March 1998 Federal Election Commission Volume 24, Number 3

Table of Contents

Compliance

1 MUR 4704

2 MUR 4638

Regulations

1 Public Hearing Set for Proposed

Changes to Rules Defining

“Member”

2 Commission Denies Rulemaking

Request from Reform Party

Court Cases

3 FEC v. Charles Woods for U.S.

Senate

Election Administration

3 New Members Named to Panel

Party Activities

4 Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits for 1998 Election Cycle

5 Advisory Opinions

Statistics

8 PAC Count Declines

8 Conferences

8 Federal Register Notices

Reports

9 California Special General

Elections Reporting

Information

9 FEC Faxline Menu

11 Index

Compliance Regulations

Public Hearing Set for

Proposed Changes to Rules

Defining “Member”

The FEC will hold a public

hearing on April 29 to receive

testimony and comments about its

proposed changes to the rules that

define who qualifies as a member of

a membership association. The

hearing will begin at 10 a.m. in the

FEC hearing room in Washington,

DC (999 E Street, NW, 9th floor).

The Commission has included

three alternatives in its Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that

would provide additional guidance

to organizations consistent with the

decision of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit in Chamber of Commerce of

the United States v. FEC. The

proposed changes would affect

language at 11 CFR 100.8(b)(4)(iv)

and 114.1(e), and would repeal

language at 11 CFR 114.7(k) and

114.8(g).

See page 4 of the January 1998

Record for more information about

the rulemaking. For the complete

NPRM, call the Public Records

Office at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or

request the document from the FEC

Faxline at 202/501-3413 (document

229). The notice also is available at

MUR 4704

Insurance Company Pays

Penalty for Knowing and

Willful Violations of Law

The American Family Life

Assurance Company (AFLAC) has

paid an $80,000 civil penalty for

having made corporate contributions

and contributions in the name of

another, both impermissible under

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act).

In June 1994, unsuccessful

congressional candidate Henry Espy

met with three top officials at

AFLAC to solicit contributions to

reduce his campaign debt. A few

months later, a fourth AFLAC

official, company Vice-President

Warren B. Steele II, requested that

two of the company’s sales representatives and their wives each

contribute $1,000 to Mr. Espy’s

congressional campaign to help

retire the debt. Subsequently, the

four contributed $4,000 to Mr.

Espy’s congressional campaign

committee. Mr. Steele then authorized AFLAC to reimburse them for

their contributions.

While Mr. Steele knew that the

reimbursement was improper and

that it violated AFLAC policies, he

nonetheless orchestrated the repay-

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 1998

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

Scott E. Thomas, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

 Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

the FEC’s web site (http://

www.fec.gov) and it was published

in the December 22, 1997, Federal

Register (62 FR 66832).

Anyone wishing to testify must

first submit written comments, and

must also submit a request to testify

before April 6.

Written comments and requests

to testify should be addressed to

Susan E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel. They may be transmitted

to the FEC in one of three ways:

• Mail them to Federal Election

Commission, 999 E Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20463.

• Fax them to the FEC at 202/219-

3923, with a copy mailed to the

preceding address to ensure

legibility.

• E-mail them to members@fec.gov.

Electronic submissions must

include the commenter’s full name,

e-mail address and postal mail

address. ✦

Commission Denies

Rulemaking Request from

Reform Party

On January 22, the Commission

declined to open a rulemaking in

response to a petition for

rulemaking submitted by the

National Reform Party Organizing

Committee. The petition had asked

the Commission to amend its rules

either to require that two members

of the six-member FEC be minor

party affiliates or to expand the

Commission by three seats reserved

exclusively for minor party representatives.

The petitioner had argued that its

rights and those of other minor

parties were infringed by what it

claimed was a statutory requirement

(2 U.S.C. §437c(a)(1)) that the

Commission be composed of three

Republicans and three Democrats.

In the Commission’s response, it

stated that the request was outside of

its jurisdiction, citing Art. II, § 2, cl.

2 of the U.S. Constitution which

provides that the President shall

make appointments, with the advice

and consent of the Senate. The

Commission further stated that

Congress, by law, had established

the six-member Federal Election

Commission and that it alone has

the authority to reconfigure the

Commission.

The Commission also noted that,

while the Commission has always

been made up of three Democrats

and three Republicans, such a

composition is not stipulated by the

Act. The statute merely says that no

more than three Commissioners may

be affiliated with the same party.

Additionally, 2 U.S.C. §437c(c)

requires a four-vote majority to

approve any formal Commission

actions, thus ensuring that no

political party can dictate the

Commission’s actions.

In light of its decision, the

Commission published a Notice of

Disposition on this matter in the

January 29 Federal Register (63 FR

4404). ✦

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

MUR 4638

Law Firm Penalized for

Assisting Foreign National

with Contributions

The law firm that advised foreign

national Thomas Kramer (who made

or directed more than $300,000 in

prohibited contributions in connection with U.S. elections) has agreed

to pay a $77,000 civil penalty for

violating the ban on foreign contributions. Section 441e of the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

prohibits any person from soliciting

a contribution from a foreign

national in connection with any

election—federal, state or local.

(See page 1 of the September 1997

Record for more details about Mr.

Kramer’s violations of the Act in

MUR 4398.)

Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman,

Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A.,

ments, identifying them as administrative expenses. When AFLAC

discovered the reimbursements, it

requested a full refund from the

sales representatives and their

wives.

The Act at §441b(a) states that it

is unlawful for any corporation to

make a contribution or expenditure

in connection with a federal election. Further, it is impermissible for

a person to make a contribution in

the name of another. 2 U.S.C.

§441f. The Commission concluded

that Mr. Steele knowingly and

willfully violated both sections of

the Act.

This MUR, or Matter Under

Review, grew out of Independent

Counsel Donald C. Smaltz’s investigation of Mr. Espy’s brother, former

Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.

Prior to finding probable cause to

believe that a violation of the Act

had occurred, the Commission

entered into a conciliation agreement with AFLAC. ✦
March 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Court Cases

New Members Named to

Panel

Three new members have joined

the Office of Election

Administration’s 1998 Advisory

Panel, filling one expired term and

taking the places of two members

who had resigned.

Charlotte Cleary, Registrar of

Voters in Arlington County, VA,

Ernest R. Hawkins, Registrar of

Voters in Sacramento County, CA,

and Joseph Mansky, Director of

Elections for Minnesota, were

appointed to the board by the

Commission in February.

The Advisory Panel is comprised

of twenty state and local election

officials from around the country,

whose counsel helps ensure that the

research and informational needs of

all election officials are best served.

These latest appointments maintain

the advisory panel’s geographic

representation and balance according to jurisdictional size, partisanship and state/local representation.

The three replaced Bill Boehm of

Pennsylvania, Ed Lombard of

Louisiana and Germaine Wong of

California. ✦

FEC v. Charles Woods for

U.S. Senate

On January 16, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Nevada

ordered Charles Woods, two of his

corporations, and Charles Woods

for U.S. Senate (the Committee) to

pay the FEC $50,000 for violating

the Federal Election Campaign

Act’s (the Act’s) ban on corporate

represented Mr. Kramer on immigration and other legal matters, and

attorneys working with Mr. Kramer

knew of his foreign national status.

Nonetheless, during 1993 and 1994,

the law firm participated in conversations with Mr. Kramer and his

agents that resulted in $91,000 in

contributions to local and state

candidates in Florida—Democrats

and Republicans—as well as a

national party committee. The

contributions came from Mr.

Kramer, his wife and some of the

corporations he owned in the United

States. The law firm said that its

violation was inadvertent.

In addition to the broad ban on

foreign contributions, at 2 U.S.C.

§441e, Commission regulations at

11 CFR 110.4(a)(3) prohibit U.S.

corporations from making contributions in connection with any election if the corporation’s contribution

is controlled or directed by a foreign

national.

This MUR, or Matter Under

Review, was precipitated by Mr.

Kramer after he viewed news

accounts suggesting that his contributions were illegal. Prior to finding

probable cause to believe that

Greenberg, Traurig had violated the

Act, the Commission entered into a

conciliation agreement with the

firm, which included the civil

penalty. ✦

contributions, and for failing to file

48-hour notices for $28,000 in

contributions that came in during

the waning days of the 1992 primary

campaign. The court also issued a

permanent injunction against future

violations.

The court granted the FEC’s

motion for summary judgment and

imposed the civil penalty because of

the extent of the violations and the

unambiguous nature of the sections

of the Act in question in this case.

The defendants have until the end of

this month to pay the penalty.

The Committee served as the

principal campaign committee for

Mr. Woods, who was seeking the

1992 Democratic nomination for the

Senate in Nevada. During the

election cycle, Quinn River Ranch,

which was wholly owned by Mr.

Woods, contributed $290,000 to the

Committee. A subsidiary of another

corporation that Mr. Woods owned,

WTVY-FM, also made an impermissible contribution when it used

its American Express credit card to

charge $1,426.23 in expenses for the

Committee. See page 6 of the April

1997 Record.

The Act at §441b(a) prohibits

corporations from making contributions in connection with a federal

election, and prohibits political

committees from accepting such

contributions. Both Quinn River

Ranch and WTVY were wholly

owned by Mr. Woods. Nonetheless,

the Act makes no distinction for

closely-held corporations when

applying the 441b(a) prohibition.

The statute makes it unlawful for

“any corporation whatever” to make

contributions in connection with a

federal election.

The law also provides for the

timely filing of disclosure reports

with the Commission for contributions received after the 20th day but

more than 48 hours before an

election. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(6)(A).

U.S. District Court for the

District of Nevada, CV-S-97-182-

PMP. ✦

Election

Administration

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain FEC

material fast. It operates 24 hours

a day, 7 days a week. More than

300 FEC documents—reporting

forms, brochures, FEC

regulations—can be faxed almost

immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial

202/501-3413 and follow the

instructions. To order a complete

menu of Faxline documents, enter

document number 411 at the

prompt.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 1998

4

Amount Formula

Senate Nominee See table on next

page.

The greater of:

$20,000 x COLA1 or

2¢ x state VAP2 x COLA

House Nominee

in States with

Only One

Representative

$65,100 $20,000 x COLA

House Nominee

in Other States

$32,550 $10,000 x COLA

Nominee for

Delegate or

Resident

Commissioner3

$32,550 $10,000 x COLA

National Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf

of House and Senate nominees.

May authorize1 other party

committees to make expenditures

against its own spending limits.

Shares limits with national

congressional and senatorial

campaign committees.

State Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf

of House and Senate nominees

seeking election in the committee's

state. May authorize1 other party

committees to make expenditures

against its own spending limits.

Local Party Committee May be authorized1 by national or

state party committee to make

expenditures against their limits.

Authority to Make Coordinated Party Expenditures on Behalf

of House and Senate Nominees

1

 The authorizing committee must provide prior, written authorization specifying the

amount the committee may spend.

Calculating 1998 Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits

1

 COLA means cost-of-living adjustment. The 1998 COLA is 3.255.

2

 VAP means voting age population. VAP figures are not yet official.

3

 The District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands elect Delegates; Puerto

Rico elects a Resident Commissioner.

Party

Activities

Coordinated Party

Expenditure Limits for 1998

Election Cycle

The 1998 coordinated party

expenditure limits are now available. They are:

• $32,550 for House nominees,1

 and

• A range from $65,100 to $1.5

million for Senate nominees,

depending on each state’s voting

age population.

Party committees may make

these special expenditures on behalf

of 1998 general election candidates.

The limits for coordinated party

expenditures are separate from the

contribution limits. Party committees must spend the funds on behalf

of the candidate rather than give the

money directly to the candidate or

his/her committee. Although these

expenditures may be made in

consultation with the candidate,

only the party committee making

the expenditures—not the candidate

committee—must report them.

Consult the three tables on these

pages for more details about coordinated party expenditures, and for a

state-by-state listing of the limits for

this year’s Senate nominees. ✦

1 In states that have only one U.S.

House Representative, the coordinated

party expenditure limit for the House

nominee is $65,100, the same amount

as the Senate limit.
March 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for ’98 Senate Nominees

∆ These figures are not yet official. In the unlikely event that the official figures

differ, a future Record will notify readers.

* In these states, which have only one U.S. House Representative, the spending limit

for the House nominee is $65,100, the same amount as the Senate limit. In other

states, the limit for each House nominee is $32,550.

State

Voting Age Population∆

(in thousands)

Expenditure Limit

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

DC

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

3,247

421

3,277

1,860

23,317

2,877

2,478

554

422

11,183

5,498

884

859

8,722

4,367

2,127

1,907

2,947

3,161

945

3,826

4,666

7,269

3,435

1,978

3,996

649

1,212

1,234

877

6,066

1,230

13,577

5,552

476

8,348

2,439

2,433

9,156

754

2,805

541

4,043

13,862

1,371

443

5,090

4,156

1,404

3,823

348

$211,380

$65,100

$213,333

$121,086

$1,517,937

$187,293

$161,318

$65,100

$65,100

$728,013

$357,920

$65,100

$65,100

$567,802

$284,292

$138,468

$124,146

$191,850

$205,781

$65,100

$249,073

$303,757

$473,212

$223,619

$128,768

$260,140

$65,100

$78,901

$80,333

$65,100

$394,897

$80,073

$883,863

$361,435

$65,100

$543,455

$158,779

$158,388

$596,056

$65,100

$182,606

$65,100

$263,199

$902,416

$89,252

$65,100

$331,359

$270,556

$91,400

$248,877

$65,100

Advisory

Opinions

(continued on page 6)

AO 1997-25

Affiliation Between

Corporate SSFs After

Reorganization

A corporate spin-off and merger

involving General Motors Corp.,

Hughes Electronics Corp. (HE) and

Raytheon Co. has consequences

affecting the affiliation of the

corporation’s separate segregated

funds (SSFs), transfers among the

SSFs, the aggregation of contributions by and to the SSFs, and payroll

deduction authorizations for contributions by eligible personnel.

Corporate Background

Before the merger, HE’s defense

electronics operations and a third

HE sector concentrating on telecommunications and space were conducted by a wholly owned

subsidiary known as HE Holdings,

Inc. (Holdings). In a December

1997 corporate spin-off, GM

stockholders received the portion of

HE that operates in defense electronics. That portion was then

merged immediately with Raytheon,

now called Raytheon/Holdings (R/

H). As a result of the merger, R/H is

now owned by GM common

stockholders and Raytheon’s former

stockholders. However, GM owns

none of the new company’s equity.

Also as part of the transactions,

Delco Electronics Corp., the automotive electronics division of HE,

became a wholly owned subsidiary

of GM and now operates in combination with a division of GM known

as Delphi Automotive Systems

(Delco/Delphi). The telecommunications and space business is

retained by HE.

Neither GM nor R/H owns any

stock in the other company. While a

total of three persons from the GM
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 1998

6

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

and HE boards sit on the R/H board,

neither GM nor HE has control over

the 12 remaining Raytheon directors, who were chosen by Raytheon

shareholders before the merger.

SSF Background

HE’s SSF, Hughes Electronics

Corporation Active Citizenship Fund

(HACF), already was affiliated with

GM’s SSF, the Civic Involvement

Program/General Motors (CIP/GM).

Prior to the reorganization, HE

created another SSF, Holdings PAC,

to receive transfers from HACF of

the portion of funds that had been

contributed by defense electronic

employees. Another SSF, Delco/

Delphi PAC, also was created before

the reorganization.

Raytheon also had a pre-reorganization SSF, Raytheon Company

PAC (Raytheon PAC). Immediately

after the merger with HE’s defense

sector, Holdings PAC merged into

Raytheon PAC.

Regulations Governing Affiliation

Status

FEC regulations state that

committees that are established,

financed, maintained or controlled

by the same corporation, including

any parent, subsidiary, branch or

division, are affiliated. Contributions made to or by such committees

are considered to have been made

by a single committee, and affiliated

committees have one contribution

limit. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2). Committees established by a single corporation and its subsidiaries, or

committees established by the same

group of persons, are affiliated per

se. 11 CFR 110.3(a)(2)(i) and (v).

Further, transfers between affiliated

committees are not limited. 11 CFR

102.6(a)(1).

Corporations may solicit the

restricted class—that is, the executive and administrative personnel,

stockholders and families of those

groups—of its subsidiaries or other

affiliates for SSF contributions. 11

CFR 114.3(a)(1) and 114.5(g)(1).

When an entity is not an acknowledged subsidiary of another, the

Commission weighs several factors

to determine whether the sponsoring

entities and, hence, their respective

SSFs, are affiliated. 11 CFR

100.5(g)(4)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J), and

110.3(a)(3)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J).

Application to GM, Raytheon/

Holdings

Prior to the reorganization,

Holdings was a wholly owned

subsidiary of HE. Thus, their SSFs

already were affiliated and remain

so. Also, prior to reorganization,

Delphi was a division of GM and

Delco was a subsidiary of HE. As

stated previously, HE is owned by

GM. The new Delco/Delphi also is

now wholly owned by GM. As the

SSFs of GM subsidiaries, Delco/

Delphi PAC and HACF maintain

their affiliation as was the case

before the reorganization.

The case is different with R/H:

Raytheon PAC and HACF remain

unaffiliated. Neither GM nor R/H

has an ownership interest in the

other. While there is some overlap

between the R/H board and those of

GM and HE, the overlap is too small

to bolster the argument for affiliation in this instance. See AO 1996-

23. Further, neither GM nor HE has

control over R/H’s directors, and

there are no plans to add more GM

or HE personnel to the R/H board.

Another factor discussed in previous

advisory opinions addressing the

effect of spin-offs is the common

shareholder base. All of the GM

common stockholders own shares in

R/H, and yet there is not a complete

overlap in the ownership of the two

companies and there is a lower level

of common control than in other

spin-off situations previously

addressed by the Commission.

Moreover, the active trading of

shares held by GM stockholders is

anticipated. See AOs 1996-42 and

1993-23.

Because the various PACs

connected with GM and HE were

affiliated prior to the reorganization,

they could make unlimited transfers

between them. Additionally, the

merger of Holdings PAC with

Raytheon PAC is permissible since

they became affiliated committees

as a result of the reorganization.

Holdings PAC and Delco/Delphi

PAC are multicandidate committees

by virtue of the fact that CIP/GM

and HACF had already attained

multicandidate status, and they were

affiliated with them prior to the

reorganization. HACF and Raytheon

PAC retain their multicandidate

status as well.

Raytheon PAC must take into

account both the contribution

history of the GM PACs (including

HACF) and its own pre-reorganization contributions in making any

future contributions. All of the GM

PACs contributions collected before

the reorganization must be attributed

to Holdings PAC. As a result, the

total contributions made by the GM

PACs to a particular recipient must

be added to the amounts given by

Raytheon PAC to the same recipient

in order to determine the amounts

that Raytheon PAC may contribute

now that the reorganization is

complete. The GM PACs, however,

do not have to account for Raytheon

PAC’s pre-reorganization contributions since, before the reorganization, Raytheon was not a part of the

GM PACs. The same principles

applicable to post-reorganization

contributions by Raytheon PAC

apply to contributions made by the

new (formerly HE) employees of

Raytheon to the SSF.

In order for R/H to deduct

contributions from its new employees (those coming from HE’s

defense sector) for Raytheon PAC,

it must obtain express written and

separate payroll deduction authorizations from them, and, in doing so,

must follow the regulations on

voluntariness set out at 11 CFR

114.5(a)(1)-(5). These payroll
March 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1998-3

Status as state committee of political

party (Reform Party of Idaho,

January 28, 1998; 1 page plus 2-

page attachment)

AOR 1998-4

Use of contributor lists from FEC

reports for marketing application of

“data mining” technologies to

campaign finance (White Oak

Technologies, Inc., February 5,

1998; 2 pages plus 2-page attachment) ✦

AO 1997-26

Establishment of

Nonconnected PAC by

Individuals Affiliated with

Trade Association

A group that includes individuals

affiliated with the Association of

Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

(AMSA), a nonprofit trade association, may establish a nonconnected

political action committee. The

group will operate, govern and

finance the Clean Water Political

Action Committee (CWPAC)

independently of AMSA.

Under the Act and Commission

regulations, an incorporated entity,

such as AMSA, may establish and

administer its own political action

committee, or separate segregated

fund (SSF). 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2)(C); 11 CFR

114.1(a)(2)(iii). That SSF may

deductions of R/H’s former HE

employees had been authorized for

an SSF that still exists as the SSF of

a company that is not affiliated with

R/H, the employees’ new company.

In contrast, the new Delco/Delphi

employees (those coming from HE’s

automotive sector) do not need to

execute new payroll deduction

authorizations in order to have such

deductions go to the Delco/Delphi

PAC. This is because Delco/Delphi

never left the GM group of companies. Nonetheless, to fulfill the

voluntariness regulations, Delco/

Delphi or its PAC should provide

written notification to each of its

employees who had been making

payroll deductions for the HACF

that their authorizations are being

transferred. The notification must

include an explicit notice informing

Delco/Delphi employees that they

may revoke the authorization

without reprisal. This action must be

taken within 30 days of receipt of

this opinion.

Date Issued: January 16, 1998;

Length: 10 pages. ✦

receive administrative support from

its parent, or “connected organization,” but can solicit contributions

only from a restricted class of

individuals affiliated with that

connected organization. By contrast,

a nonconnected PAC (as its name

implies) has no connected organization and may solicit contributions

from any lawful contributor.

FEC regulations do not prohibit

individuals associated with an

incorporated entity from establishing a nonconnected PAC. To do so,

however, the individuals must

demonstrate that their PAC will be

financially and organizationally

independent of the incorporated

entity. In this case, AMSA will not

provide direct or indirect financial

support to CWPAC, and the PAC’s

bylaws bar AMSA employees from

comprising a majority of the

CWPAC board. In its solicitations,

CWPAC will not imply any connection with AMSA. Nor will it use

AMSA’s membership list unless

AMSA makes the list available to

other organizations on the same

terms. If CWPAC uses AMSA’s

facilities, it will reimburse AMSA at

the usual and normal charge and

within a commercially reasonable

time. The Commission determined

that, based on these circumstances,

CWPAC may operate as a

nonconnected committee.

Should these circumstances

change, for example, should a

majority of CWPAC’s board of

directors be comprised of directors,

officers or other personnel of

AMSA, the Commission left open

the prospect that CWPAC might be

viewed as AMSA’s SSF.

Date Issued: January 23, 1998;

Length 4 pages. ✦

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record from

1996, 1997 and 1998 are available through the Internet as PDF

files. Visit the FEC’s World Wide

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

and click on “Help for Candidates, Parties and PACs.” Future

Record issues will be posted on

the web as well. You will need

Adobe® Acrobat Reader software

to view the publication. The

FEC’s web site has a link that

will take you to Adobe’s web

site, where you can download the

latest version of the software for

free.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 1998

8

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected 1 Total

Dec. ’90 1,795 346 774 59 136 1,062 4,172

Jul. ’91 1,745 339 749 57 137 1,096 4,123

Dec. ’91 1,738 338 742 57 136 1,083 4,094

Jul. ’92 1,731 344 759 56 144 1,091 4,125

Dec. ’92 1,735 347 770 56 142 1,145 4,195

Jul. ’93 1,715 338 767 55 139 1,011 4,025

Dec. ’93 1,789 337 761 56 146 1,121 4,210

Jul. ’94 1,666 336 777 53 138 963 3,933

Dec. ’94 1,660 333 792 53 136 980 3,954

Jul. ’95 1,670 334 804 43 129 1,002 3,982

Dec. ’95 1,674 334 815 44 129 1,020 4,016

Jul. ’96 1,645 332 829 43 126 1,058 4,033

Dec. ’96 1,642 332 838 41 123 1,103 4,079

Jul. ’972 1,602 332 826 41 118 953 3,875

Dec. ’97 1,597 322 825 42 117 931 3,844

1 Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On

the other hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general

public, while solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

2

 During the first six months of 1997, 227 PACs were administratively terminated

because of inactivity.

Midyear and Year-End PAC Counts, December

1990—December 1997

FEC 1998 Conference

Schedule

There are only two additional

FEC conferences slated for this

year. To register, call Sylvester

Management at 800/246-7277 or

send an e-mail message to:

TSYLVESTER@WORLDNET.ATT.NET.

Denver

For candidates, political parties and

corporate and labor organizations

Date: March 25-27

Location: Westin Tabor Center

Registration: $180

Hotel rate: $136

Washington, DC

For nonconnected committees (this

includes partnership, leadership and

ideological PACs)

Date: April 27

Location: Madison Hotel

Registration: $175

Hotel rate: $165

Statistics

Conferences

PAC Count Declines

For the second time in a row, the

number of PACs registered with the

FEC has declined. As of December

31, 1997, there were 3,844 federal

political action committees registered with the FEC, a slight drop

from the July 1997 total figure of

3,875.

The table to the right shows

midyear and year-end PAC figures

since 1990. To see a complete

listing of PAC statistics dating back

to 1974, visit the FEC’s web site—

http://www.fec.gov—or request a

copy of the FEC’s January 27 press

release on this subject from the

Public Records Office by calling

800/424-9530 (press 3). ✦

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are available from the FEC’s Public Records Office.

Notice 1998-3

Definition of Member of a Membership Association; Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking; Technical Correction (63 FR 3851, January 27, 1998)

Notice 1998-4

Composition of the Commission; Notice of Disposition of Petition for

Rulemaking (63 FR 4404, January 29, 1998)

Notice 1998-5

Filing Dates for the California Special Election (63 FR 5380, February 2,

1998)

Notice 1998-6

Definition of Express Advocacy; Notice of Disposition of Petition for

Rulemaking (63 FR 8363, February 19, 1998)
March 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

FEC Faxline Menu

FEC Faxline documents may be

ordered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

by calling 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.

Federal Election Commission

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

501. The FEC and the Federal

Campaign Finance Law

502. La Ley Federal relativa al

Financiamiento de las Campañas

503. Federal and State Campaign

Finance Laws

504. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

505. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

506. Telephone Directory

507. Table of Organization

508. Index for 1996 Record

Newsletter

509. Free Publications

510. Personnel Vacancy

Announcements

511. Freedom of Information Act

Requesters’ Guide

512. Legal Opportunities at the FEC

Disclosure

521. Guide to Researching Public

Records

522. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

523. Federal/State Records Offices

524. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

525. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

526. Direct Access Program (DAP)

527. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

528. Combined Federal/State

Disclosure Directory 1997 on

Disk

529. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

530. Internet Access to the FEC

531. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

Information

(continued on page 10)

California Special General Elections Reporting

 Committees1 involved in the April 7 special general elections and/or the June

2 special runoff elections to fill the 44th Congressional District seat held by

the late Congressman Sonny Bono and/or the 9th Congressional District seat

vacated by former Congressman Ronald Dellums must follow the reporting

schedules below. Note that 48-hour notices are required of authorized

committees that receive contributions (including loans) of $1,000 or more

between March 19 and April 4 in the special general elections and between

May 14 and May 30 in the special runoff elections, if they are required.

1

 These committees include authorized committees of candidates running in

the election and other political committees that support these candidates and

do not file monthly.

2

 Committees should file a consolidated Post-Runoff and July Quarterly

Report by the filing date of the July Quarterly Report.

Close of Books Certified/

Registered Mail

Date

Filing Date

Pre-General March 18 March 23 March 26

April Quarterly March 31 April 15 April 15

Post-General April 27 May 7 May 7

Close of Books Certified/

Registered Mail

Date

Filing Date

Pre-General March 18 March 23 March 26

April Quarterly March 31 April 15 April 15

Pre-Runoff May 13 May 18 May 21

Post Runoff &

July Quarterly2

June 30 July 15 July 15

Close of Books Certified/

Registered Mail

Date

Filing Date

Pre-General March 18 March 23 March 26

April Quarterly March 31 April 15 April 15

For Committees Involved Only in Special General When No Runoff is

Held:

For Committees Involved in Special General and Special Runoff:

For Committees Involved Only in Special General When Both Special

General and Runoff Elections Are Held:
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 1998

10

532. Electronic Filing Took Kit

533. State Campaign Finance and

Lobbying Data on the Internet

Limitations

546. Contributions

547. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

548. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

549. Volunteer Activity

550. Independent Expenditures

551. Local Party Activity

552. Corporate Communications/

Facilities

553. Trade Associations

554. Foreign Nationals

555. The $25,000 Annual Contribution Limit

556. Personal Use of Campaign

Funds

557. Delegate Activity

558. Partnerships

Public Funding

566. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

567. The $3 Tax Checkoff

568. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

569. Recipients of Public Funding

570. Presidential Fund Income Tax

Checkoff Status

571. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

581. Candidate Registration

582. Committee Treasurers

583. Special Notices on Political Ads

and Solicitations

584. 10 Questions from Candidates

585. Filing a Complaint

586. 1998 Reporting Dates

587. 1998 Congressional Primary

Dates

588. 1998 Special Election Reporting

Dates

589. 1998 FEC Regional Conference

Schedule

Money in Politics Statistics

601. 1991-2 Political Money

602. 1997 Mid-Year PAC Count

603. 1993-4 Congressional

604. 1993-4 National Party

605. 1993-4 PAC Finances

606. 1995-6 Congressional

607. 1995-6 National Party

608. 1995-6 PAC Finances

609. 1997-8 National Party

610. 1997-8 Congressional

1996 Presidential

651. 1996 Presidential Primary Dates

652. Selected 1996 Campaign Names

and Addresses

653. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

654. 1996 Public Funding Certifications and Payments

655. 1996 Presidential General

Election Ballots

656. 1996 Presidential General

Election Results

Office of Election Administration

701. List of Reports Available

702. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

703. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

704. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

705. The Electoral College

706. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

707. Primary Functions of an

Electoral System

Forms

801. Form 1, Statement of Organization

802. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

803. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

804. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

805. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

806. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

807. Form 7, Report of Communication Costs

808. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

809. Form 1M, Notification of

Multicandidate Status

Schedules

825. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

826. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

827. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

828. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

829. Schedule E, Itemized Independent Expenditures

830. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated Expenditures

831. Schedules H1 –H4, Allocation

832. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

1007. Part 100.7, Contribution

1008. Part 100.8, Expenditure

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

1021. Part 102.17, Joint Fundraising

by Committees Other Than SSFs

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

1047. Part 104.7, Best Efforts

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

1101. Part 110.1, Contributions by

Persons Other Than Multicandidate Political Committees

1102. Part 110.2, Contributions by

Multicandidate Committees

1103. Part 110.3, Contribution

Limitations for Affiliated

Committees and Political Party

Committees; Transfers

1104. Part 110.4, Prohibited Contributions

1105. Part 110.5, Annual Contribution

Limitation for Individuals

1106. Part 110.6, Earmarked Contributions

1107. Part 110.7, Party Committee

Expenditure Limitations

1108. Part 110.8, Presidential Candidate Expenditure Limitations

1109. Part 110.9, Miscellaneous

Provisions

1110. Part 110.10, Expenditures by

Candidates

1111. Part 110.11, Communications;

Advertising

1112. Part 110.12, Candidate Appearances on Public Educational

Institution Premises

1113. Part 110.13, Nonpartisan

Candidate Debates

Information

(continued from page 9)
March 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1998 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

1997-18: Status of committee as

local party committee, 1:14

1997-22: Communicating membership corporation’s endorsements

of federal candidates to members

and their restricted classes, 1:14

1997-25: Affiliation of corporate

SSFs after reorganization, 3:5

1997-26: Establishment of

nonconnected PAC by individuals

affiliated with trade association,

3:7

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate,

3:3

– National Medical Political Action

Committee, 1:3

– Williams, 1:3

_____ v. FEC

National Committee of the Reform

Party, 1:2

Reports

On FEC web site, 2:1

Pre-Election Reporting Dates: 1998

Primary and Runoff Elections, 1:8

Reports, Alabama Runoff, 2:1

Reports Due in 1998, 1:6, 1:11

Special Elections, California, 1:12;

3:9

Special Election, New York, 2:4

Special Election, Pennsylvania, 1:13

Surveying potential for electronic

filing, 2:2

1114. Part 110.14, Contributions to

and Expenditures by Delegates

and Delegate Committees

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. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

228. Coordinated and Independent

Expenditures by Party Committees

229. Definition of “Member” of a

Membership Association

230. Petitions for Rulemaking: Soft

Money

231. Recordkeeping and Reporting

232. Express Advocacy

233. Qualified Nonprofit Corporations

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

4411. Section 441a

4412. Section 441b

4413. Section 441c

4414. Section 441d

4415. Section 441e

4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

9701-23. AOs 1997-1 through 1997-23

9601-52. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-52

9501-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

9401-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

9301-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

9201-44. AOs 1992-1 through 1992-44

9101-40. AOs 1991-1 through 1991-40

9001-40. AOs 1990-1 through 1990-40

PAC Publications

Available

 The Commission has published

its latest edition of Pacronyms, an

alphabetical compilation of

acronyms, abbreviations and

common names of political action

committees (PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in

identifying PACs that are not

readily identified in their reports

and statements on file with the

FEC.

 To order a free copy of

Pacronyms, call the Office of

Public Records at 800/424-9530

(press 3) or 202/694-1120.

Pacronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free on the FEC’s web

site—http://www.fec.gov.

 Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Office of Public Records.

Prepayment is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

registered PACs shows each

PAC’s identification

 number, address, treasurer and

connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

arranged by state provides the

same information as

 above ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

organizations sponsoring PACs

shows the PAC’s

 name and identification number

($7.50).
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 March 1998

New Telephone Numbers

The FEC has recently completed the installation of a new telephone system, and nearly all of the Commission’s telephone

numbers have changed. Three of the most often used numbers are among those that were changed:

• Information: 202/694-1100

• Press Office: 202/694-1220

• Public Records: 202/694-1120

Please note that the FEC’s toll-free number for questions related to election law remains the same: 800/424-9530.