June 1993

Table 0 Con n

Reports

Midyear Report

Legislation

I "Motor Voter" Law

3 "Commission Overwhelmed" Says

ViceChairman in Budget

Testimony

Regulations

3 FEC SUIVey on"Best Efforts" to

Obtain Contributorlnfonnation

4 Banon Nonfederal Campaign

TransfersEffective July I

Special Elections

4 June 5Texas Runoff: Reporting by

PACs and Party Committees

5 Advisory Opinions

PublicAppearances

6 FEC Staffto HoldMeetings in

Hartford, Indianapolis, Helena and

Lincoln

PublicFunding

7 1988 JacksonCampaign Ordered to

RepayTreasury

Court Cases

7 Spannaus v, FEe (91-0681)

8 LaRouchev. FEC (92-1100)

8 FEC v. Miller

8 New Litigation

Compliance

9 MURs Released to the Public

9 Federal Register

10 Index

Publications

II New Brochure for Local Party

Organizations

Federal Election Commission

Reports

Midyear Report Due July 31

Because this is a nonelection year

(there are no regularly scheduled

federal elections), committeesthat

filed on a quarterly basis in 1992 now

file on a semiannual schedule.I For

most of these committees, the first

report covering 1993 activity is the

midyear report, due July 31, as

explained below.

This article also provides information on optionalfiling schedulesfor

1993.

PACs, Party Conunittees and

Congressional Committees:

Semiannual Filing

The following committees file on a

semiannual basis during 1993:

• Authorizedcommittees of House

and Senate candidates, including

candidates in 1993 special elections;

and

• PACs and partyconunittees except

those that have chosen to file

monthly (see below). 11CFR

I04.5(a)(2) and (c)(2).

Special Election Reports. Several

special elections have been scheduled

this year, and committees that make

(continued on page 2)

I Except Presidentialcommittees;see

page 2.

Volume 19, Num

Legislation

FEe to Assume New Duti

Under ''Motor Voter" Law

On May 20, President Clinto

signed the National Voter Regi

tion Act of 1993 (the "motor vo

law), which assigns new respon

ties to the Commission.

The law will take effect at th

of 1995 (althoughthe effective 

will be extended for those state

whose constitutions will have to 

changed). The law requires stat

implement several voter registr

procedures: Registration of indi

als applying for driver's licence

registration by mail; and registr

at designated government agen

specifically, public assistance a

cies,state-funded agenciesserv

persons with disabilities, and ar

forcesrecruitment offices. State

alsoselect additional agencies t

provide voter registration servic

The FEC is required to infor

states about theirresponsibilitie

der the law and, in consultation 

state officials, to design a nation

mail-in voter registration form. 

state may design its own form, 

form must satisfy the criteria se

in the law.) Additionally, every 

years, the Commission must rep

Congress on the law's effective

and recommend legislative cha

(continued 011 
Federal ElectionCommission RECORD

Reports

(continued from page 1)

contributions or expenditures in

connection with them may also have

to file special election reports. 11 CFR

104.5(h)(l ). Sec the March Record,

page I. See also the article on the

Texas runoff (this issue. page 4).

Midyear Report. Semiannual filers

must file a midyear report no later

than Saturday,July 31, 1993. lfa

filing office is closed that day. the

report must be received by Friday.

July 30. However, reports sent by

registered or certified mail will be

considered filed on time if postmarked by July 31. Sec 11CFR

104.5(c)(2)(i)(A) and (e).

The midyear report covers activity

from January I through June 30.

However. there arc two exceptions to

the January 1 opening date:

Federal ElectionCommission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202121 9-3420

20212 19-3336(TOO)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Trevor Potter, Vice Chairman

Joan n.Aikens, Commissioner

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

Dan ny McDonald.

Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Walter J. Stewart, Secretary

of the Senate, ExOfficio

Commissioner

Donnald K, Anderson, Clerk

of the House of Representatives,

Ex OfficioCommissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M, Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. wides, Director

Stephanie Fitzgerald, Editor

Blake Lange, Graphics Advisor

,

• If the midyear report is the committee's first report, it must cover all

pre-registration activity. The

opening date of the report is the date

of that first activity. (In the case of a

candidate committee. the first report

must cover all activity that took

place before the individual became a

candidate.) Any pre-registration

activity that took place in 1992,

however, should be disclosed in a

separate Form 3 or 3X.

• If the committee filed a previous

report or reports disclosing 1993

activity-such as a special election

report-coverage for the midyear

report begins with the day following

the closing day of the last report

filed.

Year-End Report. Committees

filing on a semiannual basis must file

a year-end report covering activity

from July I through December 31.

1993. and due January 31, 1994.

II CFR 104.5(c)(2)(j)(B).

PACs and Party Committees:

Mon thly Filing Option

PACs and party committees have

the option of filing on a monthly

reporting schedule instead of a

semiannual schedule. I I CFR

104.5(c). (Committeesthat filed

monthly during 1992 continue to file

on that basis in 1993 unless they

change their schedule to a semiannual

one.)

Monthly Schedule. Monthly reports

are due on the 20th of each month and

cover the previous month's activity.

II CFR 104.5(c)(3). If sent by

registered or certified mail. they must

be postmarked by the 20th. I I CFR

104.5(e). The 1993 monthly reporting

dates were published in the January

1993 Record.

Special Election Reports. Monthly

filers do not have to file pre- and postspecial election reports. See 2 U.s.c.

§434(a)(9). PACs. however. may

have to file 24-hour reports on

independent expenditures supporting

or opposing special election candidates. 11 CFR 104.4(b) and 104.5(g).

June 19

See the March Record, page 8. and

page 4 of this issue.

Changing the Filing Schedule.

Committeeswishing to change thei

filing frequency during 1993 must

notify the Commission in advance

when filing a required report under

the committee's current schedule. A

committee may change its filing

frequency only once per calendar

year. I I CFR 104.5(c).

Presidential Committees:

Monthly or Quarterly Filing

Authorized committees of Presidential candidates may file on eithe

monthly or a quarterly schedule this

year. 11 CF-"R 104.5(b)(2). Presiden

tial committees wishing to change

their filing schedule should notify th

Commission in advance.

Quarterly reports cover each thre

month quarterly period and are due 

the 15 th day after the close of the

quarter. Ifsent by registered or

certified mail, quarterly reports mus

be postmarked by the due date.

11 CFR 104.5(e). The next quarterl

report due this year is the July 15

quarterly, covering April, May and

June activity.

For the monthly reporting dates,

sec "Monthly Schedule," above.

Further Information

More complete reporting inform

tion, including information on wher

to file reports, appeared in the Janua

1993 Record. If you wish to order a

reprint of that article. call the l-C C a

800/424-9530 or 20212 19-3420.

Please feel free to call the l-C C with

your reporting questions. •
•

•

•

June J993

Legislation

tcantiuued from page I)

Finally, the Commission must prescribe regulations necessary to carry

OUI its new responsibilities.

The FEC' s National Clearinghouse

on Election Administration will be

largely responsible for carrying out

the FEe's duties. Anticipating the

passageof the legislation, the Clearinghouse discussed the "motorvoter"

bill with the Clearinghouse Advisory

Panel and other election officialsat a

March meeting.The office is currently developing plans 10 implement

the new law.

The Clearinghouse has also

published three related reports in its

series Innovations in Election Adm inis/ration : "Using NCOA Files for

Verifying Voter Registration Lists"

(Number 4); "Agency Voter Registration Programs" (Number 5): and

"Motor Voter Registration Programs"

(Number 6). All are available free of

charge.

Call the Clearinghouse to order the

publications or to obtain more

information on the "motor voter" law:

800/424-9530 (ask for the Clearinghouse) or 202121943670. +

"Commission Overwhelmed"

Says ViceChairman in Bndget

Testimony

On April 22. FEC Vice Chairman

Trevor Potrer testifiedbefore the

Senate Committee on Rules and

Administration, emphasizing the need

for a $2.6 million increase in the

FEe' funding for the 1994 fiscal

year. "[T]he Commission is currently

overwhelmed by a rapidly growing

enforcement case load and by the

wash of data flowing from the 1992

elections," he stated. "This is despite

the fact that a very lean FEC staff has

been working furiously throughout

the 1992 cycle...."

The $2.6 million increase would

bring the agency's budget to $23.6

million, with 320 full-lime

employees.

The Vice Chairman pointed out

that campaign finance activityjumped

to almost $2 billion in the 1992

election cycle. This resulted in

more-and longer-c-comrniuee

reports than in previous election

cycles. Consequently, more staff time

has been needed to review the reports

and enter data from them. The

enforcement workload, too, has

demanded more resources due to a

case load grown increasingly complex

and a threefold growth in the number

of respondents over the past four

years.

He also said that the passageof the

"motor voter" law and new campaign

reform legislation would place further

strains on the agency. Even without

new legislation, the agency anticipates

an extremely heavy workload for the

1994 election cycle.

Concluding histestimony, Mr.

Potter stressed that "there is no point

in keeping campaign finance laws on

the books, certainly not in adding to

them, if we cannot administer and

enforce them in a timely manner. If

Congress and the President are

serious about wanting us to do the

job, then we ask that we be given the

tools."

Vice Chairman Potter, who heads

the FEe's finance committee, was

accompanied by the other two

committee members. Chairman Scott

E. Thomas and Commissioner Danny

L. McDonald. Mr. Potter previously

testified on the FEC's need for more

funding when he appeared before two

House subcommitteesin February

and March.I +

J See the April J993 issue, page 3.

FederalElectionCommission RE

Regulations

FEC Survey on "Best Effo

to Obtain Contributor

Information

The Commission invites poli

committee treasurers to particip

on an anonymous basis-in a su

of methods used to obtain the na

address, occupation and employ

individual contributors (i.e., the 

mation that must be itemized on

Schedule A when a contributor 

over $200 in a calendar year). T

agency is sending the questionn

randomly selected committees b

encouragesother committeesto 

part in the survey. If you would 

participate on behalf of your com

tee, please call Cynthia Myers a

424-9530 or 20212 1943690. You 

be sent a questionnaire and a ret

envelope.Please note that the qu

tionnaire docs not ask partici pan

identify themselves or their com

tees.

The "best efforts" regulations

found at 11 CFR 104.7(b) expla

what steps treasurers must take 

obtain complete information on 

tributors. The Commission has a

ready received written commen

proposedchanges to the "best e

niles and heard the views of pol

committees and public interest g

at a public hearing.I The survey 

intended to collectfurther inform

that will be helpful to the Comm

in drafting workable and realisti

rules.

The questionnaire asks what 

ods the committee currently use

obtain contributor information a

also asks the participant to rate t

effectiveness and cost of specifi

methods, such as follow-up pho

calls.

(continued 011 p

' The Notice ofProposed Rulemaki

published in the Federal Register o

September 24, 1992(57 FR 44137)

the hearing was held March 3J. 19

See the May 1993Record, page 1.
Frdrral Eire/ion Commission RECORD June /

Texas Runoff Reporti ng Dales

Special

Elections

J une 5 Texas Runoff:

Reporting by PACs and

Party Committees

The Texas Senate runoff has been

scheduled for June 5.This article

explainsthe reporting requirements

for party cornmittees and PACs. (The

runoff date was announced too late

for publicationof the reporting dates

in the May issue.)

Semiannual Filers

Party committees and PACs filing

semiannually (rather than monthly)

may have to file pre- or post-runoff

reportsif they make previously

undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the runoff by

the close-of-books dates shown in the

reporting table. I I CFR 104.5(h). See

also II CFR 104.5 (c)(l )(ii).

For example, if the committee's

first activity in connection with the

runoff is a May 17contribution to one

of the candidates, the committee does

not have (Q file the pre-runoff report

since the contribution was made after

the closing date for thatreport (May

16). However, the committee is

required to disclose the contribution

in the post-runoff report. As another

example, if the committee's only

runoff activity is a June 26 contribu

tion to help retire the candidate's d

the comminee does not have to file 

runoff report but instead must discl

the contribution in its midyear repo

May 24

July 6

July 31

Filing nate J

May 21

July 6

July 31

Mo nthly Filers

PACs and party committeesfilin

on a monthly basis do not have to f

special election reports. See 2 U.S.

§434(a)(9). PACs, however, may b

required to file independent expend

ture reports (see below).

24-Hour Reports on Independen

Expenditures

PACs (including monthly filers)

and other persons making independent expenditures in connection wi

theTexas runoff may have to file 2

hour reports.These reports are

required if independent expenditur

aggregating $1.000 or more are ma

between May 17 and June 4. Withi

24 hours after the expenditure is

made, the commi ttee must report a

the information required on Schedu

E. II CFR 104.4(b) and 104.5(g).

Note that 24-hour reports must be

filed with both the federal and stale

filing offices(see below).

Where to File Reports

Filing wi th the Federal Office.

PACs and party committees genera

fil e with the FEe (except that those

Reg./Cert.

Mailing Date!

May 16

June 25

June 30

Close

of BooksI

Pre-Runoff

Post-Runoff

Midyear

Reminder: lIan on Nonfederal

Campaign Transfers Becomes

Effective J uly 1

Candidates and their committees

are reminded that, beginning July 1, a

candidate's federal campaign comrnirtee may no longer receive transfers of

funds or assets from the candidate's

nonfederal campaign committee.

Furthermore, any funds remaining

from transfers made before July 1

must be removed from the federal

campaign account by July 31 . Failure

to do so will be a violation of the new

rule (I I CFR l lO.3(d)).

To identify nonfederal funds, a

committee should use the method

described in II CFR II0.3(c)(5)(ii).

Using that method, the conunittee

should review its cash on hand as of

July I, starting from the most recent

deposit and working back, until it has

identified the sources of funds in its

current cash balance. Any funds

identified as nonfederal transfers must

be removed by July 31.

The revised rule imposing the ban

on nonfederal campaign transfers was

published in the Federal Register on

January 8. 1993 (58 FR3474). The

agency's decision to delay the effective date untilJuly I was explained in

the March 17 Federal Register (58 FR

14310) and the AprilRecord. The

effectivedate was announced on

April 7 (58 FR 17967). +

The Commission urges committees

to participate in the rulemaking process by responding to the survey. +

Regulations

(continued from page 3)

I The close oJbooks is the end of/he reporting period. The period begins with the clos

date ofthe last report filed.

1 Reports sent by registered or certified mail are considered to be filed on time ifthey 

postmarked by this date.

J Unless sent by registered or certified mail (see note 2).reports !/lust be received by t

federal and state filing offices by this date. 

4
Junt 1993 Frdrflll ElrC/;(Jn Commission R

•

•

•

supportingonly Senate candidates file

with the Secretary of the Senate).

II CFR 105.2 and 105.4.

Reports on independentexpenditures supporting or opposing a

candidate in the Texas runoff (24-

hour reports) are filed with the

Secretary of the Senate. I I CFR

104.4(e)(2).

Addresses are provided in the

f orm 3X instructions.

Filing withthe Texas Office.

Copiesof runoff reports and 24-hour

reports must be filed with the Texas

Ethics Commission. P.O. Bo:( 12070.

Capitol Station. Austin, TX 78711-

2070.

With respect to pre- and postrunoff reports, party committees and

PACs need file only that portion

disclosing their runoff activity {i.e.•

the Summary Page and the schedules

showing contributions and expendilures made in connection with the

runoff). 11CFR 108.3.

Contribution Limits

There is a separate contribution

limit for the runoff. I I Cl'R

11O.10 XI) and 11 0.2(i)II).

Party Expenditure Limits

There is no separate coordinated

party expenditure limit for the runoff

election. AO 1993-2. The $716.2R1

limit applies to both the first election

(i.e., the May I general election) and

the runoff.

The national and Slate party

committees each have a $716.28I

limit and may spend up to that

amount on the party ' s cand idate.

II CFR 11 0.7(b) and (e). +

Advisory

Opinions

AO 199241

Qualifying as National Part)'

Committee

The National Committee of the

U.S. Taxpayers Party (the Committee),fanned in September 1992. has

not yet conducted sufficient activity at

the national level 10 qualify as a

"national committee of a political

party" under 2 U.S.c. §43 1( 14).

Because it is nOI a national party

committee. it may n01 make coordinated party expenditures under

2 U.S.c. §44la(d). Moreover, it is not

entitled to the higher contribution

limits that apply to national party

committees. See §44la{a)(I).

The Party, however. does qualify

as a "political party" under the law

because its 1992 Presidential and

Vice Presidential nominees were on

the ballot in severalstates. 2 U.s.c.

§431(16). (They had been designated

as candidates of several parties

apparently identified with the U.S.

Taxpayers Pany.)

National Party Committee Criteria

The Committee has not met several

of the criteria applied in previous

advisory opinions to determine

whether a committee qualifies as a

national party committee. See. for

example, ADs 1992-30 and 1988-45.

Specifically:

• The Comnuucc has not achieved

sufficient ballot access for the

Party's non-Presidential candidates.

In the 1992 elections. only nine of

the Party's House and Senate

candidates were on the ballot in

three states.

• The Committee has not conducted

ongoing party activitiessuch as

voter drives; it is still planning such

activities.

• The Committee has only recently

begun to publicize issues on a

nationwide basis; the Parry

published a book on its politic

philosophy and released the fi

issue of its newsletter in April 

In addition. the Committee has 

little financial activity (it raised 

2.0x) but made no expenditur

the 1992 electioncycle).

The Comminee has met two 

criteria-it held a national conv

and established a national offic

However, considering all the fa

together, it has not yet fully eng

in national-level activity to qual

national committee status. The

Committee may attain that statu

some future date, but itshould r

another advisory opinion.

The opinion did not address 

public funding issues since they 

not raised in the advisory opinio

request. Date Issued: April 23. 

Length 7 pages. +

AO 1993-1

Electronic Payment of ml

Through Computer

The ChristopherCox Congre

sional Committee may pay its b

electronically as long as it keep

adequate records on all such dis

ments.

Using a personal computer, a

modern and a software program

(Quicken), the Committee plans 

transmit instructions to CheckF

Corporation, a payment process

company. to make payments to

vendorsfrom the Commiuee's

checking account. While some

vendors would receive printed c

issued by Chcckfrec. other ven

would receive direct electronic

payments not documented by an

check or other written instrumen

A committee is required to pa

disbursements by check or "sim

draft" drawn on an account at th

committee's designated campaig

depository. II CFR 102.10and

103.3(a).The "similar draft" lan

was the basis for the Commissio

approval of a payment method s

(continued on p
Federal Election Commission REC:..:O:..:R-=D _ June 19

Advi ory pinion

(continuedfrom page 5)

to the proposed method-a wire

transfer of funds from a conunittee's

campaign account to the vendor's

account. In AO 1982-25, the Commission said that the wire transfer

"would faJl under the broad heading

of 'similar draft'." So too would the

proposed electronic paymentsmade

without use of conventional checks.

In both cases, the committees would

have banking statements and records

to document the transactions.

The Cox Conunittee must retain

these records and also keep vendor

receipts and invoices. I I CFR

I02.9(b) and 104.14(b). (The Committee's banking records may be

preserved on computer disks, tapes or

other magnetic media.) In those cases

where CheckFree issues checks to

vendors. the Conunittee must retain

the cancelled checks. I I CFR

102.9(b)(2).

The Commission distinguished this

opinion from AO 1986-18, involving

automaticdebits of credit card

charges from a Cash Management

Account managed by Merrill Lynch.

That method of making "checkless"

payments was not approved because

Merrill Lynch did not qualifyas a

depository institution under II CFR

103.2. By contrast, the proposed

"electronicdrafts" would be drawn on

the Committee's account at a qualified bank.

Date Issued: April 23, 1993;

Length: 4 pages. •

AO 1993-5

1992 Contributions Misplaced

at Post Office

The Fields for Congress Committee may deposit contributions made

during the 1992campaignbut not

discovered untilJanuary 1993, given

that the post office- not committee

staff members-was responsible for

misplacing the checks.

In January 1993, the FieldsCommittee learned that postal authorities

6

had removed from its post office box

some mail containing $5.504 in contribution checks postmarked before

the date of the 1992 general election.

(The contributions were removed on

October 31 or November I , 1992; the

Conunittee did not receive custody of

them until January 4, 1993.) AJthough

contributions must be deposited

within 10days of the treasurer's receipt under I I CFR 103.3(a), the

Committeemay deposit the checks

because an intervening event-action

by the postal authorities-prevented

the Committeefrom obtaining the use

of the checks and depositing them

within the 10-day period. Moreover,

the Conunittee may treat the checks

as contributions made before the 1992

general election I rather than as postelection contributions, which may not

exceed a campaign's net debts outstanding for an election. See I I CFR

I IO.I (b)(3)(iii) and 110.2(b)(3)(iii).

(The Fields Commi ttee's reports

show no debts for the 1992 general

election.)

This conclusion is based on the

conclusion reached in AO 1992-42. In

that opinion, a campaigncommittee

mailed a bank deposit containing

contributions made before the 1992

general election, but the deposit was

lost in the mail.The Conunission said

that the committee could obtain

replacement checks in 1993 and treat

them as pre-election contributions for

the 1992 general because campaign

staff were not responsible for the

failure to deposit the checks. By

comparison, see AO 1992-29 (campaign conunittee not permitted to

deposit contribution checks misplaced

by campaign staff) and AO 1989-10

(campaign committee not permitted to

accept post-election contributions to

restoredeposited contributions

embezzled by committee treasurer).

The Fields Committee may deposit

the checks and, in its nextreport,

I A contribution that is mailed to a

committee is considered to be "made" on

the date ofthe postmark. JJ CFR

JIO. 1(b)(6) and JJO.2(b)(6).

disclose them as 1992 general

election contributions received

between October 31 and Novembe

1992.The Comrnitteeshould includ

a short memo entry explaining the l

deposit and referring to this advisor

opinion.

Date Issued: April IS, 1993;

Length: 4 pages. •

FEe Staff to Hold

Meetings in Hartford,

Indianapolis, Lincoln

and Helena

During June and July, FEC publicaffairsspecialists will beholding informal meetings in theabove

cities tooffer help in understanding

the requirements ofthe campaign

fi nance law. Candidates, campaign

staff, and staffmembers of party

commiuees and PACs arewelcome

to schedule meetings, which will

be tailored to the particular needs

ofthe participants.

If you would like to schedulea

meeting or want more information.

call 800/424-9530 or 2021219-3420

and ask for the specialist assigned

toyour location.Thespecialists are

interested in learning what areas of

thelaw you would like tocover.

• Hartford, Connecticut

June 10-1 1

Ian Stirton

• Indianapolis, Indiana

June 24-25

Greg SCOll

• Lincoln, Nebraska

July 8 and 9

Kathlene Martin

• Helena, Montana

July (call for date)

Janet Hess and KevinSalley
•

•

•

J UlU! /993

Public Funding

1988 J ackson Campaign

Ordered 10 Repay Treasury

On April 15. 1993. the Commissian made a final determination

orderingJesse Jackson's 1988

Presidential campaign 10 repay

S122,031 inpublicfunds to the U.S.

Treasury. (The Jackson for President

' 88 Committee and two affiliated

committees in New York and California had received over $8 million in

primary matching funds.) The

campaign made a S75.()(x) repayment

in January 1993. The $47,031 balance

was due May 27 (after this issue went

to print).

In making its final determination,

the Commission considered me

campaign's responses throughout the

audit process, includinga presentation

by the campaign's counsel at an

October 1992 open hearing and

additional documentation submitted

after the hearing.

The final audit report (containing

the initialrepayment determination)

and the Statement of Reasons supporting the final determination are

available for review in the FEC's

Public Records Office.

Repayment for Inad equately

Docum ented Disbursements

A large part of the rcpayment-

$9 1,192-represented the pro rata 1

portion of $294,115 in disbursements

that were insufficiently documented.

In order 10 become eligible to receive

public funds. a campaign must

promise to provide recordsshowing

that public funds are spent on qualified campaign expenses.

The campaign argued that the

Commission should apply a less rigid

I A ratioformula is applied to "0'"

qualified campaign expenses 10 determine

whasportion waspaid with public funds,

as opposedto privatecontributions,and

must/huefore be repaidto the U.s.

Treasury.

interpretation of the documentation

rules to the campaign's disbursements

because the campaign had been

"people-intensive:' relying heavilyOn

individual organizers who were less

likely to provide the campaign with

receipts and othersupporting documents than were commercial vendors

hired in traditional campaigns.

In its Statement of Reasons, the

Commission pointed out that nearly

all campaign disbursements to

individuals were supported solely by

campaign paperwork: there was no

documentation from the individual

payees on how the money wasspent

Furthermore. the Commission noted

that the campaign had a difficult time

keeping adequate records even for

expenditures to large commercial

vendors.

The campaign further argued that

checks made out to traditional

campaign vendors. such as direct mail

housesor sign companies, should be

considered qualified campaign

expenses even without any supporting

documents from the payee. The

Commission disagreed. Slating that

"the statute and the Commission's

regulations require that all disbursements be documented so thatsubjective conclusions based on the identity

of the payee will not rule. 111e

(Jackson campaign] Committees

[were) held to the same standards as

the other 1988 presidential committees."

Other Repayments

TIle Jackson campaign also

disputed the repayment of $10.196,

which represented the matching funds

it received for excessive contributions, which are not matchable.The

campaign argued that the public funds

should be seen as matching payments

for earlier contributions from the

same donors. The Commission

pointed out, however, that it can only

match specific checks submitted for

matching and that the campaign had

notsubmitted the earlier checks.

The Jackson campaign additionally

had to pay SI8,953, the pro rata

Federalflee/ion Commission RE

portion of $61.127 in income tax

penalties, which are not consider

qualified campaign expenses. Fi

the campaign had to pay $1 ,689, 

amount of stale-dated checks nev

cashed by the payees. +

Court Cases

Spa nnaus v, FEC (91-0681

On April 20. 1993. the U.S. C

of Appeals for the District ofCo

bia Circuit ruled on the 6O-day

deadline for requesting a court re

of an FEC decision to dismiss an

administrative complaint. No. 92

5191.The court held that the 6O-

period begins on the date the FE

dismisses the complaint, based o

mandatory literal reading of the

statute.The appellant, Edward W

Spannaus(treasurer of the LaRou

Democratic Campaign). had argu

that the period should begin on t

dale the complainant receives no

of the dismissal. The ruling by th

court of appeals affirmed the dis

coon's dismissal of the suit.' No

0681.

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act, a petition forjud

review must be filed "within 60 d

after the date of the dismissal" of 

complaint. 2 U.S.c. §437g(a)(8)

The court of appeals said that. in

accordance with a Supreme Cou

decision on filing deadlines." the

statutory language must be read

literally. Therefore, based on the 

of dismissal" of the complaint. th

(con/inlledon p

I Thedistrict coun opinionissumma

in thr June 1991 Record, page 6.

1TheSupreme COIm saidthat " 0 lit

reading ofCongress' wordsis gene

the o"ly properreading ofthose wo

United States v. Locke, 47/ U.s. 84

(/985;
Fedeml Elecuon Commission RECORD

Court Cases

{coruinuedjrom page 7)

court of appeals found that Mr.

Spannaus filed his petition for review

after the 6O-day deadline. '

(The Commission dismissed Mr.

Spannaus' s complaint on January 9.

1991 . The notice of dismissal arrived

at his post office box. on January 28

and was claimed on February 2. He

filed his pelilion for review with the

district court on April 2. 1992.)

Mr. Spannaus said that he had

relied on a district court opinion

holding that the 6O-day review period

begins "when the complainant

actually receives notice of the dismissal." Common Cause v. Federal

Election Commission. 630 F. Supp.

508.512 (D.D.c. 1985). The court of

appeals. however. rejected that

holding. Commenting on the

appellant's reliance on Common

Cause. the court slated that it "(could

not] extend the filingdeadline for

Spannaus simply because he relied on

an unreviewed and. we now hold,

incorrect district court decision: '

Mr. Spanrmus alternatively argued

that he should be granted a dispensalion from the 6O-day time period in

light of his late receipt of the l-"EC' s

notice of dismissal. The court refused

the request. noting that Mr. Spannaus

"was less than fully dili gent' in filing

his review pelilion. The court pointed

out that the FEC's notification letter

"conspicuously stated the dismissal

date and referred Spannaus to the

appropriate review provision: ' +

J The court corurastrd ilSopinion here

with its decision in LaRouche II . Federal

Election Commission. where the

stanuory language W/U Mt as specific.

See next article.

8

LaRouche v. FEC (92. 11 00)

On April 20, 1993, Ihe U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the FEC's motion

to dismiss this case, holding thai

petitionershad filed their petition for

judicial review within the 3O-day time

limit under the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Accoun t Act.

Under that statute, petitions for

review must be filed "within 30 days

after tbe agency action by the Cornmission for which review is sought: ' I

26 USc. \ 9<»1(, ).

Petitioners Lyndon H. Lakouche.

Jr.•and the LaRouche Democratic

Campaign ' 88 sought review of !he

l-F£ 's final determination that the

Campaign repay $ 151 .260 in federal

matching funds 10 the U.S.Treasury.

The FEC made tbe determination on

September 17. 1992, and notified the

Campaign in a leiter dated September

22. The petitionersfiled their petition

on Oc tober 22. 30 days after the

September 22 leiter date bul 35 days

after the September 17 determination.

The r"EC argued that the statutory

"agency acuon'' language referred to

the dale the agency made the repayment determination. Because the

petition was filed 35 days after that

date. the FEC contended, it should be

dismissed. The court. however, staled

that "[ bjcth the [Matching Payment

Account] Act and the Commission's

regulations lead us 10 conclude Ihal

the 30-day review period...runs from

the notice dale...." The court noted

that, under 26 lJ.S.c. §9038(b)(I). " u

candidate's repayment obligation

matures only upon notice from the

Commission" and thai FEC regulalions "repeatedly provide that a

limitation period begins after the FEC

gives notice of its decision...."

Holding that the 3O-day period for

filing a review petition began on

September 22, the court found that the

petition was filed on time and therefore refused 10 dismiss the case. +

I Petitions must befiled with the U.s.

Court ofAppeals/orthe D.C. Circuit.

lnne 1

FEC v. Miller

On April 23, 1993,lhe u .S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia signed a senlement agre

to by both parties. No. 92-2244(SS

In (he joint stipulation. Stefan Mille

admitted that he had violated the

terms of a conciliation agreement h

had entered into with the Commiss

by failing 10 pay rhe $1300 civil

penally.1 He further agreed 10 make

monthly installments of$75 until t

full amount is paid. lfhe fails to m

a payment. the FEC may require th

the entire amount be paid within 10

days. +

New Litigation

White v, FEe (9J..77 1)

William D. White. who filed six

complaints with the FEC between

September and November 1992, as

the court 10 declare Ihat the FEC's

failure 10 act on the complaints is

contrary to law. He further asks (he

court to order the agency 10 lake

action within 30 days of the declar

l ion. See 2 USc. §437g(, )(8).

U.S. District Court for the Distr

of Columbia, Civil Action No. 93-

771, April 4, 1993.

FEe v, Nation al Republican

Senatorial Committee (93·0365)

The l-"EC asks the court to asses

civil penalty against the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

(NRSC) for making approximately

$183.500 in excessive contribution

10 Jim Santini, th e Republican

candidate in Ihe 1986Nevada Sena

race. and for failing 10 report appro

mately $79.300 of those coruribulions. Specifically, the FEC makes

following allegations:

I Mr. .Uiller laterfiled a statement in

which he maintained that he never agr

to enler into the conciliation asreemen

whichwassigned by his anomey on h

behalf He said. however. thai he wou

honorthe terms cfthe stipulation:
•

•

•

JUlIe / 99J

• In 11,1,'0 19H5·86 fundraising programs. the NRSC exercised direction or control over earmarked

contributions 10 Jim Santini for

Senate (the Santini Committee)

when it called individuals who had

previously made contributions to the

NRSCand asked them 10 specify

that a portion of their NRCS

contributionsbe designated to the

Santini Committee. Under 11 CFR

I IO.6(d), the earmarked contributions counted against the NRSC's

contribution limit for the Santini

Committee by virtueof the t"ro'RSC's

exercising direction or control over

the contributions. Because the

NRSC had exhausted its contribution limit and coordinated party

expenditure limit for the Santini

Committee. the earmarkedcontribulions exceeded the NRSC's contribution limit by as much as $104.200.

• The NRSC also exceeded me

contribution limits by paying about

$79300 in solicitationcosts that

were attributable as in-kind contributions to the Santini Committee.

<Th e NRSC failed 10 re port the above

in-kind contributions.

In addition 10 the civil penalty. the

FEC asks the COUll: to order the

NRSC to disclose the in-kind contributions to the Santini Committee in

amended reports: to permanently

enjoin the NRSC from further similar

violations: and 10 award the FEe its

costs in the action.

U.S. District Court for the District

of Nevada. Civil Action No. 93-

0365(PMP); April 21, 1993. •

Compliance

MURs Released to (he Public

Listed below are FEe enforcement

cases (Mailers Under Review or

MURs) recently released for public

review.The list is based on the FEC

pressreleases of April 12 and 26 and

May 3 and 6. 1993. Fileson closed

MURs are available for review in the

Public Records Office.

MUR 1611

Respond ents (all in Fl.): (a) Allen

Wolfson; (b) Cesar Rodriquez: (c) 48

other respondents

Complainant: Referral from Department ofJustice

Subject: Excessive contributions;

contributions in names of others

Disposition: (a) u .S. District Court

summary judgment $52,(00 civil

penally: (b) U.S. District Court final

order and defaultjudgment: S5.(()()

civil penalty; (c) for 32 respondents.

civil penalties ranging from $250 10

$3JXX); for 6 respondents. reason 10

believe but took no further action; for

10 respondents. no probable cause 10

believe

MUR 3093

Respondents (all in MO): (a)John

Baine; (b) Maureen Baine; (c) Raben

Baine.Jr.: (d)John Baine for Congress Committee, John Baine, Jr.,

treasurer; (e) Charles F. vaucron

Commercial Properties, Inc.

Complainant: Lili 1.Cooper (MO)

Subject. Inaccurate reports: failure 10

file timely reports with state election

office; corporate contribution

Disposition: (a)-(c) No probable

cause to believe; (d) SI.250 civil

penalty; (e) $500 civil penally

IUR 3223

Respondents: Terry Sanford for U.S.

Senate, Alton G. Buck, treasurer(NC)

Complainant: FEe initialed

Subject: Excessive contributions

Disposition : $5.0X) civil penalty

Federal ElectionCommission REC

l\1 l1R 3..168131 19

Respon dents (all in NJ): (a) Cha

for Congress Committee. Inc..

Raymond Babinski. treasurer;

(b) Edmar Corporation; (c) Unite

Jersey BanklNorthwest

Complainant: FEe initialed (33

Republican State Committee (31

Subject: Corporate contributions

failure 10 file 48-hour notice

Disposition: (a) and (b) S17.500

penalty;(c) no reason to believe

MUR 3-131

Respond ents: A Lot of Folks fo

Williams. George Christensen.

treasurer (Mf)

Complainant: National Republi

Congressional Committee. Tom 

execunve director (OC); referral 

U.S. Department of Justice

Subject: Failure to disclose cont

tions on time

Disposition: $7.000civil penalty

MUR 3-196

Respondents: Enron Political A

Committee. Rebecca King. treasu

(TX )

Complainant: FEC initiated

(continuedon pa

Federal Register

Copiesof Federal Register notic

are availablefrom the Public

Records Office.

1993-)2

II CFR Part 20I: Ex Parte

Communications;Change in Dat

of Public Hearing (58 FR 145 10.

M;m;h 18. 1993)

1993·13

I I CFR Part 104; Recordkeeping

and ReportingRequirementsBe,..t Efforts:Change in Date of

Public Hearing (58 FR 145.30.

March 18. 1993)

1993-14

II CFR Pan 110: Transfers of

Funds from State 10Federal Cam

paigns: Final Rule; Announceme

of Elfective Date (58 FR 17967.

April7. 1993)
Federal Eler/ion Co mjss ll::.:: ~CO::.::,,-- ...::Ju::::.:

ne J

Compliance

(continued from page 9)

Subject: Failure to file reports on

time

Disposition: $20,000 civil penalty

1UR 351813453

Respondents: National Albanian

American PAC, Martin V. Delisi,

treasurer (FL)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contrib utions;

failure to file reports on time

Disposition: S12,500 civil penalty

~1UR 3533

Responden ts: (a) Dr. Robert Fand

(CT); (b) Sally Noonan (SCI;

(e) UnitedTaxpayers of Danbury

PAC, Louise B. Hunt, treasurer (CT)

Complaina nt: Lynn Taborsak (CF)

Subject: Disclaimer

Change of Address

Political Committees

Treasurersof registered political

committees autonuuically receive

the Record . A change of address by

it political committee(or any

change toinforma tiondisclosed on

the Statement of Organizaricnj

must, bylaw, be made in writing

on FEe Form I or by letter. The

treasurer mustsignthe amendment

and fi le it with theSecretary of the

Senate, the Clerk of the House or

the FEe (asappropriate) and with

theappropriate state office.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers who arc not

registered political committees

should include the following

information when requesting a

change of address:

• Subscription number(located on

the lIpper leftcomerof the

mailinglabel):

• Subscriber's name;

• Old address: and

• New address.

Subscribers (other than political

committees) may correct their

addresses by phone aswell as by

mail.

Disposition: (a) Failed to find

reason to believe; (b)-(c)no reason

to believe

M UR3556

Respondents (all in DC): (a) Floyd

G. Brown: (b) Presidential Victory

Committee(Citizens for Bush);

(c) National Security PAC, Elizabeth 1. Fediay, treasurer

Complainant: Bobby R.

Burchfield, general counsel, Bush/

Quayle '92

Subject: Independent expenditures

Disposition: (a}-(c) No reason to

believe

}IUR 3590

Responden ts: Democratic Party of

Virginia, Jay Shropshire, treasurer

Complainant: Republican Party of

Virginia,John G. Selph. controller

Subject: Failure to file reporrs with

state election office

Dlspositlon: Reason to believe but

took no further action

MUR3599

Respo nd ents: (a) Jim Moody (Wl);

(b) Friends of Jim Moody, Robert

Fricbcrr, treasurer; et al.(c)-(e)

Complainant: BillChristofferson.

campaign director. Joe Checota for

Senate

Subject: In-kind contributions

Disposition: (al-Ic) No reason to

believe

~I UR 3697

Respondents: The Committee 10

Elect Don Nelms, Roy J. Shorter,

treasurer (AR)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subj ect: Failure to fil e 48-hour

notices

Disposition: $3.000 civil penalty

~ILJR 3708

Respondents: (a) National Republican Senatorial Committee, Sonya M.

Vazquez, treasurer (DC);

(b) Coverdell Senate Committee,

Marvin Smith, treasurer(GA)

Complainan t: Democratic Senatorial CampaignCommittee (DC)

Subject: Excessive coordinated pa

expenditures

Disposition: (a)-(b) Failed by a 3-

vote to find reason to believe

} ILJR 3725

Respo nd en ts: Democratic Party o

Hawaii- Federal Campaign Comm

tee, George M. Waialealc, treasure

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to file repon

Disposition: 52,500 civil penalty

MUR 3732

Responden ts: Service Employees

International UnionCommittee on

Political Education, Political Campaign Committee, Richard Cordrz

treasurer(DC)

Complainant : FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions

Disposition : Reason10 believe bUI

took no furthe r action .

Index

The first number in each citatio

refers 10 the "number" (month) of 

1993 Reco rd issue in which the art

appeared. The second number, follo

ing the colon, indicates the page nu

ber in that issue.

Advisory Opinions

1992·38: Loan from Presidential

campaign's legal and complianc

fund to public funding account, 

1992-40: Commissions earned by

state party committees. 2:5

1992-41: Solicitation of members, 

1992-42: Bank depositlost in mail

3:3

1992-43: Preemption of state law's

fundraising restrictions, 3:4

1992-44: Qualifying as national pa

committee, 6:5

1993-1 : Campaign's rental of stora

unit from candidate, 4:8

1993-2: Application of patty spend

limits to Texas special runoff,4:

to
June 1993 Federal EI,'ct;rJ/1 Commission RE

Name

Orgenizatton

" Ifordering more than 25 copies. pleaseincludeyour phonenumber.

~----------------------

Zip Code

As the brochure explains, onl

funds subject to federal limits an

prohibitions may be used [0 fina

federal election activity. To ensu

that this requirement is met, the

organization must comply with

special accounting and allocation

procedures.

The brochure also explains ho

local party organizations can avo

having to registerand file reports

under federal law by keeping the

federal activities below the dolla

thresholds that trigger federal "p

cal committee" status.

Use the forrn below to order t

brochure. •

State

Phone Number "

Address

Number of Copies

City

New Brochure for Local Party

Organizations

The FEC recently publisheda

completely revised version of the

brochure Local Parry Activity, which

explains the federal rules for "local

party organizations't-c-that is, party

committees below the state level that

have not registered as federal "political committees."

Wriuen for local party organizations who plan to support federal

candidates, [he brochure expands and

updates the previous version, which

has been out of print for some time.

Order Fonn: Local Party Brochure

Send yourorder to: Federal ElectionCommission

Information Division

999EStreet. NW

Washington. DC20463

Publications

Reporting

Last-minute contributions: 48-hour

reporting, 4:7

Reporting problems, letter to new

candidates, 4:8

Schedule for 1993, 1:3: 6:1

Special elections in California,

Mississippi, Ohio. Texas and

Wisconsin, 3:I; 4:7; 6:4

SOOLine Articles

Credit card contributions, 5:5

Party committee allocation: carrying

debts from previouselection cycle,

2:7

S25,()(X) annual limit, 4:2

1993-3: Retroactive reallocation of

1991-92 activity . 5:1

1993-4: Electronic payment of bills

through computer, 6:5

1993-5: 1992 contributions misplaced

at post office. 6:6

Court Cases

FECv.

- America's PAC, 4:10

- International Funding Institute. 1:2;

5:2

- Miller. 6:8

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-0365), 6:8

- People & Politics, lnc.. 3:3

v.rsc - Common Cause (92-0249 (1HG)),

4:10

- Common Cause (92·2538), 1:8

- LaRouche (92-1100), 6:8

- LaRouche (92-1555), 1:8

- National Rifle Association (92-

5078),4: 10

- Spannaus (91-0681 ), 6:7

- While (93-771), 6:8

U.S. Senator John Seymour Committee v. Dianne Feinstein, 1:8 •

•

•
Federal Election Commission RECORD

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business *

Printed on recycled paper

June 1

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31