September 2008 Federal Election Commission Volume 34, Number 9

Table of Contents

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 4)

 Court Cases

1 EMILY’s List v. FEC

3 Hearn v. FEC

3 The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. 

v. FEC and U.S. Department of 

Justice

1 Advisory Opinions

6 Nonfilers

6 Index

Court Cases Advisory 

Opinions EMILY’s List v. FEC

On July 31, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied EMILY’s List’s motion 

for summary judgment and granted 

the FEC’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment. 

Background

EMILY’s List is a nonconnected 

political committee registered with 

the FEC. In January 2005, EMILY’s 

List filed suit in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia, 

asserting a facial challenge to regulations promulgated by the FEC to 

implement provisions of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act). 

The regulations at issue established a new rule for when funds 

received by political committees in 

response to certain solicitations must 

be treated as “contributions” under 

the Act and thereby must abide by 

federal limitations and prohibitions. 

The regulations also modified the 

Commission’s rules regarding how 

political committees may allocate 

spending between federal and 

nonfederal accounts.

Under current FEC rules, 

nonconnected political committees that maintain both federal and 

nonfederal accounts may allocate 

administrative expenses, costs of 

AO 2007-33

“Stand-By-Your-Ad” 

Disclaimer Required 

for Brief Television 

Advertisements

A series of 10- and 15-second 

independent expenditure television 

ads Club for Growth Political Action 

Committee (Club for Growth PAC) 

plans to air in support of a federal 

candidate must contain the full, spoken “stand-by-your-ad” disclaimer in 

addition to meeting other disclaimer 

requirements. 

Background

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission 

regulations, when express advocacy 

ads are paid for by a political committee, such as Club for Growth 

PAC, and are not authorized by 

any candidate, the disclaimer must 

clearly state the full name, permanent address, telephone number or 

web address of the person who paid 

for the communication and indicate 

that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s 

committee. 11 CFR 110.11(b)(3). 

For televised ads, this disclaimer 

must appear in writing equal to or 

greater than four percent of the vertical picture height for at least four 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2008

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Donald F. McGahn II, Chairman

Steven T. Walther, Vice Chairman

Cynthia L. Bauerly, 

 Commissioner

Caroline C. Hunter, 

 Commissioner

Matthew S. Petersen, 

 Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, 

 Commissioner

Joseph E. Stoltz,

 Acting Staff Director

Thomasenia Duncan, 

 General Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division of the Office of 

 Communications

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy L. Kort, Deputy Assistant 

 Staff Director

Myles G. Martin, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

generic voter drives and costs of 

public communications that refer 

to a political party but not to specific candidates with a minimum 

of 50 percent federal funds. (The 

remainder may be allocated to the 

nonfederal account). 11 CFR 106.6. 

Public communications and voter 

drives that refer to one or more 

clearly identified federal candidates, 

but not to any nonfederal candidates, 

must be financed with 100 percent 

federal funds. 11 CFR 106.6(f)(1). 

Public communications and voter 

drives that refer to one or more 

clearly identified nonfederal candidates but do not refer to any federal 

candidates may be financed with 100 

percent nonfederal funds. 11 CFR 

106.6(f)(2). 

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

With regard to solicitations, Commission regulations state that funds 

received in response to a solicitation 

must be considered federal “contributions” under the Act if the communication indicates that any portion 

of the funds received will be used to 

support or oppose the election of a 

clearly identified federal candidate. 

11 CFR 100.57(a). Likewise, if a 

solicitation refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and a political 

party, but not to a clearly identified nonfederal candidate, all funds 

received in response are considered 

contributions. 11 CFR 100.57(b)(1). 

In contrast however, if the solicitation refers to one or more clearly 

identified nonfederal candidates, in 

addition to a clearly identified federal candidate, at least 50 percent of 

the funds received must be treated as 

contributions under the Act, regardless of whether the solicitation also 

refers to a political party. 100.57(b)

(2).

EMILY’s List sought to enjoin 

enforcement of the regulations, 

alleging that each was in excess of 

the Commission’s authority, was 

arbitrary and capricious, was promulgated without adequate notice 

under the Administrative Procedures 

Act (APA) and violated the First 

Amendment to the Constitution. 

On February 25, 2005, the court 

denied EMILY’s List’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction, which was 

subsequently affirmed on appeal on 

December 22, 2005. See the April 

2005 and February 2006 Record. 

Court Decision on Summary 

Judgment

The court held that EMILY’s List 

has standing to challenge both the 

rule regarding how political committees must treat funds received 

in response to certain solicitations 

and the rules for how federal and 

nonfederal activities must be allocated. EMILY’s List brings a facial 

challenge to the rules rather than an 

“as-applied” challenge, asserting 

that the rules are overly broad under 

the First Amendment because “an 

individual whose own speech or conduct may be prohibited is permitted 

to challenge a statute on its face.”

The court also held that the allocation and contribution limits that 

EMILY’s List challenged in this case 

are contribution limits, which are 

subject to lesser scrutiny than the 

“strict scrutiny” standard that is typically applied to limits on campaign 

expenditures. The Supreme Court 

has “recognized that contribution 

limits, unlike limits on expenditures, 

‘entail only a marginal restriction 

upon the contributor’s ability to 

engage in free communication.’” 

Moreover, contribution limits do not 

pose the same danger to associational rights as expenditure restrictions 

because the “overall effect of dollar 

limits on contributions is merely to 

require candidates and political committees to raise funds from a greater 

number of persons.”

The district court held in this 

case that the challenged solicitation 

and allocation regulations serve the 

governmental interest of preventing corruption and the appearance 

of corruption by foreclosing the 

circumvention of the Act’s contribution limits. The court held that 

EMILY’s List cannot establish that 

the FEC’s allocation regulations are 

facially overbroad since the regulations are closely drawn to match 

the sufficiently important interests 

of preventing corruption and the 

appearance of corruption by preventing the use of nonfederal funds for 

communications that may influence 

federal elections. The court also held 

that the solicitation regulations are 

closely drawn to match sufficiently 

important government interests and 

thus must be upheld under a lesser 

scrutiny standard. The court denied 

EMILY’s List’s motion for summary 

judgment and granted the FEC’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment. 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 1:05CV00049.

 —Myles Martin
September 2008 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

(continued on page 4)

Hearn v. FEC

On July 10, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 

Louisiana granted the FEC’s motion 

to dismiss this case, finding that Ms. 

Hearn lacked standing to bring the 

suit. The court complaint filed by 

Gloria Hearn sought judicial review 

of two final determinations by the 

FEC that Ms. Hearn’s campaign 

committee and its treasurer failed to 

file timely disclosure reports. 

Background 

Commission regulations require 

House campaign committees, among 

others, to file all reports and statements electronically if their total 

contributions or total expenditures 

exceed, or are expected to exceed, $50,000 in a calendar year. 2 

U.S.C. §434(a)(11)(A)(i); 11 CFR 

104.18(a)(1)(ii). Reports filed on 

paper do not satisfy the filing obligations for these committees. 11 CFR 

104.18(a)(2). 

On October 5, 2007, Ms. Hearn, 

a candidate for the U.S. House of 

Representatives in the 2006 election, 

filed a complaint in the U.S. District 

Court for the Western District of 

Louisiana challenging two administrative fines the Commission levied 

against her campaign committee 

and its treasurer for failure to file 

disclosure reports. In her complaint, 

Ms. Hearn alleged that her campaign 

committee filed paper copies of the 

reports on time, then re-filed the 

reports electronically after the Commission informed the committee 

that it should have filed electronically. According to the complaint, 

the Commission imposed fines of 

$5,000 and $3,500 for the two violations.

Court Decision

The FEC made its final determinations and imposed civil penalties 

on Ms. Hearn’s campaign committee 

and the committee’s treasurer, not on 

Ms. Hearn herself. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, only a 

person against whom an adverse determination was made may request 

judicial review of an FEC determination. 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(4)(C)(iii). 

As a result, the court found that Ms. 

Hearn lacked statutory standing to 

ask the district court to review the 

FEC’s actions. The court granted the 

FEC’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, 1:07-cv01674.

 —Amy Kort

The Real Truth About 

Obama, Inc. v. FEC and U.S. 

Department of Justice

On July 30, 2008, The Real Truth 

About Obama (RTAO/ the plaintiff), 

Inc., a nonprofit “527” corporation, 

filed a complaint in the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Virginia challenging the constitutionality of three provisions of FEC 

regulations and an FEC “enforcement policy.” 

The complaint alleges that certain 

provisions of Commission regulations are unconstitutionally overbroad, void for vagueness, contrary 

to law and in violation of the First 

and Fifth Amendments. The plaintiff further alleges that the provisions 

in question exceed the FEC’s statutory authority and have a chilling 

effect on their speech. Regulations 

in question include those related to 

express advocacy, funds received 

in response to solicitations and the 

Commission’s implementation of the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Wisconsin Right to Life, along with the 

Commission’s “enforcement policy” 

on political committee status. The 

suit was filed against the FEC and 

the United States Department of Justice, the entity charged with criminal 

enforcement of the federal laws at 

issue.

Background

RTAO is a nonstock, nonprofit 

corporation in Richmond, Virginia, 

registered with the IRS under 26 

U.S.C. §527. RTAO is not a federally registered political committee 

and claims that it does not engage in 

express advocacy or make contributions to political candidates. According to RTAO, the organization’s 

primary purpose is to educate voters 

and engage in get-out-the-vote 

drives, along with other activities 

that are consistent with Section 527 

of the Internal Revenue Code.

RTAO intends to engage in 

certain activities in the current 

election cycle that it claims will 

educate the public about Senator 

Barack Obama’s policy positions, 

including the creation of a web site, 

digital postcards and audio ads for 

radio broadcast and web site posting. The organization intends to 

fund its efforts by sending written 

communications to potential donors 

that describe the organization and 

upcoming projects. RTAO intends 

to raise more than $1,000 and to disburse more than $1,000 to broadcast 

audio ads and place them on the web 

site. 

RTAO claims that it is chilled 

from proceeding with its intended 

activities because it believes that it 

will be deemed a political committee by the FEC and subject to FEC 

and DOJ investigations and possible 

enforcement actions that may result 

in civil and criminal penalties. 

Complaint

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) and Commission 

regulations define a “political committee” as any group or association 

that receives more than $1,000 in 

“contributions” or makes more than 

$1,000 in “expenditures” during a 

calendar year. Groups or associations that meet this definition must 

follow the Act’s limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements. 11 

CFR 100.5. 

Expressly Advocating. An “expenditure” includes, among other things, 

funds spent for a communication 

that “expressly advocates” the election or defeat of a clearly identified 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2008

4

federal candidate. 11 CFR 100.22. 

A communication can be considered 

express advocacy either by use of 

certain explicit words of advocacy 

of election or defeat or by the only 

“reasonable interpretation test.” 11 

CFR 100.22. Under the reasonable 

interpretation test, a communication 

is considered to expressly advocate 

when, taken as a whole and with 

limited reference to external events, 

such as the proximity of the election, the communication can only be 

interpreted by a reasonable person as 

advocating the election or defeat of a 

candidate. 11 CFR 100.22(b). RTAO 

asks the court to find the “reasonable 

purpose test” for the definition of 

“express advocacy” unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and in excess of the FEC’s statutory authority.

Donations to “Support” or “Oppose.” “Contributions” include, 

among other things, funds received 

in response to a solicitation that indicates that any portion of the funds 

received will be used to support 

or oppose the election of a clearly 

identified federal candidate. 11 CFR 

100.57(a). RTAO asks the court to 

find this provision unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the 

First and Fifth Amendments because 

the organization claims that “‘support’ and ‘oppose’ are undefined, go 

beyond express advocacy and are 

unconstitutionally vague.”

“Major Purpose Test.” A group or 

association that crosses the $1,000 

contribution or expenditure threshold 

will only be deemed a political committee if its “major purpose” is to 

engage in federal campaign activity. 

RTAO claims that the FEC set forth 

an enforcement policy regarding 

PAC status in a policy statement,1

and that this enforcement policy is 

“based on an ad hoc, case-by-case, 

analysis of vague and impermissible factors applied to undefined 

facts derived through broad-ranging, 

intrusive, and burdensome investigations . . . that, in themselves, can 

often shut down an organization, 

without adequate bright lines to 

protect issue advocacy in this core 

First Amendment area.” RTAO asks 

the court to find this “enforcement 

policy” unconstitutionally vague 

and overbroad and in excess of the 

FEC’s statutory authority.

Electioneering Communications. 

Under FEC regulations, a corporation or labor organization can make 

certain electioneering communications so long as the communication 

can be reasonably interpreted as 

something other than an appeal to 

vote for or against a clearly identified candidate. 11 CFR 114.15. 

This provision is part of the revised 

electioneering communications 

regulations that were promulgated 

to implement the Supreme Court’s 

decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right 

to Life, Inc. The Court found that 

WRTL’s ads in question could reasonably be interpreted as something 

other than an appeal to vote for or 

against a specific federal candidate 

and, as such, did not constitute the 

functional equivalent of express 

advocacy. The Court noted that the 

ads’ content lacked “indicia of express advocacy” because they made 

no mention of “an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger . . 

. and [took no] position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or 

fitness for office.” The Commission 

subsequently promulgated regulations that include a test to determine 

whether an ad can reasonably be 

interpreted as something other than 

an appeal to vote for or against a 

clearly identified candidate. 11 

CFR 114.15. RTAO claims that this 

regulation exceeds any permissible 

construction of the Court’s decision and is unconstitutionally vague 

and overbroad and in excess of the 

FEC’s statutory authority.

Relief

The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the challenged regulations 

and “enforcement policy” are void 

and set aside. In addition, RTAO 

seeks a preliminary and permanent 

injunction enjoining the FEC and 

DOJ from enforcing these rules and 

“enforcement policy.” 

 —Michelle Ryan

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

1

 The complaint references the FEC’s 

Supplemental Explanation and Justification of its Political Committee Status 

rules, 72 FR 5595 (February 7, 2007).

seconds. 11 CFR 110.11 (c)(3)(iii). 

Radio and television ads must also 

include an audio statement identifying the political committee or other 

person responsible for the content of 

the ad. 11 CFR 110.11(c)(4)(i). 

In this case, Club for Growth PAC 

intends to pay for 10- and 15-second 

television ads that expressly advocate the election of a federal candidate. It plans to include the required 

written disclaimer indicating that 

it is responsible for the content and 

that the ads are not authorized by 

any candidate or candidate’s committee.

However, Club for Growth PAC 

requested it be allowed to omit or 

truncate the required spoken disclaimer. Since the ads are shorter 

than most other political ads, which 

run for 30 to 60 seconds, Club for 

Growth PAC argued the spoken disclaimer would limit the ad’s ability 

to get its message to viewers. 

Analysis

In previous advisory opinions, 

the Commission has recognized 

that in certain types of communications it is impracticable to include 

a full disclaimer as required by the 

Act and Commission regulations. 

For example, in AO 2004-10, the 

Commission found that the specific 

physical and technological limitations of ads read during live reports 

broadcast from a helicopter made it 

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 1)
September 2008 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

impracticable for a candidate to read 

the required disclaimer himself or 

herself. 

Likewise, in AO 2002-09, the 

Commission determined that certain 

candidate-sponsored text messages 

were eligible for the “small items” 

exception from the disclaimer 

requirements. Under this exception, bumper stickers, pins and other 

small items are not required to carry 

a printed disclaimer because their 

size would make doing so impracticable. 11 CFR 110.11(f)(l)(i).

However, Club for Growth PAC’s 

plan presents facts that are materially different from those presented in 

these advisory opinions. AO 2004-

10 did not dispense with the spoken 

disclaimer, but rather allowed the 

broadcaster, rather than the candidate, to read it. Moreover, the 

10- and 15-second ads proposed by 

Club for Growth PAC do not present 

the same physical or technological 

limitations as those described in 

previous advisory opinions. 

Likewise, the “small items” exception does not apply to the spoken 

disclaimer requirements for televised 

ads. Under Commission regulations, 

the “small items” exception applies 

only to “bumper stickers, pins, buttons, pens and other similar items 

upon which the disclaimer cannot 

be conveniently printed.” 11 CFR 

110.11(f)(1)(i). Thus, it does not apply to the spoken disclaimer for the 

television ads that Club for Growth 

PAC plans to sponsor. Additionally, 

the Commission noted that the Act 

provides no exemptions from the 

spoken disclaimer requirement simply because the ads are only 10 or 15 

seconds long. Thus, Club for Growth 

PAC must include the full spoken 

disclaimer in its 10- and 15-second 

television ads.

Date Issued: July 29, 2008; 

Length: 4 pages.

 —Isaac J. Baker

AO 2008-5

Organization’s Status as a 

Partnership

An entity organized under state 

law as a limited liability partnership, 

but classified as a corporation for 

federal tax purposes, is treated as a 

partnership under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). Accordingly, the partnership’s federal 

political action committee (PAC) 

is not a separate segregated fund 

(SSF), but rather a nonconnected 

PAC. As such, all administrative 

support provided to the PAC by the 

partnership would constitute contributions, subject to the limitations 

and prohibitions of the Act.

Background

Holland & Knight LLP (the Firm) 

is a law firm that is classified as a 

limited liability partnership (LLP) 

under the laws of Florida. However, 

for purposes of federal taxation, the 

Firm is classified as a corporation. 

The Firm is taxed as a partnership 

in Massachusetts and Florida, but is 

taxed as a corporation in other states 

in which it operates. 

The Firm administers the Holland 

& Knight Committee for Effective 

Government (the Committee), a 

nonconnected PAC. 

Analysis

The Act’s legislative history and 

Commission regulations rely on 

state law to determine if an organization is a partnership or a corporation. Since the Firm is organized as 

a limited liability partnership under 

Florida law, the Firm is treated as a 

partnership under the Act and Commission regulations.

The Act generally prohibits 

corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection 

with a federal election. However, 

the Act exempts from the definition 

of “contribution or expenditure” a 

corporation’s costs for establishing, 

administering or soliciting contributions to its SSF. 11 CFR 114.1(a)

(2)(iii) and 114.2(b). These exemptions are generally not extended to 

partnerships. Since the Firm is a 

partnership and not a corporation, 

the contribution and expenditure 

exemptions do not apply, and the 

Firm may not treat the Committee as its SSF, nor may the Firm 

treat disbursements for the costs of 

administering the Committee or for 

soliciting contributions for the Committee as exempt from the definition 

of “contribution or expenditure” 

under the Act and Commission 

regulations.

Administrative and solicitation 

costs paid by the Firm on behalf of 

the Committee are contributions. 

Partnerships are treated as persons 

under the Act and Commission 

regulations and may contribute up 

to $5,000 per calendar year to a 

nonconnected committee. 11 CFR 

100.10 and 110.1(d). Any contributions made to the Committee by 

the Firm are attributable both to the 

Firm and to its partners. 110.1(e)(1) 

and (2).

Date Issued: July 29, 2008;

Length: 5 pages.

 —Myles Martin

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2008-08

Effect on various contribution 

limits due to handling of contribution (Jonathan Zucker, July 22, 

2008)

AOR 2008-10

Web site as vehicle for hosting 

political ads created by outside persons and placement of those ads on 

television (VoterVoter.com, August 

12, 2008)

Alternative Disposition of 

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 2008-01

The requestor withdrew its 

request for this advisory opinion 

on August 1, 2008 (Butler County 

Democrats for Change).
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2008

6

Campaign Guides 

Available

 For each type of committee, a 

Campaign Guide explains, in clear 

English, the complex regulations 

regarding the activity of political 

committees. It shows readers, 

for example, how to fill out FEC 

reports and illustrates how the law 

applies to practical situations.

 The FEC publishes four 

Campaign Guides, each for a 

different type of committee, 

and we are happy to mail your 

committee as many copies as 

you need, free of charge. We 

encourage you to view them on 

our web site www.fec.gov.

 If you would like to place an 

order for paper copies of the 

Campaign Guides, please call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530.

The first number in each citation refers to the numeric month of 

the 2008 Record issue in which the 

article appeared. The second number, following the colon, indicates 

the page number in that issue. For 

example, “1:4” means that the article 

is in the January issue on page four.

Administrative Fines

Update, 2:4; 4:9

Advisory Opinions

Alternative Disposition of Advisory 

Opinion Requests, AOR 2007-36, 

3:8; AOR 2008-1, 9:5; AOR 2008-

3, 8:10

2007-19: Nonprofit Corporation 

Qualifies as Membership Organization, 1:15

2007-22: Campaign Committee May 

Accept Volunteer Services from 

Foreign Nationals, 1:16

2007-23: State Party Committee 

Status for Independence Party of 

New York, 1:17

Committees Fail to File PrePrimary Reports 

Four campaign committees 

failed to file the Pre-Primary report 

required by the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) for primary 

elections on August 5, 2008, in 

Kansas, Michigan and Missouri, and 

one campaign committee failed to 

file the Pre-Primary report required 

for the August 12 primary election in 

Connecticut.

As of 5 p.m. July 31, 2008, the 

required disclosure report had not 

been received from the following 

committees active in August 5th primary elections:

•	Lee Jones for Senate, principal

campaign committee for Leroy 

Dean Jones, a candidate in Kansas. 

The committee treasurer is Sue 

Peachey. 

•	Betts for Congress, principal

campaign committee for Donald 

Betts, Jr., a candidate in Kansas’ 4th 

district. The committee treasurer is 

Thomas M. Warner, Jr. 

•	Jack Hoogendyk for US Senate,

principal campaign committee for 

Jack Hoogendyk, a candidate in 

Michigan. The committee treasurer 

is Jack Hoogendyk. 

•	Allen for Congress, principal

campaign committee for Joseph 

William Allen, a candidate in Missouri’s 8th district. The committee 

treasurer is Kathryn Sunita Allen.

This report was due on July 24, 

2008. If sent by certified or registered mail, the report should have 

been postmarked by July 21, 2008

As of 5 p.m. August 7, 2008, the 

required disclosure report had not 

been received from Lee Whitnum 

2008, principal campaign committee for Lisa Lee Whitnum in Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District. 

The committee’s treasurer is L. 

Lee Whitnum. This report was due 

on July 31, 2008, and should have 

included financial activity for the 

Nonfilers Index period July 1, 2008, through July 23, 

2008. If sent by certified or registered mail, the report should have 

been postmarked by July 28, 2008.

The FEC notified committees 

involved in these primaries of their 

potential filing requirements. Those 

committees who did not file on the 

due date were notified that reports 

had not been received and that their 

names would be published if they 

did not respond within four business 

days.

Some individuals and their committees have no obligation to file 

reports under federal election law, 

even though their names may appear 

on state ballots. If an individual raises or spends less than $5,000, he or 

she is not considered a “candidate” 

subject to reporting under the Act.

Other political committees that 

support Senate and House candidates in elections, but are not 

authorized units of a candidate’s 

campaign, are also required to file 

pre-primary reports, unless they 

report monthly. Those committee 

names are not published by the FEC.

Further Commission action 

against non-filers and late filers is 

decided on a case-by-case basis. 

Federal law gives the FEC broad 

authority to initiate enforcement actions, and the FEC has implemented 

an administrative fine program with 

provisions for assessing monetary 

penalties.

 —Myles Martin
September 2008 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

2007-24: Payment for Joint campaign Activities, 1:18

2007-25: Limited Liability Partnership Taxed as a Corporation, 2:7

2007-26: Disposal of Excess State 

Campaign Funds by Federal Candidate, 1:19

2007-27: Nonconnected Committee 

Solicitations for SSF Contributions, 2:8

2007-28: Federal Candidates/Officeholders Fundraising for Ballot 

Measure Committees, 2:8

2007-29: Donation to a Candidate 

for Local Party Office is Not Personal Use, 1:21

2007-30: Matching Credit Card 

Contributions Under Public Funding Program, 1:21

2007-31: Earmarked Contributions Forwarded to a Presidential 

Candidate by a Nonconnected 

Committee’s Checks Not Matchable, 2:9

2007-32: Political Committee Status 

of Independent Expenditure Organization, 3:8

2007-33: “Stand-By-Your-Ad” Disclaimer Required for Brief Television Advertisements, 9:1

2007-34: Federal Candidate’s Endorsement of Nonfederal Candidate, 2:10

2007-35: Internet Toolbar Affinity 

Program for Political Committees, 

3:8

2008-2: Eligibility for Candidate 

Salary Payments, 6:4

2008-5: Organization’s Status as a 

Partnership, 9:5

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Update, 3:4; 5:4

Commission

Commission Amends Rules that 

Govern its Procedures, 3:3

Commission Publishes Notice of 

New and Revised Systems of 

Records, 2:4

Commission Statement on Davis v. 

FEC, 8:3

Message from the Chairman, 1:1

New Chairman Elected, 1:2

New Commissioners Join the Commission, 8:1

New Vice Chair Elected, 3:2

Compliance

MUR 5888: Failure to File Timely 

Under Millionaires’ Amendment, 

2:1

MUR 5895: Personal Use and Prohibited Contributions, 3:1

Nonfilers, 3:4; 4:9; 6:5; 7:6, 9:6

Correction

2008 Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits, 4:10

Court Cases

______ v. FEC

– Citizens United, 2:1

– Davis, 8:1

– DNC, 6:2, 8:8

– EMILY’s List, 9:1

– Hearn, 9:3

– Morgan, 1:4

– The Real Truth About Obama, 

Inc., 9:3

– SpeechNow.org, 4:6, 8:6

– Shays III, 6:1, 7:1

– Tierney, 5:2

Beam v. Gonzales, 5:3

Bialek v. Mukasey, 8:8

FEC v. ______

– Adams, 5:1

– Hearn, 1:5

– Reform Party of the USA, 4:1

Marcus v. Mukasey, 5:3

Legislation

House Delegate for Northern Mariana Islands, 6:5

Public Funding

Commission Certifies Primary 

Matching Fund Payments, 2:3, 8:9

Dodd and Biden Certified for Matching Funds, 1:22

Kucinich and Hunter Certified for 

Matching Funds, 2:4

Outreach

Conference for Corporations and 

their PACs, 2:10

Conferences Scheduled for 2008, 

1:23; 2:11; 3:14; 4:10

June 23-24 Conference for Trade Associations, Membership Organizations and Labor Organizations, 

5:6; 6:6

Orlando Regional Conference for 

House and Senate Campaigns, 

Political Party Committees and 

Corporate/Labor/Trade PACs, 

1:23

Roundtable on Pre-Election Communications, 8:10

Seminar for Nonconnected Political 

Action Committees, 4:10; 5:6

Party Activities

2008 Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits, 3:6; 4:10

Regulations

Final Rules and Explanation for 

Electioneering Communications, 

1:1

Reports

April Reporting Reminder, 4:1

California Special Election Reporting: 12th District, 3:4

Illinois 14th District Special Election Reporting, 1:13

Indiana Special Election Reporting: 

7th District, 2:5

July Reporting Reminder, 7:1

Louisiana Special Election Reporting: 1st and 6th Districts, 2:6 

Maryland Special Election Reporting: 4th District, 6:4

Mississippi Special Election Reporting: 1st District, 4:3

Reports Due in 2008, 1:5

Statistics

House and Senate Candidate Committees Raise $507 Million in 

2007, 5:1

Number of PACs Increases Slightly 

in 2007, 3:7

Party Activity Summary through 

April 2008, 7:5

Party Committee Contributions 

Update, 4:7

Web Site

Enhanced Presidential Campaign 

Finance Map, 6:5
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2008

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300