April 1998 Federal Election Commission Volume 24, Number 4

Table of Contents

Reports

1 Electronic Filing Update:

Enhanced Version of Free

Software Available, Committees

Now Transmitting Reports

Directly to FEC

2 Electronic Filing, Internet Access

Gain Following

2 April Reporting Reminder

Legislation

1 FEC Legislative

Recommendations Submitted to

President and Congress

Court Cases

4 National Committee of the Reform

Party v. FEC

4 New Litigation

5 On Appeal?

5 Federal Register Notices

Compliance

5 MUR 4608

5 MUR 3770

6 Nonfilers

Regulations

6 Commission Declines Rulemaking

on Express Advocacy

6 Public Hearing

6 Testimony Yields Guidance for

Reporting and Recordkeeping

Revisions

7 Advisory Opinions

 11 Conferences

Statistics

 11 Record Fundraising Marks YearEnd Reports

Information

14 FEC Faxline Menu

15 Index

FEC Legislative

Recommendations Submitted

to President and Congress

On March 12, the Commission

submitted 60 proposals to President

Bill Clinton and the U.S. Congress

for legislative action. If adopted, the

recommendations would ease the

burden on political committees and

streamline the administration of

campaign finance law.

Most of the legislative recommendations are designed to reduce

some of the difficulties encountered

by committees in complying with

FEC laws and regulations. Here are

four examples:

• Electronic Filing Threshold. Grant

the FEC the authority to require

electronic filing of reports by

committees that meet a specific

level of financial activity. This

would result in better use of

government and political committee resources.

• Campaign-Cycle Reporting.

Revise current regulations to

require that political committees

report on a campaign-cycle basis

rather than on both calendar-year

and per-election bases. This would

simplify burdensome and confusing recordkeeping and reporting

duties for committees.

Reports Legislation

Electronic Filing Update:

Enhanced Version of Free

Software Available,

Committees Now

Transmitting Reports

Directly to FEC

The FEC is moving ahead with

its electronic filing program. In

March, the second version of the

agency’s free electronic filing

software, FECFile, became available. This new version has a number

of enhancements, such as importing

capabilities, direct modem and

Internet transmission capabilities,

data purging (the ability to maintain

records over a long period of time)

and data masking (restricted data

entry fields to assist the user in

entering the correct information).

Now, electronic filers can send

their computer-prepared reports

electronically through a direct

transmission to the FEC. To take

advantage of this, committees must

use the new Digital Encrypted

Password (DEP) system being

implemented by the FEC. Committees that choose to send their reports

through a direct dial connection (via

a modem) or a TCP/IP (Internet

access) will no longer be required to

send a hard copy of the report’s

Summary Page containing the

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 3)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1998

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)

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

Scott E. Thomas, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

 Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

treasurer’s signature.1 Instead, the

committee treasurer will need to

establish a password, which will be

transmitted to the FEC along with

the encrypted file and the

committee’s FEC identification

number.

Electronic Filing, Internet

Access Gain Following

More than 50 political committees have filed their 1997 year-end

and 1998 monthly disclosure reports

electronically with the FEC, demonstrating a growing interest in the

Commission’s efforts to implement

electronic filing.

In January 1997, the Commission

began a voluntary electronic filing

program to make reporting disclosure information more efficient for

both filers and the agency. Of the 42

electronic filers who submitted yearend reports on diskette, 32 were

PACs, one was a party committee

Reports

(continued from page 1)

1

 Please note, certain report schedules

require additional documentation:

Schedule C1 requires a bank signature

and Schedule E and Schedule F require

a Notary stamp. If you are a committee

choosing to file electronically, on

diskette, and you are required to file

any of the above schedules you must

submit hard copies of any of the

applicable schedules as well as the

signed Summary Page with your

diskette. If you are filing through a

direct dial connection or TCP/IP, you

must send a hard copy of the above

schedules to the following address:

Federal Election Commission, Electronic Filing Office—Room 431, 999 E

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463.

April Reporting Reminder

Committees filing on a quarterly

basis must file their first quarterly

report by April 15. Those filing on a

monthly basis have a report due on

April 20.

In addition to filing quarterly

reports, committees of candidates

Committees that do not want a

password may still request the new

version of FECFile and submit their

reports on a diskette, but they will

not be able to transmit their filings

through direct dial or TCP/IP

connections.

Last year, the FEC contracted

with a software company to provide

a user friendly computer program

that would generate the required

electronic filing format for committees. The result, the first version of

FECFile, was distributed to 24

committees (consisting of candidate,

party and political action committees) that consented to serve as the

FEC’s software testing group.

October 1997 marked FECFile’s

official release. Currently, 490

committees have requested and

received FECFile. Of those committees, more than 50 have already

filed monthly or quarterly reports

electronically.

Committees interested in more

information about the FEC’s new

DEP system should call the Electronic Filing Office at 202/694-1293

or 800/424-9530 (press 5 and ask

for the Electronic Filing Office) or

the Data Division at 202/694-1250.

Call the same numbers to receive a

free copy of the latest version of

FECFile, or fax the order form on

the next page to 202/219-0674. ✦

and nine were candidate committees. Included in the latter were

three incumbents—Bruce Vento of

Minnesota and Dan Schaefer and

Bob Schaffer, both of Colorado. For

more information about electronic

filing—and the FEC’s free electronic filing software called

FECFile—call the FEC’s Electronic

Filing Office at 202/694-1293 or

800/424-9530 (press 5 and ask for

the Electronic Filing Office) or the

Data Division at 202/694-1250.

Disclosure Reports on Internet

Internet-accessible disclosure

reports are also catching on with the

regulated community and with those

interested in federal campaign

financing. Earlier this year, the FEC

made digital images of all the

reports filed by PACs, political

parties and Presidential and House

campaigns for the 1998 election

cycle available for immediate

viewing on the Internet (http://

www.fec.gov). This site is updated

regularly with the latest filings.

Callers to the FEC’s offices have

been told that they can immediately

view filed reports on the agency’s

web site as an alternative to ordering

copies from Public Records. During

January and February, these images

on the web were “hit” more than

300,000 times, significantly expanding the scope and timeliness of the

Commission’s disclosure efforts.

In all, the FEC’s Public Disclosure division made public more than

123,000 pages of the 5,500 year-end

reports submitted to the Commission. Those reports were available

for viewing—on the Internet or at

the FEC’s offices—within 24 to 48

hours of their receipt. ✦
April 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Do you want to file your FEC reports electronically? The FEC will

mail you a copy of its new, free electronic filing software—FECFile.

Mail or fax this form to the address/number below. Currently, FECFile

operates on Windows95 and WindowsNT platforms.

FEC Identification Number

Committee Name

Electronic Filing Contact Name

Address: Street 1

Address: Street 2

City

State

Zip Code

Phone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address

Federal Election Commission

Data Division—Room 431

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Fax: 202/219-0674

✃

FECFile Order Form

• Election Period Limitations. Apply

a single contribution limit to an

election cycle, instead of separate

Legislation

(continued from page 1)

active in the 1998 primary and

runoff elections must file preelection reports and may have to file

48-hour notices. PACs and party

committees filing on a quarterly

basis may also have to file preelection reports and 24-hour reports

of independent expenditures.

For more information on 1998

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the

January 1998 Record;

• Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 (press 1)or 202/694-1100;

• Fax the reporting tables to yourself

using the FEC’s Faxline (202/501-

3413, documents 586 and 587); or

• Visit the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov to view the reporting

tables on line. ✦

limits for primary and general

elections. This provision would

eliminate complicated and timeconsuming bookkeeping requirements for committees.

• Ensuring Independent Authority of

FEC in All Litigation. Grant the

FEC the explicit authority to

petition the U.S. Supreme Court

for certiorari under Title 2. This

would ensure nonpartisan enforcement of the law.

Public Funding Recommendations

The Commission has also developed new recommendations to

specifically address the projected

shortfall in 2000 of the Presidential

Election Campaign Fund.

• Automatic Adjustment of the

Presidential Election Checkoff.

Index the value of the checkoff

(currently fixed at $3) to inflation,

similar to the automatic adjustment

to the spending limits and the

corresponding public subsidies.

• Priorities for Public Funding

Payments. Make the national

nominating conventions the third

priority for receiving payments,

rather than the first priority, and

devise an alternative mechanism

for allocating funds between

primary and general election

candidates.

• Qualifying Threshold for Eligibility for Primary Matching Funds.

Raise the threshold for publicly

funded Presidential candidates—

currently, a Presidential primary

candidate must raise in excess of

$5,000 in each of at least 20

states—and make it adjustable for

inflation.

Each of the 60 recommendations

in the report is followed by an

explanation of the need for and

expected benefits from the recommended change. To view the full list

of legislative recommendations,

visit the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov. ✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1998

4

Court Cases

Judicial Watch, Inc., v. FEC

Judicial Watch, Inc., a nonprofit,

public interest organization, asks the

court to find that the FEC acted

contrary to law when it dismissed its

administrative complaint that

alleged that Democratic groups

traded government favors for large

campaign contributions.

On August 26, 1996, Judicial

Watch filed the administrative

complaint with the FEC. In it, the

group alleged that the White House,

the Democratic National Committee

(DNC), the U.S. Department of

Commerce and President Bill

Clinton and his administration sold

seats on foreign trade missions

sponsored by the Commerce Department for campaign contributions

that frequently exceeded $100,000.

Judicial Watch contended that the

contributions went to the DNC and

the Clinton/Gore 1996 reelection

campaign. Such actions would

constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§600, which makes it unlawful to

promise any special benefit or

treatment as a reward for political

activities in support of or opposition

New Litigation

Hollenbeck v. FEC

Pennsylvania resident Thomas

Hollenbeck asks the court to find

that the FEC acted in an arbitrary

and capricious manner when it took

no action on his complaint that a

former candidate for federal office

had accepted excessive contributions in the form of three loans.

In May 1997, Mr. Hollenbeck

filed an administrative complaint

FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate

Committee

The FEC asks the court to find

that the Al Salvi for Senate Committee and its treasurer violated the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) when they misreported and

failed to report in a timely manner

more than $1.1 million in contributions and loans during the 1996

election cycle.

More specifically, the Commission alleges that the Committee:

• Reported bank loans to Mr. Salvi

as personal loans from the candidate, never identifying the source

of the funds;

• Failed to report debts to the

candidate;

• Failed to file 48-hour notices for

personal advances from the

candidate; and

• Failed to disclose campaignrelated payments by the candidate

to vendors and a bank.

The Commission became aware

of the reporting errors during the

National Committee of the

Reform Party v. FEC

On February 27, the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of

California dismissed this case after

agreeing with the FEC that the

plaintiffs had failed to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted.

The National Committee of the

Reform Party, groups aligned with

Ross Perot and an individual

eligible to vote in the United States

alleged that parts of the Presidential

Election Campaign Fund Act and

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act) were unconstitutional. The

Reform Party also alleged that the

Democratic and Republican national

party committees and the campaign

committees of their 1996 presidential candidates had violated federal

election law by exceeding the Act’s

coordinated expenditure limits by

millions of dollars. Citing the 1996

public funding pay out for presidential nominees, the Reform Party

claimed that it was unfairly held to

the same $61.8 million expenditure

limit as applied to the major party

nominees even though it received

only $29 million in public funds and

the major party candidates received

the full amount. See page 2 of the

January 1998 Record.

U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California,

C97-4048. ✦

with the FEC alleging that Michael

Becker, who in 1994 ran for the

House of Representatives in

Pennsylvania’s 13th district, had

accepted three loans totaling

$33,400 during that election cycle

from one individual, Claire

Clemens. The FEC designated the

complaint MUR 4641, examined the

relevant information and declined to

take action.

Additionally, Mr. Hollenbeck

asks the court to overturn the FEC’s

action, determine appropriate

punishment for Mr. Becker and

order a federal investigation into a

charge that in 1996 the loans

influenced Mr. Becker—in his role

as a township supervisor—to vote to

approve a measure that was favorable to the lender.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 98-469,

February 12, 1998. ✦

to a particular candidate, election or

political event, such as a convention

or caucus.

On December 15, 1997, the

Commission voted to take no action

on Judicial Watch’s complaint,

citing the information pertaining to

the allegations, the relative significance of the case and the amount of

time that had elapsed. Judicial

Watch contends this decision was

arbitrary and capricious.

In addition to finding the

Commission’s actions contrary to

law, Judicial Watch also asks the

court to direct the Commission to

conform with such a directive

within 30 days after it is made. The

organization also asks the court to

retain jurisdiction over the matter in

the event that the Commission again

fails to take action on its administrative complaint.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 98-386,

February 13, 1998. ✦
April 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

On Appeal?

Clifton v. FEC

The U.S. Supreme Court denied

Maine Right to Life Committee’s

petition for certiorari in this case,

after the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the First Circuit denied requests from

both the FEC and the plaintiffs for a

rehearing en banc. In June 1997, the

First Circuit invalidated two parts of

the FEC’s regulations that govern

publication of voting guides and

voting records by corporations and

labor organizations. See page 1 of the

August 1997 Record. ✦

normal course of reviewing committee reports and after receiving an

administrative complaint questioning the accuracy of the Committee’s

reports. Despite being told of the

inaccuracies, the Committee failed

to comply with the Act and properly

amend its reports until five months

after Mr. Salvi’s primary election. 2

U.S.C. §434(a)(6)(A), 2 U.S.C.

§434(b) and 11 CFR 104.3(d).

In addition to asking the court to

find that the Committee violated

federal election law, the FEC asks the

court to assess a civil penalty against

the Committee and its treasurer and to

enjoin them from committing further

violations of the Act.

U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

98C-1321, March 3, 1998. ✦

Compliance

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1998-7

Filing Dates for the California

Special Election (63 FR 9232,

February 24, 1998)

Notice 1998-8

Public Hearing on Definition of

Member of a Membership

Association (63 FR 10783, March

5, 1998)

MUR 4608

New York Committee Pays

Penalty, Agrees to Take

Remedial Steps to Improve

Reporting

The New York State Democratic

Committee and its treasurer have

agreed to pay a $45,000 civil

penalty for improper reporting of

expenditures and debts during the

1994 election cycle.

In addition to paying the civil

penalty, the Committee must take

the following steps:

• Implement accounting procedures

designed to identify and detect

reporting errors and substantive

irregularities;

• Contract with an accounting firm to

conduct a review of all disclosure

records in order to bring them upto-date and in compliance with the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) and Commission regulations;

• Require all new Committee

personnel who will be involved

with FEC compliance matters to

attend an FEC training conference

or comparable training program;

• Prepare an internal training manual

to supplement Committee

personnel’s understanding of the

Act and Commission regulations;

and

• Purchase and use a computerized

reporting format that has been

approved by the FEC.

The Committee filed its 1994 30

Day Post General report, disclosing

98 disbursements totaling $272,007

that were identified as either

“GOTV” (get-out-the-vote) or

“voter registration” expenses. This

identification was inadequate. 11

CFR 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B). The Committee also failed to include payee

addresses for 86 disbursements

totaling $48,411.

The Commission’s Reports

Analysis Division (RAD) quesMUR 3770

UPSPAC’s Improper

Solicitations

The United Parcel Service PAC

has paid a $9,000 civil penalty to the

FEC for failing to tell its contributors that they had the right to refuse

to contribute without the fear of any

reprisals for such actions, a violation

of 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(3)(C).

Between 1989 and 1992 and

again in 1995, UPS solicited its

executive and administrative

personnel with a presentation

involving a scripted introduction, a

video tape or slide show and

scripted remarks about the importance of making contributions to

UPSPAC. In written and oral

solicitations, UPS officials stated

that all contributions were voluntary

and would neither benefit nor

disadvantage contributors’ jobs. The

solicitations, however, failed to

contain language advising contributors of their right to refuse to

contribute to the PAC without

reprisal.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act states that all solicitations for

contributions to a separate segregated fund must inform the person

tioned the Committee’s reporting

omissions in early 1995, but the

Committee did not amend the report

until March 1996, and, even then,

the amended report did not include

all the information that had been

requested.

The Committee also reported

$403,899 in debts and a cash-onhand balance of negative $145,487

on its 1994 Year End report. RAD

also questioned these figures. In a

second amendment to the report, the

Committee reported debts of

$611,925 and cash on hand at

$33,211. Thus, on its original and

first amended 1994 Year End report,

the Committee failed to disclose

$208,000 in debts. ✦

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1998

6

being solicited, at the time of such

solicitation, that he or she has a right

to refuse to contribute without any

reprisal. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(3)(C).

Commission regulations further

state that this requirement must be

followed with regard to all written

solicitations addressed to employees. 11 CFR 114.5(a)(5).

In addition to paying the penalty,

UPS agreed to inform its employees

of their right to refuse to contribute

without reprisal in all future solicitations. ✦

Compliance

(continued from page 5)

Regulations

Commission Declines

Rulemaking on Express

Advocacy

On February 12, the Commission

declined to open a rulemaking to

revise its definition of express

advocacy set out at 11 CFR 100.22.

The Commission’s action came in

response to a petition from the

James Madison Center for Free

Speech. The petitioner had asked the

Commission to repeal 11 CFR

100.22(b) to conform with the 1997

decision of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the First Circuit in

Maine Right to Life Committee v.

FEC (MRLC), which found the

provision unconstitutional.

Public Hearing

 The FEC has scheduled a public

hearing on April 29 at 10 a.m. to

hear testimony about its proposed

changes to the rules that define

who qualifies as a “member” of a

membership association. The

hearing will be held in the FEC

hearing room at 999 E Street,

NW, in Washington, DC.

 The deadline for requests to

testify and accompanying

comments is April 6. For more

details about the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and more

information about how to

participate in the hearing, see

Nonfilers page 1 of the March 1998 Record.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is

running in the primary in Texas’s

30th Congressional District, failed

to file a pre-primary report. The

FEC is required by law to publicize

the names of nonfiling candidate

committees. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7).

The agency pursues enforcement

actions against nonfilers on a caseby-case basis. ✦

The challenged paragraph defines

express advocacy as a communication that is “unmistakable, unambiguous, and suggestive of only one

meaning, and [from which] reasonable minds could not differ as to

whether it encourages actions to

elect or defeat one or more clearly

identified candidate(s) or encourages some other kind of action.”

The ruling left intact paragraph

100.22(a), which defines “express

advocacy” to include words or

phrases that specifically call for the

election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate. The petitioners

had asked for the rulemaking

following the Supreme Court’s

refusal to review the Circuit Court

decision. The petitioner also

claimed that the Commission had

violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow the

First Circuit’s ruling on a nationwide basis.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit reached a similar

conclusion to MRLC in FEC v.

Christian Action Network that same

year. However, in 1987, the appellate court for the Ninth Circuit had

found in FEC v. Furgatch that

“context is relevant to a determination of express advocacy.” The

Ninth Circuit opinion, on which 11

CFR 100.22(b) is largely based, thus

conflicts with the opinions of the

First and Fourth Circuits. It is well

established that the decision of one

U.S. circuit court of appeals is not

binding outside its circuit and that

the Supreme Court’s declining to

hear a case implies nothing as to the

merits of the lower court decision.

Where circuit court opinions disagree, the Supreme Court has long

recognized that an agency is free to

adhere to its preferred interpretation

of regulations and laws in all circuits

where the courts have not rejected

such interpretation.

Additionally, the Commission

continues to believe that the definition of express advocacy at paragraph 100.22(b) is constitutional.

For example, in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986), the

Supreme Court held that materials

that were “marginally less direct

than ‘vote for Smith’” were, nevertheless, express candidate advocacy,

even though the materials themselves stated that they were not

endorsing particular candidates.

In light of its decision, the

Commission published a Notice of

Disposition on this matter in the

February 19 Federal Register (63

FR 8363). Copies of the General

Counsel’s recommendation are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office (call 800/424-9530,

press 3). The document also is

available through the FEC’s

Faxline (call 202/501-3413, document 232). ✦

Testimony Yields Guidance

for Reporting and

Recordkeeping Revisions

Testimony at a public hearing on

February 11 addressed several

issues raised by the FEC’s reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Keith Davis, of Huckaby, Davis,

and Associates, delivered his

remarks in response to the

Commission’s Notice of Proposed
April 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Advisory

Opinions

Rulemaking (NPRM), which

contains draft revisions to 11 CFR

102.9, 104.3 and part 108. The

changes are mostly technical in

nature and are intended to update,

clarify and simplify current requirements for recordkeeping, reporting

and filing with state officers.

In his testimony before the

Commission, Mr. Davis discussed:

reporting loan repayments; filing a

Schedule C-1 in connection with a

line of credit; reporting (and itemizing) disbursements paid by credit

card; filing amendments to previously filed reports; and changes

proposed for the Commission’s

disclosure forms. He responded to

multiple questions from the Commissioners concerning those issues.

In addition, he urged that the

Commission implement any changes

to the current recordkeeping and

reporting requirements no earlier

than the next election cycle, or

1999.

To find out more about this

NPRM and the public hearing:

• Review the transcript of the public

hearing, which includes comments

and questions from Commissioners

and FEC staff. Call the Public

Records Office at 800/424-9530

(press 3). Callers can also review

five written comments received in

response to the NPRM by calling

Public Records.

• Read the FEC’s NPRM in the

September 26, 1997, Federal

Register (62 FR 50708) or request

the document from the FEC

Faxline at 202/501-3413 (request

document 231).

• Visit the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov for a downloadable

copy of the NPRM.

• See the October 1997 and January

1998 issues of the Record for

summaries of the NPRM and

public hearing notice. ✦

AO 1997-27

Use of Campaign Funds for

Legal Expenses

Congressman John Boehner and

his campaign committee, Friends of

John Boehner, may use campaign

funds to pay the legal expenses

incurred in evaluating and pursuing

a lawsuit involving the interception

of a cellular telephone conversation

in which he was a participant. If

damages are awarded as a result of

the lawsuit, Mr. Boehner may not

receive any tax or other financial

benefit from them.

In December 1996, Mr.

Boehner—using a cellular telephone—participated in a conference

call with several other members of

the House of Representatives. The

telephone call was intercepted,

taped and released to the public

without the knowledge or consent of

any of the participants. The released

information included conversation

about what was then soon-to-bereleased findings from the House

Ethics Committee concerning

activities undertaken by House

Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Under 18 U.S.C. §2520, a person

whose electronic communication is

intercepted, disclosed or intentionally used in violation of the Electronics Communications Privacy

Act of 1986 (ECPA) may seek civil

action against the person who

engaged in the violation. Mr.

Boehner intends to retain an attorney and pursue legal remedies

available under this section of Title

18. Any damages that Mr. Boehner

receives will be used to defray the

costs of the litigation (including

repayments to the Boehner Committee for the amounts it paid), and any

leftover funds will be donated to a

tax exempt, charitable organization.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act prohibits a candidate from

converting campaign funds to

personal use. 2 U.S.C. §439a.

Commission regulations define

personal use as “any use of funds in

a campaign account...that would

exist irrespective of the candidate’s

campaign or duties as a federal

officeholder.” 11 CFR

113.1(g)(1)(i). When a specific use

is not listed in the regulations, as in

the case of legal expenses, the

Commission examines the use of

campaign funds on a case-by-case

basis. 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(ii)(A).

A private right of action under

ECPA is available to any person.

However, the particular activity for

which Mr. Boehner seeks judicial

remedy resulted directly from the

pursuit of his duties as a federal

officeholder. His conversation

pertained specifically to House

business and was in pursuit of his

duties as a member of the House

Republican leadership. The recording and dissemination of the conversation occurred as a result of interest

in its content and in the fact that the

participants in the conversation were

House Republican leaders. The legal

expenses thus would not exist

irrespective of Mr. Boehner’s duties

as a federal officeholder. Campaign

funds may therefore be used to

cover expenses provided that Mr.

Boehner receives no direct or

indirect tax or other financial benefit

from the award or use of damages.

The disbursements for the legal

expenses should be reported within

the category “other disbursements,”

with the purpose noted. 11 CFR

104.3(b)(2)(vi) and (4)(vi). If Mr.

Boehner receives an award as a

result of the lawsuit, the proceeds

repaid to the Committee should be

reported under the category, “offsets

to operating expenditures,” with the

purpose noted. 11 CFR

104.3(a)(3)(ix) and 104.3(a)(4)(v).

Date Issued: February 23, 1998;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1998

8

AO 1997-29

Status of State Party as State

Committee of Political Party

The Green Party of New Mexico

meets both of the Commission’s

requirements for state committee

status and thus is bona fide state

committee under FEC regulations.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) defines a state committee as “the organization which,

by virtue of the bylaws of a political

party, is responsible for the day-today operation of such political party

at the State level, as determined by

the Commission.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(15). The definition of a state

committee requires the existence of

a political party. A political party is

“an association, committee, or

organization which nominates a

candidate for election to any Federal

office whose name appears on the

election ballot as the candidate of

such association, committee, or

organization.” 2 U.S.C. §431(16).

In a number of advisory opinions

starting with AO 1992-30, the

Commission has identified two

requirements necessary for state

political committee status. First, the

organization must have a state

affiliate agreement that “delineates

activities commensurate with the

day-to-day operation” of a party at a

state level. Second, the state affiliate

must gain ballot access for its

Presidential and other federal

candidates. See AO 1997-7, 1997-3,

1996-51, 1996-43, 1996-27 and

1995-49.

The Green Party of New Mexico

meets both requirements. In adAdvisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

AO 1997-28

Reactivation of Terminated

Committee

W. Ben Bius may reactivate his

principal campaign committee, Ben

Bius Committee (the Committee),

revoke his prior forgiveness of a

$92,000 personal loan made to the

Committee and conduct fundraising

to retire the reinstated debt.

Mr. Bius was a 1996 candidate in

the Republican primary to represent

Texas’s 2nd Congressional District.

His committee filed a termination

report on July 15, 1996. Before the

termination, Mr. Bius forgave

$92,000 in campaign loans that he

had given to the committee from his

personal funds with the understanding that the amount would be

deductible against capital gains

under the tax code. Subsequently, he

learned that this tax information,

supplied to him by a certified public

accountant, was incorrect.

A committee may terminate

provided it will no longer receive

contributions or make disbursements, and as long as it has no

outstanding debts or obligations. A

political committee may terminate

its filing obligations and status after

filing a valid termination report with

the FEC, either on the appropriate

agency form or with a written

statement containing the same

information. 11 CFR 102.3(a)(1).

Because Mr. Bius is dealing with

a unique mistake stemming from

erroneous advice, the Committee

may be reinstated and begin

fundraising anew—subject to the

Federal Election Campaign Act’s

limits and prohibitions—to retire the

revived debt of $92,000.

The Committee is required to file

reports covering the entire period

from the last report that it filed

through the end of 1997. One report

should cover all of calendar year

1996, except the period covered by

the Committee’s pre-primary

election report. A second filing

AO 1998-1

Use of Campaign Funds for

Legal Expenses

Alabama Representative Earl F.

Hilliard and the Hilliard for Congress Campaign (the Committee),

his principal campaign committee,

may use campaign funds to partially

pay for legal expenses incurred as

the result of newspaper allegations

made against Mr. Hilliard and his

committee. A Washington newspaper questioned Mr. Hilliard’s

conduct before and during his tenure

as a federal officeholder. The law

firm will provide research and

advice on Mr. Hilliard’s dealings

with the media, law enforcement

and oversight entities (including the

FEC) and the House Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct

(House Ethics Committee). Some of

the legal expenses will be payable

from campaign funds—either with

100 percent campaign funds or 50

percent campaign funds—if they

meet certain criteria listed below.

should cover all of calendar year

1997. These reports must be filed

within 30 days of receipt of the

advisory opinion. The Committee

must also file reports covering its

1998 activity on a semi-annual

schedule.

Date Issued: March 6, 1998;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

dressing the first requirement, the

party’s bylaws set out a comprehensive organizational structure for the

party from the statewide level down

through local levels. These bylaws

do indeed delineate activity commensurate with the day-to-day

functions and operations of a

political party on the state level. The

second requirement of ballot access

also has been satisfied. Three of

four federal candidates who have

represented the Green Party in the

state attained ballot access and

registered their principal campaign

committees and filed disclosure

reports with the FEC. Additionally,

three of these candidates qualified

as candidates under 2 U.S.C.

§431(2) by virtue of the fact that

their campaigns raised or spent

$5,000 or more during election

cycles in 1994, 1996 or 1998.

Date Issued: February 12, 1998;

Length: 3 pages. ✦
April 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Allegations of Wrongdoing and

Aftermath

In December 1997, Mr. Hilliard

was the subject of a two-part series

of articles that alleged a number of

instances of wrongdoing by him, the

Committee, his district congressional offices and businesses and

charities that are owned and controlled by Mr. Hilliard and his

family. In summary, the newspaper

alleged that:

• The Committee had made excessive payments and loans to Hilliard

businesses and charities, and to

Hilliard family members.

• Mr. Hilliard had failed to fully

disclose his business interests to

the House Ethics Committee.

• Mr. Hilliard’s district office in

Birmingham, AL, was used for

Committee activities and for Mr.

Hilliard’s non-election-related

businesses, resulting in improper

payments from federal funds and

rental payments that were excessive.

• Mr. Hilliard had failed to disclose

a negative cash balance for several

months on his FEC disclosure

reports.

• Mr. Hilliard and his businesses and

charities had engaged in other

improper activities, including

failure to pay taxes in a timely

manner, default on a $300,000

loan from Birmingham, and

unlawful use of tax funds for a

Hilliard-owned radio station. None

of these allegations was directly

related to Mr. Hilliard’s duties as a

federal officeholder or to his

campaigns for office, and some

occurred before he was elected to

the House in 1992.

Several weeks later, an article

appeared in another Washington

newspaper indicating that the House

Ethics Committee had opened an

inquiry into whether Mr. Hilliard

had violated House rules in his use

of campaign funds and district

office resources. The newspaper

article also indicated that the House

Ethics Committee might explore

Mr. Hilliard’s business activities

that took place before he was

elected.

Mr. Hilliard has denied any

wrongdoing and has retained the

law firm Cochran & Lotkin to assist

him further. The firm already has

reviewed the allegations and the

federal election law. It will monitor

media reports, conduct an independent investigation of the allegations,

review documents in order to help

Mr. Hilliard respond further to the

allegations, and conduct legal

research to help Mr. Hilliard and the

Committee in their dealings with the

Commission and other oversight

agencies.

Legal Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits a candidate

from converting campaign funds to

personal use. 2 U.S.C. §439a.

Commission regulations define

personal use as “any use of funds in

a campaign account...that would

exist irrespective of the candidate’s

campaign or duties as a federal

officeholder.” 11 CFR

113.1(g)(1)(i). When a specific use

is not listed, as in the case of legal

expenses, the Commission examines

the use of campaign funds on a

case-by-case basis. 11 CFR

113.1(g)(1)(ii)(A).

Moreover, activities of candidates

and officeholders may receive

heightened attention in the news

media because of the person’s

status. AOs 1997-12 and 1996-24.

Mr. Hilliard’s need to respond to

media allegations that result from

this heightened scrutiny would not

exist irrespective of his campaign or

officeholder status.

For such cases, the Commission

has developed an approach to

payment of legal fees by an authorized committee that takes into

account the high level of media

attention focused on the officeholder

and the unavoidable overlap between the legal services needed to

respond to the press and to respond

in legal proceedings, even when the

media reported allegations are not

directly related to campaign or

officeholder activities. Based on

criteria established in AO 1997-12,1

Mr. Hilliard’s committee may use

campaign funds to partially cover

the legal expenses incurred as a

result of the newspaper allegations.

The first four allegations listed

above arise directly out of Mr.

Hilliard’s status as a federal candidate and/or officeholder, and, as

such, may be paid for with 100

percent campaign funds. Some of

the fifth set of allegations listed

above occurred prior to Mr.

Hilliard’s candidacy and service in

the House; others occurred while

Mr. Hilliard was in office but did

not directly relate to his officeholder

status. In these cases, if the House

Ethics Committee considers these

activities in its inquiry—thus,

making the response to the charges

directly related to his duties as a

federal officeholder—then 100

percent of the fees for responding to

the charges may be paid with

campaign funds.

With respect to the press allegations that did not directly arise from

campaign or officeholder duties,

however, the Committee cannot

cover 100 percent of the expenses.

If an agency other than the House

1

 Any legal expenses that relate directly

and exclusively to dealing with the

press would qualify for 100 percent

payment with campaign funds. Any

legal expenses that relate directly to

allegations arising from campaign or

officeholder activity would qualify for

100 percent payment with campaign

funds. Legal expenses that do not fall

into the first category and do not

directly relate to allegations arising

from campaign or officeholder activity

would qualify for 50 percent payment

with campaign funds because the

candidate is providing substantive

answers to press questions beyond “no

comment” statements.

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1998

10

Ethics Committee reviews or

investigates activities occurring

before Mr. Hilliard’s 1992 candidacy and if the Congressman needs

to provide substantive responses to

the press regarding these activities,

the Committee may pay up to 50

percent of the legal expenses for

responding to an agency regarding

such activities. If an agency other

than the House Ethics Committee is

investigating allegations of wrongdoing that occurred after 1992

involving Mr. Hilliard’s businesses

and charities, but not involving his

campaign or district offices, then

any legal expenses would be 50

percent payable by the Committee if

Mr. Hilliard needs to respond to the

press as to those activities. If, in

either of the two examples given

above, legal expenses are incurred

for responding to the investigating

agency’s request for information

from the Committee or for information related to the conduct of district

offices, then the Committee may

pay those expenses with 100 percent

campaign funds.

Legal expenses that are paid with

campaign funds should be reported

as operating expenditures on FEC

disclosure forms, with the purpose

noted. Billing documentation

submitted by the law firm should

provide sufficient detail about the

services to allow the Committee to

determine which expenses can be

lawfully covered with campaign

funds.

Date Issued: February 27, 1998;

Length: 7 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

AO 1998-2

Status of Reform Party’s

National Committee and

State Affiliates

Reform Party USA is a “national

committee” for purposes of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act), and 29 Reform Party affiliates,

through this opinion, have gained

the status of state committees.

Reform Party USA began its

activities in 1992, and in 1995 a

number of state parties joined with

individuals interested in establishing

a new national party. The assemblage nominated Ross Perot as its

1996 Presidential candidate and Pat

Choate as its Vice-Presidential

candidate. Both Mr. Perot and Mr.

Choate gained ballot access as

Reform Party candidates in all 50

states, and several state Reform

Parties also obtained ballot access

for other federal candidates. The

Perot/Choate ticket garnered 8.4

percent of the vote in 1996.

The Reform Party National

Organizing Committee was formed

in January 1997, and the party’s first

national convention took place that

year. In addition to holding the

convention, Reform Party USA has

undertaken voter registration and

get-out-the-vote activities, distributed party information through

various means and established a

checking account.

The Act defines a national

committee as the organization that,

by virtue of a party’s bylaws, is

responsible for the day-to-day

operations of that party at the

national level. 2 U.S.C. §431(14).

Reform Party USA must first

qualify as a political party under

FEC statutes before national committee status is conferred. A political party is defined as an

association, committee or organization that nominates a candidate for

election to federal office and whose

name appears on the ballot as the

candidate of that group. 2 U.S.C.

§431(16).

The Reform Party does qualify as

a political party by virtue of the fact

that Mr. Perot, Mr. Choate and 16

other federal candidates obtained

ballot access. All of them qualified as

candidates under 2 U.S.C. §431(2).

Reform Party USA must meet

several criteria set out by the

Commission to demonstrate sufficient activity on a national level to

qualify as a national committee.

Those criteria include:

• Nominating candidates for Presidential and other federal offices in

numerous states;

• Engaging in certain activities on an

ongoing basis, such as voter

registration and get-out-the-vote

drives;

• Publicizing nationwide issues of

importance to its followers;

• Holding a national convention;

• Setting up a national office; and

• Establishing state affiliates.

Reform Party USA documents

show that it has satisfied these

criteria. Most significantly, the

Party’s success at gaining ballot

access for its candidates extends

beyond the Presidential and Vice

Presidential positions. Records

indicate that 16 individuals in eight

states across the nation qualified as

candidates (under the Act) representing the Reform Party.

Reform Party USA’s national

committee status requires it to follow

contribution limits at 2 U.S.C. §441a

and 2 U.S.C. §441a(d).1

State Affiliates

The Act defines a state committee

as the organization which, by virtue

of the bylaws of a political party, is

responsible for the day-to-day

operation of the party at the state

level, as determined by the Commission. 2 U.S.C. §431(15). This

definition also requires the existence

of a political party.

In several advisory opinions, the

Commission has clarified this

definition by requiring that (1) the

organization must have a state

affiliate agreement that “delineates

activities commensurate with the

day-to-day operation” of a party at a

1

 The advisory opinion did not address

whether Reform Party USA and its

candidates would qualify for public

funding in connection with the Presidential primaries, the convention or the

general election.
April 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1998-5

Preemption of state law governing

use of payroll deduction by combined federal, state and local SSF

(American Electric Power Service

Corp., March 5, 1998; 4 pages plus

12-page attachment) ✦

AO 1998-3

Status of State Party as State

Committee of Reform Party

The Reform Party of Idaho

constitutes a state committee of a

political party because it has satisfied the definitions and requirements

set out in the Federal Election

Campaign Act and Commission

regulations and advisory opinions.

Advisory Opinion 1998-2 (see

previous page) provides a full

explanation.

Date Issued: March 6, 1998;

Length 2 pages. ✦

state level; and (2) the state affiliate

must gain ballot access for its

Presidential and other federal

candidates. See AOs 1997-7, 1996-

27 and 1992-30.

Reform Party USA’s constitution

and bylaws lay out a framework

whereby state party organizations do

indeed function as state affiliates to

the national organization. The

party’s constitution states that

among its objectives is to assist state

party organizations in the election of

their candidates, and it requires that

state organizations be responsible

for Reform Party business at the

state level. State parties must also

operate in keeping with the national

party constitution and are subject to

the provisions of that constitution

and Reform Party USA bylaws.

Each of the 29 affiliates that are a

party to this advisory opinion has

agreed to abide by the national

rules. Such statements, coupled with

Reform Party USA’s constitution

and bylaws, evidence the intentions

of Reform Party affiliates to engage

in activity commensurate with the

day-to-day functions and operations

of a political party on the state level.

The second requirement for state

committee status—that of ballot

access for federal candidates—also

has been satisfied. All of the 29

Reform Party USA affiliates successfully gained ballot access for

candidates for President and Vice

President in 1996.

The Reform Party USA affiliates

that qualify for state party committee status as a result of this advisory

opinion are from the following

jurisdictions: Alaska, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, the District of Columbia,

Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Florida,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,

Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Date Issued: March 6, 1998;

Length: 7 pages. ✦

Statistics

Conferences

Record Fundraising Marks

Year-End Reports

Candidates vying for a seat in

Congress have set a nonelection

year record for the amount of money

raised and spent, and for the amount

of cash on hand available to fuel

their electoral ambitions through the

coming months of the campaign.

The group, which includes 1,037

candidates for the House and

Senate, raised $232.9 million and

spent $112.1 million during 1997,

according to year-end reports filed

with the Commission. These same

committees entered the 1998

election year with $207.1 million

cash on hand.

The receipts represented a 26

percent increase—or $48 million—

over receipts collected during the

same period of the 1996 election

cycle (1995), which was a Presidential election cycle. Much of the

increase, however, was due to 1998

Senate campaigns and especially to

upcoming elections in several large

states, such as California, New York

and Pennsylvania. All told, Senate

receipts were up 44 percent from

this same reporting period in the

1996 cycle, while House receipts

increased by 16 percent. It is worth

noting that comparisons between

Senate races conducted in different

election cycles is difficult because

of the differing nature of the states

involved.

While Republicans retained their

lead in actual dollars raised in both

the House and Senate, the Democrats in both chambers made

substantial showings over their 1995

receipts. Senate Democratic candidates reported a 45 percent increase

in receipts while Republicans

showed a 39 percent increase.

House Democrats registered a 16

percent increase in receipts, while

Final FEC Conference in

1998

Information on the final FEC

conference scheduled for 1998 is

provided below. To register, call

Sylvester Management at 800/246-

7277 or send an e-mail message to:

TSYLVESTER@WORLDNET.ATT.NET.

Washington, DC

For nonconnected committees (this

includes partnership, leadership and

ideological PACs)

Date: April 27

Location: Madison Hotel

Registration: $175

Hotel rate: $165

(continued on page 12)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1998

12

House Republicans came in with a 5

percent increase.

For more information about

candidates’ financial activities on

year-end reports, including summary data on all registered 1998

Senate and House candidates, see

the FEC’s March 6 news release. It

is available:

• At the FEC’s web site (http://

www.fec.gov);

• From Public Records (800/424-

9530, press 3); and

• On the FEC Faxline (202/501-

3413—request document 610).

To view individual candidate

reports on-line, visit the FEC’s web

site at http://www.fec.gov and click

on “View Financial Reports Filed

by Presidential and House Campaigns, Parties, and PACs.” The

FEC recently launched this section

of its web site, which allows users to

view digital images of campaign

finance reports. ✦

Statistics

(continued from page 11)

Type of Candidate Receipts (in millions)

Democratic Incumbents $44.6

Republican Challengers $8.0

Republican Incumbents $60.9

Democratic Challengers $5.9

Democratic Open Seat Challengers $11.0

Republican Open Seat Challengers $5.4

Type of Candidate Receipts (in millions)

Democratic Incumbents $27.6

Republican Challengers $19.2

Republican Incumbents $25.9

Democratic Challengers $14.1

Democratic Open Seat Challengers $5.3

Republican Open Seat Challengers $4.4

Total Receipts Collected in 1997 by Major Party

Candidates1 for the U.S. House of Representatives

Total Receipts Collected in 1997 by Major Party

Candidates1 for the U.S. Senate

1

 With regard to nonmajor party candidates, House incumbents raised $244,003,

challengers raised $174,406 and those seeking to win open seats raised $120,516.

1

 Challengers from other parties and independent candidates registered receipts

totaling $63,707. There are no nonmajor party incumbents seeking reelection in the

Senate, and, at the time year-end reports were due, there were no open seat candidates from nonmajor parties running in the 1998 races.

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record from

1996, 1997 and 1998 are available through the Internet as PDF

files. Visit the FEC’s World Wide

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

and click on “What’s New” for

this issue. Click “Help for Candidates, Parties and PACs” to see

back issues. Future Record issues

will be posted on the web as well.

You will need Adobe® Acrobat

Reader software to view the publication. The FEC’s web site has

a link that will take you to

Adobe’s web site, where you can

download the latest version of the

software for free.
April 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

House and Senate Campaign Activity in Year Before Election

Millions

House Campaigns: Fundraising in Year Before Election

Millions

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

91 93 95 97

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

91 93 95 97

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

91 93 95 97

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

91 93 95 97 91 93 95 97 91 93 95 97

Contributions from Individuals

Receipts Disbursements Cash on Hand

Contributions from PACs

and Other Committees

Contributions and Loans

from the Candidate
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1998

14

FEC Faxline Menu

FEC Faxline documents may be

ordered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

by calling 202/501-3413 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.

Federal Election Commission

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

501. The FEC and the Federal

Campaign Finance Law

502. La Ley Federal relativa al

Financiamiento de las Campañas

503. Federal and State Campaign

Finance Laws

504. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

505. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

506. Telephone Directory

507. Table of Organization

508. Index for 1996 Record

Newsletter

509. Free Publications

510. Personnel Vacancy

Announcements

511. Freedom of Information Act

Requesters’ Guide

512. Legal Opportunities at the FEC

Disclosure

521. Guide to Researching Public

Records

522. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

523. Federal/State Records Offices

524. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

525. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

526. Direct Access Program (DAP)

527. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

528. Combined Federal/State

Disclosure Directory 1997 on

Disk

529. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

530. Internet Access to the FEC

531. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

532. Electronic Filing Took Kit

533. State Campaign Finance and

Lobbying Data on the Internet

Limitations

546. Contributions

547. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

548. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

549. Volunteer Activity

550. Independent Expenditures

551. Local Party Activity

552. Corporate Communications/

Facilities

553. Trade Associations

554. Foreign Nationals

555. The $25,000 Annual Contribution Limit

556. Personal Use of Campaign

Funds

557. Delegate Activity

558. Partnerships

Public Funding

566. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

567. The $3 Tax Checkoff

568. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

569. Recipients of Public Funding

570. Presidential Fund Income Tax

Checkoff Status

571. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

581. Candidate Registration

582. Committee Treasurers

583. Special Notices on Political Ads

and Solicitations

584. 10 Questions from Candidates

585. Filing a Complaint

586. 1998 Reporting Dates

587. 1998 Congressional Primary

Dates

588. 1998 Special Election Reporting

Dates

589. 1998 FEC Regional Conference

Schedule

Money in Politics Statistics

601. 1991-2 Political Money

602. 1997 Mid-Year PAC Count

603. 1993-4 Congressional

604. 1993-4 National Party

605. 1993-4 PAC Finances

606. 1995-6 Congressional

607. 1995-6 National Party

608. 1995-6 PAC Finances

609. 1997-8 National Party

610. 1997-8 Congressional

1996 Presidential

651. 1996 Presidential Primary Dates

652. Selected 1996 Campaign Names

and Addresses

653. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

654. 1996 Public Funding Certifications and Payments

655. 1996 Presidential General

Election Ballots

656. 1996 Presidential General

Election Results

Office of Election Administration

701. List of Reports Available

702. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

703. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

704. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

705. The Electoral College

706. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

707. Primary Functions of an

Electoral System

Forms

801. Form 1, Statement of Organization

802. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

803. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

804. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

805. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

806. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

807. Form 7, Report of Communication Costs

808. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

809. Form 1M, Notification of

Multicandidate Status

Schedules

825. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

826. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

827. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

828. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

829. Schedule E, Itemized Independent Expenditures

830. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated Expenditures

831. Schedules H1 –H4, Allocation

832. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

Information
April 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1998 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

1997-18: Status of committee as

local party committee, 1:14

1997-22: Communicating membership corporation’s endorsements

of federal candidates to members

and their restricted classes, 1:14

1997-25: Affiliation of corporate

SSFs after reorganization, 3:5

1997-26: Establishment of

nonconnected PAC by individuals

affiliated with trade association,

3:7

1997-27: Use of campaign funds to

pay legal expenses, 4:7

1997-28: Reinstatement of terminated candidate committee to

retire debt to candidate, 4:8

1997-29: Status as state committee

of political party, 4:8

1998-1: Use of campaign funds to

pay legal expenses, 4:8

1998-2: Status as national committee of political party; status of

affiliated state parties as state

committees of political party, 4:10

1998-3: Status as state committee of

political party, 4:11

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee,

4:4

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate,

3:3

– National Medical Political Action

Committee, 1:3

– Williams, 1:3

_____ v. FEC

– Clifton, 4:5

– Hollenbeck, 4:4

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

1007. Part 100.7, Contribution

1008. Part 100.8, Expenditure

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

1021. Part 102.17, Joint Fundraising

by Committees Other Than SSFs

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

1047. Part 104.7, Best Efforts

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. 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

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

1101. Part 110.1, Contributions by

Persons Other Than Multicandidate Political Committees

1102. Part 110.2, Contributions by

Multicandidate Committees

1103. Part 110.3, Contribution

Limitations for Affiliated

Committees and Political Party

Committees; Transfers

1104. Part 110.4, Prohibited Contributions

1105. Part 110.5, Annual Contribution

Limitation for Individuals

1106. Part 110.6, Earmarked Contributions

1107. Part 110.7, Party Committee

Expenditure Limitations

1108. Part 110.8, Presidential Candidate Expenditure Limitations

1109. Part 110.9, Miscellaneous

Provisions

1110. Part 110.10, Expenditures by

Candidates

1111. Part 110.11, Communications;

Advertising

1112. Part 110.12, Candidate Appearances on Public Educational

Institution Premises

1113. Part 110.13, Nonpartisan

Candidate Debates

1114. Part 110.14, Contributions to

and Expenditures by Delegates

and Delegate Committees

111. Part 111, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign

Funds and Funds Donated to

Support Federal Officeholder

Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by

Candidates and Political

Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

201. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

228. Coordinated and Independent

Expenditures by Party Committees

229. Definition of “Member” of a

Membership Association

230. Petitions for Rulemaking: Soft

Money

231. Recordkeeping and Reporting

232. Express Advocacy

233. Qualified Nonprofit Corporations

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

4411. Section 441a

4412. Section 441b

4413. Section 441c

4414. Section 441d

4415. Section 441e

4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

9701-23. AOs 1997-1 through 1997-23

9601-52. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-52

9501-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

9401-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

9301-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

9201-44. AOs 1992-1 through 1992-44

9101-40. AOs 1991-1 through 1991-40

9001-40. AOs 1990-1 through 1990-40 (continued on page 16)
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 April 1998

Change of Address

Political Committees

 Treasurers of registered political committees automatically receive the

Record. A change of address by a political committee (or any change to

information disclosed on the Statement of Organization) must, by law, be

made in writing on FEC Form 1 or by letter. The treasurer must sign the

amendment and file it with the Secretary of the Senate or the FEC (as

appropriate) and with the appropriate state office.

Other Subscribers

 Record subscribers who are not registered political committees should

include the following information when requesting a change of address:

• Subscription number (located on the upper left corner of the mailing label);

• Subscriber’s name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

 Subscribers (other than political committees) may correct their addresses by

phone as well as by mail.

– Judicial Watch, Inc., 4:4

– National Committee of the Reform

Party, 1:2; 4:4

Reports

Electronic filing, 4:1; 4:2

On FEC web site, 2:1; 4:2

Pre-Election Reporting Dates: 1998

Primary and Runoff Elections, 1:8

Reports, Alabama Runoff, 2:1

Reports due in 1998, 1:6; 1:11

Reports due in April, 4:2

Special Elections, California, 1:12;

3:9

Special Election, New York, 2:4

Special Election, Pennsylvania, 1:13

Surveying potential for electronic

filing, 2:2

Index

(continued from page 15)