/424-

9530 or 202/219-3420.•

•This fee includes the cost ofall

conference materials and two or three

meals (two continental breakfasts and a

lunch), dep ending on the length ofthe

conference. Hotel accommodations are

extra.

September 1995

Court Cases

FEC v. Christian Action

Network

On June 28, 1995, the U.S. District

Court for the Western District of

Virginia, Lynchburg Division,

dismissed this case. The FEC had

brought suit against the Christian

Action Network (CAN) for making

independent expendituresI with

corporate funds, for failing to

include the proper disclaimer on its

political communications and for

failing to file the required reports

with the FEe. (See page 7 of the

December 1994 Record for a

summary of the FEC's original suit.)

The communications in question-a television advertisement and

two newspaper advertisements that

ran during the weeks leading up to

the 1992 Presidential general

election-assailed then-candidate

Bill Clinton's al1eged position on

homosexual issues.

The court ruled that the communications were outside the Commission's jurisdiction because they did

not expressly advocate the election

or defeat of Bill Clinton.

The court reached this conclusion

on the basis of the Supreme Court's

decision in Buckley v. Valeo . In that

case, the Supreme Court said that,

for a communication to be considered an independent expenditure and

thus subject to FEC regulation, it

must expressly advocate the election

or defeat of a clearly identified

candidate.' In reviewing relevant

I An independent expenditure is an expenditure made without any coordination with a candidate 's campaign for a

communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate forfederal office.

2 The Court listed the following examples

ofwords that constitute express advocacy:

"vote for, .. "e lect," "support," "cast

your ballot for, " "Smith for Congress, "

"vote against, " "defeat, " "reject. "
September 1995

court decisions since Buckley, the

court found that "political expression, including discussion of public

issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, enjoys extensive

First Amendment protection" and

that the courts "have adopted a strict

interpretation of the 'express

advocacy ' standard ... . Thus,

courts generally have been disin -

clined to entertain arguments made

by the Commission that focus on

anything other than the actual

langua ge used in an advertisement."

In arguing the case, the FEC had

relied on the Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit's decision in FEe

v. Furgatch. In that case, the appea ls

court considered the timing and

context of a comm unication in

determining the existence of express

advocacy. The FEC stressed that

thos e elements were important here

as well: the CAN television advertisement aired in the weeks leading

up to the 1992 gen eral election, and,

although the ad did not contain

words that expressly advocated Bill

Clinton's defeat, its imagery, music,

editing, coloring, etc . clearly

con veyed that message .

The FEC also pointed out that the

newspaper ads-both of which

referred to the "voting public" and

one of which referred to a Presidential deb ate scheduled for that dayconveyed a mess age identical to that

of the television ad. Viewed collectively, the FEC contended, the three

ads sent voters the mess age to vote

against Bill Clinton and his policies

in the November elections.

The court reco gnized the validity

of the Furgatcn approach but noted

that the Furgatch court stated that

the context and timing of a communication were peripheral to the

actual words them selves, and

therefore should be given onl y

limited wei ght when determining

the presence of express advocacy.

Focusing on the words contained

in the ads, the court said there was

no call for electoral action. The

newspaper ads' reference to the

"voting publ ic" "does not per se

translate into an exhortation to

vote. "

Finding that express advocacy

was absent from the ads, the court

concluded that "the Defendants'

advertisements represent the very

type of issue advocacy the Buckley

Court sought to exempt from

government regulation."

U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Virginia,

Lynchburg Division, No . 94-0082-

L, June 28, 1995 . •

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1995-16

Attaining National Party

Status

The National Committee of the

U.S. Taxpayers Party (the party)

qualifies as a national party committee for purposes of the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

because it has placed candidates for

various federal offices on the ball ots

of numerous states and engaged in

party-building as well as oth er types

of activities characteristic of a

national party.

A national party committee may

make coordinated party expenditures under 2 U.S.c. §44Ia(d) and

enjo ys higher contribution limits

than other committees.

Political Party Status

Before a party committee can

qualify as a national party committee the party must qualify as a

political party under the Act. To

qu alify as a politi cal part y, a party

must successfully place a candidate

for federal offi ce on a ballot, and the

ballot must identify that candidate

as the party's nominee. 2 U.S.C.

§431(16). In past elections, the U.S.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Taxpayers Party 's Presidential and

Con gressional candidates appeared

on the ballot as the nominees of

parties identified or affiliated with

the U.S. Taxpayers Party. This

accomplishm ent earned the U.S.

Taxpayers Party political party

statu s under the Act.

National Party Status

To att ain nation al party status, a

committee of a political party must

do more than focus its activities

solely on Pre sidential elections

(AOs 1980-131 and 1978-58); it

must do more than engage in

activitie s that are limited to only one

state (AO 1976-95 ); and it must

have more than a limited number of

federal candidates on state ballots

(AOs 1992-44 and 1988-45).

In the past, the Commission has

con sidered a number of factors

when determining whether a political party qualifi ed as a nation al

party committee. Specifically, the

Commission has looked at whether

the party:

• Succeeded in placing candidates

for various federal offices on the

ballot in numerous states;

• Conducted party-building activities

such as voter registration and getout-the-vote drives on an ongoing

basis (rather than with respect to a

particular election);

• Publicized issues of importance to

the pol itical party and its adherents

throu ghout the nation ;

• Held a national convention ;

• Established a national headquarters

office ; and

• Established state party affiliates.

The U.S. Taxpayers Party

previously sought national status in

AO 1992-44. In that opinion, the

Commission concluded that the

Part y had not yet reached a level of

activity to qualify as a national

committee. (See page 5 of the June

1993 Record for a summary of the

opinion.) Sin ce then , the Part y has

shown significant development.

(continued on page 4)

3
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(cont inued from page 3)

Specifically, the Party held a

voter registration drive in Delaware;

previously, its party-building efforts

were only in the planning stages. On

the financial side, during the 1993-

94 election cycle the Party took in

$60,000 in receipts and made

$58,000 in disbursements; before, it

was unclear whether the Party had

even opened a bank account. Also

of note, the Party held several

national committee meetings

throughout the nation following its

1992 convention.

Finally, the Party made progress

in obtaining ballot access for nonPresidential candidates, an important element in achieving national

committee status. At the time of the

previous request, the Party had,

gained ballot access for 9 candidates

for the U.S. Congress in 3 states. By

contrast, in the 1994 election cycle,

the Party had 14 Congressional

candidates on the ballot in 6 states

located in several sections of the

country.

These factors, taken collectively,

qualify the U.S. Taxpayers Party as

a national party committee.

This opinion did not address any

public funding issues, since they

were not raised in the advisory

opinion request.

Date Issued: July 14, 1995;

Length: 6 pages. ..

AO 1995-17

Trade Association Federation

and Affiliated State and

Local Units; Donation of

Raffie Prizes and One-Third

Rule

The National Association of

Realtors (NAR) qualifies as a

federation of trade associations

composed of state and local trade

associations. RPAC is NAR's

separate segregated fund. Becaus~

the national, state and local associations are affiliated with one another,

4

individuals qualifying as "members"

of state and local units may be

solicited for donations of funds to

underwrite costs of soliciting

contributions to RPAC and for

donations of merchandise for RPAC

fundraisers sponsored by the state

and local associations. The value of

the items donated for a particular

event may be aggregated for purposes of determining whether any

reimbursement is required under the

"one-third rule."

Associations as Trade/

Membership Associations with

Qualified Members

NAR and the state and local

associations qualify as trade associations under 11 CFR lI4.8(a)

because they are composed of

persons in a related line of commerce (real estate) who are organized to promote and improve

business in that line of commerce.

The associations appear neither to

be organized to operate at a profit

nor to have their net earnings inure

to the benefit of any member.

The associations each have

members (REALTORs and those

REALTOR-ASSOCIATEs with

voting rights) who qualify as

"members" under FEC rules because (1) they have an obligation to

pay regular dues and (2) are entitled

to vote directly for at least one

member of the highest governing

body or, alternatively, to vote for

those who select at least one member of the governing body . This is

one wayan association's members

may qualify as "members" for

purposes of federal election law.

II CFR l14.I(e)(2)(ii).

NAR as Federation of Trade

Associations

Under 11 CFR 114.8(g)(l), a

federation of trade associations is an

organization that is composed of

trade associations united in a similar

or allied line of commerce.

In the case at hand, the state and

local associations participate as

units of a national body bound by

September 1995

the rules of that body. Although

each state and local trade association has its own governance mechanism, NAR prescribes model bylaws

that result in consistent rules,

organizational structures and goals

across national, state and local

levels. State associations are collectively represented on NAR's board

of directors and local associations

are collectively represented on the

boards of the state associations.

NAR collects dues from the state

and local associations, and the state

associations collect dues from the

local associations. As another

unifying factor a local association

must belong to a state association in

order to be a NAR member. Taken

together, these factors create an

interactive relationship among the

three tiers of organizations. As the

national entity, NAR qualifies as a

federation of trade associations.

Affiliation

NAR and the state and local

associations are affiliated with each

other because:

• The state and local entities have

the power to participate in NAR's

governance through the selection

of NAR Directors and the membership of their officials on the NAR

Board;

• NAR controls key aspects of the

governance of the state and local

entities;

• NAR has virtually complete

membership overlap with the state

and local entities; and

• The state and local entities have

ongoing dues-paying obligations to

NAR.

These factors constitute affiliation for purposes of federal election

law . II CFR 100.S(g)(4)(i) and

(g)(4)(ii), and 11 CFR 11O.3(a)(3)(i)

and (a)(3)(ii). See also Advisory

Opinion (AO) 1994-19. 1

I Under other FEC rules. NAR and the

state and local associations are per se

affiliated. See 11 CFR 100.5(g)(3)(iv)

and 110.3(a)(2)(iv).
September / 995

Fundraising Prizes and the OneThird Rule

A corporation, including an

incorporated trade association, may

pay for the solicitation expenses of

its separate segregated fund. II CFR

114.5(b). In the past, the Commission has permitted corporate members of trade associations to help

defray the solicitation expenses of

the association 's separate segregated

fund by donating funds and merchandise, such as raffle prizes.

Similarly, the individual members

of NAR's state and local affiliates

may be solicited for, and donate

funds and merchandise to, their

associations for the purpose of

defraying RPAC's solicitation

expenses.

NAR's state and local affiliates

plan to conduct fundraising social

events for RPAC that involve the

sale raffl e or auction of items

solicited and donated by individual

members. The proceeds collected

from these fundraisers should be

compared with the value of the

prizes contributed under the one -

third rule at II CFR 114.5(b)(2).

That rule states that a reasonable

practice to follow is for the PAC to

reimburse the membership association for the costs which exceed onethird of the money contributed.

Any reimbursement owed by the

PAC per the one-third rul e should

be given to the assoc iation sponsoring the event, which may then

decide how to distribute the reimbursed amount among the donors.

See AO 1982-36 .

Since the reimbursement under

the one-third rule is to be made to

the membership organization, the

amount of the reimbursement may

be ascertained by aggregating the

value of the items. This includes the

value of all prizes and entertainment

provided for the event by the

association and the individual

donors. In calculating the value of

these item s, the membership organization may omit solicitation costs

and costs for food , drinks and the

use of fac ilities. See AOs 1980-50

and 1979-72.

Date Issued : July 28 , 1995;

Length: 13 pages...

AO 1995-19

Discovering Illegal

Contributions ina

Committee's Treasury

Mr. Subodh Ch andra, tre asurer of

the Indian-American Leadership

Investment Fund (the Fund) must

undertake best efforts to confirm the

legality of contributions he now

suspects were made in the name of

another; he deposited these contributions because they appeared

lawful at the time of receipt. To

confirm a suspect contribution ' s

legality, Mr. Chandra may request

written or oral confirmation from

each contributor. He must keep a

written memorandum on a confirmation made orally. Contributions

that remain questionable must be

disgorged , as described below.

This advisory opinion does not

require the Fund to take any action

contrary to any advice it receives

from the U.S . Department of Justice

(DOJ). However, should the Fund

choose not to contact contributors

based on DO] advice, it may not use

the questionable contributions for

any of its expenses; the se monies

must be disgorged as described below .

Background

Mr. Ch andra first learned of the

suspect contributions in a meeting

with a Baltimore Sun repo rter who

alleged that certain of the Fund's

contributors in Maryland made

sizable contributions although they

"did not appea r to have the financial

mean s" to make them . The reporter's

subsequent article contained assertions by some of the individual s that

they had been reimbursed for their

contributions. All of the contributions from Maryland were transmitted

to the Fund by a Baltimore attorne y.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Handling Suspect Contributions

The specificity of the reporter's

allegations, as manifested in the

arti cle and his meeting with Mr.

Ch andra, raise genuine questions as

to the legality of certain contributions. The Fund is therefore obligated

to take some form of ameliorativ e

action with respect to these genuinel y questionable contributions.

The Fund's proposal to seek confirmation from its contributors complie s with the requirements at

11 CFR 103.3 (b)(l ).

In his advisory opinion request,

Mr. Chandra asked the Commission

to offer further guida nce. Accordingly , the Commission suggests that

under the circumstances Mr. Chandra

consider seeking confirmations for

all contributions received from

Maryland .

In instances where the Commission has investi gated and determined that there is culpability on the

part of the recipient committee, the

Commission often views the expeditious refund or dis gorgement of

unlawful contributions as a mitigating fact or in determining an appropriate civil pen alty .

Contributions made illeg ally are

normally returned to the contributor,

but in this case the individual

suspected of reimbursing others'

contributions denies having don e so.

Therefore, contributions that are not

confirmed to be legal must, within

30 day s of this opinion, be disbursed

for any lawful purpose unrelated to

a federal campaign. Appropriate

payee s are federal , state and loc al

government ent itie s and qu alified

charit able org anizations described in

26 u.s.c. §170(c). See AO 1991-

39. 11 CFR 103.3(b )(2).

Furthermore, the Fund may have

credible information indicating,

despite any contributor explanation

and ass ertion of legality that might

be offered, that a certain contribution was made in the name of

another. In this situation, the Fund

(continued on page 6)

5
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

should disgorge the amount of the

contribution as described above.

Date Issued: July 28, 1995;

Length: 6 pages.•

AO 1995-21

Campaign's Use of Funds

Awarded in Law Suit

The Larson for U.S. Senate

Committee (the committee) may use

the $1,500 it was awarded in a

campaign-related law suit to pay

attorney 's fees in that case. On the

next FEC report due, the committee

must disclose the court award under

the "other receipts" category of the

Detailed Summary Page and itemize

it on Schedule A.

A North Dakota court awarded

the committee the $1,500 in a law

suit the committee had filed against

the local Sheriff's office for damage s arising from the seizure of the

committee's campaign videotapes

from local television stations.

Applicability of the Contribution

Limits

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) defines a contribution

as money or anything of value given

for the purpose of influencing an

election for federal office. 2 U.S .C.

§431 (8)(A). Certain fund s received

by a political committee are not

considered contributions and thus do

not count against the contribution

limits . For example, interest earned

on a committee's bank account

balance is not considered a contribution-nor is a vendor rebate or

refund, if made in the ordinary

course of business. See Advisory

Opinions 1994-10, 1986-1 and 1981-

6. Similarly, the $1,500 legal award

is not considered a contribution and

may therefore be accepted in full by

the committee since the contribution

limits are not applicable.

6

Paying Legal Fees with Court

Awarded Monies

FEC regulations state that the

Commission will consider on a

case -by-case basis whether the use

of campaign fund s to pay legal

expenses violates the personal use

ban. 11 CFR 113.I(g)(l)(ii)(A). The

personal use ban forbid s: "any use

of funds in a campaign account of a

pre sent or former candidate to fulfill

a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist

irrespective of the candidate's

campaign or duties as a Federal

officeholder." 11 CFR 113.1(g).

The law suit in this case arose

from circumstances that are clearly

attributable to the campaign. The

committee may therefore pay the

attorney's fees with its campaign

fund s, including the $1 ,500 award

money.

The committee should disclose

payments for the legal costs as

operating expenditures.

The Commission expresses no

opinion on the tax ramifications of

the proposed transaction; that issue

falls outside the FEC's jurisdiction.

Date Issued : July 28, 1995;

Length : 4 pages.•

AO 1995-23

Paying Legal Expenses with

Campaign Funds

Congressman Christopher Shays

may use campaign funds to pay for

legal costs arising out of a law suit

brought against him by one of his

opponents for office in 1994; he

is accused of having removed

plaintiff's campaign signs. The

personal use ban does not bar

Congressman Shays from using

campaign funds for this purpose.

The regulations banning personal

use of campaign funds forbid: "any

use of funds in a campaign account

of a present or former candidate to

fulfill a commitment, obligation or

expense of any person that would

exist irrespective of the candidate's

campaign or duties as a Federal

September 1995

officeholder." 11 CFR 113.1(g).I

FEC regulations further state that

the Commission will consider on a

case-by-case basis whether the use

of campaign funds for legal expenses constitutes personal use.

11 CFR lI3.l (g)(l )(ii)(A).

In this case, Congressman Shay's

legal expenses arise directly from

his campaign activity and his

position as a candidate. They are

therefore clearly attributable to the

campaign and may be paid with

campaign fund s.

In its FEC reports, the committee

should disclose these legal costs as

operating expenditures.

The Commission expresses no

opinion on the tax ramifications of

the proposed trans action ; that issue

falls outside the FEe's jurisdiction.

Date Issued : July 20, 1995 ;

Length: 4 pages.•

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests

(AORs) are available for review and

comment in the Public Records

Office.

AOR 1995-26

Use of campaign funds to pay dues

of club whose facilities are used for

campaign fundraisers (Senator

Frank Murkowski ; July 19, 1995: 1

page )

AOR 1995-27

Solicitation of restricted class of

business trust members of trade

association (National Association of

Real Estate Investment Trusts;

August 1, 1995; 5 pages plus 4-page

attachment) •

I The regulations became effective April

5, 1995. They are not in the 1995

edition ofFEC regulations. but the fi nal

rules are available as reprints of the

Federal Regist er notice (60 FR 7826,

February 9, 1995). Call the FEC to

order a copy, or use Flashfax (202/501-

3413) to order docum ent #2 28.
September /995

Statistics

1995 Midyear PAC Count

As of July 1,1995, there were

3,982 PACs registered with the

FEe. This represents an increase of

28 PACs since January I, 1995, and

an increase of 49 PACs over last

year's midyear total. (The number

of PACs does not necessarily

correspond with PAC financial

activity, since many registered

PACs have little or no activity.)

The table below shows the

midyear and year-end PAC counts

over the past half decade by PAC

type . An August 2, 1995, FEC press

releases contains similar figures

dating back to 1974's year-end PAC

count. This press release may be

ordered through the Flashfax

system; dial 202/501-3413 and

request document 626 .•

Federal ElectionCommission RECORD

Midyear and Year-End PAC Counts, July 1990-July 1995

Trade! Corp. w!o

Member! Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected I Total

luI. '90 1,782 346 753 58 139 1,115 4,193

Dec. '90 1,795 346 774 59 136 1,062 4,172

luI. '91 1,745 339 749 57 137 1,096 4,123

Dec. '91 1,738 338 742 57 136 1,083 4,094

luI. '92 1,731 344 759 56 144 1,091 4,125

Dec. '92 1,735 347 770 56 142 1,145 4,195

luI. '93 1,715 338 767 55 139 1,011 4,025

Dec. '93 1,789 337 761 56 146 1,121 4,210

luI. '94 1,666 336 777 53 138 963 3,933

Dec. '94 1,660 333 792 53 136 980 3,954

luI. '95 1,670 334 804 43 129 1,002 3,982

JNonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative expenses, while the other categories of PACs hav e corp orate or labor "connected organizations " that are permitted to pay those expensesfor their PACs. On

the other hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general

public, while solicitations by corporate and lahar PACs are restri cted.

Public Funding

Major Parties Receive $12

Million Public Funding

Grant for '96 Conventions

In early July, the Democratic and

Republican 1996 convention committees each recei ved $12,024,000

from the U.S. Treasury. The money

is to be used to plan and conduct

each party's 1996 Presidential

nominating convention.

The Democrats will hold their

national convention in Chicago,

August 26-29, 1996. The Republicans will hold their national convention in San Diego, August 10-16,

1996.

Federal election law permits

eligible national parties to receive

public funds to pay the official costs

of their Presidential nominating

conventions. The FEC certified that

both committees met all the eligibility requirements for public funding.

Committees accepting public

funding agree to certain conditions,

including abiding by spending

limits, filing periodic disclosure

reports and undergoing a detailed

FEC audit.

Reflecting inflationary trends, the

1996 convention grant is nearly $1

million more than the 1992 grant of

$11.048 million. The 1996 funding

will be further adjusted in March of

1996, when the committees will

receive an additional payment based

on this year's inflation.

Public funding of Presidential

elections is financed by the Presidential Election Campaign Fund,

which receives its monies from

taxpayers participating in the

voluntarily $3 "check off' on

federal income tax forms. •

Compliance

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently

released for public review. This

listing is based on the FEC press

rele ases of July 13 and 31, and

August 2, but it doe s not include 30

MURs in which the Commission

took no action. Files on closed

MURs are available for review in

the Public Records Office.

I MUR 3191/3226

Respondents: (all in NH ): (a)

Friends of Bill Zeliff Committee;

(b) Christmas Farm Inn , Inc.; (c)

Representative William H. Zeliff,

Jr.; (d) Sydna T. Zeliff; (e) First

NH-White Mountain Bank

Complainant: Joseph F. Keefe,

Keefe for Congress 1990 Committee

(continued on page 8)

7
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance

(continued from page 7)

(NH) (3191); FEC initiated (3226)

Subject: Corporate contributions

(loans and advances); failure to file

48 hour notices (two candidate loans

totalling $97,000); excessive

contributions

Disposition: (a-b) $30,000 civil

penalty; (c) insufficient votes to find

probable cause to believe; (d-e) no

reason to believe

MUR3375

Respondents: (a) Paul Simon for

President, James C. Rosapepe,

treasurer (IL); (b) Jader Fuel Co.,

Inc. (lL); (c) Groves Printing Co.,

Inc. (NC); (d) Watchell, Lipton,

Rosen, & Katz (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated (1988

Presidential audit)

Subject: Failure to itemize receipts

and disbursements; misstating

financial activity; excessive contributions; corporate contributions

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action (all of the

above); (b) reason to believe, but

took no further action (corporate

contributions); (c) no probable cause

to believe; (d) reason to believe, but

took no further action (excessive

contributions)

MUR 3682/3655

Respondents: (all in PA): (a) Fox

for Congress Committee, Frank

Jenkins, treasurer; (b) Jon D. Fox;

(c) Jewish Exponent

Complainant: Kenneth Smukler,

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC's Public

Records Office.

1995·11

II CFR 106, 9002-9004, 9006-

9008, 9032-9034, 9036 and

9038-9039: Public Financing of

Presidential Primary and General

Election Candidates; Final Rule,

Announcement of Effective Date

(60 FR42429, August 16, 1995)

8

Campaign Manager, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky for Congress (PA)

Subject: Disclaimers

Disposition: (a) $950 civil penalty;

(b-e) no reason to believe

MUR3787

Respondents: (a) Georgia Republican Party Committee, Marvin H.

Smith, treasurer; (b) Arthur L.

Williams, Jr. (GA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions;

corporate contributions; unauthorized §441a(d) expenditures on

behalf of Presidential nominee;

failure to maintain receipt records

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe

but took no further action (all of the

above); (b) $5,000 civil penalty

(excessive contributions)

MUR 3973/Pre-MUR 284

Respondents: Bob Davis (MI) and

the Bob Davis for Congress Committee, Kathleen J. O'Leary,treasurer (MI)

Complainant: Referral by U.S.

Department of Justice

Subject: Failure to use designated

depository and to maintain records

for petty cash disbursements

Disposition: Reason to believe but

took no further action

MUR 4005/Pre-MUR 301

Respondents: (all in CT): (a)

General Dynamics Corporation; (b)

Neil D. Ruenzel and Craig B.

Haines, Jr., General Dynamics

Corporation Electric Boat Division;

(c) Sam Gejdenson Re-election

Committee, Patricia Tedisco

Lagrenga, treasurer

Complainant: Sua sponte (PreMUR 301); Thomas J. Diascro, Jr.,

Campaign Manager, Munster for

Congress '94 (CT) (4005)

Subject: Corporate contributions;

contributions by government contractor

Disposition: (a) $8,500 civil

penalty; (b) reason to believe; (c) no

reason to believe

MUR4043

Respondents: (a) Paul Barden

(WA); (b) Barden for Congress,

September 1995

Sylvia Barnes, treasurer (WA); (c)

Vickie Schmitz (WA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions;

exceeding $25,000 annual limit

Disposition: (a-c) $25,000 civil

penalty; (b) refund $1,500 in

excessive contributions

MUR4109

Respondents: (a) Thomas M. Barrett

(WI); (b) Barrett for Congress,

Catherine Shaw, treasurer (WI)

Complainant: Matthew Olson

Brumbaugh (WI)

Subject: Disclaimers

Disposition: (a) No reason to

believe; (b) reason to believe but

took no further action; sent admonishment letters.

MUR4213

Respondents: Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, William

J. Davis, treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Unauthorized §441a(d)

expenditures on behalf of Presidential nominee; impermissible transfer

from nonfederal account to federal

account; use of nonfederal funds to

pay federal expenses and expenditures on behalf of Presidential

ticket; failure to itemize contributions from political committees;

failure to disclose contribution and

disbursement information

Disposition: Reason to believe but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter

MUR4214

Respondents: North Carolina

Democratic Victory Fund, Jim

Young, treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Unauthorized §441a(d)

expenditures on behalfof Presidential

nominee; use of nonfederal funds for

federal activity; inaccuratedisclosure

ofjoint fundraising receipts

Disposition: Reason to believe but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter.
September 1995

Information

Flashfax Menu

To order any of these documents,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call 2021

501·3413 on a touch tone phone. You

will be asked for the numbers of the

documents you want, your fax number

and your telephone number. The documents will be faxed shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

30 I. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

308. Combined Federal/State Disclosure Directory 1995 on Disk

309. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expenditures

320. Local Party Activity

321. Corporate/Labor Facilities

322. CorporatelLabor Communications

323. Trade Associations

324. Foreign Nationals

325. The $25,000 Annual Contribution

Limit

326. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Public Funding

330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

331. The $3 Tax Checkoff

332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

333. Recipients of Public Funding

334. Presidential Fund Tax Checkoff

Status

335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

34 1. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Reports Due in 1995

345. Primary Dates and Deadlines for

Ballot Access

346. Filing A Complaint

347. 1995 FEC Regional Conferences

Federal Election Commission

40 1. The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law

402. La Ley Federal relativa al Financiamiento de las Campanas

403. State and Local Elections and the

Federal Campaign Law

404. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC's Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

I

408. Index for 1994 Record Newsletter

409. Free Publications

4 10. Personnel Vacancy Announcements

I

41 I. Complete Menu of AII Material

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

I

Administration

424. List of Reports Available

425. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

I

426. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

427. National Voter Registration Act

I

of 1993

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an Electoral

System

Money in Politics Statistics

625. 1991-92 Political Money

626. 1995 Midyear PAC Count

627. 1993-94 Congressional

628. 1993-94 National Party

629. 1993-94 PAC Finances

1996 Pr esidential Election

650. 1996 Pre liminary Presidential

Primary and Ca uc us Dates

65 1. Se lected Campaig n Names and

Addresses

652. Sel ecte d Campaign Finance

Figures

Regulations (11 CF R Parts 100·201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

101. Part 10J, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

Federal Election Commission RECORD

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

105. Part 105, Document Filing

J06. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate

and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating

Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reports

and Statements with State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

J JO. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

IJI. Part JJI, Compliance Procedure

11 2. Part 11 2, Advisory Opinions

I 13. Part 11 3, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to Support

Federal Officeholder Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

J 15. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candidates and Political Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

20 I. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Presidential Nominating Conventions

228. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

229. Express Advocacy; Independent

Expenditures; Corporate and

Labor Organization Expenditures

Forms

361. Form I, Statement of Organization

362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

365. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

ContributionslLoans Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication

Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of Multicandidate Status

Schedul es

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

(continued on page 10)

9
441

. Section 441

442. Section 44

2

451. Section

451

452. Section

452

453. Section 453

454. Section 45

4

455. Section 455

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Information (continued from page

9)

372.Schedules C and C-l,Loans

373. ScheduleD,Debts andObligations

374. ScheduleE, Itemized Independent

Expenditures

375. ScheduleF, Itemized Coordina ted

Expenditures

376. Schedules HI-H4. Allocation

377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S.Code(Title 2)

431. Section 43

1

432. Section

432

433. Section

433

434. Section

434

437. Section

437

438. Section

438

439. Section

439

Adv isory Opinions

701. AO1995-1

702. AO 1995-2

703. AO 1995-3

704. AO 1995-4

705. AO 1995-5

706. AO 1995-6

707. AO 1995-7

708. AO

1995-8

709. AO 1995-9

710. AO 1995-10

7 11. AO 1995-1

1

712. AO 1995-12

7 13. AO 1995-13

714. AO 1995-14

715.

AO1995-15

716. AO

1995-16

717.

AO 1995- 17

718. AO

1995-18

719. AO

1995-19

720. AO 1995-20

721. AO

1995-2 1

722. AO 1995-22

723. AO 1995-23

801. AO 1994-

1

802. AO 1994-2

803. AO 1994-3

804. AO 1994-

4

805. AO 1994-5

806. AO 1994-6

807. AO 1994-7

808. AO 1994-8

809. AO

1994-9

810. AO 1994- 10

/0

811. A0 1994- I 1

8 12. AO 1994-12

813. AO1994-13

814. AO 1994-14

815.A

01994-15

816. AO 1994-16

817. AO 1994-17

818. AO 1994

-18

819. AO 1994-19

820.

AO1994-20

821. AO 1994-21

822.

AO 1994-22

823.AO1994-23

824.

AO1994-24

825. AO 1994-25

826.

AO1994-26

827.AO1994-27

828. AO

1994-28

829.AO1994-29

830.

AO1994-30

83 1. AO1994-31

832.

AO 1994-32

833.AO 1994-33

834. AO 1994-34

835. AO 1994-35

836. AO 1994-36

837. AO 1994-37

838. AO 1994-38

839.

AO1994-39

840. AO 1994-40

900. Brochure

901. AO 1993-1

902.AO 1993-2

903. AO1993-3

904. AO1993-4

905. AO1993-5

906. AO 1993-6

907.AO 1993-7

908. AO 1993-8

909.AO 1993-9

9 10. AO 1993-10

911. AO 1993-11

912. AO 1993- 12

9 13. AO 1993-13

9 14. AO1993-14

9 15. AO 1993-15

916. AO 1993- 16

917. AO1993-17

918.AO 1993-18

9 19. AO1993-19

920. AO 1993-20

921. AO 1993-2 1

922. AO 1993-22

923. AO 1993-23

924. AO1993-24

925. AO 1993-25

Septembe r/ 995.

II Index The first number

in each citation

refersto the"number"(month) of

the 1995

Recordissue in which the

article appeared. Thesecond number,

following the colon, indicates the

pagenumberin that issue.For example, " 1:4" means that the article

is in theJanuaryissue on page4.

Advisory Opinions

1994-33: Calling card solicitations,

3:5

1994-34: Consolidating membership

association PACsfollowing a

merger,

3:7

1994-35:

Terminatingreporting

obligations,

5:5

1994-36: Solicitation of

stockholders in an employee-owned

company,

5:5

1994-37: Allocating between federa

l

and nonfederal campaigns, 3:

7

1994-39: Solicitation of affiliate

s by

a membership organization, 3:8

1994-40:Storing records on microfilm, 3:9

1995- 1:

Respondents and the

confidentialityprovisions, 4:8

1995-2:Membership organization's

solicitation of representatives of

member firms,

6:3

1995-3: Running simultaneous

Senateand Presidential cam-

paigns,4:8
September / 995

1995-5: Use of contributor lists

derived from FEC reports. 4:9

1995-7: Candidate' s personal

liability for bank loan, 6:4

1995-8: Committee's rental of

candidate-owned office and

equipment. 6:5

1995-9: Operating a political

committee in cyberspace. 6:6

1995-10: Ownership of committee

records, 6:7

1995-11: Status of limited liability

compa ny. 6:8

1995-12: Affiliation and cross

solicitation between trade associa -

tion federa tion and state associations, 8:9

1995- 13: Definition of member

applied to membership association, 8: I0

1995-14: Operating a PAC booth at

a joi nt convention, 8:11

1995-15: Foreign-owned subsidiary:

earmarked contributions and

payroll deductions, 8: 12

1995- 16: Attaining national party

status, 9:3

1995-17: Trade associa tion federation and affiliated state and local

units; donation of raffle prizes and

one-third rule, 9:4

1995- 18: Campaign funds given for

portrait of former House Committee Chairman, 8:13

1995- 19: Discovering illegal

contributions in a committee' s

treasury, 9:5

1995-20: Camp aign funds used for

travel expenses of candidate's

family, 8:14

1995-21: Campaign's use of funds

awarded in law suit, 9:6

1995-23: Paying legal expenses with

campaign funds, 9:6

Compli ance

$25.000 Annual contribution limit,

4: 1

MUR 2884: Reporting misstatements and excessive contributions,7:2

MUR 3452: Excessive contributions, 6:8

MUR 3540: Corporate facilitation, 1:2

MUR 3650: Loan guarantors, 1:2

MUR 40 16/4076 : Reporti ng earmarked contributions, 7:2

Court Cases

FEC v.

- Branstool, 6:12

- Christian Action Network, 9:2

- Citizens for Wofford, 6:13

- Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee. 8:1

- Free the Eagle, 8:5

- Fu1ani (94-4461), 6:12

- Michigan Republican State

Committee, 5:4

- Montoya, 2:7; 5:4

- NRA Political Victory Fund, 2:I

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-1612), 4:4; 8:4

- Populist Party. 7:9

Federal Election Commission RECORD

- RUFFPAC, 8:5

- Williams, 4:5

v. FEC

- Albanese, 7:8

- Condon, 3:5

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (93- 132 1), 1:10

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-0349), 4:8

- Dukakis, 7:9

- Freedom Republicans, 2:6

- Froelich, 8:5

- Fulani (94- 1593), 4:6

- Lytle, 1:10, 2:7

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (94-5148), 5:4

- Robertson, 4:6

- Simon , 7:9

- Whitmore, 2:7

- Wilson, 2:7; 5:1

Mclnt yre v. Ohio, 6: 12

Rove v. Thornburgh, 4:7

Reports

Pilot program for electronic filing

gets underway, 9:1

Schedule for 1995, 1:4

800 Line Articles

Administrative termination, 2:9

Corporate facilitation, 6:1

1/