December 2003 Federal Election Commission Volume 29, Number 12

Table of Contents

Commissioners

1 Testimony on Enforcement

Procedures

Regulations

1 Final Rules on Party Committee

Phone Banks

4 Final Rules on Multicandidate

Committees and Certain

Contribution Limits

4 Federal Register

5 Mailing Lists Rulemaking Closed

Reports

5 Electioneering Communications Dates

Compliance

6 Nonfiler

Election Administration

6 Revisions to the National Voter

Registration Form

6 FEC Seeks Press Officer

Public Funding

7 Lieberman Certified for Funding

Court Case

7 Luis M. Correa, et al. v. FEC

8 Advisory Opinions

Administrative Fines

12 Penalties Assessed

Alternative Dispute Resolution

13 ADR Program Update

Outreach

7 Public Appearances

14 Reporting Roundtables

14 Conference in Tampa, FL

Commissioners

Congress Hears Testimony

on FEC Enforcement

Procedures

On October 16, 2003, Commission Chair Ellen Weintraub and

Vice-Chairman Bradley Smith

testified before the Committee on

House Administration, which had

invited the Commissioners to speak

about the FEC’s enforcement

procedures. Chair Weintraub and

Vice-Chairman Smith briefed the

House Members on an enforcement

procedures hearing held at the

Commission on June 11, 2003, and

on steps the Commission has taken

to respond to the public comments it

received. See the July 2003 Record,

page 7. James Bopp, Jr., Donald

McGahn, Marc Elias and former

FEC Commissioner Karl Sandstrom

also testified at the hearings,

speaking about their experiences

representing respondents in FEC

enforcement matters.

In her testimony, Chair

Weintraub explained that in response to the “thoughtful, sensible

suggestions” received through the

hearing process, “the Commission

has already made several modifications to its enforcement procedures.

Witnesses are now given access to

their deposition transcripts. The

(continued on page 2)

Regulations

Final Rules on Party

Committee Phone Banks

On November 6, 2003, the

Commission approved final rules

addressing phone banks conducted

by national, state and local party

committees on behalf of federal

candidates. 11 CFR 106.8.

In the months leading up to a

general election, party committees

conduct phone banks to get out the

vote or otherwise promote the party

and its candidates. The scripted

message might ask an individual to

vote for a named federal candidate

and then make a general promotional reference to the party’s other

candidates. For example, the caller

might say: “Please tell your family

and friends to come out and vote for

President John Doe and our great

Party team.” The new rules provide

clear guidance on how to attribute

the costs of these communications.

New Rules

The new regulations at 11 CFR

106.8 apply to the costs of a phone

bank conducted by a national, state,

district or local party committee

where:

• The communication refers to a

clearly identified Presidential,

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

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)

Ellen L. Weintraub, Chair

Bradley A. Smith, Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 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

Jim Wilson, Associate Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Office of General Counsel is

currently drafting recommendations

for changing our practices with

respect to naming treasurers as

respondents. Our staff is developing

new language for our confidentiality

advisement, to clarify that there are

no statutory restrictions on witnesses’ cooperation with respondents’ counsel. We are developing a

new policy on sua sponte submissions. The Commission is implementing a variety of internal

management controls to speed the

disposition of cases. We are also on

track to have the public records for

closed Matters Under Review, or

‘MURs,’ available on the FEC web

site by the end of the year. It is my

personal belief that increased

efficiency and increased transparency will go a long way towards

alleviating any remaining concerns

of the regulated community about

the agency’s enforcement practices.”

Vice-Chairman Smith, in his

testimony, praised the work of the

FEC’s Administrative Fine and

Alternative Dispute Resolution

programs. He cautioned that the

FEC “should be especially sensitive

to respecting the procedural rights

of those called before it” because

many respondents in enforcement

cases are volunteers who “serve as

treasurers, or in some other role, in

campaigns because they believe

doing so can make a positive

difference in our political life” and

their activities “represent core First

Amendment speech.”

Both Commissioners urged

Congress to make necessary

changes to the statute in order to

allow the proposed reforms. For

example, they asked Congress to

change the language of the Federal

Election Campaign Act to replace a

“reason to believe” finding with a

finding of “reason to open an

investigation into allegations” as the

trigger for the Commission’s

opening of an investigation. Vice

Chairman Smith explained: “To the

average citizen unschooled in the

finer points of practice before the

FEC, learning that this government

agency has found ‘reason to believe’

that he has violated the Act sounds

very much like a conclusion on the

merits. The fact that the government

later decided to ‘take no action’

hardly seems an exoneration. These

findings are then placed on the

public record, and may be reported

in local media or elsewhere. The

effect of this practice, in my mind,

is to unfairly stigmatize many good

citizens, candidates and campaign

volunteers with violating the Act

where no such violation has been

proven.”✦

—Amy Kort

Commissioners

(continued from page 1)

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

Congressional, or Senate candidate;

• The communication does not refer

to any other clearly identified

federal or nonfederal candidate;

• The communication includes

another reference that generically

refers to other candidates of the

federal candidate’s party without

clearly identifying them;

• The communication does not

solicit a contribution, donation or

any other funds from any person;

and

• The phone bank is not exempt

from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” under 11

CFR 100.89 and 100.149.1

For phone bank communications

that meet these conditions, 50

percent of the disbursement for the

phone bank must be attributed to the

federal candidate. Depending on the

circumstances, the disbursement

may be:

• Considered an in-kind contribution

subject to the contribution limits;

• Treated as a coordinated expenditure or an independent expenditure

subject to the applicable limits,

restrictions and requirements of

Commission regulations; and/or

• Reimbursed by the clearly identified federal candidate or his or her

authorized committee.

1 These sections implement the statutory

exceptions 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)(xi) and

431(9)(B)(ix) for certain voter registration and GOTV activities conducted by

party committees. Thus, a State or local

party committee’s voter registration

and GOTV activities, including phone

banks operated by volunteers under 11

CFR 100.89(e) or 100.149(e) conducted

on behalf of a presidential or vice -

presidential nominee, are not affected

by new section 106.8, provided that the

conditions set forth in 11 CFR 100.89

or 100.149 are satisfied.
December 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

The remaining 50 percent of the

cost is not attributable to any federal

or nonfederal candidate.

Examples

The following examples illustrate

the scope and operation of the new

rules.

1. A week before the general

election, a local party committee

operates a phone bank using

volunteers, and the message is:

“You can show your support for the

Green Party Presidential nominee

by going to the polls next Tuesday

and by contributing to the local

party committee so that it can help

others get to the polls too.”

The costs of this phone bank

would not fall within the scope of

the new rules at 11 CFR 106.8 for

three reasons. First, by using

volunteers to run a phone bank and

by complying with other requirements in 11 CFR 100.89(e) and

100.149, the local party committee

does not make a contribution or

expenditure under Commission

regulations. Second, the communication only contains a reference to

the clearly identified federal candidate and does not refer generically

to other candidates. Finally, the

message includes a solicitation.

2. A state party committee pays

staff to operate a phone bank and

the message is: “When you vote for

Representative Jane Smith on

Tuesday, remember to vote for the

other Republican candidates.” The

cost of operating this phone bank is

$20,000. The party committee has

already made an independent

expenditure on behalf of Representative Smith but has not made any

contributions to her authorized

committees.

The costs of this phone bank fall

within the scope of the new rules

because the communication:

• Refers to a clearly identified

federal candidate;

• Refers generically to other Republican candidates;

• Does not refer to any other clearly

identified federal or nonfederal

candidate;

• Does not solicit funds; and

• Is conveyed by paid workers, not

volunteers, and thus is not exempt

from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.”

The party must attribute $10,000

to Representative Smith. Because

the party has already made an

independent expenditure on behalf

of Representative Smith, it cannot

treat this $10,000 as a coordinated

party expenditure. See 2 U.S.C.

§441a(2)(4)(A)(i) and 11 CFR

109.35(b)(1). Rather, it may treat

the entire amount as an independent

expenditure provided it has not

coordinated with Representative

Smith or her authorized committee

or agents. If the state party or its

agents coordinate this phone bank

with Representative Smith or her

agents, then it may treat $5,000 as

an in-kind contribution to her

authorized committee and must seek

reimbursement from her authorized

committee for the other $5,000.2

The remaining 50 percent of the cost

($10,000) is not attributable to any

candidate, but the entire $20,000

must be paid with federal funds.3

3. A national party committee

operates a phone bank and the

message is:“Show your support for

Senator John Doe and the great

Democratic team by voting for

them.” The cost of operating the

phone bank is $34,000. The national

party committee’s coordinated party

expenditure limit under 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d) is $20,000, and it has

already spent $5,000 in coordinated

party expenditures on behalf of

Senator Doe. The national party

committee is a multicandidate

committee and has made a $1,000

contribution to his campaign.

The costs of this phone bank fall

within the scope of the new rules

because the communication:

• Refers to a clearly identified

federal candidate;

• Refers generically to other Republican candidates;

• Does not refer to any other clearly

identified federal or nonfederal

candidate;

• Does not solicit funds; and

• Does not qualify for the exemption

for phone banks conducted on

behalf of a presidential or vicepresidential nominee at 11 CFR

100.89 and 100.149.

Because the party committee has

already made a coordinated party

expenditure on behalf of Senator

Doe after the nomination, it cannot

make a subsequent independent

expenditure on his behalf. The

national party committee does not

have to attribute $17,000 to any

candidate, but must still use all

federal funds to pay for that

$17,000. The remaining $17,000

must be attributed to Senator Doe

and must also be paid with federal

funds. The national party committee

may treat $15,000 of the attributed

amount, which is equal to its

remaining coordinated party spending authority, as a coordinated party

expenditure. The remaining $2,000

may be treated as an in-kind contribution because, when aggregated

with the earlier $1,000, it does not

exceed the national party

committee’s contribution limit

under 11 CFR 110.2.

Additional Information

The new rules will take effect

December 15, 2003. The complete

text of the final rules was published

2 A state party committee may contribute $5,000 per candidate, per election.

See 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(2)(A).

3 The Commission has determined that

Federal funds must be used to pay for

all disbursements for telephone banks

that fall within the scope of new section

106.8, even the portion that is not

attributed to any particular candidate. (continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

4

in the November, 14, 2003, Federal

Register (68 FR 64517) and is

available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/register.htm.✦

—Amy Kort

Regulations

(continued from page 3)

Final Rules on

Multicandidate Committee

Status, Certain Contribution

Limits and Biennial

Contribution Limits

On November 6, 2003, the

Commission approved revisions to

its current rules governing:

• Multicandidate political committee

status;

• Contributions to national party

committees;

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office, on the FEC web

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

register.htm and from the FEC

faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2003-19

Multicandidate Committees and

Biennial Contribution Limits,

Final Rules (68 FR 64512,

November 14, 2003)

Notice 2003-20

Party Committee Phone Banks,

Final Rules (68 FR 64517,

November 14, 2003)

Notice 2003-21

Mailing Lists of Political

Committees, Notice of

Disposition, Termination of

Rulemaking (68 FR 64571,

November 14, 2003)

• Contributions to candidates

running for more than one federal

office; and

• Biennial contribution limits for

individuals.

Multicandidate Committee Status

As defined by the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and Commission regulations, a

“multicandidate committee” is a

political committee that has been

registered with the Commission for

at least six months, has received

contributions from more than 50

persons and, except for a state party

committee, has made contributions

to five or more federal candidates. 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(4) and 11 CFR

100.5(e)(3).

Under the revised regulations, a

political committee automatically

becomes a multicandidate committee when it meets these three

criteria, and must certify its status

within 10 days of having met the

criteria by filing FEC Form 1M. 11

CFR 102.2(a)(3). Previously, a

committee had to certify its status

before making a contribution under

the multicandidate contribution

limits, but not within a specific

timeframe. Additionally, since the

new rule specifies a 10-day certification deadline and not a contribution-sensitive deadline, a political

committee’s failure to certify its

multicandidate status will result in a

violation of the requirements at 2

U.S.C. §433(c). However, such a

failure to certify multicandidate

status will not result in an excessive

contribution so long as the amount

is within the contribution limits

prescribed for multicandidate

committees.

Application of Biennial Limitation

for Individuals

The BCRA replaced the annual

contribution limit for individuals

with new biennial contribution

limits. The BCRA also removed

language from the Act that provided

that contributions to a candidate

counted against the individual’s

annual limit for the year of the

election for which the contribution

was made. However, the Commission retained this language in its

regulation at 11 CFR 110.5(c).

Under the new rules, the Commission divides 11 CFR 110.5(c)

into two parts. In part (c)(1), all

contributions made on or after

January 1, 2004, to a candidate or

authorized committee shall be

considered to be made during the

two-year period in which the

contribution is made, regardless of

when the election is held. In part

(c)(2), all contributions made before

January 1, 2004, to a candidate or

authorized committee shall be

considered to be made during the

calendar year in which the election

is held, for the purposes of aggregating contributions to candidates

under the biennial limit. The Commission has adopted this second part

so as to ensure that there is no

question of any retroactive application of part (c)(1) to contributions

made before the effective date of

these regulations. This ensures that

there will be no confusion for

contributors as to which two-year

period their candidate contributions

should aggregate against.

Technical Corrections

The Commission also corrected

its regulations at 11 CFR

110.1(c)(3) and (f) to reflect the

increased contribution limits

enacted as part of the BCRA. The

revised rules clarify that all persons

other than multicandidate committees may give up to $25,000 per

year to national party committees

and up to $2,000 per election to

each of the principal campaign

committees of a candidate simultaneously seeking more than one

federal office.

Additional Information

The new rules will take effect

December 15, 2003. The full text of

these final rules and their explanation and justification are available
December 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Mailing List Rulemaking

Closed

On November 6, 2003, the

Commission approved a Notice of

Disposition terminating its

rulemaking addressing political

committees’ mailing lists. The

Commission issued a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on

September 4, 2003, which, among

other things, proposed new rules

setting forth the conditions under

which the proceeds from the sale,

rental or exchange of a political

committee’s mailing list would not

be a contribution to that political

committee. The Commission held a

public hearing to receive testimony

on the proposed rules on October 1.

See the October 2003 Record, page

5, and the November 2003 Record,

page 4.

One factor in the Commission’s

decision to close the rulemaking

was written and oral testimony

received in response to the NPRM

indicating that the regulated community did not perceive a need for

further rules governing political

committee mailing lists. In general,

a number of commenters believe

that Commission advisory opinions

have provided clear enough guidance on the conditions under which

the proceeds from the sale or rental

of mailing lists are not considered

contributions to the political committee. See AO 2002-14. The

commenters expressed broad

opposition to the proposed rules and

questioned the need for such rules at

this time.

In addition, several commenters

asserted that a significant number of

factors must be considered in

determining the usual and normal

charge for a mailing list transaction

and whether the transaction is

commercially reasonable. As these

commenters stated, the appropriate

factors to consider may vary considerably depending on the circumstances. In the absence of a factual

record adequate to conclude that a

particular test can address all

circumstances to which the proposed rules would apply, the

Commission has decided not to

proceed with final rules at this time

and to terminate this rulemaking.

The Notice of Disposition was

published in the November 14,

2003, Federal Register (68 FR

64571) and is available on the

FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov/register.htm.✦

—Amy Kort

Commission Publishes

Electioneering

Communications Dates

As required by the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act of 2002

(BCRA), the Federal Election

Commission (FEC) promulgated

new electioneering communications

rules governing television and radio

communications that refer to a

clearly identified federal candidate

and are distributed to the relevant

electorate within 60-days prior to

the general election or 30-days prior

to a primary, nominating convention, or caucus. 11 CFR 100.29. The

statute and regulations require,

among other things, that electioneering communications costing more

than $10,000 in the aggregate be

disclosed to the FEC within 24

hours of the public distribution of

the communication. 11 CFR 104.20.

With the election year nearly

upon us, the 30-day disclosure

periods for primary elections will

soon begin. To ensure that persons

engaging in electioneering commuReports

(continued on page 6)

on the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov/register.htm. The final

rules were published in the November 14, 2003, Federal Register (68

FR 64512).✦

—Jim Wilson

BCRA on the FEC’s

Web Site

 The Commission has added a

section to its web site

(www.fec.gov) devoted to the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

of 2002 (BCRA).

The page provides links to:

• The Federal Election Campaign

 Act, as amended by the BCRA;

• Summaries of major BCRA-

 related changes to the federal

 campaign finance law;

• Summaries of current litigation

 involving challenges to the new

 law;

• Federal Register notices

announcing new and revised

Commission regulations that

 implement the BCRA;

• BCRA-related advisory

 opinions; and

• Information on educational

 outreach offered by the

Commission, including

upcoming Roundtable sessions

 and the Commission’s

2004 conference schedule.

 The section also allows

individuals to view the

Commission’s calendar for

rulemakings, including dates for

the Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking, public hearings,

final rules and effective dates for

regulations concerning:

• Soft money;

• Electioneering Communications;

• Contribution Limitations and

 Prohibitions;

• Coordinated and Independent

 Expenditures;

• The Millionaires’ Amendment;

• Consolidated Reporting rules;

 and

• Other provisions of the BCRA.

 The BCRA section of the web

site will be continuously updated.

Visit www.fec.gov and click on

the BCRA icon.
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

6

Reports

(continued from page 5)

nications have adequate notice of

their filing obligations and the

applicable reporting periods, the

Commission has calculated the

proposed electioneering communication periods for every regularly

scheduled 2004 federal election for

which dates have been announced

and has made that information

available on its web site. See http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

charts_ec_dates_pres.htm for

Presidential Primary dates and http:/

/www.fec.gov/pages/

charts_ec_dates_cong.htm for

Congressional Primary dates.

Entities required to disclose

electioneering communications

should consult the FEC’s Form 9

(www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/

fecfrm9.pdf) and the BCRA reporting rules (www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/

rulemakings/

consolidated_reporting.htm).

Note also that the electioneering

communications rules are part of a

court challenge to the BCRA, which

is currently being reviewed by the

Supreme Court. The Court’s opinion

could have consequences for the

requirements and disclosure of

electioneering communications.

Definition and Application

Definition. An electioneering

communication is any broadcast,

cable or satellite communication

which fulfills each of the following

conditions:

• The communication refers to a

clearly identified candidate;

• The communication is publicly

distributed;

• The communication is distributed

during a certain time period before

an election; and

• In the case of Congressional

candidates only, the communication is targeted to the relevant

electorate.

11CFR 100.29(a).

Please note that public communications made by federally-registered

political committees with federal

dollars are not subject to the electioneering communication provisions. Committees registered with

the FEC report such communications as expenditures. 11 CFR

100.29(c)(3)

Application. The following entities

may, under certain conditions, make

electioneering communications:

• Qualified Nonprofit Corporations;

• “527” organizations; and

• Individuals, partnerships and PACs

Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making or

financing electioneering communications to those outside of their

restricted class. 11 CFR 114.2(b)(2)(iii).1

For more on electioneering

communications, see the FEC’s

BCRA Supplement at www.fec.gov/

pdf/guidesup03.pdf ,and the final

rules at www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/

rulemakings/

electioneering_communications.htm. ✦

—Jim Wilson

1 Generally, the restricted class

comprises the executive and administrative personnel and their families. It

also includes a corporation’s stockholders and their families, or a labor or

membership organization’s members

and their families. See 11 CFR 114.1(c)

and (e).

Election

Administration

Compliance

Nonfiler

The Charlie Comisionado 2004,

Inc. committee failed to file its preprimary report for the November 9,

2003, Puerto Rico primary elections.

On October 3, 2003, the Commission notified committees involved in

Puerto Rico’s primary of their

potential filing requirements.

Committees that failed to file

reports by the October 28 due date

were notified on October 29 that

their reports had not been received

and that their names would be

published if they did not respond

within four business days.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act requires the Commission to

publish the names of principal

campaign committees if they fail to

file 12 day pre-election reports and

the quarterly report due before the

candidate’s election. 2 U.S.C.

§§437g(b) and 438(a)(7). The

agency may also pursue enforcement actions against nonfilers and

late filers under the Administrative Fine

program on a case-by-case basis. ✦

—Jim Wilson

Revisions to the National

Voter Registration Form

The Federal Election

Commission’s Office of Election

Administration (OEA) has recently

revised the National Mail Voter

Registration Form. The form has

been updated to reflect new requirements set forth in the Help America

Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The new

version of the national form can be

accessed on the FEC’s web site at:

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm.

Federal Election

Commission Seeks

Press Officer

The FEC is seeking a highly

qualified and experienced

individual to serves as the

agency’s Press Officer to plan,

develop and implement the

overall communications plan for

the Commission’s media relations

and Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) programs. Visit our web

site at www.fec.gov/jobs.htm for

details. The closing date for this

position is January 9, 2004.
December 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

1

States that as of August 1, 1994, had

no voter registration or permitted same

day registration at the polling place are

exempt from provisions of the National

Voter Registration Act. Of these six

exempt States, only North Dakota

(which has no voter registration) and

Wyoming do not accept the national

form for voter registration. New

Hampshire town and city clerks will

accept this application only as a

request for their own absentee voter

mail-in registration form.

Luis M. Correa, et al. v. FEC

On September 30, 2003, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Puerto Rico granted the plaintiffs’

request to dismiss this case with

prejudice. The Comité José

Hernández Mayoral Comisionado

Residente, Inc. (the Committee) and

its treasurer Luis M. Correa had

initially filed suit to challenge the

Commission’s final determination

that the Committee violated 2

U.S.C. §434(a) by failing to file its

2001 Year-End report in a timely

manner and the assessment of a

$1,000 civil money penalty. See the

May 2003 Record, page 5. The

plaintiffs requested dismissal of

their suit after reaching a settlement

agreement with the Commission,

pursuant to which the plaintiffs paid

in full the fine assessed by the

Commission.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Puerto Rico, 3:03-cv01208.✦

—Amy Kort

Public Appearances

December 2, 2003

Northwestern University Law

School Federalist Society

Chapter

Evanston, Il

Allison Hayward

December 2-5, 2003

Center for Electoral Assistance

and Promotion

San Jose, Costa Rica

Vice-Chairman Smith

December 16, 2003

U.S. Department of State

International Visitors Program

Washington, DC

Jim Wilson

Court Case

Public Funding

Commission Certifies

Lieberman for Primary

Matching Payments

On October 8, 2003, the Commission certified that Joseph

Lieberman’s Presidential primary

committee, Joe Lieberman for

President, is eligible to receive

Presidential primary matching

payments. 26 U.S.C. §9033(a) and

(b); 11 CFR 9033.1 and 9033.3.

Under the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act, the

federal government will match up to

$250 of an individual’s total contributions to an eligible Presidential

primary candidate. A candidate

must establish eligibility to receive

matching payments by raising in

excess of $5,000 in each of at least

20 states (i.e., over $100,000).

Although an individual may contribute up to $2,000 to a primary

candidate, only a maximum of $250

per individual applies toward the

$5,000 threshold in each state.

Candidates who receive matching

payments must agree to limit their

spending and submit to an audit by

the Commission.

No payments may be made from

the Matching Payment Account

before January 1 of the Presidential

election year. In December 2003,

the Secretary of the Treasury will

certify eligible candidates’ full

entitlements based on a review of

the matching payment submissions

through December 1, 2003.✦

—Jim Wilson

Highlights of Changes

• Two New Questions. Questions

were added to the form asking

applicants if they are a citizen of

the United States, and if they will

be 18 years of age on or before

election day. Applicants are also

informed that they should not

complete the form if they checked

“No” in response to either question.

• Proof of ID. A statement was

added informing the applicant that

if the form is submitted by mail

and he or she is registering for the

first time, appropriate information

must be submitted with the mail-in

registration form in order to avoid

additional identification requirements upon voting at the polls for

the first time.

• Revised State Instructions. These

changes comply with revisions

made to state law since the form

was last revised in July 2002. (As

of this date, many states remain in

the process of amending and

updating their election laws and

procedures to reflect the new

provisions of HAVA.)

• User-Friendly Form. All States

that are covered by NVRA now

allow individuals to print the form

from the FEC web site, complete

the application, and mail it to their

state election officer.1

Background

The Federal Election Commission, through its Office of Election

Administration, is responsible for

the original development and

continued update of the national

mail voter registration form under

Section 9 of the National Voter

Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.

1973gg-7). The form was last

updated in July 2002. For more

information, please contact Bryan

Whitener at 800/424-9530 (press 4),

202-694-1095 or

nationalform@fec.gov. ✦

—Bryan Whitener
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

8

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2003-23

Earmarking Contributions

to Presumptive Presidential

Nominee

Women Engaged in Leadership,

Education and Action in Democracy

(WE LEAD) may collect and

forward earmarked contributions to

the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee.

Background

WE LEAD is a nonconnected

political committee and is not

affiliated with any political party or

campaign committee.

The committee plans to solicit

and accept contributions up to

$2,000 from individuals for the

presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of President of the United States. The

presumptive nominee is the candidate who, no later than seven days

before the Democratic National

Convention, has received enough

pledged delegates to win nomination

on the first ballot of the convention.

If no presumptive nominee has been

determined by that time, the earmarked contributions would be

forwarded to the Democratic

National Committee (DNC).

In their solicitations, WE LEAD

will inform the contributors that any

earmarked contributions must be

limited to a total of $2,000 and that

they will be aggregated with any

other contributions made to the

eventual recipient. If the total

amount contributed to the candidate

is excessive, the amount exceeding

the contribution limit will be

returned to the contributor.

WE LEAD will also include a

transmittal report containing all the

required reporting information to the

recipient committee.

Analysis

WE LEAD may solicit, receive

and forward the contributions so

long as certain conditions are met.

Forwarded to a Candidate.

Commission regulations allow for

earmarked contributions by individuals to candidate committees. 11

CFR 110.6. Typically, earmarked

contributions are for a definite

federal candidate. However, the

Commission has allowed an earmarked contribution for an

undesignated candidate when the

candidate is identifiable as to a

specific office, party affiliation and

election cycle. AOs 1977-16 and

1982-23. Each of these conditions is

met in this case.

Earmarked contributions are

considered contributions from the

individual donor to the campaign.

11 CFR 110.6(a). However, if the

intermediary exercises direction or

control over the choice of the

recipient candidate, the contribution

is treated as being from both the

individual and the intermediary. 11

CFR 110.6(d). Because WE LEAD

describes a clear method whereby

the recipient will be identified, the

committee will not exercise any

direction or control over who will be

the recipient campaign or party

committee.

Generally, earmarked contributions must be forwarded within ten

days of receipt. 11 CFR 102.8(a).

The intermediary must report to

both the Commission and the

recipient campaign the name and

address of any individual who

contributes over $50 and the name,

address, occupation and employer of

any individual who contributes over

$200. When the candidate is unknown, the contributions and

transmittal report must be forwarded

within ten days after the candidate is

identified.

If the solicitation is coordinated

with the recipient campaign or its

agents, then the direct costs of the

solicitation will be considered an inkind contribution. If the solicitation

is not coordinated with the campaign, the costs will be considered

an independent expenditure. 11 CFR

100.16. In each case, the communication must carry the appropriate

disclaimers. 11 CFR 110.11.

Forwarded to the DNC. If the

presumptive nominee is not determined within seven days of the

Democratic National Convention,

WE LEAD will forward the contributions to the DNC. Neither the

Federal Election Campaign Act nor

Commission regulations address

contributions earmarked for committees other than campaigns, but

the Commission does not hold that it

is forbidden. 11 CFR 110.6 and AOs

1981-57 and 1983-18.

If the contributions are forwarded

to the DNC, then the amount of time

allowable before forwarding varies

according to the amount of the

contribution. Contributions of $50

or less must be forwarded within

thirty days of receipt. Contributions

over $50 must be forwarded within

ten days of receipt. 11 CFR

102.8(b)(1) – (2).

The requirements regarding

solicitation and reporting of earmarked contributions and handling

of excessive contributions also

apply to contributions forwarded to

the DNC. The only difference is that

the individual contribution limit to a

national political party is $25,000

rather than $2,000.

Date Issued: November 7, 2003;

Length: 11 pages.✦

—Phillip Deen

AO 2003-24

Prohibition on the Sale and

Use of Contributor

Information

The National Center for TobaccoFree Kids (NCTFK) may not use

contributor information contained in

the disclosure reports filed with the

Commission to communicate with

the public.
December 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Proposal

NCTFK is a 501(c)(3) organization that engages in public education

and advocacy concerning the effects

of smoking, the marketing of

tobacco products, and public

policies to limit the use of tobacco

products. While it does not participate in any campaign for public

office, it frequently uses direct mail

to communicate with the public

concerning the aforementioned

issues.

NCTFK wished to obtain from

FEC disclosure reports the names of

individuals who make contributions

to political committees in order to

send NCTFK information to those

individuals via direct mail. The

proposed communications were to

take various forms, including:

providing information on issues;

urging recipients to contact a federal

officeholder about the subject of the

communication; and allowing

recipients to indicate their interest in

receiving additional information

which would result in their receipt

of communications that might

include a solicitation for funds.

NCTFK indicated that none of

the communications sent to such

individuals would expressly advocate the election or defeat of any

candidate, nor would such communications constitute electioneering

communications as defined in 2

U.S.C. 434(f)(3).

Analysis

No information copied from

disclosure reports or statements filed

with the Commission may be sold or

used by any person for the purpose

of soliciting contributions or for any

commercial purpose, other than

using the name and address of any

political committee to solicit

contributions from such committee.

2 U.S.C. 438(a)(4); 11 CFR

104.15(a). Under Commission

regulations, “soliciting contributions” includes soliciting any type of

contribution or donation, such as

political or charitable contributions.

11 CFR 104.15(b).

In requiring disclosure of contributor information, Congress

provided limitations to ensure that

such information was not misused.

The Commission, in light of this

legislative history, reads section

438(a)(4) to be a broad protective

measure intended to guard the

privacy of the contributors who are

named in FEC reports. Although not

all the proposed communications

were for fundraising purposes, all

presented the possibility of repetitive and intrusive communications

to contributors. The Commission

concluded that the proposed activity

would be antithetical to the very

purpose of section 438(a)(4).

Therefore, the proposed communications are impermissible.1

Commissioner Michael E. Toner

filed a concurring opinion on

October 27, 2003. Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas filed a concurring

opinion on October 31, 2003.

Date Issued: October 10, 2003;

Length: 5 pages.✦

—Jim Wilson

1 In addition, the Commission recognizes the legitimate interests of the

owners of the mailing lists used to

solicit the political contributions that

resulted in the disclosure of the

individuals’ information in the FEC

reports.

AO 2003-25

Federal Candidate

Appearing in an

Advertisement Endorsing a

Nonfederal Candidate

U.S. Senator Evan Bayh’s

appearance in a television advertisement for Jonathan Weinzapfel, a

mayoral candidate in the city of

Evansville, Indiana, does not

constitute an in-kind contribution to

Senator Bayh, and the Weinzapfel

Committee may pay for the ad using

non-federal funds derived from

sources prohibited from making

contributions to federal candidates.

Background

Mr. Weinzapfel, a member of the

Indiana House of Representatives, is

the Democratic nominee in the

November 3, 2003, general election

for Mayor of Evansville, Indiana.

Under Indiana law, Weinzapfel’s

mayoral campaign (the Committee)

may accept unlimited contributions

from individuals and limited contributions from corporations and labor

organizations. The Committee has

put together a television ad in which

Senator Bayh, a candidate for reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2004,

offers several statements of support

for Weinzapfel’s election to the

office of Mayor of Evansville. The

ad will be run in late October and

early November of 2003 and will

not include:

• Any solicitation for the Committee

or for Senator Bayh’s Committee;

• Campaign materials from Senator

Bayh’s campaign; or

• Material prepared by Senator Bayh

or his campaign.

Use of Nonfederal Funds

According to the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act of 2002

(BCRA), candidates for state or

local office must use only federal

funds to pay for a public communication that refers to a clearly

identified federal candidate and

promotes, supports, attacks or

opposes any candidate for federal

office. 11 CFR 300.71. Nonfederal

funds (i.e., funds that do not comply

with the limits and prohibitions of

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act)) may not be used to pay

for such an advertisement. 2 U.S.C.

§441i(f). A state or local candidate

may spend nonfederal funds for a

public communication in connection

with an election for state or local

office that refers to a federal candidate so long as the communication

does not promote, support, attack or

oppose any candidate for federal

office. 11 CFR 300.72.

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

10

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

In-Kind Contribution/

Coordination

The Act defines one type of inkind contribution as an expenditure

made in coordination with a candidate or political party or an agent of

either. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)(i).

Commission regulations set forth a

three-pronged test for coordination:

• The communication must be paid

for by a person other than the

candidate, party or their agents;

• The content of the communication:

1. Fits within the definition of an

electioneering communication at

11 CFR 100.29;

2. Distributes or reproduces a

candidate’s campaign material;

3. Expressly advocates the

election or defeat of a federal

candidate; or

4. Is a public communication

distributed within 120 days of a

federal election that refers to a

federal candidate or political

party and is directed to certain

voters; and

• The conduct of generating the

communication involves a candidate, political party or agent of

either in a decision regarding the

production or distribution of the

communication.

11CFR 109.21(b)-(d).

Conclusion

The Commission concluded that,

since the communication does not

promote, support, attack or oppose

Senator Bayh, the Committee may

use nonfederal funds to pay for the

ad. Also, while the production of the

ad satisfies the source of payment

and conduct standards for coordination in light of Senator Bayh’s

appearance in the ad, it does not

satisfy the content standard, as it

does not:

• Involve express advocacy of a

federal candidate;

• Promote, support attack or oppose

any federal candidate;

• Reproduce campaign material

prepared by a federal candidate.

Finally, although the ad does

constitute a public communication,

it will not be broadcast within 120

days of a federal election. Therefore

the ad does not fit the definition of a

coordinated communication and

would not constitute an in-kind

contribution to Senator Bayh.

Date Issued: October 17, 2003;

Length: 7 pages.✦

—Gary Mullen

AO 2003-26

Impermissible Use of

Campaign Funds by Senate

Campaign

A Senate campaign committee

may not use its campaign funds to

refund improper contributions

received by the candidate’s former

state campaign committee.

Background

Voinovich for Senate (the Senate

Committee) is the principal campaign committee of Senator George

V. Voinovich, a candidate for the

U.S. Senate in 2004. Voinovich for

Governor (the State Campaign

Committee) was the principal

campaign committee authorized

under the laws of the Ohio for thenGovernor Voinovich. In 1998, the

State Campaign Committee concluded its activities and terminated

its existence with a zero balance.

An investigation by a United

States Attorney revealed improper

or illegal campaign contributions

from a corporation, PIE Mutual

Insurance (PIE), its officers and

employees. While no recipient

candidate or political committee was

found to have committed any

wrongdoing, the recipient campaign

committees were identified, and

Sen. Voinovich’s Senate Committee

and State Committee were among

them.

While the Senate Committee had

already made a refund of these

improper contributions, the State

Committee could not do so, as it has

been terminated. The Senate Committee therefore asked whether it

could use campaign funds to refund

the amount of improper contributions the State Committee had

received.1

 The request presented no

facts indicating that any state or

federal authority demanded that the

Senate Committee make the refunds

on behalf of the State Committee.

Analysis

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act (BCRA) deleted the phrase “for

any other lawful purpose” from the

list of permitted uses of campaign

funds at 2 U.S.C. §439a, and the

Commission subsequently removed

that phrase from its regulations.

Therefore, in addition to paying

expenses in connection with the

campaign for federal office, campaign funds may be used only for

non-campaign purposes included in

an exhaustive list found at 11 CFR

113.2 (a), (b), and (c):

• Ordinary and necessary expenses

incurred in connection with the

duties of a federal officeholder;

• Donations to a charitable organization; and

• Transfers to a national, state or

local committee of a political

party.

The facts before the Commission

in this case do not support a conclusion that a refund of the improper

state contributions would be in

connection with either of Senator

Voinovich’s campaigns for federal

office; nor would the refund comply

with any of the other three permissible non-campaign uses of cam1 Press reports indicate that PIE failed

in 1998, and that its former chief

executive is serving a 40-month prison

term for fraud and improper contributions. Returned contributions are

placed in the PIE liquidation fund,

maintained by the Ohio Department of

Insurance.
December 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

paign funds. Therefore, the Senate

Committee may not make the

disbursement.

Date Issued: November 7, 2003;

Length: 5 pages.✦

—Jim Wilson

AO 2003-27

Status of State Party as State

Committee of Political Party

The Missouri Green Party, Inc.

(the Party) satisfies the requirements

for state committee status.1

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). In order to achieve state

committee status under Commission

regulations, an organization must

meet three requirements. 11 CFR

100.14 and 100.15. It must:

• Have bylaws or a similar document

that “delineates activities commensurate with the day-to-day operation” of a party at a state level;

• Be part of the official party

structure; and

• Gain ballot access for at least one

federal candidate who has qualified as a candidate under the Act.2

The Missouri Green Party, Inc.

meets all three requirements. It

satisfies the first requirement

because its bylaws delineate activity

commensurate with the day-to-day

functions of a political party on the

state level and are consistent with

the state party rules of other political

organizations that the Commission

has found to satisfy this requirement

for state committee status.3

 It

satisfies the second requirement

because it is the state party organization in Missouri.

The Party also satisfies the third

requirement—ballot access for at

least one federal candidate. Although the Party is not affiliated

with the Green Party of the United

States, which nominated Ralph

Nader for the office of President,

evidence indicates that the Party

was instrumental in obtaining ballot

access for Mr. Nader in Missouri.

Mr. Nader appeared as the Party’s

candidate on the Missouri ballot in

2000, and he met the requirements

for becoming a federal candidate

under 2 U.S.C. §431(2).4

Date Issued: November 7, 2003;

Length: 4 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

1 The Party is officially affiliated with

The Greens/Green Party USA, which is

one of the two national Green Party

organizations. The Greens/Green Party

USA has not qualified as the national

committee of a political party, but the

Green Party of the United States

(GPUS) qualified for national committee status in 2001. See AOs 1996-35

and 2001-13.

2 Gaining ballot access for a federal

candidate is an essential element for

qualifying as a political party. See 11

CFR 100.15.

3

 The fact that the Party is not affiliated with a recognized national

committee does not prevent its

recognition as a state committee of a

political party. See AOs 2001-2, 2000-

39, 2000-27, 2000-21 and 2000-14

4 An individual becomes a candidate for

the purposes of the Act once he or she

receives contributions aggregating in

excess of $5,000 or makes expenditures

in excess of $5,000. 2 U.S.C. §431(2)

and 11 CFR 100.3. The Commission

has granted state committee status to a

state affiliate of a qualified national

party committee where its only federal

candidates, as defined under the Act,

were the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates of the national party.

AOs 2000-39, 1999-26 and 1997-3.

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2003-28

Establishment of a separate

segregated fund by a partnership

that already sponsors a

nonconnected PAC, but is controlled by a partnership wholly

owned by a corporation (Horizon

Lines, LLC, June 20, 2003)

AOR 2003-29

Transfer from state PAC to

federal SSF, and possible affiliation

between the two (National Fraternal

Order of Police PAC, September 29,

2003)

AOR 2003-30

Use of campaign funds by

Federal candidate who has withdrawn from 2004 primary, including

retirement of debts of authorized

committee incurred prior to BCRA’s

enactment (Fitzgerald for Senate

Committee and Senator Peter

Fitzgerald, July 9, 2003)

AOR 2003-31

Application of Millionaire’s

Amendment to Senate candidate’s

payments from personal funds for

campaign expenses that his campaign later reimburses (Senator

Mark Dayton, October 14, 2003)

AOR 2003-32

Federal candidate’s use of surplus

funds from her 2002 nonfederal

campaign account (Inez

Tenenbaum, October 14, 2003)

AOR 2003-33

Connected organization’s giving

of prizes for SSF contributions in

conjunction with charitable contribution matching program

(Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.,

November 3, 2003)✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

12

Committees Fined for

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently

publicized its final action on 68 new

Administrative Fine cases, bringing

the total number of cases released to

the public to 769, with $1,052,184

in fines collected.

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

fines 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. Penalties for 48-hour

notices that are filed late or not at all

are determined by the amount of the

contribution(s) not timely reported

and any prior violations.

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

at right, along with their treasurers,

were assessed civil money penalties

under the administrative fines

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

Administrative

Fines

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1

The Commission took no further action in this case.

1. American Association of Physician Specialist Inc. PAC $1,000

 2. American Bakers Association Bread PAC $900

3. American Century Co. Inc. PAC (aka American Century

Investments PAC) $1,000

4. American Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgery PAC $1,250

5. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association PAC

12-Day Pre-General 2002 $1,000

6. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association PAC

30-Day Post-General 2002 $1,800

 7. Bi-County PAC (FKA SUFFOLK PAC) $2,250

 8. The Big Tent PAC $900

 9. Build America PAC $475

10. Cablevision Systems Corporation PAC

12-Day Pre-General $1,000

11. Cablevision Systems Corporation PAC

30-Day Post-General $1,600

12. Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBC-PAC) $2,500

13. Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. PAC

(COUNTRYWIDE PAC) $406

14. Davita PAC $1,000

15. Democratic Party of Orange County FED PAC

October Quarterly 2002 $4,000

16. Democratic Party of Orange County FED PAC

12-Day Pre-General 2002 $1,250

17. Dewey Ballantine LLP PAC $1,000

18. Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP PAC

(DSMO PAC) $275

19. Distilled Spirits Council of the United States Inc. PAC $2,700

20. District Council 37, AFSCME Public Employees Organized

for Political & Legislative Equality (DC37 PEOPLE) ____1

21. Financial Service Centers of America Inc. $1,000

22. Florida Rock Industries Inc. Good Government Committee $900

23. Florida Sugar Cane League PAC

12-Day Pre-General 2002 $1,750

24. Florida Sugar Cane League PAC

30 Day Post-General 2002 $1,575

25. Forest Landowners Association Inc. PAC $1,000

26. Fund for a Better Future $825

27. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers

International Union—Political Education League $1,000

28. Good Government for America PAC $5,000

29. Indiana Dental PAC

12-Day Pre-General $1,250

30. Indiana Dental PAC

30-Day Post-General $1,125

31. IUOE Local 542 Operating Engineers Political Action Fund $1,125

32. Joe Finley for Congress $2,700
December 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed, cont.

33. KPAC $3,100

34. Laborer’s International Union of North America

Local No. 17 Political League $900

35. Lawrence R. Wiesner for Congress Committee $300

36. Magazine Publishers of America PAC

(Formerly Magazine Publishers Association PAC) $1,000

37. Mantech International Corp. PAC $1,000

38. Mark Johnson for Congress $700

39. Maryland Association for Concerned Citizens PAC $1,000

40. Metlife Employees’ Political Participation Fund A ____1

41. Minnesota House DFL Caucus $4,500

42. Mississippi Democratic Party PAC $7,200

43. National Bank of Commerce Committee on Political Affairs $650

44. National Health Corporation PAC $1,000

45. National Propane Gas Association PAC (PROPANE PAC)

12-Day Pre-General 2002 $1,000

46. National Propane Gas Association PAC (PROPANE PAC)

30 Day Post-General 2002 $4,500

47. New Jersey State Carpenters Non Partisan Political

Education Committee $1,000

48. New York State Conservative Party $1,500

49. Office and Professional Employees International

Union—Voice of the Electorate $312

50. Prairie Leadership Committee $437

51. Prairie PAC $550

52. Rhode Island Republican State Central Committee $15,000

53. Rob Bishop for Congress $7,600

54. S C Johnson & Son PAC Inc. (SCJPAC) $900

55. Sheet Metal Workers Local 100 PAC (100 PAC) $625

56. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons PAC (STS PAC) $1,250

57. Southern States Police Benevolent Association PAC Fund $1,000

58. Supporters of Engineers Local 3 Endorsed

Candidates (SELEC) $900

59. TECO Energy Inc. Employees’ PAC $1,125

60. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans—Employee PAC $1,000

61. United Brotherhood of Carpenters/Joiners of America

New England Reg Carpenters Legislative

Employees Committee $1,000

62. United Emp PAC, Central Louisiana Electric Co. Inc. $300

63. United States Marine Repair Inc. PAC $1,000

64. Volunteer PAC $3,750

65. Women’s Pro-Israel National PAC (“WIN PAC”)

12-Day Pre-General 2002 $1,000

66. Women’s Pro-Israel National PAC (“WIN PAC)

30 Day Post-General 2002 $375

67. 3M Company $400

68. 11th District Democratic Committee $2,000

1

The Commission took no further action in this case.

(continued on page 14)

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently

resolved eight additional cases

under the Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) program. The

respondents, the alleged violations

of the Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and the penalties

assessed are listed below.

The Commission reached agreement with the Committee to Elect

Clinton B. LeSueur, its treasurer,

Lee Bush, Haley Barbor and

AmeriMail Direct, Inc. concerning

the failure to file disclosure reports

timely, alleged personal use of

campaign funds, failure to report

disbursements, an excessive contribution, a corporate contribution and

reports containing mathematical

discrepancies. The respondents

acknowledged violations of the Act,

but contended that the errors and

untimely filings were due to inexperience. They further argued that the

alleged excessive contribution, as

well as what appeared to be a

contribution from a corporation,

were, in fact, errors in reporting the

identity of the contributors. The

respondents agreed to pay a $500

civil penalty, and agreed to work

with RAD staff to ensure all required reports are filed and to

terminate the committee. (ADR

112/MUR 5300)

The Commission closed five

cases involving Garabed “Chuck”

Haytaian, Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

Committee for Quality Healthcare,

its treasurer, Robert N. DellaCorte,

Torricelli for U. S. Senate, Inc. and

its treasurer, Michael J. Perrucci,

concerning contributions in the

name of another and excessive

contributions. The ADR Office
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

14

Outreach

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

January 14 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon9:30 - 11 a.m. PACs and Party Committees, sible for filing FEC

Reception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for PACs and

11-11:30 a.m. reception Parties (Up to 30 may

(Session number 0401A) attend)

January 14 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon1:30 - 3 p.m. Candidates and their Committees, sible for filing FEC

Reception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for Candidate

3-3:30 p.m. reception Committees (Up to 30

(Session number 0401B) may attend)

Alternative Dispute

Resolution

(continued from page 13)

recommended these cases be closed,

and the Commission agreed to close

the files. (ADR 132-136/ MURs

5351, 5352, 5353, 5360 and 5362)

The Commission reached agreement with Citizens to Elect Yvonne

Christian-Williams and its treasurer

Stanley P. King concerning the

failure to include disclaimers and

disclose expenditures. The respondents acknowledged an inadvertent

violation of the Act due to the

omission of a required disclaimer on

billboards, but they contended that

the omission resulted from an

oversight by the vendor, which they

did not notice. The respondents also

stated that the expenditures were

disclosed in the appropriate quarterly report. They agreed to pay a

$1,000 civil penalty and to terminate

committee. (ADR 110/MUR 5259)

The Commission reached agreement with the Democratic State

Central Committee of Maryland and

its treasurer Gary Gensler concerning excessive contributions. The

respondents contended that the

FEC’s regulations do not expressly

address situations where contributions received by a state party are

allocated between federal and

nonfederal accounts or when

excessive contributions are transferred to a nonfederal account. They

contended that they made a good

faith effort to correct the problems

as soon as they were discovered,

which, they further contend, was

before the Commission’s audit

commenced. In order to avoid a

similar situation in the future, the

respondents agreed to have a staff

person attend an FEC-sponsored

training seminar and to transfer the

excessive portion of any contribution within 60 days of receipt, notify

the contributor that the transfer is

being made and offer the donor the

option of a refund. (ADR 127)

(AR01-43)

The Commission closed the case

concerning Rush Holt for Congress,

Inc., its treasurer Pamela Mount,

Rush Holt, Paul Starr, Christine

Stansell, Sean Wilentz and Alan

Blinder concerning the alleged

failure to include a disclaimer and

an impermissible contribution. The

ADR Office recommended the case

be closed and the Commission

agreed to close the file. (ADR 141/

MUR 5331)✦

—Amy Kort

Campaign Finance Law

Training Conference in

Tampa, Florida

The FEC will hold a conference

February 11-12, 2004, for House

and Senate campaigns, political

party committees and corporations,

labor organizations, trade associations, membership organizations and

their respective PACs. The conference will consist of a series of

workshops conducted by Commissioners and experienced FEC staff

who will explain how the federal

campaign finance law, as amended

by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act of 2002 (BCRA), applies to

each of these groups. Workshops

will specifically address rules for

fundraising and reporting, and will

explain the new provisions of the

Reporting Roundtables

On January 14, 2004, the Commission will host two roundtable

sessions on election year reporting,

including new disclosure requirements under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The first

session, for PACs and party committees, will begin at 9:30 a.m. and

will last until 11:00. The second

session, for candidates and their

committees, will begin at 1:30 p.m.

and last until 3:00. Both sessions

will be followed by a half-hour

reception at which each attendee

will have an opportunity to meet the

campaign finance analyst who

reviews his/her committee’s reports.

Attendance is limited to 30

people per session, and registration

($25) will be accepted on a firstcome, first-served basis. Please call

the FEC before registering or

sending money to ensure that

openings remain. Prepayment is

required. The registration form is

available on the FEC’s web site at

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

infosvc.htm and from Faxline, the

FEC’s automated fax system (202/501-

3413, request document 590). For more

information, call 800/424-9530 (press 1,

then 3) or 202/694-1100.✦
December 2003 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2003 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 (continued on page 16)

that the article is in the January

issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

2002-12: Disaffiliation of corporations and their PACs, 2:8

2002-14: National party

committee’s lease of mailing list

and sale of ad space and trademark license, 3:5

2002-15: Affiliation of trade associations, 4:8

2003-1: Nonconnected committee’s

allocation of administrative

expenses, 4:9

2003-2: Socialist Workers Party

disclosure exemption, 5:1

2003-3: Solicitation of funds for

nonfederal candidates by federal

candidates and officeholders, 6:1

2003-4: Corporation’s matching

charitable contribution plan, 6:3

2003-5: Federal candidate’s or

officeholder’s participation in

membership organization

fundraising events, 8:1

2003-6: Transfer of payroll deduction authority, 7:4

2003-7: State leadership PAC’s

refund of nonfederal funds, 7:5

2003-10: Solicitation of nonfederal

funds by relative of federal

candidate, 8:6

2003-11: State party committee’s

payment of employee benefits, 10:7

2003-12: Federal candidate/

officeholder’s support of ballot

initiative, 9:7

2003-13: Qualification of “Members-in-Training” as members of

membership organization, 8:7

2003-14: Distribution of apron pins

bearing PAC name, 8:8

2003-15: Donations to legal expense

trust fund, 10:8

2003-16: Affinity credit card program

between national bank and national

party committee, 10:16

2003-17: Use of campaign funds to

pay for criminal defense, 9:10

2003-18: Impermissibility of

transfer of general election funds

to charitable organization, 9:10

2003-19: National party

committee’s sale of office equipment, 10:11

2003-20: Officeholder solicitation

for scholarship fund, 10:11

2003-21: Disaffiliation of corporations’ PACs, 11:1

2003-22: Contributions collected

and forwarded to trade association

SSF by executives of member

corporations, 10:12

2003-23: Earmarking Contributions

to Presumptive Presidential

Nominee, 12:8

2003-24: Prohibition on the Sale

and Use of Contributor Information, 12:8

2003-25: Federal Candidate Appearing in an Advertisement Endorsing a Nonfederal Candidate, 12:9

2003-26: Impermissible Use of

Campaign Funds by Senate

Campaign, 12:10

2003-27: Status of State Party as

State Committee of Political

Party, 12:11

Compliance

ADR program cases, 2:11; 3:3; 5:10;

7:10; 8:11; 9:13; 10:15; 12:13

Deposition transcripts in nonpublic

investigations, policy statement,

10:3

Letter notification procedures, 3:2

Administrative Fine program cases,

1:25; 2:13; 3:4; 5:7; 7:6; 8:11;

9:12; 11:6; 12:12

MUR 4931: Corporate contributions

and contributions in the name of

another, 10:1

MUR 5187: Corporate reimbursements of contributions, 1:22

MUR 5208: Facilitation by national

bank, 2:1

MUR 5270: Failure to accurately

report disbursements and cash-onhand, 6:7

Nonfiler, 12:6

Public hearing on enforcement

procedures, 6:7; 7:7

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFC-CIO and DNC Services

Corp./DNC, 8:1

– Cannon, 10:13

– Correa, et al., 12:7

BCRA. A representative from the

IRS will also be available to answer

election-related tax questions.

The conference will be held at the

Wyndham Harbour Island Hotel in

Tampa, Florida. The registration fee

is $385, which covers the cost of the

conference, materials and meals. A

$10 late fee will be assessed for

registration forms received after

January 19.

The Wyndham Harbour Island is

located at 725 South Harbour Island

Boulevard. A room rate of $159 per

night is available for conference

attendees who make reservations on

or before January 19. To make

reservations call 813/229-5000 and

state that you are attending the FEC

conference, or access the Wyndham

Harbour Island’s reservations web

page via the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences.

Registration

Complete conference registration

information for this conference is

available online. Conference

registrations will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis. FEC

conferences are selling out quickly,

so please register early. For registration information concerning any

FEC conference:

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail to

lauren@sylvestermanagement.com.✦

—Amy Kort
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

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2003

Candidate travel, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9:4; public

comments, 11:4

Contribution limits increase, 1:6

Contribution limits and prohibitions;

delay of effective date, 2:6

Coordinated and independent

expenditures, final rules, 1:10

Disclaimers, fraudulent solicitation,

civil penalties and personal use of

campaign funds, final rules, 1:8

Leadership PACs, NPRM, 2:4

Millionaires’ Amendment, interim

final rules, 2:2

Multicandidate committees and

biennial contribution limits,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

9:3; public comments, 11:4; final

rules, 12:4

Party committee phone banks,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

10:4; public comments, 11:4; final

rules, 12:1

Political committee mailing lists,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

10:5; public comments, 11:4;

Notice of Disposition, 12:5

Public Presidential funding and

Index

(continued from page 15)

conventions, NPRM, 5:1; postponement of hearing date, 6:9;

public hearing, 7:8; final rules,

9:1

Trade Associations’ use of payroll

deduction, Petition for

Rulemaking, 11:1

Reports

April reporting reminder, 4:1

Draft forms and e-filing formats

available for public comment, 1:2

Electioneering Communications

Dates, 12:5

Filing form 3Z-1, 7:2

July reporting reminder, 7:1

New forms available, 3:1

October reporting reminder, 10:1

Puerto Rico primary election

reporting, 10:18

Reports due in 2003, 1:3

State Filing Waiver Program,

reminder, 11:5

Statements of Candidacy/Organization for authorized committees, 3:2

Texas special election reporting, 4:4

– Cox, 8:3

– Cunningham, 1:19

– Greenwood for Congress, 4:4;

10:13

– Hawaii Right to Life, Inc., 1:20

– Judicial Watch and Peter F. Paul, 11:7

– Lovely, 3:4

– Luis M. Correa, 5:5

– McConnell et al., 6:1

– Stevens, 8:3

– Wilkinson, 11:8

FEC v. _____

– Beaumont, 1:20; 7:1

– California Democratic Party, 5:5

– Dear for Congress, 8:4

– Fulani, 2:8

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 2:8;

5:5; 10:13

– Toledano, 1:20

Regulations

Administrative fines, final rules, 4:1

BCRA reporting, final rules, 1:14

BCRA technical amendments, 2:6

Biennial limit, clarification, 2:1

Brokerage loans and credit lines, 2:4