May 1996 Federal Election Commission Volume 22, Number 5

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 Proposed Rules on Electronic Filing

800 Line

1 Filing Tips

Legislation

3 FEC Legislative Recommendations

Budget

3 FEC FY ’97 Request: $30.8 Million

3 Federal Register Notices

Court Cases

4 Albanese v. FEC

5 Common Cause v. FEC (94-02104)

6 New Litigation

6 On Appeal?

7 Advisory Opinions

Public Funding

10 Shortfall Comes to an End

11 Adjusted Convention Payments

11 Revised Wilder Repayment

Motor Voter

11 New Registration Form

Statistics

11 Congressional Fundrasing in 1995

12 Party Fundrasing in 1995

Publications

13 1996 Disclosure Directory

Information

14 FIRS System for Persons With

Speech and Hearing Impairments

Compliance

14 Nonfilers

14 MURs Released to the Public

15 Index

Georgia Primary Moved to July 9

The Georgia primary House and Senate election formerly scheduled for July

16 has been rescheduled for July 9. The filing dates have been revised as follows:

Close of Certified Filing

 Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Primary Report June 19 June 24 June 27

2nd Quarter Report June 30 July 15 July 15

The if-needed runoff election is still scheduled for August 6; see the January

1996 Record, page 10, for the filing dates.

Regulations 800 Line

Proposed Rules on Electronic

Filing

On March 27, 1996, the FEC’s

proposed rules on electronic filing

were published in the Federal Register

(61 FR 13465). This rulemaking

corresponds to a Congressional

mandate to make electronic filing a

reality by the start of 1997. (Public

Law 104-79; see the February 1996

Record, page 2.) Recent statutory

changes enable the FEC to implement electronic filing. The proposed

rules address: FEC criteria for

accepting electronic reports; procedures for amending electronic

reports; and methods for verifying

the authenticity of electronic reports.

Starting with the first report

covering financial activity in 1997,

committees filing with the FEC will

have the option of doing so elec-

(continued on page 2)

Tips for FEC Filers

Campaign finance reports are

public documents that leave an

impression on the citizens, reporters

and researchers who view them. The

FEC is interested in making the

disclosure process easy and costeffective for everyone involved: the

public, the filer and the FEC. To this

end, we offer the following suggestions.

Filing “Don’ts”

Do not submit multiple copies of

a report. Only one copy of a report

is needed for disclosure purposes,

and the law requires that the

treasurer’s original signature be on

it.1

 Submitting additional copies

1 The treasurer’s original signature is

required as a means of assuring a

report’s authenticity.

(continued on page 4)
2

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Dario Bard, Editor

tronically. 1 The FEC’s planned

electronic filing system will feature

expanded on-line access to reports

filed with the FEC, reduced paper

filing and manual processing, and

more efficient and cost-effective

methods of disclosing campaign

finance information. 2 Electronic

filing will be voluntary; the FEC

will continue to accept paper

reports.

The FEC is interested in suggestions from the public, FEC filers,

software vendors and jurisdictions

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

1 Political committees that support only

Senate candidates are the only FEC

filers who will not have this option.

This is because the law requires these

committees to file with the Secretary of

the Senate instead of the FEC.

2 In the future, the FEC intends to

structure its program so that the data

submitted by report filers will be in a

form that can be directly added to the

FEC’s data base.

3 Refer to the Federal Register notice

for the complete rules. The Federal

Register notice may be obtained from

the FEC’s automated Flashfax system:

dial 202/501-3413 and request document 234. Alternatively, call the FEC’s

Public Records Office directly at 202/

219-4140 or use the FEC’s toll-free

line: 800/424-9530. The notice is also

posted on the FEC’s World Wide Web

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

that have implemented similar

electronic filing systems.

The FEC is particularly interested

in the filing community’s answers to

the following questions:

• What information do you presently

store electronically and what

computer hardware and software

do you use?

• Do you intend to file your campaign financial disclosure reports

electronically once the option is

available?

• How can electronic filing make

disclosure easier for you?

• What problems or concerns do you

have with respect to the proposed

rules?

Comments must be submitted in

writing by May 28, 1996. Comments should be addressed to:

Susan E. Propper

Assistant General Counsel

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

The FEC is also developing a set

of standardized format specifications for electronic reports. For

instance, the FEC is defining the

“data fields” that make up the

reports and determining how much

space should be allocated to each

field. Software vendors and FEC

filers are encouraged to comment

and make suggestions to:

Data Systems Division

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

The proposed rules are summarized below. 3

Accepting Electronic Reports

The FEC is developing validation

software, which will enable future

filers to ensure that their electronic

reports meet the requirements of the

FEC’s format specifications. The

FEC will make this software

available to its filers free of charge.

Future electronic filers need to

make sure that the FEC can read

their electronically submitted reports.

The FEC will reject reports that do

not conform to the format specifications it is developing. Similarly, the

FEC will reject reports submitted on

a damaged disk that cannot be read.

At first, electronic filers will be

required to submit their reports on

floppy disks. Eventually, the FEC

plans to accept electronic reports

through telecommunications. This

will require the FEC to devise a

mechanism that can handle a large

influx of data during a compressed

period with intervening periods of

no activity. Filers and other jurisdictions are encouraged to share with

the FEC their experiences with

telecommunications technology.

Amending Electronic Reports

In order for the FEC to more

effectively manage the disclosure

program and to ensure that information is filed in a consistent format,

the proposed rules would require a

committee that has begun to file

electronically to continue to do so for

all reports covering financial

activity in the same calendar year.

This would also apply to amendments.

The proposed rules would require

electronically filed amendments to

include the entire report, and not

just the items that were changed

from the earlier submission, as is the

present practice.

The advantage to this approach is

that the complete updated report would

be entered into the public record,

saving reviewers from having to piece

together amendments and earlier

submissions. One possible disadvantage, however, is that the amended

changes would not be readily apparent.
3

May 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

The FEC encourages comments

on the pros and cons of requiring

complete, updated reports when

amending an earlier submission.

Signature Requirements

The treasurer’s original signature

must be on all reports submitted to

the FEC by a political committee

(48-hour notices are the only

exception). 2 U.S.C. 434(a)(1) and

(c). The original signature is required as a means of verifying a

report’s authenticity.

As permitted by Public Law 104-

79, the FEC’s proposed rule offers

future electronic filers two methods

for verifying their campaign financial disclosure reports: electronically

filed reports would need to be accompanied by either a signed paper

certification or a digitized version of

a signed certification on a floppy disk.4

Once the FEC begins to accept

reports filed via telecommunications,

other verification methods will be

introduced (i.e., encryption keys). ✦

4 This would also apply to schedules and

forms that require third party signatures.

For example, Schedule E and Form 5,

used to disclose independent expenditures, must be certified by a notary public.

Schedule C-1 and Form 8 require signatures from lenders and creditors, respectively.

Budget

FEC Requests $30.8 Million

for FY ’97

The FEC is seeking a $30.8

million appropriation for FY ’97.

The Clinton administration’s FY ’97

budget proposal contains a $29.3

million appropriation for the FEC.

Last year, Congress reduced the

FEC’s $29 million budget request

for FY ’96 to $26.5 million and set

aside $1.5 million of that amount for

computer upgrading.

In a justification document

submitted to Congress and the

White House, the FEC states that

the requested funding is needed to

meet: Congress’s computer-upgrade

demands; the FEC’s new responsibilities associated with the point-ofentry change for House candidate

reports; and the increased work load

associated with a Presidential

election year.

The level of campaign finance

activity has exploded in the last few

election cycles and continues to

grow. The FEC expects politicalcommittee spending to increase

from $1.75 billion during the 1994

election cycle to at least $2.25

billion during the 1996 election

cycle. This increase in activity will

generate more questions for the FEC

to answer, more transactions for the

FEC to process, more pages of

documents for the FEC to review,

and more audit and enforcement

situations for the FEC to address. ✦

Legislation

FEC Recommends Changes

to Election Law

On April 4, 1996, the FEC sent

50 recommendations for legislative

action to the President and the

Congress. The recommendations

were submitted in three parts.

Part one contained 18 recommendations focused on making it easier

for political committees to comply

with the law and streamlining the

administration of the law. These

recommendations included:

• Waiver authority. Give the Commission the authority to grant

reporting waivers to eliminate

unnecessary reporting, and to

adjust the filing requirements when

warranted.

• Campaign-cycle reporting. Eliminate reporting provisions that

require campaigns to track contributions on both a calendar-year

basis and a per-election basis.

• Election period limitations.

Replace separate contribution

limits for primary and general

elections with a single limit for the

entire campaign.

• Commission as sole point of entry

for disclosure documents. Require

Senate candidates to file reports

with the FEC instead of the

Secretary of the Senate. This

would save government resources

and speed up the public disclosure

process.

• FEC independent authority in all

litigation. Ensure nonpartisan

enforcement of the law by explicitly authorizing the Commission to

petition the Supreme Court for

certiorari under Title 2.

Part two contained 23 recommendations that address problematic

areas in the law, such as disclaimer

notices and distinguishing official

travel from campaign travel. In each

case the Commission describes the

problem and asks Congress to

consider clarifying or reforming the

law.

Finally, part three contained nine

recommendations that seek to

correct outdated or inconsistent

portions of the law, such as sections

that need to be updated to reflect

judicial action. ✦

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

1996-10

11 CFR 104: Electronic Filing of

Reports by Political Committee;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(61 FR 13465, March 27, 1996)
4

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

800 Line

(continued from page 1)

slows down the disclosure process

as FEC staff must then compare the

reports to make sure they are

duplicates before discarding the

extra copies.

Do not fax reports. Filers may

not fax in their reports because a

faxed report will not have the

treasurer’s original signature on it.

The only exception to the “no fax”

rule is the 48-hour notice (because

the treasurer’s original signature is

optional due to the notice’s timesensitive nature). Filers who choose

to fax in their 48-hour notices do not

need to send paper copies as well;

doing so offers no benefit and slows

down the disclosure process (see

above).

Do not file two-sided reports.

Reports received by the FEC are run

through a scanner/microimager that

reads only one side of a page. When

double-sided reports are received,

FEC staff must photocopy one side

of the report, insert these copies

between the pages of the original

report and then run all the pages

through the machine. This slows

down the disclosure process.

Do not bind reports. Bound

reports must be taken apart before

they can be run through the FEC’s

scanner/microimager. It is difficult

to stamp a microfilm number on

pages with holes in the left margin.

Filing “Do’s”

Use the FEC mailing label . The

FEC mails prior notices to remind

committees of upcoming filing

deadlines. Committees should stick

the mailing label that comes with

the prior notice on their reports.

Committees that do not use the label

should make sure to enter their

committee identification number in

the appropriate box.

Type your reports. Reports must

be legible. Copy quality suffers the

further a photocopy is removed

from the original. It is therefore

important that the original be as

clean, as neat and as clear as possible.

Typed reports are preferred to handwritten reports, but in the alternative

reports filled out in ink are preferable to reports filled out in pencil.

Use standard-sized (8 1/2 x 11),

white bond paper. Use of another

size of paper (i.e. legal size) slows

the process, and the scanner/

microimager runs best when bond

paper is used. Photostatic paper (fax

paper) is problematic. Copies come

out best when the report is submitted on white bond paper.

Computer-Generated Reports

Filers wishing to use their own

computer-generated forms must be

sure that their form provides the

required disclosure information.

These forms must be approved in

advance by the FEC’s Reports

Analysis Division. Any changes

suggested by that office must be

incorporated in order to make the

form acceptable.

Computer-generated forms

should display the same type size,

spacing and page margins used on

the official FEC form. Do not

reduce the size of the computergenerated form. The FEC recommends this simple test: place the

computer-generated form on top of

the official FEC form and hold them

up to a light; the spacing and type

size on the two forms should match

up fairly well.

Lastly, filers submitting computer

printouts should make sure that the

print is dark enough to be legible

(filers using dot matrix printers

should consider applying double

strike to their printouts) and should

separate perforated pages.

Special Considerations for House

Candidates

Note state and district on the

summary page of the report. The

FEC files House reports by state and

district. House candidate committees should note this information in

box 1 of the summary page.

Point-of-entry change. House

candidate committees must now file

all their campaign disclosure reports

with the FEC; they no longer file

with the Clerk of the House. 2

 House

candidate committees should not

mail complimentary copies of their

campaign disclosure reports to the

Clerk of the House—the Clerk will

only forward them to the FEC and

the FEC will discard them.

Note, however, that House

candidates must file their personal

financial disclosure statement with

the Clerk of the House. This report

is outside the FEC’s jurisdiction and

therefore should not be filed with

the FEC. ✦

2 Public Law 104-79 changed the point

of entry for House campaign disclosure

reports from the Clerk of the House to

the FEC. See the February Record,

page 1.

Court Cases

Albanese v. FEC

On March 12, 1996, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit affirmed the district court’s

decision to dismiss this case for lack

of standing. See the July 1995

Record, page 8, for a summary of

the district court’s ruling.

Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) on the

grounds that it “allows for” the

solicitation and use of private funds

to finance federal campaigns,

thereby allegedly handicapping

candidates who are not incumbents,

are not wealthy or are not backed by

affluent supporters. Plaintiffs also

challenged the franking privilege

enjoyed by incumbents (39 U.S.C.

§3210).

The district court dismissed this

case largely because plaintiffs had

failed to show that they had suffered
5

May 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Common Cause v. FEC

(94-02104)

On March 29, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the FEC to reconsider

portions of two administrative

complaints that the Commission had

dismissed (MURs 3087 and 3204).

Background

MURs 3087 and 3204 were based

on two separate administrative complaints filed with the FEC in 1990 by

Common Cause and John K. Addy.

These complaints alleged that the

National Republican Senatorial

Committee (NRSC) and the Montana

Republican Party (MRP) had exceeded

their contribution and expenditure

limits with respect to Conrad Burns’s

1988 U.S. Senate campaign and had

failed to disclose all the contributions and expenditures that they had

made on behalf of the candidate.

Under the Act: the MRP’s contribution limit for the Burns campaign

was $5,000 (2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(2)(A));

the NRSC’s contribution limit for the

Burns campaign was $17,500

(2 U.S.C. §441a(h)); and the NRSC’s

1988 coordinated-party-expenditure

limit for the Burns campaign was

$92,200 (2 U.S.C. §441a(d)).

The FEC’s Office of General

Counsel investigated the matters

alleged in the complaints and found

evidence that both committees had

erroneously reported certain transactions as transfers, administrative costs

or exempt volunteer activities when

in fact they were contributions and

expenditures made in excess of the

Act’s limits. Based on this evidence,

the General Counsel recommended

that the six-member Commission

find probable cause to believe that:

• The NRSC and the MRP knowingly

and willfully violated the Act when

the NRSC transferred funds to the

MRP to pay for direct mail materials promoting the Burns campaign;

• The MRP violated the Act when it

paid the salary of an MRP employee

who worked on the Burns campaign;

• The NRSC violated the Act when

it paid for daily polls tracking the

progress of the Burns campaign;

• The NRSC violated the Act when

it did not charge the Burns campaign for the development of a list

of registered voters; and

• The NRSC violated the Act by

exercising direction and control

over contributions it received in

response to a solicitation letter that

asked contributors to support Mr.

Burns and other Republican

candidates, and by not reporting a

portion of the solicitation costs as a

contribution to the Burns campaign.

At least four of the six FEC

Commissioners must approve of an

action before the FEC can execute

it. Fewer than four FEC Commissioners voted to accept the General

Counsel’s recommendations. After

further deliberations failed to yield a

compromise, five of the Commissioners voted to close this case

without taking any action. Subsequent to having their administrative

complaints dismissed, Common

Cause and Mr. Addy filed suit.

The Court’s Decision

The court stated that it could only

order the FEC to reconsider its

dismissal of these MURs if it found

that the dismissal was arbitrary or

capricious or an abuse of discretion.

Akins v. FEC. The court reviewed

the reasons for the Commissioners’

actions, as articulated in their

“statement of reasons.” The court

found that Commissioners on both

sides of most of the issues involved

in these MURs presented well

reasoned explanations for their

differing interpretations of federal

election law; the court let the

Commission’s dismissal of these

issues stand. The court, however, did

not accept the Commission’s reasons

for dismissing the following issues.

MRP payments to mailing vendor.

Both the NRSC and the MRP had

argued that payments for a direct

mailing that promoted Mr. Burns’s

candidacy were not contributions or

expenditures on the candidate’s

behalf. The MRP had argued that

these payments fell under the volunteer activities exemption at 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(B)(x) and were therefore

not contributions. The court noted

that this exemption only applied when

the purchased materials were distributed by volunteers and not by commercial vendors. 11 CFR 100.7(b)(15)(iv)

and 100.8(b)(16)(iv). The Commissioners who voted against finding

probable cause assumed that the MRP

used volunteers to distribute these

materials, but the MRP never produced

any documentation that showed that

volunteers were used. The court

therefore ordered the FEC to reconsider its dismissal of this charge.

MRP salary payments to Burns

campaign worker. MRP employee

Ken Knudson was paid a salary by

the MRP while he was extensively

involved in managing and staffing

the Burns campaign. The FEC’s

General Counsel had determined that

the MRP’s salary payments to Mr.

Knudson constituted contributions

to the Burns campaign. The Commissioners who disagreed with this

determination reasoned that payments

made to field staff who perform a

variety of functions for a variety of

persons need not be attributed to any

one candidate. They based this

reasoning on MUR 3218. The court

noted, however, that MUR 3218

states that such salary payments

would not constitute a contribution

to a candidate’s campaign “absent

evidence that [a committee’s] field

(continued on page 6)

an injury caused by the Act. The

district court also rejected their

arguments that the Act and the

franking statute are unconstitutional.

The court of appeals concurred.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit (95-6099), D.Ct. No.

CV 94-3299. ✦
staff [were] extensively involved in

managing or staffing [a] particular

campaign on an ongoing basis . . . .”

Since this was precisely what Mr.

Knudson had been doing for the

Burns campaign, the court found the

dismissal of this charge to be

arbitrary and capricious and ordered

the FEC to reconsider this issue.

Solicitation costs for earmarked

contributions. All of the Commissioners agreed that the NRSC had

made a contribution to the Burns

campaign when it incurred costs

associated with the mailing of a

letter that encouraged contributors

to earmark their contributions to the

Burns campaign, among other

Republican campaigns. 11 CFR

106.1(c)(1). However, despite this

consensus, the Commission failed to

take action on this issue because the

Commissioners who originally

accepted the General Counsel’s

probable-cause-to-believe finding

refused to separate this issue from

the less-clear-cut issue of whether

the NRSC had exercised direction

and control over these earmarked

contributions. In their statement of

reasons, these Commissioners

explained that they were reluctant to

separate these issues because doing

so would imply that they rejected

the General Counsel’s directionand-control analysis. The court noted

that the General Counsel’s report

made separate recommendations

with regard to the direction-andcontrol issue and the solicitationcosts issue. Therefore, the court

reasoned, approving one recommendation did not imply rejecting the

other. Based on this reasoning, the

court found the Commission’s

dismissal of the solicitation-costs

issue to be arbitrary and capricious.

The court ordered the FEC to reconsider its dismissal of this issue. ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 5)

New Litigation

Clifton, et al. v. FEC

Plaintiffs Robin Clifton and the

Maine Right to Life Committee

(MRLC) ask the court to declare that

the FEC’s regulations governing the

use of a corporation’s general treasury

funds in the preparation and distribution of voting records and voter

guides to the general public are

unconstitutional on First and Fifth

Amendment grounds and in excess

of the FEC’s statutory authority.

(The challenged regulations are

found at 11 CFR 114.4(c)(4) and

(5).) Plaintiffs also ask the court to

enjoin the FEC from enforcing these

regulations against MRLC.

This is the first court challenge to

provisions of the corporate communication regulations that took effect

on March 13, 1996. See the April

1996 Record, page 1.

On Appeal?

The FEC voted on whether to appeal the following court decisions. The

results of the votes were:

Appeal?

Chamber of Commerce v. FEC (94-5339) No 1

Appeals court, D.C circuit, ruled that 11 CFR 114.1(e)(2)

—definition of member—was arbitrary and capricious.

See the January 1996 Record, page 2.

FEC v. GOPAC (94-0828-LFO) No

District court, D.C., dismissed the FEC’s case against

GOPAC; the court ruled that an organization is a political

committee if its major purpose is to elect a particular

candidate or group of candidates to federal office.

See the April 1996 Record, page 1.

Maine Right to Life Committee v. FEC (95-261-B-H) Yes

District court, Maine, ruled that 11 CFR 100.22(b)

—definition of express advocacy—exceeded the

FEC’s statutory authority.

See the April 1996 Record, page 9.

1 The FEC needs the U.S. Solicitor General’s authorization to file a petition for

certiorari with the Supreme Court (see FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund, February 1995 Record, page 1). In this case, the FEC voted not to ask the U.S. Solicitor

General for authorization.

6

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

MRLC is a nonprofit membership

corporation established for the

purpose of advocating pro-life

stances. MRLC intends to use its

funds to create and distribute to its

members and the general public

voter guides and voting records.

Robin Clifton is a Maine voter who

wishes to receive this information.

FEC regulations at 11 CFR

114.4(c)(4) and (5) make it illegal

for a corporation to distribute voting

records or voter guides to the

general public if such materials

expressly advocate the election or

defeat of a clearly identified candidate or if the corporation consults or

coordinates with any candidates

concerning the content or distribution of such materials. Additionally,

at 11 CFR 114.4(c)(5)(ii), the FEC

lists guidelines that require, for

instance: that corporations preparing

voter guides give all candidates for a

particular House or Senate seat an
Advisory

Opinions

AO 1995-47

Use of Campaign Funds for

Travel to Party’s Presidential

Nominating Convention

The Honorable Robert Underwood,

Guam’s delegate to Congress who is

seeking reelection in 1996, may use

campaign funds to pay for his and

his wife’s roundtrip travel from

Washington, DC, to Chicago to

attend the Democratic National

Convention that will be held there

on August 26-29, 1996. These travel

1 With respect to Delegate Underwood’s

own travel expenses, the FEC’s

regulations covering delegate activity

indicate that such costs would be for

the purpose of influencing a federal

election and, hence, not a personal use.

11 CFR 110.14(c) and (e).

expenses do not constitute a personal use of campaign funds.

The Democratic party bestows

the designation of “super delegate”

on its party’s representatives in

Congress. Super delegates participate in the convention in the same

way as other delegates.

Delegate Underwood plans to

travel to the Democratic National

Convention in his capacity as a

“super delegate.” His wife will

accompany him “to campaign at the

convention.” The Underwoods plan

to return to Washington, DC,

directly after the convention.

The proposed use of campaign

funds to pay for this travel raises

issues with regard to the FEC’s

personal use rules: campaign funds

may not be converted to the personal

use of the candidate or of any other

person. 11 CFR 113.1(g) and 113.2(d).

Personal use is defined at 11 CFR

113.1(g) as any use of campaign

funds for an expense that would exist

irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a federal officeholder.

Delegate Underwood and his wife

will engage in activities that further

his reelection campaign, including

maintaining contacts and goodwill

with persons who will assist him in

his fundraising efforts and contribute to his campaign, and discussing

his campaign with his constituents.

Delegate Underwood considers his

wife’s attendance at these events,

whether alongside him or in his

place, to be important, since her

presence will enhance his reelection

effort. Therefore, the Underwoods’

attendance at the convention is

campaign related, and campaign

funds may be used to cover their

travel expenses to and from the

event. 1

 Relevant to this conclusion

AO 1996-1

Corporate Partisan

Communications

The Association of Trial Lawyers

of America (ATLA) may communicate its endorsement of candidates

to its members. ATLA may also

encourage its members to support

ATLA-endorsed candidates by

bestowing honorific designations on

generous contributors.

Background

ATLA is a federation of trade

associations comprised of trial

attorneys, law professors, judges,

military attorneys, government

attorneys and law students.

ATLA wishes to encourage its

members to make contributions to

ATLA-endorsed federal candidates.

To this end, ATLA proposes sending

its members a communication that

lists the candidates and party

committees it endorses. This list

would include the mailing addresses

of the endorsed committees and

instruct members to mail their

contributions to the committees

directly and not to ATLA headquarters. ATLA does not intend to provide

its members with the envelopes or

stamps to mail their contributions,

or otherwise facilitate the transmittal

of its members’ contributions.

ATLA also wishes to establish

honorific designations, which would

be bestowed on ATLA members who

contributed certain amounts to endorsed candidate and party committees.

The Communication

ATLA’s proposed communications and the use of honorific

designations to encourage contributions closely resemble partisan

communications proposed by

(continued on page 8)

7

May 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

equal opportunity to respond; that

voter guides not feature one candidate more prominently than others;

and that voter guides not contain an

electioneering message.

MRLC argues that the regulations

are beyond the FEC’s statutory

authority because they purport to

govern corporate communications

that do not expressly advocate the

election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate. FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Further,

MRLC argues that the regulations

are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds because they restrict

speech based on content and are not

narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The regulations are also unconstitutional on

Fifth Amendment grounds, argues

MRLC, because they ban the presence of an “electioneering message”

without defining what constitutes

such a message, thus failing to provide

notice of what conduct is prohibited

and thereby vesting the FEC with

excessive enforcement discretion.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Maine, 96-66-PH, March

22, 1996. ✦

is the inherently political nature of

the national nominating convention.

Date Issued: March 29, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦
8

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

1 This is described more fully in AOR

1996-1.

another federation of trade associations in AO 1987-29. The communications proposed in AO 1987-29

were found to be permissible.

ATLA’s proposed communications

differ from the AO 1987-29 communications in that they will be more

frequent and they will suggest levels

of contributions. These are not

material differences, however, and

so ATLA’s proposed communications are permissible.

Two characteristics of ATLA’s

proposed communications were key

to this determination: ATLA’s

program does not facilitate the

making of contributions and ATLA

members will not suffer adverse

effects should they decide not to

participate in the program.

Earmarking Issues

ATLA asked whether its members could send their contributions

to another ATLA member serving as

an authorized agent of an ATLAendorsed political committee. The

Commission could not reach the

required four-vote consensus on

whether this arrangement constituted impermissible corporate

facilitation under 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2)

and 114.2(f)(2).

Coordination Issues

ATLA intends to communicate

with candidates before endorsing

them to determine, for instance,

their stand on certain issues. Should

ATLA’s communication with a

candidate’s campaign include a

discussion of the candidate’s plans,

projects or needs, ATLA’s ability to

make political communications to

the general public would be compromised. Communicating with the

candidate beyond what is permitted

by 11 CFR 114.3 might be considered evidence of coordination that

would negate the independence of a

future election communication to the

general public. 11 CFR 109.1(b)(4)

and 114.2(c).

AO 1996-4

Public Funding Shortfalls

And Bridge Loans

Lyndon LaRouche’s 1996

Presidential campaign asked the

FEC for guidance with regard to a

number of issues related to the 1996

public funding shortfall. (See: the

January 1996 Record, page 13; the

November 1995 Record, page 1; and

the February 1995 Record, page 2.)

These issues included:

• Obtaining a bridge loan from a

lending institution by pledging

future matching payments and

ensuring the institution’s receipt of

such payments;

• Assuring the lending institution of

loan repayment with delayed

matching funds even if Mr.

LaRouche were to lose his eligibility to receive matching funds; and

• A loan from Mr. LaRouche’s 1992

Presidential campaign to his 1996

campaign.

Obtaining a Bridge Loan

Mr. LaRouche may pledge future

matching funds to obtain a campaign loan from a qualified lending

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

Coordination would also be

presumed in the case of an expenditure made by or through an ATLA

member who is or has been an

officer of an authorized committee,

or who is or has been receiving any

form of compensation or reimbursement from the candidate, the

candidate’s committee or an agent of

the committee. 11 CFR 109.1(b)(4).

Further, coordination would be

presumed if someone who held a

significant position 1 in a candidate’s

campaign were involved in the

planning and execution of ATLA’s

and ATLAPAC’s political programs.

Date Issued: March 29, 1996;

Length: 7 pages. ✦

institution. The lending institution

should obtain a written agreement

whereby the candidate pledges the

future matching fund payments. The

amount of the loan cannot exceed

the amount of pledged matching

payments. The loan amount must

also be based on a reasonable

expectation of the receipt of pledged

payments and the provision of

supporting documents. Mr. LaRouche

must authorize the Secretary of the

Treasury to deposit his future

matching fund payments into an

account opened specifically to

receive these payments and to which

the lending institution has access.

11 CFR 100.7(b)(11)(i)(B).

Receipt of Previously Certified

Payments After Candidate’s Loss

of Matching Fund Eligibility

A Presidential primary candidate

who is certified to receive matching

funds is at risk of losing his or her

eligibility if he or she participates in

a party’s primary process and

receives less than 10 percent of the

vote in primary elections held on

two consecutive primary dates. (The

highest percentage in any one state

will govern.) A candidate in that

situation must garner at least 20

percent of the vote in a subsequent

primary election in which he or she

vies for the same party’s nomination

in order to maintain his or her public

funding eligibility. 11 CFR 9033.5(b).

Normally, candidates receive

matching funds about a month after

their submissions have been certified. Due to the public funding

shortfall, however, 1996 candidates

have received only a portion of their

matching fund entitlements. Should

Mr. LaRouche lose his eligibility in

the course of the primary season, he

will not receive the balance of his

outstanding entitlement unless his

campaign has a net debt. If his

campaign has net outstanding

campaign obligations (NOCO), he

will receive matching funds equaling the previously certified, but
9

May 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

1 This distinction is important because

the only loans that are excepted from

the definition of “contribution” are

loans made by qualified depository

institutions as defined at 11 CFR

100.7(b)(11). The 1992 campaign

committee is a political committee and

as such is not a qualified depository

institution.

AO 1996-5

Refunding Illegal

Contributions

The Jay Kim for Congress committee, having learned that it received

$10,000 in corporate contributions

made in the name of corporate

employees, must disgorge itself of

this amount within 30 days of

receiving this advisory opinion. The

committee may either refund the

contributions to the original source

(the corporation) or make a payment

in the amount of the illegal contributions ($10,000) to the U.S. Treasury. AO 1996-7

Public Funding

Certifications

Harry Browne, a candidate for

the Libertarian party’s 1996 Presidential nomination, may not apply

to be certified to receive matching

funds under the circumstances

described in his request.

(continued on page 10)

unpaid, amounts or the NOCO

amount, whichever is less. 11 CFR

9034.1, 9036.4(c)(2) and 9034.5(f).

For instance, let us assume that

Mr. LaRouche loses his matching

fund eligibility on March 30. Let us

also assume that, as of that date, the

LaRouche campaign has not received $350,000 of Mr. LaRouche’s

entitlement and that the campaign

has net obligations of $275,000 for

qualified campaign expenses. Under

these circumstances, the LaRouche

campaign may receive only $275,000

of the $350,000 unpaid entitlement.

Therefore, one way to provide

some assurance to the lending

institution that the matching payments

will be made is for the campaign to

obtain the loan before the candidate

becomes ineligible for public funds.

In that way, the obligation to repay the

bank loan becomes part of the

committee’s debt, as shown on its

NOCO statement to the FEC.

Mr. LaRouche’s campaign committee needs to be aware, however,

that the loan proceeds may be used

only to repay debts incurred as a result

of either qualified campaign expenses

prior to the candidate’s date of

ineligibility, or winding down costs

after the candidate’s date of ineligibility. Loan proceeds used to continue

the campaign after the date of ineligibility will not be included in the

NOCO total, and matching funds may

not be used to repay that part of the

loan. The committee will be audited

by the FEC at campaign’s end and

will be required to make a pro rata

repayment of matching funds for any

nonqualified campaign expenses it

incurred in the course of the campaign.

Loan From 1992 Campaign

The LaRouche 1996 campaign

committee proposed obtaining a loan

from the LaRouche 1992 campaign

committee, instead of from a financial institution, and securing such a

loan with the prospective receipt of

previously certified matching funds.

Such a transaction is in effect a

“transfer” instead of a “loan.” 1

Candidates may transfer funds

without limit from a past campaign

to a present campaign provided the

candidate is not seeking election to

more than one federal office and the

transferring committee has no

outstanding debts. 11 CFR 110.3(c)(4)

and 116.2(c)(2). Additionally,

publicly funded Presidential campaigns must also fulfill their other

obligations (e.g. matching fund

repayments) before they can make

such a transfer. AOs 1988-5 and

1990-11. Mr. LaRouche’s 1992

campaign committee has satisfied its

relevant obligations and may

therefore loan its excess funds to

Mr. LaRouche’s 1996 campaign

committee. The 1996 committee

must deposit the matching funds it

receives into its own account before

using them to repay the 1992

committee for the loan.

Date Issued: March 14, 1996;

Length: 7 pages. ✦

During the course of Congressman Jay Kim’s 1992 campaign, the

Jay Kim for Congress committee

accepted $10,000 in contributions

from five employees of Samsung

America, Inc. In January 1996,

Samsung America pleaded guilty in

federal district court to reimbursing

its five employees for making the

$10,000 in contributions to the Jay

Kim for Congress committee.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act prohibits corporations from

using their general treasury funds to

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

§441b(a). Federal political committees that have discovered after the

fact that they have accepted contributions made with impermissible

monies must refund them to the

contributor within 30 days of

discovering the illegality. 11 CFR

103.3(b)(2). Alternatively, political

committees may submit a payment

equal to the illegal contributions to

the U.S. Treasury. MUR 3460.

Accordingly, the Jay Kim for

Congress committee must, within 30

days of receiving this advisory

opinion, either refund $10,000 to

Samsung America or submit a $10,000

payment to the U.S. Treasury.

This advisory opinion did not

address issues concerning the liability

of the committee, the candidate or

any other person with regard to the

acceptance of illegal contributions.

Those issues can only be considered

in an enforcement action (a.k.a.

Matter Under Review (MUR)).

Date Issued: March 14, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦
10

1 Threshold submissions are the original

submissions presented to the FEC by

Presidential candidates who wish to be

certified for public funding. A candidate will be certified for public funding

if his or her threshold submission shows

that he or she received more than

$5,000 in contributions from individuals

in each of at least 20 states; only the

first $250 of any one person’s contributions count toward the $5,000 threshold.

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1996-8

Establishing building fund for local

party committee (Jefferson County

(KY) Democratic Executive Committee; March 13, 1996; 3 pages)

AOR 1996-9

Transfer of excess campaign funds

to state party committee with

stipulation that funds be used, in

part, to create library to house

candidate’s papers (Senator James

Exon; March 25, 1996; 2 pages)

AOR 1996-10

PAC solicitation of employees

participating in employee stock

ownership plans (USX Corporation

PAC; March 25, 1996; 6 pages plus

72-page attachment)

AOR 1996-11

Noncampaign appearances of

candidates at convention of membership organization (National Right

to Life Conventions, Inc.; March 25,

1996; 6 pages plus 7-page attachment)

AOR 1996-12

Criteria used to determine whether

specific disbursements are qualified

Presidential campaign expenditures

(Dr. Lenora B. Fulani; March 26,

1996; 6 pages plus 15-page attachment)

AOR 1996-13

Space in townhouse owned by limited

liability company donated or rented

to campaign committees (Townhouse

Associates, L.L.C.; April 2, 1996; 2

pages plus 15-page attachment) ✦

Alternative Dispositions of

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1996-6

The Commission could not reach

agreement by the required four-vote

majority on draft AO 1996-6 (see

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

Public Funding

March Tax Receipts End

Public Funding Shortfall

Public funding tax checkoff

receipts and repayments from past

Presidential campaigns totaled

$16,459,323 for the month of

March, exceeding the April 15

payout demand of $16,043,920 by a

little more than $400,000. Certified

1996 Presidential candidates

therefore received their full entitlements, including amounts that had

been owed to them from previous

matching fund payouts.

Candidates had not been receiving their full entitlements due to a

public funding shortfall. (See page

13 of the January 1996 Record.)

Instead, all certified candidates were

receiving the same percentage of

their entitlement, based on the

monies available at the time of the

payout. The U.S. Treasury made

unscheduled payouts to lessen the

impact of the shortfall.

The April 15 payout is the fifth

matching fund disbursement of

1996. Previously, the U.S. Treasury

made the following disbursements:

• March 15: $7,072,308 in matching

funds to 11 certified Presidential

candidates, representing 35 percent

of each candidate’s unpaid entitlement as of that day.

• February 13: $550,538 in matching

funds to 10 certified Presidential

candidates, representing 3 percent

of each candidate’s unpaid entitlement as of that day.

• February 2: $198,013 in matching

funds to 10 certified Presidential

10

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

Mr. Browne wished to be certified for public funds without

actually accepting public monies.

Libertarians are ideologically

opposed to the public funding of

Presidential campaigns, but some

states require a public funding

certification for ballot access and

some organizations use the certification as a criterium for deciding

whom to invite to participate in a

debate or to give a talk. Mr. Browne

therefore wished to be certified but

did not wish to compromise the

principles of the Libertarian party;

he asked the FEC if it would review

his threshold submission 1

 with the

understanding that he would not

accept public funds and would

therefore not be subject to the

requirements at 26 U.S.C. §9033(a).

In order to be eligible to receive

matching funds, a candidate must

agree in writing that, upon the

FEC’s request, he or she will obtain

and furnish documents, records,

books and information, and will

submit to an FEC audit at campaign’s

end. 26 U.S.C. §9033(a). Agreeing

to undergo the certification process

solely for the purpose of satisfying

criteria for participating in other

campaign events without actually

intending to accept the funds or be

bound by the conditions at §9033.1

does not satisfy the written-assent

requirement. 26 U.S.C. §9033(a)

and 11 CFR 9033.1(a)(2).

Date Issued: March 29, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

agenda document 96-33). This

request, submitted by Barrick

Goldstrike Mines, Inc., raised issues

related to the establishment of a

PAC by a domestic subsidiary of a

foreign corporation. ✦
11

(continued on page 12)

Motor Voter

Mid-April Public Funding Payments

Mid-April Total Matching Funds

Candidate Payment Received in 1996

Lamar Alexander (R) $1,281,673 $ 3,841,168

Pat Buchanan (R) $2,919,343 $ 6,391,686

Bill Clinton (D) $3,597,463 $11,064,796

Bob Dole (R) $4,105,854 $11,575,900

Phil Gramm (R) $2,153,869 $ 7,283,734

John Hagelin (NLP) $ 83,097 $ 193,353

Alan Keyes (R) $ 213,257 $ 248,357

Lyndon LaRouche (D) $ 239,304 $ 476,787

Richard Lugar (R) $ 762,898 $ 2,526,127

Arlen Specter (R) $ 260,336 $ 1,010,457

Pete Wilson (R) $ 426,821 $ 1,637,069

Adjusted Public Funding

Payment for Conventions

On March 15, the FEC approved

an additional public funding payment of $340,000 for each of the

major parties’ convention committees—the Democratic National

Convention Committee and the

Committee on Arrangements for the

1996 Republican National Convention. 26 U.S.C. 9008(b)(5). This

additional amount reflects an

adjustment in the consumer price

index. The Democratic and RepubliRevised Wilder for President

Final Repayment

Determination

On April 2, 1996, the Commission

granted the Wilder for President

committee’s petition for rehearing of

its final repayment determination and

revised the amount the committee

owed with respect to the receipt of

matching funds in excess of entitlement.

On May 4, 1995, the Commission

had determined that the committee

received $10,223 in matching funds

in excess of entitlement. The committee, in its petition for rehearing,

presented evidence that the FEC

considered in revising this final

repayment determination to $0. This

revised final repayment determination

does not alter the Commission’s other

May 4, 1995, determination that the

committee repay $11,515 with respect

to nonqualified campaign expenditures.

The May 4, 1995, determination

and the April 2, 1996, determination

are contained in separate Statements

of Reasons, which are available in

the FEC’s Office of Public Disclosure

(800/424-9530 or 202/219-4140). ✦

New National Mail Voter

Registration Form

The National Mail Voter Registration Form has been revised to

reflect changes in the registration

procedures of some states and to

note address changes for some state

offices. This form allows citizens to

register to vote by mail and offers

them greater flexibility in the times

and places they can register to vote.

For example, residents of most

states who are away from home can

register to vote in their home

districts by simply filling out the

national voter registration form and

mailing it to the address listed on

the form for their state’s election

office.

Below are answers to some

commonly asked questions about

the form.

Where can I get the form?

To obtain the form, contact your

state’s chief election official—this

often is the Secretary of State but

may be the State Board of Elections

or the Lieutenant Governor.

The form is also available on-line

from the FEC’s World Wide Web

site: http://www.fec.gov. On-line

registration is not available, but

computer users may down load this

image of the form and then print out

a copy on regular stock paper, fill it

out and mail it in. The following 22

states accept downloaded copies or

photocopies of the form: Alabama,

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,

Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington

and Wisconsin. All other jurisdictions require the postcard-weight,

original application.

The FEC does not distribute hard

copies of the form. However, the

11

May 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

candidates, representing less than 1

percent of each candidate’s unpaid

entitlement as of that day.

• January 2: $22,384,654 in matching funds to 10 certified Presidential candidates, representing 60

percent of each candidate’s unpaid

entitlement as of that day.

The accompanying chart shows

the amount of matching funds

received by 1996 Presidential

candidates on April 15 and their

totals so far for the year.

The Presidential Public Funding

Program is financed by taxpayers

participating in the voluntary $3

“check off” found on all U.S.

federal income tax forms. ✦

can 1996 convention committees

have now received their full public

funding entitlement of $12,364,000

each. ✦
12

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

Motor Voter

(continued from page 11)

FEC’s Clearinghouse Division (call

800/424-9530 or 202/219-3670) will

provide, upon request, camera-ready

copy and print specifications for the

form, which may be used to print

copies in bulk.

Do all states accept the form?

Wyoming is the only state that

does not accept the national mail

voter registration form. Illinois,

Kansas and Mississippi accept the

form, but only to register for federal

elections. New Hampshire and

Vermont town and city clerks will

forward their state’s mail-in registration form to persons who submit

the national form to them. North

Dakota does not require its residents

to register to vote. All other states

and the District of Columbia accept

the form unequivocally.

Is the form available in other

languages besides English?

The form is available in Spanish,

Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and

Tagalog (Philippine), as well as in

English. ✦

Statistics

Republican and Democratic

Parties Set Fundraising

Record in ’95

Republican and Democratic

national party committees raised

record amounts of money during

1995. FEC disclosure reports

covering financial activity from

January 1 through December 31

show that the Republican National

Committee, the National Republican

Senatorial Committee and the

National Republican Congressional

Committee raised a total of $96

million for their federal accounts,

representing a 27 percent increase

over 1991, the year before the last

Presidential race. The Democratic

National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Committee and the

Democratic Congressional Committee raised $52 million in 1995 for

their federal accounts, more than

twice what they raised in 1991.

With regard to “soft money,” 1

 the

Republican national committees

raised $35.3 million while their

Democratic counterparts raised

$28.5 million, increases of 148

percent and 42 percent over their

respective totals in 1993.

This information and more is

contained in a March 13, 1996, FEC

news release. To obtain a copy of

this release, contact the Office of

Public Disclosure (800/424-9530 or

202/219-4140) or use the automated

Flashfax system (202/501-3413) and

request document 531. The latest

available figures are on the FEC’s

World Wide Web site: http://

www.fec.gov.

The accompanying graph is based

on data contained in the news

release. ✦

1“Soft money” refers to funds raised and

spent outside the limits and prohibitions

of federal election law. This includes

contributions that exceed federal limits

and that were made with corporate and/

or labor organization treasury funds.

Such contributions may not be used in

connection with federal elections, but

may be used for other purposes.

’96 Congressional Candidates

Raise $185 Million in ’95

Candidates for 1996 House and

Senate seats raised $184.9 million in

1995, according to financial disclosure reports filed with the FEC. This

sum represents a $14.2 million

increase over receipts in 1993, the

midpoint of the 1994 election cycle.

Fundraising by House candidates

accounted for this increase. Senate

candidates, on the other hand, raised

$8.8 million less than they did in

1993. Comparisons of Senate races

between cycles are difficult, how-

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

’87 ’89 ’91 ’93 ’95

Congressional Receipts at

Election Cycle Mid-Points,

1987-1995

Millions

ever, due to differences in the states

involved.

Individuals continue to be the

largest source of campaign funds.

Individual contributions account for

$106.2 million of the $184.9 million

total. PACs were the next largest

source of campaign funds, contributing $54.5 million of the 1995

total.

A March 13 FEC news release

contains these and other data on

Congressional financial activity in

1995. To obtain a copy of this

release, contact the Office of Public

Disclosure (800/424-9530 or 202/

219-4140) or use the automated

Flashfax system (202/501-3413) and

request document 530. The latest

available figures are on the FEC’s

World Wide Web site: http://

www.fec.gov.

The accompanying graph is based

on data contained in the news

release. ✦
13

May 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

’93 ’95 ’93 ’95

Democrats Republicans

National Party Committees:

Federal Account Receipts

From Individuals and PACs

in 1993 and 1995

Each bar below represents individual and PAC receipt totals only

(other receipts are not included), as

reported by the three national

committees of each major party. For

the Democrats, this includes the

Democratic National Committee,

the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign

Committee. For the Republicans,

this includes the Republican National Committee, the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Nonfederal

account receipts (soft money) are

not included.

Millions

PACs

Individuals

Publications

1996 Combined Federal/

State Disclosure Directory

Now Available

The 1996 edition of the Combined Federal/State Disclosure

Directory is now available. The

directory lists the state and federal

offices responsible for public

disclosure of reports and for dispensing information on the following topics:

• Campaign finance

• Personal finances of candidates

and officials

• Public financing

• Spending on state initiatives and

referenda

• Lobbying

• Candidates on the ballot

• Election results

• Accessibility to polling places

• Election-related enforcement

actions

• Corporate registrations

In addition, the directory notes

which state offices have on-line

access to the FEC’s data base and

which have their data bases on-line

as well.

The directory includes addresses,

phone numbers and fax numbers for

each office, and also identifies staff

who are knowledgeable in the

subject areas. For the first time, the

directory also includes Internet

addresses for the state offices that

have them.

Limited copies of the printed

directory are available free of

charge from the FEC’s Public

Records Office. The directory is

also available on Macintosh and

IBM formatted 3.5 inch disks for $5.

To obtain a copy, call 800/424-9530

(press 3 on the menu) or 202/219-

4140. ✦

The FEC Now Takes

Visa and Mastercard

 FEC customers can now pay for

FEC materials with Visa or

Mastercard. Most FEC materials

are available free of charge, but

some are sold, including financial

statistical reports ($10 each),

candidate indexes ($10) and PAC

directories ($13.25). The FEC

also has a 5¢ per page copying

charge for paper documents and a

15¢ per page copying charge for

microfilmed documents.

 Paying by credit card has its

advantages. For instance, since

the FEC will not fill an order

until payment is received, using a

credit card speeds delivery by 4

to 5 days.

 Visitors to the FEC’s Public

Records Office will also be able

to make payments by credit card.

Regular visitors, such as

researchers and reporters, who in

the past have paid for FEC

materials out of their own

pockets, may now make

payments with a company credit

card.

 The new credit card payment

system also reduces costs and

paperwork associated with check

processing, enabling FEC staff to

better serve the walk-in visitor.
14

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

Compliance

California and Texas

Primary Nonfilers

The Brink for Congress committee

was the only candidate committee

that failed to file a 1996 pre-election

report for California’s March 5

House primary election. This

committee served as Benjamin

Brink’s principal campaign committee in his run for the U.S. House seat

representing California’s 14th

district. See the FEC news release of

March 22, 1996.

The Victor Morales for Senate

Campaign committee was the only

candidate committee that failed to

file a 1996 pre-election report for

Texas’ April 9 Senate primary

election. See the FEC news release

of April 5, 1996.

The FEC is required by law to

publicize the names of nonfiling

candidate committees. 2 U.S.C.

§438(a)(7). The FEC pursues

enforcement actions against nonfilers

on a case-by-case basis. ✦

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently

released for public review. This

listing is based on the FEC news

releases of March 25 and April 4,

but it does not include the 31 MURs

in which the Commission took no

action. Files on closed MURs are

available for review in the Public

Records Office.

MUR 3968

Respondents: (all in MO):

(a) Steven R. Carroll; (b) Missourians for Carroll, John E. Bardgett,

Sr., treasurer; (c) Kenneth A.

Carroll; (d) Rheyma J. Carroll

Complainant: Todd Spencer

Ransom (MO)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

exceeding the annual $25,000

Federal Information Relay

System Aids Persons With

Hearing and Speech

Impairments

Individuals with speech and

hearing impairments may communicate with federal agencies through

the Federal Information Relay

System (FIRS). FIRS relays calls

between individuals with hearing

and speech impairments and government agencies. The system enables

federal employees to conduct

business more effectively with

individuals with hearing and speech

difficulties. FIRS also broadens

employment and advancement

opportunities for the hearing and

speech impaired community by

providing them access to the Federal

Telecommunications System.

The system works this way: A

TDD/voice user calls FIRS and

gives the agent the phone number to

be called. The agent makes the call

on a separate line. The conversation

can then begin. The agent reads

aloud the words of the TDD user

and keyboards the words of the

voice user.

Here are some tips for using

FIRS. Before calling FIRS, have the

phone number that you want to call

ready. When the agent answers, give

him or her the area code and number. When the agent connects your

call, direct your conversation to the

voice/TDD user as if the agent were

absent. Do not direct any comments

to the agent during your conversation because these comments will be

relayed as well. If you are a voice

user, speak in a slow and clear

manner. When leaving a message,

you may also want to indicate that

you are calling through FIRS.

Both TDD and voice users may

initiate calls through FIRS by

calling 1-800-877-8339. The hours

of operation are from 8 a.m. to 8

p.m., Monday through Friday. ✦

Information contribution limit; failure to file

statement of candidacy timely

Disposition: (a-d) $38,000 civil

penalty

MUR 3998

Respondents: (a) David Duke for

U.S. Senate Committee, James A.

McPherson, treasurer (LA);

(b) various individuals (CA, IL, KY,

LA, OH, PA and WI)

Complainant: FEC initiated

(Audit)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

transfer from candidate’s nonfederal

account containing prohibited funds;

failure to properly itemize contributors; failure to maintain records of

persons contributing in excess of

$50; failure to promptly dispose of

cash contributions over $50

Disposition: (a) $15,000 civil

penalty; reason to believe, but took

no further action (failure to maintain

records of persons contributing in

excess of $50 and to promptly

dispose of cash contributions over

$50); (b) $4,650 in total civil

penalties ranging from $300 to $700

for nine individuals; probable cause

to believe, but took no further action

for two individuals; reason to

believe, but took no further action

for seven individuals (excessive

contributions); sent admonishment

letters to all individuals

MUR 4022

Respondents: Murkowski ’98,

Donna Pagano Murray, treasurer

(AK)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Foreign national contribution; corporate contribution; excessive contributions; failure to

accurately report receipts as designated for primary/general election

Disposition: $7,500 civil penalty;

respondents to refund outstanding

excessive contributions, including

those not properly redesignated, or

donate like amounts to charitable or

educational entity; and amend

previously filed reports to correct

inaccuracies.
15

May 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1996 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indicates the

page number in that issue. For example, “1:4” means that the article

is in the January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1995-38: Corporate vendor and

nonconnected PAC with common

officer, 1:14

1995-40: Disaffiliation of PACs, 3:7

1995-41: Preemption of state

disclosure requirements, 2:3

1995-42: Using campaign funds to

pay child-care expenses, 2:3

1995-43: Refunding legal fees to

candidate committee, 3:8

1995-44: Presidential primary

candidate excused from filing 48-

hour notices, 3:8

1995-45: Qualified campaign

expenses for ballot access, 3:9

1995-46: Purchase of candidate’s

book by his campaign, 3:9

1995-47: Use of campaign funds for

travel to party’s Presidential

nominating convention, 5:7

1995-48: Preemption of Georgia law

limiting receipt of contributions,

3:10

Back Issues of the

1996 Record Now

Available on the

Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other 1996 issues of the Record

are now available through the

Internet as PDF files. Visit the

FEC’s World Wide Web site at

http://www.fec.gov and click on

“What’s New.” Future Record issues will be posted here as well.

MUR 4281

Respondents: Hispanic PAC USA,

Inc., Dennis Rivera, treasurer (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: $3,400 civil penalty

MUR 4301

Respondents: MID-PAC, Anton A.

Weiss, treasurer (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

report timely

Disposition: $500 civil penalty ✦

1996-1: Corporate partisan communications, 5:7

1996-4: Public funding shortfalls

and bridge loans, 5:8

1996-5: Returning illegal contributions, 5:9

1996-7: Public funding certifications, 5:9

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-2881), 1:5

– GOPAC, 4:1

– Hartnett, 4:12

– Legi-Tech, 4:9

– National Right to Work, 4:11

– Parisi, 3:6

_____ v. FEC

– Albanese, 5:4

– Center for Responsive Politics, 1:3

– Chamber of Commerce of the

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

– Clifton, 5:6

– Common Cause (94-02104), 5:5

– Hooker, 3:7

– Jordan, 4:12

– Maine Right to Life Committee,

1:3; 4:9

– Minnesota Citizens Concerned for

Life, 3:6

– Republican National Committee

(94-1017), 4:10

– Stockman, 2:9

– Whitmore, 3:6

On Appeal?, 5:6

Reports

Electronic filing system, FEC

authorized to develop, 2:2

Point of entry change for House

candidates, 2:1

Schedule for 1996, 1:5

Special elections

– House, California’s 37th district,

2:5

– House, Maryland’s 7th district,

3:2

– House, Oregon’s 3rd district, 3:2

800 Line

Ballot access payments, 2:8

Conventions, permissible corporate

and labor activity, 2:7

Filing tips, 5:1
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 1996

Change of Address

Political Committees

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

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

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

must sign the amendment and file it with the Secretary of

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

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers who are not registered political

committees should include the following information

when requesting a change of address:

• Subscription number (located on the upper left corner

of the mailing label);

• Subscriber’s name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

Subscribers (other than political committees) may

correct their addresses by phone as well as by mail.