•

December 1993

Ta I of Con e

Regu lat ions

Commission Approves Final Best

Efforts Rules

4 Commission Promulgates ew

Member hip Rules

4 ew Multicandidate Rules

Effective January I

4 Hearing Heldon Proposed hanges

to EnforcementRule

5 Parties Testify on Proposed

Convention Rules

5 Commission Revises Interim E>;

Parte Rules

ourt Ca. e!

2 FEC v , NRA Political Victory Fund

3 FEC v, Committee of 100

Democrats

3 Khachaturian v, FEC

3 New Litigation

Advi sory Opi nions

6 FECInvites Comments on Draft

AOs

6 AO 1993-17: Preemption of tale

Allocation Rule

6 AdvisoryOpinion Requests

ompliance

7 M Rs Released to the Public

7 Correction

7 Federa l Register

7 Index

Federal Election Commission

Regulations

Commi ion pprove Final

BestEffort.'; Rut·.

Political committee and their

treasurers must exercise "be t efforts"

to obtain, maintain and reportthe

identificationI of individual. who

contribute 1I10re than $200 in a calendar year. If they faiI to di clo e contributor information, but can

demon irate that they made "best

effort. " to obtain it, they will be in

compliance with the law. II CFR

104.7. On October 21. the Commission revised its rules to clarify the

steps that must be taken to demonstrate "best efforts":

I , Requesting contributor information

in the initial solicitation;

2. laking a follow-up request (if

neces ary):

3. Reporting the information; and

4. Filing amendments to di clo e

previously unreported information.

The new rule ' and their explanation and ju tification were published

in the Federal Register on October 27

(58 FR 57725). The Commission will

announce an effective date after the

rules have been before Congres for

30 legislative day '.

I "Identification" meanstile name,mailing address, occupation and employer of

an individual. // CFR /00./2.

Volume 19. Numb

Court Ruling Finds

Composition of FEC

Unconstitutional

In FEC v. NRA Political Victo

Fund. a court of appeal recentl

ruled that thecompo ition of the

Commission violated theConst

tion's separation of powers. 'ee

page 2 for a summaryof the dec

sion and theCommission's acti

in rc ponse 10 it.

olicita tion

Under the new rule • co mmi t

must include in each solicitation 

clear and conspicuou request fo

identification of contributors wh

give more than $200 per calend

year. That request must contain 

following statement:

Federal law requires political

committeesto report the name.

mailing address, occupation and

name ofemployerfor each indiv

whose contributions aggregate 

excess of$200 in a calendar yea

The request will not be con. i

"clear and con picuous" if it i i

ible or smaller than the text of th

solicitation and re ponse materi

if it is placed where it may be ea 

overlooked.

Follow-up Request

If a committee receives a con

tion that exceeds the $200 thresh

(coil/inlier! onp
Federal EleClimt Commission RECORD

Court Cases

FEC v.NRA Political Victory

Fund: Composition of FEC

Found Unconstitutional

On October 22, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

ruled that the composition of the Federal Election Commission "violates

the Constitution's separation of powers."

Under the federa l Election Campaign Act (FECA), the President

appoints the Commission's six voting

members. and Congress designates

two non-voting ex officio members.

The court found that "Congress exceeded its legislative authority when it

placed its agents, the Secretary of the

Senate and the Clerk of the House of

Representatives, on the independent

Commission as non-voting ex officio

members."

The court rejected the Commission's contention that the ex officio

members play an " informational or

advisory role." The court noted that

Federal Elecuo n Com mtsslon

999 E Stree t, NW

Washington. DC 2046J

8001424-9530

20212[9-3420

2021219-3336(TOD)

Scott E. Th om as, Chairman

Trevor Potte r, Vice Chairman

J oan D. Afkens, Commissioner

Lee Ann Elliott. Commissioner

Danny L. McDollald,

Commissioner

John Warren McGarry.

Commissioner

John C. Sur ma, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Stepha nie Fitzgerald , Editor

Greg SCott, Associate Editor

2

"advice...implies influence, and Congress must limit the exercise of its

influence...ro its legisl ative role." The

court added that the "mere presence"

of the Congressional representatives

"has the potential to influence the

other Commissioners." Citing legislative history, the court concluded that

Congress intended the ex officio

members to "serve its interests while

serving as commissioners." Ultimately, the COUll said, "the mere presence of agents of Congress on an

entity with executive powers offends

the Constitution."

Based on a severability clause in

the FECA.' the courtconcluded that

"the unconstitutional ex offici o membership provision can be severed from

[he rest of" the statute, permitting a

reconstituted Commission to continue

to operate. The COUl1 added that Congress was not. in this instance. required to amend the statute.

The court rejected two other

Constitutional challenges raised in the

case; one regarding the Commission's

bipartisan composition and the other,

its status as an independent agency.

The NRA had argued that:

• The "FECA's requirement that '[n]o

more than 3 members of the

Commission...may be affiliated with

the same political party.' 2 U.S.c.

§437c(a)(1) (1988), impermissibly

limits the President's nomination

power under the Appointments

clause;" and

• The FEe's independence denies the

President "sufficient control over the

Commission's civil enforcement

authority, a core executive function."

The court found the first of these

challenges to be nonjusticiable

because it isthe Senatorial confirmation process. and not the statute itself,

that arguably restrains the President.

Indeed. the COUll noted that "without

the statute the President could have

appointed exactly the same members"

to the Commission.

/2 U. S.c. §454.

December 

The court also upheld the FEe

status as an independent agency.

citing a number of court cases tha

specifically sanction such entities

The appeals court ruling rever

district court decision that the NR

had violated 2 U.S.c. §44 lb(a) b

contributing corporate funds to it

separate segregated fund. the NR

Political Victory Fund. (for a sum

mary of that case, see the January

1992 Record.) Having ruled on th

Constitutional issue. the appeals c

did not consider the merits of the 

Commission Response

In the wake of the appeals cou

decision, the Commission has tak

number of steps to ensure the uni

rupted enforcement of the federal

ejection law.

October 26: Reconstitution.

Subject to furtherjudicial review

Commission voted to reconstitute

itself as a six-member body, com

ing only those Commissioners

appointed by the President.

November 2: Appeal to Suprem

Court. The reconstituted Commis

decided to petition the Supreme C

for a writ of certiorari in the case

That decision is consistent with th

agency's tradition of defending th

constitutionality of the FECA. In 

petition, the FEC will ask the hig

court to address the separation of

powers issue, and- if necessary- 

consider its effect on other agenc

actions.

November 4: Ratification of

Regulations. Forms and Advisory

Opinions. As a precaution, the

Commission voted to ratify its

existing regulations and forms. an

confirm the efficacy of its adviso

opnnons .

November 9: Ratification ofAu

MURs and Litigation. The Comm

sion re-voted or ratified its past

actions regarding ongoing audits

adopted specific procedures for r

voting or ratifying its decisions

related to ongoing enforcement c

(MURs) and litigation.
•

•

December 1993

Future actions on ML"Rs willdepend upon the statusof (he enforcemen! matter and (he facts of the

specific cases:

elf the MUR is in (he investigative

stage. the Commission will re-vere

on the question of reason to believe

(RTB);

- If the Commission has authorized

formal discovery. but the respondent

has not complied with the subpoena

or order. theCommission willrevoteon authorizing the subpoenaor

order;

- If the MUR investigation is complete. the Commission will rarify its

prior finding of RTB:

<If the Commissionhas found probable cause to believe. it will re-vote

on that question;

<If the Commission is engaged in

pre-probable cause conciliation with

a respondent. it will re-vote all enteringconciliation and on the last approved proposed conciliation

agreement; and

- If the Commission is engaged in

post-probable cause conciliation

with a respondent, it will re-vote on

approval of the last proposed conciliation agreement.

With respect to enforcement

litigation, for each case the Commission will vote to ratify its prior actions

and to authorize the General Counsel

to continue proceeding with the

suit. +

FEC v, Committee of 11M)

Democrats

On September 30. 1993, the

District Court for the District of

Columbia granted the Commie....ion's

molion for summary judgment against

the Committee of 100Democrats.

Throw the Rascals Out (a.k.a. the

Committee to Elect Fusee to Congress) and Dominick A. Fusco, the

treasurer of both committees.

The CQUIt ruled that Mr. Fusco and

the committees had violated the terms

of two conciliation agreements related

to an FEC enforcement action (Marter

Under Review 3148). The COUlt

ordered the defendants to comply

with the agreements. assessed $1.000

penalties against each committee and

enjoined the defendants from future

violations of the agreements.

Noting that Mr. Fusco was named

as a party to the conciliation agreements and had signed them both. the

CQUIt concluded that his "status as a

party to each of the agreements

subjects him to personal liability for

[heir violation." As a result. the court

held Mr. Fusco and the committees

"jointly liable" for compliance with

the conciliation agreements and

payment of the additional penalties.

To comply with the conciliation

agreements. the Conunittee of 100

Democrats-s-and Mr. Fusco. as its

treasurer-had to register with the

Commission and file the appropriate

reports of receipts and disbursements.

Mr. Fusco and his Committee to Elect

Fuseo [0 Congress (formerly Throw

the Rascals Out) had to pay the FEC a

$3,500 civil penalty. The court

directed the defendants to comply

with its order within 10 days. +

Khacbaturlan v, FEe

The U.S. COLI n of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit dismissed this case on

October 13 at the request of Jon

Khacharunan. (No. 93-3365).

Mr. Khacharurian had appealed a

district court ruling that he failed to

present a plausible constitutional

challenge to the $1.000contribution

limit. Mr. Khacharu rian had argued

that the limit. as applied to his

independent candidacy. impeded him

from raising sufficient funds to

compete effectively against the

incumbent major-party candidate. The

district court opinion was summarized

in the August 1993 Record. page 5. +

Federal Election Comm ission RE

New Litigat ion

Robe rtson v. r EC

Pat Robertson and his 1988

Presidential campaign committe

Americansfor Robertson. ask th

COUll 10 review the l-"'EC's determ

tion that the campaign repay alm

S300.<XX) in public funds to the 

Treasury.' (The campaign had

received over $10million in fed

matching funds for the 1988 Pre

tial primaries.) Contending thai 

FEC failed 10 notify the campaig

it.s repayment obligation within 

deadline specified in 26 U.S.c.

§9038(c). the campaign asks me

court. inter alia. whether the FE

the authority to seek repayment

Michael Dukakis and Senato

Simon have also challenged the

FEC' s repayment determination

respect to their 1988 Presidemia

primary campaigns. Both candid

raised the late-notification argum

as well2 (in addition to other iss

The Robertson campaign has as

the court to schedule the campa

case before the same panel ofju

who will hear the Simon and Du

suits and on the same day as tho

suits, The Commission has oppo

this motion, maintaining that the

Robertson campaign waived the 

notification argument by failing 

raise it before the Commission i

timely manner, as FEC regulatio

require.' U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit. No

1698, October 20. 1992. +

I See the November Record. page 5

1Su AugWI issue, page 7.
Ft'l/e",I Election Comminitm RECORD Dl'ct'mber 

----- -----'-

Regulations

tco nunuedfrom page!'

but lackscontributor identification.

the treasurer must-s-within 30 daysmake an additional written or oral

request for the informalion. That request may not include an additional

solicuatioo or material on any other

subject It may. however. thank the

contributor for hislher donalion. Writlen requests must include a preaddressed return post card orenvelope

for the contributor's response.

Report ing

Committees must. of course, disclose on their HI reportstbe information provided J=ly each contributor.

Under the new rules. committee treasurers must also disclose information

that was no! provided by the contributor. but is available in the committee's

records for that two-year election

cycle, including its contributor

records, fundraising records and previous reports.

Filing A mendments

If a commiuee receives contributor

information after the contributions

have been reported. the committee

must either:

• Submit with its next report. an

amended memo Schedule A listing

all the contributions for which

additional information was received

during that reporting period; or

• File. on or before the next reporting

date, amendments to the previous

reports on which the contributions

were originally disclosed.

Under either option. committees

should cross reference the new informarion 10 the specific reports and

entries that are being amended. Committees need only amend the informalion pertaining to contributions

received during the current two-year

election cycle. +

4

Commission Promulgates New

Membership Rules

The Commission's new membership regulations look effect November

10.1 993. (58 FR 59&+1). The new

regulations specify the organizational

and financial anachmenrs necessary

for persons 10 qualify as "members"

of incorporated membership groups.

(For a summary of the new rules.see

the October 1993Record.)

The American Society of Assccialion Executives (ASAE) had asked

the FEC to withdraw the rules, but the

Commission denied that request. In

doing so. the Commission noted that.

contrary to the concerns expressed by

ASAE. the new rules were designed

to be less restrictive than those

previously in place.

Under the new rules, the Commission will consider. through (he

advisoryopinion process. whether

alternative membership arrangements

might satisfy (he new definition of

member.

The new regulations were published in the Federal Register on

A"S"" 30. 1993 (58 FR 45770). •

Newl\l ulticandidate Rules

Effective J anuary I

f\ew requirements for multicandidate committees will take effect January 1. 1994 (58 FR 59641).The new

rules will make it easier to identify

committees that have achieved multicandidate status.I (Multicandidate

committees may contribute up to

$5.000 to a candidate per election:

other committees are subject 10 a

$1.000 per election limit.)

Under the new rules. committees

thai qualify for multicandidare status

J To qun/ifyfor melticondidate stone .

commit/us muslreceivecontributions

from oi least 5/ person s, be registered at

leastjU months andcowibuie 10 ai teau

five federal candidates. (The last require -

ment does not apply 10S101~ part), commillees.)

must disclose that fact on each rep

(Fom13X) they file. Committees 

have not disclosed their rnultic and

date status by January I. 199-1-. m

also submit an FEC Form 1~ to d

onstrate thai they have met the mu

candidate c riteria. before they

contribute more than51.<XX> [0 a c

didate per election

In addition. mulricandidate com

mittees mUSI include written notic

their status with each contribution

they make.

The new regulations were pub

lished in the August 6, 1993. Fede

Register (58 FR42172) ard were

summarized in the September 199

Reco rd . •

Hearing Held on Proposed

Changes to Enforcement R

On Oc tober 20. the Commissio

held a public hearing on proposed

regulations designed 10 clarify and

streamline the agency's enforcem

procedures. (For a summary of th

proposed changes. see the August

1993Record.s

The Commission received nine

written comments on the proposed

rules and heard testimony from th

witnesses. Each of the witnesses a

knowledged the difficulty in craft

rulesthat streamline enforcement

procedures without jeopardizing t

respondents' right to due process.

Two of the wimesses-c-Dravid

Frutla (Brand & Lowell) and Tho

Josefiak (RNC}-urged the Comm

sion 10 ease deadlines on responde

at allstages of the enforcement pr

cess. They also argued that respon

dents should have greater access t

the Commission. Mr. Frulla urged 

Commission to hold oral hearings 

allow respondents to present their

case directly to the Commission. M

Josefiak suggested that the Comm

sion eliminate the review and anal

of resporderus' briefs, currently c

ducted by the agency's Office of G

eral Counsel (OGC).This, he argu

would ensure due process and exp

dite enforcement.
•

•

December / 993

The third witness- Elizabeth

Hedlund (Center forResponsive Politicsj-c-srressed the importance of

expediting enforcement. She urged

the Commission to adhere strictly to

the statutory deadlines, and opposed

holding oral hearings because they

would furtherdelay enforcement

proceedings.

The witnesses also discussed treasurer and candidate liability for committee violations.

In drafting the final rules, rhe Commission will review all written comments and testimony. •

Parties Testify Oil Proposed

Convention Rules

On October 27, representatives

from theRepublican and Democratic

national party committees testifiedat

a public hearing on proposedchanges

to the FEe ' s rules governing publicly

funded Presidential nominating conventions. The proposed rules would

address the audit process. vendor

documentation, legal and accounting

expenses, civil penalties and reporting

by host committees. municipalities

and convention committees. (For a

summary of the proposed rules, see

the September 1993 Record.)

The Democrats supported some of

theCommission's proposals, but the

Republicans opposed the entire rulemaking, claiming that it was "an unwarranted intrusion into internal party

activities" protected by the First

Amendment. The IU";C warned that

the party would challengethe rules in

court, if the Commission prescribed

them.

Both parties raised objections to

specific proposals that

• Convention committees attach to

their reports copies of contracts with

host committees and convention

cities;

• Municipalities and government

agencies supporting convention

activities file reports with the FEC;

aod

• Convention comrrunees obtain

signed statements from vendors

confirming that discountsare offered

according to normal business practices and do notexceed the commercial benefit the vendor expects to

receive.

The DNC supported many of the

other changes the Commission has

suggested, including a proposal that

conventionCommittees begin to file

reports earlier.The proposed ruIe

would require a conventioncommittee to file its first report at the end of

the quarter during which it either

received its first payment of public

funds or began makingdisbursements. The DNC suggested, however,

that theCommission not requireconvention committees to register and

report until their disbursements exceed $5,000. •

Commtsston Revises Interim

Ex Parte Rules

On October 28, the Commission

adopted revised interim rules on ex

parte communicationsthat reflect

public comments and testimony. and

its own experience with the previous

rules. (Ex parte communications are

written and oral communications

made by persons outside the agency

to Commissioners or theirstaff concerning substantive Commission

action.)The revised rules, which took

effect November 10, replace those

adopted in December 1992, (For a

summaryof the previous niles, see

the January 1993 Record.)

The amended rules extend the ban

on ex parte communications regarding audits and litigation to those concerning public funding. (Ex parte

communications pertaining to

enforcement actions are subject to a

separateprohibition. I I CF-l{ 7,15 and

111 .22,) Commissioners and their

staff must attempt to prevent these

communications, If, however, they do

receive a prohibited communication,

they must

Fedem! DeC/ion Commission RE

• Advise the person making the c

munication that it will not be co

ered; and

• Submit to the Designated Agen

Ethics Official a statement des

ing the substance and circumst

of the communication. That su

sion must occur within three bu

ness days or prior to the agency

next consideration of the matte

whicheveroccurs first. The sta

ment becomes part of the fi le r

to the pertinentaudit, court cas

public funding decision.

Ex parte communications rela

rulemaklng proceedings and adv

opinions continue to be permitte

the recipient Commissioner ors

member must disclose the conta

with in three business days (rathe

two) or prior to the Commission

next consideration of the matter.

whichever occurs first. Such com

nications become part of the pub

record.

The ex parte niles do not app

discussions involving the proced

statusof an open matter or to sta

ments made in a public forum.

The revised regulations includ

possibility of sanctions for viola

of the rules, In response to a wri

complaint, the Designated Agen

Ethics Official would recommen

the Commission an appropriate

action, The Commission wou ld

consider the recommendation an

decide what action to take by a v

of at least four Commissioners.

Only communications made 

Commissioners and members of 

staff are governed by the revised

rules, The previous rules had ap

to both incoming and outgoing

communications. The Commiss

now plans to consider an Interna

agency directive to address ourg

communications,

The Commission adopted the

revised rules on an interim basis 

may reevaluate them in light of 

written comments received. (Co

mentswere due December 10.) 5

59642, November to, 1993. +
F!deral f lee/ion () mmi.H on RECO"'R"D'-- _ December 

,

Advisory

Opinions

FEe Invites Comments

on Drafi AOs

The FEC. on a trial basis. has

adopted a procedure to permit

interested persons 10 commem on

draft advisory opinions. The new

policy builds upon a statutory requirement that advisory opinion requests

(AORs) be released to the public for

comment. 2 USc. §.j37f(d). The

Commission wiJl now accept comments nor only on the AOR. bUI also

on the proposed response prepared by

the Office of General Counsel(OGC).

Under the new policy. each OGC

draft opinion will be available in the

FEe's Public Disclosure Division one

week before the Conunission considers it in a public meeting. Comments

on the OGC draft mUSI be submitted

in duplicate 10 the Secretary of the

Commission and to OGe by noon.

the day before the meeting. Legible

telefax transmissions will be accepted.

Since the Commission typically holds

its open meetings on Thursdays. draft

opinions generally will be available

on the preceding Thursday, and

comments will be due by noon on the

Wednesday before the meeting. The

new procedures will not apply to

advisory opinion requests that qualify

for the expedited 20-day opinion

process set forth at I I CFR I l2.4(b).

TIle Commission has adopted this

policy on a trial basis. untilJune I,

1994. At that time. it will determine

whether the policy should become

permanent.

To obtain a copy of an AOR and

draft opinion. call 8O<Y424-9530 (ask

for Public Records) or 2021219-

41-10. +

6

AO 1993-17

Preemption of State Alloca tion

Rules

Commission regulations require

comminees that maintain separate

federal and nonfederal bank accounts

10 allocate certain expenses between

those accounts. according 10 specific

formulas. II CFR 106.5and 106.6.

The Commission determined that

these rules preempt a Massachusetts

requirement that party committees

pay a prescribed portion of shared

federaVnonfederal expenses with

fundsraised under stale law. As a

result. [he Massachusetts Democratic

Party may use federal funds to pay up

10 100 percent of its allocable administrative expenses.

Background

Under I I CFR 106.5. Slate and

local party commi ttees with separate

federal and nonfederal accounts must

allocate their administrative and generic voter drive expenses using the

"ballol composition method:' COSIS

are allocated according 10 the ratio of

federal offices to total federal and

nonfedcral offices expected on the

ballot in the next general election,

Committees calculate this ratio by

assigning federal and nonfedcral

points that correspond to the offices

appearing on the ballot. The points for

federal offices are mandatory. but the

nonfederal points are optional. The

ratio. therefore, establishes the minimum percentage of expenses that

must be paid with federal funds (i.e.

those raised under federal restrictions).

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign & Political Finance. through an

interpretive bulletin applying state

law, sought 10 make the nonfcderal

points mandarory-c-establishing fixed

federal and nonfederal percentages for

allocable expenses. The Commission,

however. staled thai the allocation

regulations were designed 10 give

conuninees the flexibility 10 pay for

more than [he minimum federal share

of allocable expenses with federal

funds. To the extent that the state

provision denied Ihe slate party c

mittee thai flexibility. the Comm

sion preempted it.

In doing so, the Commission e

cised its statutory authority to pre

any state law thai attempts to reg

federal elections. 2 U.$.C. §453;

II CFR 108.7(b). Since alJocable

expenses are subject 10 t-'EC rule

and "are inextricably intertwined 

federal election activity," the Com

mission determined that preempt

was appropriate.

Date Issued: October 25, 1993

Length: 6 pages. Vice Chairman

Trevor Poner and Commissioner

D. Aikens submitted a dissenting

opinion (3 pages). Conunissioner 

Ann Elliott wrote a concurring

opinion (2 pages). +

Advisory Opinion Request

The advisory opinion requests

(AORs) listed below are availabl

review and comment in the FE('

Public Records Office.

AOR 19'H-20

Campaign's discounted purchase 

the candidate's biography for dis

tion to campaign supporters. (Sen

Ben Nighthorse Campbell; Octob

26, 1993: 4 pages)

AOR 1993-21

Preemption of slate law prohibiti

deposit of tax-checkoff funds into

allocation account for payment o

administrative expenses. (Ohio

Republican Party; November I, 1

2 pages plus attachments) +
•

•

December 1993

Compliance

;\IURs Released 11I Ihe Puhlic

Listed below are FEe enforcement

cases (Matters Under Review or

MURs) recently released for public

review. TIle list is based on the FEe

press releases of October 22 and

November I. 1993. Files on closed

UR are available for review in the

Public Records Office.

.' IUR 2576

Respondents (all in NY): (a) William

1.Leviu;(bl Rocenroy.Ltd; (el 15 ioctivictuals; (d) one individual;(e) six.

individuals

Complaina nt: Pamela A. Mann.

Assistant New York Attorney General.

Charities Bureau

Subject: Contributions in the nameof

another; contributions by a foreign

national: corporate contributions

lJisposition: (a) $19500 civil penalty;

(b) $19.500civil penalty: (e) civil

penalties of between S150 and

$ 1,000; (d) admission of violation bUI

no civil penalty: (e) reason to believe

but took no further action

MUR 3380

Respondents: Collins for Congress,

James G. Collins, treasurer (MA)

Complainant: Sua sponte

Subject: Excessive contribution in

form of a loan

Disposition: $6,000 civil penalty

1U 372-1

Respond ents: Dave Emery for

Congress. James Nicholson. treasurer

(VA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (audit

for cause)

Correction

In the Novemberissue. one of the

respondents in 1U 371 413612

was incorrectly i&.'T1tifict.l a.,

"KSKA-TV : " 1berespoedcnt

should have been lil>ted as

" KDKA-TV:'

Subject: Excessive contributions:

failure to file ag-toor notices

Disposition: $2.250 civil penalty

MLTR 3742

Respondents: Rhea Jeze r forCon,

gress. Richard P. Cox. treasurer

Complainant: Maria Cino, Executive

Director, National Republican

Congressional Comminee (DC)

Subject: Disclaimer; failure to amend

Statement of Organization on time

Disposition: Reason to believe but

took no further action

tUR 3760

Responderus: National Beer wholesalers' Association PAC, Ronald

Sarasin, treasurer (VA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions;

inaccurate disclosure

Disposition: 51.300 civil penalty

MUR 379-1

Respon dents: (a) Committee to Elect

Olene Walker for Congress (un;

(b) J. Myron Walker (UT)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions

Disposition: (a) and (b ) Reason to

believe but took no further action +

Federal

Register

Copies of Federal Register notices are

available from the Public Records

Office.

199.1-25

II CFR Part 104: Recordkeeping and

Reporting by Political Committees:

Best Efforts; Final Rule; Transmittal

to Congress (58 FR57725, October

27,1993)

1993-26

JI CFR Part 20 I: Ex Parte Communications; Revised Interim Rules (58 FR

596-12, November 10, 1993)

I I CFR Chapter I: Ratification of

Frdera! Etecnon Commission RE

Regulations (58 FR 59640.l'\ov

10. 1993)

1993-28

II Cf'R Parts 100 and 114; Defi

of "Member" of a Membership

Association; Final Rule; Annou

mem of Effective Date (58 FR5

November 10. 1993)

19'-J3·29

11eFR Parts 102and 110: Muh

didate Political Committees; Fin

Rule; Announcement of Effectiv

Date (58 FR 5964 I , November 

1993)

1993·30

I I ern Part 112: Policy Statem

Advisory Opinion Precedent (58 

5l:J<H 2. November 10. 1993)

Index

The first number in each cita

refers to the "nu mber" (month) 

1993 Record issue in which the 

appeared.The second number. fo

ing the colon, indicates the page 

ber in that issue.

Adviso ry Op inions

1992-38: Loan from Presidentia

campaign-s legal and complia

fund to public funding accoun

1992-40: Commissions earned b

slate party committees. 2:5

1992-41: Solicitation of membe

1992-42: Bank deposit lost in m

303

1992-43: Preemption of stale law

fundraising restrictions. 3:4

1992-44: Qualifying as national 

committee. 6:5

1993-1: Campaign's rental of sto

unit from candidate. 4:8

1993-2: Application of party spe

limits to Texas special runoff

1993-3: Retroactive reallocation 

1991-92 activity, 5:I

1993-4: Electronic payment of b

through computer. 6:5

(comillued on p
FederalElection Commission RECORD

I"de

(continued from page 7)

1993-5: 1992 contributions misplaced

at post office, 6:6

1993-6: se of excess funds by

former House member,7:6

1993-7: arne of corporate PAC. 9:6

1993-8: Preemption of state law

prohibit ing contribution s from

incorporated committees, 9:6

1993-9: Preemption of state law

prohibiting corporate donations to

party building fund. 10:8

1993- 10: Useof excess campaign

funds, 9:7

1993-1 1: Transfer from nonfederal

campaign to 1988 Presidential

compliance fund, 10:8

1993-12: Indian tribe as federal

contractor, 11:6

1993-13: Excess campaign funds

donated for scholarship, 10:9

1993-1 4: Preemption of state law's

registration, reporting and contribution requirements. 10:9

1993- 15: Funds raised for legal

expense related to DOJ investigation of campaign consultant, 10: 10

1993-16: olicitable class for corporate S F. I 1:6

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

*Printed on recycled paper

1993-17: Preemption of tare allocation rules, 12:6

Court Ca e

FECv.

- America's PAC, 4:10

- Californians for aStrong America,

10:3

- Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee. I I: I

- Committee of 100 Democrats. 12:3

- Intemational Funding Institute, 1:2;

5:2

- Maggin for Congress Committee,

11 :3

- M ill er, 6:8

- j RA Polit ical Vi ctory Fund, 12:2

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-0365), 6:8

- People & Polit ics, Inc., 3:3

- Polit ical Contributions Data.Inc.,

8:6

v.FEC

- Common au.e (92-0249 (JHG»,

4: 10

- Common Cause (92-2538), 1:8; 8:5

- Democratic enatorial Campaign

Committee (93- 1321), 8:7

- Dukakis, 8:7

- Khachaturian, 8:5; 12:3

- LaRouche (92-1100), 9:3

December 

- LaRouche (92-1555), 1:8; 6:8

- ational Rifle Association (92

5078),4:I0

- Robertson, 12:3

- imon,8:7

- pannau (9 1-0681), 6:7

- White (93-771). 6:

. . enator John Seymour Com

tee v, Dianne Feinstei n, 1:8

Weber, cr al. v. Heaney. et al.. 8: 

Reports

Last-minute contributions: 48-ho

reporting, 4:7

Reporting problems. letter to new

candidates, 4:8

Schedule for 1993. 1:3; 6:I

Special elections

- Californ ia, Mississippi, Ohio.

Texa and Wisconsin, 3: I; 4:7

- M ichigan, 9: 10; 10:6; 11:6

Statefil ing, 9:6

800 Line Article

Credit card contributions. 5:5

Party committee allocation: carry

debts from previous election cy

2:7

$25.000 annual limit. 4:2

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commissi

Permit Number G-31