December 1998 Federal Election Commission Volume 24, Number 12

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 Electronic Filing Requirements for

Presidential Candidates Go Into

Effect

Compliance

1 MUR 4340/4685

2 Nonfilers

Statistics

3 Fundraising by National Party

Committees Continued Surge

Toward Election Day ’98

3 Candidate Fundraising Posts

Negligible Increase from Two

Years Ago

5 Advisory Opinions

7 Federal Register

Information

8 FEC Faxline Menu

10 Index

Regulations

Electronic Filing

Requirements for

Presidential Candidates Go

Into Effect

New regulations mandating

electronic filing of reports by

Presidential campaign committees

that receive public funding and have

computerized campaign finance

records became effective November

13, 1998. The new regulations

require Presidential committees to

file reports with the FEC by either

mailing a diskette with the information on it or transmitting the data via

the Internet.

The new regulations can be found

at 11 CFR 9003.1(b)(11) and

9033.1(b)(13). See the October 1998

Record, p. 3, for a summary of the

new regulations. The final rules

were published in the August 27

Federal Register (63 FR 45679).

For a copy of the final rules:

• Call the FEC’s Public Records

Office (800/424-9530, press 3); or

• Dial the FEC’s automated Faxline

(202/501-3413, request document

234). ✦

Compliance

MUR 4340/4685

Missing Disclaimers on Web

Site and Corporate

Contributions

Dal LaMagna, his 1996 campaign

committee and the corporation he

owns, TWEEZERMAN, have paid a

$16,000 civil penalty for violating

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act).

The Commission found that

LaMagna for Congress and

TWEEZERMAN failed to include a

disclaimer on campaign advertisements, including one that appeared

on a web site, and that the corporation and Mr. LaMagna made several

impermissible contributions to the

campaign. In addition, the campaign

failed to file a 48-hour notice

disclosing the receipt of a $100,000

last-minute campaign contribution.

Mr. LaMagna was a candidate for

Congress from New York in 1996.

Disclaimers

The committee ran campaign

advertisements in two magazines—

Self and Nails—without disclaimers.

Web sites for both the committee

and TWEEZERMAN contained

campaign messages, yet neither of

the sites initially included a disclaimer. The Act requires that a

communication paid for and autho-

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 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)

Scott E. Thomas, Acting Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Acting Staff

 Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

rized by a candidate or his or her

authorized committee include a

disclaimer stating who paid for the

ad. 2 U.S.C. §441d(a).

Corporate Contributions

TWEEZERMAN bought nine

magazine advertisements that

included a campaign advertisement

at the bottom. The committee

reimbursed TWEEZERMAN for

what it considered its portion of the

ad space. Additionally, the

corporation’s web site included a

link to the campaign web site, and

the Commission concluded that that

link had some value.

TWEEZERMAN also displayed a

banner at a trade show that read

“Dal LaMagna/TWEEZERMAN for

Congress.” Finally,

TWEEZERMAN rented a fax

machine to the committee at a rate

that was at least $350 below the

market rate for renting similar

machines. All of these actions

resulted in impermissible corporate

contributions from TWEEZERMAN

to the committee, in violation of 2

U.S.C. §441b(a). With reference to

the fax machine, if goods or services

are provided at less than the usual

and normal charge, the difference

between the normal charge and the

amount charged to the political

committee is considered an in-kind

contribution. 11 CFR

100.7(a)(1)(iii).

Forty-Eight Hour Notice

Mr. LaMagna loaned his committee $100,000 near the end of the

election and reported it improperly.

When a campaign committee

receives a contribution totaling

Candidate Office Sought Report Not Filed

Ansari, Eileen House CA/41 Pre-General

Condodemetraky, George Senate NH Pre-General

Cozzi, Robert A. Jr. House IL/14 Pre-General

Crane, Philip M. House IL/08 Pre-General

Ferguson, Peter D. House OH/16 Pre-General

Golding, David R. House FL/15 Pre-General

Groom, Asuncion Cecy R. House CA/39 Pre-General

Jones, Charlies U. House TX/23 Pre-General

Lewis, John H. Sr. House GA/05 Pre-General

October Quarterly

Martinez, Matthew G. Jr. House CA/31 Pre-General

McLeod, Gary M. House SC/06 Pre-General

Meeks, Gregory W. House NY/06 Pre-General

Munsell, Susan G. House MI/08 Pre-General

October Quarterly

Payne, Donald M. House NJ/10 Pre-General

Petyo, Michael House IN/01 Pre-General

Schulstad, Carol S. House MN/04 Pre-General

Starky, Stuart M. House AZ/03 Pre-General

Telano, Lou House NY/09 Pre-General

Weiner, Anthony D. House NY/09 Pre-General

$1,000 or more after the 20th day,

but more than 48 hours before an

election, it must report it within 48

hours of receipt. 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(6)(A). Mr. LaMagna’s

donation to his committee fell

within this time frame, but his

committee did not report it until its

next scheduled report after the

election.

This compliance matter resulted

from complaints filed against the

parties by the National Republican

Congressional Committee and by

the FEC. Prior to finding probable

cause to believe that Mr. LaMagna,

his corporation and his committee

had violated the Act, the Commission entered into a conciliation

agreement with the parties. ✦

Nonfilers

The campaign committees of the candidates listed below failed to file

required campaign finance disclosure reports. The list is based on recent FEC

news releases. 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 case-by-case basis. ✦
December 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Statistics

Fundraising by National

Party Committees Continued

Surge Toward Election

Day ’98

Just weeks before the November

1998 elections, the three Republican

national committees had bested their

three Democratic counterparts with

a 73 percent lead in fundraising.

Between January 1, 1997, and

October 14, 1998, Republican

national committees raised $184.6

million and spent $177.5 million to

get their candidates elected to office.

The Democratic national committees raised $106.9 million and spent

$105.5 million on similar efforts.

The Republicans entered the countdown season of the election with

$10.7 million in cash on hand; the

Democrats reported $5.1 million in

cash on hand for the same period.

Comparing these fundraising

statistics with those from the previous comparable election cycle in

1993-1994, the Democrats increased

their funding by 40 percent, while the

Republicans increased funding by

only 16 percent.

In supporting its federal candidates, Democrats gave $715,788

directly to candidates and spent $6.7

million in coordinated expenditures

and $380,000 in independent

expenditures. Republican committees gave $1.6 million directly to

candidates and spent $4.3 million in

coordinated expenditures. Democrats transferred $13.6 million to

states; Republicans transferred $9.5

million to states.

The national party committees

also showed huge gains in raising

soft money, funds raised outside

federal limitations and prohibitions.

Republicans increased their take of

soft money over the 1993-1994

election cycle by 144 percent,

posting $93.7 million in their

nonfederal accounts. Democratic

committees showed a 84 percent

increase in the soft money donations

they received, ending the reporting

period with $78.8 million.

The Democrats transferred $17.9

million in soft money to various

states. The Republicans transferred

$25.9 million in soft money to states.

The Republican national committees are the National Republican

Senatorial Committee, National

Republican Congressional Committee and Republican National Committee. The Democratic national

committees are the Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee,

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic

National Committee.

This article and the accompanying chart (see chart above) are based

on data taken from an October 27

news release. The release is available:

• At the FEC’s web site, http://

www.fec.gov (click “News

Releases and Media Advisories”);

• From the Public Records Office

and the Press Office (call 800/424-

9530); and

• By fax (call FEC Faxline at 202/

501-3413 and request document

609). ✦

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Democrats

Republicans

1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98

Millions

What They Spent: National Party Committee

Disbursements, January 1—Mid-October

Candidate Fundraising Posts

Negligible Increase from Two

Years Ago

Candidates in this year’s general

election raised $575.3 million and

spent $480 million between January

1, 1997, and October 14, 1998.

While those totals showed an

increase over the same period in

1996—$13 million more raised and

$11 million more spent—they still

amounted to only a modest 2

percent increase in financial activity. Candidates began the last 20

days of the campaign with $179

million cash-on-hand.

Factors that may have influenced

the slowdown in growth include

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1998

4

Statistics

(continued from page 3)

fewer open-seat races and fewer

competitive districts. Activity in

open-seat races, which are typically

the most competitive and most

expensive, was down by nearly half

when compared with the last election. There were only five open-seat

Senate races this year, compared

with the record-setting 13 in 1996,

and only 32 open-seat House races,

compared with 51 two years ago.

In the 34 Senate races, 83 candidates raised $215 million and spent

$195 million. This activity represents a 14 percent increase in

fundraising over 1996 levels and a

16 percent increase in spending.

Individuals contributed $135 million,

PACs $40 million and candidates

$23 million. Senate candidates

entered the last days of the campaign

with $46 million cash-on-hand.

In House races, 928 candidates

raised $361 million and spent $285

million. This represents a decline of

3 percent in receipts and 5 percent

in spending, compared with the last

election cycle. The breakdown of

funds shows $195 million from

individuals, $128 million from

PACs and $22 million from candidates. House candidates had $133

million on hand for the final weeks

before the election.

Fifty-seven percent of the funding for this year’s general election

candidates came from individual

contributions ($329 million), 29

percent from PACs ($167 million)

and 8 percent from candidates

themselves ($46 million), mostly in

the form of loans.

This article and the accompanying charts (see charts at bottom and

right) are based on data taken from

an October 29 news release. The

release is available:

• At the FEC’s web site, http://

www.fec.gov (click “News

Releases and Media Advisories”);

• From the Public Records Office

and the Press Office (call 800/424-

9530); and

• By fax (call FEC Faxline at 202/

501-3413 and request document

610). ✦

Republicans

$308.29 million

Democrats

$263.18 million

Contributions from Individuals

Contributions from Other Committees

Loans from Candidates

58.3%

8.3%

28.0% 56.0%

6.4%

30.7%

5.4% 6.9%

Other Receipts*

Receipts of 1998 General Election Candidates by

Source, January 1997—October 1998

* This category includes candidate contributions, loans other than those from

candidates and other types of receipts.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

Republicans

Democrats

1996 1998

Millions

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

1996 1998

Millions

House Candidates

Senate Candidates

Candidate Receipts,

January 1—

Mid-October
December 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Advisory

Opinions

(continued on page 6)

AO 1998-19

Permissibility of Solicitations

by Federation of Trade

Associations

The Credit Union Legislative

Action Committee (CULAC), a

separate segregated fund of a

federation of credit union trade

associations, may solicit contributions from individual account

holders who are members of credit

unions of the Credit Union National

Association (CUNA). The various

state leagues and member credit

unions under CUNA may serve as

collecting agents for CULAC and

the state league PACs. Additionally,

an automatic account deduction

program, known as Deduct-A-Buck,

can be used to solicit contributions

from members of member credit

unions to CULAC and the state

league PACs.

Commission Regulations

An incorporated trade association

may solicit its executive and administrative personnel, their families

and its unincorporated members. 11

CFR 114.7(a). It may also solicit the

restricted class of its member

corporations where the solicitation

has been approved and where the

corporation has not approved a

solicitation by another trade association for the same calendar year. 11

CFR 114.8(c).

Solicitations

Individual shareholders (share

account holders) who are members

of CUNA’s member credit unions

may be solicited for contributions to

CULAC provided they otherwise

comply with the rules governing

solicitations for trade association

PACs. 11 CFR 114.8(d). This

conclusion is based on the reasoning

of several previous FEC advisory

opinions.

CUNA is a bona fide membership

organization, and the individual

credit union members of CUNA are

considered members under Commission regulations. AO 1991-24.

Shareholders of a credit union

possessing a “relatively enduring

and independently significant

financial or organizational attachment” qualify as members and can

therefore be solicited for contributions to a credit union’s PAC. AO

1990-18. The individual shareholders of member credit unions of

CUNA meet these benchmarks and

thus qualify as members of a

membership association.

Additionally, there is a close

parallel between shareholders of a

savings and loan association and

stockholders within a corporate

structure. See AO 1984-63. In this

case, the analogy between a share

account holder of a credit union and

a stockholder in a corporation is

close enough to permit the SSF of a

trade association to solicit the

shareholders of member credit

unions under 11 CFR 114.8(c).

Collecting Agents

CUNA is a bona fide federation

of trade associations based on

several factors. It has overlapping

membership with the state leagues;

the state leagues and credit unions

may participate in CUNA’s governance; and there are significant

financial interactions between

CUNA, the state leagues and the

state league credit unions.

Although, in AO 1989-3, the

Commission concluded (without

explanation) that corporate members

of a trade association could not act

as collecting agents for the trade

association, that conclusion can be

distinguished from the situation

here, involving a federation of trade

associations. A federation of trade

associations presents an integrated

structure with multiple tiers of

membership and governance powers

linking the member organizations

with the principal organization.

Therefore, the state leagues of

CUNA and credit union members of

those state leagues may be considered a branch, division or local unit

of CUNA. Consequently, they may

act as collecting agents in receiving

and transmitting contributions to

CULAC. 11 CFR 102.6(b)(1)(iii).

Deduct-A-Buck

CUNA may use its account

deduction plan to collect contributions. The plan, dubbed the DeductA-Buck program, will not violate

the Commission’s prohibition on

payroll deduction plans by member

corporations of a trade association

because it does not involve a payroll

deduction. Nonetheless, a brochure

CUNA plans to send to credit union

members to request that they allow

the deduction must be amended to

state that an employee or member

who refuses to contribute may do so

without fear of reprisal. 11 CFR

114.5(a)(4). The brochure already

states that contributions to the PAC

are voluntary.

Date Issued: November 2, 1998;

Length: 11 pages. ✦

AO 1998-20

Exceeding Contribution

Limit to Repay Entitlement

Dr. Lenora B. Fulani and Lenora

B. Fulani for President, her authorized campaign committee, may not

accept contributions from individuals in excess of the $1,000 limit per

election in order to repay the U.S.

Treasury for excess public funds

they received during the 1992

presidential campaign.

In March 1997, the Commission

issued a final repayment determination to Dr. Fulani and her committee

for $117,269.54 after determining

that some expenditures by her

committee were not qualified

campaign expenses and that the

committee had received matching

funds in excess of its entitlement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1998

6

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

District of Columbia Circuit denied

a petition by the committee that

asked for a review of the repayment

determination. Thus, the repayment

determination stands.

Dr. Fulani states that she and her

committee can no longer engage in

the type of “grass roots” fundraising

that they used during her presidential campaign. Instead, she proposes

tapping a few close supporters who

are wealthy enough to make contributions or loans in excess of $1,000,

and receiving personal gifts or

personal loans in excess of $1,000.

The Commission concluded that

neither of these strategies for

repayment was permissible.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) limits contributions by

individuals to $1,000 per election. 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A). The definition of contribution includes loans

made to influence a federal election.

2 U.S.C. §431(8)(A)(i) and (B)(vii).

Further, a contribution by an

individual to retire debts must be

aggregated with contributions from

that same individual for the same

election. The same $1,000 limit

would apply. Thus, contributions—

even in the form of loans—that

exceed the Act’s limits are impermissible.

Commission regulations list the

personal funds of a candidate among

several sources of funds that may be

used to repay matching funds to the

Treasury. A candidate can donate

his or her personal funds to the

campaign without limit for this

purpose.

Permissible sources of personal

funds—other than the candidate’s

assets at the time he or she became a

candidate—include “gifts of a

personal nature which had been

customarily received prior to

candidacy.” The proposed personal

monetary gifts would not be part of

a regular pattern of gift-giving to

Dr. Fulani by the gift-givers.

Furthermore, while the gifts might

not be earmarked for the campaign,

Dr. Fulani acknowledged that she

planned to accept them for that

purpose. The proposal for the

receipt of the gifts would evade the

contribution limits (2 U.S.C. §441a)

and would be impermissible under

the Act.

Date Issued: November 4, 1998;

Length: 6 pages. ✦

AO 1998-21

Adjustment to Allocation

Ratio

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) may not

deviate from the minimum federal

allocation percentage found at 11

CFR 106.5(c)(2) for its administrative and get-out-the-vote drive

expenses incurred during the 1998

election cycle. The regulations state

that Senate and House campaign

committees must pay for administrative and generic voter drive expenses with at least 65 percent in

federal funds. The committees may

pay for no more than 35 percent of

those expenses with nonfederal

funds.

The NRSC planned to promote a

number of nonfederal candidates

during the 1998 election cycle with

funds from its nonfederal account. It

anticipated that more than 35

percent of its total candidatespecific disbursements during this

time would be on behalf of

nonfederal candidates. The NRSC

asserted that, if it adhered to the

minimum federal percentage, it

would end up paying a disproportionate share of its total administrative and generic voter drive

expenses from its federal accounts.

The NRSC proposed that, when

allocating its expenses prior to

November 3, it would use the

Commission’s allocation ratio,

subject to the minimum federal

percentage. After the election,

however, it would calculate the

actual ratio of federal candidatespecific expenditures to total

candidate-specific disbursements. If

the actual nonfederal portion

exceeded 35 percent, the committee

would make a transfer from its

nonfederal to its federal account so

that the amount spent on administrative and generic voter expenses

reflected the actual ratio of federal

and nonfederal candidate disbursements.

The plain language of the regulation prohibits Senate and House

campaign committees from paying

more than 35 percent of administrative and generic voter drive expenses with nonfederal funds. The

NRSC’s plan to delay the transfer of

funds from its federal account to its

nonfederal account until after the

election would not change the fact

that more than 35 percent of those

expenses would be paid with

nonfederal funds.

The Commission believes that

any reassessment of a provision of

the regulations is most appropriately

made in the rulemaking process,

rather than in an advisory opinion.

The Commission will have an

opportunity to reexamine 11 CFR

106.5(c)(2) as part of its rulemaking

on soft money. See the July 13

Federal Register (63 FR 37721) for

more details about this rulemaking.

A copy of the publication is available at http://www.fec.gov and from

the FEC’s automated Faxline (202/

501-3413, document 230).

Date Issued: November 2, 1998;

Length: 5 pages. ✦

AO 1998-24

Status of State Party as State

Committee of Political Party

The American Heritage Party in

Washington meets both of the

Commission’s requirements for

state committee status because it is a

bona fide state committee under

FEC laws and regulations. This

means the committee may make

coordinated expenditures on behalf

of its federal candidates.
December 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

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, 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 AOs 1998-2, 1997-

7, 1996-51 and 1996-27.

The Commission has made clear

that a state political party can

qualify as a state party committee

without an affiliation with any

national political party. The state

party’s candidate must qualify as a

candidate under FEC regulations in

order for the party to satisfy the

second requirement.

The American Heritage Party

meets both requirements. In addressing 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 for a federal candidate also

has been satisfied. Both of the

party’s candidates for federal office

in the 1998 election cycle attained

ballot access, and their FEC reports

indicate they have satisfied the

requirements for becoming a federal

candidate under 2 U.S.C. §431(2).

The Act states that state and

national committees may make

coordinated expenditures in connection with the general election of

their party’s congressional candidates. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d). Therefore,

the American Heritage Party in

Washington may make coordinated

expenditures on behalf of its federal

candidates.

Date Issued: October 28, 1998;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

AO 1998-25

PAC Contributions Held in

Escrow Account

The Mason Tenders District

Council of Greater New York

(District Council), an intermediate

body composed of locals of the

Laborers International Union of

North America (LIUNA), may

forward contributions it collected

from local union members—and

held in escrow for many months by

order of a federal court-appointed

monitor—to its separate segregated

fund, the New York State Laborers’

Political Action Committee (NYS

Laborers’ PAC). The time period

during which the contributions must

be forwarded to and reported by the

PAC begins to run on the date that

the District Council receives this

advisory opinion.

The District Council, as well as

other locals of the New York State

Laborer’s Union, formed the NYS

Laborers’ PAC. This PAC, in turn,

is affiliated with the PAC of LIUNA

and lists the international union as

its connected organization.

In 1994, the United States filed a

civil suit against the District Council

and appointed a federal monitor to

oversee its activities. Until certain

issues concerning the PAC could be

resolved, the monitor, in early 1997,

directed the District Council to

place member contributions to the

PAC in an escrow account, rather

than forward them. In September

1998, following resolution of the

issues, the monitor ordered the

release of the funds so that they

could be forwarded to the PAC.

While it is permissible for the

District Council, as an intermediate

unit of LIUNA, to act as a collecting

agent for contributions from its

members to the PAC, it must

transmit individual contributions of

$50 or less to the PAC within 30

days of receipt and contributions of

greater than $50 within 10 days of

receipt. 11 CFR 102.6(c)(4) and

102.8(b)(1). The PAC, then, is

responsible for reporting the contributions received by the collecting

agent. 11 CFR 102.6(c)(7).

Although the District Council

held contributions longer than 10 or

30 days, it was doing so by order of

a federal monitor. Based on the

representation that the funds in the

escrow account were not commingled with any other funds, and

assuming that they were lawfully

solicited and collected, the District

Council may forward the contributions to the PAC. The time periods

for transmittal of contributions will

begin to run the day the District

Council receives this advisory

opinion.

(continued on page 8)

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1998-16

Electronic Filing of Reports by

Publicly Financed Presidential

Primary and General Election

Candidates: Final Rule;

Announcement of Effective Date

(63 FR 63388, November 13,

1998)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1998

8

Reporting Contributions

The date a PAC uses in its reports

to record a contribution forwarded

to it by a collecting agent is the date

when the contribution was received

by the collecting agent. 11 CFR

102.8(b)(2). Due to the unusual

nature of the circumstances and

because the escrow account did not

make expenditures and thereby

become an account of the PAC, the

PAC may file a memo entry to the

next report due, instead of filing

amended reports for each of the

periods in which contributions were

received in the escrow account. A

separate schedule for each of the

two years affected would be required, and those memos must

disclose all required information

about the contributions held in

escrow. The detailed summary page

of the next report should add the

contribution figures to the PAC’s

cash-on-hand total. Finally, the PAC

should submit a cover letter with the

next report, making reference to this

advisory opinion.

Date Issued: November 6, 1998;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

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

513. 1998 Legislative Recommendation

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 Year-End 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

611. 1997-8 PAC Finances

Information

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.
December 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

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

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. Prohibited and Excessive

Contributions; Soft Money

231. Recordkeeping and Reporting

232. Express Advocacy

233. Qualified Nonprofit Corporations

234. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Presidential Candidates

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

9801-25. AOs 1998-1 through 1998-25

9701-29. AOs 1997-1 through 1997-29

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
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1998

10

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

1997-21: Refund to candidate who

had made contribution to own

campaign, 6:5

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

1998-4: Use of contributor lists

from FEC reports for marketing

“data mining” technologies, 6:5

1998-7: Exemption for party office

building fund and construction of

state party office facilities and

parking lot, 7:8

1998-8: Preemption of Iowa law

prohibiting corporate contributions to party building fund, 7:9

1998-9: Generic party expenditures

made in connection with special

election, 7:9

1998-11: Contributions made and

nonconnected PAC established by

California limited liability

company that owns or is federal

contractor, 11:6

1998-12: Status of employee

stockholders as part of restricted

class, 9:4

1998-14: Acceptance of contributions from residents of Pacific

Island nations covered under

Compact of Free Association,

10:4

1998-15: Contribution limits of

limited liability company in

Illinois, 11:7

1998-16: Corporate payment of

security for executive conducting

activity on behalf of

nonconnected committee, 10:5

1998-17: Application of press

exemption to free 30-second spot

time slots offered by cable

broadcasting system to candidate

campaigns, 11:8

1998-18: Payment for testing-thewaters poll for individual who did

not become candidate, 11:8

1998-19: Solicitation of credit union

members for PAC of federation of

credit union trade associations,

12:5

1998-20: Application of contribution limits to fundraising for

repayment to U.S. Treasury, 12:5

1998-21: Allocation ratio for Senate

campaign committee’s administrative and generic voter drive

expenses, 12:6

1998-24: Status as state committee

of political party, 12:6

1998-25: Contributions forwarded

by connected organization to

union PAC after held in escrow

for 30-plus days, 12:7

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee,

4:4; 10:2

– California Democratic Party, 8:5

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate,

3:3

– Forbes, 11:2

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 10:2

– Friends of Jane Harman, 11:3

– National Medical Political Action

Committee, 1:3; 7:5

– Williams, 1:3

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 7:1

– Clifton, 4:5; 7:4

– DNC (97-676), 9:3

– DSCC (97-5160 and 97-5161),

6:4; 8:7

– Fulani, (97-1466), 8:6

– Gottlieb, 7:4

– Hollenbeck, 4:4; 9:4

– Judd, 6:5; 10:2

– Judicial Watch, Inc., 4:4; 9:3

– National Committee of the Reform

Party, 1:2; 4:4

– Natural Law Party (98-1025), 6:3

– Ohio Democratic Party (98-0991),

6:2; 8:5

– Perot ’96, Inc., (97-2554), 6:3

– Perot ’96, Inc., (98-1022), 6:3

– RNC (97-1552), 6:4

– RNC (98-1207 (WBB)), 6:1; 8:5

– RNC (98-5263), 11:1

– Right to Life of Dutchess County,

Inc., 7:3; 9:3

– Stockman, 5:3

Reports

Electronic filing, 2:2; 4:1; 4:2; 9:2

On FEC web site, 2:1; 4:2; 6:1; 9:2;

11:5

Post-General Reports due date, 11:1

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

Reports due in July, 7:11

Reports due in October, 10:1

Special Elections, California, 1:12;

3:9

Special Election, New Mexico, 5:3

Special Election, New York, 2:4

Special Election, Pennsylvania, 1:13
December 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

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
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 December 1998