April 2002 Federal Election Commission Volume 28, Number 4

Table of Contents

Election Administration

1 Public Hearing on Voting Systems

Standards

2 New Appointees to the OEA

Advisory Panel

Reports

1 April Reporting Reminder

Budget

2 Commission Submits 2003 Budget

Proposal

Court Cases

3 New Litigation

3 Advisory Opinions

Statistics

6 Congressional Campaign

Fundraising Declines in 2001

7 Party Financial Activity Continues

to Grow

Audits

8 Audit of Gejdenson Reelection

Committee

8 Audit of Citizens for Danner

Compliance

9 Nonfiler

Outreach

10 FEC Conferences

11 Public Appearance

11 Index

Compliance Election

Administration

Public Hearing on Voting

Systems Standards

The FEC will hold a public

hearing on April 17 to receive

additional testimony and comments

about proposed revisions to the

Voting Systems Standards (the

Standards). The revised Standards

have two volumes:

• Volume I provides technical and

performance requirements for a

number of system types and

configurations;

• Volume II provides testing specifications for the requirements in

Volume I.

Both Volumes are available on

the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/vss/vss.html.

The hearing will be held in the

Federal Election Commission’s 9th

floor hearing room at 10:00 a.m.

Requests to testify must be received

by the Commission by April 7. All

requests should be addressed to

Penelope Bonsall, Director of the

Office of Election Administration,

and must be submitted in written or

electronic form. Due to recent

Reports

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 2)

April Reporting Reminder

Committees filing on a quarterly

basis must file their first quarterly

report by April 15. Those filing on a

monthly basis have a report due on

April 20.

In addition to filing quarterly

reports, committees of House and

Senate candidates active in the 2002

primary and runoff elections must

file pre-election reports and may

have to file 48-hour notices. PACs

and party committees filing on a

quarterly basis may also have to file

pre-election reports and 24-hour

reports of independent expenditures.

Filing Electronically

Under the Commission’s mandatory electronic filing regulations,

individuals and organizations that

receive contributions or make

expenditures in excess of $50,000 in

a calendar year—or expect to do

so—must file all reports and statements with the FEC electronically.

Electronic filers who instead file on

paper or submit an electronic report

that does not pass the validation test

will be considered nonfilers and

may be subject to enforcement

actions (including administrative

fines).
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2002

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)

David M. Mason, Chairman

Karl J. Sandstrom, Vice Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Bradley Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Acting Assistant

 Staff Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

delays in mail service to government offices, the Commission

encourages submissions by fax at

202/219-8500 or by e-mail at

vss@fec.gov (e-mailed submissions

must include the requestor’s full

name, e-mail address and street

address). Mailed requests should be

sent to 999 E Street NW, Washington, D.C., 20463.✦

—Amy Kort

Election Administration

(continued from page 1)

Reports

(continued from page 1)

New Appointees to the OEA

Advisory Panel

On March 21, 2002, the Commission appointed the following

individuals to the Office of Election

Administration (OEA) Advisory

Panel:

• Christopher Thomas, Director of

Elections, Michigan;

• Gary Bartlett, Executive Director,

North Carolina State Board of

Elections;

• Kevin Kennedy, Executive Director, Wisconsin State Board of

Elections;

• Alice P. Miller, Executive Director, District of Columbia Board of

Elections and Ethics; and

• Kimberly Wyman, Thurston

County Auditor, Olympia, Washington.

The new appointees replace

former panel members Candice

Miller, Lucinda Burnette, Lance

Ward, Carolyn Jackson and Gary

McIntosh.

The OEA Advisory Panel,

established in 1976, is composed of

state and local election officials

from across the country. Officials

are nominated to the Panel by the

OEA Director and appointed by the

Commission. The Panel meets

annually and advises the OEA and

the Commission on methods of

allocating resources in order to best

serve the needs of election

officials.✦

—Amy Kort

Commission Submits Budget

Proposal for 2003

On February 28, 2002, the

Commission sent its fiscal year

2003 budget proposal to Congress

and the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). The proposal

requests $46.9 million and 362

personnel for FEC operations. The

Commission’s appropriation for

fiscal year 2002 is $43.69 million

and 362 personnel. The 2003

request represents a continuation of

the 2002 funding level for core

programs, as adjusted for inflation

and salary and benefits. The request

includes funds to account for a new

method of providing for federal

retirees under the Civil Service

Retirement Program, which the

Bush Administration has proposed

Senate committees and other Budget committees that file with the

Secretary of the Senate are not

subject to the mandatory electronic

filing rules, but may file an unofficial electronic copy of their reports

with the FEC in order to speed

disclosure. 11 CFR 104.18.

Filing by Mail

In response to the anthrax threat,

the U.S. Postal Service is irradiating

mail directed to many federal

government agencies, including the

Federal Election Commission. This

process has not only delayed mail

delivery, it has also damaged and in

some cases destroyed pieces of mail.

As a result, committees that file

reports with the Commission may

want to consider submitting their

reports by some means other than

regular U.S. mail. Alternative

methods include:

• Electronic filing;

• Overnight mail service; and

• Hand delivery.

Committees that choose to file

electronically can download free

FECFile software from the FEC web

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

electron.html, and may contact the

Commission’s Electronic Filing

office for assistance at (800) 424-

9530 or (202) 694-1307.

Additional Information

For more information on 2002

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the

January 2002 Record;

• Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

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

694-1100;

• Fax the reporting tables to yourself

using the FEC’s Faxline (202/501-

3413, document 586); or

• Visit the FEC’s web site at

www.fec.gov/pages/charts.htm to

view the reporting tables online.✦

—George Smaragdis
April 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2002-1

Presidential Public Funding

for Coalition of Minor

Parties

Under the Presidential Election

Campaign Fund Act (the Fund Act),

the entitlement for pre-general

election Presidential funding in

2008 may not be determined by

aggregating the 2004 vote totals of

several minor party Presidential

candidates. Instead, each minor

party must use the vote totals

received by its own Presidential

candidate to determine the public

funding entitlement, if any, of that

party’s candidate in the next Presidential election. 26 U.S.C. §9008.

The Fund Act

Under the Fund Act, a Presidential candidate1

 of one or more

political parties (not including a

major party) is entitled to pregeneral election payments if he or

she was a candidate for such office

in the preceding election and

received between five and 25

percent of the popular vote. Additionally, the Presidential nominee of

a minor party is entitled to pregeneral election payments if that

party’s candidate in the prior

election received between five and

Campaign Guides

Available

 For each type of committee, a

Campaign Guide explains, in

clear English, the complex

regulations regarding the activity

of political committees. It shows

readers, for example, how to fill

out FEC reports and illustrates

how the law applies to practical

situations.

 The FEC publishes four

Campaign Guides, each for a

different type of committee, and

we are happy to mail your

committee as many copies as you

need, free of charge. We

encourage you to view them on

our web site (go to www.fec.gov,

then click on “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” and then scroll

down to “Publications”).

 If you would like to place an

order for paper copies of the

Campaign Guides, please call

800-424-9530, press 1, then 3.

1

 The Fund Act defines a Presidential

“candidate” in this context as an

individual who has been nominated by a

major party to the office of President or

Vice-President or has qualified to have

his or her name on the ballot in at least

10 states as a party’s Presidential or

Vice-Presidential candidate. 26 U.S.C.

§9002(2).

for all government agencies as part

of the federal “Freedom to Manage”

initiative. Absent these funds, the

2003 appropriation request represents only a 3.6 percent increase

over the Commission’s 2002

appropriation. The 2003 budget

request does not account for any

implementation costs for campaign

finance reform legislation.

The executive summary of the

budget proposal explains that, with

the support of the FEC’s Congressional oversight committees, the

Commission achieved major

successes in 2001. For example,

with the implementation of the

Administrative Fine and the Alternative Dispute Resolution programs,

the Commission closed 517 enforcement cases—a 152 percent increase

over the annual average of 205 cases

closed during fiscal years 1995

through 2000. With mandatory

electronic filing, the Commission

significantly shortened the amount

of time needed to process committee

reports and make that information

available to the public. Also during

the year, the FEC issued draft

technical Voting Systems Standards

(VSS) designed as voluntary

standards for election administration

officials charged with selecting and

using voting systems in federal

elections. ✦

—Amy Kort

New Litigation

Baker v. FEC

On October 19, 2001, Dennis C.

Baker, the treasurer for the Committee to Elect Jim Rooker to United

States Congress (the Committee),

filed a complaint in the U.S. District

Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania. The complaint

appeals a civil money penalty the

Commission imposed on the Committee and Mr. Baker for failure to

file the Committee’s 2000 October

Quarterly Report.1

 The Commission

found that the Committee and Mr.

Baker had violated 2 U.S.C.

§434(a), which requires the timely

filing of reports by political committees. Mr. Baker alleges that the

Committee had been “officially

dissolved” at the time the report was

due. In his court complaint, Mr.

Baker asks that the court review the

Commission’s September 21, 2001,

final determination and modify or

set aside that determination.

U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania,

Civil Action No. 01-1965.✦

—Amy Kort

1

 The Commission’s assessment of the

$900 civil money penalty was published

in the January 2002 Record, page 13.

Court Cases

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2002

4

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

3

 For example, the Fund Act defines

“minor party” in terms that describe a

single party with a single candidate. 26

U.S.C. §9004(2) and (a)(2)(A).

AO 2002-2

Preemption of State Law

Governing Lobbyist Activity

on Behalf of Candidate Who

is State Legislator

Eric Gally, a registered lobbyist

in Maryland, may solicit contributions for a Congressional candidate

who is a member of the Maryland

25 percent of the total vote.2

 26

U.S.C. §9004(a)(2)(A) and (B); 11

CFR 9004.2(a) and (b). A new party

or minor party can qualify for postelection funding if its candidate

received at least five percent of the

total vote. 26 U.S.C. §9004(a)(3).

See also 11 CFR 9004.3(a).

Funding of Multiple Candidates

and Parties

Prospective 2004 minor party

Presidential candidates Lenora B.

Fulani and James Mangia, along

with other minor party representatives, propose that pre-general

election funding be distributed in

2008 to a coalition of minor parties

running one or more candidates in

2004 who, in the aggregate, obtain

at least five percent of the vote. The

coalition’s entitlement would then

be redistributed to each party’s 2008

candidate(s) based on the portion of

the coalition’s total vote that each

party’s candidate(s) won in 2004.

The language of the Fund Act

and Commission regulations,

however, describes one Presidential

candidate per political party, rather

than several Presidential candidates

of either the same party or of

multiple parties.3

 Moreover, in

Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme

Court examined the legislative

history of the Fund Act and determined that “Congress’ interest in

not funding hopeless candidates

with large sums of public money,

necessarily justifies the withholding

of public assistance from candidates

without a significant modicum of

support.” 424 U.S. 1 and 96 (1976).

Providing pre-general election

funding to a minor party based on

the prior performances of several

minor party candidates within the

same party, or of a group of Presidential candidates who join together

in one coalition despite differing

party affiliations, runs counter to

these concerns. Thus, entitlement to

pre-general election funding under

the Fund Act may not be based on

the combined vote totals of several

minor party candidates.

Convention Funding

The Commission expressed no

opinion as to whether an entitlement

to minor party convention funds in

2008 could be determined based on

the performance of multiple minor

candidates in 2004, because the

issue was hypothetical. 11 CFR

112.1(b). See AO 1996-22. Only a

national committee of a political

party can obtain convention funding, and the advisory opinion

request did not identify the national

committee of a minor party that

might claim the convention funds.

See 26 U.S.C. §9008 and AO 2001-

13 and 2000-6. Additionally, the

prospect of any minor party candidate obtaining five percent of the

vote in 2004 is merely speculative.

Date Issued: March 6, 2002;

Length: 7 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

2

 In both cases, other eligibility conditions must be met. The Fund Act defines

a “minor party” as a political party

whose Presidential candidate in the

preceding election received, as the

party’s candidate, at least five percent,

but less than 25 percent, of the total

popular votes for all Presidential

candidates in that election. 26 U.S.C.

§9004(a)(3)(A).

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record starting

with January 1996 are 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” for this

issue. Click “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” to see back issues. 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.

General Assembly despite a state

law prohibiting such activity. The

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) preempts the Maryland law

with respect to the solicitation and

transmittal of contributions to

federal candidates and the organizational framework of federal political

committees.

Background

Mr. Gally intends to hold a

private fundraiser for friends and

family members in his home in

order to solicit contributions to a

federal candidate who is currently a

member of the General Assembly.

He also plans to solicit other individuals on the candidate’s behalf.

Maryland law, however, bars

regulated lobbyists from actively

fundraising on behalf of certain state

officeholders, including members of

the General Assembly. Provisions of

the statute prohibit lobbyists from:

• Soliciting or transmitting a political contribution to a member of the

General Assembly; and
April 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

1

 See Federal Election Commission

Regulations, Explanation and Justification, House Document No. 95-44, at 51.

See also, H.R. Rep. No. 93-1438, 93d

Cong., 2d Sess. 100-101 (1974).

2

 For example, the Act and Commission

regulations prohibit any person from

soliciting contributions from a foreign

national or federal contractor. 2

U.S.C. §§441e(a) and 441c(a)(2); 11

CFR 110.4(a)(2) and 115.2(c). Also, a

trade association that has not received

prior authorization from a corporate

member cannot solicit that member’s

personnel for PAC contributions. 2

U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(D); 11 CFR

114.8(c) and (d).

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2002-3

Qualification as state committee

of political party (Green Party of

Ohio, March 7, 2002)

AOR 2002-4

Official name and abbreviated

name of SSF (Austin, Nichols &

Co., Inc./Pernod Ricard USA)✦

3

 See for example 11 CFR 110.4(a)(3),

which prohibits foreign nationals from

participating in the decision-making

process of a political committee with

regard to its election-related activities.

• Serving on a fundraising committee or political committee of a

candidate who is a member of the

General Assembly. Md. Code

Ann., State Gov’t §15-714(d)(1)(i)

and (ii) (2001).

Staff counsel for the Maryland

State Ethics Commission has

interpreted these restrictions to

mean that regulated lobbyists may

not actively fundraise on behalf of a

candidate for U.S. Congress if that

candidate is also a member of the

General Assembly. Additionally,

the State Ethics Commission found,

in informal consideration, that the

prohibition applied to the solicitation and transmittal of contributions

by a regulated lobbyist to such a

candidate.

The Act and Commission

Regulations

The Act and Commission

regulations “supersede and preempt

any provision of State law with

respect to election to Federal

office.” 2 U.S.C. §453; 11 CFR

108.7(a). According to the Conference Committee report on the 1974

Amendments to the Act, “Federal

law occupies the field with respect

to criminal sanctions relating to

limitations on campaign expenditures, the sources of campaign funds

used in Federal races, the conduct of

Federal campaigns, and similar

offences, but does not affect the

States’ rights” as to other electionrelated conduct, such as voter fraud

and ballot theft. H.R. Rep. No. 93-

1438, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess. 69 and

100-101 (1974).

Commission regulations provide

that federal law supersedes state law

with respect to federal candidates

and political committees in regards

to the organization and registration

of committees, the disclosure of

receipts and expenditures and the

limitations on contributions and

expenditures. 11 CFR 108.7(b).1

They also provide that the Act does

not supersede state laws concerning

electoral matters, such as the manner

in which candidates and parties

qualify for the ballot and the date

and location of elections. 11 CFR

108.7(c). See also AOs 2001-19,

2001-12, 2000-23 and 1999-12.

Preemption

As applied to Mr. Gally’s proposed fundraising activities for a

federal candidate, the Maryland

prohibitions concerning the solicitation and transmittal of contributions

and service on a political or

fundraising committee (thereby

administering such solicitations)

address activities reserved for

regulation under federal law. The

Act and Commission regulations

govern the sources of funds used in

federal races, prohibiting and

limiting contributions and solicitations by various entities.2

 Moreover,

they specifically cover Mr. Gally’s

proposed solicitation activities by

the application of specific exceptions to the definition of “contribution” for an individual’s volunteer

services and for a volunteer’s use of

his or her home for campaignrelated activities—including up to

$1,000 per election for food, beverages and invitations. 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(B)(i) and (ii); 11 CFR

100.7(b)(3), (4) and (6). The Act

and Commission regulations also

address the transmittal of contributions. For example, they prohibit

transmittal by certain persons and

set a time period in which a person

who receives a contribution for a

political committee must transmit it

to the committee. 2 U.S.C. §432(b);

11 CFR 102.6(b)(1), 110.6(b)(2)(ii)

and 102.8. Thus, the Act and

Commission regulations supersede

this Maryland provision as applied

to Mr. Gally’s proposed solicitation

and transmittal of contributions.

To the extent that Mr. Gally’s

activities can be construed as

serving on a fundraising or political

committee, the application of the

Maryland prohibition against

lobbyists serving on an Assembly

member’s Congressional campaign

committee would result in the state

regulation of an area reserved for

federal coverage—the organization

of a political committee.3

 This area

of federal coverage would serve as

an additional basis for preemption

of that Maryland prohibition.

Date Issued: March 6, 2002;

Length: 6 pages.✦

—Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2002

6

Congressional Candidate Off-Year Fundraising—1992-2002

Receipts

Number of Candidates

Senate Candidates House Candidates

0

50

100

150

200

'92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 100

300

500

700

900

1100

Millions of Dollars Candidates

0

50

100

150

200

'92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 100

300

500

700

900

1100

Millions of Dollars Candidates

Statistics

Congressional Campaign

Fundraising Declines in 2001

Congressional campaigns raised

$294.9 million in 2001, 7.4 percent

less than in 1999, the last nonelection year. The 2001 figures

represent the first decline in off-year

fundraising since the Commission

first began compiling off-year

financial totals in 1987. The charts

below show Senate and House

candidates’ non-election year

fundraising totals for election cycles

1992 through 2002.

A drop in 2001 Senate

fundraising accounts for nearly all

of this decline. Senate candidates

raised $96.7 million in 2001, down

18.6 percent from 1999 levels. The

disparity between 2001 and 1999

Senate fundraising may be attributable in part to the extent to which

Senate races vary each cycle. In

2000, open-seat races in Florida,

New York and New Jersey, as well

as competitive races in other large

states, made Senate campaigns

significantly more expensive than in

previous years. In 2002, the closelycontested and open-seat Senate

campaigns are mainly in small

population states, where campaign

finance activity tends to be smaller.

House candidates raised $198.2

million in 2001, a decline of just

under one percent from 1999 levels.

Significantly, House fundraising

failed to rise despite ongoing

reapportionment and redistricting

efforts following the 2000 census.

This process generally creates more

uncertainty about district boundaries

and more open-seat House campaigns, both of which usually result

in more fundraising by candidates.

For example, House campaign

receipts in 1991, the last postcensus year, increased by 26 percent

over 1989 receipts. Slowed

fundraising for House candidates in

2001 is most apparent among

Democratic challengers, with both

the number of candidates and

amounts raised significantly lower

in 2001.

A press release dated March 12,

2002, provides detailed information

about Congressional fundraising and

spending, including a top 50 list for

Senate and House campaigns for

receipts, disbursements, cash-onhand, debts and major sources of

receipts. The press release is available:

• On the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/news.html;

• From the Public Records office

(800/424-9530, press 3) and the

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 and request document 616).✦

—Amy Kort
April 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Federal and Nonfederal Party Receipts for Non-Election Years

Republican National Committees Democratic National Committees

0

50

100

150

200

250

 1997 1999 2001

Millions of Dollars

Nonfederal

Federal

0

50

100

150

200

250

 1997 1999 2001

Millions of Dollars

Nonfederal

Federal

Party Financial Activity

Continues to Grow

Financial activity by the Democratic and Republican parties

increased during 2001. The parties

raised $243.7 million in federal

funds (hard money) and spent

$195.1 million during the year.

These figures represent a 22 percent

increase in party fundraising and a

fifteen percent increase in disbursements over the totals from 1999, the

last non-election year. When

compared to activity from 1997, the

most recent non-election year with

no Presidential campaign, party

fundraising increased by 40 percent

and spending grew by 20 percent.

As in past years, Republican

national party committees raised and

spent more federal funds than did

Democratic national party committees. The Republicans raised $166.3

million, a 31 percent increase over

their federal receipts from 1999. The

Democrats raised $77.4 million, an

eight percent increase over 1999

receipts. In 2001 Republicans spent

$128.5 million and Democrats spent

$66.6 million in federal funds,

showing an increase over 1999

spending of sixteen percent and

fourteen percent, respectively.

Year-end reports filed with the

FEC also showed increased receipts

and disbursements of nonfederal

funds (soft money) during the year.

Republican national party committees raised $100.1 million in

nonfederal funds during 2001, a 68

percent increase from 1999. The

Republicans spent $88.9 million in

nonfederal funds in 2001, a 110

percent increase above totals from

1999.

The Democratic national party

committees raised $68.6 million in

nonfederal funds and spent $47.9

million, representing a 26 percent

increase in nonfederal activity over

their 1999 totals.

The charts below show the

Republican and Democratic parties’

federal and nonfederal receipts for

the off-election years of the past

three election cycles. Complete

statistics describing 2001 party

activity are available in a press

release dated February 21, 2002.

The press release is available:

• On the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/news.html;

• From the Public Records office

(800/424-9530, press 3) and the

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 and request document 615).✦

—Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2002

8

Audits

Audit of Gejdenson

Reelection Committee

On January 25, 2002, the Commission approved the final audit

report on the Gejdenson Reelection

Committee (GRC). The report found

that between January 1, 1999, and

December 31, 2000, GRC received

excessive contributions and misstated financial activity.

Excessive Contributions

The audit identified apparent

excessive contributions from 74

individuals, totaling $66,518. Under

the Federal Election Campaign Act,

no person may make contributions

to any federal campaign in excess of

$1,000 per election. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(1)(A).

If a committee receives a contribution that appears to be excessive,

the treasurer must, within 10 days,

either return the contribution or

deposit it and seek a redesignation

or reattribution. In doing so, the

committee must offer the contributor the option of a refund. If the

contributor does not provide the

redesignation or reattribution, the

committee treasurer must, within 60

days of receipt of the contribution,

refund the contribution to the

contributor. 11 CFR 103.3.

The excessive contributions to

the GRC may have arisen from its

solicitation response cards, which

stated “Each person can contribute a

total of $2,000” without further

clarifying the need to designate the

contribution according to two

separate limits: $1,000 for the

primary election and $1,000 for the

general election. GRC did not seek

or obtain within 60 days

redesignations or reattributions for

the excessive portion of their

contributions, nor did they issue

refunds. Because GRC was unable

to produce evidence that the contributions were not in excess of the

Audit of Citizens for Danner

On February 7, 2002, the Commission approved the final audit

report on the Citizens for Danner

committee (the Committee). The

report found that between June 7

and December 31, 2000, the Committee:

• Received apparent prohibited

contributions;

• Failed to make “best efforts” to

obtain contributor identification

information; and

• Failed to disclose the correct

aggregate year-to-date totals for

political committee contributors.

Prohibited Contributions

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits corporations

from making a contribution in

connection with any federal election

and prohibits federal candidates and

committees from accepting such

contributions. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

When a committee receives a

contribution that may be prohibited,

the treasurer can either return the

questionable contribution or deposit

it within 10 days. If the treasurer

chooses to deposit the contribution,

he or she must make at least one

written or oral request for evidence

of the legality of the contribution.

limitation, the Commission recommended that GRC refund the

contributions. In the absence of

available funds to make the necessary refunds, GRC amended its

reports to disclose the contributions

requiring refunds as debts on

Schedule D.

Misstatement of Financial Activity

A comparison of GRC’s reported

financial activity to its bank activity

indicated that receipts and ending

cash-on-hand had been misstated for

calendar year 2000. In response,

GRC filed comprehensive amended

Summary and Detailed Summary

pages for calendar year 2000.✦

—Gary Mullen

This evidence could be a written

statement from the contributor

explaining why the contribution is

legal or written documentation of an

oral explanation. If within 30 days

of the treasurer’s receipt of the

contribution the committee cannot

confirm its legality, then the committee must refund the contribution.

11 CFR 103.3(b)(1). Any questionable contribution that is deposited

into a committee’s account cannot

be used until its legality is confirmed. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(5).

The Committee received and

deposited a total of $13,650 from 14

contributors who were possibly

incorporated entities—five of the

contributors appeared to be corporations and nine were limited liability

companies (LLC). Under Commission regulations, an LLC is treated

as a corporation for the purposes of

the Act if it elects to be treated as a

corporation by the IRS or if it has

publicly-traded shares. If an LLC

has more than one member, has no

publicly-traded shares and does not

elect to be treated as a corporation

by the IRS, then it is considered a

partnership for the purposes of the

Act. 11 CFR 110.1(g).

The Committee did not maintain

a sufficient balance to cover the

refund of these contributions after

November 17, 2000. The Commission advised the Committee to

demonstrate that the contributions in

question were not from corporate

sources or to refund the contributions. For the LLCs, the Committee

was advised to obtain information

from the contributing entities to

verify that they had not elected to be

treated as corporations for IRS

purposes and were eligible to make

the contributions. If the Committee

failed to obtain evidence of the

permissibility of a contribution and

lacked sufficient funds to make a

refund, the Committee was to

disclose it as a debt until the refund

was made.
April 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Compliance

Nonfiler

The Lawrence R. Wiesner for

Congress Committee failed to file

its pre-primary report for the March

5, 2002, California primary elections.

On January 28, 2002, the Commission notified committees involved in California’s primary of

their potential filing requirements.

Committees that failed to file

reports by the February 21 due date

were notified on February 22 that

their reports had not been received

and that their names would be

published if they did not respond

within four business days.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act requires the Commission to

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

 The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing 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 FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free under the “Using

FEC Services” icon at the FEC’s

web site—http://www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

 registered PACs showing each

 PAC’s identification number,

 address, treasurer and

 connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

 organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

 identification number ($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., NW.

Disclosure of Occupation and

Name of Employer

The Act requires political committees to identify each person who

gives more than $200 in a calendar

year. 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(3)(A).

Identification is defined as the

name, address, occupation and

employer of each individual. 2

U.S.C. §431(13)(A). Committee

reports comply with the identification requirements of the Act when a

committee either discloses the

required information or can demonstrate that the treasurer used “best

efforts” to obtain the information.

To demonstrate best efforts, a

committee treasurer must:

• Include in all written solicitations a

statement explaining the federal

law’s requirements regarding the

collection and reporting of individual contributor identifications,

along with a clear request for the

contributor’s name, address,

occupation and employer; and

• No later than 30 days after receiving a contribution that lacks the

required information, make at least

one attempt to obtain the information from the contributor, either by

a written request or an oral request

documented in writing. 2 U.S.C.

§432(i) and 11 CFR 104.7(b).

During the period covered by the

audit, the Committee failed to

comply with the identification

requirements in 119 out of 345

cases. Records show that the

Committee made follow up requests

for information and, in most cases,

was in possession of the contributors’ occupation and/or name of

employer. However, the Committee

did not amend its reports to disclose

this information. The Committee,

which is an electronic filer, claimed

to be unable to file amended reports

electronically. The Commission

provided the Committee with

written instructions for filing the

amendments, along with the

Commission’s 24-hour software

assistance phone number.

Failure to Disclose Year-to-Date

Totals for Political Committee

Contributors

Commission regulations require

that the disclosure of a contribution

from a committee (including

political committees and committees

that do not qualify as political

committees under the Act) must

include the identification of the

contributor and the contributor’s

total aggregate year-to-date contributions. 11 CFR 104.3(a)(4)(ii). The

Committee reported 24 contributions from committees where it

failed to disclose the correct aggregate year-to-date totals for the

contributor. In most of these cases,

the Committee appeared to have

assigned differing identification

numbers to the same committee.

The Commission recommended that

the Committee file amended reports

to disclose the contributions and

provided it with written instructions

for filing the amendments.✦

—Amy Kort

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2002

10

FEC Conferences in April

and May

Conference for Corporations

On April 22-24, 2002, the

Commission will hold a conference

in Washington, D.C., for corporations. Commissioners and experienced FEC staff will conduct a

series of interactive workshops in

order to explain how the requirements of the federal election law

apply to corporations and their

political action committees (PACs).

A representative from the IRS will

be available to answer electionrelated tax questions.

The registration fee for this

conference is $375, which covers

the cost of the conference, materials

and meals. The registration deadline

(and the deadline for fully-refunded

registration cancellations) is March

29. A late registration fee of $10

will be added effective March 30.

The conference will be held at the

Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480

L’Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington,

D.C. A room rate of $220 single or

$250 double is available for reservations made by March 29. Call 800/

635-5065 or 202/484-1000 ext.

5000 to make reservations. In order

to receive this room rate, you must

notify the hotel that you will be

attending the FEC conference. After

Conferences in 2002

For complete conference

information, visit the FEC’s web

site at www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences.

Conference for Corporations

Date: April 22-24, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Registration Fee: $375

Conference for Trade

Associations

Date: May 22-24, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Registration Fee: $375

Conference for Member and

Labor Organizations

Date: June 26-28, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Registration Fee: $375

Outreach

Trade Associations and

Membership Organizations:

Which Conference Should

You Attend?

The FEC’s Trade Association

Conference is intended only for

trade associations. Representatives

from other types of membership

organizations should attend the

conference for Labor and Membership Organizations. If you are not

certain which type of organization

you represent, please read the

following descriptions of trade

associations and membership

organizations. Membership organizations and trade associations share

many of the same characteristics—

indeed, trade associations are a type

of membership organization. Trade

Compliance

(continued from page 9)

publish the names of principal

campaign committees if they fail to

file 12 day pre-election reports and

the quarterly report due before the

candidate’s election. 2 U.S.C.

§§437g(b) and 438(a)(7). The

agency may also pursue enforcement actions against nonfilers and

late filers under the Administrative

Fine program on a case-by-case

basis.✦

—Amy Kort

March 29, room rates are based on

availability. The hotel can be easily

reached via the L’Enfant Plaza

Metro and Virginia Railway Express

stations.

Conference for Trade Associations

The FEC will hold a conference

for trade associations and their

PACs May 22-24, 2002, in Washington, D.C. The conference will

consist of a series of interactive

workshops presented by Commissioners and experienced FEC staff,

who will explain how the requirements of the federal election law

apply to trade associations. In

addition, an IRS representative will

be available to answer electionrelated tax questions.

The registration fee for this

conference is $375, which covers

the cost of the conference, materials

and meals. The deadline for registration (and for fully-refunded registration cancellations) is April 28. A

late registration fee of $10 will be

added effective April 29.

The conference will be held at the

Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480

L’Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington,

D.C. A room rate of $220 single or

$250 double is available for reservations made by April 28. Call 800/

635-5065 or 202/484-1000 ext.

5000 to make reservations. In order

to receive this room rate, you must

notify the hotel that you will be

attending the FEC conference. After

April 28, room rates are based on

availability. The hotel is located

near the L’Enfant Plaza Metro and

Virginia Railway Express stations.

Registration Information

Conference registrations will be

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

and FEC conferences have sold out

in the past, so please register early.

For registration information:

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail to

allison@sylvestermanagement.com.✦

—Amy Kort
April 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

1

 In past advisory opinions, the Commission cited examples of organizations

which qualified as trade associations or

membership organizations. For

examples of trade associations, see AOs

1999-16 and 1995-12 (associations for

particular types of banking), 1994-19

(medical society for a particular field of

medicine) and 1977-44 (association for

a particular specialty of law). For

examples of membership organizations,

see AOs 1999-10 (mutual insurance

company), 1996-21 (business council),

1990-18 (credit union) and 1985-37

(local chamber of commerce).

The first number in each

citation refers to the “number”

(month) of the 2002 Record issue

in which the article appeared. The

second number, following the

colon, indicates the page number in

that issue. For example, “1:4”

means that the article is in the

January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

Alternative Disposition of 2001-15,

3:9; 2001-20, 3:9

2001-13: National committee status

of party committee, 1:11

2001-16: Extension of 70-day

window for transferring funds

for allocable expenses after

suspension of party fundraising

due to national emergency, 2:1

2001-17: Reporting contributions

made via single check split

between federal and nonfederal

accounts, 3:5

2001-18: Affiliation between LLC

PAC and PACs of corporate

owners in 60-40 joint venture,

3:7

2001-19: Non-preemption of state

law prohibiting political committees from receiving bingo license,

3:8

2002-1: Coalition of minor parties

Index

associations, however, have certain

unique characteristics and rules,

which set them apart from other

kinds of membership organizations.

Definition of Membership

Organization

Generally, a membership organization is defined by the following

criteria:

• It provides for members in its

articles and bylaws;

• It seeks members;

• It acknowledges the acceptance of

members (e.g., by distributing

membership cards); and

• It is not organized primarily for the

purpose of influencing the election

of an individual for federal office.

Definition of Trade Association

In addition to having the characteristics above, a trade association

possesses two unique features:

• Its membership is composed of

persons and/or companies engaged

in a similar or related line of

commerce or business; and

• It is organized to promote and

improve the business conditions of

its members.1

Thus, if your organization

qualifies as a trade association, you

should attend the FEC Conference

on May 22-24, 2002, which will

focus on the unique rules particular

to your type of membership organization. If, on the other hand, you

represent any other type of membership organization (such as a nonprofit ideological 501(c)(4)

corporation, a cooperative, a mutual

insurance company or a business

organization with members in more

than one line of commerce), the

FEC asks that you instead attend the

FEC Conference for Membership

and Labor Organizations on June

26-28, 2002. See the upcoming

issue of the Record for more conference details✦

—Amy Kort

supporting candidate(s) who

together gain five percent of vote

not eligible for Presidential public

funding, 4:3

2002-2: Preemption of state law

barring lobbyist from fundraising

for Congressional candidate who

is member of Maryland General

Assembly, 4:4

Compliance

Administrative Fine program

extended, 1:13

Committees Fined under Administrative Fine program, 1:13; 2:7;

3:11

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFL-CIO, 2:3; 3:5

– Baker, 4:3

– Beaumont, 3:4

– Common Cause and Democracy

21, 2:4

– Judicial Watch, Inc., and Peter

F. Paul, 3:3

– Miles for Senate, 3:1

– Werthheimer, 1:12

Regulations

Allocation of candidate travel

expenses, interpretation, 3:2

Civil penalties, no increase, 3:2

Use of Internet, public hearing, 3:1

Reports

April reporting reminder, 4:1

IRS filing requirements, 1:11

Reports due in 2002, 1:2

48-hour notice periods for 2002

primaries, 3:10

Public Appearance

April 1, 2002

Federalist Society at Southern

Illinois University School of

Law

Carbondale, IL

Commissioner Smith
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Presorted Standard

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2002