February 2002 

Table of Contents 

Election Administration 

1	 Voluntary Standards for 

Computerized Voting Systems 

1 Advisory Opinions 

2 Federal Register 

Court Cases 

3 AFL-CIO v. FEC 

4 New Litigation 

Audits 

5	 Runbeck for Congress and Reggie 

Seltzer for Congress 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

6 ADR Update 

Staff 

6	 Robert Biersack Named Deputy 

Press Officer 

Administrative Fines 

7	 Committees Fined for Late and 

Nonfiled Reports 

Outreach 

5 Public Appearances 

7 Conference for Candidates and 

Party Committees 

7 Conference Schedule for 2002 

8 Index 

Federal Election Commission 

Election 

Administration 

Voluntary Standards for 

Computerized Voting 

Systems Issued for Public 

Comment 

On December 13, 2001, the 

Commission issued for public 

comment two volumes of draft 

Voluntary Standards for Computerized Voting Systems (the Standards). The Standards, which revise 

those published in 1990, are designed to guide the development of 

computerized voting systems. 

Volume I provides functional and 

technical requirements for a number 

of different voting system types and 

configurations. Volume II provides 

testing specifications and processes 

for the requirements outlined in 

Volume I. Copies of both volumes 

are available on the Commission’s 

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

elections.html and by calling the 

Commission’s Office of Election 

Administration, 800/424-9530 

(extension 1095) or 202/694-1095. 

Although the Standards are 

voluntary, 38 states have chosen to 

adopt them either in whole or in part 

and currently use them to design 

(continued on page 2) 

Volume 28, Number 2 

Advisory

Opinions 

AO 2001-16 

Extension of 60-Day Window 

for Transferring Funds to 

Cover Allocable Expenses 

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) may not transfer 

funds from its nonfederal to its 

federal accounts outside of the 60-

day period Commission regulations 

allow for transfers to pay the 

nonfederal portion of allocable 

expenses. 

Background 

Under Commission regulations, 

expenses that are allocable between 

a committee’s federal and 

nonfederal accounts must be paid 

entirely from a federal account. The 

committee may transfer funds to 

cover the nonfederal portion of the 

expense from the nonfederal account to the federal account up to 

ten days before the expenditure is 

made or within 60 days afterward. 

11 CFR 106.5(g). 

The DNC had requested that the 

60-day post-payment transfer period 

be extended temporarily to 120 

days, because the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, “made it 

(continued on page 2) 
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2002 

Election Administration 

(continued from page 1) 

systems and procure equipment to 

meet the needs of a variety of voting 

populations and election formats. 

Periodic revisions of the Standards are necessary in order to 

address emerging technology in 

voting systems, such as electronic 

and telecommunications components not considered in the original 

standards. The revised volumes also 

define: 

• Specifications to help voting 

system vendors design systems 

that meet the specific needs of 

voters with disabilities; 

• System specific software standards 

for ballot counting, vote processing, the creation of an unalterable 

audit trail and the generation of 

output reports and files; 

• Performance requirements to 

provide direct feedback to the 

voter indicating an overvote or an 

undervote; and 

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) 

David M. Mason, Chairman 

Karl J. Sandstrom, Vice Chairman 

Danny L. McDonald, 

Commissioner 

Bradley Smith, Commissioner 

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner 

Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner 

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director 

Lawrence H. Norton, General 

Counsel 

Published by the Information 

Division 

Greg J. Scott, Acting Assistant 

Staff Director 

Amy Kort, Editor 

http://www.fec.gov 

• Performance requirements for 

the content and labeling of data 

provided to the media and other 

organizations prior to the canvass 

and certification of election results. 

The Commission first released 

Volume I for public comment in 

July 2001, and made substantive 

revisions in response to the comments received. Volume II is being 

released for comment for the first 

time. A Notice requesting comments 

on these volumes was published in 

the December 20, 2001, Federal 

Register (66 FR 65708).✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Advisory Opinions 

(continued from page 1) 

appropriate for the DNC to suspend its fundraising events and 

mail solicitations.” The DNC 

asserted that it had not received 

nonfederal funds “in time to make 

allocation transfers because of 

circumstances outside the control 

of the committee or its agents.” 

As a result of the issues raised in 

this advisory opinion request, the 

Commission considered issuing a 

Statement of Policy to grant some 

temporary and circumscribed relief 

from compliance with the transfer 

deadline at 11 CFR 

106.5(g)(2)(ii)(B).1

 The Commission, however, did not approve a 

Statement of Policy. Likewise, the 

Commission decided not to grant 

such relief through an advisory 

opinion and denied the DNC’s 

request for an extension of the 

transfer deadline. 

1

 A proposed policy statement, “Request for Comment on Draft Statement 

of Policy Regarding Party Committee 

Transfers of Nonfederal Funds for 

Payment of Allocable Expenses,” was 

published in the November 7, 2001, 

Federal Register (66 FR 56247). 

Commissioner Sandstrom issued 

a concurring opinion on December 

14, 2001. 

Date Issued: December 17, 2001; 

Length: 3 pages.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Advisory Opinion Requests 

AOR 2001-15 

Trade association PAC’s 

solicitation of master limited 

partnership and its employees; 

acceptance of unsolicited contributions. (National Propane Gas 

Association, September 25, 2001) 

AOR 2001-17 

Disclosing receipt of contributions made via a single check that 

are split between federal and 

nonfederal accounts (DNC Services 

Corporation/Democratic National 

Committee, October 29, 2001) 

AOR 2002-1 

Presidential public funding for 

coalition of minor parties supporting 

candidate(s) who together gain five 

percent of vote (Lenora B. Fulani 

and James Mangia, et al., January 3, 

2002)✦ 

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the FEC web 

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

register.htm and from the FEC 

faxline, 202/501-3413. 

Notice 2001-19 

Voluntary Standards for 

Computerized Voting Systems 

(66 FR 65708, December 20, 

2001). 

Notice 2001-20 

Notice of Disposition Regarding 

Party Committee Transfers of 

NonFederal Funds for Payment of 

Allocable Expenses (66 FR 

66813, December 27, 2001). 

2 
February 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Court Cases 

AFL-CIO and DNC Services 

Corp./DNC v. FEC 

On December 19, 2001, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia found that the FEC’s 

decision to disclose documents 

obtained during an investigation of 

the plaintiffs was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. The court 

ruled that the confidentiality provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and an FEC 

regulation prohibit the Commission 

from making public the investigatory files of matters under review 

(MURs). The court also found that 

the Commission is required to 

redact names and other individual 

identifying information from the 

files prior to release under the 

Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA). 

Background 

On June 17, 1997, the Commission found reason to believe that the 

plaintiffs had violated the Act 

during the 1995-96 election cycle 

(MURs 4291, et al.). At the conclusion of its investigation, the Commission voted to take no further 

action on MURs 4291, et al. and to 

close the files. In keeping with its 

long-standing practice of disclosing 

the investigatory record once a 

MUR is closed, the Commission 

planned to make public a portion of 

the investigatory file. 11 CFR 

5.4(a)(3) and (4). 

The plaintiffs claimed that public 

disclosure of the files would cause 

irreparable injury by revealing 

confidential information to their 

political opponents, the media and 

the public, and by chilling the 

plaintiffs’ future efforts to engage in 

political activities. The plaintiffs 

asked the Commission not to make 

the documents public. The Commission denied their requests, and the 

AFL-CIO and DNC filed suit. On 

July 17, 2001, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia 

granted the plaintiffs’ request for a 

preliminary injunction barring the 

Commission from publicly releasing 

certain documents relating to the 

investigation until the court made a 

final decision in this case. See the 

September 2001 Record, page 8. 

Court Decision 

The plaintiffs requested summary 

judgment from the court, arguing 

that disclosure of the documents 

would violate the confidentiality 

provision of the Act, which states 

that: 

“Any notification or investigation 

made under [the enforcement] 

section shall not be made public by 

the Commission or by any person 

without the written consent of the 

person receiving such notification or 

the person with respect to whom 

such investigation is made.” 2 

U.S.C. §437g(a)(12)(A). 

The plaintiffs further claimed that 

publicizing the MUR documents 

would violate: 

• FOIA exemptions at 5 U.S.C. 

§552(b)(3) and (7)(C); 

• The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 

§522a(b)); and 

• The First Amendment. 

Confidentiality Provision of the 

Act. The Commission argued that 

the Act only protects the confidentiality of ongoing investigations. 

Once a MUR is closed, the Act 

requires the Commission to make 

public the conciliation agreement or 

the Commission’s determination 

that the Act has not been violated. 2 

U.S.C. §437g(a)(4)(B)(ii). The 

Commission asserted that the Act’s 

confidentiality provision was 

intended to protect a MUR respondent from disclosure of the fact that 

the respondent is under investigation. When the Commission makes 

public its MUR determination, it 

also reveals the fact that the respondent has been investigated, leaving 

nothing to be protected by the 

confidentiality provision. 

The court, however, concluded 

that the plain language of the Act 

barred the Commission from 

publicizing investigative materials 

and, thus, that the Commission’s 

interpretation of the statute ran 

counter to congressional intent. 2 

U.S.C. §437g(a)(12)(A). The court 

explained that, “Had Congress 

intended §437g(a)(12)(A) to expire 

upon the conclusion of an FEC 

investigation, it certainly knew how 

to draft language to accomplish that 

goal.” The court found that the 

Act’s provision requiring that MUR 

determinations be made public was 

a limited exception to the Act’s 

confidentiality provision, not a 

directive to end the protection of 

that provision. 2 U.S.C. 

§437g(a)(4)(b)(ii). Moreover, the 

court concluded that publication of 

the materials would violate one of 

the Commission’s regulations that 

implements the Act’s confidentiality 

provision. 11 CFR 111.21(a). 

FOIA Exemption. FOIA exemption 7(C) protects information 

compiled for law enforcement 

purposes that, if released, could 

reasonably be expected to constitute 

an unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy. 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(C). 

The plaintiffs claimed that this 

exemption protected the identities 

and personal information of all 

individuals named in the investigative files. The Commission argued 

in response that: 

• Individuals named in the files had 

a diminished expectation of 

privacy resulting from the Act’s 

reporting requirements, its administrative enforcement procedures, 

the Commission’s public disclosure regulations and the potential 

for enforcement cases to be 

litigated in federal district court (2 

U.S.C. 437g(a)(6) and (8)); 

• The public interest in the disclosure of the results of any FEC 

enforcement investigation out­

(continued on page 4) 

3 
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2002 

Court Cases 

(continued from page 3) 

weighed the privacy interest of the 

named individuals; and 

• Much of the information contained 

in the files was already in the 

public domain and could thus be 

disclosed despite the FOIA exemption. 

The court rejected the 

Commission’s claims concerning 

the public interest and individuals’ 

expectations of privacy because the 

District of Columbia Circuit has 

established a categorical rule that an 

agency must exempt from disclosure 

the names and identifying information of individuals appearing in an 

agency’s law enforcement files.1 

Moreover, the court found that the 

Commission had failed to show that 

the majority of the names of individuals contained in the materials 

were already in the public domain. 

Other Issues. The court, having 

found that disclosure would violate 

the Act and Commission regulations, as well as FOIA exemption 

7(C), did not reach the merits of the 

plaintiffs’ First Amendment or 

Privacy Act claims. The court 

granted the plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment in this case and 

denied the Commission’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, CA-01-

1522.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

New Litigation 

Common Cause and Democracy 

21 v. FEC 

On November 21, 2001, Common Cause and Democracy 21 (the 

plaintiffs), both nonprofit public 

1

 Citing the D.C. Circuit, the court held 

that this rule applies unless that 

information is necessary to confirm or 

refute compelling evidence that the 

agency is engaged in illegal activity. 

interest organizations, asked the 

U.S. District Court for the District 

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

it dismissed the plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, filed April 4, 

2000. The administrative complaint 

alleged that, during the 2000 

election, joint fundraising efforts by 

authorized Senate campaign committees and national and state party 

committees resulted in violations of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act). On September 25, 2001, 

the Commission dismissed the 

administrative complaint. 

Background. Under Commission 

regulations, political committees, 

such as authorized candidate 

committees and party committees, 

may engage in joint fundraising 

efforts and may form a committee to 

act as a joint fundraising representative. 11 CFR 102.17(a). If any 

participant in the joint fundraiser 

can lawfully accept nonfederal 

funds (soft money), then the joint 

fundraising representative can 

accept nonfederal funds.1

 11 CFR 

102.17(c)(3) and 2 U.S.C. §§441a, 

b, c, e, f and g. However, only 

federal funds—contributions that 

comply with the Act’s limits and 

prohibitions—may be used to 

influence a federal election. Party 

committees may make coordinated 

expenditures on behalf of their 

federal candidates, so long as only 

federal funds are used and the 

expenditures do not exceed the 

coordinated party expenditure 

limits. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d). 

Administrative Complaint. In 

their April 2000 administrative 

complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that 

during the 2000 federal elections a 

number of campaign committees 

1

 The fundraising representative must 

deposit nonfederal donations into a 

separate account created for that 

purpose or forward them directly to a 

participant that is permitted to accept 

them. 

and party committees were using 

nonfederal funds raised through 

joint fundraising activities to make 

expenditures that violated the Act. 

The plaintiffs alleged that during the 

2000 New York Senatorial race, the 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign 

Committee (DSCC), the New York 

State Democratic Committee 

(NYSDC) and Senator Hillary 

Clinton’s campaign committee 

(Clinton Committee) created a joint 

fundraising representative that 

raised funds for the committees. The 

plaintiffs claimed that the DSCC 

and the NYSDC used joint 

fundraising funds, including 

nonfederal funds, to purchase 

television advertisements that were 

intended to promote Senator 

Clinton’s election and that may have 

constituted coordinated party 

expenditures because they appeared 

to have been coordinated with the 

Clinton committee. According to the 

complaint, donors who gave money 

to the joint fundraising representative understood that their donations 

would be used to support Senator 

Clinton’s campaign. The plaintiffs 

asserted that the DSCC transferred 

funds that under the Act could not 

be allocated to the Clinton Committee to the NYSDC, which then 

purchased the ads. Thus, the administrative complaint alleged that the 

committees violated the Act’s 

contribution limits and its prohibitions on corporate and labor union 

contributions. 2 U.S.C. §§441a and 

441b. 

Court Complaint. In their November 2001 court complaint, the 

plaintiffs repeated the above allegations concerning the 2000 New 

York Senate race. The court complaint further alleged that these 

expenditures, when aggregated with 

the parties’ other expenditures, 

exceeded the Act’s coordinated 

party expenditure limits and were 

not properly reported to the Commission. 

4 
February 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Audits As a result, the complaint alleged, the Clinton Committee, the 

DSCC and the NYSDC violated the 

Act by: 

• Accepting contributions in excess 

of the individual contribution 

limits and in violation of the 

prohibitions on contributions from 

corporations and labor organizations (2 U.S.C. §§441a and 

441b(a)); 

• Accepting or expending funds in 

excess of the coordinated party 

expenditure limits (2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(d) and 441a(f)); and 

• Failing to report contributions and 

expenditures used to influence a 

federal election (2 U.S.C. 

§434(b)). 

Additionally, the complaint 

alleged that the DSCC exceeded the 

Act’s limit on national committee 

contributions to Senate candidates 

and that the DSCC and the NYSDC 

exceeded limits on political committee contributions to candidates and 

their authorized committees. 2 

U.S.C. §§441a(h) and 441a(a). 

In their complaint, the plaintiffs 

also asserted that other committees 

involved in joint fundraising for the 

2000 elections had committed 

similar violations, including Democratic committees in Michigan 

supporting Senator Stabenow and 

Republican committees in Missouri 

supporting then-Senator Aschcroft. 

Relief. The plaintiffs claim that 

the Commission failed to provide a 

reasoned basis for its decision to 

dismiss their administrative complaint and that the dismissal was 

erroneous. The plaintiffs ask the 

court to declare that the 

Commission’s dismissal of the 

administrative complaint was 

arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law under the Act. 

U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, 

1:01cv02423.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Runbeck for Congress and 

Reggie Seltzer for Congress 

In two recently-approved audit 

reports, the Commission found that 

political committees had failed to 

use their “best efforts” to obtain the 

name, address, occupation and 

employer of each individual who 

had given more than $200 in a 

calendar year. The Commission 

approved the Final Audit Reports 

for Runbeck for Congress 

(Runbeck) and Reggie Seltzer for 

Congress (Seltzer) on November 9 

and November 15, respectively. In 

each of the audits, insufficient 

identification required committees 

to amend previously-filed reports. 

Background 

Under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act), political 

committees are required to identify 

each person who gives more than 

$200 in a calendar year. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b)(3)(A). Identification is 

defined as the name, address, 

occupation and employer of each 

individual. 2 U.S.C. §431(13)(A). 

Committee reports are judged to be 

in compliance with the identification 

requirements of the Act when a 

committee either discloses the 

required information or its treasurer 

can demonstrate that he used best 

efforts to obtain the information 

required under the Act. 2 U.S.C. 

§432(i). Treasurers are deemed to 

have exercised best efforts when 

they have made at least one attempt 

to obtain the required information 

after the receipt of a contribution. 

Such a request may be either a 

written request or an oral request 

documented in writing, and must be 

made no later than 30 days after the 

receipt of the contribution. 11 CFR 

104.7(b). 

Audit Findings 

The Runbeck audit covered 

January 1, 1999, to December 31, 

2000. The report found that 

Runbeck had disclosed 866 contributions that exceeded $200 per 

calendar year. For 234 of the 866 

contributions, contributors’ occupation and employer were not disclosed. After Runbeck was notified 

of the audit proceedings, its treasurer filed amended reports to 

disclose additional contributor 

information and materially correct 

the public record. 

The Seltzer audit also covered 

January 1, 1999, to December 31, 

2000. The report found that Seltzer 

had disclosed 313 contributions that 

exceeded $200 per calendar year. 

For 91 of the 313 contributions, 

contributors’ occupation and 

employer were not disclosed. While 

Seltzer staff reported that they 

attempted to obtain the required 

information, they kept no records of 

such efforts. 

Audit staff recommended that 

Seltzer: 

• Provide “one effort after receipt” 

documentation to demonstrate that 

best efforts had been made to 

obtain the required information; or 

• File amended Schedules A to 

disclose any contributor information not previously reported. 

In response, Seltzer filed 

amended reports to disclose additional contributor information and 

materially correct the public 

record.✦ 

—Jim Wilson 

Public Appearances 

February 7, 2002


Orange Rotary Club


Orange, California


Commissioner Wold


February 13-14, 2002


Government Performance


Institute


Washington, D.C.


Patricia Brown


5 
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2002 

Alternative 

Dispute

Resolution 

ADR Program Update 

Between October 2000 and 

December 2001, the Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) Pilot 

program resolved 28 cases, resulting 

in 45 separate negotiated settlement 

agreements. None of the cases 

required mediation. 

The vast majority of ADR 

cases—90 percent—arose from 

complaints filed with the Commission. These cases involved a variety 

of alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act), 

most frequently the Act’s provisions 

concerning: 

• Contributions or expenditures by 

corporations, banks or labor 

organizations; 

• Reporting by political committees; 

and 

• Contribution and expenditure 

limits. 

ADR aims to resolve disputes 

through the mutual consent of the 

parties involved and to promote 

compliance with and understanding 

of the Act. Moreover, ADR encourages parties to engage in negotiations that promptly lead to the 

resolution of their dispute. In its first 

Separate Negotiated Settlement Agreements 

October 2000—December 2001 

Monetary Penalty Only


Settlements Rejected by Commission


Both Monetary and Non-Monetary Terms


Non-Monetary Terms Only


14 months, the ADR program 

concluded cases within an average 

of 117 days. 

To date, the Commission has 

approved all but two of the ADR 

office’s negotiated settlement 

agreements.1

 Fifty-two percent of 

ADR-negotiated agreements mandated only non-monetary terms of 

settlement designed to encourage 

corrective action, such as the 

respondents’ participation in an FEC 

conference. Only four percent of the 

agreements required the payment of 

a civil penalty absent other, nonmonetary terms. See graph at left. 

For more information about the 

ADR program, see the FEC’s 

“Alternative Dispute Resolution” 

brochure, which describes how 

cases qualify for the program. The 

brochure is available on the FEC’s 

web site at http://fecweb1.fec.gov/ 

pages/adr.htm, or by mail. Call 800/ 

424-9530 (press 1, then 3) or 202/ 

694-1100 to request a copy.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Staff 

Robert Biersack Named 

Deputy Press Officer 

The Commission has appointed 

Robert W. Biersack to be the 

agency’s Deputy Press Officer, 

filling a vacancy left by the retirement of Sharon L. Snyder. Mr. 

Biersack will assume his new duties 

on February 11, 2002. 

Mr. Biersack, who joined the 

Commission’s Data Systems 

Development Division in 1983, has 

been instrumental in defining, 

planning and executing statistical 

studies related to campaign finance 

information filed with the Commis1

 Two agreements were rejected by the 

Commission on September 26, 2001, 

due to provisions in the agreements 

reflecting the respondents’ misunderADR Settlements standing of various sections of the Act. 

6 
February 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

sion. He was also a key participant 

in the design and implementation of 

the FEC’s electronic filing program 

and Internet accessible database. 

Mr. Biersack holds degrees in 

economics and political science 

from Marquette University and the 

University of WisconsinMilwaukee.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Administrative 

Fines 

Committees Fined for 

Nonfiled and Late Filed 

Reports 

The Federal Election Commission recently publicized its final 

action on three new Administrative 

Fine cases, bringing the total 

number of cases released to the 

public to 300: 

• California Dental Association, 

$3,000 civil money penalty; 

• Federal Managers’ Association 

PAC, $1,000 civil money penalty; 

and 

• Rustad Senate 2000, penalty 

reduced to $0 due to lack of 

activity on the report. 

Civil money penalties for late 

reports are determined by the 

number of days the report was late, 

the amount of financial activity 

involved and any prior penalties for 

violations under the administrative 

fine regulations. Penalties for 

nonfiled reports—and for reports 

filed so late as to be considered 

nonfiled—are also determined by 

the financial activity for the reporting period and any prior violations. 

Election sensitive reports, which 

include reports and notices filed 

prior to an election (i.e., 12 Day preelection, October quarterly and 

October monthly reports), receive 

higher penalties. The committees 

and the treasurers are assessed civil 

money penalties when the Commission makes its final determination. 

Unpaid civil money penalties are 

referred to the Department of the 

Treasury for collection. 

Closed Administrative Fine case 

files are available through the FEC 

Press Office, at 800/424-9530 (press 

2) and the Public Records Office, at 

800/424-9530 (press 3).✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Outreach 

Conference for Candidates 

and Party Committees 

The FEC will hold a conference 

for candidates and party committees 

March 25-26, 2002, in Washington, 

D.C. The conference will consist of 

a series of interactive workshops 

presented by Commissioners and 

experienced FEC staff, who will 

explain how the requirements of the 

federal election law apply to House 

and Senate campaigns and political 

parties. In addition, an IRS representative will be available to answer 

election-related tax questions. 

The registration fee for this 

conference is $325, which covers 

the cost of the conference, materials 

and meals. The deadline for registration (and for fully-refunded registration cancellations) is March 1. A 

late registration fee of $10 will be 

added effective March 2. 

The conference will be held at the 

Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington, 

D.C. A room rate of $189 single or 

double is available for reservations 

made by March 1. Call 800/635-

5065 or 202/484-1000 ext. 5000 to 

make reservations. In order to 

receive this room rate, you must 

notify the hotel that you will be 

attending the FEC conference. After 

March 1, room rates are based on 

availability. The hotel is located 

near the L’Enfant Plaza Metro and 

Virginia Railway Express stations. 

Registration Information 

Conference registrations will be 

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Attendance is limited, 

and FEC conferences have sold out 

in the past, so please register early. 

For registration information: 

• Call Sylvester Management 

Corporation at 800/246-7277; 

• Visit the FEC web site at 

www.fec.gov/pages/ 

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or 

• Send an email to 

toni@sylvestermanagement.com.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Conferences in 2002 

For complete conference 

information, visit the FEC’s web 

site at www.fec.gov/pages/ 

infosvc.htm#Conferences. 

Conference for Candidate 

Committees, Parties and PACs 

Date: February 5-7, 2002 

Location: San Francisco, CA 

(Grand Hyatt on Union Square) 

Registration Fee: $375 

Conference for Candidate and 

Party Committees 

Date: March 25-26, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: $325 

Conference for Corporations 

Date: April 22-24, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: $375 

Conference for Trade 

Associations 

Date: May 22-24, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: TBA 

Conference for Member and 

Labor Organizations 

Date: June 26-28, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: TBA 

7 
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2002 

Index 

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2002 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 

2001-13: National committee status 

of party committee, 1:11 

2001-16: Extension of 70-day 

window for transferring funds for 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


999 E Street, NW


Washington, DC 20463


Official Business


Penalty for Private Use, $300


Printed on recycled paper


allocable expenses after suspension of party fundraising due to 

national emergency, 2:1 

Compliance 

Administrative Fine program 

extended, 1:13; 2:7 

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC 

– AFL-CIO, 2:3 

– Common Cause and Democracy 

21, 2:4 

– Werthheimer, 1:12 

Reports 

IRS filing requirements, 1:11 

Reports due in 2002, 1:2 

Correction 

The January 2002 Record 

incorrectly stated that a 

committee with a fiscal year 

ending on September 30 must file 

IRS Form 990 (or 990-EZ) on or 

before January 15. Form 990 is 

due the 15th day of the 5th month 

after the close of a committee’s 

tax year, and thus in this example 

Form 990 would be due on or 

before February 15. For more 

information, call the IRS at 877/ 

829-5500. 

Presorted Standard


Postage and Fees Paid


Federal Election Commission


Permit Number G-31