Committees filing on a quarterly basis must tile their fi rst quarterly report

by April 15. Those tiling on a monthly schedule have a report due 0 11 April 20.

Please note that. ill addition (0 filing quarterly reports, committees of

candidates active in 1994 primary and runoff elections must file pre-election

reports. PACs and party committees filing on a quarterly basis may also have

to file pre-election reports.

For more information on 1994 reporting- including reporting dates for

primaries. runoffs and the general election-see the January issue or order the

1994 reporting handout (call 800/424-9530 or 202/219-3420).

Sec also reporting dates for the Oklahoma special election, page 7.

March 1994

Table of Conten s

Reports

April Reporting Reminder

Court Cases

1 FEC v. Survival Education Fund

3 Freedom Republicans v, FEC

Regula tions

Hearing on Proposed Personal Use

Regulations

Conferences

2 New Orleans and Pittsburgh

Regional Conferences

Publi cati ons

3 New Edition of Court Case

Abstracts

Party Activities

4 1994 Coordinated Party

Expenditure Limits

5 Advisor y Opinions

Special Elections

7 Oklahoma

8 Index

April Reporting Reminder

Federal Election Commission

Court Cases

FEC v, Su rvival Educa tion

Fund, Inc.

On January 12, 1994, the U.S.

District Court for the Southern

District of cw York ruled that

defendants' communications to the

general public, although "undeniably hostile" to President Reagan,

who was facing reelection, did not

constitute prohibited corporate

expenditures because they did not

expressly advocate the defeat of a

candidate, lacking required wording

such as "vote against" or "defeat."

89 Civ. 0437 (TPG).

Survival Education Fund, lnc.,

and ational Mobilization for

Survival, Inc., paid $16,500 to

distribute about 30,000 copies of

two letters critical of President

Reagan, who was up for reelection.

The first letter, mailed in July

(continued on page 3)

Volume 20, Num

Regulations

FEC Hea rs Testimony

on Personal Use

of Campa ign Funds

Five witnesses presented co

ing views at a January 12 publi

hearing on proposed "personal 

rules. The rules would prohibit 

use of campaign funds to pay t

candidate 's salary, household

expenses, club membership du

any ex pense that would ex ist

irrespective of the campaign.

The ban on the personal use 

campaign funds became law in

January 8, 1980, but a "grandfa

clause" exempted persons who 

Members of Congress on that d

The Ethics Reform Act of 1989

however, repealed the grandfat

clause effective January 1993, 

the current Congress convened

With the change in the law, the

Commission drafted the propo

rules.

Under the draft rules. person

use would be defined as the us

campaign funds to pay for expe

that would exist irrespective of 

candidate's campaign or respo

(continued on p

I Past Members who retired or res

in earlier Congresses. however. m

still convert a limited amount of e

campaign fu nds (0 persona/lise. S

summary o/AO 1993-22 on page 
Federal t:lef/ion Commission RECORD

Regulations

[continued from page 1)

bi lities as a fede ral o fficeb older.!

The draft rules also address re lated

issues . suc h as w hether a fam ily

member of the candidate may be on

the campaign's payroll and w hethe r

the candidate may rent space to his

or he r campa ign. (See the October

1993 Record for a summary of the

proposed rules.)

Fred Werthe imer. president of

Commo n Cause. generally supported the proposed rules but said

that questionable expenses-for

example. payments for entertainme nt (e.g.• foo tball games. stage

shows) or for legal expenses unre -

lated to the campaign finance la.....-

should bepresumed to be for

personal use unless the ca nd idate

1 Members cfCongress may use excess

campaign funds for ~tp,'/IUS ill

connection with offi cialoJ1iceholder

dunes.

Fede ra l Election Comm fsston

999 E Streel. NW

Washington. DC 0~ 63

800/424·9530

2021219·3420

2021219·3336 (TOOl

Trevor Potter, Chairman

Dann y L. Md)unald ,

Vice Chairman

J Olm D. Aikens, Commissioner

Lee Ann Etnott, Commissioner

John Warren McGarry.

Commissioner

Seen E. Thomas. Commissioner

J ohn C. Sus-ina, Staff Director

l awrence M. Nnble, Genera l

Counsel

Published by the Infonnation

Division

Loutse D. w tees. Director

Stephanie Fitzl:erald. Editor

,

can demonstrate that the payments

had a legitimate campaign purpose.

Ag reei ng with this appro ach.

Elizabeth Hed lund (Center for

Responsive Politics) urged the FEC

to req uire campaigns 10 provide

clear. specific desc rip tions of their

expenditures. Other wit nesses also

supported expanded d isc losure.

Both Mr. Werthe imer and Ms.

Hedl und said that their recommendat ions would de ter campaigns from

making prohibited "personal use"

expenditures.

Two other witnesses. auorneys

Jan W. Baran (Wiley. Rei n &

Fielding) and Robe rt F. Bauer

(Pe rkins Coie), said tha t the draft

rules .... ere unclear. overbroad and

open ended and .... ould therefore

result in the FEe's hav ing to

interpret them in ad v lsory opi nions

and enforcement mailers. They

advocated a definition that wou ld

simp ly list specific prohibited

pay men ts (e.g .• pay ments fo r the

candidate's home mort gage ).

Alternati ve ly, they urged the

Commission to coordinate the

rulemaking with the Cong ressiona l

ethics committees. which oversee

House and Senate rules on the usc

of campaign funds by Members of

Congress.

Co mmenting on this issue . Lyn

Utrecht, an attorney with Ol daker .

Ryan and Leonard , said that FEC

rules sho uld confor mto House and

Senate ru les to avoi d con fusio n and

inadvertent vio lations of FEe rules

by Members of Con gress. Mr.

Wertheimer. how eve r. argued that

the House and Senate rutes w ere

irrelevant to the FEC's au tho rity to

enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Respon ding to questions by the

Commissioners. the witnesses

commented on whethe r challengers

should be treated d iffe rently unde r

the proposed rules to offset a

financial advantage of incumbents:

In contrast to incumbent ca ndidates.

most cha llengers and open-seat

candidates have to qui t their jobs to

March /

campa ign full time. Payment of a

campaign sal ary to a cand ida te,

ho w ever. would fall under the

personal use ban. as would pay me 

of the cand idate's mortgage and

other persona l expenses. On the

other hand. an em ployer's conti nu

paymen t of salary to a cand idate o

a leave of abse nce co uld resu lt in 

prohibited or excessive contributi

While acknowledging that this is 

case, the witnesses said that the F

did not have authority 10 " level th

playing field. " Mr. Bara n and Mr

Bauer. ho w e ver, argued that the

rules inconsistently treat ed sala rie

and mortgage payments as "perso

use" expendit ures whe n paid by t

campaign but as "election-influen 

ing" contributions when paid by

someone else.

The Co mmission w ilI consider

bot h .... rin en comme nts and testimony on the proposed rules when

drafting the fina l personal use

ru les. +

Conferences

New Orleans and Pitts burg 

Regional Conferences

The FEC will hold two 1994

regional co nferences. a New Or le

conference on Mar ch 14-15 at the

Omni Royal Orleans. and a Pinsburgh co nference on Ap ril 28-29 

the Pittsburgh Vista Hote l.

Eac h 1Y2 day co nfe rence will

fea ture workshops for cand ida tes

part y committees and corpo rate a

labor PACs. The workshops will 

presented by FEe Commissione r

and staff and tax experts from the

IRS.

The $1 15 registration fee for e

conference covers three meals (tw

con tinental break fasts and a lunch

and a reception. For more inform

tion call the FEC: 800/424 -9530 

202/219-}.20. +
•

•

•

\1 r( "~/,-94:..:...__

Court Cases

tconunued fro m page 1)

I984-four moruhs before the

Presiden tial gene ral election -c-asked

readers to complete and re turn a

"s peci al e lecti on-yea r ANTI·WAR

BALLOT' seeking " you r No vote

for Presiden t Reagan " on several

policies pursued by his adm inistration. The ballots. which were to be

forw arded to the President . ended

with the state ment: "My vote in the

No vember e lection wilt be influ -

enced by your respon se 10 these

de mands. " The second lener. a

" 1984 e lection survey," was headed

"Ronald Reagan: Four More Years?"

and asked readers 10 e xpress their

view s on pred ictions tha i a second

Reagan term wou ld bring arms

escala tion. war in Central America

and " life-threatening cuts in hum an

services." The leite r said thai the

survey resuhs wou ld be used " 10

educate Americans who will be

voting."

In ru ling thai Su rviva l Ed uca tion

Fund did not violate the proh ibition

on corpo rate expenditures (2 U.S.c.

§44 Ib(a». the co urt relied on

Supre me Co un cases that interpre ted §441 b as app lying on ly to

com munications that expressly

advocate the election or defeat of a

candidate in words suc h as " vote

for:' "elec t," " support :' "cast you r

ballot." "Smith for Con gress," " vote

against." "defeat," and " rejec t." I

Based on those rulin gs. the

d istrict court concl uded Ihal " [b]olh

lett ers fell short of expressly advocating how the readers should vote."

The court commented; "Obv iously.

the courts are not giving a broad

reading of this slat ute." In Ihe

Court's view, .....ex press ions of

hostility 10 the positions of an

o fficia l, implying tha t that offic ial

should nOI be reelected-coven when

I FEe v. Massacnusens Cinzens for

Life. Inc.. -1 79 U.S. 238. 248-249

(1986' .. Buckley v. v ateo. 424 U S. I ,

44 n. 52 (/976).

that implication is quite clear-c-dc

not con stitute ex press ad vocacy

wh ic h runs afo ul of the statute: ' .

Freed om Republicans, Inc.

v, FEC

On January 18. finding tha t

Freed om Republ icans lacked

stand ing 10 bring suit. the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbi a orde red the d istric t court

to dismiss the case. No. 92·52 14.

Back ground

In its compla int to the dist rict

court. Freed om Rep ublicans alleged

that the Republican Party'Sde legate-selection process an d system

of nonvoting. minority "auxiliaries"

discriminated on the basis o f race.

The group claimed that the alleged

d iscriminali on was a violation of

Tille VI of the Ci vil Rights ACI.

which prohibits discrim inalion by

an y prog ram or activity receiv ing

federa l fund s. The plaintiffs as ked

that the COurt order the FEe to

prom ulgate Ti tle VI reg ula tions

gove rning the selection and appoi ntment of delegates 10 fed erally

financed pa rty con ventions. (Plai ntiffs had also asked the co urt 10

withhold federal fund s from the

1992 Republican nation al nominating convention bUI that request was

not add ressed in their mot ion fo r

pa rtial summary judgme nt.)

The district co urt had gra nted

Freedom Republicans' mol ion,

orde ring the FEC 10 begin a Tille VI

rulemaking on the delegat e-selectio n process of federall y funded

nation al pa rty conven tion s. (The

order was iss ued in April 1992 and

clarified in May.) Freedom Repubttcans. Lnc, I' . Ft C 788 F. Su pp. 600

ID.D.C. 1992).

Co urt of Appea ls Decision

The court of appeals co ncluded

that Freedom Rep ubl ican s had no

sta nding to bring suit against the

Commission for the purpose of

pressuring the Republica n Party 10

(tdnal Election Commissio" RE

chang e its de lega te -se lection ru

The court found that Freedom

Repu blicans faile d to meet two

req uirements for standing unde

Article III of the Co nstitution

First. the organiza tio n failed 

show that the allegedly discrim

tory delegate-selection process 

caused by the auth orizati on of

federal fund ing to the Republ ic

con vention. The court said that 

injury alleged in Freedom Repu

cans' com plaint is not fairly tra

able 10 any encourage me nt on t

part of the go vernmen t. but ap p

in stead to be the result of decisi

made by the Party without regar

fund ing implications." Second ,

f-reedom Republicans failed 10 

that court action or ac tion by the

FEC woul d like ly redress the inj

....he found no "adeq uate

likeli hood , as opposed to specul

lion. thai the Party would choo s

change its lime-tested delegateselection mechanism rather than

forego the convention fundi ng."

Accord ingly. the cou rt vaca te

the j udgment of the distric t co ur

and reman de d the case with insr

lions 10 d ism iss. +

Publications

FEe Pu blishes New Edilio

of Court Case Abstracts

The FEC recent ly publishe d th

eleventh edi tion of Selected Cou

Case Abstracts, sum ma ries of co

ca ses on the campaign finance la

The materi al is also ava ilable on 

throu gh the Com mission 's Data

Access Program (DAP). The new

editio n inc ludes Record summari

throug h the August 199 3 issue .

Legal citations and a subje ct inde

provide research aids. To o rder a

free copy, call 800/424-9530 or

202/ 219 -3420. For information o

DAP. ask for Phyliss StewartThompson. +
Federal Stection Commission RECORD Murch 1

I The authorizi ng committee must provide prior, written auth orization specifying 

amo unt the committee may spend.

Table I: Aut hority to Make Coordinated Party Expend iture

on Behalf of House and Sena te Nominees

Nationa l Part)' Committee Yes, has autho rity to make expenditures on

behalf of each nominee. May authorize I oth

party committees to make expenditures

agai nst its own spending limits.

Table 2: 1994 Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits

Amount Fo r mu la

Se na te Nominee See Ta ble 3 The

$20,000

greater o

x CO

f:

LA I or

lit x state YAP " x CO

Hou se Nominee in St at es

with Only One Represent at ive $58,600 $20.000 x COLA

- - ----------

House Nominee in Other Sta tes $29.300 $ 10.000 x COLA

Nominee for Delegate or

Resident Commissioner J $29.300 $10 .000, COL A

Yes, has autho rity 10 make expenditures on

behalf of each nominee seeking election in

state. May authori ze \ other party comm itte

to make expenditures against its own spend

limits.

1\'0 autho rity; may make coordinated expen

tures only if author ized I by national or stat

party committee .

Local Pa r t)! Co mmitte e

Sta te Party Committee

1994 Coordinated Party

Expenditure Limits

The 1994 limits on coordina ted

party expenditure s are now available. Party com mittees may make

these special expen ditures on beha lf

of 1994 general election candidates.

Coordinated party expenditure

limits are separate from the contribution limits: they also differ from

contributions in that the party

commiuee must spend the funds on

behalf of the candidate rather than

giving the money directly. Although

these expenditures may be made in

consultation with the candidate,

only the party committee making

the e xpenditures-not the candidate

comminee- must report them.

(Coordinated party expenditures are

reported on Line 25 of FEe Form

3X and itemi zed on Schedule F,

regardle ss of amoun t)

Table I show s which party

committees have authority to make

coordinated party expenditures;

Table 2 shows the 1994 limits and

the formulas used to calculate them;

and Table 3 lists the state-by-state

limits for 1994 Sena te nominees. +

,

Party

Activities

I COLA means cost-of-living adjustm ent . The / 993 COLA- -used 10 de/ermin e the

1994 party expenditures limits- was 2.93.

JVAP means voting age population

J The District ofColumbia. Guam and the Virgin islands elect Delegat es: Puerto

Rico elecls a Resident Commissioner.

4
March 1994

Table 3: 1994 Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits

for Senate Nominees

*/11 these stales. which ha ve only one Representative . the spending limit fo r the

House nominee is $58 .600. the same amount as the Senate limit. ln other states. the

limit for each House nominee is $29,300. regardless of the Se nate limit.

' The voting age population fi gures are not yel official. In the unlikely event the official figures differfrom those used here, readers will be notified in the April issue.

•

•

•

State

Alabama

"Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

"Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

"Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

"North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

"'South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

"vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

"wyoming

Voting Age

Population 1

3, 111,000

410,000

2,866,000

1,790,000

22,6 18,000

2,628 .000

2,503,000

525,000

10,510,000

5,076,000

873,000

767,000

8,630,000

4.244,000

2,080,000

[,847 ,000

2,817,000

3,052,000

933,000

3,724,000

4,6[9,000

6,971,000

3.290,000

1,885,000

3,871,000

607 .000

[,168.000

1,037,000

841,000

5,983,000

1,1 36,000

13,730,000

5,24[ ,000

463,000

8,232,000

2,362,000

2,25 [,000

9,177,000

765 ,000

2,69[ ,000

507,000

3,831.000

12,848,000

1,195,000

432,000

4,90 3,000

3,862,000

[,386,000

3,696,000

332,000

1994 Limit

$ 182,305

$ 58,600

$ 167,948

$ 104,894

$ 1,325,4 15

$ 154,001

$ [46,676

$ 58,600

$ 615,886

S 297,454

$ 58,600

$ 58,600

$ 505,7 18

s 248,698

s 121,888

$ 108,234

s 165,076

$ 178,847

s 58,600

s 218,226

$ 270.673

$ 408 .501

s 192.794

$ 110,461

$ 226,84 1

$ 58.600

$ 68,445

$ 60,768

$ 58.600

$ 350,604

$ 66,570

$ 804,578

$ 307, 123

$ 58,600

$ 482,395

$ 138,413

s 131,909

s 537,772

$ 58,600

$ [57,693

s 58,600

S 224,497

5 752,893

$ 70,027

$ 58,600

$ 287,3 16

$ 226,3 13

s 81,220

$ 216,586

$ 58,600

Federal Election Comm ission REC

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1993·22

Use of Excess Campaign

Funds by Retired House

Member

The transfer of $800,308 in

remaini ng excess campaign fun

from former Congressman Rob

A. Roe 's Campaign Committee 

the Roe Committee , a nonconne

committee new ly formed by M

Roe, was a permissi ble use of t

funds . AOs 1988 ·41 and 1985-

Mr. Roe now proposes to transf

$569,512 of these funds from th

Roe Committee 10 the Robert A

Roe Charitable Founda tion.' As

trustee of the orga nization, he w

choose the charities to suppo rt; 

wou ld also reserve the right to

ame nd or revoke the trust or to 

the funds for his own benefit sh

he become disabled. Although 

proposed tran sfer would Consti

pe rsonal use ' of excess campai

funds- prohibited under 2 U.S

§439a- it would be pe rmissible 

Mr. Roe 's case because the fun

were "grand fathered" under a

limited exception to the prohibi

As a Member of Congress w

served on January 8, 1980 , bU I 

in the 103rd Congress, Mr. Roe 

allowed to convert to personal 

an amount equaling the Novem

11, t989, unobligated balance o

Campaign Committee , (he amo 

of the proposed transfer. See l l 

Ill.2(d).

(continued on p

I According 10 Mr, Roe, he will ha

pay taxes on the funds contained i

transfer to the Foundat ion.

1 The Commission is curren tly eng

in a rulemaking to offe r guidance 

what constitutes personal lise. See

page 1.
Ft'du dl Elt',",it", Comm;Jlir!ll RECORD

Advisory Opinions

[continued from page 5)

The fund s remaining in the Roe

Committee 's account, howe ver,

wo uld be subjec t to the personal use

ban. although any reimbursement of

~1r Roe 's ordinary and necessary

expenses relating to his pol itical

activity as director of Ihe Committee

wou ld nOI be a personal use. See

AOs 1993-6 and 1983-27.

Mullic andida te Status;

Commit tee Name

The Roe Committee qualifies as a

multi ca nd idate committee based on

the following:

• The Campa ign Commi ttee (now

terminated) and the Roe Committee ex isted concurrently during the

lime of the transfers:

• The transfers were the only source

of funds for the Roe Commi ttee:

and .

• The Campaig n Committee previously fulfilled the three criteria for

multicandidate status. 2 U.S.c.

§441(a)(2) . See AOs 1988-41 and

1988-30.

Under 2 U.S .c. §4 32(,)(4), a

candidate's name may not be

included in the name of an unauthorized commit tee. ~r Roe, however,

is no longer a candidate . Consequently. Ihe Roe Comminee may

continue 10 use its current name.

Report ing

In its first report , the Roe Com -

mit ree reponed the funds from the

Campaign Committee as a tran sfer

from an affiliated comminee. The

transfer 10 Ihe Foundation should be

reponed under the category "other

d isburseme nts." The Foundation

wou ld not have any repon ing

obliga tions unde r the Fede ral

Election Campai gn Act unless it

were to make contributions or

ex pend itures that trigge red regi stration and repo ni ng req uirements.

Dale Issued : Ja nuary 13, 1994;

Length: 5 pages. +

,

AD 199.1-2.1

PAC Disa ffiliation

The PACs of Pacific Te lesis

Gro up (PTG) and its wholl y owned

subsidiary, PacTel , will become

disaffiliated on the date thai Pac'Tel

separates from PTG and becomes an

independe nt company throu gh a

"spin-offv-c-Le., the distribution of

PTG's shares in Pac'Tel to the

shareholders o f PTG.1On [hal dat e,

PTG will no long er hold a contro lling interest in PacTel: rhe governance and management of the two

co mpanies will be separate: and

they will no longer share any

directors. officers or employee s.

Affiliation Factors

Separate seg regated fund s

established by a parent and its

subsidiary are auromancally affil iated and thus share the same Contributi on limits. I I CFR 110.3( a)(2)(i).

When a d irect pare nt-subs idiary

relationship does not exist, FEC

regu lations list several factors to

determine whether two orga nizalions. and their respective PACs. are

affiliated. I I CFR II O.3(a)(3)(ii)

(A)-() . Se veral of those factors are

relevant here.

• Controtting Interest in Voting

St?d:.. After the spin-off. no group

will hold a controlling interest in

Pac'Iel . Although PTG share holders will constitute a large majority

of Pac'Fel shareholders, anticipated

vigorous trading of both PTG and

PacTel sha res sho uld introduce

large numbers of diffe rent shareholders.

• Governing AUlhority: Control over

Decisionmakers:Common Officers

and Employees. Based on the

separation agreement betwee n the

two compa nies. and PacTel's

bylaws and articles of inco rporation , the companies will be separate ly gove rned and managed;

I The spin ·off was preceded by an initial

public offerin g of /2 to /4 pe~("ent of

PacTd shares.

furth erm ore, they will not share 

commo n employees. officers or

directors.

• Movement of Personnel from O

Organization to the Other Indic

ing Creation ofSuccessor Orga

ration. Although some PTG

employee s will become PacTel

employees. and vice versa. the

spin-off and separation agreeme

will create a new corporalion,

neither the subo rdinate of PTG n

its successor.

• ROle in Forming the Other Orga

zation. PTG 's creation of PacTel 

superseded by its proposa l to sev

the relation ship.

Based on this ana lysis, the two

companies and their respective

PACs should no longer be co nsidered affi liated as of the spin-off

dale. By co ntrast, in two previous

spin-off situations, the Commissio

said that the parent and spin-off

co mpanies remained affiliated

beca use some attachment co ntinue

between them (e.g.• overlapping 

board members; complete com mo

identity of shareholders). See AOs

1987-2 1 and 1986-4 2.

l\Iull icandid al e Sta tus:

Conlributions Limits

When PTGPAC and PACTELPAC becom e disaffiliat ed, each wi

retain its mul tica ndidate slatus and

thus may contribu te up to $5,000,

per cand idate, per election. Contributions made before disa ffiliation

however. will have 10 be aggregate

with those made after. For exa mple

if the two PACs ga ve an aggregate

of $3.000 to a 1994 House primary

campaign when they were affilia ted

eac h PAC wou ld be ab le 10 give

another $2,000 after disaffiliation.

Date Issued: January 14, 1994:

Length : 8 pages. +
•

•

March 19~9~4 _

AO 199.1-25

Preemp tion of State Law

Rest rictin g Contributions

from Lob byists

Federal law preempts a Wisconsin law governing political contributions by lobbyists. That law would

prohi bit lobbyists from contributing

(0 the U.S. Senate campaign of Slate

Representative Robert T. Welch

until June 1. 1994. The Federal

Ejection Campaign Act (the Act)

and f Ee regulations preempt any

stale law that attempts to regulate

federal campaign finance activity.

including contributions to federal

candidates. 2 U.S.c. §453; 11 CFR

I 08.7(b). Under the broad preemptive powers of the Act, only federal

law could limit the rime during

which a lobbyist could contribute to

the federal campaign of a state

legislator. See also ADs 1992-43,

1989-12. 1988-21 and 1978-66.

Date Issued; January 3 1, 1994;

Length: 3 pages. •

Special

Elections

Oklaho ma Specia l Elections

Oklahoma has scheduled the

following special elections to fill the

6th Congressional District seat

vacated by the resignation of

Representative Glenn English:

• March 8 primary elec tion;

• April S runoff election (to be held

if no candidate wins more than 50

percent of the vote in a party's

primary) and

• May 10 general election.

This article explains the reporting

requirements for PACs and party

committees. (The FEC has sent

reporting information to candidates

on the Oklahoma primary ballot . For

more complete information on

reporting, see the January issue or

order the 1994 reporting handout

(800/424-9530 or 202/219-3420).

Federal Election Commission REC

Reporting by Party Committ e

and PACs

Quarterly Filers. Party comm

tees and PACs filing on a quarte

(rather than monthly) basis mus

a special election report if they

make previously undisclosed

contributions or expenditures in

connection with that election by 

close-of-books date shown in th

reporting table. I I Cr R 104.5(c

(ii) and (h).

Monthly Filers. PACs filing 

monthly basis are not required t

file pre- and post-special electio

reports. See 2 V.S.c. §434(a)(9

I I e FR 104.5(h)(2).

24-Hour Reports 0 11 Independ

Expend itures

PACs (including monthly fil

and other persons making indep

dent expenditures in connection

with an Oklahoma special elect

must file 24·hour reports if the

committee or person makes ind

pendent expenditures aggregati

[continued on pa

•

Adv isory Opinion Requests

The advisory opinion requests

(AORs) listed below are available

for review and comment in the

FEC's Public Records Office.

AOR 1994- 1

Sponsorship of golf tournament

Iundraiser for trade association

PAC; member recruitment at

tournament. (Western Pistachio

Association; January 24, 1994; 9

pages plus attachments) •

AOR 1994-2

Preemption of Minnesota law

restricting fundraising. (Linda

Berglin for United States Senate

Volunteer Committee; January 31,

1994; I page plus attachments) +

Reporting Dates for Oklahoma Special Elections:

Ma rc h 8 Primary, Apr il 5 Runoff an d May 10 Ge neral

Reg./Cert.

Close or Books I Ma iling Dale 2 Filing D

Pre-Primary ) February 16 February 21 Februar

Pre-Runoff March 16 March 2 1 March 2

April Qu arterly March 31 April IS April 15

Pr e-General April 20 April 25 April 28

Post -Gene ra l May 30 June 9 June 9

I The close of hooks is the end ofthe reporting period. The period begins the da

afte r the closing date of the last report filed. If the commiuee is »ew and has 11m

previously filed 0 report. the [nst report hegins when the commiuee started rais

and spending funds .

! Reports sellt hy registered or certified moil must be postmarked by the mailing

date . otherwise the)' must he received hy the fede ral and sta le cffices hJ' the fili

date .

-' The primo r)' election was announced too late to puh/ish the reponing dotes in 

February Record.
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Special Election

(continued from page 7)

\,000 or more during the following

periods:

• Primary: February 17 - March 6

• Runoff: March 17- April 3

• General: April 21 - May 8

The report must be filed with the

federal and state office within 24

hours after the expenditure is made.

II CFR 104.4(b) and (c) and

I04.5(g).

Whe re to File Oklahoma pecial

Election Reports

PACs and party committee

generally file their reports with the

PEC. However, twenty-four-hour

reports on independent expenditures

made for or against Hou e candidate are filed with the Clerk of the

Hou e. I I CFR 104.4(c)(3). (The

addres i given in Form 3X in truetion .)

In addition to filing with the

FEC. committees mu t irnultaneously file copie of Oklahoma

pecial election reports (including

24-hour reports) with the tate

office:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street , NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business *

Printed on recycled paper

, Oklahoma Ethics Commission

State Capitol Building. Room B-2A

Oklahoma City. OK 73105-4802

The tate copy need include only

the Summary Page and the schedule

howing the contribution or expenditure. 2 U.S.c. §439(a)(2)(B). +

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the "number" (month) of

the 1994 Record i sue in which the

article appeared. The second number

following the colon, indicates the .

page number in that i ue. For

example, "I :4" means that the

article is in the January i sue on

page 4.

dvi or)' Opinion

1993-18: Corporate plan to foster

political participation. 2:I

1993-19: Retiring 1984 Pre idential

debt, 1:1 3

1993-20: Purchase and distribution

of candidate biography. 2:3

Ma rch 

1993-21: Preemption of Ohio law

2:4

1993-22: Use of excess funds by

retired House Member, 3:5

1993-23: PAC disaffiliation. 3:6

1993-25: Preemption of tate law

restricting contribution from

lobbyi ts, 3:6

ourt a e

FEC v.

- . ational Republican Senatoria

Committee (93-16 12), I :12

- Survival Education Fund. Inc.

- Williams, I:12

__ v.FEC

- Center for Responsive Politics

1:12

- Freedom Republicans. Inc., 3:

- Froelich, 2:2

- LaRouche (92-1100), I:J2

Report

April, 3:1

Oklahoma pecial,3:7

Schedule for 1994, I :4: correctio

2:1

800 Line Article

Regi tration by candidates and th

committees, I: 14

Bulk Rate Mall

Postage and Fee s Paid

Federal Election Commissio

Permit Number G-31