July 1995

Table of Contents

Conferences

FEC to Hold Conferences this Fall

Budget

Budget Cuts Before Senate

Compliance

2 MUR 2884: Presidential Candidate

to Pay $21,000Civil Penalty

2 MUR 4016/4076: Senate Committee to Pay $32,000Civil Penalty

I I MURs Released to the Public

Public Funding

3 Alexander, Buchanan and Dole

Declared Eligible

3 Matching Fund Submission and

Certification Dates

4 Hearing on Bush-Quayle

4 Final Repayment for Wilder

4 Federa l Register Notices

Publications

5 1994 Annual Report

Motor Voter

5 California Implementation Plan

Statistics

6 Congressional Financial Activity

7 Political Party Activity

Court Cases

8 Abanese v. FEC

9 FECv . Populist Party

9 Dukakis v. FEC, Simon v. FEC

Audits

10 Bennett for Senate

13 Advisory Opinions

Information

13 New Flashfax Materials

13 Flashfax menu

15 Index

Federal Election Commission

Conferences

FEC to Hold '95 Conferences

in San Antonio, San Francisco

and Washington, DC

FEC conferences offer basic and

advanced workshops on the federal

campaign finance law and provide

attendees the opportunity to discuss

problems and questions with FEC

Commissioners and staff, and

representatives of the Internal

Revenue Service. For 1995, the FEC

has scheduled the following regional

confe rences for candidates, party

committees and PACs:

• San Antonio, TX, September 7-8,

at the La Mansion del Rio Hotel,

$110 per night (2 10/225-2581 or

800/53 1-7208 or in TX 800/292-

7300), Conference fee: $ 140: In

addition to FEC workshops,

representatives of the Texas Ethics

Commission will present a workshop on Texas campaign finance

law,

• San Francisco, CA, October 23-24,

at the Miyako Hotel, $99 per night

(4 15/922-3200 or 800/533 -4567).

Conference fee: $145: In addition

(continued on page 2)

• Thisf ee includes the cost ofall

conf erence materials and three meals

(two continental breakfa sts and a

lunch).

Volume 21, Number 7

Budget

FEC ViceChairman Addresses

Budget Cuts Before the Senate

On May 18, Vice Chairman Lee

Ann Elliott, as chair of the FEC's

Finance Committee, spoke before a

I Senate subcommittee in defense of

the FEC's $29 million FY '96 budget

request. She also argued against a

then pending $1.4 million FY '95

rescission; President Clinton has since

vetoed the $ 16.4 billion rescissions

package that included this FY '95 cut.

In presenting the FEC' s case,

Vice Chairman Elliott noted that

despite an explosive growth in

campaign spending, the agency:

• Closed a record number of enforcement cases in the first 3

months of 1995;

• Increased the number of transactions coded per employee to

11 2,000; and

• Reduced the average data-coding

time for reports by 38 percent in

one year.

In closing, Vice Chairman Elliott

said, "[For '96 we] estimate [federal]

campaign disbursements will go up

another 20 percent to $2.25 billion,

Our budget request, howeve r, seeks

only a modest $ 1.9 million increase,"

Vice Chairman Elliott testified a

second time, this time before the

Senate Committee on Rules and

Admin istration, on June 15.•
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Conferences

(continued from pag e 1)

to FEC workshops, representatives

of the California Fair Political

Practices Commission will present

a workshop on California campaign finance law.

The FEC also plans to hold two

PAC conferences in Washington,

D.C.: one specifically geared to

corporations and labor organizations: the other geared to trade

associations and membership

organizations. Details on these

COl ferences will appear in future

Record issues as they become

available.

To receive registration materials

for either the San Antonio or San

Francisco conference, call:

800/424-9530 or

202/219-3420. •

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/2 19-3420

202/50 1-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD)

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Trevor Potter, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Durio Bard, Editor

2

Compliance

MUR2884

Presidential Candidate

Bruce Babbitt to Pay $21,000

Civil Penalty

Governor Bruce Babbitt I and the

Babbitt for President committee, his

principal campaign committee

during his 1988 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination,

agreed to pay a $21,000 civil

penalty for the following violations:

• Misstating the amount of cash on

hand and total receipts and disbursements for 1988, a violation of

2 U.S.C. §434(b)( I), (2) and (4);

• Accepting an $8,000 excessive inkind contribution from an individual and from Babbitt for

Arizona, Governor Babbitt's state

committee, a violation 2 of 2 U.S.C.

§§441a(f) and 434(b); and

• Accepting $7,0 11 in excessive

contributions from individuals, a

violation of 2 U.S.c. §44 Ia(f).

The financial misstatements were

substantial, including understatements of 1988 total receipts and

disbursements by $61,156 and

$170,635, respectively. Although

these misstatements were inadvertent errors resulting from a large

intlux of contributions and a sudden

reduction in campaign staff, all

campaigns, especially Presidential

campaigns accepting public funding,

are required to devote the necessary

resources to fulfill their reporting

obligations.

2 U.S.c. §441a(l)(A) limits the

amount a'person may contribute to a

I Bef ore his Presidential bid, Governor

Babbitt was the Gove rnor ofArizona.

2 When this enfo rcement mailer was

initiated, it was legal for candidates 10

transf er f unds and assets from their

nonfe deral to theirfede ral commit tees.

This changed on July 1, 1993, when the

Commission prescribed 11 CFR

110.3(d), makin g such transfers illegal.

July [995

candidate's committee to $1,000 per

election. Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act), Babbitt for

Arizona is considered a person.

2 U.S.c. §43 1(I I). Governor

Babbitt's Presidential campaign

received free of charge from Babbitt

for Arizona and an individual a

mailing list they had bought for

$10,000. In effect, then, Babbitt for

Arizona and the individual made a

$10,000 contribution, $8,000 in

excess of their limits as established

at 2 U.s.c. §441a(l )(A).

Similarly, Babbitt for President

accepted 24 contributions totaling

$7,0 11 from individuals who had

already exhausted their per election

limit. •

MUR4016/4076

Coverdell Senate Committee

to Pay $32,000 for Excessive

Contributions and Improper

Reporting of Earmarked

Contributions

The Coverdell Senate Committee,

active in Georgia's 1992 U.S.

Senate race, agreed to pay a $32,000

civil penalty for the following

violations:

• Failing to report $81,600 in

contributions as earmarked and

failing to disclose the conduits for

those funds, in violation of II CFR

II O.6(c)(2);

• Accepting excessive contributions

totaling $65,936, in violation of

2 U.s.c. §44 Ia(f); and

• Failing to accurately report contributions, in violation of 2 U.S.c.

§434(a)( I).

Earmarked contributions are contributions that a candidate receives

from his or her supporters through a

conduit. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(8).

When accepting earmarked contributions, committees must identify

the conduit and disclose the total
July 1995 Federal Election Commission RECORD

1997

January 2 January 30

February 3 February 27

March 3 March 28

(Public Funding continued on page 4)

one submission and one resubmission. After reviewing the submissions

and resubmissions, the Commission

forwards a certification for payment

to the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury,

in turn, generally makes payments

within 48 hours of the certification

date for each submission.

A campaign need not wait for a

submission date to present a threshold submission-the original

submission a campaign presents in

I order to establish eligibility for

matching fund s. Threshold submissions may be submitted at any time.

To establish eligibility for public

funding, a Presidential candidate

must collect $5,000 in matchable

contributions in each of 20 states.

Matchable contributions include

only contributions from individuals,

and no more than $250 of anyone

individual's contributions may be

applied to the $5,000 threshold.•

amount received from the conduit,

the date of receipt of such contribution and contributor information

(name, address, employer, amount

of contribution) for each earmarked

contribution. II CFR 110.6(c)(2) .

The Coverdell committee received

$81,600 in earmarked contributions

from the National Republican

Senatorial Committee and Campaign America. Instead of reporting

these contributions as explained

above, the committee reported them

as direct contributions and did not

reveal the identity of the conduits.

In addition to paying the civil

penalty, the committee had to

amend its reports to identify all

earmarked contributions and the

conduits which delivered them.

2 U.s.C. §44lf prohibits candidate committees from accepting

more than $1,000 per election from

anyone person. The Coverdell

committee accepted excessive

contributions totaling $65,936 from

95 persons I who had already

exhausted their $1,000 per election

limit. These excessive contributions

were not clearly evident because the

committee failed to report these

contributions accurately in its

original reports. Once the committee

amended the reports, the violations

came to light.

Although the committee refunded

approximately $42,000 of this total,

such remedial action was not taken

within the 60-day grace period

established at 11 CFR 103.3(b)(3).

The committee had to refund the

remaining amount to the contributors or to the U.S. Treasury. •

(Compliance continued on page 11)

I This group included 94 individuals

and 1 non-multicandidate political

committee (political committees are

considered pers ons under 2 U.S.c.

§431 (11)). It should be noted that had

this committee been a multicandidate

committee, its per election limit would

have been $5,000 instead of $1,000.

Public Funding

Alexander, Buchanan and

Dole Declared Eligible For

MatchingFunds

On May 31, the FEC certified

three 1996 Presidential candidates

as eligible to receive public matching funds. The certifications of

Governor Lamar Alexander, Mr.

Patrick Buchanan and Senator

Robert Dole bring the total number

of 1996 candidates certified to four;

they join Senator Phil Gramm, who

was certified on March 20, 1995.

To establish eligibility for the

Presidential public funding program,

a candidate must submit documentation showing that he or she has

raised in excess of $5,000 in matchable contributions in each of at least

20 states. Only contributions received

from individuals, and only up to $250

of a contributor's total , are matchable. This threshold submission is

reviewed by the FEe's Audit

Division. The candidate must also

certify that he or she will abide by

spending limits, use funds for

campaign-related expenses only,

agr ee to an FEC audit and otherwise

comply with the election law .

Once Presidential candidates establish eligibility for matching funds,

they may submit additional contributions for matching fund consideration on a monthly basis. See the

schedule of submission and certification dates on the right. The federal

government will match an eligible

campaign's matchable contributions

on a dollar-for-dollar basis.•

Matching Fund Submission

andCertification Dates for '96

Candidates for the Presidency in

1996 who are eligible to receive

public funding may submit contributions for matching funds only on the

submission dates listed in the accompanying chart. For each submission date, candidates may present

Submission

1995

May 1

June 1

July 3

August 1

September I

I October 2

November 1

December 1

1996

January 2

February 1

March 1

April 1

May 1

June 3

July 1

August 1

September 3

October 1

November I

December 2

Certification

December 27

December 27

December 27

December 27

December 27

December 27

December 27

December 27

January 30

February 28

March 28

April 29

May 30

June 27

July 30

August 29

September 27

October 30

November 27

December 30

3
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Public Funding

(contin ued from page 3)

Hearing on Bush-Quayle '92

Repayment Determinations

In a May 17, 1995, oral presentation, counsel for the Bush-Quayle

'92 Primary Committee, the BushQuayle '92 General Committee and

the Bush-Quayle '92 Compliance

Committee challenged the Commission's initial repayment determinations. In the final audit reports, the

Commission determined:

• That the primary committee had to

repay $ 195,224 to the U.S. Treasury, representing the pro rata

portion of nonqualified expenses it

paid; and

• That the primary committee had to

repay $485,63 1 to the U.S. Treasury for public funds received in

excess of its entitlement.

Nonqualified Campaign Expenses

In the final audit report, the

Commission determined that after

the last 1992 primary and caucus but

before the GOP nomination, the

primary committee incurred expenFederal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC's Public

Records Office.

1995-7

Scheduleof Matching Fund

Submission and Certification

Dates for 1996 Presidential

Candidates(60 FR21522, May 2,

1995)

1995-8

II CFR 104, 11 0 and 114:

Repeal of Obsolete Rules (60 FR

3138 1,June 15, 1995)

1995-9

I I CFR 106, 9002-9039:

Public Financing of Presidential

Candidates (60 FR31854, June

16, 1995)

4

ditures that at least in part benefited

the general committee. These

included payments for polling, focus

group surveys, direct mail, list

rentals, shipping and materials, print

media services, leased office space

and equipment. The Commission

allocated half of these expenses to

the primary committee and half to

the general committee, thus arriving

at the $195,224 pro rata repayment

figure for nonqualified campaign

expenses.

Counsel for the committees

argued, however, that the Commission's approach represented a

departure from a precedent it had

established in its audit of the Reagan

Bush '84 Primary Committee and in

Advisory Opinions 1975-9 and

1978-99. The Commission's actions

in those instances, counsel claimed,

served to establish a bright line test;

according to this test, expenses

incurred for materials and services

used before the date of the nomination are qualified primary election

expenses. Counsel said dividing the

expenditures in question between

the committees represented an

unprecedented break with the bright

line standard; instead of classifying

an expense based on the date the

materials and services were used,

the Commission split it based on the

extent to which the materials and

services were related to the primary

and general election efforts.

Additionally, counsel maintained

that even under this approach, these

expenses should be regarded as

primary expenses because they were

part of an overall effort to shore up

support for the candidate's nomination at the GOP convention.

Excess Matching Funds

Counsel noted that should the

Commission accept the above

arguments and determine that the

nonqualified campaign expenses

were actually qualified, then it

would find that the primary committee did not receive matching funds

in excess of entitlement.

July 1"995

The committees were given 5

business days following the date of

the oral presentation in which to

submit any documentation they

wished to add to the hearing record.

The committees submitted additional materials on May 24. The

Commission will consider the

contents of the hearing record in

arriving at a final repayment determination figure, which will be set

forth in a publicly released Statement of Reasons. •

Final Repayment for Wilder

for President Set at $21,738

On May 4, 1995, the Commission

made a final determination that

Governor L. Douglas Wilder and the

Wilder for President Committee, his

1992 Presidential campaign, must

repay $21,738 to the U.S. Treasury.

This sum is comprised of an $11,515

repayment representing a pro rata

portion of nonqualified campaign

expenses and a $10,223 repayment

for matching funds received in

excess of entitlement.

This determination reduces the

initial repayment figure of $31,0 58

($12,026 for nonqualified campaign

expenses and $ 19,032 for matching

funds received in excess of entitlement) contained in the final audit

report. The reduction was the result

of adjustments in the amount of

nonqualified expenses incurred by

the committee and the valuation of

some of its computer assets. See

page 6 of the June 1994 Record for

a summary of the final audit report,

and page 3 of the December 1994

Record for a summary-of the

subsequent public hearing.

Adjusted Nonqualified Campaign

Expen ses

The final audit report determined

that the committee had to repay all

of the public funds it used to cover

the expense of a personal trip

Governor Wilder took to New York

City. Since this expense was not

campaign related, the use of public
Juiy 1995

money could not be justified.

Governor Wilder, however, subsequently reimbursed the committee

$2,785 for the cost of his trip, thus

eliminating it as a campaign expense altogether. The Commission

adjusted the repayment determination for nonqualified campaign

expenses accordingly.

Additionally, the committee

submitted documentation demonstrating that certain expenses should

be reclassified as qualified campaign expenses. Among these

expenses were $2,392 for a staff

member's campaign-related travel

and $457 in Federal Express charges

for campaign-related mailings.

In light of the reduction in the

committee's repayment obligation,

the Commission determined that

$990 in other expenses were not

entirely paid for with private funds,

as previously thought; the use of

public funds for these nonqualified

campaign expenses increased the

committee's repayment obligation.

This $990 brought the committee's

net total in nonqualified expenses to

$40,429, giving rise to a pro rata

repayment of $11,515.

Excess Matching Funds

A reduction in the sum of nonqualified expenses has the effect of

reducing the sum of matching funds

received in excess of entitlement. In

the present case, the latter sum was

further reduced by a revaluation of

computer equipment.

During the campaign, the committee had purchased computer

equipment under lease agreements

that included a prepayment of

$2,755. At campaign's end, the

committee gave some of this

equipment to campaign workers.

The final audit included the computer lease prepayment in valuing

the equipment upon acquisition, but

excluded it in valuing the equipment

upon disposition. This had the effect

of leaving the committee with an

asset it could not liquidate. The

Commission, therefore, revalued the

equipment so that its value at the

time of disposition included the

amount paid for the lease prepayment.

The reduction in the sum of

nonqualified expenses and the

revaluation of the committee's

capital assets reduced the sum of

matching funds received in excess

of entitlement to $10,223. •

Publications

FEC Issues 1994 Annual

Report

Early last month the FEC issued

its 20th annual report, chronicling

its activities in 1994 and documenting the increasing demand on

Commission resources that has

resulted from record levels of

federal campaign activity.

Annual Report 1994 includes:

• A discussion of legal issues that

the Commission faced in 1994;

• An accounting of the Commission's

achievements in 1994;

• A comprehensive chart on the

audits of 1992 Presidential campaigns;

• Legislative recommendations

submitted to Congress by the

Commission in 1994;

• Charts and statistical tables

depicting campaign finance

activity and Commission operations during the 1994 election

cycle;

• An overview of the public funding

program; and

• A monthly chronology of events in

1994.

Free copies of the Annual Report

1994 are available through the

FEe's Information Division. Call

800/424-9530 and press 1 at the

prompt or call 202/219-3420. •

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Motor Voter

California Presents

Implementation Plan

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

Court for the Northern District of

California approved the State of California's plan to implement the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

This plan was submitted on March

17,1995, in accordance with a

March 2, 1995, court order. That

court order was issued as a result of

California Governor Pete Wilson's

constitutional challenge to the

NvRA; California argued that the

NVRA was an unfunded federal mandate. The court, however, upheld

Nv RA's constitutionality and required the State of California to

submit to the court a plan for

implementing the NVRA. See page I

of the May 1995Record for a summary of the court's decision, and page

7 of the February 1995 Record for a

summary of Governor Wilson's suit. •

Need FEe Material

in a Hurry?

Use the FEC's Flashfax service

to obtain FEC material fast. It operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week. Over300 FECdocuments-reporting forms, brochures, FECregulations--can be

faxed almost immediately. See

page 13 for an article on new materials now available through

Flashfax.

To order documents, use a

touch tone phone to dial 2021501-

3413 and follow the instructions.

A complete menu of Flashfax

documents appears on pages 13-

15. Flashfax menus can also be

obtained by calling the system

and enteringdocument number

411 at the prompt.

5
Federal Election Commission RECORD July /995

Democrat

Republican

R ChI. (0 Inc.) R OpSt. (D OpSt.)

'Republican Winners (and their opponents)

R Inc. (0 ChI.)

Thousands of Dollars

900

700 r---------

600 1---- ---- - - - --1

500 1--- - - - - - - 1

800 r-- - --- - - - - ----r-- - .,--- - - - - - -

100

200 r-------] 1-

300

400

Typical Support Received by '94 House Winners

These graphs are based on median support figures.Median figures are used

here to convey the typical support received from various sources by different

types of campaigns.I The blue bars depict the support 2 from each source

typically received by the 1994 House winners. Winners are broken down by

party and candidate type-incumbent, challenger, open seat. The gray bars

represent the typical support received by their opponents. For instance,

Inc . Inc umbent

ChI. Challenger

OpSt. Open Seat

Statistics

Winners Opponents

_--JIIndivi duals I 1

_--JI PACs I

Party t,;;;O,;OIWolio_

_ Ca ndidate _

_ Other _

Congressional Financial

Activity Climbs to a New High

During the 1994 election cycleJanuary I, 1993, through December

31, 1994-federal congressional

candidates raised a total of $740.6

million and spent a total of $724

million, both record highs. The

totals include special elections as

well as the activity of all candidates

who participated in 1994 primary

and general elections. These amounts

represent a 12 percent increase in

receipts and a 6 percent increase in

expenditures over the previous 2-

year cycle.

These record highs are the result

of increased financial activity by

Republicans, which more than overcame declines in the activity of their

Democratic counterparts. Republicans raised $385.3 million and spent

$371 million for the '94 cycle,

representing increases over the 1992

cycle of $92.7 million and 71.8

million, respectively. Democratic

receipts and expenditures, meanwhile, declined by $11.1 million and

$26.8 million, respectively.

An April 28 FEC press release

details this and other information on

financial activity during the '94

cycle. To receive a copy of the release, call 800/424-9530 (and press

3 at the prompt) or 202/2 19-4140. +

Key:

D

R

6
llli:\, 1995 Federal Election Cotnmission RI:'CORD

Thousands of Dollars

Republican chall engers who won in 1994 (second blue bar) yp all received about $375,000 from individuals, while the Democratic Incumbents

they unseated typically received $322,000 from individuals (seco nd gray

bar). In 1994 not a single Democratic cha llenger won ; a blue bar for this type

of candidate is therefore absent. To see the SUppOl1 from each source typica lly received by Democratic challengers, refer to the first gray bar, which is

adjace nt to the blue bar for Republ ican incumbent winners. These bar graphs

are provided here as a supplement to the April 28 FEC press release on

Congressional fundraising. •

900 r- - - - - - - - -

FEe Repor ts on Political

PartyActivity

During the 1994 election cycleJanuary I, 1993, through D .ccrn ber

3 1, I994-the two major parties

reported less financial ac ivity than

they did during the previous election

cycl e. But, when compared to the

1990 cyc le, the previous cycle

without a Presidential election,

1994' s party activity saw increases

in both rece ipts and disbursements.

Taken collectively, the epub lican National Committe , the

National Republican Senatori al

Committee, the Natio nal Republican

Congressional Committee and

Republican state and local party

comm ittees raised $245.6 million

and made disbursements totalling

$234.7 million during. the '94 cycle.

Although an 8 percent decrease

from 1992, these figure: represent a

19 perce nt fundraising increase and

a 10 percent spending increase over

1990.

Similarly, taken collectively, the

Democratic National Committee,

the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic

Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic state and local

party committees raised $139. 1

m.illi on and spent $ 137.8 million

during the '94 cyc le. These totals

are abou t 20 percent lower than the

1992 totals, but compared with

1990, they show a 62 percent

increase in receipts and a 52 percent

increase in disbursements.

Followin g the pattern of past

election cyc les, Republican party

committees received a larger portion

of their money from individuals

than did the Democrats. Republicans rece ived $212 million in

contributions from individuals,

representing 86 percent of total

Republ ican receipts. Individuals

gave $94 .7 million to Democratic

party com mittees, representing 68

percen t of total Democratic receipts.

PAC support con tinued to favor

Democrats. Democratic party

(continued on page 8)

I Each ba r seg me nt

represents the median

amount ofsupport

recei ved from that

source by that type of

candidate . Please be

aware that the resulting

overall bars represe nt

the sum ofthese

medians and not the

median 10/(11 suppo rt

received by each

candidate type. Theref ore, it is useful 10

compare the individual

segments with each

other, bUI /101 10 dra w

inferences from a

comparison ofthe

overall ba rs.

! SUPPOri ineludes

contributions and loans

10 the candidate and

coordinated expe ndilures made on his/h er

behalf by the partv.

D Inc. (R ChI.) D OpSt. (R OpSt.)

olJii__iiiiL

Democratic Winners (and their opponents)

100

800 1- - - - -

700 1- - - - - - -

500 1--- - - - - - -

300

600

400

200 -

7
Federal Election Commission RECORD July J1)95

Statistics

(continued from page 7)

committees received $12.8 million

in PAC money, representing 9

percent of their total receipts.

Republican party committees

received $4.8 million in PAC

monies, representing 2 percent of

their total.

This past election cycle was the

second 2-year period in which the

FEC compiled "soft money" figures.

Republican national party committees raised $59.4 million and spent

$55.4 million in soft money, increases of 15 and II percent,

respectively, over the '92 cycle.

Their counterparts in the Democratic party raised $46.9 million and

spent $47.8 million in soft money,

increases of 27 and 36 percent,

respectively, over the '92 cycle.

An April 13, 1995. press release

contains this and other information

on the financial activity of the two

major parties. To receive a copy of

the release, call 800/424-9530 (and

press 3 at the prompt) or 2021219-

4140.

The pie charts on this page show

the distribution of party support to

different types of candidates. These

charts were created using figures

contained in pages 4 and 5 of the

press release. ..

43.37%

Albanese v. FEC

On April 20, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of New York dismissed this

case because plaintiffs lacked

standing to bring this suit. Plaintiffs

have since filed a notice of appeal

with the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Second Circuit.

Court Cases

Background

This suit was brought by Mr. Sal

Albanese, who chose not to challenge Representative Susan Molinari

in 1994 after his unsuccessful

attempt to unseat her in 1992, and

on behalf of a number of his supporters.

In their original suit, plaintiffs

challenged the constitutionality of

the federal electoral system on the

grounds that it financially handicapped campaigns to unseat an

incumbent. thus discouraging

potential candidacies. In an amended

complaint, they specifically challenged the constitutionality of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act)-alleging that it authorizes the

use of private monies in federal

elections-and the franking privileges enjoyed by incumbents. See

page 9 of the September 1994

Record for a summary of plaintiffs'

suit.

_ Incumbents

II.~ Challengers

___IOpen Seats

14.05%

House Republicans

($10.8 million )

18.63%

Senate Republicans

($12 million )

House Democrats

($9.8 million)

11.53%

Senate Democrats

($13.6 million )

Party Support of '94 Congressional

Candidates by Type of Campaign

(Includes coordinated party expenditures.)

8
Ju2y1995

Three-Part Test for Standing

In determining that plaintiffs

lacked standing to bring this suit,

the court applied the three-part test

for standing; this test requires

plaintiffs to identify (1) an actual

injury that (2) is caused by the

challenged act and (3) is likely to be

redressed by the relief requested.

The court found that plaintiffs in

this case failed all three parts of this

test.

Plaintiffs failed the first part

because plaintiffs represented a

potential candidate and supporters

of his would-be campaign, rendering their alleged injury "abstract and

conjectural." For instance, their

alleged injury that large contributors

diminish the influence of those who

can not give as much was "abstract

and remote" in this case since the

campaign that plaintiffs wished to

support did not exist.

Plaintiffs failed the second part

because, since their alleged injury

was theoretical, they could not

provide tangible evidence that the

injury was caused by the Act. The

court noted, "We will never know

how much money might have been

contributed to [Albanese's campaign] and how successful he might

have been at the polls . . . ." The

court further stated that, "Albanese

opted not to participate in the

election process; he was not prevented from doing so." The alleged

injuries, therefore, were not traceable to the Act.

Lastly, plaintiffs failed the third

part because their suggested remedy-to declare the Act unconstitutional-would not redress the

injury. The court stated, "[If]

plaintiffs' goal is to eliminate the

contribution of private funds to

politicians and thereby level the

electoral playing field, declaring the

[ActJ-a statute which limits such

contributions-unconstitutional

cannot be said to redress plaintiffs'

injury."

Additionally, the court cited

Buckley v. Valeo as a legal precedent upholding the constitutionality

of the Act, and several other court

decisions similarly upholding the

constitutionality of the franking

statute.

In closing, the court declared that

it was outside itsjurisdiction to

address the plaintiffs' grievance,

and that plaintiffs had to seek relief

through the legislative and executive

branches of government: "To the

extent that the plaintiffs believe that

a modification of the process would

enhance its integrity, they must

make the case for the validity of that

belief with the political branches of

our government. For just as fundamental to the political order of this

democracy is the doctrine of separation of powers and the limited

jurisdiction conferred upon the

federal judiciary within that political

order."

U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of New York, No.

CV 94-3299, April 20, 1995. •

FEC v. Populist Party, et at.

On April 20, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia issued a consent order

and judgment stating that defendants

violated the Federal Election

I Campaign Act (the Act) by making

and accepting corporate and excessive contributions in 1984, and

ordering defendants to pay a $20,000

civil penalty for these violations.

Specifically , the court, by agreement of the parties involved,

determined that:

• Liberty Lobby, Inc., and Cordite

Fidelity, Inc., violated 2 U.S.c.

§441b(a), which prohibits the use

of corporate money in connection

with federal elections, by providing services (in-kind contributions)

to the Populist Party in the amount

of $268,056 and $82,346, respectively;

• Mr. Willis A. Carto, the director of

both corporations and treasurer of

the Populist Party, violated 2 U.s.c.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

§441b(a) by consenting to the

provision of the corporate services

mentioned above;

• Mr. Blayne Hutzel, comptroller of

both corporations, violated 2 U.S.c.

§44l b(a) by accepting corporate

services, loans and payments

valued at $352,903 on behalf of

the Populist Party;

• The Populist Party violated

2 U.S.c. §44l b(a) by accepting the

above corporate contributions and

other corporate contributions, for a

total of $368,303 in illegal corporate money;

• The Populist Party violated

2 u.s.c. §44Ia(f), which prohibits

committees from accepting

contributions in excess of established limits, by accepting contributions from individuals in excess

of their annual limit of $5,000 per

party committee;

I • The Populist Party violated

2 U.S.c. §441a(a)(l)(A) and (C)

by making excessive contributions

to the Maureen Salaman for Vice

President Committee and the Bob

Richards for President Committee;

and

• The Bob Richards for President

committee violated 2 U.s.c.

441a(f) by accepting $9,756 in

excessive contributions from the

Populist Party.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, No. 92-

0674(HHG), April 20, 1995. •

Dukakis v, FEC

Simon v. FEC

On May 5, 1995, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit ruled that in both

these cases the FEC was time barred

from imposing repayment obligations on the plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs

did not receive an initial repayment

determination within the 3-year

statute of limitations. 26 U.s.c.

§9038(c). The FEC's actions in these

matters were therefore reversed.

(continu ed on page 10)

9
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

(continued from page 9)

Background

Both Governor Michael Dukakis

and Senator Paul Simon made bids

for the 1988 Democratic Presidential nomination. Both of them

received public funding for their

campaigns. Pursuant to 26 U.S.c.

§9038(a), the FEC conducted audits

of both campaigns. The 3-year

statute of limitations was triggered

on July 20, 1988, the day the

Democratic National Convention

nominated Governor Dukakis for

President. Final audit reports

containing initi al repayment determinations were issued on December

9, 1991, for Dukakis and on October

22, 1991, for Simon. These initial

determinations were not finalized

until February 25, 1993, for Dukakis

and March 4, 1993 , for Simon; the

Commission determined that the

Dukakis and Simon campaigns

owed the U.S. Treasury $491 ,282

and $4 12,162, respectively. See

page 10 of the April 1993 Record

fo r a discussion of the Commission's final repayment determinations.

The 3-Year Statute of Limitations

26 U.S.c. §9038(c) states: "No

notification [of repayment] shall be

made by the Commission . . . with

respect to a matching payment

period more than 3 years after the

end of such period." The FEC

contended that the interim audit

report, issued in both cases within 3

years of the date of the nomination,

was sufficient notice to obligate

plaintiffs to make the repayments.

To bolster this argument, the FEe

reminded the court that, in accordance with the decision in Chevron

U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, lnc., the court

must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute it

administers.

The court concluded that deference was not required in this case

because Chevron requires a court to

10

defer to an agency only in cases

where the statute at hand is ambi guous on the issue in dispute. The

court found no ambi guity in either

of these case s: "Subsection §903 8(b)

requires that the Commission notify

the ca ndidate of the amount which

he is to pay to the Secretary. The

interim audit report doe s not even

purport to notify the candidate of

any such amount."

The court cited II CFR 903 8.2,

which states that the inclusion of a

preliminary repayment calculation

in an interim audit report is optional,

as grounds on which to dismiss the

notion that the interim report

fulfilled the FEC's obli gation under

the statute of limitations. Further,

the court noted that when the

Commission issued rules making the

interim audit report a mandatory

part of the audit process, it included

in its Explanation and Justification

language stating that: "[Preliminary]

calculation s will not ... be con sidered as the Commission's initial

repayment determination . .. ."

The court also dismissed the

FEC's reliance on a 1991 amendment to its regulations, 11 CFR

903 8.2(a)(2), that explicitly states

that the interim audit report con stitute s notification for purposes of the

3-ye ar statute of limit ations. "[No]

such administrati ve action by the

Commission can override the plain

mandate of the legislation," said the

court.

Additionally, the court held that,

although the statute does not

explicitly say so, the 3-yea r notification period implicitly applies to the

rep ayment of surplus campaign

fund s when the candidate disputes

that a surplus exists, as well as to

the repayment of nonqualified

campaign expenses and excessive

payments. 26 U.S. c. §9038(b)(l),

(2) and (3). Thus, in the case of

Go vernor Dukakis, who disputed

the audit's finding that he had a

surplus, the Commission was

required to notify him of the amount

due within the 3-year period.

luly 1995

U.S. Court of Appe als for the

District of Columbia Circuit, No.

93- 1219 (Dukakis) and No . 93-1252

(Simon), May 5,1995 . •

Audits

Bennett For Senate Audit

Report

An FEC audit of the Bennett For

Senate committee (the committee)

found that the comm ittee had

misstated its financial activity,

misrepresented loans, accepted

apparently prohibited and exc essive

contributions, and app arently failed

to file 48-hour notices on time. The

committee served as the principal

campaign committee for Senator

Rob ert F. Bennett 's 1992 bid for the

office of U.S. Senator from Utah .

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

authorizes the Commission to conduct audits of any political committee whose reports fail to meet the

threshold level of compliance set by

the Commission . Subsequent to a

final audit report, the FEC may

choose to pursue unresolved issues

in an enforcement matter.

Misreporting Loans and

Financial Activity

The aud it found that the committee's disclosure reports overstated its receipts and disbursements

by $281,397 and $254,403, respectively . Additionally, the committee

inac curately reported loan receipt s

and repayments. The committee has

filed amended reports to corr ect the se

inaccuracies. 2 u.s.c §434(b)(l ),

(2), (3)(E), (4) and (5)(D).

Prohibited Contributions

The audit questioned the legalit y

of several transactions involving the

committee, the candidate and the

Franklin Quest Co . (T he candidate

is a former president and CEO of
July 1995

this corporation.) The final audit

report cited apparent violations of

the corporate ban, which makes it

illegal to use corporate money in

connection with a federal election.

2 U.S.c. §44Ib(a) and (b)(2). These

potential violations are individually

discussed below.

Consulting Fee. Shortly before

his candidacy, Senator Bennett left

Franklin Quest and entered into a

consulting agreement with the

corporation. Franklin Quest paid

$43,750 per month to Senator

Bennett's consulting firm, and was

the firm's only client. The committee failed to provide proof that these

monthly payments were for bona

fide services rendered to the corporation by the candidate. The payments, therefore, may have resulted

in an illegal corporate contribution

to the committee.

Consulting Fee Advance. In

January 1992, Senator Bennett

received a three-month advance

from Franklin Quest on the monthly

consulting fee. Of this $131,250

advance, $80,000 was transferred to

the committee. The advance may

have resulted in an illegal corporate

contribution to the committee.

Corporate Stock Used to Guarantee a Bank Loan. Senator Bennett

drew $200 ,000 for his campaign

from a $385,000 line of credit he

secured by using his Franklin Quest

stock as collateral. Franklin Quest

made a separate agreement with the

bank to purchase the collateral in

case of default. The aud it report

opined that this stock repurchase

agreement may constitute a form of

security for the loan. Franklin Quest,

therefore, may have acted as a loan

guarantor, and, under federal election law, a guarantee of a bank loan

is considered a contribution equal to

the amount outstanding on the loan.

Therefore, an illegal corporate

contribution may have been made.

Excessive Contributions

The audit revealed that the

committee received $19,450 in

contributions that were made in

violation of the established contribution limits. The committee has

submitted copies of refund checks

for each of the questioned contributions. 2 U.S.c. §§44Ia(a) and 441f.

Additionally, the audit found that

a committee staff member had exceeded his contribution limit by

paying for committee expenses. A

staff member may pay his or her

own campaign-related travel expenses without making a contribution if the committee reimburses

that staff member within the grace

period allowed by law. I This grace

period, however, does not apply to

other expenses incurred by staff on

behalf of the committee. In the

present case, the staff member

incurred nontravel expenses, and

such expenses count against a staff

member's contribution limit.

Although he was later reimbursed,

he had at one point aggregate

contributions of $22,206 in excess

of his limit. 2 U.S.c. §44Ia(a)(l)(A)

and 11 CFR 116.5(b).

48-Hour Notices

2 U.S.c. §434(a)(6) requires

committees to report within 48 hours

those contributions of $1,000 or

more that it receives during the

period between 20 days and 48 hours

before the election.The committee

could not furnish documentation

showing that the required 48-hour

notices for 37 contributions comprising $649,000 were filed on time? •

I The method of payment used by a staff

member to pay for his or her campaign

travel determines how soon the committee

must reimburse that individual. If a credit

card is used, then the committee has 60

I days in which to reimburse the staff

member. Ifsome other method ofpayment

is used, the committee has 30 days in

which to reimburse the staffmember.

2It should be noted that the fact that

$600 ,000 of this amount was contributed by Senator Bennett himselfdoes

not lessen the amount the committee was

obligated to report; the 48-hour noti ce

provision applies to all contributions,

including those fr om the candidate.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance

(continued from page 3)

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

I FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently

released for public review. This

listing is based on the FEC press

releases of April 27, May 11 and 19,

and June 6, but it does not include

the 1 MUR in which the Commission took no action. Files on closed

MURs are available for review in

the Public Records Office.

MUR2884

Respondents: (a) Babbitt for

President, Ronnie Lopez, treasurer

(AZ); (b) Hattie Babbitt (AZ);

(c) Iowa Democratic Party (Federal

Division); (d) Richard J. Dennis (IL)

Complainant: FEC initi ated

Subject: Excessive contributions;

inaccurate and incomplete reporting

Disposition: (a) $21,000 civil

penalty (excessive contributions;

reporting); (b) reason to believe but

took no further action (excessive

contributions); (c-d) no probable

cause to believe (excessive contributions; reporting)

MURs 3325/3249

Respondents: (a) Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee,

Donald J. Foley, treasurer (DC); (b)

various party committees and

individuals

Complainant: Ellen S. Miller,

Exe cutive Director, Center for

Responsive Politics (DC)

Subject: Exceeding the $25,000

annual contribution limit; inaccurate

reporting of receipts; excessive

contributions; deposit of nonfederal

funds in federal account

Disposition: (a-b) various, including civil penalties ranging from

$250 to $4,500 and totaling $21 ,250

MURs 3505/3560/3569

Respondents (in PA except (d)):

(a) Representative Ron Klink ;

(b) Citizens for Ron Klink (formerly

(continued on page 12)

11
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance

(continued fr om page 11)

known as Ron Klink for Congress),

Jeanne Brimmeier, treasurer;

(c) Linda Klink a nd Frank Trigona;

(d) We stinghou se Bro adcasting

Company , Inc. (DC); (e) R & W Oil

Products; et al.

Complainants: Gerald Weaver

(DC) (35 05); Ann Ho skin , et a l.

(PA ) (3560 and 3569) ; Nation al

Republic an Congressional Committee , Maria Cino, Executive Director

(DC) (3569)

Subject: Failure to file Statements

of Candidacy and Organization on

time ; failure to file report; inaccurate and incomplete reporting;

failure to file 48 -hour notice;

excessive contributions; corporate

contributions

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe

but took no further ac tion (Statement of Candidacy); no reason to

believe (corporate contributions

from We stinghou se); se nt admonishment letter; (b) reason to believe

but took no further action (St atement of Organization ; reporting;

corporate co ntributio ns from R &

W, et al.); no reason to believe (4 8-

hour notice; excessive contributions;

corporate contributions from

Westinghouse); se nt admonishment

lett er; (c) no rea son to believe

(excessive contributions); (d) no

reason to believe (co rporate contribution s); (e) rea son to beli eve but

took no fur ther action (corpora te

contributions); sent admonishment

letters

MUR 3810

Respondents (all in CT):

(a) Senator Christopher J. Dodd ;

(b) Friends of Chris Dodd, Frank N.

Zullo, treasurer; (c) Congressma n

Sam Gejdenson; (d) Sam Gejd enson

Re -El ection Committee, Patricia

Tedisco-Lagrega, trea surer;

(e) Congressman Gary A. Fr anks;

12

(f) Franks Congress Committee

(1992), Patrick J. BasiIe, tre asurer

Complainant: Robert Fromer (CT)

Subject: Failure to report contributor information (" bes t efforts")

Disposition: (a- e) No rea son to

bel ieve; (f) reason to bel ieve but

took no further action; se nt admonishment letter

MUR3946

Respondents (all in MO):

(a) Friends of Marsha Murphy,

Marsha Murphy, tre asurer ;

(b) Murphy for County Executive

Committee, treasurer; (c) Marsha

Murphy

Complainant: Rand all D. Grady

(MO)

Subject: Inaccurate and incomplete

reporting; use of nonfederal fund s;

disclaimer

I Disposition: (a) Reason to believe

but took no furt her acti on (reporting ; nonfederal funds); no reason to

beli ev e (disc laime r); (b) reason to

believe but took no further acti on

(nonfedera l funds); (c) no reason to

believe

MUR 3954

Respondents (all in NY ):

(a) Committee to Re-Elect Susan

Molinari , Mi chael Petrides, tre asurer; (b) Republican Pro-Choice

Political Ac tion Comm.ittee, Robert

M. Pennoyer, treasurer ; (c) Chitoor

Govindaraj ; et al.

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Exc es sive co ntributions;

partnership co ntribution

Disposition: (a) Re ason to believe

but took no furthe r action; se nt

admonishment letter; (b-e) reaso n to

believe but took no further action

(excessive contributions); sent

admonishme nt letters

MURs 4016 and 4076

Respondents: Coverdell Senate

Committee, Marvin H. Smith,

tre asurer (G A)

July 19"95

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessi ve contributions

(401 6); failure to report contributions accur ately (40 16); failure to

report earmarked contributions and

conduits properl y (4076)

Disposition: $32,000 ci vil penalty

MUR 4129

Respondents: Hayes Dent for

Congress Committee, Philip C.

Willi ams, treasurer (MS)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

not ice (candida te guarantee of loan)

Disposition: $4,000 civil pen alty

MUR4168

Respondents: Friends of Field s

(formerly known as Fields for Senate ), Kathryn A. Wood, treasurer (TX)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

noti ce (candidate guarantee of

$100,000 loan)

Disposition: $ 13,000 civil pen alt y

MUR 4174

Respondents: New Hampshi re

Democratic St ate Com mittee , Keith

Regli , treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file report on

time

Disposition: $3,300 civ il pen alt y

MUR 4177

Respondents: (a) Monzer Hourani

(T X); (b) Bonnie Brownlow Da vis

(T X); (c) Hat ch Election Committee, St anley R. de Waal, fo rmer

tre asu rer (UT); (d) Richard Lynn

Deneve (T X) , et al.

Complainant: Referral by Department of Justi ce

Subject: Excessive contributions;

contributions in the names of others

Disposition: (a ) $ \ 0,000 civil

penalty; (b) $ 1,000 civil pen alty;

(c) Re ason to believe, but took no

furthe r ac tion (excessive contribu-
July / 995

tion); (d) Reason to believe, but

took no further action (contributions

in the name of another)

MUR 4181

Respondent s: International nion

of Operating Engineers Local 94

Political Action Committee,

Michael A. Carney, treasurer (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file reports on

time

Disposition: $2,000 civil penalty

MUR 4191

Respondents: AutoZone, lnc.,

Committee for Better Government,

John Pontius, treasurer (TN)

Compl ainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file reports on

time

Disposition: SI ,000 civil penalty

MUR 4197

Respondent s (all in WI): (a) Joe

Checota; (b) Joe Checota for Senate

Campaign, Edith Peters, treasurer;

(c) niversal Medical Buildings

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subjec t: Corporate contributions;

use of corporate facilities; corporate

solicitation

Disposition: (a-c) Reason to believe

but took no further action; sent

admonishment letters; notified

employee contributors

MOR 4202

Respondents: (a) African Americans for a Better America PAC,

Alric B. Nembhard, treasurer (NY);

(b) M.R. Beal & Company (NY);

(c) MRB Securities Corporation

(DE)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Corporate contributions:

contributions by federal government

contractor; failure to file reports

Disposition: (a-c) Reason to believe

but took no further action: sent

admonishment letters ..

Advi'sory

Opinions

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests(AORs)

are available for review and comment in the Public Records Office.

AOR 1995-16

Status of third party's committee as

national party committee (U.S.

Taxpayers Party; May 16, 1995; 7

pages plus 5 1-page attachment)

AOR 1995-17

Soliciting members of a trade

association (National Association of

Realtors; May 25, 1995; 3 pages

plus 44-page attachment)

AOR 1995-18

Use of campaign funds to commission portrait of former Congressional Committee Chairman

(Congressman James A. Leach; May

26. 1995; L page)

AOR 1995-19

Responsibilities of PAC and treasurer upon discovering acceptance

of prohibited contributions made in

the name of another (lndianAmerican Leadership Investment

Fund; June L, 1995; 3 pages)

AOR 1995-20

Use of campaign funds to pay

airfare for candidate' s infant children (Congressman Tim Roemer;

June I , 1995; I page)

AO R 1995-21

Receipt and reporting of funds

awarded to committee through

litigation (Larson for Life for U.S.

Senate; June 5, 1995; 1 page plus 8-

page attachment)

AOR 1995-22

Reporting reimbursements of

allocable expenditures (Democratic

Congressional Campaign Committee;June 5, 1995; 3 pages plus 49-

page attachment) ..

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Information

New Flashfax Materials on

'96 Presidential Election and

the Electora l System

Two new items on the '96 Presidential election and three new items

on the .S. electoral system have

been added to the Flashfax menu.

They are listed below by their

Flashfax identification numbers.

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of

the American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an

Election System

650. 1996 Preliminary Presidential

Primary and Caucus Dates

652. Selected Campaign Finance

Figures

FIashfax is aquick and easy way to

order FEC materials. Simply call 2021

501 -34 13 on a touch tone phone and,

at the prompt, enter the Flashfax

I number of the documentyou wish to

order. For example, enter 41 I at the

prompt to receivea full menu of

documents available through Flashfax.The Flashfax system operates 24

hours a day, 7 days a week. For your

convenience, the full Flashfax menu

is provided below. ..

Flashfax Menu

To order any of these documents,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call 2021

501-3413 on a touch tone phone. You

will be asked for the numbers of the

documents you want,'your fax number

and your telephone number.The documents will be faxed shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

30 I. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Offi ce

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FECCampaign Finance

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

(co ntinued 0 11 page / 4)

13
441. Section 441

442. Sectio n 442

451. Section 451

452 . Section 452

453. Section 453

454. Section 454

455 . Section 455

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Information

(continuedfrom page J3)

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Voluntee r Activi ty

319. Independent Expenditures

320. Local Party Activity

321. Corpo ratelLabor Facilities

322. CorporatelLabor Communications

323. Trade Associations

324. Foreign Nationals

325. Th e $25,000 Annual Con tribution

Limit

326. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Public Funding

330. Public Fund ing of Presiden tial

Elections

331. The $3 Tax Checkoff

332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

333. Recipients of Public Fund ing

334. Presidential Fund Tax Checkoff

Status

335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344 . Reports Due in 1995

345 . Primary Dates and Deadlines for

Ballot Access

346. Filing A Complaint

347. 1995 FEC Regional Conferences

Federal Election Commission

40 I. The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law

402 . La Ley Federal relativa al Financiamiento de las Carnpafias

403 . State and Local Elections and the

Federal Campaign Law

404 . Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEe's Jurisdiction

405 . Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408 . Index for 1994 Record Newsletter

14

409. Free Publications

410. Personnel Vacancy Announcements

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Availa ble

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

424 . List of Reports Available

425. Voting Accessibil ity for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

426. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

427. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an Electoral

System

Money in Politics Statistics

625. 1991-92 Political Money

626. 1994 Year-End PAC Count

627. 1993-94 Congressional

628. 1993-94 National Party

629. 1993-94 PAC Finances

1996 Presidential Election

650. 1996 Preliminary Presidential

Primary and Caucus Dates

65 1. Selected Campaign Names and

Addresses

652. Selected Campaign Finance

Figures

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201 )

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

101. Part 10 I, Candidate Status and

Designati ons

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. Part 106, Allocati ons of Candidate

and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating

Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reports

and Statements with State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expend iture Limitations and

Prohibitions

July 1995

III. Part III, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinio ns

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to Support

Federal Officeholder Activ ities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candidates and Political Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

20 I. Part 20 I, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Presidenti al Nominating Conventions

228. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Forms

361. Form 1, Statement of Organization

362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

365. Form 5, Report of Indepen dent

Expe nditures

366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

ContributionslLoa ns Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication

Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of Multicandidate Status

Schedules

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

372. Schedules C and C-I, Loans

373. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent

Expenditures

375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated

Expenditures

376. Schedules HI-H4, Allocation

377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431

432. Section 432

433 . Section 433

434. Section 434

437. Sectio n 437

438 . Section 438

439. Section 439
Jl~/y 1995 Adv isory Opinion

s

701. AO1995-1

702. AO 1995-2

703. AO 1995-3

704. AO1995-4

705. AO1995-5

706. AO1995-6

707. AO1995-7

708. AO 1995-8

709. AO 1995-9 7 10. AO 1995- 1

0

711.AO1995-1 1

7 13. AO 1995-13

7 14. AO1995-14

801.AO 1994-1

802. AO 1994-2

803. AO 1994-3

804.AO1994-4

805. AO 1994-5

806. AO1994-6

807. AO1994-7

808. AO 1994-8 809. AO 1994-9 8 10. AO 1994-10 8 11. AO 1994-1 1

812. AO1994-12

8 13. AO1994- 13

8 14. AO 1994- 14

815. AO1994-15

816. AO1994-16

817. AO1994-17

818. AO1994-18

8 19.AO 1994-19

820. AO 1994-20

821. AO1994-21

822.AO 1994-22

823.AO1994-23

824. AO 1994-24

825. AO1994-25

826.AO1994-26

827. AO 1994-27

828.AO1994-28

829.AO1994-29

830. AO1994-30

83 1.AO1994-31

832. AO 1994-32

833. AO1994-33

834. AO 1994-34

837. AO 1994-37

838. AO1994-38

839. AO 1994-39 840. AO 1994-40

900.Brochure

901. AO 1993-1 902. AO 1993-2

903. AO1993-3

904. AO 1993-4

905.AO 1993-5

906. AO1993-6

907.AO1993-7

908. AO1993-8

909. AO1993-9

9 10. AO ]993-10

911. AO 1993-11

912. AO1993-12

913. AO1993- 13

914. AO1993-14

915. AO1993-15

916. AO 1993-16

917. AO1993-17

9 18. AO1993-18

9 19. AO1993-19

920. AO1993-20

921. AO1993-21

922.AO 1993-22

923.AO 1993-23

924. AO 1993-24

925.AO 1993-25

Index

The first number in each citation

refers tothe"number"(month) of

the 1995

Recordissue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indicatesthe

page number inthat issue. For example, " 1:4" means that the article

is in theJanuary issueon page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1994-33:Calling card solicitations,

3:5

1994-34: Consolidatingmembership

association PACs following a merger, 3:7

1994-35: Terminating reporting obligations, 5:5

1994-36: Solicitation of stockhold- ers in an employee-owned

company,5:5

1994-37: Allocating between federal and nonfederal campaigns, 3:7

1994-39: Solicitation of affiliates by

a membership organization,3:8

1994-40: Storingrecords on microfilm, 3:9

1995-1:Respondentsand the

confidentiality provisions,4:8

1995-2:Membership organization's

solicitation ofrepresentatives of

member firms,6:3

Federal Election Commission RECORD

1995-3:Running simultaneous

Senate and Presidential cam-

paigns,4:8

1995-5: Use of contributor lists derived from FEC reports, 4:9

1995-7:Candidate'spersonal

liability for bankloan,6:4

1995-8: Committee's rental of

candidate-owned office and equipment, 6:5

1995-9:Operating apolitical

committee in cyberspace,6:6

1995-10: Ownership of committee records, 6:7 1995-11: Status of limited liability

company, 6:8

Compliance

$25,000Annual contribution limit

4:1

'

MUR 2884:Reporting misstatements and excessive contributions, 7:2

MUR 3452: Excessive contributions,6:8

MUR 3540: Corporate facilitation,

1:2

MUR 3650: Loan guarantors, 1:2

MUR 4016/4076:Reporting earmarked contributions, 7:2

Court Cases FEC v.

- Branstool,6:12

- Citizens for Wofford,6:13

- Fulani (94-4461),6:12

- Michigan Republican State

Committee, 5:4

-Montoya, 2:7; 5:4

- NRAPoliticalVictory Fund, 2:

I

- NationalRepublicanSenatorial

Committee (93-1612), 4:4

-PopulistParty,7:9

- Williams, 4:5 _ _ v. FEC - Albanese, 7:8 - Condon, 3:5 - Democratic Senatorial

Campaign

Committee(93-1321),

I:10

-DemocraticSenatorial Campaign

Committee(95-0349),4:8

- Dukakis, 7:9

-FreedomRepublicans, 2:6

- Fulani(94-1593), 4:6

-Lytle,I:10, 2:7

(continuedon page16) 15
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Information

(continued fro m page 15)

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (94-5148), 5:4

- Robertson, 4:6

- Simon, 7:9

- Whitmore, 2:7

- Wilson , 2:7; 5: I

Mclntyre v. Ohio, 6:12

Rove v. Thornburgh , 4:7

Reports

Sch edule for 1995, 1:4

800 Line Articles

Adminis trative termination , 2:9

Corporate facil itatio n, 6: I

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300 *

Printed on recycled paper

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 Organi zation ) must, by law,

be made in writing on FEC Form I or

by letter. The treasurer must sign the

amendment and file it with the

Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of

the House or the FEC (as appropriate) and with the appro priate state

office .

July 19')5

Oth er Subscribers

Record subscribers who are not

registered political committees should

include the following informa tion

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 politic al

committees) may correct their

addresse s by phone as well as by mail.

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31