December 1996 Federal Election Commission Volume 22, Number 12

Table of Contents

Court Cases

1 Maine Right to Life Committee v.

FEC

4 RNC v. DNC and FEC

4 On Appeal?

5 New Litigation

Regulations

1 Electronic Filing

 Public Funding

2 FEC Denies Request to Suspend

Public Funds for Perot

800 Line

2 Undesignated Contributions

Compliance

3 MUR 4320

 8 Nonfilers

 Information

 5 Publications and Forms on the

World Wide Web

5 Federal Register Notice

Statistics

6 National Party Committees’ PreGeneral Election Reports

9 Advisory Opinions

10 Index

Court Cases Regulations

Maine Right to Life

Committee v. FEC (95-261-

B-H)

On October 18, 1996, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit upheld a lower court ruling

that found the Federal Election

Commission’s regulation at 11 CFR

100.22(b)1

 exceeded the agency’s

authority because it expanded the

definition of “express advocacy”

beyond the Supreme Court’s

interpretation in the landmark case,

Buckley v. Valeo.

The appeals court said it made its

ruling “for substantially the reasons

set forth in the district court opinion.” See April 1996 Record, page

9, for a summary of the district court

ruling.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act prohibits corporate treasury

funds to be used in connection with

a federal election. See 2 U.S.C.

§441b.

Interim Rules on Voluntary

Electronic Filing Go Into

Effect January 1997

On January 1, 1997, the FEC will

begin implementing a new regulation governing a voluntary electronic filing system for campaign

finance reports. 11 CFR 104.18 (61

FR 42371, Aug. 15, 1996).

The rules will be in effect on an

interim basis while the final rules

are sent to Congress for legislative

review.

Most new or modified rules and

regulations approved by the Commission must be placed before both

houses of Congress for 30 legislative days before they can be promulgated. 2 U.S.C. 438(d). The

Commission submitted the electronic filing regulations to Congress

on August 9, 1996. However, the

104th Congress adjourned before it

had had the electronic filing rules

for 30 days. The statute creating the

electronic filing system requires the

Commission to implement a voluntary system beginning January 1,

1997. Consequently, the Commission issued the regulations on an

interim basis and plans to retransmit

them to the 105th Congress, which

will convene on January 7, 1997 (61

FR 58460, Nov. 15, 1996).

See the November 1996 Record

(continued on page 4)

(continued on page 2)

1

Section 100.22(b) defines express

advocacy as a communication that,

when taken as a whole and with limited

reference to external events (such as

proximity to an election), can only be

interpreted by a reasonable person as

unambiguously advocating the election

or defeat of a clearly indentified

candidate.
2

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1996

Public Funding

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

(continued on page 7)

for more information about how

electronic filing will work. Copies

of the Federal Register notice on the

new regulation are available by

calling the FEC at 800/424-9530

(press 3). Also, the FEC’s Flashfax

has the document “Electronic Filing

of Reports by Political Committees”

(dial 202-501-3413 and request

document 230). Guidelines also are

available at the FEC’s web site,

http://www.fec.gov. ✦

FEC Denies Request to

Suspend Public Funds for

Perot

On October 17, 1996, the Federal

Election Commission (FEC) denied

a request to withhold public funding

from Ross Perot’s 1996 Presidential

general election campaign.

In mid-August, the Commission

determined that Mr. Perot was

eligible for approximately $29

million in pre-election public

funding for the general election. On

the same day, Herb Rosenberg, of

New York, requested that the FEC

deny general election funding to Mr.

Perot’s presidential efforts, alleging

a number of irregularities by the

campaign and the Reform Party

candidate.

Mr. Rosenberg’s contentions

included excessive expenditures,

irregularities in the nomination

process and the possible disenfranchisement of Reform Party members.

The FEC determined that the

allegations were speculative and did

not satisfy the strict standard that

must be met to withhold public

funds, namely, patent irregularities

suggesting the possibility of fraud.1

The Commission reasoned that it

will be able to determine whether

the allegations are accurate when it

conducts the mandatory audits of

public funding recipients after the

Presidential election. 26 U.S.C.

§9007, 11 CFR part 9007. ✦

1

See In re Carter-Mondale Reelection

Committee Inc., 642 F.2d 538 (D.C.

Cir. 1980).

Undesignated Contributions

This article explains how

undesignated contributions made to

candidate committees count against

election limits and how committees

should report them.

An undesignated contribution to a

candidate automatically counts

against the donor’s limit for the

candidate’s next scheduled election.

For example, if an undesignated

contribution is made to Candidate

Smith after a primary election but

before the general election, it counts

against the donor’s contribution

limit for Smith’s general election. If

Smith loses the primary and does

not plan to run for federal office

again, his committee must refund

any contribution made after the

primary or ask the contributor to

redesignate the contribution to retire

primary campaign debts. If the

campaign has no debts, its only

option is to refund the contribution.

Note, however, that if the contributor has already contributed the

maximum amount for the primary,

then he/she cannot redesignate the

contribution for the primary debt.

The committee must refund the

contribution.

The same rule applies to contributions made by corporate and labor

PACS: if an SSF makes an

undesignated contribution to Smith

after the primary election, the

contribution will count against its

limit for Smith’s general election,

provided he is a candidate in that

election.

Date Made

An undesignated contribution

made on or before election day

counts against the donor’s limit for

that election, even if the campaign

receives the contribution after the

election and even if the campaign

has no outstanding debts. Thus, it is

important to understand what

constitutes making a contribution. A

contribution is made when the

contributor gives up control over it,

as explained below.

• A hand-delivered contribution is

considered made on the date it is

delivered to the campaign.

• A mailed contribution is made on

the date of the postmark.

• An in-kind contribution is made on

the date that the goods and services

are provided by the contributor.

800 Line
3

December 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

MUR 4320

Firm’s Use of PAC

Contributor Lists for

Commercial Solicitations

Nets Fine

D.H. Blair & Co. Inc., a New

York City brokerage firm, agreed to

pay a $100,000 civil penalty after

some of its employees used political

committee contributor lists for

commercial purposes. The lists were

used as a source for making “cold

calls” to potential clients, in violation of the “sale and use restriction”

contained in 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4).

Background

The MUR was generated internally as a result of a referral from

the Commission’s Public Records

Office. Beginning in late 1994, an

employee of that office noticed an

unusual pattern of telephone requests for lists of individual contributors. An examination of the

requests indicated that a number of

the callers were associated with

Blair.

The Public Records Office

complied with the requests and

mailed each caller computergenerated lists of contributors.1 Each

page of the lists contained a printed

notice of the sale and use restriction,

which bars commercial use of

contributor information. In addition,

the restriction was spelled out on at

least three other documents mailed

to the employees with the information requested. Also, Public Records

staff recited the restriction to some

of the callers during telephone

conversations.

Under 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4), the

FEC must make disclosure reports

available for public inspection and

copying within 48 hours of receipt.

The Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act) also requires political

committees to identify each individual whose aggregate contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year

by listing their name, mailing

address, occupation and employer. 2

U.S.C. §434(b)(3)(A).

The statute tries to balance the

public disclosure of campaign

finance information against the need

to protect the privacy of individual

contributors. To that end, any

information pertaining to the names

and addresses of individual contributors that is taken from the

reports or statements may not be

sold or used for the purpose of

soliciting contributions or for

commercial purposes.2 2 U.S.C.

§438(a)(4). (This restriction does

not apply to using the names and

addresses of political committees

that are registered with the FEC.)

Because of the unusual nature of

some of the requests and the number

of requests traceable to the same

brokerage firm, the Public Records

Office referred the matter to the

Office of General Counsel. Based

on preliminary information, the

Commission found reason to believe

that Blair and several brokers who

had made repeated requests for

contributor lists knowingly and

willfully violated the law.

Investigation Reveals Prohibited

Use of Lists

The investigation conducted after

the Commission’s reason to believe

findings found that more than 50

Blair employees had requested

political committee contributor lists

and that some had used the lists for

commercial purposes.

When Blair was notified of the

Commission’s “reason to believe”

finding, it ordered its employees to

cease the activity and it cooperated

with the FEC. Blair and the individual respondent brokers denied

they had knowingly and willfully

violated the law.

Penalties Assessed Against

Brokerage Firm

Prior to the Commission’s

finding probable cause to believe

the law had been violated, Blair

agreed to enter into a conciliation

agreement with the Commission. In

addition to paying the civil penalty,

Blair agreed to:

• Notify all of its employees that

commercial use of contributor lists

obtained from the FEC is prohibited by law and make such information part of regular employee

training;

• Post notices in offices and “cold

calling” areas advising employees

of the law;

• Amend its training and personnel

manuals to include a statement

about the prohibitions on contributor lists; and

• Sanction any employee who

violates the prohibition on contributor lists.

The conciliation agreement

settled the matter as to Blair and its

brokers.

Brokerage Community Put on

Notice

In the course of conducting its

investigation into the Blair brokers,

the FEC obtained information

suggesting that the practice of using

political committee contributor lists

for commercial use extended to

other brokerage firms as well.

In an effort to educate the brokerage community, the Commission

approved sending informational

letters about the sale and use

restriction in the Act to three

Compliance

(continued on page 8)

2

In Federal Election Commission v.

Political Contributions Data, 943 F2d

190,197 (2d Cir. 1991), the court found

that the prohibition on the use of FEC

contribution lists for commercial

purposes includes such uses that could

make contributors prime prospects for

all kinds of solicitations, including

those for cars, credit cards, magazine

subscriptions and vacation trips.

1

Contributors’ street addresses are not

included in computer-generated printouts.
Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

4

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1996

However, the Supreme Court,

citing First Amendment concerns,

limited the scope of §441b when it

ruled in Buckley and Massachusetts

Citizens for Life v. FEC. The

Supreme Court held in MCFL that

the ban on corporate independent

expenditures only applies when the

money is used to “expressly advocate” the election or defeat of a

clearly identified candidate for

federal office. The Buckley decision

listed examples of phrases that

constitute express advocacy: “vote

for,” “elect,” “support,” “cast your

ballot for,” “vote against,” “defeat,”

“reject.”

The district court ruled that the

decisions in Buckley, MCFL and

Faucher v. FEC support the need

for a bright-line test for express

advocacy. The court said that such a

test avoids the chilling of free

speech that occurs when a communicator is uncertain about whether

the message contained in the

communication is express advocacy.

Based on those precedents, the

district court ruled that 11 CFR

100.22(b) was invalid. Subpart a of

this regulation (11 CFR 100.22 (a))

was not challenged in the case.

The First Circuit also cited FEC

V. Christian Action Network, where

a district court, in a decision summarily affirmed by the Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, ruled

that CAN’s television and newspaper ads purchased as independent

expenditures with corporate funds

were not prohibited by 2 U.S.C.

§441b because they contained no

express advocacy.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit, No. 96-1532, October

18,1996; D.Ct. No. 95-261-B-H,

February 15, 1996. ✦

RNC v. DNC and FEC

On November 1, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia dismissed a lawsuit

brought by the Republican National

Committee (RNC) against the FEC

and the Democratic National

Committee (DNC). The suit was

triggered by the DNC’s initial

decision not to file a pre-general

election report.1

The RNC filed the suit on the

same day it filed an administrative

complaint with the FEC alleging

violations of the election law by the

DNC.

In the lawsuit, the RNC claimed

that the DNC had violated the law

by failing to file the pre-general

election report. The DNC responded

that it had not made any contributions or expenditures on behalf of

federal candidates that had not

already been disclosed, so that, in its

view, no report was required.

In the RNC’s view, a political

committee must file a pre-general

election report if it receives contributions or makes expenditures on

behalf of federal candidates during

an election cycle and not just if it

receives a contribution during the

reporting period. Moreover, the

RNC said that the DNC had, in fact,

made contributions during the time

period covered by the pre-general

report—October 1-16—because it

had transferred thousands of dollars

to the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee and Democratic state committees.

The RNC asked the court to:

• Require the DNC to file its pregeneral election report prior to

November 5, 1996,

• Direct the FEC to take expedited

measures to require such filing,

and

• Enjoin the DNC from making any

expenditures until the report was

filed.

In a ruling from the bench, the

court granted the FEC’s motion to

dismiss the case on the grounds that

the court did not have jurisdiction in

the matter. The court based its

decision on the recent appellate

court decision in lawsuits filed

against the FEC by Presidential

contenders Ross Perot and John

Hagelin. See the November 1996

Record, page 1.

The Act gives the FEC exclusive

jurisdiction to hear complaints

alleging violations of the laws

governing elections. In 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(8), the law allows complainants to file suit against the FEC

only for dismissing their complaint

or for failing to act within 120 days

after the complaint is filed. The

RNC filed its lawsuit in district

court the same day that it filed its

On Appeal?

Appealed?

Stockman v. FEC Yes

Congressman Stephen E. Stockman has appealed the dismissal of his case

against the FEC to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, had

ruled for the Commission, dismissing Mr. Stockman’s claim that the FEC

had unreasonably delayed its investigation into his 1994 campaign. See the

October 1996 Record, page 2, and the February 1996 Record, page 9.

1

 The DNC filed a pre-general election

report with the FEC on November 1,

eight days after the filing date
5

December 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

administrative complaint with the

FEC, falling well short of the 120-

day period.

The court also dismissed the

DNC from the complaint, saying

that a private party had no right of

action against another private party

for alleged violations of the Act.

Thus, the court denied the RNC’s

request for injunctive relief against

the DNC and the FEC.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 96-2494. ✦

New Litigation

DSCC v. FEC (96-2184)

The Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee (DSCC) asks

the court to find that the FEC’s

failure to act on its administrative

complaint against the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

(NRSC) within 120 days is in

violation of 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(8)(A).

As mandated by Congress, the

FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over

civil complaints alleging violations

of the Federal Election Campaign

Act and has 120 days to act on an

administrative complaint before the

court may become involved.

The DSCC filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on May

14, 1993, alleging, among other

things, that the NRSC had made at

least $187,000 in illegal “soft

money” expenditures to influence

the election of a Republican candidate in Georgia to a seat in the U.S.

Senate. 2 U.S.C. §§441a and 441b.

The DSCC said that the NRSC gave

the money to four nonprofit organizations that allegedly were closely

aligned with the Republican party—

the National Right to Life Committee, Coalitions for America,

American Defense Foundation and

Good Government Committee.

Some of these organizations, in turn,

reported making independent

expenditures on behalf of the Senate

candidate.

In February 1995, the DSCC filed

a supplemental administrative

complaint alleging that the NRSC

had continued making illegal

expenditures on behalf of Republican candidates during the 1994

elections. On the same day, the

DSCC asked the court to order the

FEC to act on its original and

supplemental complaints.

In April 1996, the court found the

FEC’s inaction on the complaints

contrary to law. For a summary of

the decision, see the July 1996

Record, page 5. The court also said

that if the FEC failed to act in a

reasonable time, the DSCC could

bring another lawsuit before the

court, which it did in September

after more than 120 days again had

passed.

In this latest suit, the DSCC

specifically asks the court to require

the FEC to complete an expedited

investigation into its complaints

within 30 days after the court’s

order in this case and to make

weekly reports to the court on its

progress until the court’s order has

been fulfilled. Alternatively, the

DSCC asks the court to authorize

the committee itself to file a civil

action against the NRSC.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 96-2184,

September 20, 1996. ✦

Publications and Forms

Available on WWW

The Federal Election Commission has added five new brochures

to its web site. Navigate to http://

www.fec.gov and click on the menu

option “What’s New” or “Help for

Candidates, Parties and PACs” to

download:

• Selected Court Case Abstracts,

1976-1995,

• Campaign Guide for

Nonconnected Committees,

• Contributions brochure,

• Candidate registration brochure,

and

• Form 5 (it is used to report independent expenditures).

The court case abstracts and

Form 5 can be read only by using

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is

available free on the FEC’s web

site. ✦

Information

 Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1996-20

11 CFR Part 104: Electronic

Filing of Reports by Political

Committees; Interim Rules;

Transmittal to Congress (61 FR

58460, November 15, 1996)
6

Statistics

National Party Committees

Report Jump in Financial

Activity

The national Democratic and

Republican party committees1

experienced large increases in

financial activity in both their

federal and nonfederal accounts

during the 1996 election cycle, as

compared to the same time four

years ago.

Pre-general election reports filed

with the FEC reveal that the Republican party’s national committees

raised $278.4 million in federal

funds and the Democratic committees raised $145 million. The tallies

for the committees cover the period

from January 1, 1995, when the

election cycle began, to October 16,

which was the close of books for the

pre-general election report.

The numbers reflect a 69 percent

increase in contributions for Republicans and a 71 percent increase for

Democrats.

The three national Republican

committees made disbursements

from federal accounts totaling some

$272 million, a 77 percent increase

over this time in 1992.

The three national Democratic

committees followed a similar

pattern, increasing spending from

federal accounts by 64.5 percent,

with disbursements recorded at

$133.2 million.

The national committees also saw

dramatic increases in contributions

and disbursements in their

nonfederal, or “soft money,”

accounts. Those accounts are

established to receive funds that are

raised outside the limitations and

prohibitions of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act). The money

in those accounts cannot be used to

make contributions to or expenditures on behalf of federal candidates. It may, however, be used in

conjunction with federal funds (or

“hard dollars”) to pay for shared

federal and nonfederal activity, such

as generic voter activity.

According to the filings, the

Republicans raised $121 million for

nonfederal accounts and spent $118

million. That is a 166 percent

increase in contributions and a 219

percent increase in expenditures

over their 1992 activity.

The Democrats raised $107.4

million in nonfederal accounts and

spent $99.8 million, increases of

248 percent and 283 percent respectively compared to 1992.

Republican committees contributed $2.3 million on behalf of

candidates and spent an additional

$22.6 million in coordinated expenditures. See 2 U.S.C. §441a(d).

They also reported $4.4 million in

National Party Committees’1

Federal Account Receipts

Through Pre-General

Reporting Period2

(in millions)

National Party Committees’1

Nonfederal Account Receipts

Through Pre-General

Reporting Period2

(in millions)

1

Democratic National Committee,

Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee, Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, Republican

National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, National

Republican Congressional Committee.

1

DNC, DSCC, DCCC, RNC, NRSC,

NRCC.

2

Statistics from the Democratic

National Committee for 1996 receipts

and disbursements cover reporting

through September 30 only. Data from

all other national committees is

complete through October 16.

1

DNC, DSCC, DCCC, RNC, NRSC,

NRCC.

2

Statistics from the Democratic

National Committee for 1996 receipts

and disbursements cover reporting

through September 30 only. Data from

all other national committees is

complete through October 16.

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1996

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Disbursements

Receipts

Dem Rep Dem Rep

1992 1996

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Disbursements

Receipts

Dem Rep Dem Rep

1992 1996
7

independent expenditures. The

Democrats contributed $1.3 million

to candidates and spent $12.4

million in coordinated expenditures.

Information about the financial

activities of the major parties’

national committees through the

pre-general election reporting period

can be found in an October 29 news

release.2

 The release is available:

• At the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov (click on “News

Releases and Media Advisories” at

the main menu);

•From the Public Records office by

calling 1-800-424-9530 (press 3);

and

• On the FEC’s Flashfax service at

202-501-3413 (request document

528). ✦

Nonfederal Disbursements by Party Committees (in millions)

Democrats Republicans

Transfers to State Parties $51.7 $40.4

Contributions to State $ 2.5 $ 0.9

and Local Candidates

Portion of Shared Federal/ $30.4 $47.7

Nonfederal Activity

Other Activities $15.8 $40.1

Date Received

The date a committee receives a

contribution in hand is the date used

for reporting purposes. This applies

even when the contribution was

made just before a particular

election (or on the day of the

election), but not received until after

that election.

Designation Recommended

The FEC recommends that

contributors always designate their

contributions. That way, the political committee receiving the contribution knows exactly how the

contributor wants the money used.

Designation can be as simple as

writing the candidate’s name and

the name of the election on the

memo line of a check or other

written instrument. Alternatively,

contributors may include a signed

statement with the contribution

saying how it is to be used.

If you have more questions about

undesignated contributions, call the

FEC’s Information Division at 800/

424-9530 (press 1 if using a touch

tone phone) or 202/219-3420. ✦

800 Line

(continued from page 2)

2

Note that the data contained in the

news release differs from the data

published in this article. The release

covers statistical data for the Democratic National Committee only through

September 30. The DNC filed its pregeneral report after the FEC deadline

and after the release was issued by the

FEC. (For additional information, see

RNC v. DNC and FEC on page 4.)

December 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
organizations with oversight over

the securities industry—the Securities and Exchange Commission,

NASD Regulation Inc. and the New

York Stock Exchange—and to four

brokerage firms where employees

were identified as having requested

contributor lists from the FEC’s

Public Records Office. ✦

Candidate Office Sought Report Not Filed

Antoine, Kevin House MS/04 October Quarterly

Auer, Bill House NJ/05 Pre-General

Benitez, Celeste House PR/00 Pre-General

Borow, Randy House IL/07 October Quarterly

Pre-General

Brown, Robert P. House FL/23 Pre-General

Bunn, James L. House OR/05 Pre-General1

Burch, Robert L. House OH/18 Pre-General

Canady, Michel L. House FL/12 Pre-General

Choby, William House PA/12 Pre-General

Clark, Douglas L. House IN/05 Pre-General

Clay Sr., William L. House MO/01 Pre-General

Diaz-Balart, Lincoln House FL/21 October Quarterly

Pre-General

Dinsmore, Robert S. House CA/05 October Quarterly

Pre-General

Dioguardi, Joseph J. House NY/19 Pre-General2

Evangel, Chris House NJ/11 Pre-General3

Foglietta, Thomas M. House PA/01 October Quarterly

Haughey, Thomas B. House TX/15 Pre-General

Hull, Elizabeth A. House IL/08 Pre-General

Jones, Charles P. House TX/23 Pre-General

Kelly, Johnny E. House TN/09 Pre-General

Kimbrough, Guy C. House CA/43 Pre-General

Lane, Dick House CA/15 October Quarterly

Pre-General

McDermott, James A. House WA/07 October Quarterly2

Michael, Elizabeth House CA/27 October Quarterly

Pre-General

Nalepa, James “Jim” T. House IL/03 Pre-General

O’Sullivan, Dan House MO/01 Pre-General

Ravotti, William A. House PA/14 Pre-General2

Roberts, Thomas I. “Tom” House VA/09 Pre-General

Robson, Barbara House MD/08 Pre-General

Sharpe-Geisler, Valli House CA/15 Pre-General2

Seidl, John D. House ID/02 Pre-General

Stockman, Steve House TX/09 Pre-General1

Uhrich, John A. House NM/01 October Quarterly

Pre-General

Vento, Bruce F. House MN/04 Pre-General2

Williams, Dennis E. House DE/00 Pre-General

Wilson Jr., Robert T. House AL/04 Pre-General2

Womack, Don House AL/01 Pre-General

1 The campaign submitted Summary and Detailed Summary pages without supporting schedules.

2 These committees filed reports. However, they were received after the FEC cutoff

date.

3

A Pre-General report was filed, but the report only disclosed financial activity

through October 7, 1996.

Nonfilers

The campaign committees listed

at right failed to file required

campaign finance disclosure reports.

The list is based on recent FEC

news releases. The FEC is required

by law to publicize the names of

nonfiling campaign committees.

2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7). The agency

pursues enforcement actions against

nonfilers on a case-by-case basis. ✦

Compliance

(continued from page 3)

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1996

8
Advisory

Opinions

AO 1996-43

Status of Affiliate as State

Political Committee

The Green Party of New York

(Green Party/NY), through the daily

operations of its subordinate entities, constitutes a state committee of

a political party.

Green Party/NY already is an

affiliate of the Greens/Green Party

USA (G/GPUSA). The party’s

Federal candidates for the November 1996 election include Presidential and Vice Presidential hopefuls

Ralph Nader and Muriel Tillinghast,

and Tom Leighton, who is vying for

the 14th Congressional District seat

in the state.

FEC regulations describe a state

committee as “the organization

which by virtue of the bylaws of a

political party, is responsible for the

day-to-day operation of the political

party at the State level, as determined by the Commission.” 11 CFR

100.14(a). A political party, under 2

U.S.C. §431(16), is an organization

that nominates candidates for

Federal office. Their names appear

on election ballots as being associated with that organization.

Although G/GPUSA has not

established itself as a national

committee1

, that does not prevent

Green Party/NY from being designated as a state committee. FEC

regulations do not require that a

national committee or, for that

matter, a national party be established before a state entity can be

recognized as the state committee of

a political party.

In three advisory opinions, the

Commission established two criteria

necessary to qualify as a state

committee of a political party. First,

the organization must have a state

affiliate agreement that delineates

activities that “are commensurate

with” the day-to-day operations of a

party at a state level. Second, the

state affiliate must gain ballot access

for its Federal candidates. See AOs

1996-27, 1995-49 and 1992-30.

The bylaws of Green Party/NY

describe it as a statewide organization that holds party assemblies and

sends representatives to “councils”

put on by G/GPUSA. Its bylaws

also suggest creating local “confederations.” And, the bylaws set up

obligations from candidates to the

state party: candidates must support

the Green platform, run as candidates of the Green party and donate

part of the income they receive upon

entering public office to the local

party organization. These provisions

describe, in effect, day-to-day

functions of a political party on a

state level. Additionally, the New

York Board of Elections has certified that Mr. Leighton is a Green

Party candidate for Congress.

Thus, Green Party/NY has

satisfied both requirements to

qualify as a state committee of a

political party. The fact that it has

secured ballot access for a Federal

candidate also qualifies Green Party/

NY as a political party.

Date Issued: October 17, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

AO 1996-44

Use of Campaign Funds for

District Office Move

Congressman Charles Wilson of

Texas may use funds from his

principal campaign committee to

pay for expenses involved in

moving office furnishings and

memorabilia from his Congressional

office in Lufkin, Texas, to Washington, D.C. The spending does not

constitute a prohibited use of

campaign funds for personal use.

Congressman Wilson, who

represents the 2nd District in Texas,

will retire when his term expires in

early 1997. Instead of returning to

Texas to live, he will remain in

Washington. As part of closing his

district office in Lufkin, Congressman Wilson would like to ship

framed pictures, art work and other

assorted memorabilia from Texas to

Washington and would like to use

funds from the Wilson Committee

to pay the expense.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) states that excess

campaign funds may be used for

specific purposes, but such funds

may not be converted to personal

use of the candidate or anyone else.

2 U.S.C. §439a.

Excess campaign funds may be

used, among other things, to pay for

ordinary expenses incurred in

connection with a Federal officeholder who, during a period of six

months after leaving office, is

winding down his or her campaign

office. 11 CFR 113.2(a)(2).

Congressman Wilson’s Congressional office and its furnishings

have played an integral part in the

performance of his duties as a

Federal officeholder. As Congressman Wilson’s official duties will

end on January 7, 1997, he will be

required to remove his furnishings

from his district office in Lufkin.

Hence, the cost of transporting the

Congressman’s office items from

the Texas Congressional office to

Washington would be a part of

winding down costs as described in

FEC regulations. Campaign funds

may be used to cover such costs.

All expenses should be reported

by the Wilson Committee as other

disbursements.

Date Issued: November 1, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

1

 The Commission concluded in a

recent advisory opinion that Greens/

Green Party USA does not qualify as a

national committee of a political party

at the present time. AO 1996-35.

(continued on page 10)

December 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9
10

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1996

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1996-46

Continuation of exemption from

certain reporting provisions of the

FECA (Socialist Workers Party

National Campaign Committee;

November 1, 1996; 20 pages plus

67-page attachment)

AOR 1996-47

Qualification as national committee

of political party (National Reform

Party Steering Committee; November 3, 1996; 3 pages plus 293-page

attachment)

AOR 1996-48

Application of “news story” exception to broadcasts by C-SPAN

(National Cable Satellite Corporation; November 3, 1996; 3 pages

plus 1-page attachment)

AOR 1996-49

Affiliation between committee of

joint venture partnership and

separate segregated funds of corporate partners (PRIMECO Personal

Communications L.P.; October 28,

1996; 10 pages plus 164-page

attachment) ✦

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1996 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indicates the

page number in that issue. For

example, “1:4” means that the

article is in the January issue on

page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1995-38: Corporate vendor and

nonconnected PAC with common

officer, 1:14

1995-40: Disaffiliation of PACs, 3:7

1995-41: Preemption of state

disclosure requirements, 2:3

1995-42: Using campaign funds to

pay child-care expenses, 2:3

1995-43: Refunding legal fees to

candidate committee, 3:8

1995-44: Presidential primary

candidate excused from filing 48-

hour notices, 3:8

1995-45: Qualified campaign

expenses for ballot access, 3:9

1995-46: Purchase of candidate’s

book by his campaign, 3:9

1995-47: Use of campaign funds for

travel to party’s Presidential

nominating convention, 5:7

1995-48: Preemption of Georgia law

limiting receipt of contributions,

3:10

1995-49: Status of a state affiliate of

national party committee, 6:6

1996-1: Corporate partisan communications, 5:7

1996-2: Providing free on-line

accounts to candidates, 6:6

1996-3: Determining political

committee status, 6:7

1996-4: Public funding shortfalls

and bridge loans, 5:8

1996-5: Returning illegal contributions, 5:9

1996-7: Public funding certifications, 5:9

1996-8: Local party committees and

building funds, 7:6

1996-9: Building a library center

with excess campaign funds, 6:7

1996-10: Corporate employees as

stockholders, 7:7

1996-11: Incumbent appearances at

convention of membership

organization, 7:9

1996-12: Criteria for qualified

campaign expenses, 7:10

1996-13: Property owned by limited

liability company used for

campaign events, 8:6

1996-14: Use of excess campaign

funds for moving expenses, 7:11

1996-15: Discarding envelopes used

to mail reports to state, 7:11

1996-16: Defining a news entity, 7:11

1996-17: Cars provided as official

vehicles of convention, 7:12

1996-18: Conduit accounts, 8:7

1996-19: Use of campaign funds for

travel to Presidential nominating

convention: wife and children, 8:8

1996-20: Use of campaign funds for

travel to Presidential nominating

convention: chief of staff, 8:8

1996-21: Membership organization

communications, 8:9

1996-22: Public funding for nonmajor party candidates, 8:10

1994-23: Disaffiliation of reorganized corporations and their

PACs, 9:4

1996-24: Use of campaign funds for

certain legal expenses, 8:10

1995-25: Seeking employer information from union members

without permanent employment,

11:8

1996-26: Corporation as collecting

agent for PAC of affiliated

association, 9:5

1996-27: Qualifying as state party

committee, 9:6

1996-28: Personal use of campaign

funds by former Member, 10:5

1996-29: In-kind contributions

designated for more than one

election, 10:5

1996-33: Exchange of contributions

between federal candidate and

state candidates, 10:5

1996-34: Use of campaign funds for

travel of Congressman’s family,

11:9

Index
11

December 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

1996-36: Application of contribution and spending limits to courtordered elections, 11:9

1996-37: Application of contribution limits to court-ordered

elections, 11:10

1996-38: Solicitable class of

nonconnected PAC affiliated with

SSF, 11:11

1996-39: Legal fees related to ballot

access, 11:12

1996-40: Contributions of campaign

funds to nonprofit corporation,

11:12

1996-41: Broadcasting views of

candidates for federal and state

offices, 11:12

1996-43: Status of affiliate as a

state political committee, 12:9

1996-44: Use of campaign funds

for district office move, 12:9

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Christian Action Network, 10:1

– Christian Coalition, 9:1

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 8:1; 11:7

– DSCC (95-2881), 1:5

– GOPAC, 4:1

– Hartnett, 4:12

– Kalogianis, 10:2

– Legi-Tech, 4:9

– McCallum, 9:2

– Murray for Congress, 8:5; 11:7

– National Right to Work, 4:11

– Parisi, 3:6

– Survival Education Fund, 11:6

– Wofford, 6:4

_____ v. FEC

– Albanese, 5:4; 11:00

– Buchanan, 6:4

– Center for Responsive Politics, 1:3

– Chamber of Commerce, 1:2

– Clifton, 5:6; 7:1; 9:3

– Common Cause (94-02104), 5:5

– DCCC (96-0764), 6:4

– DCCC (96-2109), 11:7

– DSCC (95-0349), 7:5

– DSCC (96-2184), 12:5

– Grover, 7:6

– Hooker, 3:7

– Jordan, 4:12

– ME Right to Life Committee, 1:3;

4:9; 12:1

– MN Citizens Concerned for Life,

3:6; 6:3

– Natural Law Party, 11:1

– Perot ’96, 11:1

– RNC (94-1017), 4:10; 9:3

– RNC (96-2494), 12:4

– NRCC (96-2295), 11:8

– Reilly, 8:5

– Stockman, 2:9; 10:2

– Whitmore, 3:6

On Appeal?, 5:6; 7:6; 9:3; 11:5;

12:4

Reports

Electronic filing system, 2:2; 11:2;

12:1

Point of entry change for House

candidates, 2:1

Reporting reminders, 4:3; 6:1;10:1;

11:3

Schedule for 1996, 1:5

Special elections, 2:5; 3:2; 7:16;

10:7; 10:8

800 Line

Ballot access payments, 2:8

Bundling by individuals, 8:2

Conventions, permissible corporate

and labor activity, 2:7

– correction, 9:4

Filing tips, 5:1

Last- minute independent expenditures: 48 hour notices, 9:3

Undesignated contributions, 12:2
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1996

Change of Address

Political Committees

Treasurers of registered political committees automatically receive the Record. A change of address by a

political committee (or any change to information disclosed on the Statement of Organization) must, by law, be

made in writing on FEC Form 1 or by letter. The treasurer

must sign the amendment and file it with the Secretary of

the Senate, the Clerk of the House or the FEC (as appropriate) and with the appropriate state office.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers who are not registered political

committees should include the following information

when requesting a change of address:

• Subscription number (located on the upper left corner

of the mailing label);

• Subscriber’s name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

Subscribers (other than political committees) may

correct their addresses by phone as well as by mail.