October 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 10

Table of Contents

 Court Cases

 1 Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC

 3 John Hagelin v. FEC

 4 Alliance for Democracy v. FEC

 4 New Litigation

 Reports

 1 October Reporting Reminder

 4 Advisory Opinions

 Statistics

 14 Semiannual PAC Count Shows 

Increase in 2004

 14 Fundraising Continues to Grow

 Public Funding

 16 Commission Certifies Matching 

Funds for Presidential Candidates

 17 Public Funding for Bush-Cheney

 Compliance

 17 MUR 5447: State Party 

Committee’s Financial 

Discrepancies and Failure to Pay 

Allocable Expenses from Federal 

Account

 Nonfilers

17 Congressional Committees Fail to 

File Reports

 Publications

 18 New Campaign Guide Available

 www.fec.gov

 18 New FEC Web Site Unveiled

 18 Index 

Court Cases

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 2)

Reports

October Reporting Reminder

Committees should take note of 

the following due dates for October 

reports:

• Third Quarter reports for quarterly 

filers are due on October 15 (close 

of books, September 30);

• October monthly reports for 

monthly filers are due on October 

20 (close of books, September 30); 

and

• Pre-general reports are due on October 21 (close of books, October 

13). Candidate committees must 

file this report if their candidate 

is running in the general election. 

PACs and party committees that 

file quarterly must file this report if 

they make contributions or expenditures between the 1st and 13th 

of October in connection with a 

federal election. PACs and party 

committees that file on a monthly 

schedule must file a pre-general 

report in lieu of the scheduled November monthly report.

In addition to these reports, candidate committees may also have to 

file 48-hour notices of last-minute 

contributions, and PACs and party 

committees may need to file 24-hour 

notices to disclose any last-minute 

independent expenditures, depending upon the timing of their activities.

Wisconsin Right to Life, 

Inc. v. FEC

On September 14, 2004, the 

U.S. Supreme Court denied Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc’s (WRTL) 

request for an injunction pending 

appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals 

District of Columbia Circuit had 

previously denied WRTL’s motion 

for an injunction pending appeal 

on September 1, 2004, and WRTL 

subsequently sought a similar 

injunction from the Supreme Court. 

The motion sought to allow WRTL 

to continue to broadcast specific 

advertisements that it asserted were 

exempt from the ban on corporate 

funding of electioneering communications. 

Background

WRTL had filed suit in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia on July 26, 2004, asking 

the court to find the prohibition on 

the use of corporate funds to pay 

for electioneering communications 

unconstitutional as applied to certain 

grass-roots lobbying activities, including three specific advertisements 

referencing Wisconsin Senators Kohl 

and Feingold that were attached to 

WRTL’s complaint. WRTL also 

asked the court to preliminarily and 
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald, 

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

Meredith Trimble, Associate 

 Editor

http://www.fec.gov

National party committees, PACs 

following a monthly filing schedule 

and state, district and local party 

committees that engage in reportable 

federal election activity must file a 

monthly report by October 20. (See 

the April 2003 Record, page 5, for 

more information on monthly filing 

for state, district and local party 

committees.)

Filing Electronically

Under the Commission’s mandatory electronic filing regulations, 

individuals and organizations1

who receive contributions or make 

expenditures in excess of $50,000 

in a calendar year—or expect to do 

so—must file all reports and statements with the FEC electronically. 

Electronic filers who instead file on 

paper or submit an electronic report 

that does not pass the Commission’s 

validation program will be considered nonfilers and may be subject 

to enforcement actions, including 

administrative fines. 11 CFR 104.18.

Senate committees and other 

committees that file with the Secretary of the Senate are not subject to 

the mandatory electronic filing rules, 

but may file an unofficial electronic 

copy of their reports with the Commission in order to speed disclosure. 

The Commission’s electronic 

filing software, FECFile 5, can be 

downloaded from the FEC’s web site 

http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/electron.

shtml. Filers may also use commercial or privately-developed software 

as long as the software meets the 

Commission’s format specifications, 

which are available on the Commission’s web site. 

Filing by Mail or Overnight 

Delivery

Registered and Certified Mail. 

October quarterly and monthly 

reports sent by registered or certified 

mail must be postmarked by the October 15 and 20 filing dates, respectively, to be considered timely filed. 

The pre-general report, however, 

must have a registered or certified 

postmark on or before October 18 in 

order to be considered timely filed. 

A committee sending its reports via 

registered or certified mail should 

keep its mailing receipt with the U.S. 

Postal Service postmark as proof of 

filing. The U.S. Postal Service does 

not keep complete records of items 

sent by certified mail.

Overnight mail or delivery. Committees using overnight mail2

 to file 

reports may do so on the same terms 

as registered and certified mail. 

October quarterly and monthly reports filed via overnight mail will be 

considered timely filed if the report 

is received by the delivery service 

on the October 15 and 20 filing 

dates, respectively. The pre-general 

report, however, must be received 

by the delivery service on or before 

the October 18 mailing date to be 

considered timely filed.

For those filers who are not 

required to file their reports electronically, paper forms are available 

on the FEC’s web site (http://www.

fec.gov/info/forms.shtml) and from 

FEC Faxline, the agency’s automated fax system (202/501-3413). 

Additional Information

For more information on 2004 

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the 

January 2004 Record;

• Call and request the reporting 

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 or 202/694-1100;

• Fax the reporting tables to yourself 

using the FEC’s Faxline (202/501-

3413, document 586); or

• Visit the FEC’s web page at http://

www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.

shtml to view the reporting tables 

online. 

 —Elizabeth Kurland

Reports

(continued from page 1)

2

 Overnight mail means express or priority mail with a delivery confirmation 

or an overnight service with an on-line 

tracking system. If using overnight mail, 

the delivery service must receive the 

report by the mailing date to be considered timely filed.

permanently enjoin the Commission from enforcing this prohibition 

against it for any of these communications.

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

1

 The regulation covers individuals and 

organizations required to file reports 

with the Commission, including any person making an independent expenditure. 

Disbursements made by individuals or 

unregistered entities for electioneering 

communications do not count toward the 

$50,000 threshold for mandatory electronic filing. See 11 CFR 104.18(a).
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

U.S. District Court, District of 

Columbia, 04-1260 (DBS, RWR, 

RJL); U.S. Supreme Court, 542 U.S. 

__ (2004).

 —Meredith Trimble

John Hagelin, et al. v. FEC

On August 12, 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted in part and denied 

in part the motion for summary 

judgment brought against the FEC 

by John Hagelin, Ralph Nader, 

Patrick Buchanan, Howard Phillips, 

Winona LaDuke, the Green Party of 

the United States and the Constitution Party and also granted in part 

and denied in part the FEC’s crossmotion for summary judgment. 

The plaintiffs charged that the FEC 

erroneously dismissed their administrative complaint, which asserted 

that the Commission for Presidential 

Debates (CPD) was partisan and 

therefore could not lawfully sponsor 

Presidential debates. See also Hagelin et al. v. FEC in the June 2004 

Record, page 11, and the August 

2004 Record, page 9.

Background

Commission regulations permit 

nonprofit 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) organizations that do not endorse, support 

or oppose political candidates or 

parties to stage candidate debates. 

11 CFR 110.13(a). Among other 

things, the organization must use 

pre-established objective criteria to 

select candidates to participate in 

the debate. The organization may 

use its own funds and may accept 

funds donated by corporations or 

labor organizations to defray costs 

incurred in staging the debate. 11 

CFR 114.4(f)(1). 

The plaintiffs alleged in their administrative complaint that the CPD 

was founded and is controlled by the 

Republican and Democratic Parties 

and their representatives and thus 

does not meet the eligibility criteria 

under 11 CFR 110.13. Consequently, the corporate monies it raised 

and expended in the 2000 Presidential election cycle were illegal 

contributions and expenditures. The 

plaintiffs further argued that CPD’s 

conduct showed it to be a partisan 

organization, specifically pointing to 

evidence that CPD had a policy of 

excluding all third-party candidates 

from attending the 2000 Presidential 

debates as audience members, even 

if they had tickets. In March 2004, 

the FEC found no reason to believe 

that CPD violated FEC regulations 

and dismissed the administrative 

complaint.

Court Decision and Remand

The district court found the 

FEC’s dismissal of the administrative complaint was contrary to law 

because the FEC ignored evidence 

that CPD’s decision to exclude all 

third party candidates from the 

debates was unrelated to a subjective 

or objective concern of disruption, 

and was therefore partisan. 

The court granted the plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment (and 

denied the FEC’s cross-motion on 

this issue), reversing the FEC’s “no 

reason to believe” finding.

The court granted the FEC’s motion in part, and denied the plaintiffs’ request for an order that would 

require the FEC to proceed directly 

to a probable cause determination 

within 30 days of the court’s decision. The court maintained that it 

must remand the case and allow the 

FEC to follow the statutorily mandated procedures in dealing with 

administrative complaints. See 2 

U.S.C. §437g(a).

Appeal

On August 31, 2004, the FEC 

appealed the decision to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The FEC 

also requested a stay of the District 

Court’s order pending the appeal.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-

0731 (HHK). 

 —Meredith Trimble

(continued on page 4)

A three-judge court rejected 

WRTL’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction, ordered all parties to file 

appropriate supplemental memoranda addressing the potential dismissal 

of the matter and denied WRTL’s 

post-judgment request to enter an 

injunction while WRTL pursued an 

appeal. See the September issue of 

the Record, page 1.

Emergency Motion

Pending its appeal of the district 

court’s decision, WRTL sought an 

emergency injunction to allow it 

to broadcast ads designed to influence the votes of Senators Kohl and 

Feingold on the expected filibuster 

of federal judicial nominees. While 

WRTL is a 501(c)(4) organization 

that does not qualify for any exemption permitting it to pay for ads from 

corporate funds, it asserted that a 

number of unique factors indicated 

that its proposed ads were authentic 

grass-roots lobbying and not electioneering communications. WRTL 

further asserted that it met the criteria necessary for an injunction to be 

granted. 

Appeals Court Decision

The United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit 

granted the FEC’s motion to dismiss 

WRTL’s motion for injunction, citing a lack of jurisdiction. Only the 

Supreme Court has jurisdiction over 

such an appeal, and the law does not 

authorize the Court of Appeals to 

review the case.

Supreme Court Decision

On September 7, 2004, WRTL 

applied to the Supreme Court for 

an injunction pending appeal. The 

Supreme Court denied this request, 

finding that an “injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement 

of an Act of Congress would be an 

extraordinary remedy, particularly 

when this Court recently held that 

Act facially constitutional.” According to the Court, WRTL “failed 

to establish that this extraordinary 

remedy is appropriate.”
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

4

New Litigation

Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. v. FEC

On September 1, 2004, BushCheney ’04, Inc. (BC’04) asked the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia to find that the Commission acted contrary to law when it 

failed to act on the plaintiff’s administrative complaints dated March 10, 

2004, and March 31, 2004. The administrative complaints alleged that 

America Coming Together (ACT), 

The Media Fund, America Votes and 

other organizations created under 26 

U.S.C. §527 were raising and spending money to influence the 2004 

Presidential election in violation of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act). 

Background. The Act sets forth 

enforcement procedures governing 

the manner in which complaints 

must be handled. Among other 

provisions in 2 U.S.C. §437g, a 

complainant may file suit in federal 

district court seeking judicial review 

of “a failure of the Commission to 

act on such complaint during the 

120-day period beginning on the 

date the complaint is filed[.]” 

2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A). While 

enforcement investigations conducted by the FEC are confidential, the 

plaintiff asserts that no public action 

has been taken in response to the 

administrative complaints.

Administrative complaints. On 

March 10, 2004, BC ’04 filed an 

administrative complaint with the 

FEC alleging that an organization 

created under 26 U.S.C. §527 called 

“The Media Fund” was illegally 

Alliance for Democracy, et 

al. v. FEC

On September 2, 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a complaint filed 

by Alliance for Democracy, Hedy 

Epstein and Ben Kjelshus (collectively, Alliance). Alliance had asked 

the court to find that the Commission acted contrary to law by delaying action on an investigation of 

Ashcroft 2000, the Spirit of America 

PAC and Garrett Lott, treasurer of 

the committees. 

Background

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) authorizes the FEC 

to investigate possible violations of 

the Act. Title 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8) 

allows a party who has filed an 

administrative complaint with the 

Commission to seek judicial review 

should the Commission fail to act on 

a complaint within 120 days.

On March 8, 2001, Alliance filed 

an administrative complaint asserting that Ashcroft 2000, the Spirit of 

America PAC and Garrett Lott, as 

treasurer, violated the Act. After an 

investigation, the Commission determined probable cause and entered 

into conciliation negotiations with 

the respondents. On December 11, 

2003, a final conciliation agreement 

was reached with all administrative 

respondents. 

Court Order

The court found that because 

the Commission completed its final 

action, the case arguing failure or 

delay of action is moot. Additionally, the court lacks jurisdiction to 

grant Alliance declaratory relief, as 

the relief sought must be capable 

of redressing the alleged harm. In 

this case, the FEC has acted as requested in Alliance’s administrative 

complaint. Finally, the court also 

determined that plaintiffs lack standing to sue because they did not show 

a “discreet injury flowing from” the 

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

alleged delay. (Common Cause, 

108 F.3d at 418.) According to the 

memorandum of the court, the FEC 

has completed its obligations under 

the Act, there is no live controversy 

between the parties, and thus the action was dismissed.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-

0527 (EGS).

 —Meredith Trimble

raising and spending money outside 

the prohibitions, limitations and disclosure requirements of the Act with 

the purpose of influencing the 2004 

Presidential election. On March 31, 

2004, BC ’04 filed a second complaint alleging that ACT, The Media 

Fund, America Votes and other organizations were engaging in ongoing 

violations of the Act by raising and 

spending money outside of the prohibitions, limitations and disclosure 

requirements of the Act and illegally 

coordinating their activities with the 

Democratic Party and the Presidential campaign of John Kerry.

Court complaint and relief. According to the court complaint, the 

FEC did not act on the plaintiff’s 

administrative complaints for more 

than 120 days from filing. BC ’04 

also filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction, declaring that the FEC’s 

failure to act on the aforementioned 

complaints is contrary to law. The 

plaintiff requested an expedited 

hearing on the motion, and asked the 

court to issue an injunction ordering the Commission to take action 

regarding the complaints within 30 

days.

On September 15, 2004, the 

district court held a hearing on the 

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction and denied the motion. 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-

1501 (JR).

 —Meredith Trimble

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2004-19

Earmarked Contributions to 

Candidates via a Web Site

An incorporated web site operator 

may receive and forward earmarked 

contributions to federal candidates 

because it satisfies both the “commercial vendor” exception to the 

ban on corporate facilitation of 
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

(continued on page 6)

tures is also prohibited from acting 

as a conduit or intermediary for 

earmarked contributions. 11 CFR 

110.6(b)(2)(ii). As a corporation, 

DollarVote must meet the regulatory exception to the definition of 

“conduit or intermediary” in order 

to conduct the activities in its Plan. 

Commission regulations at 11 CFR 

110.6(b)(2)(i)(D) establish an exception for “a commercial fundraising 

firm retained by the candidate or the 

candidate’s authorized committee to 

assist in fundraising.” As a commercial vendor that is retained by 

candidates to assist in raising funds 

for their campaigns and exercises 

no discretion over the contributions, 

DollarVote meets this exception.

Date Issued: August 20, 2004; 

Length: 6 pages.

 —Meredith Trimble

site.1 These monies will go into the 

corporation’s general account, which 

will be separate from the merchant 

accounts established to hold earmarked contributions. 

The Plan also contains screening 

and processing measures to prevent 

excessive contributions and contributions from prohibited sources 

under the Act.

Analysis

Commercial vendor exception. 

Corporations are prohibited from 

making any contribution or expenditure in connection with a federal 

election. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). Corporations are further prohibited from 

facilitating the making of contributions to candidates or political 

committees. 11 CFR 114.2(f)(1). A 

corporation does not facilitate the 

making of a contribution to a candidate, however, if the corporation 

provides a service in the ordinary 

course of business as a commercial 

vendor. DollarVote would be operating permissibly as a commercial 

vendor under 11 CFR 114.2(f)(1), 

because:

1. Its services are rendered for the 

usual and normal charge paid by 

authorized candidate committees;

2. DollarVote forwards earmarked 

contributions to candidates 

through separate merchant accounts; and

3. DollarVote’s web site incorporates 

adequate screening procedures to 

ensure it is not forwarding illegal 

contributions.

See also AO 2002-7.

Commercial fundraising firm 

exception. Commission regulations 

state that any person prohibited from 

making contributions or expendi1

 The fee, terms and conditions will be 

the same for all participating candidates, and the fee will be set so that 

DollarVote will receive the usual and 

normal charge for its services. DollarVote will not deny participation to any 

candidate who meets the payment and 

eligibility requirements.

AO 2004-23

SSF’s Solicitation of 

Subsidiaries’ Restricted 

Classes

U.S. Oncology Inc. (USON) may 

solicit contributions to its separate 

segregated fund, U.S. Oncology, 

Inc. Good Government Committee 

(USON-GGC), from its stockholders 

and their families and the medical, 

executive and administrative personnel of the affiliated medical practices 

it manages.

Background

USON contracts with cancer 

care physician practices nationwide. 

USON creates subsidiaries that enter 

into exclusive long-term management services agreements with affiliated practices, generally with initial 

terms of 25-40 years. Under these 

agreements, USON, through its 

subsidiaries, manages the business 

aspects of the practices. 

Under the services agreement, the 

subsidiary provides a practice with 

office space, equipment, furnishings and supplies and furnishes 

contributions at 11 CFR 114.2(f)(1), 

and the “commercial fundraising 

firm” exception to the definition of 

“conduit or intermediary” in 11 CFR 

110.6(b)(2).

Background

DollarVote.org (DollarVote), a 

Virginia C corporation, proposed a 

two-part plan to accept and forward 

contributions from individuals to 

candidates in upcoming elections. 

Under the Plan, individuals are 

granted access to the DollarVote web 

site upon paying an annual subscription fee. The web site contains various position statements on political 

issues. The position statements are 

referred to as “DollarBills,” and 

participating candidates may post 

“promises” on the site to support the 

statements of their choice. Individuals may then view the DollarBills 

and “vote” to contribute funds to 

the candidate(s) who have promised 

to support an issue. If no candidate has promised to support an 

issue at the time of an individual’s 

vote, the contributed funds would 

go to the first future candidate who 

registers a promise in support of 

that DollarBill. The individual may 

stipulate additional criteria for the 

future recipient candidate, such as 

excluding particular candidates by 

name and including only candidates 

belonging to a certain political 

party, among other conditions. The 

contributor also selects a 501(c)(3) 

organization to be the recipient of 

the funds, should no candidate meet 

the individual’s selected criteria. If 

multiple candidates promise on the 

same DollarBill, contributions will 

be distributed equally.

Along with the annual subscription fee, DollarVote will charge 

contributors a small processing fee 

for each transaction. Candidates 

will also be charged a fee for the 

ability to register promises on the 
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

6

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

through its subsidiaries, is affiliated 

with the practices. 

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) permits a corporation 

or its separate segregated fund to solicit its stockholders and executive or 

administrative personnel, and their 

families, for contributions to its SSF. 

2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(A)(i). A corporation or its separate segregated 

fund may also solicit the executive 

or administrative personnel of its 

subsidiaries, branches, divisions and 

affiliates and their families. 11 CFR 

114.5(g)(1). 

Commission regulations provide 

for an examination of certain circumstantial factors in the context of 

the overall relationship to determine 

whether one organization is an affiliate of another. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4). 

The relationship between USON and 

the Practices indicates they are affiliated because USON:

• Provides funds or goods in a 

significant amount or on an ongoing basis to the practices, such as 

through direct or indirect payments 

for administrative, fundraising or 

other costs. 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(G); 

• Causes or arranges for funds in a 

significant amount or on an ongoing basis to be provided to the 

Practices. 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(H); 

• Has the authority or ability to 

direct or participate in the governance of the practices through 

provisions of constitutions, bylaws, 

contracts or other rules, or through 

formal or informal practices or 

procedures. 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(B);

• Has the authority or ability to hire, 

appoint, demote or otherwise control the officers, or other decision 

making employees or members 

of the practices, and members, 

officers or employees who were 

members, officers or employees 

of the practices which indicates a 

formal or ongoing relationship between the sponsoring organizations 

or committees, or which indicates 

the creation of a successor entity. 

100.5(g)(4)(ii)(C), (E)2 and (F); 

and

• Had an active or significant role 

in the formation of the practices. 

100.5(g)(4)(ii)(I).

Considering all these factors 

together in context of the overall 

relationship between USON and the 

practices, USON and the practices 

are affiliated for purpose of the 

Act and Commission regulations. 

Therefore, USON may solicit the 

practices’ restricted class, comprising the practices’ physicians, nurses 

and other salaried medical employees with policymaking, managerial, 

professional or supervisory responsibility, and their families.

Date Issued: August 12, 2004; 

Length: 8 pages.

 —Jim Wilson

1

 Despite the broad list of topics subject 

to the Policy Board’s jurisdiction, the 

physician representatives of the Practice 

alone make decisions in certain areas. 

USON does not in any way control, 

direct or influence the practice of medicine by the affiliated Practices. 

2

 Although there is no overlap of employees or personnel between USON 

and the Practice after the MSA is 

executed, many of the employees of the 

Practices are hired in the same capacity 

by the Business Manager. To the extent 

that former employees are retained 

by the Business Manager, this can be 

viewed as part of the ongoing relationship between USON and the Practice. 

The Practices also may exert influence 

over USON through the Practice physicians that serve on USON’s Board of 

Directors.

AO 2004-24

Use of Contributor 

Information 

NGP Software, Inc. may not use 

information about contributors, other 

than political committees, obtained 

from FEC reports in its campaign 

software product. The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

Commission regulations prohibit 

the use of contributor information 

obtained from FEC reports or 

statements for commercial purposes. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4); 11 CFR 

104.15(a). 

administrative staff necessary for 

the practice to operate. USON’s 

representative in the subsidiary (the 

Business Manager) also administers the compensation and benefits 

for the practice’s medical personnel. USON and the practices share 

a USON-administered benefits 

package, which is utilized by the 

practices and USON employees. 

Also, USON’s network development staff plays a significant role 

in practice mergers and statewide 

practice development. For example, 

where new entities or locations must 

be established, USON assists with 

tasks such as applying for provider 

numbers, procuring and negotiating 

office space and undertaking similar 

formation-related tasks. 

USON, through its subsidiaries, 

pays all office expenses and provides 

significant financing for a practice’s 

medical equipment and other capital 

needs, on an ongoing basis. The 

practices reimburse USON for these 

funds, goods and services. 

Also, the Business Manager and 

the practice jointly make certain decisions regarding management of the 

non-medical aspects of the practice 

through a Policy Board that is established under the services agreement. 

The Policy Board is responsible for 

developing and implementing management and administrative policies for the overall operation of the 

non-medical aspects of the Practice.1

 

At present, two of the ten members 

of USON’s board of directors are 

Practice physicians.

Analysis

Under the affiliation factors in 

11 CFR 100.5 and 110.3, USON, 
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

sion’s public records in its software 

is “for a commercial purpose” and 

would be a prohibited use of contributor information obtained from the 

Commission’s public records. This is 

true whether the information is sold 

by NGP as a separate service or as 

part of a software upgrade.

Where the contributors are 

political committees, however, the 

Act and Commission regulations 

do not restrict the sale or use of the 

name and address of the contributor 

for solicitation purposes. 2 U.S.C. 

§438(a)(4); 11 CFR 104.15(a). In 

AO 1989-10, the Commission 

allowed the commercial sale of unaltered copies of FEC report pages 

containing contributions from political committees. Similarly, in AO 

1980-101, the Commission found 

that the commercial publication and 

sale of a directory of comprehensive 

information concerning political 

action committees did not violate 

the prohibition on commercial use. 

Thus, the proposed inclusion of 

contributor information about political committees as a feature of NGP’s 

commercially available software 

package would not be prohibited 

under the Act and Commission 

regulations.

Date Issued: August 12, 2004; 

Length: 4 pages

 —Amy Pike

(continued on page 8)

AO 2004-25

Senator May Donate 

Personal Funds to Voter 

Registration Organizations

U.S. Senator and Democratic 

Senatorial Campaign Committee 

(DSCC) Chairman Jon Corzine 

may donate his personal funds to 

organizations engaging in voter 

registration activity, as defined at 11 

1

 As defined at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2), 

“voter registration activity” means 

contacting registered voters by phone, in 

person or by other individualized means 

to assist them in registering to vote. This 

activity includes, but is not limited to, 

printing and distributing registration 

and voting information, providing individuals with voter registration forms and 

helping them to fill out these forms. 

2

 These rules generally provide that a 

national party committee and a federal 

candidate/officeholder may only solicit, 

receive, direct, transfer or spend funds 

in connection with an election for federal office—including funds for “federal 

election activity”—if those funds are 

federal funds that are subject to the limits, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the Act. See 2 U.S.C. §§441i(a) 

and (e)(1)(A). See also 11 CFR 100.24.

Background

NGP Software, Inc. (NGP), a forprofit corporation that provides campaign finance reporting software, 

would like to upgrade its existing 

software package to offer its clients 

the ability to access information 

about contributions that the client’s 

donors may have made to other 

political committees. NGP would 

“obtain donor contribution histories 

from the Commission’s online public records for individuals, political 

committees and other persons” and 

integrate this information into a 

personalized NGP system database 

to allow NGP clients to conduct 

fundraising more efficiently.

Analysis

Section 438(a)(4) of the Act 

provides that the Commission shall 

make reports and statements filed 

with it available to the public for 

inspection and copying within 48 

hours after receipt. However, the 

Act also provides that no information copied from such reports or 

statements may be sold or used by 

any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for any commercial purpose, other than using the 

name and address of any political 

committee to solicit contributions 

from such committee. 2 U.S.C. 

§438(a)(4); 11 CFR 104.15(a). 

Historically, the Commission 

has interpreted section 438(a)(4) to 

be a “broad prophylactic measure 

intended to protect the privacy of the 

contributors about whom information is disclosed in FEC public 

records.” See AOs 1998-4, 1995-5, 

1991-16, 1989-19, 1986-25, 1981-

38 and 1980-101. The purpose of 

restricting the sale or use of information obtained from Commission reports is to protect contributors from 

having their names sold or used for 

commercial purposes. Therefore, 

in keeping with previous advisory 

opinions, NGP’s proposed sale or inclusion of information about contributors (other than information about 

political committees that are contributors) obtained from the CommisCFR 100.24(a)(2),1

 without triggering the Federal Election Campaign 

Act’s (the Act) provisions regulating 

the raising and spending of funds 

by officers of national party committees and federal candidates or 

officeholders.2 Senator Corzine will 

make the donations solely at his own 

discretion, without authority from, 

or on behalf of, the DSCC. He will 

not donate to organizations that he 

has directly or indirectly established, 

financed, maintained or controlled, 

and he will not exercise any control 

of how his funds are used by any 

organization to which he donates. 

Status as National Party 

Committee Officer

The Act bars officers and agents 

of a national party committee from 

raising or spending any nonfederal 

funds (i.e., funds not subject to the 

limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the Act). 2 

U.S.C. §441i(a); 11 CFR 300.2(k) 

and 300.10. It also restricts national 

party committees, their officers and 

agents from raising and spending 

funds for nonprofit organizations 

under 26 U.S.C. §501(c) that make 

expenditures and disbursements 
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

8

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

AO 2004-26

Foreign National’s 

Participation in Political 

Committee Activities

A foreign national may participate in campaign activities as an uncompensated volunteer, but may not 

participate in the decision-making 

process of political committees.

Background

Ms. Zury Rios Sosa, a foreign 

national and member of the Guatemalan legislature, is engaged to 

marry U.S. Representative Gerald C. 

Weller. Representative Weller maintains two affiliated campaign committees—Jerry Weller for Congress, 

Inc. and Gerald C. ‘Jerry’ Weller for 

Congress—and is the honorary chair 

of Reform PAC, a nonconnected, 

multicandidate committee (collectively, the Committees). 

Given the ban on contributions 

by foreign nationals, Representative Weller and Ms. Rios Sosa asked 

in connection with an election for 

federal office (as well as restricting them from raising and spending 

funds for certain political organizations under 26 U.S.C. §527). 2 

U.S.C. §441i(d); 11 CFR 300.11 and 

300.50. The plain language of the 

Act and the Commission’s regulations, however, specifically applies 

these restrictions to national party 

committee officers and agents only 

when such individuals are acting on 

behalf of the national party committee. See 2 U.S.C. §§441i(a) and (d); 

11 CFR 300.10(c)(1), 300.11(b)(1) 

and 300.50(b)(1).3

Based on the request’s representation that Senator Corzine’s donation 

of personal funds4 will be made 

solely at his own discretion, without 

express or implied authority from, or 

on behalf of, the DSCC, the Commission concluded that Senator Corzine would not be acting on behalf 

of the DSCC, and thus would not 

be restricted by the aforementioned 

provisions from donating unlimited 

personal funds to organizations that 

engage in voter registration activity, as defined in the federal election 

activity (FEA) provisions of Commission regulations. See 11 CFR 

100.24(a)(2). If any of those organizations, however, qualifies as a 

political committee, his donations to 

it would be considered contributions 

subject to the same dollar limitations 

as any other individual (i.e., $5,000 

per calendar year).

Status as Federal Candidate or 

Officeholder

The Act and Commission regulations similarly restrict federal 

candidates and officeholders in their 

ability to raise and spend funds in 

connection with an election for federal office. Specifically, the law and 

regulations stipulate that no federal 

candidate or officeholder shall solicit, receive, direct, transfer, spend 

or disburse funds in connection with 

an election for federal office, including funds for any FEA,5

 unless the 

funds consist of federal funds that 

are subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements 

of the Act. 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1)(A); 

11 CFR 300.61.

Unlike the restrictions regarding 

national party committees, the Act 

and regulations do not explicitly 

limit application of the restrictions 

to when such an individual is acting 

in his or her official capacity. The 

language of section 441i, however, 

is not clear as to whether the restrictions on the use of funds extend to 

the personal funds of federal candidates or officeholders, and there is 

no legislative history suggesting that 

Congress intended them to extend in 

such a way. Moreover, the underlying anti-corruption purposes of the 

section 441i restrictions, and their 

accompanying regulations, are not 

furthered by restricting such individuals from spending their personal 

funds solely at their own discretion, 

as opposed to funds that are solicited 

or received from others at the behest 

of the federal candidate or officeholder.

Because the funds Senator Corzine plans to donate would not be 

solicited or received from others, 

he would not incur an obligation 

toward any other person that would 

raise concerns regarding corruption 

or the appearance thereof. Thus, 

Senator Corzine may donate his 

personal funds in amounts exceeding the Act’s limits to organizations 

that engage in FEA, irrespective of 

his status as a federal candidate or 

officeholder. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission assumes 

that Senator Corzine’s donations 

to each organization will not be in 

amounts that are so large or comprise such a substantial percentage 

of the organization’s receipts that the 

organization would be considered to 

be “financed” by Senator Corzine. 

See 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1); 11 CFR 

300.61. Again, however, if any of 

those organizations qualifies as a 

political committee, his donations to 

it would be considered contributions 

subject to the same dollar limitations 

as any other individual (i.e., $5,000 

per calendar year).

Date Issued: August 20, 2004; 

Length: 5 pages.

 —Dorothy Yeager

3

 In McConnell v. Federal Election 

Commission, 540 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 619 

at 658, 668, 679 (2003), the Supreme 

Court acknowledged that these provisions do not apply to officers acting in 

“their individual capacities.”

4

 See 2 U.S.C. §431(26) and 11 CFR 

300.33 for a definition of the term, “personal funds.”

5

 Under the Act, the term “federal election activity” includes “voter registration activity” that occurs during the 

period beginning 120 days before the 

date of a regularly scheduled federal 

election and ending on the date of the 

election. 2 U.S.C. §431(20); See 11 

CFR 100.24(a)(2) and(b)(1). 
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

1

 Compare AO 1987-25 with AO 

1981-51, which concluded that the Act 

prohibits an artist who is a foreign 

national from donating his uncompensated services to create an original art 

work for a political committee’s use in 

fundraising.

AO 2004-30

Documentary and 

Ads Do Not Qualify 

for Electioneering 

Communications Media 

Exception

Citizens United, an incorporated 

501(c)(4) organization, may not pay 

to broadcast a documentary film or 

advertisements that fall within the 

definition of electioneering communications. Because Citizens 

United would not be acting as a 

media entity in connection with 

the documentary or with a book 

tion in the decision-making process 

of any person or committee concerning the making of contributions, 

donations, expenditures or disbursements in connection with elections, 

as well as involvement in decisions 

concerning the management of any 

political committee. Therefore, Ms. 

Rios Sosa must not participate in 

Congressman Weller’s decisions regarding his campaign activities. She 

must also refrain from managing, or 

participating in the decisions of, the 

Committees.

With regard to the four types of 

activities specified above, Ms. Rio 

Sosa may, as an uncompensated 

volunteer, attend Committee events, 

solicit funds from permissible sources under the Act and give speeches 

at the events as long as she does 

not participate in the Committees’ 

decision-making processes. Ms. 

Rios Sosa may also attend meetings 

regarding Committee events and 

strategy, but may not be involved in 

the management of the Committees. 

Finally, Ms. Rios Sosa may attend 

fundraising and campaign events of 

other political committees, provided 

she does not make a contribution of 

her personal funds in order to attend. 

Participation in such events is subject to the same restrictions detailed 

above.

Date Issued: August 20, 2004; 

Length: 4 pages.

 —Meredith Trimble

whether she could participate in the 

following activities:

1. Attending Committee events;

2. Speaking or soliciting funds and 

support at Committee events;

3. Participating in event planning 

and strategy sessions with Representative Weller and Committee 

personnel; and

4. Accompanying Representative 

Weller to other committees’ fundraising and campaign events.

Analysis

Foreign national volunteer activity. The Act and Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals, 

directly or indirectly, from making a 

“contribution or donation of money 

or other thing of value...in connection with a Federal, State, or local 

election.” 2 U.S.C. §441e(a)(1)(A) 

and 11 CFR 110.20(b). The term 

“contribution,” however, does not 

include the value of services provided without compensation by any 

individual who volunteers on behalf 

of a candidate or political committee. 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(i) and 11 

CFR 100.74. In AO 1987-25, the 

Commission concluded that a foreign student’s work for a campaign 

without compensation would not 

result in a prohibited contribution 

because the value of volunteer services was specifically exempt from 

the Act’s definition of contribution.1

 

Similarly, the volunteer activities 

proposed by Ms. Rios Sosa would 

not result in the making of a prohibited contribution. 

Foreign national participation 

in decision-making. Commission 

regulations prohibit foreign nationals 

from participating in the decisions of 

any person involving election-related 

activities. 11 CFR 110.20(i). This 

prohibition encompasses participathat it also intends to publicize, and 

because the advertisements for the 

documentary and for the book would 

not be appearing in a news story, 

commentary or editorial, the media 

exception to the definition of electioneering communication would 

not apply to these planned activities. 

2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) and 11 

CFR 100.29(c)(2). As a corporation, 

Citizens United is prohibited from 

making or financing electioneering 

communications. 2 U.S.C. §434(f); 

2 U.S.C. §§441b(a) and (b)(2); 11 

CFR 104.20; and 11 CFR 114.14(a) 

and (b).

Background

Citizens United was established 

“to promote social welfare through 

informing and educating the public 

on conservative ideas and positions 

on issues.” According to its Mission 

Statement, it seeks to accomplish 

this goal “[t]hrough a combination 

of education, advocacy, and grass 

roots organization.” Citizens United 

accepts donations from corporations 

and individuals, and it is not owned 

or controlled by any political party, 

political committee or candidate 

committee.

Citizens United plans to produce 

and market a documentary film that 

will focus on the lives and careers 

of Presidential candidate John Kerry 

and Vice-Presidential candidate John 

Edwards (the Film). The Film will 

include numerous visual images of 

Senators Kerry and Edwards and 

mention both candidates’ names 

throughout. The Film may also 

include the images and names of 

other federal candidates but will 

not expressly advocate the election 

or defeat of any federal candidate. 

Citizens United plans to make the 

Film available to the public in a variety of ways, including by paying to 

broadcast it on television in certain 

markets. 

Citizens United also plans to pay 

to produce and air advertisements 

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

10

for the Film in various television, 

cable, satellite and radio markets. 

Such ads would refer to Senators 

Kerry and Edwards, but would not 

expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of either candidate. 

In addition, Citizens United’s 

President, David N. Bossie, has written a book about Senator Kerry (the 

Book), which has been published 

and released for sale nationwide by a 

publisher not affiliated with Citizens 

United. Citizens United proposes 

to market the Book, even though it 

does not own any rights to the Book, 

has not entered into any contractual 

arrangements with Mr. Bossie or the 

publisher regarding the Book and 

receives no book royalties. Citizens 

United has, however, entered into an 

agreement with an on-line bookseller, under which Citizens United receives a small commission on sales 

of the Book if the purchaser accesses 

the bookseller’s web site through a 

pop-up advertisement and hypertext 

link on the Citizens United web site. 

Citizens United does not receive a 

commission on any other sales of the 

Book. Citizens United would like 

to pay to produce and air television, 

cable, satellite and radio ads for the 

Book, and these ads would refer to 

Senator Kerry.

Analysis

Electioneering communications. 

Subject to certain exceptions, an 

electioneering communication is any 

broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly 

identified federal candidate and is 

publicly distributed for a fee within 

60 days before a general or 30 days 

before a primary election for the 

office sought by the candidate. 2 

U.S.C. §434(f)(3) and 11 CFR 

100.29; see also AO 2004-15. For 

Presidential and Vice- Presidential 

candidates, “publicly distributed” 

means that the electioneering communication is disseminated for a fee 

through the facilities of a television 

station, radio station, cable television system or satellite system, and 

that it can be received: 

• By 50,000 or more people in a state 

where a primary election or caucus 

is being held within 30 days; or 

• By 50,000 or more people anywhere in the U.S. from 30 days 

before a Presidential nominating 

convention to the end of the convention; or

• Anywhere in the U.S. within 60 

days before the general election.

2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i); 11 CFR 

100.29(b)(3)(ii); and AO 2004-15 

See also 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(C). 

The television broadcasts of the 

Film and the television and radio ads 

described above would fall within 

the definition of electioneering communication because they would: 

• Refer to Senators Kerry and Edwards who are a clearly identified 

candidates for federal office (11 

CFR 100.29(a)(1)); and

• Be publicly distributed for a fee via 

television and radio stations able to 

reach people in the U.S. within 60 

days before the upcoming general 

election (11 CFR 100.29(a)(2) and 

(b)(3)(i)). 

Media exception. The Act and 

Commission regulations provide 

for a number of exceptions to the 

definition of “electioneering communication,” including a media 

exception which excludes from the 

term “electioneering communication” any communication “appearing in a news story, commentary, 

or editorial distributed through the 

facilities of any broadcast, cable, or 

satellite television or radio station, 

unless such facilities are owned or 

controlled by any political party, 

political committee, or candidate.” 2 

U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) and 11 CFR 

100.29(c)(2). 

In this case, however, neither the 

proposed ads nor the Film would 

be entitled to the media exception. 

In regards to the proposed Book 

ads, Citizens United has no greater 

commercial interest in promoting 

the Book than does any other entity. 

Citizens United is not the Book’s 

publisher, owner or distributor, and 

these facts distinguish its situation 

from those addressed in past court 

decisions and advisory opinions 

where the parties were in the business of either publishing or producing and distributing the products 

that they were promoting.1 Thus, 

Citizens United’s proposed ads for 

the Book would not qualify for the 

electioneering communication media 

exception for two reasons. First, the 

advertisements would not “appear in 

a news story, commentary, or editorial.” 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(B)(i). Second, because Citizens United is not 

acting as a media entity in connection with the Book, its advertising 

of the Book cannot be considered 

part of a “normal, legitimate [media] 

function. Federal Election Commission v. Phillips Publishing, Inc., 517 

F. Supp. 1308, 1313 (D.D.C. 1981). 

Similarly, because Citizens 

United does not regularly produce 

documentaries or pay to broadcast 

them on television, the media exception would not apply to broadcasts 

of the Film itself.2 In Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts 

Citizens for Life (MCFL), 479 U.S. 

238 (1986), the Supreme Court 

rejected the argument that corporate 

publications are automatically exempt from the prohibition on corporate expenditures in connection with 

federal elections under an exception 

for “any news story, commentary 

or editorial distributed through the 

facilities of any broadcasting sta1

 See Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. 

v. Federal Election Commission, 509 

F. Supp. 1210 (S.D.N.Y. 1981), Federal 

Election Commission v. Phillips Publishing, Inc., 517 F. Supp. 1308 (D.D.C. 

1981) and AOs 2004-7 and 2003-34.

2

 Citizens United has produced only 

two documentaries since its founding in 1988, both of which it marketed 

primarily through direct mail and print 

advertising, and neither of which it paid 

to broadcast on television.

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

AO 2004-31

Business Ads not 

Electioneering 

Communications

Russ Darrow Group, Inc. (RDG), 

a Wisconsin corporation, may run 

radio and television advertisements 

that include the name “Russ Darrow” because the ads do not refer 

to a clearly identified candidate 

under 11 CFR 100.29(b)(2) and are 

therefore not electioneering communications.1

Background

RDG owns and operates 22 car 

dealerships in Wisconsin, all of 

which include “Russ Darrow” as 

part of the dealership’s name. In 

the past decade, RDG has focused 

on developing “Russ Darrow” as a 

brand name for its dealerships. 

Russ Darrow, Jr. (the Candidate) 

is the founder, Chief Executive Of1

 During the electioneering communications rulemaking process, the Commission considered but declined to create 

an exemption for situations where a 

federal candidate shared a name with 

a business entity because it concluded 

that such communications could well be 

considered to promote or support the 

candidate. See Explanation and Justification, Final Rules on Electioneering 

Communications, 67 Fed. Reg. 65190, 

65202 (Oct. 23, 2002). This does not, 

however, preclude the Commission from 

making determinations on specific cases 

such as this one. (continued on page 12)

tion, newspaper, magazine, or other 

periodical publication.” 2 U.S.C. 

§431(9)(B)(i) and 11 CFR 100.132. 

Instead, the MCFL Court analyzed 

a variety of factors to determine 

whether the exception should apply, 

including “considerations of form” 

such as how the publication was produced and to whom it was disseminated. MCFL, 479 U.S. at 251.

Applying the MCFL Court’s 

analysis to Citizens United’s proposed activities, the Commission 

concluded that the Film would 

not be entitled to the electioneering communication media exception. The Commission determined, 

among other things, that the very 

act of paying a broadcaster to air a 

documentary on television, rather 

than receiving compensation from 

a broadcaster, is one of the “considerations of form” that can help to 

distinguish an electioneering communication from exempted media 

activity. 

Finally, the proposed ads for the 

Film would not qualify for the media 

exception for two reasons. First, they 

would not “appear in a news story, 

commentary, or editorial.” 2 U.S.C. 

§434(f)(3)(B)(i). Second, because 

Citizens United would not be acting 

as a media entity in connection with 

the Film and the Film is not entitled 

to the media exception, its advertising of the Film cannot be considered 

part of a normal and legitimate 

media function. 

Making and financing electioneering communications. Citizens 

United may not pay for the proposed broadcasts of the Film and 

television and radio ads because, 

as a corporation, it is barred from 

making or financing electioneering communications. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(f); 2 U.S.C. §§441b(a) and 

(b)(2); 11 CFR 104.20; and 11 CFR 

114.14(a) and (b). Citizens United 

may, however, advertise the Book 

in print media, on the Internet and 

by direct mail. Citizens United may 

also produce a documentary on any 

subject and advertise and disseminate the documentary through direct 

mail, print advertising, videocassette 

and DVD sales, the Internet and in 

theaters, without being affected by 

the electioneering communication 

provisions. 

Concurring Opinion

Commissioner Smith issued a 

concurring opinion on September 9, 

2004.

Date Issued: September 10, 2004; 

Length: 8 pages.

 —Amy Kort

ficer and Chairman of the Board of 

RDG. He was also a candidate for 

the U.S. Senate. Had he prevailed in 

the primary election on September 

14, 2004, he would have run as the 

Republican candidate for the U.S. 

Senate in the November 2 general 

election. 

The Candidate’s son, Russ Darrow III, is the President and Chief 

Operating Officer of RDG and has 

been the public face of the corporation for over a decade. RDG, under 

the leadership of Russ Darrow III, 

plans to continue advertising the 

business through television and radio 

spots during the remainder of 2004. 

The ads are not coordinated with the 

Candidate, his principal campaign 

committee or its agents, and no 

common media vendors are used. 

Addtionally, none of the ads reference the Candidate’s campaign, and 

Russ Darrow, Jr. will not appear or 

speak in them.

Analysis

The Act, prohibits corporations from making or financing 

electioneering communications. 

2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2); 11 CFR 

114.2(b)(2)(iii). An “electioneering 

communication” is any broadcast, 

cable or satellite communication 

that:

1. Refers to a clearly identified candidate;

2. Is publicly distributed for a fee 

within 30 days before a primary 

election or 60 days before a general election; and

3. Is targeted to the relevant electorate. 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i); 11 

CFR 100.29(a).

RDG acknowledges that the 

proposed advertisements meet the 

last two prongs of this test, leaving 

at issue the reference to a clearly 

identified federal candidate.

Russ Darrow III, the longstanding public face of the company, 

appears and speaks in the ads. The 

Candidate does not. Additionally, it 
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

12

AO 2004-33

Corporate-Sponsored 

Ad as Electioneering 

Communication and 

Coordinated Communication

The Ripon Society (Ripon), an 

incorporated 501(c)(4) organization, 

may not fund the production and dissemination of a televised ad featuring U.S. Representative Sue Kelly 

if the ad is aired in Representative 

Kelly’s Congressional district during the 30 days before her primary 

election or the 60 days before the 

general election if she is a candidate 

in that election. Such an ad would be 

an electioneering communication, 

which may not be paid for with corporate funds. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2) 

and 11 CFR 114.2(b)(2)(iii); see also 

11 CFR 114.14(a). 

Ripon may air the ad outside 

of Representative Kelly’s district 

during this time period, but only if 

it does not coordinate its plans with 

any officials of the Republican Party. 

Because the ad mentions “Republicans in Congress,” its coordination 

with the Republican Party would 

make the ad a coordinated communication resulting in a prohibited 

corporate in-kind contribution from 

Ripon to the Republican Party. 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B) (ii); 11 CFR 

109.21. 

Background

Representative Kelly is a Congressional candidate in New York. 

and coordinated communications 

described below.1

 

Electioneering communications. 

With certain exceptions, an “electioneering communication” is any 

broadcast, cable or satellite communication that:

• Refers to a clearly identified federal candidate;2

• Is publicly distributed for a fee 

within 60 days of a federal candidate’s general election or within 30 

days of his or her primary election;3

 and 

• Is targeted to the relevant electorate.4

 

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

1

 The Commission determined that 

Ripon is not an entity that is directly 

or indirectly established, financed, 

maintained or controlled by a federal 

candidate or officeholder and is not 

subject to the provisions of the Act and 

Commission regulations that govern 

the activities of such entities, such as 

their payment for communications that 

promote, attack, support or oppose a 

federal candidate or political party. 

See 2 U.S.C. §§441i(e)(1)(A) and (B); 

2 U.S.C. §431(20)(A)(iii) and (21); 

11 CFR 300.61 and 300.62; 11 CFR 

100.24(b)(3), and 11 CFR 100.25. 

Thus, the Commission did not reach the 

question of whether the ad promotes, 

supports, attacks or opposes any candidate for federal office, or promotes or 

opposes a political party.

2

 “Refers to a clearly identified candidate” means that the candidate’s name, 

nickname, photograph or drawing appears, or the identity of the candidate is 

otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference. 11 CFR 100.29(b)(2). 

3

 “Publicly distributed” means “aired, 

broadcast, cablecast or otherwise disseminated for a fee through the facilities 

of a television station, radio station, 

cable television system, or satellite system.” 11 CFR 100.29(b)(3)(i). 

4

 In the case of a candidate for Representative in Congress, “targeted to the 

relevant electorate” means the communication can be received by 50,000 

or more persons in the district the 

candidate seeks to represent. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(f)(3)(C); 11 CFR 100.29(b)(5)(i).

is clear from the content of the ads 

that any mention of “Russ Darrow” 

refers to the business entity and not 

the Candidate. Based on these facts, 

the Commission concluded that the 

proposed advertisements do not refer 

to a clearly identified candidate and 

therefore do not constitute electioneering communications. 

Date Issued: September 10, 

2004; Length: 10 pages.

 —Meredith Trimble

She serves on Ripon’s Advisory 

Board, which is an honorary board 

consisting of Members of Congress 

who participate in Ripon’s policy 

forums, research, development and 

advocacy. Members of Congress on 

the Advisory Board do not engage in 

active governance or similar control 

over Ripon activities.

Ripon intends to produce and 

disseminate a cable television ad that 

Ripon asserts will address national 

security issues and promote a policy 

that Ripon believes is relevant to the 

current debate regarding homeland 

security. Representative Kelly will 

appear in and narrate the ad, but the 

ad will not contain any images of 

or references to any other federal 

candidate. Ripon would like to run 

the ad featuring Representative 

Kelly both within her Congressional 

district and nationwide through the 

November 2, 2004, general election. 

Ripon plans to coordinate its plans 

with Representative Kelly, other 

federal candidates and one or more 

federal political committees of the 

Republican Party. 

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) prohibits corporations 

from making expenditures in connection with any election for federal 

office. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). Commission regulations specifically provide 

that corporations may not make expenditures in connection with a federal election “for communications to 

those outside the restricted class that 

expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or the candidates of 

a clearly identified political party.” 

11 CFR 114.2(b)(2)(ii). In this case, 

the proposed ad does not contain 

express advocacy, and Ripon may 

pay to produce and televise it as long 

as it complies with the restrictions 

on electioneering communications 
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

13

2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3) and 11 CFR 

100.29; see also AOs 2004-15 and 

2003-12. 

The Act prohibits corporations 

from making or financing electioneering communications. 2 

U.S.C. §441b(b)(2) and 11 CFR 

114.2(b)(2)(iii); see also 11 CFR 

114.14(a). 

Representative Kelly will be 

clearly identified in Ripon’s ads 

because she will appear and speak 

on camera. Ripon plans to pay to 

have the ad televised in Representative Kelly’s district in a manner that 

would allow it to be received by 

50,000 or more people within that 

district. Moreover, Ripon plans to 

pay to disseminate the advertisement via cable television within 30 

days of her primary election and 

within 60 days of the November 2, 

2004, general election. No exemptions from the definition of “electioneering communication” apply 

to the proposed ad. See 2 U.S.C. 

§§434(f)(3)(B)(i) through (iv), and 

11 CFR 100.29(c)(1) through (6). 

Thus, the proposed ad, when broadcast as described above, constitutes 

an electioneering communication, 

and Ripon is barred from using its 

general corporate treasury funds to 

televise the ad. 

The ad would not, however, 

constitute an electioneering communication outside Representative 

Kelly’s district even if it were televised within 30 days of a primary 

election or within 60 days of the 

general election. Although the ad 

refers to “Republicans in Congress,” 

this language does not constitute 

an unambiguous reference to any 

specific federal candidate and thus 

does not meet the requirements of an 

electioneering communication.

Coordinated communications. 

The Act defines as an in-kind contribution any expenditure made by any 

person in cooperation, consultation 

or concert with, or at the request 

or suggestion of, a candidate or his 

or her authorized political committees, a political party committee or 

the agents of any of these. 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(a)(7)(B)(i) and (ii). Commission regulations provide for a 

three-pronged test to determine 

whether a communication is a “coordinated communication” and, thus, 

results in an in-kind contribution. 

The test includes a payment prong, a 

content prong and a conduct prong. 

11 CFR 109.21. 

Ripon’s proposed ad meets this 

three-pronged test for coordination 

with one or more political committees of the Republican Party. It 

meets the payment prong because 

it is paid for by a person other than 

a candidate, authorized committee 

or political party committee, and it 

will meet the conduct prong if Ripon 

discusses its distribution of the ad 

with agents of the Republican Party 

in a manner that would satisfy that 

prong. 11 CFR 109.21(a) and (d). 

The ad also satisfies the content 

prong because it is a public communication that:

• Refers to a political party or a 

clearly identified federal candidate; 

• Is publicly distributed or disseminated within 120 days of an election for federal office; and 

• Is directed to voters within the 

jurisdiction of the clearly identified 

candidate or to voters in a jurisdiction in which one or more candidates of the political party appear 

on the ballot. 

11 CFR 109.21(c)(4). 

First, the ad refers to “Republicans in Congress,” and one portion 

of the content standard is satisfied if 

a communication “refers to a political party.” 11 CFR 109.21(c)(4)(i). 

The use of “Democratic” or “Democrats,” or “Republican,” “Republicans” or “GOP,” or other terms that 

are variations of the formal name of 

a political party, is inherently a reference to a political party, whether or 

not it also serves other purposes. 

Second, the ad qualifies as a public communication and will be televised prior to the November 2, 2004, 

general election, which is within 

the applicable 120-day window. 11 

CFR 100.26 and 109.21(c)(4)(ii). 

Finally, Ripon would direct its communication to voters in a jurisdiction 

in which one or more Republican 

candidates appear on the ballot. 

Because it is a Presidential election 

year, at least one Republican candidate will appear on the ballot in 

every district in the general election. 

11 CFR 109.21(c)(4)(iii). Therefore, 

the proposed advertisement would 

constitute a coordinated communication, and Ripon must not pay for the 

communication if its interactions 

with any political committee of the 

Republican Party satisfy any of the 

conduct standards described at 11 

CFR 109.21(d). 

Ripon could, however, remove 

the phrase “Republicans in Congress” from the ad and disseminate 

it as planned outside Representative 

Kelly’s Congressional District. In 

this case, the ad would not refer to 

a political party and thus would not 

constitute a coordinated communication. Ripon would still, however, be 

prohibited under the electioneering 

communication restrictions from 

using its general treasury funds to 

televise the communication within 

Representative Kelly’s district during the time periods when the ad 

would constitute an electioneering 

communication, as described above.5

Date Issued: September 10, 2004; 

Length: 10 pages.

 —Amy Kort

5

 The Commission did not reach the issue of whether Ripon, as a corporation, 

would be prohibited from paying for the 

advertisement as a communication that 

is coordinated with Representative Kelly 

because the Commission has already 

determined that the electioneering 

communications provisions bar Ripon 

from paying to televise the ad in her 

Congressional District during the time 

period in question. The Commission did 

conclude that the ad would not satisfy 

any of the four content standards with 

respect to any other federal candidate 

and thus would not be coordinated with 

any other federal candidate. See 11 CFR 

109.21(C)(1)-(4).
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

14

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital Non-

 Corporate Labor Health erative Stock connected 1 Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan. 03 1,528 320 975 39 110 1,055 4,027

Jul. 03 1,534 320 902 39 110 1,040 3,945

Jan. 04 1,538 310 884 35 102 999 3,868

Jul. 04 1,555 303 877 34 97 1,174 4,040

*

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

and year-end PAC count.

1 Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative 

expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected 

organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On the other 

hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general public, while 

solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

Semiannual PAC Count—2000-2004

Statistics

Semiannual PAC Count 

Shows Increase in 2004

The number of federally registered political action committees 

(PACs) increased from 3,868 on 

January 1, 2004, to 4,040 by July 1, 

2004.

Corporate PACs remain the largest category, with 1,555 committees. 

Nonconnected PACs remain the second-largest group, with 1,174 committees. The chart at right shows 

Fundraising Continues to 

Grow

In the 18 months of the 2003-

2004 election cycle ending June 30, 

2004, fundraising for Congressional 

campaigns increased over fundraising during recent comparable 

periods. Party fundraising in 2004 

has maintained the strong pace 

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 13)

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2004-33

Application of electioneering 

communications, coordinated communications and corporate expenditure rules to 501(c)(4)’s television 

ads featuring federal candidate who 

is also on the organization’s advisory 

board (The Ripon Society and U.S. 

Representative Sue Kelly, August 

16, 2004) See summary, page 12.

AOR 2004-34

Political committee’s status as 

state party committee (Libertarian Party of Virginia, September 8, 

2004)

AOR 2004-35

Application of the Act’s prohibitions, limitations and reporting requirements to funds raised and spent 

for possible recount (Senator John 

Kerry, Senator John Edwards, KerryEdwards 2004, Inc. and Kerry-Edwards 2004 General Election Legal 

and Accounting Compliance Fund, 

September 7, 2004)

AOR 2004-36

Reporting in-kind contribution of 

office space shared by five candidates; 20-day expedited decision 

(Mark Risley for Congress, September 23, 2004)

the complete mid-year and year-end 

PAC figures since 2000. 

A complete listing of PAC statistics since 1974 is available in the 

agency’s September 1, 2004, press 

release. The press release is available:

• On the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov;

• From the Public Disclosure office 

(800/424-9530, press 2) and the 

Press Office (800/424-9530, press 

1); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at 

202/501-3413).

 —Meredith Trimble

begun in 2003, and PAC activity has 

increased.

National Party Committees

The 2004 election cycle is the 

first in which national parties have 

been prohibited from receiving “soft 

money” as a result of implementation of the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 

2004, Republican party committees 

raised $464.7 million in federally 

permissible “hard money” while 

the Democratic committees raised 

$278.2 million. These fundraising levels represent a 64 percent 

increase in receipts for Republicans 

when compared to the same period 

in 2002, and a 112 percent increase 

for Democrats. When compared to 

the same period in 2000—the last 

Presidential campaign—Republicans registered a 96 percent increase 

in receipts, while the Democrats 

showed a 113 percent increase. 

The BCRA increased contribution 

limits for individuals from $20,000 

per person to $25,000 per person per 
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

15

$209.1 million and cash balances 

of $181.6 million. These figures 

represent a 67 percent increase in 

fundraising, a 90 percent increase in 

spending and a 65 percent increase 

in cash on hand over 2002 levels.

House campaigns raised $460.8 

million, an increase of 14.5 percent 

from 2002. The campaigns spent 

$278.1 million, a figure 12.2 percent 

above previous cycle totals, and 

reported a cash balance of $300.4 

million as of June 30. Receipts by 

Republican candidates increased 

28 percent, with large increases 

for challengers and incumbent 

candidates and a decline in overall 

receipts for open seats. Democratic 

candidates’ receipts were 1 percent 

higher than in the last cycle, with 

increases for incumbent and challenger candidates offset by a large 

decline for open seats. The chart 

below shows the median receipts for 

Democratic and Republican House 

candidates through June 30 of the 

election year, 2004 to 1998.

Contributions from individuals 

continue to be the largest source of 

receipts for Congressional candidates, totaling $484.9 million and 

representing 60.7 percent of all 

fundraising as of June 30. Candidates themselves contributed or 

loaned a total of $97 million, representing 12 percent of receipts. When 

compared to the same time period in 

2002, contributions by individuals 

increased 37 percent and contributions and loans from candidates 

themselves increased by 81 percent.

PAC Activity 

Federal political action committees raised $629.3 million, spent 

$514.9 million and contributed 

$205.1 million to federal candidates from January 1, 2003 through 

June 30, 2004. This represented a 

27 percent increase in receipts and 

a 24 percent increase in disbursements when compared with 2002. 

Contributions to candidates were 13 

percent higher than at this point in 

the 2002 campaign. A total of 4,713 

PACs reported $295.9 million in 

cash on hand, 28 percent more than 

was available at this point in 2002. 

Overall, PAC contributions to 

House candidates increased by 21 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Open Seats

Challengers

Incumbents

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Thousands of Dollars

House Candidates

Democrats

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Thousands of Dollars

House Candidates

Republicans

Median Receipts of House Candidates Through June 30 of Election Year—1994-2004

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Open Seats

Challengers

Incumbents

Thousands of Dollars

House Candidates

year to national party committees, 

and contributions from individuals 

continues to be the largest source 

of funds for all party committees. 

These individual contributions represent over 78 percent of all Democratic party funds and more than 93 

percent of Republican party receipts.

The BCRA also introduced 

“Levin funds”—funds raised under 

federal and state law for purposes 

such as get-out-the-vote activities. 

As of June 30, 14 party committees 

reported raising $1.5 million and 

spending $235,102 in Levin funds.

Congressional Candidates

From January 1, 2003, to June 

30, 2004, Congressional campaigns 

raised a total of $798.7 million, 

an increase of 32 percent from the 

comparable period in the 2001-2002 

campaign. In the same period, the 

1,908 Senate and House candidates 

spent $487.1 million and reported 

cash on hand of $482 million, up 36 

percent and 29 percent, respectively.

This cycle’s 34 Senate campaigns 

have contributed to the significant 

increases, reporting receipts of 

$337.9 million, disbursements of (continued on page 16)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

16

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Candidates: 

August Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative 

August 2004 Certifications

Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $0 $7,615,360.39

John R. Edwards (D)2 $20,171.04 $6,624,940.44

Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $0 $4,104,319.82

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $108,883.00 $2,955,962.59

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)5 $47,026.00 $1,456,019.13

Joseph Lieberman (D)6 $0 $4,267,796.85

Ralph Nader (I) $149,399.19 $696,505.99

Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $0 $100,000.007

1 General Clark publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 11, 2004.

2 Senator Edwards publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on March 3, 2004.

3 Congressman Gephardt publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on January 2, 

2004.

4 Congressman Kucinich became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 

2004.

5 Mr. LaRouche became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2004.

6 Senator Lieberman publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 3, 

2004.

7

 On May 10, 2004, the Commission determined that Reverend Sharpton must repay 

this amount to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds he received in excess of his entitlement. See the July 2004 Record, page 8.

Public 

Funding

percent over 2002 levels. While 

comparisons of Senate contributions 

are difficult because of varying Senate election cycles in each state, PAC 

contributions to Senate candidates 

increased 20 percent during the 

first 18 months of the 2004 election 

cycle. 

Additional Information

More information on campaign 

finance statistics for the 2003-2004 

election cycle is available in press 

releases dated August 6 (party 

committees), August 21 (Congressional) and September 1 (PAC). The 

releases are available:

• On the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/press.shtml; 

• From the Public Disclosure office 

(800/424-9530, press 2) and the 

Press Office (800/424-9530, press 

1); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at 

202/501-3413 and request document numbers 618 and 619).

 —Meredith Trimble

Statistics

(continued from page 15)

Commission Certifies 

Matching Funds for 

Presidential Candidates

On August 27, 2004, the Commission certified $325,479.23 in 

federal matching funds to four 

Presidential candidates. The U.S. 

Treasury Department made the payments on September 1, 2004. These 

certifications raise to $27,820,905.21 

the total amount of federal funds 

certified thus far to eight Presidential 

candidates.

Presidential Matching Payment 

Account

Under the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act, the 

and 9035; 11 CFR 9033.1, 9033.2, 

9035.1(a)(2) and 9035.2(a)(1).

Candidates may submit requests 

for matching funds once each 

month. The Commission will certify 

an amount to be paid by the U.S. 

Treasury the following month. 26 

CFR 702.9037-2. Only contributions 

from individuals in amounts of $250 

or less are matchable. 

The chart on below lists the 

amount most recently certified to 

each eligible candidate who has 

elected to participate in the matching 

fund program, along with the cumulative amount that each candidate 

has been certified to date. 

 —Amy Kort

federal government will match up to 

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

primary candidate. A candidate must 

establish eligibility to receive matching payments by raising in excess of 

$5,000 in each of at least 20 states 

(i.e., over $100,000). Although an 

individual may contribute up to 

$2,000 to a primary candidate, only 

a maximum of $250 per individual 

applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each state. Candidates who 

receive matching payments must 

agree to limit their committee’s 

spending, limit their personal spending for the campaign to $50,000 and 

submit to an audit by the Commission. 26 U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b) 
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

17

Nonfilers

Congressional Committees 

Fail to File Reports

The following principal campaign 

committees failed to file required 12-

Day Pre-Primary reports:

• Blair Mathies for Congress 

(NY/03); 

• David Jerome Bennett for Congress (NV/02);

• Dr. Inam Rahman for Congress 

(NY/03);

• Friends of Chuck Barton (RI/02);

• Friends of Tilley for U.S. Senate 

(NV);

• Friends of Weiner (NY/09);

• Friends to Elect Jeff Miller 

(NY/24); 

• Laba for Congress (NY/28); 

• Meeks for Congress NY/06); and

1

 The Commission certified an equal 

public funding grant to John Kerry 

and his Vice-Presidential running mate 

Senator John Edwards on July 30, 2004. 

See the September 2004 Record, page 7.

Public Funding for BushCheney

On September 2, 2004, the Commission approved public funding 

for the general election campaign of 

President George W. Bush and Vice 

President Richard B. Cheney. The 

U.S. Treasury Department made the 

payment of $74.620 million shortly 

thereafter.1

Under the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund Act, the Democratic and Republican nominees 

are each entitled to a grant of $20 

million increased by a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). In order to 

receive public funding, the BushCheney campaign agreed to abide 

by the overall spending limit and 

other legal requirements, including 

a post-campaign audit. Additionally, as major party nominees, they 

agreed to limit campaign spending 

to the amount of the public funding grant and not to accept private 

contributions for the campaign. They 

also agreed not to spend more than 

$50,000 in the aggregate of their 

own personal funds. The campaign 

may, however, accept contributions 

designated for its general election 

legal and compliance (GELAC) 

fund. This fund is a special account 

maintained exclusively to pay for the 

expenses related to complying with 

the campaign finance law. Compliance expenses do not count against 

the expenditure limit. Contributions 

to the GELAC fund are, however, 

subject to the limits, prohibitions 

and reporting requirements of the 

federal campaign finance laws.

The Republican National Committee may spend an additional 

$16,249,699 for coordinated expenditures on behalf of the BushCheney campaign. These funds are 

subject to the limits, prohibitions 

MUR 5447: State Party 

Committee’s Financial 

Discrepancies and Failure to 

Pay Allocable Expenses from 

Federal Account 

The Commission recently entered into a conciliation agreement 

with the Missouri Republican 

State Committee–Federal Committee (the Committee) resulting in a 

$128,000 civil penalty. The conciliation agreement resolves violations 

of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) stemming from the 

Committee’s failure to pay allocable 

expenses from its federal allocation 

account, and its failure to accurately 

report receipts, disbursements and 

cash-on-hand balances. This matter 

arose from a Commission audit, 

which discovered the violations. 

Background

The Act requires party committees to pay for shared federal and 

nonfederal activity either entirely 

from a committee’s federal account 

(into which nonfederal funds may be 

transferred to cover the appropriate 

nonfederal portion) or by establishing a separate allocation account. 

All spending from these accounts 

must be disclosed on regular financial reports to the FEC.

The Act also requires that all political committees accurately report 

receipts, disbursements and cash-onhand balances.

Conciliation

On August 31, 2004, the Commission entered into a conciliation 

agreement with the Committee. 

According to the agreement, the 

Committee paid $2,722,920 to 

six vendors directly from its federal account, and $6,137,541 to the 

Compliance

same vendors, for the same generic 

campaign activities, from its nonfederal account. As a result, this $6.1 

million in spending was not reported 

to the Commission. The agreement 

requires the Committee to pay for allocable expenditures from its federal 

account and to transfer funds from 

its nonfederal account as appropriate.

In addition, the Committee failed 

to report or misreported $1,558,281 

in financial activity from January 1, 

1999, through December 31, 2000.

The conciliation agreement 

notes that the Committee has taken 

substantial steps to improve its 

compliance, including hiring a certified public accountant and sending 

representatives to FEC training 

conferences.

For additional information on this 

case, please visit the Commission’s 

Public Records Office or consult 

the Enforcement Query System on 

the FEC’s web site and enter case 

number 5447.

 —Meredith Trimble

(continued on page 18)

and disclosure requirements of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act.

 —Meredith Trimble
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

18

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2004 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.

Index

New Campaign Guide 

Available

A revised version of the Campaign Guide for Political Party 

Committees is now available on the 

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

The new guide provides political 

party committees at all levels with 

clear explanations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act, as amended 

by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002, and Commission regulations and advisory opinions. The 

guide also provides clear reporting 

advice, along with examples of how 

to report common transactions. 

A printed version of the Campaign Guide for Political Party 

Committees will be available 

later this fall. The availability of the 

printed version will be announced in 

a future issue of the Record. 

 —Meredith Trimble

Publications

Nonfilers

(continued from page 17)

• Warren Redlich for Congress 

(NY/21). 

Prior to the reporting deadlines, 

the Commission notified committees 

of their filing obligations. Committees that failed to file the required 

reports were subsequently notified that their reports had not been 

received and that their names would 

be published if they did not respond 

within four business days.

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act requires the Commission to publish the names of principal campaign 

committees if they fail to file 12 day 

pre-election reports or the quarterly 

report due before the candidate’s 

election. 2 U.S.C. §437g(b). The 

agency may also pursue enforcement 

actions against nonfilers and late filers on a case-by-case basis. 

 —Meredith Trimble

www.fec.gov

New FEC Web Site Unveiled

FEC staff recently completed a 

significant upgrade of the Commission’s web site, www.fec.gov. The 

redesigned site offers a wealth of 

information in a simple, clearlyorganized format. Features include 

cascading menus that improve 

navigation and interactive pages that 

allow users to tailor content to their 

specific needs.

Noteworthy among the new 

features is a search engine. This tool 

allows visitors to immediately access all pages on the site that contain 

a desired word or phrase. Another 

new feature, the Commission Calendar, helps users keep track of reporting deadlines, upcoming conferences 

and workshops, Commission meetings, comment deadlines and more.

The site also offers a robust new 

enforcement section that includes 

the Enforcement Query System, 

information on closed MURs, the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution and 

Administrative Fines programs 

and—for the first time—access to 

final audit reports issued by the 

Commission. 

The Commission encourages the 

regulated community and the public 

to make use of this dynamic and 

interactive site by visiting www.fec.

gov, and welcomes feedback.

 —Meredith Trimble

Advisory Opinions

2003-28: Nonconnected PAC 

established by limited liability 

company composed entirely of 

corporations may become an SSF 

with the limited liability company 

as its connected organization, 1:20

2003-29: Transfer of funds from a 

nonfederal PAC to a federal PAC 

of an incorporated membership 

organization, 1:21

2003-30: Retiring campaign debt 

and repaying candidate loans, 2:1

2003-31: Candidate’s loans to 

campaign apply to Millionaires’ 

Amendment threshold, 2:2

2003-32: Federal candidate’s use 

of surplus funds from nonfederal 

campaign account, 2:4

2003-33: Charitable matching plan 

with prizes for donors, 2:5

2003-34: Reality television show to 

simulate Presidential campaign, 

2:6

2003-35: Presidential candidate may 

withdraw from matching payment 

program, 2:7

2003-36: Fundraising by federal 

candidate/officeholder for section 

527 organization, 2:8

2003-37: Nonconnected PAC’s use 

of nonfederal funds for campaign 

activities, 4;4

2003-38: Funds raised and spent 

by federal candidate on behalf of 

redistricting committee to defray 

legal expenses incurred in redistricting litigation, 3:14

2003-39: Charitable matching plan 

conducted by collecting agent of 

trade association, 3:10

2003-40: Reporting independent 

expenditures and aggregation for 

various elections, 3:11

2004-1: Endorsement ads result in 

contribution if coordinated communications; “stand-by-your-ad” 

disclaimer for ad authorized by 

two candidates, 3:12

2004-2: Contributions from testamentary trusts, 4:8

2004-3: Conversion of authorized 

committee to multicandidate committee, 5:5
October 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

19

2004-4: Abbreviated name of trade 

association SSF, 5:7

2004-6: Web-based meeting services 

to candidates and political committees, 5:7

2004-7: MTV’s mock Presidential 

election qualifies for press exemption—no contribution or electioneering communication results, 5:8

2004-8: Severance pay awarded to 

employee who resigns to run for 

Congress, 6:4

2004-9: State committee status, 5:10

2004-10: “Stand by your ad” disclaimer for radio ads, 6:5

2004-12: Regional party organization established by several state 

party committees, 8:4

2004-14: Federal candidate’s appearance in public service announcements not solicitation, coordinated 

communication or electioneering 

communication, 8:6

2004-15: Film ads showing federal 

candidates are electioneering communications, 8:8

2004-17: Federal candidate’s compensation for part-time employment, 8:8

2004-18: Campaign committee’s 

purchase of candidate’s book at 

discounted price, 9:4

2004-19: Earmarked contributions 

made via commercial web site, 

10:4

2004-20: Connecticut party convention considered an election, 9:5

2004-22: Unlimited transfers to state 

party committee, 9:6

2004-23: SSF’s solicitation of subsidiaries’ restricted classes, 10:5

2004-24: Use of contributor information by commercial software 

company, 10:6

2004:25: Senator/national party officer may donate personal funds 

to voter registration organizations 

that undertake federal election 

activity, 10:7

2004-26: Foreign national’s participation in activities of political 

committees, 10:8

2004-30: Documentary and broadcast ads do not qualify for media 

exception from definition of electioneering communication, 10:9

2004-31: Ads for business with same 

name as federal candidate not 

electioneering communications, 

10:11

2004-33: Corporate-sponsored ads 

as electioneering communications 

and coordinated communications, 

10:12

Compliance

ADR program cases, 1:25; 4:15; 7:9; 

8:11

Administrative Fine program cases, 

1:24; 4:14; 6:9; 9:9

Enforcement Query System available on web site, disclosure policy 

for closed enforcement matters 

and press release policy for closed 

MURs; “enforcement profile” 

examined, 1:6; EQS update, 7:10

MUR 4818/4933: Contributions in 

the name of another and excessive 

contributions, 8:1

MUR 4919: Fraudulent misrepresentation of opponent’s party through 

mailings and phone banks, 6:2

MUR 4953: Party misuse of nonfederal funds for allocable expense, 

6:3

MUR 5197: Donations from Congressionally chartered corporations, 4:13

MUR 5199: Campaign committee’s 

failure to report recount activities, 

6:4

MUR 5229: Collecting agent’s failure to transfer contributions, 1:7

MUR 5279: Partnership contributions made without prior agreement of partners to whom contributions were attributed, 8:3

MUR 5328: Excessive contributions 

to and from affiliated leadership 

PACs, 5:1

MUR 5357: Corporation’s reimbursement of contributions, 2:1

MUR 5447: State party committee’s 

financial discrepancies and failure 

to pay allocable expenses from 

federal account, 10:17

Naming of treasurers in enforcement 

matters, proposed statement of 

policy, 3:4

Nonfilers, 3:16; 4:13, 6:7; 7:5; 8:13; 

9:4; 10:7

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 4:10

– Alliance for Democracy, 3:8; 10:4

– Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc., 10:4

– Cooksey, 8:11

– Cox for Senate, 3:4

– Hagelin, 4:11; 8:9; 10:3

– Kean for Congress, 3:7

– Lovely, 5:12

– McConnell, 1:1

– LaRouche’s Committee for a New 

Bretton Woods, 6:7; 9:3

– O’Hara, 6:6; 8:11

– Wilkinson, 4:9

– Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 9:1; 

10:1

– Sykes, 4:12

FEC v. _____ 

– California Democratic Party, 4:9; 

8:10

– Dear for Congress, 8:10

– Friends of Lane Evans, 3:9

– Malenick, 5:13

– Reform Party of the USA, 9:3

Regulations

Administrative Fine program extension, final rule, 3:1

Contributions by minors, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 5:3

Electioneering communications, 

FCC database, 3:3

Electioneering Communication 

Exemption, Petition for Rulemaking, 9:4

Federal election activity periods, 3:1

Inaugural committees, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 5:1

Leadership PACs, final rules, 1: 18

Overnight delivery service, safe harbor for timely filing of reports, 3:1

Party committee coordinated and 

independent expenditures, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 8:1

“Political committee” definition, 

definition of “independent expenditure,” allocation ratio for 

nonconnected PACs, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 4:1; 

(continued on page 20)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2004

Public hearing, 5:3; extension of 

Commission’s consideration, 6:1; 

Rules approved, 9:1

Public access to materials from 

closed enforcement matters, Petition for Rulemaking, 3:4

Public financing of Presidential 

candidates and nominating conventions, correction and effective 

date, 1:19

Travel on behalf of candidates and 

political committees, final rules, 

1:19

Index

(continued from page 19)

Reports

Due in 2004, 1:9

April reminder, 4:1

Convention reporting for Connecticut and Virginia, 5:10

July reminder, 7:1

Kentucky special election reporting, 

1:9

North Carolina special election 

reporting, 7:9

October reporting reminder, 10:1