June 1996 Federal Election Commission Volume 22, Number 6

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 New Regulations: Candidate

Debates and News Stories

Reports

1 July Reporting Reminder

Information

2 New Version of FEC Form 5 Now

Available

2 Point-of-Entry Change Improves

Disclosure

2 FEC Expands Home Page

10 Flashfax Menu

Court Cases

3 Minnesota Citizens Concerned for

Life, et al., v. FEC

4 FEC v. Wofford

4 Buchanan v. FEC

4 New Litigation

Statistics

5 PAC Activity Increases in 1995

6 Advisory Opinions

Compliance

8 Pre-Primary Election Report

Nonfilers

8 MURs Released to the Public

10 Federal Register Notices

11 Index

Regulations

(continued on page 2)

New Regulations: Candidate

Debates and News Stories for

Cable Television

On April 18, 1996, the FEC

transmitted to Congress its revisions

to the rules governing candidate

debates and news stories staged,

produced or distributed by cable

television organizations. The rules

were published in the Federal

Register on April 24, 1996 (61 FR

18049). These rules will take effect

once they have been before Congress for 30 legislative days.

Copies of the Federal Register

notice of the revised rules may be

obtained by calling the FEC at 800/

424-9530 or through the FEC’s

automated Flashfax system: dial 202/

501-3413 and request document 233.

Cable Television News Stories

Corporations are generally

prohibited from making contributions

or expenditures in connection with

federal elections. 2 U.S.C. §441b.

However, the Federal Election

Campaign Act and FEC regulations

at 11 CFR 100.7(b)(2) and 100.8(b)(2)

exempt from the definitions of

contribution and expenditure news

stories, commentaries and editorials

distributed to the public through the

facilities of any broadcast station or

periodical publication, provided the

Reports

July Reporting Reminder

Committees filing on a quarterly

basis must file their second quarterly report by July 15. Those filing

on a monthly schedule have a report

due on July 20.

Please note that, in addition to

filing quarterly reports, committees

of candidates active in 1996 primary

and runoff elections must file preelection reports and may have to file

48-hour notices. PACs and party

committees filing on a quarterly

basis may also have to file preelection reports.

Also note that committees of

candidates who are not active in any

1996 election must file a mid-year

report by July 31.

For more information on 1996

reporting, including reporting dates

and when to file 48-hour notices,

see the reporting schedule in the

January 1996 Record. To order the

1996 reporting schedule handout,

call 800/424-9530 or 202/219-3420.

Or use Flashfax: 202/501-3413 and

request document 344. This information is also available at the FEC’s

World Wide Web home page: http://

www.fec.gov. ✦
2

Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1996

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)

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

Dario Bard, Editor

Information

Point-of-Entry Change

Improves Disclosure

The point-of-entry change for

House candidate campaign reports is

already yielding benefits.1

The processing of the First Quarter

report went smoothly with fewer

duplicate reports submitted and

clearer copies of reports for the public.

These benefits are attributable to the

point-of-entry change. Formerly, House

candidates submitted their reports to

the Clerk of the House, who then forwarded microfilmed copies to the FEC.

Now the FEC receives the reports

directly. This enables the FEC to

process reports and code information faster than before. The FEC’s

Public Records Office has processed

more than 6,500 documents, helped

more than 1,100 visitors and handled

more than 1,500 calls in connection

with the First Quarter filing period.

Senate candidate committees are

now the only committees that do not

file with the FEC; they file with the

Secretary of the Senate, instead. The

FEC urged Congress to change this

point of entry, as well. See the May

1995 Record, page 3. ✦

1 Public Law 104-79 changed the point

of entry for House FEC reports from

the Clerk of the House to the FEC. See

the February 1996 Record, page 1.

New Version of FEC Form 5

Now Available

FEC Form 5 has been updated

and also modified to accommodate

qualified nonprofit corporations.

Additionally, the instructions for

filling out the form have been improved and are now easier to follow.

The new Form 5 should be used

by both individuals and qualified

nonprofit corporations (defined at

11 CFR 114.10) to disclose the

making of independent expenditures

in excess of $250. Corporations

should also use this form to certify FEC Expands Home Page

The FEC has made more information available on its World Wide

Web home page: http://www.fec.gov.

The main menu’s offerings have

been expanded from three options to

six options:

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

media organization is not owned or

controlled by any candidate, political committee or political party.1

 The

new regulations extend this exemption to cable television operators,

programmers and producers acting

in their capacities as press entities.

Cable Television Candidate Debates

Additionally, FEC rules exempt

from the definitions of contribution

and expenditure federal candidate

debates staged by broadcasters and

bona fide print media. 11 CFR 110.13

and 114.4(f). New language added

at 110.13 and 114.4(f) expands the

types of media entities that may

stage candidate debates to include

cable television operators, programmers and producers.2 Cable organizations may stage candidate debates

under the same terms that apply to

debates staged by other media

organizations. The revised rules also

permit cable organizations acting in

their capacity as news media to

cover or carry candidate debates

staged by other groups. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(2), 100.8(b)(2) and 110.13.

Finally, the new rules clarify the

existing requirement that no media

organization—broadcast, cable or

print—may stage candidate debates

if it is owned or controlled by a

candidate, political committee or

political party. 11 CFR 110.13(a)(2). ✦

1 If these distribution facilities are

owned or controlled by a political party,

political committee or candidate, the

cost of producing and distributing the

news story is still exempt if it represents

a bona fide news account communicated in a publication of general

circulation or on a licensed broadcasting facility and is part of a general

pattern of campaign-related news

accounts which give reasonably equal

coverage to all opposing candidates.

2 The Explanation and Justification

accompanying these new rules cites

rulings by the Federal Communications

Commission that the equal time provisions

under the Communications Act do not

apply to candidate debates as long as the

broadcaster exercises a reasonable, good

faith judgment that the debate is newsworthy and not for the purpose of giving

political advantage to any candidate.

that they meet the criteria, at

11 CFR 114.10, for being a qualified nonprofit corporation.

The new Form 5 may be ordered

by calling 800/424-9530. To have a

copy of the form faxed to you, use

the FEC’s automated Flashfax

system; dial 202/501-3413 and

request document 365. ✦
3

June 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

Minnesota Citizens Concerned

for Life, et al. v. FEC, et al.

On April 19, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Minnesota ruled that the FEC’s

regulations defining and governing

qualified nonprofit corporations

(11 CFR 114.10) were unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

1 An independent expenditure is an expenditure made without any coordination with a candidate’s campaign for a

communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate for federal office.

• Citizens Guide to Contributions

and the Law (information for the

general public);

• Using FEC Services;

• Financial Information About

Candidates, Parties and PACs

(data drawn from reports submitted

by political committees);

• Help for Candidates, Parties and

PACs (materials written to help

committees understand and comply

with the law);

• About Elections and Election

Administration; and

• News Releases, Media Advisories.

“What’s New” and “New”

options highlight recent additions to

the home page.

The regulated community may

wish to explore the fourth option

(Help for Candidates, Parties and

PACs), which includes PDF files of

the Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations, the

Campaign Guide for Candidates

and past 1996 Records. This option

also offers HTML versions of

brochures on the following subjects:

the Commission (in English and in

Spanish), the $3 checkoff, independent expenditures, the $25,000

contribution limit, foreign nationals,

federal and state campaign finance

laws, and public financing of

Presidential elections. ✦

Legal Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) contains a broad

prohibition against using corporate

and labor organization money in

connection with a federal election.

2 U.S.C. §441b.

In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens

for Life (MCFL) 479 U.S. 238

(1986), the Supreme Court, citing

First Amendment concerns, concluded

that §441b could not constitutionally

prohibit certain nonprofit corporations

from making independent expenditures.1

 In that case, the Supreme Court

ruled that independent expenditures

made by MCFL were exempt from

the ban at §441b because MCFL had

the following essential features:

• It was formed to promote political

ideas and did not engage in

business activities;

• It did not have shareholders or other

persons who had a claim on its

assets or earnings, or who had other

disincentives to disassociate themselves from the organization; and

• It was not established by a business corporation or labor union

and had a policy of not accepting

donations from such entities.

The FEC promulgated the

regulations at 11 CFR 114.10 to

incorporate the MCFL decision into

its regulatory framework. These

regulations established a test to

determine whether a corporation

qualified for exemption from the

Act’s prohibition against corporate

independent expenditures.

MCCL, a nonprofit corporation,

brought suit to challenge the constitutionality of the FEC’s new regulations. MCCL alleged that it does not

qualify to make independent expenditures under the FEC’s regulations

because:

• It engages in business activities

(sells advertising space in its

newsletter, rents its membership

list and engages in fundraisers that

are not expressly described as

requests for donations to be used

for political purposes);

• It issues affinity credit cards to its

members (impermissible under

11 CFR 114.10(c)(3)(ii) because it

creates a disincentive for members

to disassociate themselves from

MCCL); and

• It accepts corporate contributions.

Court’s Decision

The court noted that the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit, in addressing a similar

Minnesota state law, rejected the

argument that MCFL had created a

bright-line test for exemption from

the Act’s prohibition against corporate independent expenditures. Day

v. Holohan (34 F.3d 1356 (8th Cir.,

1994). Since the judicial district of

Minnesota is in the eighth circuit,

Day constituted controlling law in

this district court. The court also

noted the decision of the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Second Circuit in

FEC v. Survival Education Fund, 65

F.3d 285 (2nd Cir., 1995). See the

December 1995 Record, page 4, for

a summary of that case.

The Day decision concluded that,

by disqualifying from the independent-expenditure exemption those

nonprofit, membership corporations

that engaged in some business

activities and/or accepted corporate

donations, Minnesota’s regulations

were too restrictive and not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling

governmental interest. Relying on

Day, the district court ruled that

these aspects of the FEC’s regulations at 11 CFR 114.10(c) were

unconstitutional.

The Day decision, however, did

not address other aspects of the

FEC’s regulations, which plaintiffs

had challenged in this suit, including: the imposition of reporting

(continued on page 4)

(Information continued on page 10)
New Litigation

DCCC v. FEC (1:96CV00764)

The Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee (DCCC) asks

the court to require the FEC to

complete an expedited investigation

of an administrative complaint

(MUR 4128) it filed alleging

violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) by Grant

Lally. Under 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A),

the filer of an administrative complaint may petition the court after

120 days of the date of its filing.

The DCCC filed this complaint

on November 4, 1994. In the

complaint, the DCCC alleged that

Mr. Lally, a candidate for Congress

from the fifth district of New York,

received substantial sums (more

than $300,000) in undisclosed

contributions, in violation of the

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

requirements on those corporations

that make independent expenditures

under the MCFL exemption (11 CFR

114.10(e)); and the requirement that

exempt corporations disclose to

their contributors that their donations may be used for political

purposes (11 CFR 114.10(f)).

Instead of deciding whether these

parts of the regulation were independently unconstitutional, the district

court found that the unconstitutional

provision was not severable under

the severability doctrine: A regulation that contains unconstitutional

provisions must be stricken in its

entirety unless that which remains

after the unconstitutional provisions

are excised is fully operative as law

and the body enacting the regulation

would have enacted the constitutional provisions even in the absence

of those which are unconstitutional.

Because the court found that the

FEC’s definition of a qualified

nonprofit corporation at 114.10(c)

was flawed and that that provision

was not severable from the rest of

114.10, the court concluded that the

entire provision at 114.10 was void.2

U.S. District Court for the District

of Minnesota, 3-95-CV-1147. ✦

2 Although the court voided 11 CFR

114.10 in its entirety, the court noted

that the FEC had the authority to

impose certification and reporting

requirements and to require qualified

nonprofits to inform potential donors

that their donations could be used for

political purposes. These provisions,

had they not been inextricably linked to

the unconstitutional provisions, would

have been entitled to deference.

FEC v. Wofford

On March 27, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the Middle District

of Pennsylvania accepted the

January 1, 1996, recommendation of

the magistrate judge in this case; a

$15,000 civil penalty was imposed

Buchanan v. FEC

On April 18, 1996, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a joint stipulation

to dismiss this case; the parties

settled this matter out of court.

Patrick J. Buchanan and his

publicly-funded 1992 Presidential

campaign committee had petitioned

this court to review the FEC’s final

repayment determination. See the

November 1995 Record, page 8, for

a summary of the suit filed by

plaintiffs. See the October 1995

Record, page 9, for the FEC’s final

repayment determination.

The Buchanan committee made

most of the repayment immediately

from an escrow fund previously

established, and agreed to pay the

remainder of the amount ordered by

the FEC, with full interest, within 6

months.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 95-

1458. ✦

on the Citizens for Wofford committee and its treasurer for accepting

contributions in excess of the perelection limits. 2 U.S.C. §441a(f).

This case involved an FEC enforcement action born out of the 1991

Pennsylvania special election to fill

a U.S. Senate seat. The Democratic

party nominated Harris Wofford on

June 1, 1991. The party chose not to

certify him to the state as the Democratic nominee until September 5,

however, because the Republican

party did not nominate his opponent,

Richard Thornburgh, until then.

Mr. Wofford’s principal campaign

committee, Citizens for Wofford,

regarded contributions received after

June 1 but before September 5 as

primary election contributions. In

doing so, contributors were able to

give twice as much to Mr. Wofford’s

general election effort; contributors

gave up to their per-election limit

for his primary election effort after

the fact and again to his general

election effort.

The court determined that

contributions received after June 1

should have been treated as general

election contributions. 11 CFR

110.1(b)(2) and (3).

Although the amount of unlawful

contributions received by the defendants was stipulated to have been

$198,075, the court did not issue a

higher civil penalty because “there

is not a basis presented upon which

one may reasonably infer that the

defendants acted in bad faith” and

because the committee had less than

$15,000 in assets and was $70,000

in debt. The court concluded: “A

fine in the amount of $15,000 would

be adequate to vindicate all of the

interests of the Commission and of

the public in this case.”

U.S. District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania, 1:CV-94-

2057. ✦

4

Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1996
Statistics

PAC Activity Increases in 1995

According to reports filed with the

FEC, PAC contributions to federal

candidates in 1995 totaled $67.6

million, a 19.2 percent increase over

limits at 2 U.S.C. §441a, that he

claimed were “personal funds” lent

to his campaign. On August 2, 1995,

the DCCC filed a supplemental

complaint alleging that Mr. Lally

continued to accept impermissible

contributions.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 1:96CV00764,

April 23, 1996. ✦

the total for the last nonelection year

(1993). Two million dollars of the

1995 total was contributed to Presidential candidates, with the remainder concentrated in House campaigns.

Including the $67.6 million in

federal contributions, PAC spending

in 1995 totaled $148.6 million, an

8.5 percent increase over 1993. PAC

fundraising in 1995 totaled $192.6

million in federal dollars (does not

include soft money), a 9.2 percent

increase over 1993.

Incumbent federal candidates

were the recipients of $59.2 million

in PAC contributions. Their challengers received $3.9 million in

PAC contributions. Open-seat

candidates received $4.5 million in

PAC contributions. Challengers and

open-seat candidates do not usually

begin significant fundraising until

the election year.

PAC contributions to Republican

candidates increased from $20 million

in 1993 to $42 million in 1995, due

in part to the increase in Republican

incumbents. Conversely, PAC

contributions to Democratic candidates decreased from $36.6 million

in 1993 to $25.6 million in 1995.

An April 4, 1996, FEC news

release contains these and other data

on PAC financial activity in 1995.

To obtain a copy of this release,

contact the Office of Public Disclosure (800/424-9530 or 202/219-

4140) or use the automated Flashfax

system (202/501-3413) and request

document 532. The latest available

figures are on the FEC’s World

Wide Web site: http://www.fec.gov.

The accompanying graph is based

on data contained in the news

release. ✦

D

R

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

Other


PACs

Non-


Connected


PACs

Trade/


Member/


Health


PACs

Labor


PACs

Corp.


PACs

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

Other


PACs

Non-


Connected


PACs

Trade/


Member/


Health


PACs

Labor


PACs

Corp.


PACs

PAC Contributions to Candidates

The bar graphs below show PAC contributions to candidates in 1993 and 1995 by type of PAC. Each bar has two

segments, representing contributions made to Democratic and Republican candidates. The “Other PACs” bar represents contributions made to candidates by the PACs of cooperatives and corporations without stock.

Millions

1993 1995 Democratic Candidates

Millions Republican Candidates

5

June 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
6

Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1996

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1995-49

Status of a State Affiliate of

National Party Committee

The Natural Law Party of Texas

(Texas Party) is not a state party

committee of the Natural Law Party

of the United States of America (the

Natural Law Party-National)

because it has not yet secured ballot

access in the State of Texas for its

Presidential and other federal

candidates.

Under the Act and Commission

regulations, a “state committee” is

defined as an organization which, by

virtue of the bylaws of a political

party, is responsible for the day-today operations of the party at the

state level, as determined by the

Commission. 2 U.S.C. §431(15); 11

CFR 100.14.

In a previous advisory opinion,

the FEC determined that the Natural

Law Party-National was a national

committee and set forth the following requirements for state affiliates

to be considered state committees

under the Act. First, the state

affiliate must have an agreement

indicating that it is responsible for

the day-to-day operation of the party

at the state level. Second, the

relationship between the national

committee and the state committee

must be based on that agreement.

Third, the state affiliate must obtain

ballot access for federal candidates,

including the Presidential candidate,

in that state. AO 1992-30.

While the Commission determined that the bylaws of the Texas

Party did delineate activity commensurate with the day-to-day

functioning of the party on the state

level, the Texas affiliate had not yet

successfully placed any federal

candidates on the state ballot. Thus,

until ballot access for these candidates is secured, the Texas affiliate

will not be a state committee of the

Natural Law Party-National.

Date Issued: April 19, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

AO 1996-2

Providing Free On-Line

Accounts to Candidates

CompuServe, Inc., may not make

free on-line accounts available to

federal candidates. Providing such a

service to a candidate would constitute an illegal corporate contribution. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). The fact

that this service would be made

available to all candidates and that

CompuServe has a practice of

providing free accounts to certain

customers does not legitimize this

arrangement.

CompuServe’s Proposed Activity

CompuServe proposed offering

free on-line accounts to all federal

candidates as part of its plan to

create a nonpartisan on-line election

headquarters called “The Election

Connection ’96.” Although CompuServe normally charges $9.95 for

on-line accounts, it has a regular

practice of making on-line accounts

available free of charge to certain

classes of customers, including:

journalists who cover the on-line

industry; public service-oriented

users such as a wide variety of

schools and charitable organizations, as well as museums, religious

organizations and government

entities; and a few trade and professional associations.

CompuServe provides this free

service to these customers because it

feels that the publicity it obtains

through such users heightens the

company’s prestige and goodwill,

stimulates usage by existing CompuServe customers and encourages

others to subscribe to CompuServe.

Providing free accounts to federal

candidates would serve the same

purposes.

1 In AO 1982-44, for example, the

Commission allowed a cablecast

television station to donate free air time

to two national parties without its

counting as a contribution because the

activity fell within the news story

exemption at 2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(i)

and 11 CFR 100.7(b)(2) and 100.8(b)(2).

FEC Laws and Regulations

Corporations may not make

contributions or expenditures in

connection with a federal election.

2 U.S.C. §441b(a); 11 CFR 114.2(b).

Goods or services provided for free

or at a discount are considered

contributions valued at the difference between the amount actually

charged and the usual and normal

charge. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(1)(iii)(A).

The FEC has permitted vendors

to provide a rebate or a discount to a

federal candidate without its counting as a contribution when such

rebate or discount was made available in the ordinary course of

business and on the same terms and

conditions to nonpolitical customers, too. AOs 1995-46, 1994-10,

1989-14 and 1987-24.

The Commission, however, has

explicitly noted that (except under

narrow circumstances) the allowance of vendor discounts in the

ordinary course of business does not

extend to providing valuable goods

and services to federal candidates

free of charge. AO 1988-25 (national nominating convention).1

With respect to the publicity and

promotional value CompuServe

places on the use of its services by

federal candidates, past advisory

opinions have noted that the promotional or goodwill value that a

vendor expects to derive from the

free use of its services by a candidate does not avoid a prohibited

corporate contribution. AOs 1991-

23, 1988-25, 1987-22 and 1986-30.

Therefore, even though CompuServe has an ordinary business

practice of providing free on-line

accounts to certain classes of

customers, its proposed free gift to
7

June 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

AO 1996-9

Building a Library Center

with Excess Campaign Funds

The Re-Elect Exon for U.S.

Senate Committee may transfer

excess campaign funds to the

Nebraska Democratic Party, which

will use these funds in part to build

a library to house the candidate’s

papers. There is no limit to the

amount that may be transferred. The

AO 1996-3

Determining Political

Committee Status

The Breeden-Schmidt Foundation

is not a political committee because

its major purpose is not to influence

federal elections. The Foundation

does not, therefore, need to register

and file reports with the FEC as a

political committee.

The Foundation was established

to receive a testamentary distribution from Wilmer Breeden who left

funds, in trust, to be used to advance

the principles of socialism. The

Foundation is not incorporated.

Since its founding, the Foundation’s

only income has been derived from

the investment of Mr. Breeden’s

original endowment. A Board of

Trustees controls the Foundation’s

assets, and this board has made and

plans to continue to make contributions to federal candidates.

The Foundation appears to meet

the definition of “political committee” under 2 U.S.C. §431(4)(A)

because its contributions to federal

candidates have exceeded $1,000 in

a calendar year. However, given the

Foundation’s other disbursements of

significant amounts for non-election

purposes, the FEC determined its

status as a political committee by

applying the major-purpose test.

Under that test, a group qualifies as

a political committee if, in addition

to satisfying the criteria at §431(4)(A),

its major purpose is campaign

activity, i.e., making payments or

donations to influence any election

to public office. 26 U.S.C. §527(e)(1)

and (2); AOs 1995-11 and 1994-25;

and Akins v. FEC.

The declaration of trust under

which the Foundation was created

states that the Foundation’s funds

may be used for a variety of purfederal candidates would constitute

a prohibited corporate contribution

under 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

Date Issued: April 25, 1996;

Length: 6 pages. ✦

poses, including supporting federal

candidates.

Except for the Foundation’s first

year (1990), when its disbursement

programs were not yet fully developed,

contributions to federal, state and

local candidates constituted no more

than 10 percent of the Foundation’s

total outlays for any one calendar

year, and the total remained under

$5,000 per year for the past 6 years.

None of the other disbursements

made by the Foundation is in any

way related to election campaigns.

It is also relevant that, apart from

the contributions, there is no

indication that the Foundation’s

disbursements were related to

election campaigns. For example,

the Foundation does not appear to

distribute materials featuring

candidates or members of Congress,

recruit candidates for public office

or solicit people to assist campaigns

for public office.

Based on all of these factors, the

making of political contributions

was not the Foundation’s major

purpose. This conclusion is valid

only insofar as the Foundation does

not alter the pattern of its activities.

Contributions made by the

Foundation should be attributed to

the Foundation and not to its

individual trustees.

This advisory opinion does not

address any tax ramifications of the

Foundation’s proposed activities

because these issues are outside the

FEC’s jurisdiction.

Date Issued: April 19, 1996;

Length: 5 pages. ✦

proposed use of campaign funds

does not constitute personal use.

Background

Since Senator J. James Exon is

not seeking reelection, his campaign

committee plans to transfer excess

campaign funds to the Nebraska

Democratic Party with the understanding that the party will use part

of the money to create a library

facility to house Senator Exon’s

papers.

Under the proposal, the party

would govern access to the library

and to the papers the senator decides

to place in the library. The Senator

would provide guidance on the

layout, construction and accuracy of

the displays, and would be consulted

occasionally on these matters, but

once these decisions were made, the

party would retain control of the

facility with respect to issues of

access, planning and future use.

This library center would include an

office that would be open to the

public and that the Senator would

use on occasion, principally for

library projects and to greet visitors.

No one performing research or

writing services for the Senator

would receive compensation from

the party.

Personal Use

Under 2 U.S.C. §439a, excess

campaign funds may be used for any

lawful purpose that does not constitute personal use, including making

unlimited transfers to party committees. Since candidates are permitted

to make unlimited transfers of

excess campaign funds to a state

party committee, the principal issue

here is whether Senator Exon’s use

of the office would constitute a

“personal use” of campaign funds.

“Personal use” is defined as any

use of campaign funds to fulfill a

commitment, obligation or expense

of any person that would exist

irrespective of the candidate’s

campaign or duties as a federal

officeholder. 11 CFR 113.1(g).

(continued on page 8)
8

Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1996

Compliance

Pre-Primary Election Report

Nonfilers

The candidate committees listed

below failed to file required preprimary election campaign finance

disclosure reports.

Candidate Office Sought

Funderburk, David B. House, NC/2

Greenwood, James House, PA/8

Houseman, Gerald L. House, IN/4

Hutchinson, Tim House, AR/3

Jones, Walter, Jr. House, NC/3

Moran, James P. House, VA/8

Sanders, Gregory J. House, UT/1

The list is based on the FEC news

releases of April 19 and May 3, 8,

15 and 17. The FEC is required by

law to publicize the names of

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

The Senator’s use of library

facilities for matters connected to

the operation of the library facility

or to other party business does not

constitute a personal use of campaign funds. 2 U.S.C. §439a. There

is therefore no limit on the amount

of time the Senator may spend at the

library for those purposes. Use of the

office for personal activities, however, will be personal use, unless

they are of a de minimis amount.

Compare 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(ii)(D).

Date Issued: April 19, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1996-14

Use of campaign funds to pay for

moving expenses of retiring member

of Congress (Congressman E. de la

Garza; April 18, 1996; 1 page)

AOR 1996-15

Storing federal reports without

accompanying envelopes (Ethics

Commission of the State of Oklahoma; April 18, 1996; 2 pages)

AOR 1996-16

Electronic town meetings with Presidential candidates sponsored by online interactive network (Bloomberg

L.P.; April 26, 1996; 3 pages)

AOR 1996-17

Loaning cars to two major parties

for use at national nominating conventions (General Motors Corporation;

April 24, 1996; 4 pages)

AOR 1996-18

Contributions designated for SSF

through a connected organization’s

“conduit account” established under

Wisconsin law (International

Association of Fire Fighters; April

25, 1996; 2 pages)

AOR 1996-19

Use of campaign funds to pay travel

expenses for candidate’s children to

attend national party convention

(Congressman James T. Walsh; May

1, 1996; 1 page)

AOR 1996-20

Use of campaign funds to pay travel

expenses of Congressman’s Chief of

Staff to attend national party

convention (Congressman Frank D.

Lucas; May 2, 1996; 2 pages)

AOR 1996-21

Distribution of membership

organization’s communication

endorsing candidates and urging

support for them (Business Council

of Alabama; May 3, 1996; 6 pages

plus 3 page attachment)

AOR 1996-22

Public funding of candidates and

nominating conventions of new and

minor parties (Perot Reform Committee; May 7, 1996; 5 pages) ✦

nonfiling candidate committees.

2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7). The FEC

pursues enforcement actions against

nonfilers on a case-by-case basis. ✦

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently

released for public review. This

listing is based on the FEC news

releases of April 16, 19 and 25, and

May 3, but it does not include the 9

MURs in which the Commission

took no action. Files on closed

MURs are available for review in

the Public Records Office.

MUR 3507

Respondents: (a) Thomas Ligenfelter

(PA); (b) Brown for President,

Blaine Quick, treasurer (CA)

Complainant: Steve Petrov (PA)

Subject: Corporate contributions;

disclaimers; failure to forward

contributions; excessive contributions; failure to disclose debt

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action, sent

admonishment letter (excessive

contributions); no reason to believe

(corporate contributions, disclaimers, failure to forward contributions);

(b) reason to believe, but took no

further action (excessive contributions, failure to disclose debt); no

reason to believe (disclaimers)

MUR 3632/Pre-MUR 265

Respondents: (a) Brown for

President, Blaine Quick, treasurer

(CA); (b) KIMCO Industries, Inc.,

Paul M. Zarillo, individually and as

President (NY)

Complainants: Paul M. Zarillo,

President, KIMCO Industries, Inc. (NY)

Subject: Corporate contributions;

failure to disclose debt; cash disbursement made in excess of $100

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action; (b) reason

to believe, but took no further action

(corporate contributions)
9

June 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

1996-11

11 CFR 110: Candidate Debates

and News Stories (staged by

cable television stations);

Correction (61 FR 24533, May

15, 1996)

MUR 4044

Respondents: (all in TX): (a) Eddie

Bernice Johnson for Congress, PaoLing W. Chen, treasurer; (b) Jason

Justice; (c) Sandra Coaxum; (d) Lorlee

Bartos; (e) Dr. Louis Deere

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to accurately report

PAC contribution; failure to file

disclosure reports timely; failure to

file 48-hour reports; excessive

contributions; corporate contributions; failure to provide contributor

information (“best efforts”) and

aggregate year-to-date totals; failure

to itemize certain disbursements

accurately

Disposition: (a) $44,000 civil

penalty, committee will amend

reports to provide contributor

information and accurate itemization for disbursements; (b-e) reason

to believe, but took no further action

(excessive contributions)

MUR 4108

Respondents: (all in VA):

(a) Buchanan for President, Inc.

(1992 Committee), Angela M.

Buchanan, treasurer; (b) Patrick J.

Buchanan; (c) Janet Fallon; (d) Paul

Erickson

Complainant: FEC initiated (Audit)

Subject: Corporate contributions;

excessive contributions; excessive

contributions in the form of staff

advances

Disposition: (a) $20,000 civil penalty

and disgorged to the U.S. Treasury

$8,166, representing corporate

contributions, and $53,759, representing excessive contributions; (bd) reason to believe, but took no

further action (excessive contributions in the form of staff advances)

MUR 4115

Respondents: (a) Gene Taylor for

U.S. Congress, Carroll Gordon,

treasurer (MS); (b) The Honorable

Gary Eugene Taylor (MS);

(c) Wayne Weidie (DC); (d) Chevron Corporation (DE); (e) Mr. and

Mrs. Graham Somerville (MS)

Complainant: George Barlos for

Congress Committee (MS)

Subject: Disclaimers

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action; sent

admonishment letter; (b-c) no reason

to believe; (d-e) took no action

MUR 4152

Respondents: (a) Colin R. McMillan

(NM); (b) McMillan for U.S. Senate,

Jack C. Emmons, treasurer (NM)

Complainant: Robert F. Bauer

Subject: Failure to accurately report

receipts and disbursements

Disposition: (a) No reason to believe;

(b) reason to believe, but took no further

action; sent admonishment letter

MUR 4159

Respondents: (a) Peter B. Kappelman

(FL); (b) Merle A. Kappelman (FL)

Complainant: Harold W. Needham

(FL)

Subject: Foreign national contributions

Disposition: (a-b) Reason to

believe, but took no further action;

sent admonishment letters

MUR 4217

Respondents: Durenberger ’94

Volunteer Committee, Richard L.

Evans, treasurer (MN)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Receipt of excessive

primary election contributions;

receipt of general election contributions (candidate dropped out of race

after losing primary election)

Disposition: $10,764.81 civil penalty;

committee will attempt to maximize

recovery from pending settlement

with Piper Jaffray Investment firm

and, within 30 days of receipt of any

settlement proceeds, committee will

transfer all proceeds to FEC as civil

penalty; committee to refund

primary contributions and amend

reports to reflect refunds

MUR 4239

Respondents: (a) Ted Arison (Israel);

(b) The Florida Congressional

Committee, Forrest B. Raffel, treasurer (FL); (c) Harvey Friedman (FL)

Complainant: Sua sponte

Subject: Foreign national contributions

Disposition: (a) $5,000 civil penalty;

(b) $2,000 civil penalty; (c) reason

to believe, but took no further

action; sent admonishment letter

MUR 4277

Respondents: Citizens for Senator

Wofford, John D. Sheridan, treasurer (PA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour reports

Disposition: $10,000 civil penalty

MUR 4280

Respondents: Democratic Party of

Hawaii—Federal Campaign Committee, Jane Sugimura, treasurer (HI)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: $8,000 civil penalty

MUR 4302

Respondents: Nevada State Republican Central Committee, Robert T.

Beers, treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

report timely

Disposition: $1,200 civil penalty ✦
10

Federal Election Commission RECORD June 1996

Information

(continued from page 3)

Flashfax Menu

To order any of these documents,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call 202/

501-3413 on a touch tone phone. You

will be asked for the numbers of the

documents you want, your fax number

and your telephone number. The documents will be faxed shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

301. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

308. Combined Federal/State Disclosure Directory 1996 on Disk

309. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

310. Internet Access to the FEC

311. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expenditures

320. Local Party Activity

321. Corporate/Labor Facilities

322. Corporate/Labor Communications

323. Trade Associations

324. Foreign Nationals

325. The $25,000 Annual Contribution

Limit

326. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Public Funding

330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

331. The $3 Tax Checkoff

332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

333. Recipients of Public Funding

334. Presidential Fund Tax Checkoff

Status

335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Reports Due in 1996

345. 1996 Congressional Primary Dates

346. Filing A Complaint

347. 1996 FEC Regional Conferences

348. 1996 Special Election Reporting

Dates

Federal Election Commission

401. The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law

402. La Ley Federal relativa al Financiamiento de las Campañas

403. State and Local Elections and the

Federal Campaign Law

404. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408. Index for 1995 Record Newsletter

409. Free Publications

410. Personnel Vacancy Announcements

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

424. List of Reports Available

425. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

426. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

427. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an Electoral

System

Money in Politics Statistics

525. 1991-2 Political Money

526. 1995 Year-End PAC Count

527. 1993-4 Congressional

528. 1993-4 National Party

529. 1993-4 PAC Finances

530. 1995-6 Congressional

531. 1995-6 National Party

532. 1995-6 PAC Finances

1996 Presidential Election

550. 1996 Presidential Primary

Dates

551. Selected 1996 Campaign

Names and Addresses

552. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

553. 1996 Matching Fund Certifications and Convention Fund

Payments

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate

and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating

Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reports

and Statements with State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

111. Part 111, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to Support

Federal Officeholder Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candidates and Political Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

201. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Presidential Nominating Conventions

228. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

229. Express Advocacy; Independent

Expenditures; Corporate and

Labor Organization Expenditures
11

June 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index 230. Corporate and Labor Organization

Activity; Express Advocacy and

Coordination with Candidates

231. Communications Disclaimer

Requirements

232. Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Campaigns

233. Candidate Debates and News

Stories

234. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

Forms

361. Form 1, Statement of Organization

362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

365. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication

Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of Multicandidate Status

Schedules

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

372. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

373. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent

Expenditures

375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated

Expenditures

376. Schedules H1 – H4, Allocation

377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 441. Section 441

432. Section 432 442. Section 442

433. Section 433 451. Section 451

434. Section 434 452. Section 452

437. Section 437 453. Section 453

438. Section 438 454. Section 454

439. Section 439 455. Section 455

Advisory Opinions

601-9. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-9

700. Brochure

701-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

801-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

901-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

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

1996-9: Building a library center

with excess campaign funds, 6:7

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-2881), 1:5

– GOPAC, 4:1

– Hartnett, 4:12

– Legi-Tech, 4:9

– National Right to Work, 4:11

– Parisi, 3:6

– Wofford, 6:4

_____ v. FEC

– Albanese, 5:4

– Buchanan, 6:4

– Center for Responsive Politics, 1:3

– Chamber of Commerce of the

U.S.A., et al., 1:2

– Clifton, 5:6

– Common Cause (94-02104), 5:5

– DCCC (1:96CV00764), 6:4

– Hooker, 3:7

– Jordan, 4:12

– Maine Right to Life Committee,

1:3; 4:9

– Minnesota Citizens Concerned for

Life, 3:6; 6:3

– Republican National Committee

(94-1017), 4:10

– Stockman, 2:9

– Whitmore, 3:6

On Appeal?, 5:6

Reports

Electronic filing system, FEC

authorized to develop, 2:2

Point of entry change for House

candidates, 2:1

Reporting reminders, 4:3; 6:1

Schedule for 1996, 1:5

Special elections

– House, California’s 37th district,

2:5

– House, Maryland’s 7th district,

3:2

– House, Oregon’s 3rd district, 3:2

800 Line

Ballot access payments, 2:8

Conventions, permissible corporate

and labor activity, 2:7

Filing tips, 5:1
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 June 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.