August 2002 Federal Election Commission Volume 28, Number 8

Table of Contents

Reports

1 Louisiana Primary Reporting

2 North Carolina Primary Date

Announced

Election Administration

1 Revised National Mail Voter

Registration Form

2 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

2 FEC v. Freedom’s Heritage Forum

4 New Litigation

Compliance

5 MUR 5041: Contribution in the

Name of Another Made by

Corporation

Administrative Fines

6 Committees Fined for Late and

Nonfiled Reports

Statistics

6 PAC Activity Continues to Rise in

2001-2002 Cycle

7 Semiannual PAC Count Shows

Slight Decrease

7 Public Appearance

7 Index

Compliance Election

Administration

(continued on page 2)

Reports

Louisiana Primary

Reporting

In AO 2000-29, the Commission

determined that the last day to

qualify for a position on the general

election ballot in Louisiana—in this

case August 23, 2002—must be

considered the primary election date

for Louisiana candidates. See 11

CFR 100.2(c)(4)(i). Thus, committees involved in the Louisiana

elections must file a pre-primary

report, which is due on August 11.1

The prior notice for this report will

be available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/pages/

refer.htm.✦

—Amy Kort

1

 August 11, 2002, is a Sunday. Filing

dates are not extended for weekends or

holidays. Paper filers must ensure that

their reports are received by the

Commission or the Secretary of the

Senate, as appropriate, by Friday,

August 9. Reports sent by registered or

certified mail are considered filed on

the date of the postmark. The registered/certified mailing date for the

Louisiana pre-primary report is August

8.

(continued on page 2)

Revised National Mail Voter

Registration Form

On July 12, 2002, the Commission approved the Office of Election

Administration’s (OEA) proposed

revisions to the National Mail Voter

Registration Form. The revisions

were made to comply with new

standards set for federal programs

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). The changes affect

the list of categories that allow

applicants to identify their race and

ethnicity when registering to vote in

states that seek this information. The

new categories more closely match

those used by the U.S. Bureau of

Census, and OMB has instructed

federal agencies to adopt the

changes by January 1, 2003.

The OEA also announced numerous changes to the state-specific

instructions accompanying the

form.1

 These changes reflect

1

 On August 8, 2000, the Commission

approved a procedural change that

allows the OEA to make any changes to

the National Voter Registration Form that

are required by changes in state law, and

to notify the Commission of the revisions.

The OEA must submit for a formal

Commission vote those changes to the

form that are not specific to a given state.
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2002

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)

David M. Mason, Chairman

Karl J. Sandstrom, Vice Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Election Administration

(continued from page 1)

Advisory

Opinions

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2002-9

Disclaimer requirements for

express advocacy communication

printed as text message on cell

phone screen (Target Wireless, May

28, 2002)

AOR 2002-10

Qualification as state committee

of political party (Green Party of

Michigan, June 25, 2002)

Court Cases

FEC v. Freedom’s Heritage

Forum et al.

On March 28, 2002, the U.S.

District Court for the Western

District of Kentucky at Louisville

granted the Commission’s motions

for:

• Dismissal of portions of the

complaint affected by changes in

FEC regulations;

• Summary judgment on claims that

the Freedom’s Heritage Forum (the

Forum) and its treasurer failed to

include the required disclaimers on

express-advocacy communications; and

• Dismissal of the defendants’

counterclaims charging, among

other things, that the Commission

selectively enforced the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

against the defendants, thus

depriving them of their Fourteenth

Amendment rights to equal

protection.

Reports

(continued from page 1)

revisions made to state law since the

form was last revised in July 2000.

One significant development is that

most states now allow individuals to

print the form from the FEC web

2

 Residents of Illinois, Massachusetts,

Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio and South

Carolina may only use applications

printed on specified heavy-weight card

stock. These cards may be obtained

from state election offices. In addition,

states that as of August 1, 1994, had no

voter registration or permitted sameday registration at the polling place are

exempt from provisions of the National

Voter Registration Act. Of these exempt

states, only North Dakota and Wyoming

do not accept the national form. New

Hampshire town and city clerks will

accept this application only as a

request for their own absentee voter

mail-in registration form.

North Carolina Primary

Date Announced

The North Carolina legislature

has announced that the state primary

will be held on September 10, 2002.

The legislature also decided that,

given the late primary date, there

will not be time to hold a run-off

election. The primary was initially

scheduled for May 7, but was

delayed due to court challenges to

legislative redistricting. See the May

2002 Record, page 6. The prior

notice for this report will be available on the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/refer.htm.✦

—Amy Kort

site (http://www.fec.gov/votregis/

vr.htm), complete the application,

and mail it to their state election

officer.2

The Commission, through the

OEA, is responsible for the original

development and continued update

of the National Voter Registration

Form under Section 9 of the National Voter Registration Act of

1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7). For

more information, please call the

FEC’s Office of Election Administration at 800/424-9530 (press 4) or

202/694-1095.✦

—Amy Kort

AOR 2002-11

Affiliation of SSFs of national

and state trade associations (Mortgage Bankers Association of

America, June 28, 2002)✦

FEC Issues 2001

Annual Report

The FEC’s Annual Report 2001 is

now available. The report, which

describes the agency’s actions

during the last calendar year, can

be downloaded from the

Commission’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pdf/ar01.pdf. Free

copies are available by mail—call

the FEC’s Information Division

at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1100

to request a copy.
August 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

The court denied the

Commission’s request for summary

judgment that former congressional

candidate Timothy Hardy knowingly received a prohibited corporate contribution because certain of

the facts were contested by the parties.

Background

The Forum is a political committee that promotes pro-life and other

social issues. In response to an

administrative complaint alleging

that the Forum made coordinated

expenditures on behalf of Mr.

Hardy’s 1994 Congressional

campaign, the Commission found

that the Forum violated the Act’s

contribution limits, reporting and

disclosure requirements and disclaimer provisions. 2 U.S.C.

§§441a(a)(1)(A), 434(b), and (c)

and 441d(a)(3). The Commission

also found that Mr. Hardy accepted

excessive contributions. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(f). After failing to reach a

conciliation agreement with the

defendants, the Commission filed a

court complaint.

Coordination. The Commission

alleged that the Forum’s expenditures supporting Mr. Hardy, totaling

$23,515.81, were not independent

expenditures but coordinated

expenditures that resulted in excessive contributions to his campaign

committee. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A).

Disclaimers and Express Advocacy. The Commission alleged that

the Forum distributed seven flyers

expressly advocating the election or

defeat of a federal candidate and

failed to include the required

disclaimers. 2 U.S.C. §441d(a). In

its September 29 decision, the court

reviewed four flyers and found that

one contained express advocacy

and, thus, required a disclaimer. On

April 28, 2000, the court ruled on

three additional flyers, finding that

two contained express advocacy.

For a summary of these decisions,

see the December 1999 Record, p. 6,

and the June 2000 Record, page 8.

Current Court Decision

New Coordination Regulations.

The Commission asked the court to

dismiss with prejudice several

counts of its complaint because the

FEC has promulgated new coordination regulations. Under the new

regulations, the defendants’ activities, as described in these counts, are

not violations. The Commission also

asked the court to dismiss the

defendants’ counterclaims, which

asked the court to declare one of the

old regulations unconstitutional and

to enjoin the Commission from

enforcing the old regulation against

the defendants. The court found that

the defendants were not in danger of

a second lawsuit based on these

counts because the regulation had

been repealed, and that the defendants’ counterclaims were moot for

the same reason. The court granted

the Commission’s motions on these

points.

Disclaimers. Under the Act,

whenever a person makes an

independent expenditure, the

communication must disclose both

the name of the person who paid for

the communication and the fact that

the communication was not authorized by any candidate or

candidate’s committee. 2 U.S.C.

§441d(a). Since the court had

previously found that three of the

Forum’s flyers contained express

advocacy, and none of them stated

whether they were authorized by a

candidate, the court granted the

Commission summary judgment on

its claims that the Forum violated 2

U.S.C. §441d(a).1

 The court imposed a $3,000 penalty—$1,000 for

each violation.

Acceptance of Corporate Contributions. The Commission also

requested summary judgment on its

claim that Mr. Hardy knowingly

accepted corporate contributions in

violation of 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

During Mr. Hardy’s campaign, a

member of his staff received

permission from Toby Tours, Inc.,

to send campaign mailings using its

bulk mail permit. By using the

permit, the campaign saved

$4,077.26 in postage, which,

according to the Commission,

resulted in an prohibited contribution from Toby Tours, Inc.

The court determined that the

campaign staff member had knowingly accepted the illegal contribution; however, it also found the

Commission had not shown that the

staff member acted on Mr. Hardy’s

behalf. The court denied the

Commission’s request for summary

judgment because a question of

material fact remained as to whether

the staff member was acting as Mr.

Hardy’s agent, and a legal question

remained about whether Mr. Hardy

could be personally charged with

the violation. This issue remains to

be resolved by the court.

Selective Enforcement of the Act.

In their counterclaims, the defendants alleged that the Commission’s

“unwarranted, selective, and lengthy

proceedings” deprived them of their

freedom of speech and associational

rights under the First and Fourteenth

amendments. The court granted the

Commission’s motion to dismiss

this claim, agreeing that the claim

was moot because the administrative

proceedings in question had concluded.

The defendants also claimed that

the Commission violated their rights

to equal protection under the

Fourteenth Amendment by selectively enforcing the Act against

them because of their politically1

 The defendants had argued that the

FEC was enjoined from enforcing the

regulation defining express advocacy

“against any . . . party in the United

States of America.” However, the

Fourth Circuit court of appeals vacated

this injunction, finding that the district

court “abused its discretion by issuing

a nationwide injunction . . .” Virginia

Society for Human Life, Inc. v. FEC,

263 F.3d 379, 393 (4th Cir. 2001). (continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2002

4

New Litigation

FEC v. Triad Management

Services

On June 21, 2002, the Commission asked the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia to find

that Triad Management Services,

Triad Management Services, Inc.,

(collectively Triad) and Carolyn

Malenick violated the Federal

Election Campaign Act (Act) during

the 1996 federal election cycle. The

Commission alleges that Ms.

Malenick and Triad violated the Act

by, among other things, failing to

register and file as a political

committee and accepting and

making excessive and prohibited

contributions. 2 U.S.C. §§433, 434,

441a(a)(1), 441a(f) and 441b.

Background. According to its

1996 promotional materials, Triad

was a consulting firm devoted to

keeping the Republican majority in

Congress. From 1995 to 1996, Ms.

Malenick operated Triad Management Services as a sole proprietorship, and she became the president,

sole director and owner of Triad

Management Services, Inc., when

Triad incorporated in May 1996.

The Commission began its investigation of Triad in response to a

series of administrative complaints

filed between 1996 and 1998. After

failing to reach a conciliation agreement with the defendants, the Commission filed this court complaint.

Court Complaint. According to

the Commission’s court complaint,

conservative views. Under the Sixth

Circuit’s three-part test for evaluating a selective enforcement claim,

the enforcement situation in question must:

1. Single out for prosecution a

person belonging to an identifiable group (such as a group

exercising constitutional rights)

even though the enforcement

official has in similar situations

decided not to prosecute individuals not belonging to that

group;

2. Be initiated with a discriminatory purpose; and

3. Have a discriminatory effect on

the group to which the defendant

belongs.

The defendants alleged, among

other things, that the Commission

did not prosecute any other group

involved in the election, including a

gay or lesbian organization that

published an express advocacy

communication for Mr. Hardy’s

opponent and did not include a

disclaimer. The defendants also

generally claimed that the Commission does not prosecute “liberal

politicians and elected officials,”

and specifically pointed out that the

Commission did not prosecute Toby

Tours, Inc.

The court granted the

Commission’s motion to dismiss

this counterclaim, finding that the

defendants had not provided sufficient supporting facts. For example,

the court found that even if the gay

or lesbian organization had violated

the Act, the situation was not similar

to the defendants’ because they

could not show that the Commission

knew about the violation or that a

complaint was filed. Similarly, the

Commission’s failure to prosecute

Toby Tours, Inc., did not meet the

test’s criteria because the corporation was not part of an identifiable

group. Finally, the court found that

the defendants’ general claims of

FEC bias were not specific enough

to withstand scrutiny under the

selective enforcement test.

Defendants’ Motions

On April 10, 2002, the Forum

and its treasurer filed a motion to

alter or vacate the court’s order and

a motion to allow the filing of

counter claims.

U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Kentucky at

Louisville, 3:98cv549-S.✦

—Amy Kort

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

before Triad incorporated it accepted $790,215 in federal election

contributions—including $200,000

in 1995 and $465,000 in 1996 from

a single individual. Once Triad

became a corporation, it accepted an

additional $746,971 in contributions, of which $726,621 came from

a single individual and $10,000

came from other corporations. The

Commission alleges that during the

1995-1996 election cycle, Triad

also:

• Made federal election expenditures

totaling approximately $1.6

million;

• Solicited contributions for 1996

Congressional candidates;

• Collected and forwarded 230

contribution checks made out to

federal candidates or campaign

committees, totaling $185,000; and

• Paid for the creation and distribution of publications that expressly

advocated the election or defeat of

federal candidates.

Ms. Malenick and Triad did not

register or report this alleged

activity to the Commission.

The Commission contends that

once Triad exceeded $1,000 in

contributions or expenditures in a

calendar year, it became a political

committee under the Act and was

required to register and file regular

reports. 2 U.S.C. §§433 and 434.

Under the Act, Triad was also

required to file disclosure reports

once it made independent expenditures in excess of $250. 2 U.S.C.

§434(c). The Commission alleges

that Triad knowingly accepted

prohibited corporate contributions

and contributions in excess of the

Act’s limits, and also made excessive contributions and in-kind

contributions to federal candidates.

2 U.S.C. §441a(a). Moreover, the

Commission alleges that after Triad

incorporated, it made prohibited

corporate contributions to and

expenditures for and against federal

candidates.

Triad also allegedly organized a

coalition of political committees that
August 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

regularly met and agreed to consult

on targeted candidates and campaigns. The Commission contends

that Triad solicited contributions for

these political committees and

collected and forwarded contributions to them.

According to the Commission’s

complaint, Triad was the sole source

of funds for two committees, the

American Free Enterprise PAC

(AFE) and Citizens Allied for Free

Enterprise (CAFE), which received

$81,235 from Triad that was used to

contribute to candidates it recommended. Triad established, financed, maintained and controlled

AFE and CAFE and was thus

affiliated with them. Since affiliated

committees share a single contribution limit, the Commission argues

that the committees exceeded the

contribution limits when they each

contributed the maximum legal

amount to the same federal candidates. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a) and 11

CFR 110.3(1). The Commission

alleges that Triad directed and

controlled contributions made by

AFE and CAFE that resulted in

excessive contributions.

Relief. The Commission asks the

court to:

• Find that the defendants committed

these violations of the Act;

• Enjoin them from engaging in

further similar violations;

• Order Triad Management Services

and Triad Management Services,

Inc., to register as political committees with the Commission and

to file disclosure reports dating

back to 1995;

• Order the defendants to disgorge to

the U.S. Treasury all excessive and

prohibited contributions that they

received during 1995 and 1996;

and

• Assess appropriate civil penalties

for each violation. See 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(6)(B).

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 02CV1237.✦

—Amy Kort

Compliance

MUR 5041

Contribution in the Name

of Another Made by

Corporation

Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital

(Wuesthoff) and several of its

former employees have agreed to

pay civil penalties for violations of

the Federal Election Campaign

Act’s (the Act) prohibitions on

corporate contributions and contributions in the name of another. 2

U.S.C. §§441b(a) and 441f.

The Act prohibits corporations

from making contributions in

connection with federal elections,

and prohibits any person from

making a contribution in the name

of another person and from permitting his or her name to be used to

make such a contribution. In addition, the Act prohibits any officer or

director of a corporation from

consenting to any contribution or

expenditure by the corporation. 2

U.S.C. §§441b(a) and 441f. Finally,

Commission regulations at 11 CFR

110.4(b)(1)(iii) make it unlawful for

any person to knowingly help or

assist another person in making a

contribution in the name of another.

Background

During the 1980s, Robert

Carman, who was then the President

and Chief Executive Officer of

Wuesthoff, determined that money

otherwise paid to a trade association

should be contributed directly to

political candidates. Between

approximately November 1991 and

June 1998, Mr. Carman encouraged

certain Wuesthoff employees to

make political contributions and

caused the reimbursement of at least

$22,175 in federal campaign

contributions to himself and other

employees. After December 1997,

Mr. Carman also arranged for

Wuesthoff to grant bonuses to some

employees. Mr. Carman treated

these bonuses as lines of credit,

against which he would ask employees to make political contributions.

Mr. Carman and other Wuesthoff

employees helped organize a June

16, 1998, fundraiser for the Republican Party of Florida that took place

at the home of a Wuesthoff board

member. Mr. Carman solicited

Wuesthoff employees for $11,000 in

contributions, then arranged for

them to be reimbursed by authorizing bonus payments to cover their

contributions.

One board member encouraged

Wuesthoff employees to contribute

to candidates and sometimes

delivered their contribution checks.

However, the reimbursement of

political contributions was never

expressly authorized, approved or

ratified by Wuesthoff’s Board of

Directors. In 1999, the Board of

Directors was formally apprised of

the contribution reimbursements and

notified the Commission.

Wuesthoff also implemented a

number of corrective measures,

including hiring a full-time Chief

Compliance Officer, transferring the

control of executive payroll from

the Chief Executive Officer to the

Payroll Department, adding a

compliance session to its employee

orientation program and instituting a

24-hour anonymous hotline for

employees to report compliance

issues.

Civil Penalties

Based upon the information

provided by Wuesthoff, the Commission found reason to believe that

the respondents violated 2 U.S.C.

§§441b(a) and 441f by making

corporate contributions and contributions in the names of others. The

Commission participated in informal methods of conciliation with

each respondent, and each respondent entered into a separate conciliation agreement. The respondents,

the penalties paid and the violations

of the Act are listed below:

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2002

6

Committees Fined for

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently

publicized its final action on nine

new Administrative Fine cases,

bringing the total number of cases

released to the public to 422.

Administrative

Fines

4

 This civil money penalty has not been collected.

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

 1. Blockey 2000 $1,800 1

 2. Brad Carson for Congress Committee $11,000

 3. California Voter Guide —— 2

 4. David E. Duke Congressional Campaign Fund $0 3

 5. Dewayne Graham for Congress Committee —— 2

 6. Friends of Dylan Glenn $900 3, 4

 7. Georgia Federal Elections Committee $3,200

 8. Loudoun County Republican Committee $775 4

 9. McNary for Congress Committee $9,750 4

1

 Partial payment made.

2

 The Commission terminated the proceedings in this matter.

3

 This penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the report.

PAC Activity Continues to

Rise in 2001-2002 Cycle

Political action committee (PAC)

financial activity continued to rise

during the first 15 months of the

2001-2002 election cycle. A total of

4,328 PACs reported receipts of

$397 million between January 1,

2001, and March 31, 2002, up 13.7

percent from the same period in

2000. PACs made disbursements of

$315.9 million, up 12 percent from

the same period in the previous

cycle.

PACs contributed $131.4 million

to federal candidates during the first

15 months of this cycle, a 5.6

percent increase over the 2000

levels. PAC contributions to candidates were almost evenly divided

between the major parties, with

Republican candidates receiving

$66.4 million and Democratic

candidates receiving $64.8 million.

Incumbent candidates received 87.6

percent of these contributions, while

challengers received 4.9 percent and

open seat candidates received 7.4

percent.

Corporate PACs represented the

largest group of committees, and

Statistics

• Wuesthoff paid $32,000 for

making corporate contributions and

contributions in the name of

another.

• Robert Carman paid $20,000 for

knowingly and willfully consenting

to Wuesthoff’s corporate contributions, for allowing his name to be

used in Wuesthoff’s making of

corporate contributions and for

causing himself and other

Wuesthoff employees to be

reimbursed by Wuesthoff for

federal campaign contributions.

• Terence Murphy, former Senior

Vice President and Chief Operating

Officer of Wuesthoff, paid $8,500

for consenting to Wuesthoff’s

corporate contributions and for

allowing his name to be used in

Wuesthoff’s making of corporate

contributions.

• Rebecca Colker, former Chief

Financial Officer of Wuesthoff,

paid a civil penalty of $2,000 for

consenting to Wuesthoff’s corporate contributions and for allowing

her name to be used in Wuesthoff’s

making of corporate contributions.

Ms. Colker’s name appeared as the

authorizing signature on most

reimbursement checks to

Wuesthoff employees.

Additionally, four political

committees disgorged a total of

$13,525, representing contributions

that they had received as a result of

Wuesthoff’s activities.✦

—Jim Wilson

Civil money penalties for late

reports are determined by the

number of days the report was late,

the amount of financial activity

involved and any prior penalties for

violations under the administrative

fine regulations. Penalties for late

reports—and for reports filed so late

as to be considered nonfiled—are

also determined by the financial

activity for the reporting period and

any prior violations. Election

sensitive reports, which include

reports and notices filed prior to an

election (i.e., 12 Day pre-election,

October quarterly and October

monthly reports), receive higher

penalties. The committees and the

treasurers are assessed civil money

penalties when the Commission

makes its final determination.

Unpaid civil money penalties are

referred to the Department of the

Treasury for collection.

The committees listed in the

chart below, along with their

treasurers, were assessed civil

money penalties under the administrative fine regulations.

Closed Administrative Fine case

files are available through the FEC

Press Office, at 800/424-9530

(press 2), and the Public Records

Office, at 800/424-9530 (press 3).✦

—Amy Kort

Compliance

(continued from page 5)
August 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2002 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

Alternative Disposition of 2001-15,

3:9; 2001-20, 3:9

2001-13: National committee status

of party committee, 1:11

2001-16: Extension of 70-day

window for transferring funds for

allocable expenses after suspension of party fundraising due to

national emergency, 2:1

2001-17: Reporting contributions

made via single check split

Index

(continued on page 8)

between federal and nonfederal

accounts, 3:5

2001-18: Affiliation between LLC

PAC and PACs of corporate

owners in 60-40 joint venture, 3:7

2001-19: Non-preemption of state

law prohibiting political

committee’s bingo license, 3:8

2002-1: Coalition of minor parties

supporting candidate(s) who

together gain five percent of vote

not eligible for Presidential public

funding, 4:3

2002-2: Preemption of state law

barring lobbyist from fundraising

Semiannual PAC Count

Shows Slight Decrease

According to the FEC’s semiannual political action committee

(PAC) count, 3,865 PACs were

registered with the Commission on

July 1, 2002. This figure represents

a 26-committee decrease from the

January 1 count.

Corporate PACs remain the

largest category, with 1,514 committees. Nonconnected PACs

remain the second-largest group,

with 1,006 committees. The chart

above, at right, shows the complete

mid-year and year-end PAC figures

since 1995.

To see a complete listing of PAC

statistics, visit the FEC’s web site

(http://www.fec.gov) or request a

copy of the agency’s July 15, 2002,

press release (call 800/424-9530 and

press 3 for the Public Records

Office or press 2 for the Press

Office).✦

—Amy Kort

also took in the greatest total

receipts. As in past election cycles,

however, a small number of PACs

accounted for the majority of PAC

fundraising. During the first 15

months of this cycle, 69 committees—less than two percent of the

total number of registered PACs—

raised $156 million, representing

39.3 percent of total PAC receipts

for this period.

Additional details are available in

a news release dated June 27, 2002.

The news release, which provides

summary information for PACs

from 1990 through 2002, is available:

• On the FEC web site at http//

www.fec.gov;

• From the Public Records Office

(800/424-9530, press 3) and the

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 and request document 617).✦

—Amy Kort

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected2 Total

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

Dec. 95 1,674 334 815 44 129 1,020 4,016

Jul. 96 1,645 332 829 43 126 1,058 4,033

Dec. 96 1,642 332 838 41 123 1,103 4,079

Jul. 97 1,602 332 826 41 118 953 3,875

Dec. 97 1,597 332 825 42 117 931 3,844

Jul. 98 1,565 325 820 43 112 897 3,762

Dec. 98 1,567 321 821 39 115 935 3,798

Jul. 99 1,540 318 826 38 115 941 3,778

Jan. 00 1,548 318 844 38 115 972 3,835

Jul. 00 1,523 316 812 39 114 902 3,706

Jan. 01 1,545 317 860 41 118 1,026 3,907

Jul. 01 1,525 314 872 41 118 1,007 3,877

Jan. 02 1,508 316 891 41 116 1,019 3,891

Jul. 02 1,514 313 882 40 110 1,006 3,865

1 Committees with no activity for the election cycle are not included in the mid-year

and year-end PAC count.

2Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On

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

public, while solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

Mid-Year and Year-End PAC Count—1995-20021

Public Appearance

August 2, 2002

American Bankers Association

Minneapolis, MN

George Smaragdis
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Presorted Standard

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2002

Index

(continued from page 7)

for Congressional candidate who

is member of Maryland General

Assembly, 4:4

2002-3: State committee status, 6:6

2002-4: Name and Abbreviation of

SSF, 6:7

2002-6: State committee status, 7:4

Compliance

Administrative Fine program

extended, 1:13

Cases resolved under Alternative

Dispute Resolution program, 7:6

Committees fined under Administrative Fine program, 1:13; 2:7;

3:11; 5:5, 6:10; 8:6

MUR 5041: Contribution in the

name of another made by corporation, 8:5

Nonfilers, 6:5; 7:7

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFL-CIO, 2:3; 3:5

– Alliance for Democracy, 5:3

– Baker, 4:3

– Beaumont, 3:4

– Common Cause and Democracy

21, 2:4

– Echols, 5:3; 6:4

– Graham, 7:5

– Judicial Watch, Inc., and Peter F.

Paul, 3:3

– McConnell, 5:3; 6:4

– Miles for Senate, 3:1

– NRA, 5:3

– Wertheimer, 1:12

FEC v. _____

– Democratic Party of New Mexico,

7:5

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 8:2

– Specter ’96, 5:3

– Triad Management Services, 8:4

Regulations

Administrative fines, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 6:2

Allocation of candidate travel

expenses, interpretation, 3:2

Brokerage loans and lines of credit,

final rules, 7:2

Candidate debates, petition for

rulemaking, 6:4

Civil penalties, no increase, 3:2

Contribution and expenditure

definitions, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 7:3

Independent expenditure reporting,

final rules, 5:2; effective date, 7:1

Soft money rules, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6:1

Use of Internet, public hearing, 3:1

Reports

Alaska and Iowa certified for state

filing waiver, 7:1

April reporting reminder, 4:1

Independent expenditure reporting,

new forms, 6:9; effective date 7:1

Iowa convention reporting, 7:4

IRS filing requirements, 1:11; 6:8

Louisiana primary, 8:1

North Carolina primary, 8:2

Reports due in 2002, 1:2

Virginia convention reporting, 5:6

48-hour notice periods for 2002

primaries, 3:10