October 1997 Federal Election Commission Volume 23, Number 10

Table of Contents

Reports

1 Electronic Filing Update:

Commission Introduces FECFile

Software

 12 New York Special General

Election Reporting

Court Cases

1 DSCC v. NRSC

2 White v. FEC

2 New Litigation

Compliance

4 MUR 4399

Regulations

4 Proposed Revisions to FEC

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Regulations, Forms Available for

Public Comment

5 Advisory Opinions

8 Conferences

Publications

9 Index to PAC Abbreviations

Information

9 Faxline Menu

11 Index

Electronic Filing Update:

Commission Introduces

FECFile Software

As part of the next phase of the

FEC’s electronic filing program, the

Commission is releasing this month

a simple software program designed

to help committees keep track of

their financial information and

prepare reports for electronic filing.

The new software, called

FECFile, is intended for small

committees that may not need the

more comprehensive package of

campaign or PAC management tools

offered by private vendors, but that

still wish to submit their reports

electronically. Filings received

electronically (currently via diskette,

but by February 1998 via telecommunications system) must conform

to the Commission’s Electronic

Filing Format.

FECFile is designed to help

treasurers maintain committee

records and automatically prepare

the information for electronic filing.

With the new software, committees

can enter data about contributions,

disbursements and other financial

activity. When reports are due,

committees create a filing automatically, run a validation program to

ensure proper formatting, copy the

file to a diskette and mail it to the

Reports

(continued on page 3)

Court Cases

DSCC v. NRSC

On August 15, in response to a

court order, the FEC filed an amicus

brief about the confidentiality of its

documents in the Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee

(DSCC) suit against the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

(NRSC).

The DSCC’s suit is the first

contested case in which a private

party has sued another private party

for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act),

pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(8)(C). That section of the

Act states that if the FEC fails to

take action on a complaint within 30

days after it has been ordered to do

so by the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, then the

complainant may file suit in his or

her own name against the alleged

offender of the Act.

The DSCC had filed two previous

lawsuits—in April and November

1996—against the FEC charging

that it had failed to take action

within 120 days on an administrative complaint filed by the DSCC,

alleging that the NRSC had made

illegal “soft money” expenditures to

influence a Senate election in

Georgia. 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A).

In the resolution of the second delay

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 1997

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

John Warren McGarry,

Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

New Litigation

Fulani v. FEC (97-1466)

Dr. Lenora B. Fulani and the

Lenora B. Fulani for President

Committee ask the court to review

the FEC’s final repayment determination for the committee’s financial

transactions during the 1992 election cycle. They also ask the court to

review the Commission’s response

White v. FEC

On July 31, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

granted the FEC’s request for

summary judgment and dismissed

this case.

William D. White, the plaintiff,

had charged in this suit that the FEC

had acted contrary to law when it

dismissed and closed an administrative complaint—later designated

MUR 3920—he had filed in November 1994.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 94-2509. ✦

suit, which occurred on May 30, the

court ordered the FEC to take action

on the administrative complaint

within 30 days. When that did not

happen, the DSCC filed suit on its

own against the NRSC. See page 3

of the August 1997 Record.

The Commission’s brief is in

response to an order from the court

seeking the FEC’s views on keeping

under seal certain documents it filed

during proceedings in the two

DSCC delay cases and to which the

NRSC has requested access. The

Commission argues that providing

such information to the NRSC

would compromise its investigation

into the DSCC’s original administrative complaint, which continues

despite the DSCC’s most recent

lawsuit against the NRSC. The

documents being sought by the

NRSC include information about

potential witnesses and FEC actions

and procedures in the investigation.

The FEC contends that the information in the sealed files contains no

evidence about the NRSC’s alleged

violations, and thus would be of

little relevance to the NRSC’s court

battle with the DSCC. And, although the DSCC has seen some of

the information under seal, it is

barred by the court’s protective

order from using that information in

its own lawsuit against the NRSC.

The Commission also notes the

precedent the court would set if it

were to allow the NRSC to view the

confidential information covered by

the protective order, stating that the

Commission would have to take

such actions into consideration in

deciding what information to

provide the court in future delay

cases.

On August 27, the court granted a

stay requested by the NRSC without

deciding whether to maintain the

confidentiality of the documents.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 97-1493. ✦

to the committee’s request for a

rehearing of the final determination.

The final determination, adopted

on March 6, 1997, required the

Fulani committee to repay $117,269

in public matching funds to the U.S.

Treasury. Subsequently, the Fulani

committee petitioned the FEC for a

rehearing of the final determination.

On July 8, the Commission denied

the petition except as to the

committee’s claim of laches (unreasonable delay). Upon rehearing that

one claim, the Commission adhered

to its repayment determination.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 97-

1466, August 5, 1997. ✦

The FEC Takes Visa

and Mastercard

 FEC customers can pay for FEC

materials with Visa or

Mastercard. Most FEC materials

are available free of charge, but

some are sold, including financial

statistical reports ($10 each),

candidate indexes ($10) and PAC

directories ($13.25). The FEC

also has a 5¢ per page copying

charge for paper documents and a

15¢ per page copying charge for

microfilmed documents.

 Paying by credit card has its

advantages. For instance, since

the FEC will not fill an order

until payment is received, using a

credit card speeds delivery by

four to five days.

 Visitors to the FEC’s Public

Records Office may make

payments by credit card. Regular

visitors, such as researchers and

reporters, who in the past have

paid for FEC materials out of their

own pockets, may make payments

with a company credit card.

 The credit card payment system

also reduces costs and paperwork

associated with check processing,

enabling FEC staff to better serve

the walk-in visitor.
October 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

FEC. Though optional, committees

may also make a printout of their

filings for submission to state

agencies and for recordkeeping

purposes. See page 10 of the July

1997 Record for the six basic steps

for submitting a financial report to

the FEC on diskette.

The first version of FECFile

software is available for PCs

running Windows 95, with at least

five megabytes of space available

on the hard drive. A version operating under Windows 3.1 will be

available in a few weeks. To receive

a copy of the software, fill out the

form below and return it to the

Commission at the address listed.

FECFile software should arrive in

about two to three weeks. And, look

for demonstrations of FECFile

during the FEC’s 1997-98 conferences.

Commercial Software Users Need

Not Switch to FECFile

In past issues, the Record has

reported that many software companies have made modifications to

their programs to accommodate the

Commission’s formatting requirements. Committees using one of

those software packages do not need

to use the new software offered by

the FEC. The modifications to the

commercial software made by most

vendors should prepare filings in the

proper format. Vendors that are

working on or have completed

modifications to their software

packages include:

• Aspen Software (Trail Blazer)

800/446-1375

• Aristotle Industries (Campaign

Manager; PAC Manager) 202/543-

8345

• Capitol Hill Software 301/459-

2590

• Donnelson and Associates

(Micropac) 615/356-4853

• Gnossos Software (Keep in Touch:

PAC SOLUTION) 202/463-1200

ext. 425

Reports

(continued from page 1)

• Public Affairs Support Services

(PASS) 703/684-2915

For more information about

electronic filing, visit the

Commission’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov or call the FEC’s

technical staff at 202/219-3730 or

800/424-9530. ✦

(Reports continued on page 12)

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 St., NW

Washington, DC 20463

Fax: 202/219-0674

✃

FECFile Order Form
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 1997

4

Compliance

Regulations

MUR 4399

State Agency Makes

Contributions in the Names

of Others

The State Universities Retirement

System of Illinois (SURS) and its

former executive director, Dennis

Spice, paid $10,500 in civil penalties to the FEC for making contributions in the names of others, a

violation of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act). Of that

amount, Mr. Spice paid $7,500 for

knowingly permitting his name to

be used, and knowingly assisting

others, to effect contributions in the

names of others.

SURS is an executive agency of

the state of Illinois. During the 1994

election cycle, SURS reimbursed

Mr. Spice and three other SURS

officers for $4,345 in contributions

they had made to political parties

and candidate fundraisers in order to

advance SURS’s funding agenda.

The employees submitted vouchers

generically labeled with such

statements as “Legislative Conference” and “Legislative Meeting”

without also disclosing that the

events were sponsored by political

committees. Thus, SURS was not

revealed as the true source of the

contributions.

In addition to the $895 of his

contributions that were reimbursed,

Mr. Spice also charged $1,280 in

contributions to a SURS credit card.

The recipient political committees

have refunded the illegal contributions.

The Act at 441f states that no

person may make a contribution in

the name of another or knowingly

permit his or her name to be used to

effect such a contribution. Commission regulations go on to instruct

that no person may knowingly help

or assist another in making a

contribution in the name of another.

11 CFR 110.4(b)(iii). Although the

Act excludes the federal government

from the definition of person, no

such exclusion is made for state

governments. 2 U.S.C. § 431(11).

This MUR, or Matter Under

Review, was initiated in response to

a December 1995 sue sponte

submission by SURS to the FEC.1

Prior to finding probable cause to

believe that a violation of the Act

had occurred, the Commission

entered into conciliation agreements

with Mr. Spice and SURS. ✦

1

 A sue sponte submission is one in

which an individual, a committee or an

organization brings a possible violation

to the attention of the FEC.

Proposed Revisions to FEC

Recordkeeping and

Reporting Regulations,

Forms Available for Public

Comment

On September 18, the Commission approved two documents for

public comment. The first, a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),

proposes multiple revisions to 11

CFR 102.9, 104.3 and part 108. The

NPRM seeks comments on FEC

regulations that govern

recordkeeping, reporting and filing

with state officers.

Many of the revisions are technical in nature and are intended to

update, clarify and simplify the

current requirements for completing

and filing FEC disclosure reports.

For example, the draft rules propose

permitting alternatives for reporting

loan repayments, simplifying

reporting requirements for draws on

a line of credit and clarifying

procedures for reporting disbursements paid by credit card. The

Commission anticipates a November

5 public hearing on this NPRM.

The second document is a set of

proposed Forms and Schedules for

political committees. The proposed

disclosure reports revise current

Forms 3 and 3X to reflect the

changes proposed by the NPRM for

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The document also

presents accompanying instructions

for each set of forms in a consolidated instruction booklet.

Public comments in response to

the NPRM and proposed disclosure

reports must be submitted in either

written or electronic form to Susan

E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel. Written comments should

be mailed to Federal Election

Commission, 999 E St., NW,

Washington, DC 20463. Faxed

comments should be transmitted at

202/219-3923, with a copy mailed

to the preceding address to ensure

legibility. Comments also may be

sent by e-mail to recrep@fec.gov.

Electronic submissions must include

the commenter’s full name, e-mail

address and postal mail address. The

deadline for comments is October 27.

See the NPRM and proposed

disclosure reports for more details

about the draft revisions. Copies are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office at 800/424-9530

(press 3). The NPRM also is available on FEC Faxline (document

231), and was published in the

September 26 Federal Register. ✦

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain FEC

material fast. It operates 24 hours

a day, 7 days a week. More than

300 FEC documents—reporting

forms, brochures, FEC

regulations—can be faxed almost

immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial

202/501-3413 and follow the

instructions. To order a complete

menu of Faxline documents, enter

document number 411 at the

prompt.
October 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1997-10

Termination of 1992, 1996

Committees

Former Representative Martin

Hoke may make a loan to his 1996

authorized committee and then

transfer those funds to his 1992

authorized committee in order to

correct a previous impermissible

transfer and to terminate both

committees. Before this transfer can

take place, however, Mr. Hoke’s

committees must determine the

amounts of, and refund, any 1992

contributions received by the 1996

committee that resulted in excessive

contributions by contributors. The

committees must also refund any

other contributions that were

improperly accepted.

Mr. Hoke represented Ohio’s

10th Congressional District after

winning the 1992 election for that

seat. During that election, he loaned

his campaign committee, the Hoke

for Congress Committee (1992

Committee), $254,000 from his

personal funds. The committee

repaid him $80,000, leaving a

balance of $174,000. This amount

stood as the 1992 Committee’s only

outstanding debt. Mr. Hoke then

made an unsuccessful bid for the

same congressional seat in the 1996

election cycle, creating a new

principal campaign committee

called Hoke for Congress 96 (1996

Committee).

During the 1996 election cycle,

92 individuals—all of whom, the

Committee stated in its advisory

opinion request, had contributed the

$1,000 maximum to both Mr.

Hoke’s 1992 and 1996 committees—contributed a total of $91,652

to help retire the 1992 Committee’s

$174,000 debt. The 1992 Committee

then transferred the $91,652 to the

1996 Committee to aid in that

election. This transfer was contrary

AO 1997-12

Use of Campaign Funds for

Legal Expenses

Representative Jerry Costello

may use campaign funds to pay a

legal firm for various expenses he

has incurred for its services in

helping him refute allegations

reported by the media that he was

involved in questionable and illegal

activities during his tenure as a

federal officeholder. For some of the

expenses, Mr. Costello must follow

the allocation formula listed below.

Mr. Costello, who was re-elected

to represent the 12th congressional

district of Illinois in 1996, has been

the subject of a number of allegations in his hometown newspapers

since September 1995, including

these three:

• Mr. Costello was a silent partner in

business dealings with two felons—Thomas Venezia, who was

convicted in 1995 on federal

charges of gambling-related

racketeering, and long-time friend

Amiel Cueto, who was convicted

in 1997 for obstruction of justice,

conspiracy and a number of other

federal crimes. During the course

of Mr. Cueto’s trial, Mr. Costello

was named as an unindicted coconspirator. He testified during

grand jury proceedings concerning

Mr. Cueto, but was not called to

testify during the trial.

• Mr. Costello, in his capacity as an

officeholder, attempted to lure a

county prosecutor away from his

position by offering him a judgeship in the state. In turn, the

prosecutor would help Mr.

Costello convince the top-elected 1

 This opinion does not make any

determination as to the permissibility of

past transfers by the 1992 Committee. (continued on page 6)

to Commission regulations at 11

CFR 116.2(c)(2), which state that no

transfers may be made from a

candidate’s authorized committee to

another authorized committee of the

same candidate if the initial transferring committee has any net debts

outstanding at the time of the

transfer. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3)(ii).

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) states that a political

committee may terminate after filing

a termination report with the FEC or

a written statement declaring that

the committee is no longer receiving

contributions or making disbursements and has satisfied all outstanding debts and obligations. 2 U.S.C.

§433(d)(1).

Under the Hoke Committees’

plan, Mr. Hoke would loan $91,652

to the 1996 Committee, which

would transfer those funds to the

1992 Committee. The 1992 Committee then would pay the same

amount to Mr. Hoke in order to

retire part of its net outstanding debt

to the candidate. Mr. Hoke would

then forgive the remaining $82,347

debt, thus erasing the net outstanding debt for the 1992 Committee.

This plan is permissible.1 Commission regulations permit congressional candidates to make unlimited

loans to their own campaigns. 11

CFR 110.10(a).

The debt settlement process must

precede termination of either

committee. Because of the prohibited transfer, the 1992 and 1996

Committees must refund any 1992

contributions, which, when aggregated with 1996 contributions,

exceeded contribution limits found

at 2 U.S.C. §441(a). The 1992

Committee must also refund any

contributions it accepted that are not

consistent with 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3).

That section of the regulations

instructs that contributions designated for a specific election may

only be accepted after that election

if there is a remaining net debt for

that election. The committees must

make the refunds prior to repaying

Mr. Hoke.

Date: August 15, 1997; Length: 3

pages. ✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 1997

6

county official to appoint Mr.

Cueto to the prosecutor’s position.

• Mr. Costello voted for federal

legislation to recognize the

Pokagon band of the Potowatami

Indians at a time when he had a

secret interest in a business venture

with Mr. Cueto and others who

would have operated a gambling

casino on the Pokagon’s property.

Mr. Costello has denied any

wrongdoing and has had assistance

from a law firm, Jenner & Block, in

doing so. To date, the legal services

from the firm have included:

reviewing and monitoring press

reports in order to brief Mr.

Costello; investigating allegations

against Mr. Costello contained in

the media reports; counseling Mr.

Costello as to his responses to the

media; participating in drafting

press releases; researching Mr.

Costello’s formal testimony before

Congress in support of the Indian

recognition bill; and representing

him before the grand jury and

handling other legal proceedings

related to Mr. Cueto’s trial. The law

firm also researched the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and Commission regulations related

to the use of campaign funds to pay

for its expenses.

The Act prohibits a candidate

from converting campaign funds to

personal use. 2 U.S.C. §439a.

Commission regulations define

personal use as “any use of funds in

a campaign account...that would

exist irrespective of the candidate’s

campaign or duties as a federal

officeholder.” 11 CFR

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

is not listed, as in the case of legal

expenses, the Commission examines

the use of campaign funds on a

case-by-case basis. 11 CFR

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

While legal expenses associated

with refuting allegations about

private business ventures normally

would be considered personal use—

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

and could not be paid for with

campaign funds—the need for some

of the legal services provided to Mr.

Costello appears to have resulted

from the political necessity for him

to respond to allegations of wrongful conduct that were reported in the

media and that allegedly happened

while he was a federal officeholder

and candidate. The Commission has

recognized that the activities of

candidates and officeholders may

receive heightened scrutiny because

of their status. AO 1996-24. Mr.

Costello’s need to respond to media

allegations would not exist irrespective of his campaign or officeholder

status and, thus, he may use campaign funds to pay for such expenses subject to the Commission’s

guidelines, as follows:

1. Any legal expenses that relate

directly and exclusively to

dealing with the press—for

example, preparing press releases, appearing at press conferences or meeting with

reporters—would qualify for 100

percent payment with campaign

funds.

2. Any legal expenses that relate

directly to allegations arising

from campaign or officeholder

activity would qualify for 100

percent payment with campaign

funds.

3. Legal expenses that do not fall

into category 1 and do not

directly relate to allegations

arising from campaign or officeholder activity would qualify for

50 percent payment with campaign funds because the candidate is providing substantive

answers to press questions

beyond “no comment” statements.1

Thus, Mr. Costello may use 100

percent campaign funds to pay for

legal expenses relating to the

allegations about his vote for the

Indian band recognition. However,

he may use campaign funds to pay

only 50 percent of the legal services

expenses associated with refuting

allegations about his silent partner

status in business dealings with Mr.

Cueto and Mr. Venezia and his

attempts to move Mr. Cueto into a

state prosecutor job. Although the

expenses are not directly related to

his status as a federal officeholder,

Mr. Costello did have to conduct

research and prepare to respond to

press questions on the matters.

Additionally, Mr. Costello may pay

100 percent of his legal bills associated with the firm’s research of

campaign finance laws and regulations with campaign funds.

The cost of legal expenses that

are paid with campaign funds

should be reported as an operating

expenditure on FEC disclosure

forms with the purpose noted.

Date: August 15, 1997; Length: 7

pages. ✦

1

 This analysis represents a slight

modification from the approach used in

AO 1996-24.

AO 1997-13

Affiliation of Limited

Liability Company PAC with

Parents’ SSFs

The United Space Alliance PAC

(USA PAC), a political committee

of a joint venture limited liability

company (LLC), is affiliated with

the separate segregated funds (SSFs)

of its two incorporated member/

owners.

USA PAC is the political committee of United Space Alliance,

LLC (USA), a Delaware company

owned 50-50 by wholly-owned

subsidiaries of Lockheed Martin

Corporation (LMC) and the Boeing

Company. Both Boeing and LMC

have SSFs, the Boeing Company

Political Action Committee (BPAC)

and the Lockheed Martin Employees Political Action Committee

(LMEPAC), respectively. The

nature of the relationship between

the incorporated owners and USA

determines USA PAC’s status.
October 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

(continued on page 8)

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations state that SSFs that are

established, financed, maintained or

controlled by the same corporation,

including a parent or subsidiary, are

affiliated. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(5) and

11 CFR 100.5(g)(2). The Commission has held in previous advisory

opinions that a corporation’s

affiliates may include entities other

than corporations. When an entity,

such as USA, is not an acknowledged subsidiary of another entity,

the Commission weighs several

factors to determine whether an

affiliated relationship exists. 11

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J),

and 110.3(a)(3)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J). Of

those factors, four are relevant to the

issue of affiliation between USA

PAC and the PACs of its corporate

parents:

• Whether the sponsoring organizations own a controlling interest in

the voting stock or securities of

USA;

• Whether the sponsoring organizations may direct or participate in

the governance of USA;

• Whether the sponsoring organizations have authority over hiring

and appointment of USA’s officers

and other decision-making employees; and

• Whether the sponsoring organizations had an active role in forming

USA.

Based on these factors, USA is

affiliated with Boeing and LMC

and, consequently, USA PAC is

affiliated with LMEPAC and BPAC.

The corporations each own 50

percent interest in USA. Both must

also give approval to certain significant policy decisions at USA.

Officials at Boeing and LMC select

USA’s chief executive officer, chief

operating officer and other highlevel officers, and these individuals

are charged with managing the dayto-day operations of USA. Additionally, USA’s operations are overseen

by a seven-member advisory board

whose members are appointed by

Boeing and LMC. Although neither

company has the predominant

position in owning or controlling the

company, the assent of each is

necessary for certain major hiring

and governance decisions of USA.

The Act allows a corporation to

use its general treasury funds to pay

the administrative and solicitation

costs of its SSF, and, in previous

advisory opinions, the Commission

has permitted a corporation that is

affiliated with another corporation

or other entity to pay the administration and solicitation costs of the

political committee of that corporation or entity. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2)(C), AOs 1996-49,

1996-38 and 1992-17. Therefore,

because Boeing and LMC are

affiliated with USA, they may pay

such costs for USA PAC.

The Act does not expressly give

USA, as an LLC, the ability to

establish an SSF and conduct itself

as a connected organization. However, in several advisory opinions,

the Commission has spoken on a

similarly situated entity—the joint

venture partnership. In that case, by

virtue of the fact that it is owned

entirely by corporations and affiliated with at least one of them, a

joint venture partnership may

perform the functions of a connected organization for its PAC.

AOs 1996-49, 1994-11, 1994-9 and

1992-17.

Although USA is not a partnership, the Commission’s conclusion

is relevant here. In the case of the

joint venture partnership found in

AO 1992-17, the Commission stated

that the administrative and solicitation costs could be construed as

coming from the affiliated corporations. USA is in a similar position as

a joint venture partnership: it is

entirely owned by corporations,

whose control over USA is essentially the same as corporate joint

venture partners, and it is affiliated

with at least one of the corporations.

Because Commission regulations

do not include LLCs in the definition of connected organization, only

Boeing and LMC—not USA—are

the connected organizations of USA

PAC. Although USA may pay the

exempt costs, such support would be

deemed to have come from LMC

and Boeing.

In naming its SSF, USA does not

have to include the name of its

connected organizations. While 2

U.S.C. §432(e)(5) and 11 CFR

102.14(c) require that the name of

an SSF include the full name of its

connected organization, another

regulation states that an SSF established by a subsidiary need not

include the name of its parents or

another subsidiary of the parent.

Although USA is not technically a

subsidiary of LMC or Boeing, it is

in virtually the same position as a

subsidiary. Also, the disclosure of

USA’s connected organizations are

on its Statement of Organization

filed with the FEC, and is available

for public inspection.

As to contribution limits, USA

PAC must share its limit with

LMEPAC and BPAC, both of which

are multicandidate committees.1

Following the same methodology

for contributions from a joint

venture partnership, which calls for

apportioning each contribution on a

pro rata basis to each of its partners,

contributions by USA PAC must be

apportioned to half the limit of

LMEPAC and half the limit of

BPAC (unless another division is

agreed to by all parties). This means

there will be two sets of contribution

limits available among the three

committees—aggregate contributions to the same candidate may not

exceed $10,000 per election from all

1

 The contribution limits for

multicandidate committees are as

follows: $5,000 to a candidate per

election, and $15,000 to a national

party committee and $5,000 to any

other party committee per calendar

year.
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 1997

8

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

AO 1997-14

Use of Corporate Donations

for Building Fund

The Mississippi Republican Party

(MRP) may accept donations from

corporations in any amount for its

building fund account. Although a

state law prohibits corporate contributions in excess of $1,000 during a

calendar year, it is preempted by the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act), which allows such donations

for this purpose.

The MRP plans to buy or construct a building to be used as party

headquarters. The building would be

used to influence federal and

nonfederal elections, but the building fund account would not. This

account, separate from the MRP’s

other accounts, would accept

contributions and donations from

corporations and individuals designated solely for the building fund.

The Act and Commission regulations state that a gift, loan or

anything of value made to a national

or state party committee that is

specifically designated to defray the

costs of construction or purchase of

an office facility is not considered to

be a contribution or expenditure so

long as the facility is not acquired

for the purpose of influencing any

candidate in any particular election

for federal office. 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(B)(viii) and 11 CFR

100.7(b)(12), 100.8(b)(13) and

114.1(a)(2)(ix). In past advisory

opinions, the Commission has

interpreted the statute and FEC

regulations to permit state and

national party committees to accept

corporate donations to building fund

accounts set up specifically to

purchase or construct a headquarters

for those committees. AOs 1996-8,

1993-9 and 1991-5.

Additionally, the Act explicitly

states at 2 U.S.C. §453 that its

provisions “supersede and preempt

any provision of State law with

respect to election to Federal

office.” Commission regulations go

further, specifically stating that the

Act supersedes state law with

respect to the limitations on contributions and expenditures regarding

three committees and may not

exceed $5,000 from any one committee. Contributions made by

LMEPAC or BPAC will not be

aggregated with those from USA

PAC for the purposes of USA

PAC’s $5,000 limit. But, USA

PAC’s contributions will be aggregated with each corporate PAC’s

contributions on a 50-50 basis (or an

alternative apportionment so long as

the three PACs agree and no excessive contribution results) for the

purpose of the limits of those two

corporate PACs. USA PAC’s

contributions may be held under

$5,000 to avoid the exceeding of the

limits by the corporate PACs.

Date: August 15, 1997; Length: 7

pages. ✦

 The FEC will hold several

regional conferences during 1997

and 1998. To register for any of the

scheduled conferences, call

Sylvester Management at 1/800-

246-7277 or send an e-mail

message to:

TSYLVESTER@WORLDNET.ATT.NET.

Atlanta

Date: October 15-17, 1997

Location: Sheraton Colony Square

Registration: $180

Hotel rate: $149

Candidates, political parties,

corporate and labor organizations

Washington, DC

Date: November 6-7, 1997

Location: Madison Hotel

Registration: $180.50

Hotel rate: $124

Corporate and labor organizations

political committees. 11 CFR

108.7(a) and (b).

The Commission notes that

corporate donations are permissible

only for the construction or purchase of a party committee headquarters, but not for any ongoing

operating costs such as property

taxes. Additionally, while the MRP

does not have to disclose information about donations to its building

fund account to the FEC, it must

follow any disclosure requirements

put upon its accounts by the state of

Mississippi. AO 1991-5.

Date Issued: August 22, 1997;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

Washington, DC

Date: December 11-12, 1997

Location: Hyatt Regency Capitol

Hill

Registration: $180

Hotel rate: $145

Trade and membership associations

 Read future issues of the Record

to get more scheduling

information for the following

conferences slated for 1998:

Washington, DC

February 1998

Candidate committees

Denver

March 1998

Candidates, political parties,

corporate and labor organizations

Washington, DC

April 1998

Nonconnected committees

FEC Conference Schedule
October 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Index to PAC Abbreviations

The Commission has published the

1997 edition of Pacronyms, an

alphabetical compilation of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names of

political action committees (PACs).

For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the PAC,

its city, state, FEC identification

number and, if not identifiable from

the full name, its connected, sponsoring or affiliated organization.

The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC. 1

To order a free copy of

Pacronyms, call the Office of Public

Records at 800/424-9530 (press 3)

or 202/219-4140. Pacronyms also is

available on diskette for $1 and can

be accessed free on the FEC’s web

site—http://www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Office of Public Records. Prepayment is required.

• An alphabetical list of all registered PACs shows each PAC’s

identification number, address,

treasurer and connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs arranged

by state provides the same information as above ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of organizations sponsoring PACs shows the

PAC’s name and identification

number ($7.50). ✦

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1997-17

Contribution limits of limited

liability company in Missouri (Jay

Nixon, July 29, 1997; 1 page)

AOR 1997-18

Status of committee as independent

local party committee (California

Reform Party Congressional Committee, March 24, 1997; 2 pages

plus 15-page attachment)

AOR 1997-19

Donations by corporation and

foundation to potential host committee of presidential convention

(CoreStates Financial Corp., July

23, 1997; 1 page plus 3-page

attachment)

AOR 1997-20

Permissibility of contributions by

nonfederal campaign committee to

federal candidates (Friends of

McCarthy, July 18, 1997; 1 page

plus 12-page attachment)

AOR 1992-21

Refund to candidate who had made

contribution to her own campaign

(Firebaugh for Congress Committee,

August 29, 1997; 2 pages) ✦

1

 Under FEC regulations, the name of a

corporate or labor PAC must include

the full, official name of the connected

organization. A PAC may use an

abbreviated name on checks and

letterhead if it is a clearly recognized

abbreviation or acronym by which the

connected organization is commonly

known. However, both the full, official

PAC name and the abbreviated name

must be disclosed in all reports,

statements and disclaimers. 11 CFR

102.14(c).

Publications

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

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

Limitations

546. Contributions

547. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

Information
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 1997

10

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

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. Political Ads and Solicitations

584. 10 Questions from Candidates

585. Filing a Complaint

586. 1997 Reporting Dates

587. 1996 Congressional Primary

Dates

588. 1997 Special Election Reporting

Dates

589 1997-1998 FEC Regional

Conference Schedule

Money in Politics Statistics

601. 1991-2 Political Money

602. 1997 Mid-Year PAC Count

603. 1993-4 Congressional

604. 1993-4 National Party

605. 1993-4 PAC Finances

606. 1995-6 Congressional

607. 1995-6 National Party

608. 1995-6 PAC Finances

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
October 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1997 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

1996-35: Status of Green Party as

national committee, 1:10

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

228. Coordinated and Independent

Expenditures by Party Committees

229. Definition of “Member” of a

Membership Association

230. Petitions for Rulemaking: Soft

Money

231. Recordkeeping, Reporting and

Filing with State Officers

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

4411. Section 441a

4412. Section 441b

4413. Section 441c

4414. Section 441d

4415. Section 441e

4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

9701-11. AOs 1997-1 through 1997-11

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

1996-42: SSF disaffiliation following corporate spin off, 1:11

1996-45: Use of campaign funds,

1:12

1996-46: Continuation of exemption

from select FECA reporting

provisions, 4:7

1996-48: Application of “news

story” exemption, 2:5

1996-49: Affiliation between PAC

of joint venture partnership and

SSF of corporate partner, 3:7

1996-50: Disaffiliation of SSFs, 3:9

1996-51: Qualification as state

committee of political party, 3: 9

1996-52: Resolicitation of excess

campaign funds for nonfederal

campaign, 3:10

1997-1: Use of excess campaign

funds to establish foundation, 5:8

1997-2: Use of campaign funds for

congressional retreat fees, travel,

5:8

1997-3: Qualification as state

committee of political party, 6:11

1997-4: Application of contribution

limit to limited liability company,

6:12

1997-5: Qualification of lessee of

trading “seat” on Exchange as

member, 7:6

1997-6: Reinvestment by political

committee of investment income,

8:8

1997-7: Status as state committee of

political party, 8:9

1997-9: Collection of PAC contributions from individual members

through electronic debiting of

their trading accounts held with

member firms, 9:4

1997-10: Transfers between campaign committees of different

election cycles, 10:5

1997-11: Use of campaign funds,

9:5

1997-12: Use of campaign funds,

10:5

1997-13: Relationship of limited

liability company’s nonconnected

PAC to parent corporations’

SSFs, 10:6

1997-14: Use of corporate contributions to build party headquarters,

10:8

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– California Democratic Party, 7:5

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate, 4:6

– Christian Action Network, 1:5;

5:5; 8:4

– Christian Coalition, 7:2

– DSCC (95-2881), 3:2; 8:3

– Fund For a Conservative Majority,

1:5

– Kalogianis, 5:3

– Legi-Tech, 7:4

– McCallum, 2:4

– Orton, 6:6

– Parisi, 1:4

– Public Citizen, 4:6

– Williams, 2:3; 7:5

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 2:1; 7:5

– Bush-Quayle ‘92 Primary Committee, 3:5

– Clark, 5:1

– Clifton, 8:1

– Common Cause (96-5160), 5:4

– DCCC (96-0764), 1:4

– DNC (96-2506), 1:5; 5:5

– DNC (97-676), 6:7

– DSCC (96-2184), 1:2; 8:3

– Fulani (97-1466), 10:2

– Gottlieb, 7:5

– Hagelin, 6:7

– Hooker, 1:5

– Jones, 6:7

– Minnesota Citizens Concerned for

Life, 7:2; 8:4

– NRCC (96-2295), 1:2

– Reilly, 1:4

– Right to Life of Dutchess Co.,

Inc., 6:8

– RNC (94-5248), 2:5

– RNC (97-1552), 9:1

– White, 10:2

Other Court Cases

– DSCC v. NRSC, 10:1

Reports

Electronic Filing, 2:1; 5:9; 7:10

July Reporting Reminder, 7:1

Schedule for 1997, 1:6

Special Election, New Mexico, 4:3

Special Election, Texas, 3:6; 4:3

800 Line

Amended reports, 4:2

Debt settlement and committee

termination, 1:8
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 October 1997

New York Special General Election Reporting

 Committees* involved in the November 4 Special Election to fill the 13th

Congressional District seat vacated by former Congresswoman Susan Molinari

must follow the reporting schedule below. Note that 48-hour notices are

required of authorized committees that receive contributions (including loans)

of $1,000 or more between October 16 and November 1.

Pre-General

Post-General

Year-End

Close of Certified/ Filing

Books Registered Date

Mail Date

Oct. 15 Oct. 20 Oct. 23

Dec. 31 Jan. 31, 1998 Jan. 31, 1998

* These committees include authorized committees of candidates running in

the election and other political committees that support these candidates and

do not file monthly.

Nov. 24 Dec. 4 Dec. 4