June 1999 Federal Election Commission Volume 25, Number 6

Table of Contents

Court Cases

1 Perot ’96 v. FEC (98-1022)

Electronic Filing

1 Q & A for FEC’s Electronic Filing

Program

2 Federal Register

3 Advisory Opinions

Regulations

7 Commission Votes 3-3 on Express

Advocacy Rulemaking

Statistics

8 Candidates in ’98: Final Statistics

8 Republican Party Committees

Maintain Fundraising, Spending

Supremacy in 1998 Election Cycle

 Outreach

10 FEC Conducts Monthly

Roundtable Sessions

11 FEC Conference Schedule

10 Public Appearances

11 Index

Perot ’96 v. FEC (98-1022)

On April 12, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

dismissed this case with prejudice at

the plaintiff’s request.

Perot ’96, the 1996 committee of

former Reform Party Presidential

candidate Ross Perot, had asked the

court to find that the FEC acted

contrary to law in dismissing an

administrative complaint that Perot

’96 had filed against the Commission on Presidential Debates(CPD).

The CPD had sponsored the 1996

Presidential debates to which Mr.

Perot was not invited to participate.

Perot ’96 had asked the court to

order the FEC to take action on the

complaint or to find that the

agency’s regulations governing

nonpartisan candidate debates were

unconstitutional. 11 CFR 110.13

and 114.4(f). At the time of the

plaintiff’s voluntary motion to

dismiss with prejudice, the

Commission’s motion to dismiss for

lack of standing was pending and

awaiting judgment. For a full

description of this case, see the June

1998 Record, p. 3.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 98-1022. ✦

Court Cases Electronic

Filing

Q & A for FEC’s Electronic

Filing Program

Just as the FEC electronic filing

system has made filing faster and

easier, it has also prompted new

questions from the filing community. Although some questions are

unique to a particular committee or

situation, many are commonly asked

by first-time electronic filers. See

some of the most frequently asked

questions—and the answers—

below.

Must I start filing electronically at

the beginning of the year?

No. Filers may begin filing

electronically at any time. By

starting as soon as possible, however, filers minimize the amount of

previous-period data that must be

entered to ensure accurate year-todate figures.

Do I need to have my electronic

format approved prior to filing?

No. This misconception is

common among those who currently

file paper reports generated by

computer software. Committees that

file paper reports generated by a

computer must obtain FEC approval

of their format prior to using it. By

contrast, the format for electroni-

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1999

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)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Darryl R. Wold, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Electronic Filing

(continued from page 1)

cally filed reports requires no

advance approval.

Isn’t electronic filing for

Presidential committees only?

No. While it is true that Presidential committees that accept matching

funds are required to file electronically, all other campaign committees, and PACs and party

committees, may elect to participate

in the FEC’s electronic filing

program.

I must be connected to the

Internet to file electronically,

right?

No. Using the Internet to upload

reports is just one way to submit

electronically filed reports to the

Commission. Filers may also file

directly from their modems to the

FEC’s modems. The third option is

to save computer-generated reports

to a diskette and mail it to the FEC.

Using a diskette allows those who

have no modem or Internet access to

participate in electronic filing. It

also provides a backup filing

method in cases where Internet

access or phone service is temporarily interrupted.

Can I e-mail my report to the

FEC?

No. E-mail is not secure enough

to handle electronic filing and

provides no method for evaluating

filing.

How does the treasurer “sign” an

electronic report?

The treasurer’s signature required

on a paper filing is replaced by the

treasurer’s password for filing

electronically. To obtain a password, the treasurer must submit a

written, signed request on official

committee letterhead to the electronic filing office. Mail the request

to: Federal Election Commission,

Electronic Filing Office, 999 E St.,

NW, Washington, DC 20463.

How can I obtain FECFile 3?

Filers have two options for

securing a copy of the FEC’s free

filing software. Note that FECFile 3

requires a PC with Windows 95, 98

or NT and approximately 8 MB free

disk space.

• Download it directly from the

FEC’s web site. Go to http://

www.fec.gov and click on the link

“Electronic Filing at the FEC.”

From the menu selection, choose

“Download,” fill in the requested

information and click “Submit” to

have the form processed. Consult

the instructions that follow on

subsequent web pages to download

the software to your hard drive.

• Call the FEC at 800/424-9530 and

request to speak with the Electronic Filing Office. Someone

there will see that a copy of the

software is mailed to you.

Is FECFile 3 the only electronic

filing option?

No. There are also commercial

vendors that integrate electronic

filing capability into their software

packages. Committees currently

using software to produce paper

FEC reports should check with the

software vendor to see if electronic

filing is available.

Shouldn’t I wait until more

committees are filing

electronically?

More committees are filing

electronically. As of this writing,

284 committees have filed 1,707

reports electronically. This is a 32

percent increase over the last six

months. The system is fast, easy and

reliable, and there is no time like the

present to get started.

If I have additional questions

about electronic filing, where can

I get help?

• Committees with questions about

electronic filing should call the

FEC’s electronic filing office at

202/694-1306 or 800/424-9530

(press 1 and ask for the electronic

filing office), or send an e-mail to

electronic@fec.gov. Information

about electronic filing is also

available at the FEC’s web site—

http://www.fec.gov (click on the

link “Electronic Filing at the

FEC”).

• For technical questions about

FECFile3, call the 24-hour support

line.

• For technical questions about other

filing software, call the software

vendor for assistance. ✦

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1999-7

Definition of Express Advocacy;

Notice of Disposition on Petition

for Rulemaking (64 FR 27478,

May 20, 1999)
June 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

AO 1999-4

Contributions and Exempt

Party Activity Undertaken

by Unregistered Local Party

Organization

Minnesota’s Senate District 43

committee (SD 43), a local party

organization, may make contributions to federal candidates and

exempt payments on behalf of

federal candidates without registering as a federal political committee

so long as it uses permissible funds

for these purposes and its contributions and payments do not exceed

federal registration thresholds. The

Republican Party of Minnesota

(RPM), SD 43’s parent political

body, need not include SD 43’s

contributions to federal candidates

in order to determine its compliance

with the limit on contributions by

multicandidate committees.

SD 43 is registered as a state

committee in Minnesota and maintains one campaign account. State

law prohibits its acceptance of

corporate contributions, but does

allow it to collect contributions from

unions up to $100 and from individuals, other state political committees and “political funds” of an

association in unlimited amounts.

Commission regulations list four

thresholds for determining when a

local committee of a political party

qualifies as a political committee:

• A committee receives contributions aggregating in excess of

$5,000 during a calendar year;

• A committee makes exempt

payments (under 11 CFR

100.7(b)(9), (15) and (17)) aggregating in excess of $5,000 during a

calendar year;

• A committee makes contributions

aggregating in excess of $1,000

during a calendar year; or

• A committee makes expenditures

Advisory

Opinions

aggregating in excess of $1,000

during a calendar year. 11 CFR

100.5(c).

Commission regulations define

affiliated committees as those

established, financed, maintained

or controlled by the same person or

group, and treats these committees

as a single committee with regard

to contributions they receive and

make. 11 CFR 100.5(g),

102.2(b)(1) and 100.3. Contributions made by a state party committee and subordinate party

committees within the same state

are therefore presumed to be made

by one political committee unless:

• The subordinate party organization

has not received funds from any

other political committee established, financed, maintained or

controlled by any unit of the party;

and

• The subordinate party organization

does not coordinate its contributions with any other unit of the

party organization or any political

committee established, financed,

maintained or controlled by

another party unit. 11 CFR

110.3(b)(3)(i)-(ii), AO 1978-9.

Under this standard, SD 43 is not

independent of RPM. Nevertheless,

it is not required to aggregate its

contributions with those of RPM.

FEC regulations and AO 1978-9

state that the aggregation rule does

not apply to a local party organization unless it qualifies as a “political

committee,” as defined by the

Commission. 11 CFR 110.3(b)(3)

and AO 1978-9. Therefore, because

SD 43 is not a registered political

committee with the FEC, RPM and

SD 43 do not need to aggregate their

contributions to federal candidates

to determine RPM’s compliance

with the limits on contributions by

multicandidate committees.

SD 43 may make direct contributions to federal candidates without

registering with the FEC so long as

its contributions or exempt payments remain below the registration thresholds (see above). Contributions and exempt payments are

treated separately for determining

whether a committee must register

with the FEC. Thus, SD 43 could

make $990 in contributions and

$4,900 in exempt payments in the

same calendar year without such

actions triggering registration with

the FEC.

SD 43 must also comply with

Commission regulations that

prohibit the use of certain funds to

make contributions, expenditures

or exempt payments to federal

candidates.

Because its one account could

contain funds from prohibited

contributors, and because SD 43

plans to support federal candidates,

SD 43 must either:

• Establish a separate account for

federal activity, which could only

contain funds permissible under

federal law, or

• Demonstrate through a reasonable

accounting method that its contributions to federal candidates (and

its expenditures and exempt

payments) come from funds that

are federally permissible. 11 CFR

102.5(b)(1)(i) and (ii).

Regardless of whether a party

organization has separate federal

and nonfederal accounts, it is

subject to the allocation rules.

If SD 43 engages in exempt party

activities that involve federal and

nonfederal election activity, the

portion of payments allocable to

federal activity would count toward

the $5,000 registration threshold. 11

CFR 106.5(a)(1), 106.5(a)(2)(iii) and

106.5(e). If SD 43 becomes a

political committee, it must establish

a federal account, and must conduct

all federal activity from that account.

Only funds permissible under the

limitations and prohibitions of the

Federal Election Campaign Act may

be deposited in the account.

Date Issued: April 22, 1999;

Length: 5 pages. ✦

(Advisory Opinions continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1999

4

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

AO 1999-6

Contributions Deducted

from Contributor’s Annuity

Payments

The National Rural Letter

Carriers’ Association (NRLCA)

may use a third party deduction

system to collect contributions from

its retired members’ annuity payments and transmit them to its

separate segregated fund, the

NRLCA PAC.

The approximately 26,000 retired

letter carriers who are part of the

NRLCA receive monthly annuity

payments via the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management (OPM).

This office has recently expanded a

procedure that allows retirees to

have OPM deduct amounts from

their annuity payments for certain

purposes, including voluntary

contributions to a separate segregated fund. To begin, modify or

discontinue deductions to a PAC, a

retiree dials a toll-free number and

enters a seven-digit annuity number

to gain access to his or her personal

account. If the retiree uses OPM’s

interactive voice response system to

authorize a PAC contribution, he or

she must also enter a personal

identification number.

While Commission regulations

prohibit a labor union from making

contributions in connection with a

federal election, a union may solicit

AO 1999-5

Allocation Expenses in NM

for Elected State

Commission

The Democratic Party of New

Mexico (DPNM) may adjust its

ballot composition ratio during the

2000 election cycle to include one

point for candidates it intends to

support for seats on the recentlycreated Public Regulation Commission (PRC), a state utilities

regulatory body made up of five

Commissioners elected by voters in

five geographic areas of the state.

The PRC’s first five Commissioners were elected in November

1998. Ultimately, Commissioners

will serve four-year terms, but, in

this initial phase, two Commissioners’ terms have been shortened in

order to stagger the terms and

provide continuity on the PRC.

Consequently, two PRC seats will

be on the ballot in November 2000.

The DPNM, which intends to

support the Democratic candidates

for the two seats, allocates its

administrative and generic voter

drive expenses using the ballot

composition method and would like

to count the PRC elections as “other

partisan executive statewide offices”

in that ratio.

Commission regulations require

state party committees with both

federal and nonfederal accounts to

allocate administrative and generic

voter drive expenses based on the

ratio of federal offices expected on

the ballot to total federal and

nonfederal offices expected on the

ballot in the next general election to

be held in the committee’s state or

geographic area. 11 CFR

106.5(d)(1)(i). The method for

calculating these points is found at

11 CFR 106.5(d)(1)(ii). Among

state offices, the offices of governor,

state senator and state representative

count as one nonfederal point each.

If there are other partisan statewide

executive candidates expected on

the same ballot, those offices count

as no more than two nonfederal

points in the ratio. The category,

“other partisan statewide executive

candidates,” encompasses candidates for state-level executive

offices other than governor—for

example, lieutenant governor and

attorney general—where those

offices are elected by popular vote

from among partisan candidates.

Those elected to the PRC,

however, differ from these examples

in that they are each elected, respectively, by voters in one of the five

geographic districts—not by voters

from the entire state. PRC candidates are comparable to candidates

for state senator and state representative—also elected by district to

positions that are part of the state

government. Thus, they are considered “other partisan statewide

executive candidates.” The upshot:

the DPNM can take these candidates

into account in calculating its ballot

composition ratio for the 2000

election cycle.

Since no more than one of the

candidates for the PRC will appear

on any single ballot in New Mexico

and the average voter will have an

opportunity to vote for just one PRC

candidate, the DPNM is entitled to

just one nonfederal point for the

office of PRC Commissioner in its

ballot composition ratio calculations.

The DPNM can declare a revised

ballot composition ratio that includes a point for partisan statewide

executive candidates on a schedule

H1 of its next report, which covers

activity from January 1 through

June 30, and is due to the FEC by

July 31. Presumably, the DPNM has

incurred allocable administrative

and generic voter drive expenses

since January 1, and has transferred

funds from its nonfederal account to

its federal account to cover the

nonfederal share of those expenses.

To the extent that those transfers

were less than what would have

been allowed had the DPNM

included a nonfederal point for PRC

candidates in its ballot composition

ratio, the Commission permitted

DPNM to make additional transfers

from its nonfederal account to make

up the difference. As a special

exception in this case, DPNM had

until April 30 to adjust any transfers

made between January 1 and March

2, 1999. Any adjustments to transfers made after March 2, had to be

made within the 70 day window set

out in 11 CFR 106.5(g)(2).

Date Issued: April 16, 1999;

Length: 4 pages. ✦
June 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

AO 1999-7

Minnesota Links to

Candidate Web Sites

The Secretary of State’s office in

Minnesota may provide links from

its web site, containing information

about candidates for elective office,

to those same candidates’ campaign

web sites without making an

expenditure. Providing such links is

one of the ways the state intends to

sponsor nonpartisan activities that

promote voter participation, and

such actions are exempt from the

definition of expenditure.

Minnesota already maintains a

web site with basic information

about all candidates who have filed

for federal, state and county offices

in the state. With the increased use

of the Internet, the state anticipates

that federal candidates will request

that their web addresses be included

among the information the Secretary

its membership for contributions to

its PAC, from which it may then

make contributions to federal

candidates. 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1),

114.1(c)(1) and 114.1(j). A union

may use a checkoff system or other

periodic payment plan to facilitate

the making of voluntary contributions from its membership. 11 CFR

114.1(f). Under 2 U.S.C. §432(c), a

treasurer is required to keep account

of all contributions a PAC receives

along with identification for those

who contribute more than $50. The

treasurer must also itemize totals for

contributions that aggregate over

$200 in a calendar year. 2 U.S.C.

§434(b)(2) and (b)(3).

Member

NRLCA qualifies as a membership association for purposes of the

Federal Election Campaign Act. Its

retired active members pay dues and

have the right to vote for the highest

governing body, or for those who

choose the members of that body,

thus satisfying the Commission’s

criteria for member. The retirees are

eligible, therefore, to be solicited for

contributions to the NRLCA PAC.

The Allotment Process

The OPM allotment has safeguards to ensure that retiree contributors have exclusive and

complete control over the contribution process. The retiree must take

some affirmative action to authorize, change or end monthly PAC

contributions. Further, the proposal

has features that are the same as

those the Commission approved in

AO 1999-3. In that opinion, the

Commission allowed the use of an

electronic signature—with unique

identifier safeguards—to authorize

payroll deductions to a corporate

PAC. As was the case in that

advisory opinion, the fact that

NRLCA contributors did not

authorize the annuity deductions

with a handwritten signature is not

significant in light of the circumstances. NRLCA PAC, however,

must maintain records of the

authorizations in a readable electronic record format for at least

three years, and must make those

records available to the Commission

upon request. 11 CFR 102.9(c),

104.14(b)(1) and (b)(3).

Magazine Solicitation

NRLCA PAC intends to publish

an article/solicitation announcing

the annuity allotment method in its

union magazine. The PAC must

follow FEC solicitation regulations,

such as informing prospective

contributors about the PAC’s

political purpose and about their

right to refuse to contribute without

any reprisal. If guidelines for

contributions are suggested, it must

be made clear that they are only

suggestions and that other amounts

may be contributed instead. 11 CFR

114.5(a)(1)-(5).

Because the article represents a

PAC solicitation, it may only be

distributed to the PAC’s restricted

class. Nevertheless, NRLCA PAC

may distribute the magazine,

containing the solicitation, to

approximately 450 recipients—out

of a total 97,000—who do not fall

within this category, provided that:

• The article explicitly states that

NRLCA and its PAC will screen

contributions and will return any

contributions made in response to

the article that come from individuals who are not part of the

solicitable class;

• The PAC implements this return/

refund policy; and

• The actual number and percentage

of unsolicitable persons who

receive the publication remain

incidental or de minimus as

compared to the entire circulation.

See AOs 1994-21, 1981-7, 1980-

139, 1979-50 and 1978-97.

The 450 unsolicitable recipients

are de minimus (less than 1 percent)

of the circulation.

Recordkeeping

NRLCA PAC’s proposed procedures for recordkeeping for the

annuity allotments meet Commission requirements. OPM intends to

send NRLCA PAC a lump sum

composed of the retirees’ allotments, with individual details

provided in supplemental records.

Provided that NRLCA PAC obtains

these additional records that identify

contributions, it will be in compliance with FEC regulations. This

information, however, must allow

the PAC and NRLCA to distinguish

between contributions and dues

payments. Because OPM does not

provide a breakdown of the allotment payment into subcategories

such as dues or contributions,

NRLCA PAC must use separate

bank accounts to ensure the segregation and timely deposit of allotment

proceeds. The PAC must itemize

contributions from individual

contributors—received via the

annuity deductions or other

means—when they exceed $200 in a

calendar year.

Date Issued: April 30, 1999;

Length: 9 pages. ✦

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1999

6

AO 1999-8

Investing Committee Funds

in Mutual Funds

Citizens for Arlen Specter, the

principal campaign committee for

Senator Arlen Specter, may invest

excess campaign funds in the

Vanguard Group’s family of mutual

and bond funds.

Mr. Specter was reelected to the

Senate in 1998 and does not anticipate significant expenditures from

his campaign committee until 2003

when he may seek reelection. In

view of the length of time the funds

would be available for investment,

the Committee has deemed it

prudent to diversify its current

investment practices and pursue a

more aggressive strategy. The

Committee treasurer would allocate

its funds among a number of

investment options offered by the

Vanguard Group. Neither Mr.

Specter nor members of his staff

would be informed of the specific

Vanguard funds selected. The fund

names, however, would appear on

reports filed with the FEC once the

funds showed returns.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) requires a political

committee to designate at least one

campaign depository with accounts

that are insured by the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation or

the National Credit Union Administration. All funds received by a

political committee must be deposited in a checking account or other

account held with the campaign

depository. 2 U.S.C. §432(h)(1).

Further, all disbursements, other

than petty cash, must be made by

check or similar draft drawn on

these accounts.

Commission regulations allow

political committees to transfer

funds from the depository for

investment purposes. 11 CFR

103.3(a). The regulations list several

examples of investment vehicles

and, past advisory opinions have

addressed and permitted investments in government securities,

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

of State’s office makes public. For

any candidate who provides the

Secretary of State with a Uniform

Resource Locator, or URL, the

Secretary of State would provide a

free hyperlink between the web site

it maintains and the candidate’s web

site.

The Secretary of State’s web site

would include a disclaimer stating

that the hyperlinks are provided by

the candidates themselves and are

displayed for voter information

purposes only. The disclaimer

would also add that the candidates’

web sites are not monitored or

regulated by the state of Minnesota.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) defines an expenditure, in part, to include any purchase, payment, gift of money or

anything of value made by any

person for the purpose of influencing a federal election. 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(A)(i). An exception in the

Act, however, provides that nonpartisan activity designed to encourage

individuals to vote or to register to

vote is not an expenditure. 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(ii). “Any cost incurred

for activity designed to encourage

individuals to register to vote or to

vote is not an expenditure if no

effort is or has been made to determine the party or candidate preference of individuals before

encouraging them to register to vote

or to vote....” 11 CFR 100.8(b)(3).

The Commission views

Minnesota’s efforts to provide

information in a nonpartisan manner

about all ballot-qualified candidates

(for any office) as nonpartisan

activity designed to encourage

individuals to vote or register to vote.

Minnesota’s proposal to include,

in this information, free hyperlinks to

candidate web sites falls within this

exemption. Thus, the hyperlinks

would not be considered a contribution or an expenditure under the Act.

Date Issued: April 22, 1999;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

Reconsideration of AO 1999-1

On April 29, the Commission

declined to reconsider its decision in

this advisory opinion. In February,

the Commission concluded that

money market funds and cash

management accounts. AOs 1997-6,

1986-18 and 1980-39. Committees

must report the receipts—dividends,

interest and the like—from these

investment accounts. 11 CFR

104.3(a)(1), (a)(3)(x) and (a)(4)(vi).

They must also first return the

investment funds to the campaign

depository before using the money

to make disbursements. Additionally, the Commission has concluded

that interest and other income

automatically and directly reinvested in the account should be

reported as an “other receipt” by the

committee. This income, however,

need not be deposited into the

campaign depository since the

reinvestment of the funds is merely

a conversion of one form of cash on

hand to another, and not an expenditure. AO 1997-6.

As long as the Committee follows

the Commission’s guidelines, its

investment plan with the Vanguard

Group is permissible. The Committee does not anticipate making

separate payments for management

fees or expenses in connection with

the Vanguard Group investments.

Operating expenses for the fund are

paid from the fund’s gross returns

before calculating the net investment return to individual shareholders. Thus, the operating expenses for

the fund are reflected only in the

share price; from the perspective of

the shareholder, they are incurred on

a pre-income basis and are not paid

by the shareholder. The Commission concludes, in this situation, that

the Committee does not have to

report any allocable share of the

operating expenses as an expenditure.

Date Issued: April 22, 1999;

Length: 4 pages. ✦
June 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1999-12

Preemption of Pennsylvania statute

governing solicitation of funds for

charitable purposes when funds are

used to influence federal elections

(Campaign for Working Families,

May 6, 1999; 14 pages plus 11-page

attachment) ✦

Mark Greene, a Texas resident

planning to run for Congress in

2000, could not use campaign funds

to pay himself a salary during the

campaign. Such disbursements, the

Commission said, would result in

the conversion of campaign funds to

personal use, which is prohibited by

the Federal Election Campaign Act.

See the April 1999 Record, p. 5. ✦

Commission Votes 3-3 on

Express Advocacy

Rulemaking

On April 29, the Commission

declined to act on a petition for

rulemaking on a portion of its

regulations governing express

advocacy. Commissioners deadlocked in a pair of 3-3 votes in the

matter; at least four affirmative

votes are required for the Commission to take action.

The petition sought to repeal 11

CFR 100.22(b), which defines

express advocacy as any communication that, when taken as a whole

and with limited reference to

external events, can only be interpreted by a reasonable person as

expressly advocating the election or

defeat of a clearly identified candidate or group of candidates. It was

Regulations

filed by James Bopp, Jr., and the

James Madison Center for Free

Speech on behalf of the Virginia

Society for Human Life.

The Commission voted 3-3 on

two motions involving this petition.

The first 3-3 vote decision came on

a motion to adopt the Office of

General Counsel’s recommendation

that the Commission decline to open

a rulemaking in response to the

petition. The second 3-3 vote was

on a motion to direct the Office of

General Counsel to open the requested rulemaking. Since neither

motion received the affirmative vote

of four Commissioners, no further

action will be taken on the petition

at this time.

The petition that spawned these

votes is nearly identical to one filed

in 1997, on behalf of the James

Madison Center for Free Speech.

There, the Commission declined to

open a rulemaking by a 4-2 vote.

See the April 1998 and December

1997 issues of the Record.

This latest petition came in

response to the Commission’s 3-3

vote decision on whether it should

appeal the Right to Life of Dutchess

County v. FEC decision. See the

September 1998, July 1998 and June

1997 issues of the Record. The

petitioner characterized the split

vote regarding the appeal of this

case as the Commission’s abandonment of its regulations.

The Commission published a

Notice of Disposition on this matter

in the May 20, 1999, Federal

Register (64 FR 27478). It is

available from the following

sources:

• FEC’s Public Records Office at

800/424-9530 (press 3); and

• FEC Faxline at 202/501-3413

(request document 237). ✦

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

 The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names

of political action committees

(PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

 To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

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

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free under the “Using

FEC Services” icon at the FEC’s

web site—http://www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

 registered PACs showing each

 PAC’s identification number,

 address, treasurer and

 connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

 organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

 identification number ($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., N.W.
Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1999

8

Candidates in ’98: Final

Statistics

Congressional candidates for the

1998 elections raised $781.3 million

during the two-year election cycle

that began on January 1, 1997, a

$9.2 million decrease from the last

election cycle in 1995-96. The ’98

candidates spent $740.4 million,

down $24.9 million from expenditures made in the previous election

cycle.

In all, 2,100 candidates—270

Senate candidates and 1,830 House

candidates—competed in the 1998

elections (excluding special elections).

Candidates for House seats raised

$493.8 million and spent $452.5

million during the two-year cycle.

House Republicans bested their

Democratic counterparts, raising

$255.8 million compared to the

Democrats’ $233.4 million. Republicans spent $237.2 million while

Democrats spent $211.1 million. In

addition, other-party House candidates raised $4.5 million during the

’98 cycle and spent $4.2 million.

Less than $200 $200-$499 $500-$749 $750-$1,000

House Republicans

$137.98 million

House Democrats

$115.25 million

Senate Republicans

$85.19 million

Senate Democrats

$81.3 million

$7.02

$26.36

$11.73

$36.19

$21.08

$7.12

$13.34

$43.65

$35.41

$17.49 $20.94

$41.40 $47.68

$17.96 $23.40

$48.95

Receipts: Contributions From Individuals to 1997-98 House and Senate

Candidates by Size of Contribution

Senate candidates raised $287.6

million and spent $287.8 million,

closely tracking their activity in

1995-96. Again, Republicans raised

and spent more than Democrats,

reporting $153 million in receipts

and expenditures while the Democrats reported $134.1 million in

receipts and $134.6 million in

expenditures.

Contributions from individuals

totaled $422.8 million, or 54 percent

of the total funds raised by all

Congressional candidates. Contributions from PACs, totaling $206.8

million, made up another 26 percent

of receipts. In addition, candidates

contributed or loaned their committees $107.2 million.

This article and the accompanying graph are based on data taken

from an April 28 news release. The

release, which covers the full cycle

from January 1, 1997, through

December 31, 1998, is available at

the following places:

• FEC web site (http://www.fec.gov;

select “News Releases and Media

Advisories”);

• FEC Public Records and Press

offices (800/424-9530); and

• FEC Faxline (202/501-3413,

document 610). ✦

Statistics Republican PartyCommittees Maintain

Fundraising, Spending

Supremacy in 1998 Election

Cycle

Hard Money (Federal Funds)

Republican party committees

continued to raise and spend substantially more money than their

Democratic counterparts during the

two-year 1998 election cycle. Yearend reports filed with the Commission by these committees also

showed overall declines in the

amounts of coordinated expenditures and significant shifts in how

the two major parties carried out

coordinated expenditures. The state

party committees—and the Democratic National Committee—took on

the majority of such spending, while

the House and Senate campaign

committees did much less of it.

Between January 1, 1997, and

December 31, 1998, Republican

party committees reported federal

receipts of $285 million and disbursements of $275.9 million. This

represents a 17 percent increase in

fundraising and a 19 percent increase in spending when compared
June 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Republicans

Democrats

’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98

Millions

$0

$7

$14

$21

$28

$35

’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98

Millions

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98

Millions

Party Committee Activity Over 20 Years

Receipts

Independent Expenditures

Coordinated Expenditures

to the same period in the last midterm election cycle (1993-94). For

the same period, Democrats reported

$160 million in receipts, a 20

percent increase from 1993-94, and

$155.3 million in disbursements, an

18 percent increase from 1993-94.

Individuals continued to make up

the biggest portion of party committee receipts. On the Republican side,

$240.8 million, or 84 percent of

committee receipts, came from

contributions by individuals.

Democratic committees reported

that $111.5 million, or 70 percent of

their receipts, came from individual

contributors.

For the first time, Republicans

surpassed Democrats in PAC

receipts, garnering $21.4 million in

PAC contributions, while the

Democrats took in just $18.9 million

from PACs. Republican committee

PAC receipts jumped by $16.7

million over the 1993-94 election

cycle, a 348 percent rise.

Republican committees contributed $2.6 million directly to candidates and spent $15.7 million in

coordinated expenditures on behalf

of candidates. Democratic committees contributed $1.2 million

directly to candidates and made

$18.6 million in coordinated expenditures. Coordinated expenditures

are monies spent by national and

state party committees on general

election nominees in addition to

direct contributions. Coordinated

expenditures, like contributions, are

limited in amount. While party and

candidate committees can work

together to decide how coordinated

expenditures should be made,

candidate committees do not receive

the funds directly.

The Democrats also reported $1.5

million in independent expenditures,

while the Republicans reported

$263,646 for the same category.

Soft Money (Nonfederal Funds)

Reports also indicated large

increases in soft money (nonfederal)

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1999

10

FEC Conducts Monthly

Roundtable Sessions

The FEC is conducting monthly

roundtable sessions for the regulated

community at its offices in Washington. The roundtable sessions,

limited to 12 participants per

session, focus on a range of topics.

See the table below for dates and

topics.

Registration is $25 and will be

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Please call the FEC

before registering or sending money

Outreach

Date Subject Intended Audience

June 2

9:30 -11 a.m.

Candidate Reporting

Basics

(Code #699)

•

•

Candidate Committee

Staff

Lawyers, Accountants

and Consultants to

Candidate Committees

July 7

9:30 -11 a.m.

Using Prizes or

Entertainment to Raise

SSF Funds

(Code #799)

•

•

Corporate/Labor/Trade

PAC Staff

Lawyers, Accountants

and Consultants to

PACs

August 4

9:30 -11 a.m.

Corporate Mergers and

Spin-Offs —Effect on

the SSF

(Code #899)

•

•

Corporate PAC Staff

Lawyers, Accountants

and Consultants to

Corporate PACs

Public Appearances

June 5 National Association of Former United States Attorneys

Denver, CO

Scott Thomas, Chairman

June 14 National Association of Business Political Action Committees

Washington, DC

Scott Thomas, Chairman

Kevin Salley, Deputy Assistant Staff Director, Public Records

Branch

to be sure that openings remain in

the session of your choice. Prepayment is required. The registration

form is available at the FEC’s web

site (http://www.fec.gov) and from

Faxline, the FEC’s automated fax

system (202/501-3413, request

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 (press 1) or

202/694-1100.

Individuals who have signed up

for a roundtable but who will be

unable to attend are strongly encouraged to call the FEC and cancel

their registration so that the next

person on the waiting list may

attend in their place. ✦

receipts when compared with the

1993-94 election cycle. Republican

soft money accounts collected

$131.6 million, a 151 percent

increase, while Democrat soft

money accounts collected $92.8

million, an 89 percent increase.

Republicans disbursed $127.7

million of their soft money take,

with $34.3 million transferred to

state party committees, $11.1

million contributed to state and local

candidates and $49.3 million spent

on joint federal/nonfederal activities. Another $41 million was used

for other expenses.

Democrats disbursed $93 million

in soft money, with $34.8 million

(almost the same amount as the

Republican committees) transferred

to state party committees, $3.8

million contributed to state and local

candidates and $43.2 million spend

on joint federal/nonfederal activities. The committees reported

spending $18.2 million on other

expenses.

This article and the accompanying graph are based on data taken

from an April 9 news release.1

 The

release is available at the following

places:

• FEC web site (http://www.fec.gov;

select “News Releases and Media

Advisories”);

• FEC Public Records and Press

offices (800/424-9530); and

• FEC Faxline (202/501-3413,

document 609). ✦

Statistics

(continued from page 9)

1

 Incorrect data from two previous

press releases regarding party committee financial activity during the 1997-

1998 election cycle have been corrected

in this latest press release. The two

older press releases were the bases for

articles in the December 1998 and

March 1999 issues of the Record.

Filled!

Waiting List

Only
June 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1999 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “1:4” means

that the article is in the January

issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1998-22: Application of expenditure

definition and disclaimer requirements to web site containing

express advocacy, 1:16

1998-23: Status as state committee

of political party, 1:16

1998-26: Candidate committee’s

acceptance of loan repayment

from contested election trust fund

that contains funds loaned to it by

candidate, 3:5

1998-27: Status as state committee

of political party, 3:6

1999-1: Use of campaign funds to

pay salary to candidate, 4:5; 6:6

Partnership Conference

Date: July 29, 1999

Location: Washington, DC

(Westin Hotel)

Registration: $230

Regional Conference (includes

candidate, corporate/labor and

party workshops)

Date: September 27-29, 1999

Location: Chicago, IL

(Fairmont Hotel)

Registration: $265

FEC Conference Schedule

 The FEC is sponsoring a series of conferences on campaign finance. See

below for details. To register for any conference, call Sylvester Management

at 800/246-7277 or send an e-mail to tsylvester@worldnet.att.net. For program

information, call the FEC’s Information Division at 800/424-9530 (press 1) or

202/694-1100. A regularly updated schedule for the conferences and a

downloadable invitation/registration form appear at the FEC’s web site. Go to

http://www.fec.gov for the latest information.

Regional Conference (includes

candidate, corporate/labor and

party workshops)

Date: November 15-17, 1999

Location: San Francisco

(Grand Hyatt)

Registration: To be determined

Candidate Conference

Date: February 2000

Location: Washington, DC

Registration: To be determined

1999-2: Use of corporate treasury

funds to provide meals to employees attending candidate forums,

4:6

1999-3: Use of digital signatures by

restricted class to authorize

payroll deductions, 5:5

1999-4: Applicability of contribution limits to local party organization conducting federal activity

and affiliated with state party

committee, 6:3

1999-5: Revising state party ballot

composition ratio for new executive office, 6:4

1999-6: Use and publication of

information about annuity allotment program permitting union

member retirees to make contributions to SSF, 6:4

1999-7: Free hyperlinks on government web site to web sites of

candidates, 6:5

1999-8: Investment of excess campaign funds in mutual funds, 6:6

Compliance

MUR 4546: Failure to provide

contributor information and

demonstrate “best efforts,” 5:8

MUR 4750: Excessive contributions, 1:13

MUR 4751: Excessive and improper

transfers of nonfederal funds,

excessive contributions, corporate

contributions, 2:2

MUR 4796: Corporate contributions, contributions in the names

of others, 1:13

MUR 4834: Foreign national

contribution, contribution in the

name of another, 3:7

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee

(98C-4933), 4:5

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 4:1

– Forbes, 4:5

_____ v. FEC

– Judd, 1:3; 4:5

– Mariani, 2:1

– National Committee of the Reform

Party, 4:4

– Perot ’96 (98-1022), 6:1

– RNC (98-5263), 1:2

(continued on page 12)

Regional Conference (includes

candidate, corporate/labor and

party workshops)

Date: March 2000

Location: Miami, FL

Registration: To be determined

Corporate and Labor

Conference

Date: May 2000

Location: Washington, DC

Registration: To be determined

Membership and Trade

Association Conference

Date: June 2000

Location: Washington, DC

Registration: To be determined
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1999

Index

(continued from page 11)

Other

– Burris v. Russell, 1:3

– Cincinnati v. Kruse, 1:3

– Fireman v. United States, 5:7

Regulations

Definition of “Member” of Membership Association, 1:10; 3:1; 5:6

Electronic FOIA, 4:7

Express Advocacy, 3:2; 6:7

Limited Liability Companies, 1:11

Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Candidates, 1:7; 3:1; 5:6

Soft money, 1:12

Status of, 3:3

Reports

Electronic filing, 1:6; 2:1

Reports due in 1999, 1:4

Special election, Georgia, 2:3

Special election, Louisiana, 4:7

Statistics

Congressional, 2:4; 6:8

PAC, 3:11

Party, 3:4; 6:8