June 1995

Table of Contents

Publications

I FEC Issues 20-Year Report

3 1994 Election Results

Compilation Released

800 Line

I Corporate Facilitation

3 Advisory Opinions

Compliance

8 MUR 3452: Excessive

Contributions

9 MURs Released to the Public

Statistics

9 PAC Giving in '94

10 PAC Giving by Candidate Type

Court Cases

12 Branstool v. FEC

12 Fulani v. FEC

12 McIntyre v. Ohio

13 Wofford v. FEC

Audits

14 Audit Report on '92 Herschensohn

for U.S. Senate Committee

15 Index

Federal Election Commission

Publications

FEC Issues 20-Year Report

Last month the FEC issued a 40-

page report marking its 20th anniversary. The report is not so much a

chronicle of the FEe's history as a

current snapshot of the agency,

exploring recent events, issues,

trends and statistics relating to

campaign finance.

"This report is an excellent

publication to commemorate the

Federal Election Commission's 20th

anniversary," said FEC Chairman

Danny L. McDonald. "It not only

enhances understanding of the

history surrounding the

Commission's creation, but also

provides insight into our mission

and profiles the key issues the

agency is facing."

Established in the wake of the

Watergate scandal to administer and

enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act, the FEC has been

entrusted with "[S]afeguarding the

integrity of the electoral process

without ... impinging upon the

rights of individual citizens and

candidates to engage in political

debate and discussion." (Excerpt

from Buckley v. Valeo.) Highlights

of the report include:

• An analysis of key issues before

the Commission, including ques-

(continued on page 3)

Volume 21, Number 6

800 Line

Corporate Facilitation v.

Individual Volunteer Activity

at the Work Place

This article explores the issue of

when individual volunteer activity

crosses the legal line and results in a

prohibited corporate contribution.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) a corporation

that collects contributions or otherwise facilitates the making of

contributions to a federal candidate

has provided that candidate with

something of value. In effect, an

illegal corporate contribution has

been made.

Last year, the Commission

assessed Prudential Securities, Inc.

(PSI) a $550,000 civil penalty-the

largest in FEC history-for its

corporate facilitation activities

(MUR 3540). I An FEC investigation uncovered a network of high

level PSI officers who utilized their

staffs and PSI facilities to collect

contributions at the work place and

forward them to federal candidates,

and to organize fundraising events

for the benefit of federal candidates.

Some of these fundraisers were held

at corporate facilities. PSI claimed

(continued on page 2)

I I See page 2 ofthe January 1995

Record for a summary ofthis enforcement matter.
Federal Election Commission RECORD

800 Line

(continued from page 1)

that corporate employees had

merely been using corporate facilities to conduct volunteer activity.

But the Commission concluded that

the involvement of a number of PSI

officials and employees working in

concert on company time and using

company facilities to collect contributions for federal candidates

constituted corporate facilitation;

such activities violate the Act's ban

on corporate contributions and

expenditures. 2 U.S.c. §441b(a).2

The Corporate Ban and its

Exemptions

Pursuant to 2 U.S.c. §441b(a),

corporations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with any federal election. This

prohibition includes any services or

anything of value provided to any

2 Labor organizations are also banned

under 2 U.s.c. §441b(a)from making

contributions and expenditures in

connection with federal elections.

Federal ElectionCommission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219- 3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TOO)

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens,Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Trevor Potter, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, StaffDirector

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides,Director

Dario Bard, Editor

2

candidate in connection with any

federal election.

The corporate ban is strict and all

encompassing. The law, however,

exempts specific activities from this

ban. The exemptions are as follows:

• Corporations may set up a separate

segregated fund (commonly called

a PAC) and pay its operating and

fundraising expenses (11 CFR

114.5(b));

• Corporate funds may be used to

finance partisan communications

to a corporation's restricted class 3

(11 CFR 114.3);

• Corporate funds may be used to

finance certain types of nonpartisan communications (11 CFR

114.4);

• Corporate meeting rooms may be

made available to federal political

committees under certain circumstances (11 CFR 114.9 and

114.12); and

• Individual corporate employees

and stockholders may undertake

volunteer activity at the workplace

and use corporate facilities to do so

under limited circumstances (11

CFR 114.9).

All of these exemptions are

narrowly defined by law. In MUR

3540, PSI's activities went beyond

the scope of these exemptions.

Further, the Commission found that

PSI's violations of the law were

knowing and willful, since in MUR

1690 PSI was found guilty of

similar violations.

Use of Corporate Facilities for

Individual Volunteer Activity

A corporation's stockholders and

employees may make occasional,

isolated or incidental use of corporate facilities for individual volunteer activities in connection with

federal elections. These activities

may be undertaken during work

J A corporation's restricted class

includes its executive and administrative personnel, its stockholders, and the

families of both groups.

,

June 1995

hours. 11 CFR 114.9(a)(1) and

(b)(1). Incidental use is defined as

use that does not interfere with the

organization's normal activity. For

example, one hour per week is

considered incidental use. Using an

office phone to make a few calls is

considered incidental use. The

individual volunteer must reimburse

the corporation for any overhead or

operating expenses related to

incidental use, for example the cost

of a long distance telephone call.

If the stockholder or employee

exceeds incidental use, then he or

she must reimburse the corporation

for the use of its facilities at the

normal commercial charge.

The individual volunteer activity

exemption does not extend to

collective enterprises where the top

executives of a corporation direct

their subordinates in fundraising

projects, use the resources of the

corporation, such as lists of vendors

and customers, or solicit whole

classes of corporate executives and

employees.

In the PSI case, corporate officers

instructed clerical staff to prepare

letters, memos and other materials

related to PSI fundraising events

held for the benefit of federal

candidates. For instance, in July

1990, PSI held a fundraiser in its

New York offices for a U.S. Senator. The PSI CEO sent invitations to

the event to the company's executives, vendors, advertisers, lawyers,

banks and financial advisers. The

invitation contained a solicitation

for contributions to the fundraiser,

with instructions to send contributions to the office of a company

Vice President. The Vice

President's office served as a

collection point from which the

contributions were forwarded to the

candidate's campaign. The Vice

President was assisted in this

endeavor by his administrative

assistant. The Commission determined that, through this activity,
June /995

PSI facilitated the making of a

contribution to a Senate candidate,

thus providing the campaign with

something of value, in violation of

the corporate ban.

PSI argued that this activity was

exempted under the individual

volunteer activity provision. However, this activity, by involving

other corporate personnel and their

SUbordinates, was neither individual

nor wholly volunteer in nature.

Moreover, PSI, through its CEOs

and other officers, engaged in at

least 14 similar fundraising events

on behalf of 9 federal candidates in

less than 5 years, further undermining PSI's contention that these

activities fit the exemption, which

requires such activities to be occasional, isolated or incidental.

PSI also sought to legitimize its

activity by having the benefiting

political committees reimburse it for

the overhead costs of these supposedly individual volunteer activities.

For example, political committees

reimbursed PSI for the cost of

secretarial time spent preparing

solicitation materials. Far from

clearing PSI of any wrongdoing,

these reimbursements underscored

PSI's failure to adhere to the

regulations. The individual volunteer activity exemption does not

apply in instances where a subordinate is instructed to undertake such

activity. Nor does it allow a political

committee to reimburse a corporation for increased overhead costs

resulting from an employee's or

stockholder's individual volunteer

activity. Reimbursement must be

made by the individual performing

the volunteer activity, and such

reimbursements are subject to the

reporting requirements and contribution limitations set by law.

The circumstances of the PSI

case led the Commission to conclude that PSI was facilitating

contributions to federal candidates,

in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).•

, Publications

(continued from page 1)

tions of soft money, express

advocacy, personal use of campaign funds, and contributions by

foreign nationals;

• Coverage of the continuing debate

over campaign finance reform,

including the role of political

parties and PACs, and the growing

costs of campaigns; and

• Graphs and charts depicting trends

in campaign finance, including the

sources of contributions to candidates and their parties, the status of

the Presidential matching fund

program over the years and actual

and inflation-adjusted figures on

congressional campaign spending

since 1978.

Additionally, the report describes

the FEC's accomplishments in areas

such as disclosure, enforcement and

public service. For instance, the

Commission's Reports Analysis

Division reviewed almost 90,000

campaign reports in the last election

cycle, and the agency entered into

more than 100 conciliation agreements in 1994, with civil penalties

totaling more than $1.7 million.

Free copies of the report may be

ordered by telephone. Call 800/424-

9530 (and press three at the prompt)

or 202/219-4140.•

1994 Election Results

Compilation Released

Last month, the Federal Election

Commission released Federal

Elections 94: Election Resultsfor

the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House

ofRepresentatives. This publication

is the seventh in the series of official

results; the first volume covered the

1982 House and Senate elections.

This year's Federal Elections compilationlists the general election result

for every House and Senate race and,

for the first time, provides primary

and runoff election results as well.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

For each race, the publication

lists the following information, as

provided by state election officials:

• The names of candidates on the

ballot and any write-in candidates;

• Each candidate 's party affiliation;

and

• The percentage and number of

votes each candidate received.

Federal Elections 94 also includes maps showing, for example,

Republican gains in the House by

state and the make-up of the 1994

Senate class by candidate type.

A limited number of copies are

available free of charge from the

FEC's Public Records Office. Call

800/424-9530 (and press three at the

prompt) or 202/219-4140 . •

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1995-2

Membership Organization's

Solicitation of Representatives

of ''Member Firms"

Individuals who hold membership on the Commodities Exchange

(COMEX) on behalf of their firms

qualify as "members" under II CFR

114.I(e)(2) . COMEX is a subsidiary

of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). NYMEX PAC,

NYMEX's separate segregated

fund, may therefore solicit the

above-described individuals. This

opinion is a follow-up to Advisory

Opinion (AO) 1994-34. I

Background: AO 1994-34

AO 1994-34 determined that,

following a merger between NYMEX

and COMEX, an individual holding

a COMEX seat could be solicited by

(continu ed on page 4)

I See page 7 ofthe Mar ch 1995 Record

for a summary ofAO 1994-34.

3
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(continued frompag e 3)

NYMEX PAC because COMEX is

affiliated with NYMEX and the

individual fit the definition of a

"member" of COMEX under II

CFR I 14.I(e)(2)(i); the individual

demonstrated a significant financial

attachment to the membership

organization (one of three criteria by

which an individual may qualify as

a "member" for purposes of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act)). 2 In AO 1994-34 individual

seat holders were found to have a

significant financial attachment to

COMEX because a COMEX seat

was valued at approximately

$125,000, provided its holder with

extensive trading rights, and entitled

its holder to other monetary interests

including "deferred cash payments."

Additionally, they had voting rights

in certain situations to protect the ir

financial interests. This conclusion

gave NYMEX PAC permission to

solicit 507 of the 772 seat holders

on the COMEX exchange.

Member Firms and Their

Representatives

AO 1995-2 addresses the "member" status of the remaining 265

seats. These seats are owned by

"conferring members," individuals

who hold membership on behalf of

so-called member firms.

COMEX membership rules allow

only individuals to hold COMEX

seats. Member firms, therefore, are

not themselves members and are

only capable of enjoying membership privileges through an individual

1 The other two crit eria are: (l) the

requirement to pay a specified amount

of dues on a regular basis coupled with

the right to vote directly eitherfor at

least one memb er who has voting rights

on the organization's high est go verning

body or for those who select at least

one member ofthat body; or (2) the

right to vote directly for all those on the

organization 's highest gaverning body.

II CFR 114.1(e)(2)(ii) and (iii).

4

who confers such privileges onto

them. Typically, a firm partner

enters into an agreement with the

firm and sits on the exchange on

behalf of the firm. The firm pays for

the seat and may often cover

COMEX-imposed fines, but

COMEX holds the conferring

individual personally liable for any

fines. This individual is also subject

to COMEX disciplinary actions, and

shares in the financial risks the firm

would face should it be suspended.

Under this arrangement, it is the

conferring members, and not the

member firms, who are considered

solicitable members under II CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv)(B)(l) and

114.1(e)(2)(i) for the following

reasons:

• COMEX rules only allow individuals to be members, and

therefore member firms may only

enjoy membership privileges

through conferring members;

• Although the conferring member's

membership is dependent on the

firm, the converse is also true ;

• Conferring members have a

significant financial attachment to

COMEX because: despite the fact

that the firms usually pay for the

membership and fines, COMEX

rules hold conferring members

personally liable for these payments; the livelihood of conferring

members'-the commodities and

futures business-relies on the

success of COMEX; and conferring members are held personally

responsible for their actions as

COMEX members and are subject

to COMEX disciplinary rules, thus

placing themselves and their firms

at great financial risk should the

membership be suspended.

Conferring members, therefore,

fit the definition of "member" under

the Act and may be solicited by

NYMEX PAC.

Date Issued: April 21, 1995;

Length: 6 pages...

June 1995

AO 1995-7

Candidate's Personal

Liability for Bank Loan

FEC debt settlement procedures

(I I CFR 116.7) do not protect a

candidate from being held personally liable for a campaign loan he

secured. Key Bank of Alaska is

therefore not barred by FEC regulations from pursuing its claim against

Mr. Pat Rodey.

According to Key Bank's advisory opinion request (AOR), Mr.

Rodey secured a $40 ,573 loan from

Key Bank during the course of his

1992 House campaign. When Mr.

Rodey defaulted under the payment

terms of the loan, Key Bank filed

suit against him. Mr. Rodey then

raised the defense that II CFR

116.7 prevented him and his committee from repaying the loan until

the Commission approved his

committee's debt settlement plan .

The regulations at II CFR 116.7

prevent a committee from paying

off its debts until the Commission

approves the committee's debt

settlement plan . This provision,

however, applies only in instances

where a committee reaches a

settlement with its creditors over its

debts. Key Bank and Mr. Rodey

have not reached a settlement.

Indeed, they are engaged in litigation. But even if Key Bank and Mr.

Rodey had reached a settlement

with respect to this debt , II CFR

116.7 would still not apply because

bank loans are not subject to the

debt settlement process.

Before addressing this issue , the

Commission considered whether or

not this AOR qualified for an

advisory opinion. This was an issue

because the request concerned the

activities of a third party (Mr.

Rodey) and the Commission's

policy is to reject AORs concerning

the activities of third parties. In the

present case, however, the Commission decided to consider the AOR
June 1995

because the third party had raised a

defense based on a provision of the

Act that affected Key Bank's

continuing efforts to collect on the

alleged claim.

Date Issued: April 6, 1995;

Length: 4 pages.•

AO 1995-8

A Committee's Rental of

Candidate-Owned Office

Space and Equipment

The Stupak for Congress committee may rent office space and

equipment from the candidate, Bart

T. Stupak, from his wife and from

his incorporated law firm provided

that:

• The rental charges are at the fair

market rate (or else respect the

contribution limits at II CFR

110.1(b)(1), as discussed in the

section immediately following);

and

• None of the property being rented

includes any part of the personal

residence of Mr. Stupak or his

family.

Mr. Stupak's proposed arrangement with his committee raises

issues with respect to the recently

adopted rules governing the personal use of campaign funds, his

wife's contribution limit, and the

effect of the corporate ban (2 U.S.c.

§441b(a)) on the committee's

arrangement with his law firm.

The Personal Use Rules

Under the Act, campaign funds

may not be converted to personal

use. On April 5, 1995, new regulations governing the personal use of

campaign funds became effective.

(See page I of the March 1995

Record for a description of the rules,

and page I of the May 1995 Record

for the announcement of the effective date .) These rules permit the

use of campaign funds for the rental

of property owned by the candidate

or a family member provided that:

• The property is rented for campaign purposes and is not part of a

personal residence; I and

• The rent is no more than the fair

market value of the property.

11 CFR 113.1(g)(l )(i)(E)(l) and (2).

Since the building Mr. Stupak

proposes to rent to his committee is

office space and not a residence, Mr.

Stupak's proposal is in accordance

with the first requirement. With

regard to the second requirement,

rental payments above the market

rental rate would result in the

conversion of campaign funds to the

candidate's personal use . On the

other hand, payments below the

market rate would result in an inkind contribution by the candidate's

wife (as discussed below).

His Wife's Contribution Limit

Mr. Stupak indicated that the

monthly rent charged to his committee for the use of his former law

firm's office building may be below

the fair market rental rate . He jointly

owns this building with his wife . By

undercharging the committee, he

and his wife , as joint owners, would

each be making monthly in-kind

contributions to the committee, in

the amount of the fair market rent

less the committee's rent payment,

divided between Mr. and Mrs.

Stupak.

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act), a candidate

is free to give as much of his

personal funds to the campaign as

he wishes. II CFR llO.lO(a). The

candidate's spouse, however, is not

exempted from the contribution

I With respect to payments for personal

residen ces. or any part thereof, this

provision ofthe recently adopted

personal use regulations supersedes the

following advisory opinions: 1988-13,

1985-42. 1983-1 and 1976-53.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

limit established at II CFR

1l0.I(b)(l). She may not make

contributions to her husband's

campaign of more than $1,000 in

the aggregate for anyone election.

I Rental of a Corporation's

Equipment

Mr. Stupak proposed to rent all of

the equipment of his former law

firm to his committee. This equipment includes a copier, FAX

machine, telephone system, computers, printers, desks and numerous

I other office items. Mr. Stupak's

incorporated law firm planned to

charge his committee $200 per

month for this equipment.

The Act prohibits corporations

from making contributions in

connection with a federal election.

2 U.S.c. 44lb(a). If the law firm,

which is a corporation, were to

charge the committee a rental fee

below the usual and normal charge

for such equipment, it would be

providing the committee with

something of value and thus be

making an illegal corporate contribution. Conversely, if the law firm

overcharged the committee for

renting the equipment, this would

constitute an illegal conversion of

campaign funds to personal use,

since the committee's rent payments

would "unduly augment the earnings of an asset owned by the

candidate." See Advisory Opinion

1994-8.

If a usual and normal fee for the

ensemble of equipment does not

exist, the law firm should base the

charge on the market rental fees of

customary groupings of equipment

in the office rental market.

Date Issued: April 21,1995;

Length: 5 pages.•

(Advisory Opinions continued on page 6)

5
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

AO 1995-9

Operating a Political

Committee in Cyberspace

NewtWatch (the committee), a

political committee operating a

World Wide Web site, may make

political information publicly

available and solicit and receive

contributions via the Internet,

provided that it complies with the

guidelines summarized below.

The committee proposed posting

the following information about

House Speaker Newt Gingrich on its

Web site: his voting record, complaints about him filed with the

Ethics Committee and the FEC,

contributor lists drawn from FEC

reports filed by his campaign, his

personal finances, and his sponsorship of commemorative bills.

Public Political Advertising and

Disclaimers

Recent years have seen a rapid

expansion of services available on

the Internet, a sizable increase in the

number of persons using it, the

development of user-friendly access

to the Net, and a decline in the costs

of hardware and software needed to

do so. The combination of these

factors means that the committee's

World Wide Web site constitutes a

form of political advertising under

II CFR 110.11. As a result, a

disclaimer is required.

Under 2 U.S.c. §441d(a)(3),

disclaimers on political advertisements made independently of a

candidate or candidate's committee

must mention who paid for the

advertisement and state that it was

not authorized by any candidate or

candidate's committee. The proposed disclaimer-"Paid for by

NewtWatch and not authorized by

any candidate or candidate's committee"-fulfills this requirement.

Furthermore, the committee proposed displaying the disclaimer in

the same type size as much of the

6

body of the communication, and

placing it at the end of the Web

site's first page (the "home page")

and immediately following the

request for contributor information.

This arrangement complies with the

clear and conspicuous disclaimer

requirement at 11 CFR 110.11 (a)(I).

Accepting Contributions Via the

Net

The committee proposed using

the services of First Virtual Holding

Company (FVHC) to receive

contributions electronically. FVHC

is a corporation specifically created

to enable on-line commerce via the

Net. Under the proposed arrangement, a contributor would have an

account with FVHC and allow

FVHC to charge contributions to a

contributor's credit card. The

committee could then secure, via an

on-screen form, the contributor's

authority to have FVHC charge the

contribution to the contributor's

! credit card. The committee would

then inform FVHC of the transaction. FVHC would then e-mail the

contributor to request confirmation.

FVHC would notify the committee

to let it know whether the contribution had been confirmed or not.

From time to time, FVHC would

bill the contributor's credit card for

accrued confirmed contributions and

credit the committee's account with

payment. In this way, the transaction would be carried out entirely

over the Net.

This is an acceptable method of

collecting contributions. It should be

noted, though, that the Commission

will consider the date the contributor sends the electronic confirmation

to FVHC as the date the contribution is made, and the date on which

the committee receives notice from

FVHC that the contributor confirmed the contribution as the date

the contribution is received.

Additionally, the committee must

pay all of the FVHC charges it

incurs-commission and registration costs, and transaction and

Jun e /995

processing fees. These costs are to

be reported as operating expenditures. FVHC must be compensated

for these charges; otherwise it

would be facilitating the committee's

collection program, thus making an

illegal corporate contribution, in

violation of 2 U.S.c. §441b(a).

Although fees will be deducted

from the contribution, thus reducing

the amount the committee actually

receives, the original amount will be

used to determine compliance with

the Federal Election Campaign

Act's (the Act's) contribution limits

and reporting provisions.

With respect to the record keeping

provisions of the Act, the committee

may maintain records in electronic

form as long as they are retrievable.

Records must be preserved for 3

years following the date the transaction is reported. 2 U.S.c. §432(d).

The Commission suggested that the

committee maintain backup copies

of its records.

Ensuring "Best Efforts"

The Act requires committees to

report, along with the date and

amount of the contribution, the name

and address of the contributor, and,

when a contributor has given more

than $200 in a calender year, that

person's occupation and employer

as well. 2 U.S.c. §§432(c)(l), (2)

and (3), and 434(b)(3)(A). In

instances when a contributor fails to

I provide the committee with this

data, the committee must undertake

"best efforts" to secure this information. A follow-up oral or written

request in line with the requirements

at 11 CFR 104.7(b)(2) suffices.

The committee proposed requesting contributor information at the

time the contribution was made. Additionally, if information was omitted,

a follow-up request would need to

be made after the committee received the FVHC notice of donor

confirmation. This request could be

made bye-mail.
JUli e / 995

Screening of Prohibited Sources

The global and unrestricted

access to the World Wide Web

raises concerns about the unknowing acceptance of contributions from

prohibited sources. The committee

proposed screening contributors by

asking them to attest that they are

not foreign nationals and that they

are not knowingly exceeding their

contribution limits, making contributions in the name of another, or

making contributions from the

general treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations, national

banks or federal contractors. Such

contributions are impermissible

under 2 U.S.c. §§44 1b, 441f, 441e

and 44l a(a)(I )(A).

Under the committee's proposal,

a user who can not attest to the above

would receive a message that stated,

"Sorry, federal law prevents us from

accepting contributions from [type

of impermissible source]." The

Commission suggested substituting

the following language instead:

"Sorry, federal law prohibits [type

of impermissible source] from

contributing to [committee's

changed name]." The new language

places the emphasis on the user's

ineligibility to contribute as opposed

to the committee's ineligibility to

accept the contribution.

Additionally, the committee may

accept contributions from minors

provided that they comply with the

guidelines at II CFR 110.1(i)(2).

Contributions from minors must be

made knowingly and voluntarily by

the minor, with the minor's own

funds and not with funds controlled

by someone else or provided to the

minor by someone else for the

purpose of financing such contributions. The committee must revise its

attestation to inform potential

contributors of the requirements

pertaining to minors.

Making Contributor Data

Available

Contributor lists drawn from FEC

reports may not be used for commercial or solicitation purposes.

2 u.s.c. §438(a)(4). The committee

may make available a list of contributors to Speaker Gingrich's

campaign (not including their street

addresses and telephone numbers)

provided that it is accompanied by a

warning that it is unlawful to use

this information for fundraising or

commercial purposes.

Problems with the Name

NewtWatch

A committee may not use a

candidate's name as its own unless

it is authorized by that candidate.

2 U.S.c. §432(e)(4). This restriction

includes the use of the candidate's

first name when it clearly conveys

the identity of the candidate. For

this reason, the committee must

change its name from NewtWatch.

It should be noted, however, that

the candidate-name restriction does

not apply to the title of an unauthorized committee' s project when that

title clearly shows opposition to the

candidate. The committee's Web

site is a committee project. The title

"Newtwatch" connotes the committee's view that Speaker Gingrich

is deserving of close scrutiny.

Accordingly, the committee may

title its Web site "Newtw atch."

Date Issued: April 2 1, 1995;

Length: 9 pages. ..

AO 1995-10

Ownership of Committee

I Records

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), financial records

of the Helms for Senate Committee

(the committee) are the property of

the committee and not of a former

treasurer who has refused to surrender them. The Act preempts North

Carolina law with regard to the

ownership of a federal campaign's

records.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Preemption of State Law

The former treasurer kept in her

possession campaign records dating

up to August 1, 1994, the date she

was relieved from her post as committee treasurer. She asserted that

North Carolina law supports her

contention that the records belong to

her. Further, she believed that she

should retain the records in order to

comply with the Act and to respond

to any inquiry by the Commission.

The Commission determined,

however, that:

• Under the Act, only the committee

and its duly designated treasurer

have legal title and control over all

of the committee' s records;

• The Act preempts North Carolina

law to the extent that it would

grant ownership of campaign

records to any person other than

the committee and its treasurer, but

the Act does not compel a person

to return records in his or her

possession to the committee;

• The committee and its treasurer

must demonstrate best efforts to

retrieve the records in the former

treasurer's possession in order to

be in compliance with the record

keeping requirements as they apply

to records maintained before

August I, 1994;

• The committee's and its treasurer's

lack of control over and access to

the records in question will not

excuse them from the obligation to

file complete and accurate reports

and from liability for knowingly

accepting unlawful contributions;

and

• Until such time as the committee

acquires the records in question

from its former treasurer, it should

identify her on its Statement of

Organization as a custodian of its

records for the period of her tenure

as committee treasurer.

Date Issued: April 27, 1995;

Length: 9 pages. ..

(AdvisoryOpinions continued on page 8)

7
Federal Elec tion Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

AO 1995-11

Status of Limited Liability

Company

The Hawthorn Group, a limited

liability company under the laws of

the Commonwealth of Virginia, is

neither a corporation nor a partnership underthe Federal Election Campaign Act(theAct). 2 U.S.c. §431(II).

It is instead regarded as a "person"

under the Act and may therefore

make contributions in connection

with federal elections provided it

adheres to the Act's contribution

limits. 2 U.S.c. §44Ia(a)( I).

Limited Liability Company

The Virginia Limited Liability

Company Act defines a limited

liability company as an entity that is

an unincorporated association,

without perpetual duration, having

two or more members. Limited

liability companies in Virginia share

the limited liability of corporations.

They lack, however, certain characteristics associated with corporations such as the free transferability

of interests and perpetual life.

The limited liability company in

this case, the Hawthorn Group, is an

international public affairs company

with three members. None of these

members is a foreign national. The

Hawthorn Group is not a federal

government contractor and it is

assumed for purposes of the opinion

that no member of the Hawthorn

Group is a federal government

contractor.

Because, under Virginia law, a

limited liability company is a form

of business organization distinct

from a corporation or a partnership,

the Hawthorn Group is not considered a corporation or partnership

under the Act. Instead, it is considered a "person" within the language

at 2 U.S.c. §431(11)- "any other

organization or group of persons."

8

As a person, the Hawthorn

Group's contribution limits are as

follows:

• No more than $1,000 per election

to anyone candidate;

• No more than $5,000 per year to

the federal account of anyone

PAC;

• No more than $5,000 per year, in

aggregate, to the federal accounts

of state and local chapters of any

one state party committee; and

• No more than $20,000 per year to

the federal account of anyone

national party committee.

The Group is not, however,

subject to the $25,000 overall

annual limit at 2 U.S.c. §441a(a)(3).

This limit applies specifically to

"individuals" rather than "persons."

Further, contributions made by the

Hawthorn Group do not count

against the limits of any of its

members.

Status as a Political Committee

Entities that make contributions

in connection with a federal election

may qualify as political committees

under the Act and be required to file

FEC reports. To determine if an

entity is a political committee, the

Commission considers, inter alia,

whether a major purpose of the

organization is making payments to

influence elections to public office.

It does not appear that this is a

major purpose of the Hawthorn

Group. '

The Commission expressed no

opinion regarding the tax ramifications the Group faces for making

political contributions. Such issues

are outside the jurisdiction of the

Commission.

Date Issued: April 27, 1995;

Length: 6 pages. +

I In this regard. this advisory opinion

supersedes Advisory Opinion 1978-51,

which implied that the "major purpose" standard was not applicable to

organizations like the Group.

June /995

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests

(AORs) are available for review and

comment in the Public Records

Office.

AOR 1995·14

Collecting contributions for an

association's separate segregated

fund at a conference attended by the

association's members and members

of another association. (Oral and

Maxillofacial Surgery PAC; April

27, 1995; 2 pages)

AOR 1995-15

Solicitations by PAC of U.S.

corporation acquired by a foreign

corporation. (Allison Engine

Company; May I, 1995; 1 page plus

5-page attachment) +

Compliance

MUR3452

Receipt of Excessive

Contributions Results in

$22,000 Civil Penalty

The Durant for United States

Senator committee, active in a 1990

Michigan primary, and its treasurer

agreed to pay a $22,000 civil

penalty for accepting $55,250 in

excessive contributions from 63

individuals and a political organization.

The committee accepted these

excessive contributions during 1989

and 1990. Some of the excessive

contributions were attributable to

the general election effort of the

candidate, W. Clark Durant III,

although he lost in the primary.

Pursuant to 2 U.S.c. §441a(f), a

committee must not knowingly
June 1995

accept contributions from an

individual which, in the aggregate,

exceed $1,000. A committee that

receives excessive contributions

must either refund them or deposit

them within 10 days. If the committee deposits them, it must obtain a

redesignation or reattribution of the

excess from the contributor(s)

within 60 days of receipt. Only

those contributions intended as joint

contributions may be reattributed.

Further, under II CFR 102.9(e)(2),

a committee representing a candidate who has not advanced to the

general election stage must, within

60 days, refund, redesignate or

reattribute all general election

contributions it received. When

reattributing such contributions, the

following steps must be taken:

• The committee treasurer gives the

contributors the option of either

reattributing the excessive amount

among themselves or receiving a

refund for the excessive amount;

and

• Within 60 days from receipt of the

contribution, the committee

treasurer receives a written reattribution, signed by all contributors

and indicating the amount to be

attributed to each contributor. (If

the amount to be attributed to each

contributor is not specified, the

contribution is attributed equally

among all contributors.)

The committee treasurer is

responsible for assuring the committee's compliance in these matters. I I CFR 103.3(b).

In this case, the committee and its

treasurer failed to refund or obtain

proper reattributions for $47, 150 of

the excessive contributions. Refunds

for the remaining $8,I00 in excessive contributions were not made

within the 60-day time period

allowed by law. ..

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 press

release of April 12. Files on closed

MURs are available for review in

the Public Records Office.

MUR 1852 et al.

Respondents: (a) The LaRouche

Campaign, Edward Spannaus,

treasurer (VA); (b) Independent

Democrats for LaRouche, Gerald

Rose, treasurer (VA); (c) Publication and General Management, Inc.

(NY); (d) Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc. (NY); (e) Campaigner

Publications, Inc. (DC); (f) Caucus

Distributors, Inc. (VA); (g) Citizens

for Freeman, Belinda Haight,

treasurer (MD); (h) Los Angeles

Labor Committee (CA); and various

others

Complainant: FEC initiated and

various others

Subject: (a), (f) and (h) failure to

use designated campaign depository; (a) and (b) improper reporting;

(a) and (b) excessive contributions;

(a)-(e) and (g) corporate contributions; (a)-(f) and (h) improper use of

contributor information for solicitation; (f)-(h) failure to register and

report; (a) misrepresenting facts for

an audit; (a) and (h) failure to

properly report earmarked contributions

Disposition: (a)-(h) probable cause

to believe knowing and willful

violations, but took no further action

MUR 2594

Respondents: The LaRouche

Campaign, Edward Spannaus,

treasurer (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Misrepresenting unauthorized receipts of individual contributors, providing false information for

matching fund submissions

Disposition: Probable cause to

believe knowing and willful violations, but took no further action ..

Federal Election Commission RF.C()RD

Statistics

PAC Giving in '94 Remains

at '92 Levels

A March 3 I FEC press release reported that PAC contributions made

to 1994 federal candidates totaled

$ I78.8 million, nearly the same as

PAC support to 1992 federal candidates. By contrast, PACs gave 1992

federal candidates nearly $30 million

more than 1990 federal candidates.

The 1992 increase can be partially

accounted for by an unusual combination of factors, including reapportionment, redistricting and a large

number of highly competitive open

seat races.

Although total PAC contributions

made to federal candidates during the

1994 cycle remained fairly constant

when compared to the 1992 cycle,

the patterns of PAC giving changed.

For instance, contributions to House

Democratic incumbents accounted

for $71.1 million of the $ 178.8 million total, representing a 10 percent

increase over PAC contributions to

House Democratic incumbents in

1992. Meanwhile. PAC contributions to House Republican challengers increased by 48 percent, from

$4.4 million in 1992 to $6.5 million

in 1994. House Democratic challengers in 1994, on the other hand,

received $6.2 million in PAC contributions, a decrease of 19 percent

from the $7.7 million House Democratic challengers received in 1992.

House and Senate Democrats, collectively, received $3.3 million less

from PACs in 1994 than they did in

1992. Nevertheless, they continued to

receive a greatershare of PACcontributions than their Republican counterparts, a trend dating back to the early

1980s.

The March 31 press release has

more information and statistics on

PACfinancial activity. To get a copy,

call 800/424-9530 (and press three at

the prompt) or 202/2I9-4I40. ..

(Statistics continlied all page 10)

9
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Statistics

(cont inued f rom pa g e 9)

Democrats

6.49%

Jan. 1, 1991 -

Aug. 31, 1992

($59.3 million)

82.35%

June 1995

_ Incumbents

,-_ ..a Challengers

_ _ ---JI Open Seats

Republicans

6.90%

8 1.23%

($26.8 million)

Sept. 1,1992 -

Nov. 3,1992

63.57% 14.91%

2 1.52%

57.35%

25.02%

($26.6 million) ($ 15.5 million )

33.93% 13.89%

Nov. 4, 1992 -

Dec. 31, 1992

($99 1,527)

52.18%

33.51%

($648,585)
June / 995 Federal Election Commission RECORD

PAC Giving by House Candidate Type

These pie charts illustrate the distribution of PAC support to different types of House can didates-incumben ts,

challengers, and open sea ts-during three different stage s of the last two elec tion cyc les. The first stage depicts PAC

givi ng prior to the start of the gene ral e lection period, wh ich is commonly co nsidered to begin after Labor Day. The

second stage dep icts PAC giving during the general election period. And the last stage depicts PAC gi ving after the

general election. This information is provided here as a supplement to the March 31 press release. •

Democrats Republican s

Jan. 1, 1993 -

Aug. 31, 1994

86.10% 84.72%

($6 1.5 million) ($26.5 million)

47.86%

16.65%

10.87%

•• ' •..i~< "....'1V..:.. ...••......:.~. ;.>;J Sept. 1, 1994 -

Nov. 7, 1994

($26 million) ($ 15.8 million)

ov. 8, 1994 -

Dec. 31, 1994 32.73 %

7.02%

($270,859) ($ 1.2 million)

/I
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

Branstool, et al. v, FEC

On April 4, 1995, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. This decision sustains the Commission's dismissal of

plaintiffs' administrative complaint.

Background

The origins of this case are rooted

in the 1988 Presidential contest between Republican candidate George

Bush and Democratic candidate

Michael Dukakis. In the course of

the Presidential race, the National

Security Political Action Committee

(NSPAC) financed the production

and airing of the "Willie Horton"

ad. This ad attacked the Democratic

candidate by blaming then Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis

for the violent crimes committed by

a convict while on furlough from a

state prison.

Plaintiffs filed an administrative

complaintwith the FEC in May 1990,

alleging that the NSPAC coordinated

the production and airingof the Willie

Horton ad with the Bush campaign.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), a candidate running in a Presidential general election

who accepts public funding may not

accept contributions. The Bush campaign accepted public funding. If, as

plaintiffs claimed, the Horton ad had

been coordinated, then it would have

been an in-kind contribution, in

violation of 26 U.S.c. §9003(b)(2).

The complaint thus hinged on the

issue of whether the Horton ad was

a coordinated in-kind contribution,

and therefore illegal, or a permissible independent expenditure as

defined under 2 U.S.c. §431(17). I

I 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 f or federal office.

/ 2

After examining the complaint,

the Commission found reason to believe that the Bush campaign and the

NSPAC had violated the Act, but

after a limited investigation into the

matter, the Commission deemed the

evidence inconclusive and decided

to take no further action on the

matter. Plaintiffs' complaint was

subsequently dismissed.

This led plaintiffs to file this suit

in January 1992, claiming that the

FEC had abused its discretion in not

conducting a comprehensive investigation and had violated the Act by

dismissing plaintiffs' complaint.

Plaintiffs noted that among the FEC

investigation'sfindings were a record

of a June 1988 telephone conversation between the Bush campaign's

chief media advisor and a NSPAC

media consultant, and documentation showing that a media technician

worked for both NSPAC and the

Bush campaign. Plaintiffs contended

that these findings were proof of

coordination.

The Court's Decision

In addressing plaintiffs' challenge to the Commission's decision

to limit the investigation into their

complaint, the court saw no reason

to depart from the general policy of

giving broad deference to agency

prosecutorial decisions.

The court held that it could set

aside FEC statutory interpretations

as "impermissible" only if they have

no reasonable basis. The court concluded that the factual conclusions

underpinning the Commission's decision were "sufficiently reasonable"

to warrant the court's deference.

For instance, in dismissing the

complaint, the Commission concluded that the inference of coordination created by the telephone call

was rebutted by other findings. With

regard to the media technician's

dual employment, the Commission

reasonably concluded that he performed technical tasks for the two

committees and had no role in substantive or strategic decisions...

Jun e /995

Fulani v, FEC (94-4461)

On April 12, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the Southern

District of New York dismissed this

case as moot.

Plaintiff had sought to restrain

the FEC from taking any action in

an enforcement matter because the

administrative complaint that

originated the case included

unsworn attachments. See page II

of the August 1994 Record for a

summary of plaintiff's suit.

The complainant has since filed a

sworn statement verifying the

attachments, thus rendering moot

plaintiffs arguments. ..

McIntyre v, Ohio

On April 19, 1995, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that an Ohio

regulation prohibiting anonymous

political literature violated the First

Amendment. This decision reverses

the judgment of the Ohio Supreme

Court.

[Although the FEC was not a

party to this case, which involves

state election law, the opinion is

summarized here because the

Court's holdings and rationale may

have future relevance to aspects of

federal election law.]

Background

In April 1988, Mrs. Margaret

McIntyre distributed leaflets she

produced to persons attending a

public meeting to discuss a referendum on a proposed school tax levy.

These leaflets expressed Mrs.

McIntyre's opposition to the levy.

Ohio Code, §3599.09(A), requires

political literature to include the

name and address of the issuer.

Some of Mrs. Mclntyres leaflets

were anonymous, yet she continued

to distribute them even after she was

made aware of §3599.09(A).

The Ohio Elections Commission

fined Mrs. McIntyre $100 for violating §3599.09(A). On review, the

case climbed to the Ohio Supreme

Court, which upheld the $100 fine.
June 1995

The First Amendment and

Overriding State Interests

In arriving at its decision to

overturn the Ohio court's ruling, the

U.S. Supreme Court first determined

that anonymous political speech is

protected under the First Amendment. In support of this notion, the

Court stated that:

" ... anonymous pamphleteering

.. . [has] an honorable tradition of

advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of

the majority .... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of

Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect

unpopular individuals from

retaliation and their ideas from

suppression at the hand of an

intolerant society."

The Court recalled, for example,

that the Federalist Papers, which

favored the ratification of the

Constitution, were published under

fictitious names.

The Court's analysis focused on

evaluating the state's interest in

curbing anonymous speech. The

Court cited First National Bank of

Boston v. Bellotti as a precedent for

applying the following test: A

government-imposed infringement

on the First Amendment is tolerable

if the infringement serves an

overriding public interest. Additionally, Talle y v. California requires

that laws must be narrowly tailored

so as to impact only on speech that

threatens the public interest.

In the case at hand, Ohio maintained that §3599.09(A) served the

state's interest in preventing the

dissemination of fraudulent and

libelous statements.

The C0U11, however, found that

Ohio has a number of other regulations aimed at preventing fraud and

libel. While acknowledging that

§3599.09(A) may help to enforce

the other prohibitions against the

dissemination of false political

information, the Court did not

believe this justified the broad

I prohibition at §3599.09(A).

Ohio also argued that the regulation, by requiring political messages

to include the issuer's name and

address, provided voters with

information on which to evaluate

the message's worth. The Court

dismissed this argument by noting

that in the case of a leaflet written

by a private citizen who is not

known by the recipient, the name

I has no significance.

The Court thus reasoned that

Ohio's interests were not sufficient

to justify an infringement upon the

First Amendment.

Reconciling McIntyre with

Buckley v. Valeo

In closing, the Court distinguished this case from its 1976

landmark decision in Buckley v.

Valeo, which dealt with the constitutionality of the Federal Election

Campaign Act. The Court explained

that Buckley addressed the issue of

mandatory disclosure of campaignfinance expenditures; it did not

involve a prohibition of anonymous

campaign literature.

The Court stated that: "Though

. . . mandatory reporting undeniably

impedes protected First Amendment

activity, the intrusion is a far cry

from compelled self-identification

on all election-related writings."

The Court pointed out that the

law addressed in the Buckley

decision is narrowly tailored to

serve the public interest of campaign finance disclosure. The law

regulates only candidate elections,

and not referenda and other issuebased ballots. The Court stated, " In

candidate elections, the government

can identify a compelling state

interest in avoiding the corruption

that might result from campaign

expenditures."

U.S. Supreme Court, No. 93-986,

April 19, 1995. •

Federal Election Commission RECORD

I Citizens for Wofford v. FEC

On April 14, 1995, plaintiff withdrew the complaint it filed against

the FEC in the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia. An

FEC suit filed against plaintiff on

December 20,1994, in the U.S.

District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg

Division, on December 20, 1994, is

still in progress. FEC v. Citizens f or

Wofford (1:CY-94-2057).

Background

Both cases involve an FEC

enforcement action born out of the

1991 Pennsylvania special election.

The major party contenders in the

special election were Democratic

nominee Mr. Harris Wofford and

Republican nominee Mr. Richard

Thornburgh. The Democrats nominated Mr. Wofford on June l, 1991,

but did not certify the nomination

until September 5, 1994.

Citizens for Wofford, Mr. Wofford's principal campaign committee, regarded contributions received

following the June 1 designation but

prior to the September 5 certification as primary contributions. I

As a result, the Republican State

Committee of Pennsylvania filed an

administrative complaint with the

FEe. Following an investigation,

the Commission found probable

cause to believe that Citizens for

Wofford violated 2 U.S.e. §441a(f)

-the knowing acceptance of a contribution made in violation of the

Federal Election Campaign Act's

(continued on page 14)

I Counting these contributions against a

contributor's primary election limit

instead of against the contributor' s

general election limit would enable

contributors to give up to twice as much

to the party 's nominee as they would

otherwis e be able to; contributors

would be able to give up to their perelection limit to support Senator

Wofford's primary election campaign

aft er the fa ct and again to support his

I general election campa ign.

13
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

(continued from page /3 )

limits. This was because contributions received after June I, the date

of the nomination, should have been

counted against the contributor's

general election limit. Attempts t?

reach a conciliation agreement with

Citizens for Wofford failed. This

impasse lead to the filing of this case

and FEC v. Citizensfor Wofford.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. I:94CY02617,

April 14, 1995. •

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

FECForm I 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 comm!ttees

should include the following

information when requesting a

changeof address:

• Subscription number (located on

the upperleft cornerof the

mailing label);

• Subscriber's name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

Subscribers (otherthan

political committees) may correct

theiraddresses by phone as well

as by mail.

14

Audits

Audit Report on 1992

Herschensohn for U.S.

Senate Committee

The FEe's final audit report on

the principal campaign committee

for Bruce Herschensohn, a 1992

Republican candidate for the office

of U.S. Senator from California,

contained the following findings:

• The committee received excessive

contributions of $130,964;

• The committee failed to itemize

certain receipts;

• The committee failed to properly

disclose the purpose of a number

of disbursements; and

• The committee failed to file 48-

hour notices for $32,500 in contributions.

This audit was conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.c. §438(b), which

authorizes the Commission to

conduct audits of any political

committee whose reports fail to

meet the thresho ld level of compliance set by the Commission.

Subsequent to a final audit report,

the FEC may choose to pursue

unresolved issues in an enforcement

matter.

Excessive Contributions

The committee had received

contributions totaling $ 130,964

from individuals in excess of the

limits established by 2 U.S.c.

§44 1a(a)(I)(A).

The committee took steps to

resolve this infraction with respect

to some of these contributions by

either redesignating, reattributing or

refunding $88,565 of the excessive

amount, in accordance with I I CFR

103.3(b)(3) and (4); 11 0.I (b)(5);

June 1995

110.1(k); 110.1(I) and II0.2(b)(5).

The committee failed, however, to

provide documentation demonstrating that it had acted within 60 days

after its receipt of the contributionthe time limit established by law.

Because the committee did not

have sufficient funds to make

refunds on the remaining $42,399,

the committee complied with the

audit staff's recommendation to

report most of it as debts.

Itemization of Contributions

The committee had failed to itemize a number of contributions for

which itemization was required under

2 U.S.c. §§434(b) and 431(13).

These errors were the result of

the committee's maintaining records

of contribu tions on two separate

data bases. The committee complied

with the audit staff's recommendation and filed amended reports

itemizing the receipts in question .

Disclosure of Disbursements

The committee had failed to

adequate ly disclose the purpose of a

number of disbursements in its FEC

reports, as required under II CFR

104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). The committee

complied with the audit staff's

recommenda tion to amend its

reports accordingly.

48-Hour Notifications

The committee had failed to file

48-hour notices with respect to

$32500 in contrib utions. Under I I

CFR I04.5(f), a candidate committee that receives a contribution of

$ 1,000 or more during the time

period between 20 days prior to the

election and 48 hours before the

date of the election must disclose

the amount and source of the

contribution within 48 hours of

receipt. •
June 1995

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the "number" (month) of

the 1995 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number.

following the colon, indicates the

page number in that issue. For example, "I :4" means that the article

is in the January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1994-33: Calling card solicitations,

3:5

1994-34: Consolidating membership

association PACs following a

merger, 3:7

1994-35: Terminating reporting

obligations, 5:5

1994-36: Solicitation of stockholders in an employee-owned

company, 5:5

1994-37: Allocating between federal

and nonfederal campaigns, 3:7

1994-39: Solicitation of affiliates by

a membership organization, 3:8

1994-40: Storing records on microfilm, 3:9

1995-1 : Respondents and the

confidentiality provisions, 4:8

1995-2: Membership organization's

solicitation of representatives of

member firms, 6:3

1995-3: Running simultaneous

Senate and Presidential campaigns,4:8

1995-5: Use of contributor lists

derived from FEC reports, 4:9

1995-7: Candidate's personal

liability for bank loan, 6:4

1995-8: Committee's rental of

candidate-owned office and

equipment, 6:5

1995-9: Operating a political

committee in cyberspace, 6:6

1995-10: Ownership of committee

records, 6:7

1995-11: Status of limited liability

company, 6:8

Compliance

$25,000 Annual contribution limit,

4:1

MUR 3452: Excessive contributions,6:8

MUR 3540: Corporate facilitation, 1:2

MUR 3650: Loan Guarantors, 1:2

Court Cases

FECv. __

- 8ranstool, 6:12

- Citizens for Wofford, 6:13

Federal Election Commission RECORD

- Fulani (94-4461), 6:12

- Michigan Republican State

Committee, 5:4

- Montoya, 2:7; 5:4

- NRA Political Victory Fund, 2: I

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-1612), 4:4

- Williams, 4:5

v. FEC

- Condon, 3:5

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (93-1321), I: 10

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-0349), 4:8

- Freedom Republicans, 2:6

- Fulani (94-1593),4:6

- Lytle, 1:10,2:7

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (94-5148), 5:4

- Robertson, 4:6

- Whitmore, 2:7

- Wilson, 2:7; 5:I

Mcintyre v. Ohio, 6:12

Rove v. Thornburgh, 4:7

Reports

Schedule for 1995, 1:4

800 Line Articles

Administrative termination, 2:9

Corporate facilitation, 6:I

15