March 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 3

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 Federal Election Activity Periods

3 FCC Electioneering

Communications Database

3 Federal Register

4 Petition for Rulemaking on Public

Access to Materials from Closed

Enforcement Matters

Legislation

1 Administrative Fines Extended;

Safe Harbor for Timely Filing

Compliance

4 Proposed Statement of Policy

Regarding Naming Treasurers in

Enforcement Matters

Court Cases

4 Cox for Senate v. FEC

7 New Litigation

10 Advisory Opinions

Party Activities

15 2004 Coordinated Party

Expenditure Limits

16 Nonfilers

Public Funding

17 Presidential Primary Matching

Funds

Statistics

17 Semiannual PAC Count

Outreach

18 Conferences in March and April

19 Roundtables

19 Index

Compliance Legislation

Congress Amends Act to

Extend Administrative Fine

Program and Expand Safe

Harbor for Timely Filing

On January 23, 2004, President

Bush signed legislation (the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2004,

P.L. 108-199) that included amendments to the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) to:

• Allow the use of overnight delivery services with delivery confirmation or an on-line tracking

system for timely filing purposes;

and

• Extend the Administrative Fine

program through December 31,

2005.

Overnight Mail

Prior to this amendment to the

Act, reports and statements sent by

registered or certified mail were

considered timely filed if postmarked by the filing date.1

 Reports

sent by other means were required

to be received by the filing date. See

2 U.S.C. §434(a) and 11 CFR

1 Twelve day pre-election reports sent

by registered or certified mail must be

mailed no later than the 15th day before

any election.

(continued on page 2)

Regulations

Federal Election Activity

Periods

Under the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act (BCRA), political party

committees that conduct “federal

election activity” (FEA) must pay

for this activity with federally

permissible funds or, in some cases,

may allocate the costs between

federal and Levin funds or pay for

them entirely with Levin funds. In

order to help committees determine

whether their planned activities will

constitute FEA, the FEC has placed

on its web site (http://www.fec.gov/

pages/bcra/rulemakings/

charts_fea_dates.htm) charts listing

for each state:

• The 120-day windows for FEA

voter registration activity (the first

type of FEA listed below); and

• The ballot access deadlines for

determining the start of the FEA

periods for voter identification,

generic campaign activities and

get-out-the-vote activities (the

second type of FEA listed below).

Definition of FEA

As used in 11 CFR part 300,

“federal election activity” means

any of the following activities:

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

104.5(e). As of January 23, reports

and statements sent via express or

priority mail with a delivery confirmation, or via overnight delivery

service with an on-line tracking

system, will also be considered

timely filed if received by the

delivery service by the filing

deadline. Reports sent by first-class

mail, hand delivery or any other

means must still be received by the

Commission by the close of business on the filing deadline in order

to be considered timely filed.

The Commission plans to amend

its regulations at 11 CFR 100.19 and

104.5 to conform to the new statutory provisions. In the interim, filers

may rely on the statutory language.

Administrative Fine Program

The Commission has statutory

authority to assess a civil money

penalty for violations of the reporting requirements at 2 U.S.C.

§434(a). See 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(4)(C). This authority

terminated on December 31, 2003,

and was not re-instated until the

President signed the 2004 Appropriations Act, extending this statutory authority through 2005. On

February 11, 2004, the Commission

published in the Federal Register

(69 FR 6525) a final rule amending

section 11 CFR 111.30 to renew the

applicability of the administrative

fines regulations to include all

violations relating to reports that

cover the period between July 14,

2000, and December 31, 2005.

However, as a result of the lapse

between the 2003 statutory provisions’ expiration and the new law’s

enactment, there is a gap in the

applicability of the Administrative

Fine program from January 1, 2004,

until February 10, 2004. Thus, all

reports covering reporting periods

that began and ended during the gap

and are due before February 11,

2004, are not subject to the program.

The reports not covered include

certain 48-hour reports and preelection reports. These reports are

subject to the Commission’s enforcement procedures at 11 CFR

111 subpart A.2

The full text of the Final Rule

Extending the Administrative Fine

Regulations is available on the FEC

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

register.htm.✦

—Amy Kort

Legislation

(continued from page 1)

2 The Commission notes that Congress,

in extending the Commission’s Administrative Fine program authority,

provided for continuous applicability of

the program through December 31,

2005. Moreover, the program is

procedural: the underlying substantive

reporting requirements have remained

in effect. Consequently, it is appropriate to apply the program to reports that

are due after February 10, 2004, even

though those reports may relate to

reporting periods that include the gap.

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

1. Voter registration activity during

the 120 days before a regularly

scheduled federal election and

ending on the day of that election;

2. Voter identification, generic

campaign activities1

 and get-outthe-vote activities that are

conducted in connection with an

election in which one or more

candidates for federal office

appear on the ballot (regardless

of whether state or local candidates also appear on the ballot);

3. A public communication that

refers to a clearly identified

federal candidate and that

promotes, supports, attacks or

opposes any federal candidate.

(This definition applies regardless of whether a nonfederal

candidate is also mentioned or

identified in the communication

and regardless of whether the

communication expressly

advocates a vote for or against a

federal candidate.); and

4. Services provided by an employee of a state, district or local

party committee who spends

more than 25 percent of his or

her compensated time during that

month on activities in connection

with a federal election. 11 CFR

100.24(b).

For the purposes of the definition

of FEA, “in connection with an

election in which a candidate for

federal office appears on the ballot”

means:

• In an even-numbered year, the

period beginning on the day of the

earliest filing deadline for primary

election ballot access under state

law—or on January 1 in states that

1 “Generic campaign activity” means a

public communication that promotes or

opposes a political party and does not

promote or oppose a clearly identified

federal or nonfederal candidate. 11

CFR 100.25.
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office, on the FEC web

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

register.htm and from the FEC

faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2004-2

Rulemaking Petition: Public

Access to Materials Relating to

Closed Enforcement Cases;

Notice of Availability (69 FR

2083, January 14, 2004)

Notice 2004-3

Proposed Statement of Policy

Regarding Naming of Treasurers

in Enforcement Matters (69 FR

4092, January 28, 2004)

Notice 2004-5

Final Rules and Explanation and

Justification on the Extension of

Administrative Fines (69 FR

6525, February 11, 2004)

do not hold primaries—and ending

on the day of the general election

or the general election runoff if a

runoff is held; or

• In an odd-numbered year, the

period beginning on the day that

the date is set for a special election

in which a federal candidate

appears on the ballot, and ending

on the day of that election. 11 CFR

100.24(a).

Paying for FEA

As a general rule, state, district

and local party committees must use

federal funds to make expenditures

and disbursements for FEA.2

 11

CFR 300.32(a)(2). However, as long

as certain conditions are met, a state,

district or local party committee

may use Levin funds to pay for all

or part of:

• Voter registration activity during

the period that begins 120 days

before the date of a regularlyscheduled federal election and

ends on the day of that election;

and

• Voter identification, get-out-the

vote or generic campaign activity

conducted in connection with an

election in which a federal candidate appears on the ballot (regardless of whether a state or local

candidate also appears on the

ballot). 3 11 CFR 300.32(b).

Levin funds may not be used,

however, to pay for any part of FEA

if:

• The activity refers to a clearlyidentified federal candidate; or

• Any portion of the funds will be

used to pay for a television or

radio communication, other than a

communication that refers solely to

a clearly identified state or local

candidate. 11 CFR 300.32(c).

Levin funds may be used to pay

for the entirety of permissible FEA

disbursements only if the party

committee’s disbursements for

allocable FEA do not exceed $5,000

in the aggregate in a calendar year.

Disbursements and expenditures

that aggregate in excess of $5,000

per year must be paid entirely with

federal funds or allocated between

federal funds and Levin funds,

according to the minimum allocation percentages described at 11

CFR 300.33(b). See 11 CFR

300.33(a).

Additional Information

For additional information on

FEA, see the Commission’s BCRA

Campaign Guide Supplement,

available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/

guidesup03.pdf, or call the FEC’s

Information Division at 800/424-

9530 or 202/694-1100.✦

—Amy Kort

2 Additionally, an association or similar

group of state or local candidates or

officeholders must use only federal

funds to make expenditures or disbursements for federal election activity. 11

CFR 300.32(a)(1).

3 Levin funds may also be used for any

purpose that is not federal election

activity as long as this use is lawful in

the state in which the committee is

organized. 11 CFR 300.32(b)(2).

FCC Electioneering

Communications Database

Now Available

On February 3, 2004, the Federal

Communications Commission

(FCC) launched an Electioneering

Communications Database, which is

available on the FCC web site at

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecd or http://

svartifoss2.fcc.gov/ecd. The Electioneering Communications Database allows users to determine

whether a communication sent via

broadcast station, cable system and/

or satellite system can reach 50,000

or more people in a Congressional

district or state. Such communications may qualify as “electioneering

communications” if they mention a

clearly identified federal candidate

and are distributed within 30 days

before a primary election or within

60 days before the general election.

See 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i) and

11 CFR 100.29. The electioneering

communication periods are available on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/refer.htm.

Any person who spends more

than $10,000 in the aggregate on

electioneering communications

during a calendar year must file a

report with the FEC. 11 CFR

100.19(f) and 104.20(a)(1)(i).

Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making or

financing electioneering communications. 11 CFR 114.2(a)(2)(iii) and

114.14(a). See the November 2002

Record, page 3, and the January

2003 Record, page 14.

The information in the Electioneering Communications Database is

current as of November 2003, and

will remain unchanged through the

end of the 2004 election cycle.

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

4

Petition for Rulemaking on

Public Access to Materials

from Closed Enforcement

Matters

On December 9, 2003, the

Commission received a Petition for

Rulemaking asking it to amend its

rules to provide for the disclosure of

materials relating to closed enforcement cases without unnecessarily

burdening First Amendment interCompliance

1 If information for a particular media

outlet is not available in the database,

then the person making the communication will have a complete defense

against any charge that a communication can reach 50,000 or more persons

if that person reasonably relies on

written documentation obtained from

the media outlet in question, demonstrates that the communication is not

distributed in a metropolitan area in

the specified Congressional district or

state or reasonably believes that the

communication cannot be received by

50,000 persons in the specified Congressional district or state. 11 CFR

100.29(b)(6)(ii).

Under FEC regulations, if the

database “indicates that a communication cannot be received by 50,000

or more persons in the specified

Congressional District or State, then

such information shall be a complete defense against any charge that

such communication constitutes an

electioneering communication.” 11

CFR 100.29(b)(6)(i).1

Individuals with questions about

the database may contact the FCC

by e-mail at campaignlaw@fcc.gov.

Questions about the rules governing

electioneering communications

should be directed to the FEC’s

Information Division by phone at

800/424-9530 (press 1, then 3) or

202/694-1100, or by e-mail at

info@fec.gov.✦

—Amy Kort

ests.1

 The petition was submitted

jointly by the Campaign Legal

Center, the National Voting Rights

Institute, the Center for Responsive

Politics and Democracy 21. The

Commission published a Notice of

Availability in the January 14, 2004,

Federal Register (69 FR 2083),

seeking comments in response to

this petition. The comment period

ended on February 13. The Petition

for Rulemaking and the Notice of

Availability are available on the

FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/

register.htm.✦

—Amy Kort

Regulations

(continued from page 3)

Court Cases

Cox for U.S. Senate v. FEC

On January 21, 2004, the U.S.

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

granted summary judgment in favor

Proposed Statement of Policy

On Naming Treasurers in

Enforcement Matters

On January 28, 2004, the Commission published in the Federal

Register (69 FR 4092) a draft

statement of policy concerning the

naming of treasurers as respondents

in enforcement matters. The Commission is considering clarifying

when a political committee treasurer

is named as a respondent in an

enforcement matter whether it

intends to name the individual in his

or her official capacity as treasurer

or in his or her personal capacity.

For most enforcement matters

involving a political committee, the

Commission may decide to name

the treasurer in his or her official

capacity. However, if a treasurer has

apparently breached a personal

obligation imposed on treasurers by

the Federal Election Campaign Act

and Commission regulations or

violated a prohibition that applies to

individuals, the Commission may

decide to name the treasurer in his

or her personal capacity. The full

text of the proposed policy is

available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/agenda/notice2004-3/fr69n018p04092.pdf.

The Commission seeks comments

on any aspect of the draft policy,

including whether there are circumstances warranting flexibility in the

policy’s application, whether it

should consider a treasurer’s “best

efforts” to comply with the law and

whether it should apply this proposed policy in matters arising out

of the Administrative Fine program.

The deadline for public comments is

February 27, 2004. Comments must

be submitted, in either written or

electronic form, to Peter G.

Blumberg, Attorney, and may be

sent by:

• E-mail to treas2004@fec.gov (emailed comments must include the

commenter’s full name, e-mail

address and postal address);

• Fax to 202/219-3923 (send a

printed copy follow-up to ensure

legibility); or

• Overnight mail to the Federal

Election Commission, 999 E Street

NW, Washington DC, 20436.✦

—Amy Kort

1 On December 11, 2003, the Commission, as an interim measure, approved

a Statement of Policy Regarding

Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and

Related Files that identifies the

categories of records that will be

released to the public once enforcement

matters are closed. See the January

2004 Record, page 6.
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Enforcement Query

System Now Available

on FEC Web Site

 The FEC recently launched its

Enforcement Query System

(EQS), a web-based search tool

that allows users to find and

examine public documents

regarding closed Commission

enforcement matters. Using

current scanning, optical

character recognition and text

search technologies, the system

permits intuitive and flexible

searches of case documents and

other materials.

 Users of the system can search

for specific words or phrases

from the text of all public case

documents. They can also

identify single matters under

review (MURs) or groups of

cases by searching additional

identifying information about

cases prepared as part of the Case

Management System. Included

among these criteria are case

names and numbers,

complainants and respondents,

timeframes, dispositions, legal

issues and penalty amounts. The

Enforcement Query System may

be accessed on the Commission’s

web site at www.fec.gov.

 Currently, the EQS contains

complete public case files for all

MURs closed since January 1,

2002. In addition to adding all

cases closed subsequently, staff is

working to add cases closed prior

to 2002. All MURs closed in

2001 will be included in the

system by July 2004, and cases

closed in 2000 will be available

by the end of 2004. Other FEC

compliance actions (Alternative

Dispute Resolution cases and

Administrative Fines) will also be

included in the system at a later

date.

within forty-eight hours of the

committee’s receipt of the same.

Mr. Cox delegated responsibility for

filing reports during the 48-hour

reporting period to a Committee

employee, Cheryl Warren.

The Committee received a

$75,000 loan from Mr. Cox in the

form of a check on March 5, 2002.

Although Ms. Warren received the

check, she was uncertain as to

whether the loan needed to be

reported during the 48-hour period,

did not take steps to determine

whether reporting was required and

failed to bring the issue to Mr.

Cox’s attention. Ms. Warren spent

the better part of March 6, 2002,

consoling a fellow Committee

employee and helping him to find

temporary lodging after his apartment had burned in a fire earlier that

day. Neither she nor Mr. Cox filed

a 48-hour report disclosing the

$75,000 loan. On March 12, Mr.

Cox wired a $144,507.47 loan

directly to the Committee’s bank

account. Ms. Warren did not know

about this second loan, and neither

she nor Mr. Cox filed a 48-hour

report disclosing it. Both loans,

however, were subsequently reported by the Committee in its postelection April 2002 Quarterly

Report, which is required by a

separate reporting provision.

On September 18, 2002, the

Commission found reason to believe

that the Committee and Mr. Cox, as

its treasurer, violated 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(6)(A) by failing to properly

report three contributions of $1,000

or more, totaling $224,507.47, that

were received during the 48-hour

reporting period.2

 On September

19, 2002, the Commission notified

the Committee of its finding and the

$22,750 civil money penalty, which

1 The granting of summary judgment by

a court is appropriate where there is

“no genuine dispute of material fact

and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Under the Administrative

Procedure Act, a court can set aside an

agency action it finds “arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with the

law.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A); Smith v.

Office of Civilian Health & Med.

Program of the Uniformed Servs., 97

F.3d 950, 954 (7th Cir. 1996).

of the Commission in this case.1 The

Cox for U.S. Senate Committee (the

Committee) and John H. Cox, its

treasurer, filed suit against the

Commission on May 30, 2003,

appealing a civil money penalty

assessed against them by the

Commission under its administrative fines regulations for the

Committee’s failure to file two 48-

hour reports documenting campaign

contributions in excess of $1,000.

The plaintiffs argued that the

Commission’s determination that

the Committee and its treasurer

violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a) and the

Commission’s assessment of a

$22,150 civil money penalty were

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion and otherwise not in

accordance with law. The plaintiffs

also argued the Administrative Fines

Schedule (the Schedule) imposes a

form of criminal punishment and

violates the substantive due process

and equal protection clauses of the

Fifth Amendment, as well as the

“excessive fines” clause of the

Eighth Amendment.

Background

On February 11, 2002, the

Commission sent a Primary Election

Report Notice to the Committee,

which explained that, under 2

U.S.C. §434(a)(6)(A), campaign

contributions of $1,000 or more

(including personal loans) received

by the Committee between February

28, 2002, and March 16, 2002, must

be reported to the Commission

2 Other than the amounts and dates of

the contributions, no other information

about the loans was available to the

Commission when it made its reasonto-believe finding.

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

6

had been calculated according to the

Schedule.

The Committee submitted a

response to the Commission’s

Office of Administrative Review

(OAR) on October 25, 2002, in

which it conceded that the two loans

should have been reported within

forty-eight hours of their receipt.

The Committee argued, however,

that:

• Mr. Cox had announced his

intention to make the loans in

campaign speeches prior to making

the loans;

• The loans were subsequently

disclosed in the Committee’s post

election Quarterly report;

• Both loans were from the candidate himself;

• The omissions were inadvertent;

and

• A campaign staff member’s

apartment fire and the payment of

the March 12, 2002, loan by wire

transfer contributed to the oversights, although the committee

admitted that the factual circumstances may not strictly constitute

“extraordinary circumstances” that

would excuse their violations.

The OAR issued its recommendation on March 27, 2003. After

determining that a $5,000 contribution from a political action committee (one of the three contributions

originally at issue) was not made

during the 48-hour reporting period,

the OAR recommended reducing the

amount of the civil money penalty

from $22,750 to $22,150. However,

the OAR rejected the remainder of

the Committee’s arguments, finding

that:

• Ms. Warren had previously filed

reports for candidate loans received during the 48-hour reporting period in Mr. Cox’s prior

Congressional races and was,

therefore, aware that candidate

loans must be reported;

• A fire in the apartment of the

campaign staff member did not

constitute “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of 11

CFR 111.35;

• Mr. Cox was also the Committee’s

treasurer, which made him personally responsible for reporting his

own loans;

• Mr. Cox’s public statement that he

would contribute money to his

own campaign did not override his

duty to report the loans made

during the 48-hour reporting

period; and

• Reporting contributions in the

post-election quarterly report was

not a substitute for reporting

contributions within forty-eight

hours of their receipt.

The Committee responded to the

recommendation with a number of

new arguments, including constitutional challenges to the Schedule.

The Commission made a final

determination that the Committee

violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(6)(A) and

assessed a civil money penalty of

$22,150 and notified the Committee

on April 30, 2003. The plaintiffs

subsequently filed their complaint

with the court on May 30, 2003.

Court Decision

Assessment of civil penalty. The

court found that the Commission’s

assessment of a civil money penalty

was not arbitrary, capricious,

irrational or an abuse of discretion

and was in accordance with law.

The court explained that:

• The record establishes that the

Commission considered the

Committee’s mitigating factors

before reaching its decision, and

the Committee conceded that the

“mitigating factors” do not qualify

as “extraordinary circumstances”

under Commission regulations.

• Campaign promises by Mr. Cox

provide no guarantee that pledged

contributions from Mr. Cox’s

personal assets would be made or

even derived from the stated

funding sources, and, therefore, in

failing to report loans, the Committee undermined the three

“substantial governmental interests” that the disclosure requirements protect. Buckley v. Valeo,

424 U.S. 1 (1976).

Penalty Schedule. The court

found that the Schedule does not

impose a form of criminal punishment and determined the Schedule’s

penalties to be civil in construction,

nature and application. The court

explained that civil fines are not

historically regarded as punishment

and that the plaintiffs failed to

establish that the Schedule’s deterrent effect is penal in nature or how

it might restrict their future behavior. Moreover, the Federal Election

Campaign Act provides separate

criminal penalties for knowing and

willful violations, which suggests

that the Schedule is directed towards

civil behavior. 2 USC § 437g(d). An

alternative purpose for the civil

money penalty, other than a punitive

purpose, is clearly assignable—

namely the protection of “substantial governmental interests” related

to the pre-election disclosure of

campaign contributions—and not

excessive.

The court also determined that

the Schedule does not violate

substantive due process or the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fifth

Amendment. The Committee

argued that the sanctions imposed

by the Schedule are “so severe that

they transform the sanctions into

criminal penalties,” and this transformation renders the Schedule

unconstitutional because the penalties set forth therein “constitute

criminal punishment without the

safeguards afforded an accused

under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”

The court, however, found that

the Committee failed to explain how

the money required to satisfy the

civil penalty assessed by the Commission constituted or related in any

way to an “underlying constitutionCourt Cases

(continued from page 5)
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

ally protected property interest.” In

addition, the court determined that

the Committee failed to establish

that the Schedule is not “narrowly

tailored to serve a compelling state

interest.” Although the plaintiffs

were assessed a civil money penalty

for failing to comply with 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(6)(A), their campaign

activities and/or ability to run for

public office were in no way

limited. Furthermore, the disclosure

requirements and accompanying

Schedule serve to further “substantial governmental interests.”

The Committee also failed to

establish to the satisfaction of the

court that the Schedule creates

classifications subject to equal

protection analysis, or even how the

disclosure requirements differ

among campaign committees. In

addition, the plaintiffs failed to

establish that they have suffered

“invidious discrimination” or

disparate treatment, or that such

treatment was purposeful.

The court also concluded that the

Schedule is not grossly disproportionate to the conduct to which it

applies and, thus, does not violate

the Eighth Amendment’s excessive

fines clause. Instead, the court

found that the Committee subverted

“substantial governmental interests”

by failing to report the contributions

received during the 48-hour reporting period, depriving the public of

important pre-election information.

Moreover, the court stated that

campaign promises are not a

substitute for formal and timely

reporting. While the violations were

inadvertent, the Committee was

directly responsible for both violations—negligence is specifically

excluded as an “extraordinary

circumstance.” 11 CFR

111.35(b)(4). Finally, the court

found that the Schedule is directly

proportional to the amount of the

unreported contributions and takes

into account the existence of prior

violations.

Order. The Court denied the

Committee’s motion for summary

raises or spends more than $1,000

and whose principal purpose is to

influence federal elections to

register with the FEC as a federal

political committee and disclose its

contributions and expenditures. 2

U.S.C. §431(4).

In 2000, Tom Kean ran in the

New Jersey Congressional Seventh

Republican primary against Mike

Ferguson, among other candidates.

The New Jersey primary election

was held on June 6, 2000. Mike

Ferguson won the election and

presently holds the Congressional

seat sought by Mr. Kean, who is

currently a state Senator. The Kean

for Congress Committee was Mr.

Kean’s principal campaign committee in the 2000 election.

Court complaint. The Committee

alleges that, on May 31, 2000, it

filed an administrative complaint

and supporting documents with the

FEC alleging that the campaign

mailings disseminated by the CRG

violated numerous provisions of the

Act. According to the Committee,

in May 2000 the CRG disseminated

numerous advertisements advocating the defeat of Tom Kean and the

election of Mr. Ferguson. In

addition, Gary Glenn, a CRG board

member, was quoted in a newspaper

as stating that, “[t]he very purpose

of our group is to influence the

outcome of elections...” The

plaintiff asserted that the Committee, its candidate and supporters

suffered direct political injury by the

actions of the CRG which targeted

Tom Kean’s campaign and palpably

impaired his ability to compete on

equal footing in the 2000 election.

The CRG’s failure to include the

required disclaimer under 2 U.S.C.

§441d in its challenged campaign

communications and its failure to

publicly disclose its contributions

and expenditures under 11 CFR

109.2 allegedly deprived the Committee of information to which it is

entitled under the Act.

New Litigation

Kean for Congress Committee v.

FEC

On January 5, 2004, the Kean for

Congress Committee (the Committee) asked the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia to find that

the Commission acted contrary to

law when it dismissed the plaintiff’s

administrative complaint dated May

31, 2000, and subsequently failed to

provide a Statement of Reasons.

The administrative complaint

alleged that a Virginia corporation

known as the Council for Responsible Government and its so-called

“Accountability Project” (collectively, CRG) funded mailings which

attempted to influence a New Jersey

Congressional Seventh District

Republican primary, in violation of

federal law. On November 4, 2003,

the Commission dismissed the

administrative complaint, splitting

3-3 on whether to find reason to

believe the CRG violated the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act).

Background. The Act prohibits

corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection

with federal elections and requires

that any communication advocating

the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate contain a

disclaimer stating whether the

communication was authorized by

any candidate. The Act also requires that independent expenditures

in support of, or in opposition to, a

federal candidate and costing in

excess of $250 be publicly disclosed

in a filing with the FEC. 11 CFR

109.2. Additionally, the Act

requires any group of persons that (continued on page 8)

judgment, granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission

and upheld the fine assessed against

the Committee.

U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, 03-3715. ✦

—Amy Pike
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

8

Alliance for Democracy v. FEC

On January 26, 2004, the Alliance for Democracy, a non-profit,

non-partisan advocacy group, Hedy

Epstein and Ben Kjelshus (collectively the plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia alleging

that the Commission wrongfully

dismissed the central allegations of

By letter dated November 10,

2003, the FEC advised the Committee that the Commission was

“equally divided” on whether to find

reason to believe the CRG violated

the Act, and closed the file on

November 4, 2003. The plaintiff

filed a court complaint on January 5,

2004, seeking to have the

Commission’s dismissal of the

administrative complaint declared

contrary to law. The complaint also

alleges that the FEC had failed to

provide a Statement of Reasons

setting forth a basis for its decision.1

Relief. The plaintiff asks the

court to declare that the

Commission’s dismissal of the Kean

Committee’s administrative complaint and failure to provide a

Statement of Reasons for its decision was based on an impermissible

interpretation of the Act, was

arbitrary and capricious, was an

abuse of discretion and was otherwise contrary to law.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia,

1:04CV00007.✦

—Meredith Trimble

1 11 CFR 5.4(a)(4) requires that

Commissioners’ opinions be placed on

the public record no later than 30 days

from the date on which respondents

were notified that the Commission has

voted to close an enforcement file.

After the Committee filed its court

complaint, the FEC issued and publicly

released a Statement of Reasons for its

decision to dismiss the Committee’s

administrative complaint.

Court complaint. The complaint

alleges that the Commission failed

to find probable cause to believe

that the transfer of the mailing list

constituted an in-kind contribution,

or that the value of the list had to be

reported as a contribution. The

Commission also did not find

probable cause as to Ashcroft

2000’s use of the list or Ashcroft

2000’s receipt of list rental income

from its own rental of the list. The

plaintiffs also allege that the list’s

value far exceeds the $112,962 in

excessive contributions found by the

Commission.

The plaintiffs allege in their court

complaint that the FEC’s “dismissal

of the central allegations of the

administrative complaint, and its

approval of the transfer of the

funding list from the Spirit of

America PAC to Ashcroft 2000 and

the non-reporting of the transfer, are

arbitrary and capricious, contrary to

law and a clear abuse of the

agency’s discretion.” The plaintiffs

also allege that the Commission’s

failure to find excessive contributions and reporting violations based

on the illegal donation of the

fundraising list is based on an

impermissible interpretation of the

Act. See 2 U.S.C. §§431(8)(A)(i),

432(b), 434(b) 441a(a)(2)(A) and

441a(f). They assert that if the court

enters a judgment finding that the

FEC’s actions in this matter were

contrary to law, the Commission

will, upon remand, have the authority to:

• Ascertain the value of the mailing

list;

• Require reporting and disclosure of

the alleged contribution resulting

from the list transaction; and

• Seek further penalties and/or

injunctive or declaratory relief

against SOA, Ashcroft 2000 and

their principals.

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

• Declare that the FEC’s dismissal

of key allegations of the administrative complaint were contrary to

law;

1 The plaintiffs also filed a complaint

with the court in March 2002, asking

the court to find that the Commission

acted contrary to law by failing to act

on this administrative complaint. This

case is still pending. See the May 2002

Record, page 3.

2 The conciliation agreement and

supporting documents are available

through the FEC’s Enforcement Query

System on the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov.

Court Cases

(continued from page 7)

the plaintiffs’ administrative complaint against the Spirit of America

PAC (SOA) and Ashcroft 2000.

Background. SOA was established in 1996 and John Ashcroft

served as its chairman. In March

2001, the plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with the Commission, designated MUR 5181,

alleging that SOA unlawfully

donated a fundraising list of approximately 100,000 donors to

Ashcroft 2000, Mr. Ashcroft’s 2000

Senate campaign committee, and

that the two committees failed to

disclose the donation of the list or

its value. According to the administrative complaint, the donation of

the fundraising list constituted a

contribution under the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and exceeded the Act’s contribution

limits. 2 U.S.C. §431(8). The

administrative complaint further

alleged that SOA and Ashcroft 2000

violated the Act by failing to report

the contribution of the fundraising

list in their FEC reports.1

 See 2

U.S.C. §§441a(a)(2)(a), 441a(f) and

434(b). On December 11, 2003, the

FEC closed the investigation of the

administrative complaint with a

conciliation agreement that includes

a $37,000 civil penalty for violations stemming from the transfer of

list rental income.2

 The plaintiffs’

new lawsuit claims that the FEC’s

investigation of MUR 5181 revealed

that SOA developed the fundraising

list at a cost of over $1.7 million and

confirmed that the SOA illegally

donated the list to Ashcroft 2000.
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

• Remand the matter to the FEC with

an order to conform to the court’s

declaration within 30 days; and

• Grant such other relief as may be

appropriate.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia,

1:04CV00127.✦

—Amy Kort

FEC v Friends of Lane Evans

On January 30, 2004, the Commission filed a complaint in the U.S.

District Court for the Central

District of Illinois, Rock Island

Division. The complaint alleges

that, during the 1998 and 2000

elections, Congressman Lane

Evans’ campaign committee established a purportedly independent

committee, the 17th District Victory

Fund (the Victory Fund), that was in

fact nothing more than an alter ego

of the Congressman’s campaign

committee. According to the

complaint, the Victory Fund accepted hundreds of thousands of

dollars in prohibited corporate

contributions and contributions

which, if given to the principal

campaign committee itself, would

have exceeded the Federal Election

Campaign Act’s (the Act) contribution limits.

The complaint alleges that the

Victory Fund spent these funds on

get-out-the-vote activities to aid

Congressman Evans and conducted

its activities at the direction of, and

in close coordination with, Eric

Nelson, Congressman Evan’s

campaign manager. The complaint

further alleges that a local party

committee, the Democratic Party

organization for Rock Island

County, Illinois, made a number of

expenditures in coordination with

the campaign committee that

exceeded the Act’s limits on such

in-kind contributions.

The Act and Commission regulations. Under the Act and Commission regulations, a political

committee includes:

• Any “committee, club, association,

or other group of persons” that

receives contributions or makes

expenditures aggregating in excess

of $1,000 during a calendar year;

and

• Any local committee of a political

party that receives contributions

aggregating in excess of $5,000 or

makes contributions or expenditures aggregating in excess of

$1,000 in a calendar year. 2 U.S.C.

§431(4).

During the period in question, a

candidate’s principal campaign

committee could accept up to

$1,000 per election from an individual, and the committees of a

national party could accept up to

$20,000 per year in the aggregate

from an individual. Any other

political committee could accept

$5,000 per year from an individual.

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1). An expenditure made by any person in “cooperation, consultation or concert,

with, or at the request or suggestion

of, a candidate, his authorized

political committees, or their

agents” is considered a contribution

to the candidate. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(7)(B)(i). Corporations and

unions are barred from making

contributions or expenditures in

connection with any federal election. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

Court Complaint. The Commission alleges that Congressman

Evans’ principal campaign committee (the Evans Committee)—

primarily through Mr.

Nelson—established the Victory

Fund, shared common consultants

with it, arranged for its financing

and directed its operations. The

Victory Fund, which has no charter

or bylaws, did not have members,

hold regular meetings, maintain a

permanent office in the 17th District

or have a formal process for selecting its chairman or treasurer. Mr.

Nelson selected and recruited the

people who served in these two

nominal officer positions. The

Evans Committee and a consultant

who also worked for the Evans

Committee solicited all donations to

the Victory Fund. The Victory Fund

established separate federal and

nonfederal accounts, and, from 1997

through 2000, accepted approximately $138,000 in contributions to

its federal account and $369,000 in

donations to its nonfederal account,

including substantial donations from

labor unions. During this period,

contributors to the Evans Committee

made up more than 95 percent of the

Victory Fund’s federal contributors.

According to the complaint, the

Victory fund hired vendors and

contractors to provide political

consulting and conduct voter

identification and get-out-the-vote

activities, including field operations,

direct mail and telephone calls, in

Congressman Evans’ district. The

Victory Fund made at least

$330,000 of these expenditures in

cooperation and consultation with

the Evans Committee, and paid for

the expenditures with a mixture of

federal and nonfederal funds. These

coordinated expenditures constituted

in-kind contributions by the Victory

Fund to the Evans Committee that

exceeded the applicable $1,000

contribution limit. Since the

expenditures were made exclusively

in coordination with a federal

candidate committee, the Victory

Fund was required to pay for these

expenditures entirely with federal

funds. In addition, the Victory Fund

allocated its fundraising expenses

using an allocation method based on

the composition of the ballot. Under

Commission regulations at that

time, this allocation method could

only permissibly be used by party

committees. See 11 CFR 106.5(f).

As a non-party political committee,

the Victory Fund was required to

allocate its fundraising expenses

using the ratio of total funds received to federal funds received. See

11 CFR 106.6(d).

In addition, the Commission

alleges that in 1998 the Rock Island

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

10

Democratic Central Committee (the

Rock Island Committee) spent

approximately $18,000 on a radio

ad, two direct mail pieces and a

newspaper ad that expressly advocated the Congressman’s re-election

and were coordinated with the

Evans Committee, primarily through

Mr. Nelson. These coordinated

expenditures exceeded the applicable $1,000 contribution limit and

the communications did not include

the required disclaimer stating

whether they were authorized by

Congressman Evans or the Evans

Committee. 2 U.S.C. §441d(a).

The Rock Island Committee

failed to register as a political

committee with the Commission and

did not report its financial activity,

even though it received several

hundred thousand dollars during the

1998 and 2000 cycles after becoming a political committee. See 2

U.S.C. §433. Also, while it did not

establish separate federal and

nonfederal accounts, it accepted

contributions outside the Act’s

limits and prohibitions.1

The Commission also contends

that both the Evans Committee and

the Victory Fund violated the Act’s

reporting requirements. See 2

U.S.C. §§433 and 434. The Evans

Committee:

• Failed to report the receipt of inkind contributions from the

Victory Fund or the Rock Island

committee; and

• Only listed two bank accounts in

1998 even though it maintained

three accounts at that time.

The Victory Fund:

• Failed to register within 10 days of

becoming a political committee;

• Falsely registered as a political

party committee;

• Did not report any in-kind contributions to the Evans Committee;

• Reported the vast majority of its

disbursements as administrative/

voter drive expenses rather than as

expenditures made on behalf of the

Evans Committee; and

• Reported its fundraising expenses

as the administrative/voter drive

expenses of a political party, rather

than as the fundraising expenses of

a non-party committee.

Relief. The Commission asks the

court to find that the Evans Committee, the Victory Fund, the Rock

Island Committee and their respective treasurers violated these provisions of the Act and to permanently

enjoin them from engaging in

similar violations in the future. The

Commission also asks the court to:

• Order these committees to file the

appropriate reports and statements

and amend all incorrect reports and

statements previously filed with

Commission; and

• Assess an appropriate civil penalty

against each respondent for each

violation found, not to exceed

$5,500 or the amount of the

contributions or expenditures

involved in each violation.

U.S. District Court for the

Central District of Illinois, Rock

Island Division; 04-CV-4003.✦

—Amy Kort

1 In 1998 political committees—other

than authorized committees—could

establish two separate accounts, a

federal and a nonfederal account.

Funds from the nonfederal account

could not be used to make contributions

to federal candidates or expenditures to

support or oppose federal candidates.

See 11 CFR 102.5.

Court Cases

(continued from page 9) Advisory

Opinions

AO 2003-39

Charitable Matching Plan

Conducted by Collecting

Agent of Trade Association

PAC

The North Carolina Local

Government Employees’ Federal

Credit Union (Local Government

FCU), a member of the Credit

Union National Association

(CUNA), may match contributions

to CUNA’s SSF with contributions

to a section 501(c)(3) charity of the

contributor’s choice.

Background

CUNA is an incorporated trade

association, whose members consist

of state and federal chartered credit

unions and various credit union

leagues nationwide. Local Government FCU is a member of CUNA

and has given written prior approval

to CUNA’s SSF—the Credit Union

Legislative Action Council

(CULAC)—to solicit contributions

from Local Government FCU’s

restricted class. Under the charitable matching plan, for each

contribution made to CULAC, Local

Government FCU will make a

matching contribution to any public

charity (incorporated under section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue

Code) of the contributor’s choice.

The individual contributors will not

receive any tax benefits from the

charitable donations made by Local

Government FCU on their behalf

and will not receive bonuses,

expense accounts or other forms of

direct or indirect compensation as a

result of their participation in the

plan.

Analysis

Federal law prohibits a corporation, including a federally chartered

credit union, from making contributions or expenditures in connection
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

AO 2003-40

Reporting Independent

Expenditures

The U.S. Navy Veteran’s Good

Government Fund (the Committee)

must disclose within 48 hours its

disbursements for independent

expenditures that aggregate $10,000

or more “with respect to a given

election” at any time during the

calendar year up to and including

the 20th day before the election.

Independent expenditure disbursements made during this period that

do not aggregate in excess of this

amount with respect to a single

election must be reported on the

committee’s next regularly scheduled report.

Background

Under the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),

persons (including political committees) that make or contract to make

independent expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up

to and including the 20th day before

the date of an election must disclose

this activity to the Commission

within 48 hours. 2 U.S.C.

§434(g)(2)(A). Commission

regulations specify that a political

committee must aggregate all

independent expenditures “with

respect to a given election” during

the relevant time period to determine if it has reached the $10,000

threshold for the 48-hour report

requirement. 11 CFR 104.4(b)(2).

All disbursements for independent

expenditures and all enforceable

contracts, either oral or written,

obligating funds for independent

expenditure disbursements during

the calendar year must be aggregated when the independent expenditures are made with respect to the

same election for federal office. 11

CFR 104.4(f). The requirement to

calculate the committee’s aggregate

independent expenditure disbursements—in order to determine

whether a 48-hour report is required—is triggered each time an

independent expenditure is publicly

distributed. 11 CFR 104.4(f).

During the 2004 calendar year,

the Committee intends to make only

the following nine independent

expenditures:

1. $9,000 on February 15 for

Candidate X in connection with

the November 2 general election

for U.S. Senator from Alaska;

2. $9,000 on February 17 for

Candidate Y in connection with

the November 2 general election

for U.S. Representative from

Florida;

3. $9,000 on February 26 for

Candidate Z in connection with

the November 2 general election

for U.S. Senator from Kentucky;

4. $9,000 on February 1 for Candidate A in connection with the

March 2 New York Democratic

Presidential Primary;

5. $9,000 on February 3 for Candidate A in connection with the

March 2 California Democratic

Presidential Primary;

6. $9,000 on February 5 for Candidate A in connection with the

June 8 New Jersey Democratic

Presidential Primary;

7. $4,000 on February 1 for Candidate B in connection with the

March 2 California Democratic

Presidential Primary;

8. $9,000 on July 1 in Arizona for

electors pledged to Candidate C

in connection with the November

2 Presidential general election;

and

9. $9,000 on July 6 in Arkansas for

electors pledged to Candidate C

in connection with the November

2 Presidential general election.

Filing 48-Hour Reports

Congressional elections held on

the same day. The Committee would

not have to file a 48-hour report for

the first three independent expenditures listed above because a 48-hour

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

§441b(a). However, costs paid by

the corporation for the solicitation

of contributions to an SSF are

excluded from the definition of

“contributions or expenditures.” 2

U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)(C). While a

corporation may pay for the solicitation costs of its SSF, any exchange

of treasury funds for contributions is

prohibited and contributors may not

be compensated in any way for

making contributions to the SSF. 11

CFR 114.5(b).

As a member of CUNA, Local

Government FCU may act as a

collecting agent and may pay for the

costs involved in soliciting, receiving and transmitting contributions

for CULAC. 11 CFR

102.6(b)(1)(iii). In past advisory

opinions, the Commission has

determined that a charitable matching plan is a solicitation expense

related to fundraising for an SSF.

11 CFR 114.5(b).

The Commission has not previously dealt with the question of

whether charitable matching payments made by a collecting agent

rather than the connected organization constitute solicitation costs. In

addressing this question, the Commission notes that the regulations

permitting a connected organization

to pay the solicitation costs of its

SSF are similar in language and

intent to the regulations permitting

collecting agents to pay for the cost

of soliciting contributions for an

SSF. 11CFR 114.5(b) and

102.6(c)(2)(i).

For this reason, the Commission

determined that the costs involved

in conducting a charitable matching

plan should be considered solicitation costs that may be paid for by a

collecting agent. The payment of

such charitable matching donations

by Local Government FCU is,

therefore, permissible under federal

law.✦

Date Issued: January 28, 2004;

Length: 5 pages.

— Gary Mullen (continued on page 12)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

12

report is not required until the

Committee’s aggregate independent

expenditures “with respect to a

given election” reach $10,000. All

of these expenditures would be

below that threshold. Moreover, the

Committee would not be required to

aggregate any of these expenditures

because each office sought is the

subject of a separate election, even

though the general election for each

U.S. House of Representatives seat

and one-third of the Senate will be

held on the same day, November 2,

2004.1

 Instead, the Committee

would disclose these expenditures

on its regularly scheduled reports.

11 CFR 104.4(b)(1).

Presidential primary elections in

different states. Similarly, neither

the fourth nor the sixth independent

expenditure listed above would

require a 48-hour report because the

Committee’s aggregate independent

expenditures “with respect to a

given election” would not equal or

exceed $10,000. The Committee

would not be required to aggregate

any of these expenditures because

each state’s Presidential primary is

considered a separate election for

the purposes of aggregating indeAdvisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

1 For purposes of this AO, the Commission accepts the Committee’s representation that these independent expenditures would be in connection with the

general election. No 48-hour reports

would be required for these expenditures if they were in connection with the

primary elections for the three offices,

which will be held in Alaska on August

24, 2004, in Florida on August 31,

2004, and in Kentucky on August 18,

2004. Nor would 24-hour reports be

required because the independent

expenditures would not be made within

20 days of the election. 2 U.S.C.

§434(g)(1)(A) and 11 CFR 104.4(c).

2 See the Explanation and Justification for

section 104.4, defining “publicly

distributed.” Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002 Reporting; Final

Rules (68 FR 404,407 , January 3, 2003).

See also the Explanation and Justification

for section 100.29(b)(3)(ii), discussing

state Presidential primaries. Electioneering Communications; Final Rules (67 FR

65190, October 23, 2002) at 65194.

pendent expenditures.2 Again, the

Committee would disclose these

expenditures on its next regularly

scheduled report. 11 CFR

104.4(b)(1).

Different candidates in the same

election. The February 1 independent expenditure described in

scenario seven would not require the

Committee to file a 48-hour report

for reasons stated above. However,

the February 3 independent expenditure described in scenario five

would require the Committee to file

a 48-hour report because it would be

related to the same election as the

$4,000 expenditure described in

scenario seven. Although this

expenditure would be related to a

different candidate than the expenditure in scenario seven, the Committee must aggregate the expenditures

because they both are related to the

same election. The Committee’s

48-hour report must disclose the

independent expenditures described

in both scenarios five and seven.

Elections relating to the general

election for a single office. The

Committee would be required to file

a 48-hour report after it makes the

independent expenditure on July 6

described in scenario nine because

the Committee must aggregate the

expenditures in scenarios eight and

nine. Both expenditures would

relate to the general election for a

single office, President of the United

States. The 48-hour report must

disclose both independent expenditures described in scenarios eight

and nine.

Date Issued: February 6, 2004;

Length: 5 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

AO 2004-1

Endorsement Ads Result in

Contribution

Advertisements featuring President Bush and endorsing Congressional candidate Alice Forgy Kerr

that are distributed within 120 days

before the Kentucky Presidential

primary election would be coordinated communications resulting in

in-kind contributions to BushCheney ’04, Inc. (the Bush-Cheney

Committee) if paid for entirely by

Alice Forgy Kerr For Congress (the

Kerr Committee). These proposed

communications meet the three

pronged test for coordinated communications under 11 CFR 109.21.

However, advertisements that are

distributed outside of this 120-day

window would not be coordinated

communications and, thus, would

not constitute in-kind contributions

to the Bush-Cheney Committee.

Background

State Senator Kerr was a candidate for Congress in Kentucky’s

February 17, 2004, special election.

President Bush will appear on the

ballot for re-election in Kentucky’s

Presidential primary on May 18.

The Kerr Committee intends to pay

for one or more television ads for

State Senator Kerr’s election that

include images of the President and/

or audio of him speaking, which are

intended to convey the President’s

support for Ms. Kerr’s election. The

President’s agents will review the

final script for legal compliance,

factual accuracy, quality, consistency with the President’s position

and any content that distracts from

or distorts the “endorsement”

message that the President wishes to

convey.

The proposed ads do not mention

the President’s re-election candidacy or expressly advocate the

election or defeat of any Presidential

candidate. They do not include any

material prepared by the President,

the Bush-Cheney Committee or

their agents, and they were not
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

developed by, or at the request or

suggestion of, the President or his

campaign committee or agents. The

ads will not solicit funds.

Coordinated Communications

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) has long defined as an

in-kind contribution expenditures

made by any person “in cooperation,

consultation, or concert with, or at

the request or suggestion of, a

candidate, his authorized political

committees, or their agents.” 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)(i).1

 In

implementing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),

the Commission promulgated new

regulations on coordinated communications that set forth a threepronged coordination test. In order

to qualify, a communication must:

• Be paid for by a person other than

a federal candidate, a candidate’s

authorized committee, a political

party committee or an agent of any

of these;

• Satisfy one or more of six conduct

standards (11 CFR 109.21(d)); and

• Satisfy one or more of four content

standards (11 CFR 109.21)).

See 11 CFR 109.21(a).

A payment for a coordinated

communication is made for the

purpose of influencing a federal

election. It is an in-kind contribution

to the candidate or authorized

committee with whom or which it is

coordinated and must be reported as

an expenditure by that candidate or

authorized committee. 11 CFR

109.21(b)(1).

Application to Proposed Ads

Source of payment. The proposed

ads meet the first prong of the

coordinated communication test if

State Senator Kerr or the Kerr

Committee pays for the ads. Although the Senator is herself a

federal candidate, this does not

exempt her from this section with

respect to payments she makes for

communications on behalf of a

different federal candidate.2

Conduct standard. The ads would

also meet one of the conduct

standards and thus satisfy a second

prong of the test. 11 CFR

109.21(d)(1) through (6). The

“material involvement” standard is

satisfied if, among other things, the

federal candidate, his or her authorized committee or one of their

agents conveys approval or disapproval of the other person’s plans.

11 CFR 109.21(d)(2)(i). The

President’s agents’ review of the

final script, as described above,

would constitute material involvement.3

Content standard: Ads publicly

distributed after January 18, 2004.

The only content standard applicable to the proposed ads requires

that the communication:

• Be a public communication under

11 CFR 100.26;

• Refer to a clearly identified federal

candidate;

• Be publicly distributed within 120

days of an election for federal

office; and

• Be directed to voters within the

jurisdiction of the clearly identified

candidate.

11 CFR 109.21(c)(4).

The Kerr Committee ads distributed within 120 days of the Kentucky Presidential primary—in other

words, after January 18—would

meet each of these requirements

because they would be public

communications that refer to

President Bush and would be

targeted to voters in President

Bush’s jurisdiction. For Presidential

primaries, the targeting concept is

satisfied whenever a public communication is publicly distributed to

voters in a state with a Presidential

primary election within the next 120

days.

Having satisfied the three prongs

of the “coordinated communication”

definition, the Kerr Committee ads

distributed after January 18 would

be in-kind contributions to the

Bush-Cheney Committee unless the

Bush-Cheney Committee reimburses the Kerr Committee for its

attributed portion of the coordinated

communications. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(7)(B); 11 CRR

109.21(b)(1).

Content standard: Ads publicly

distributed before January 19, 2004.

Ads publicly distributed before

January 19 do not meet any of the

four content standards:

• They are not electioneering

communications because they were

expenditures by the Kerr Committee (see 11 CFR 100.29(c)(3));

• They do not include any BushCheney campaign material;

• They do not expressly advocate

President Bush’s election; and

• They were not publicly distributed

within 120 days of the Kentucky

Presidential primary and, thus, do

not meet the content standard that

applies to ads distributed after the

18th.

11 CFR 109.21(c)(1)-(4).

As a result, these ads are not

coordinated communications and are

not in-kind contributions to the

Bush-Cheney Committee if paid for

by the Kerr Committee.

Attribution. Kerr Committee ads

distributed after January 18, 2004,

must be attributed to avoid an inkind contribution. Expenditures,

including in-kind contributions,

1 The BCRA expanded this definition to

include expenditures made by any person

“in cooperation, consultation, or concert

with, or at the request or suggestion of” a

political party committee or its agents. 11

CFR 109.21(a).

2 See Coordinated and Independent

Expenditures, Final Rules (68 FR 421,

January 3, 2003) at 426.

3 Consistent with this conclusion, the

Commission recently determined that

the appearance of a U.S. Senator in an

ad endorsing a local candidate showed

sufficient involvement by the Senator to

satisfy the “materially involved”

conduct standard. See AO 2003-25. (continued on page 14)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

14

made on behalf of more than one

clearly identified federal candidate

are attributed to each candidate

according to the benefit each is

reasonably expected to derive. For

broadcast communications, attribution is determined by the proportion

of space or time devoted to each

candidate as compared to the total

space or time devoted to all candidates. 11 CFR 106.1(a)(1). Thus, for

ads distributed within 120 days of the

Presidential primary, the BushCheney Committee must reimburse

the Kerr Committee for all production

and distribution costs attributed to the

Bush-Cheney Committee using the

time and space method in order to

avoid receiving an in-kind contribution from the Kerr Committee.4

Ads distributed prior to January

19 do not require the attribution of

their production and distribution

costs, and no in-kind contribution

from the Kerr Committee will result

from these ads.

Disclaimers. Under the Act, as

amended by the BCRA, and Commission regulations, television ads

authorized by a candidate must

include either a full screen view of

the candidate making a statement

where the candidate identifies

himself or herself and states his or

her approval of the communication

or a voice-over of a photograph of

the candidate making the same

statement. 11 CFR 110.11(c)(3)(ii).

Any communications that would be

subject to review by the President’s

agents must be considered communications authorized by the President, in addition to State Senator

Kerr. Therefore, for all of the

proposed ads the disclaimer requirements apply to both Ms. Kerr and

President Bush. In this instance, for

Alternative Disposition of

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 2003-38

The Commission was unable to

provide an advisory opinion by the

required four vote majority on

whether funds raised and spent by

U.S. Representative Eliot Engel on

behalf of a redistricting committee

to defray legal expenses incurred in

redistricting litigation are in connecAdvisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2004-2

Permissibility of political committees accepting contributions from

testamentary trusts established by

donors for the purpose of making

annual contributions to political

committees (National Committee

for an Effective Congress, November 10, 2003)

AOR 2004-3

Permissibility of principal

campaign committee converting to

non-authorized committee with

multicandidate status (Dooley for

the Valley, January 29, 2004)

AOR 2004-4

Permissibility of abbreviated

name of SSF (Air Transport Association of America PAC, January

23, 2004)

AOR 2004-5

Voter mobilization and

fundraising activities of

nonconnected PAC with federal and

nonfederal accounts (America

Coming Together, February 2,

2004)

AOR 2004-6

Permissibility of corporation’s

provision of free web-based services

to federal candidates and political

committees on same terms as to

general public (Meetup, Inc.,

February 6, 2004)

AOR 2004-7

Corporate funds expended for

production and promotion of

programming involving voter

education, voter registration and a

Presidential candidate endorsement

as corporate contributions, expenditures or electioneering communications (MTV Networks, January 20,

2004)✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 13)

example, the disclaimer for the ads

distributed after January 18 could

state “Paid for and Approved by

Alice Forgy Kerr for Congress and

Bush/Cheney ’04.” The disclaimer

for ads distributed before January 19

could state “Paid for by Kerr for

Congress and approved by Kerr and

Bush/Cheney ’04.” Both disclaimers

would be appropriate text for

written disclaimers required under

11 CFR 110.11(c)(3)(iii).

Although it would also be

permissible for the Bush and Kerr

campaigns to structure dual approval statements in the ads, the

Commission will not require such a

statement for compliance with the

Act. See 2 U.S.C. §441d(d)(1)(B)

and 11 CFR 110.11(c)(3)(ii). In

light of the fact that the BushCheney Committee has in fact

approved this ad, provided that the

approval statement conveys that

both candidates approved the ad, it

can be made in the voice and with

the image of only one of the candidates. For example, State Senator

Kerr could appear on screen and

state “My name is Alice Forgy Kerr.

I am running for Congress, and

President Bush and I approved this

message.”

Concurring Opinion

Chairman Smith and Commissioners Mason and Toner issued a

concurring opinion on February 2,

2004.

Date Issued: January 29, 2004;

Length: 8 pages.✦

—Amy Kort

4 The Commission’s determination in

this advisory opinion regarding

attribution applies only to two federal

authorized committees spending

entirely federal funds.

tion with a federal or nonfederal

election within the meaning of 2

U.S.C. §441i(e)(1)(A) or (B).✦

—Amy Kort
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

2004 Coordinated Party

Expenditure Limits

The 2004 coordinated party

expenditure limits are now available. They are:

• $16,249,699 for Presidential

nominees;

• $37,310 for House nominees;1

 and

• A range from $74,620 to

$1,944,896 for Senate nominees,

depending on each state’s voting

age population.

Party committees may make

these special expenditures on behalf

of their 2004 general election

nominees. National party committees have a separate limit for each

nominee, but they share their limits

with their national senatorial and

congressional committees. Each

state party committee has a separate

limit for each House and Senate

nominee in its state. Local party

committees do not have their own

separate limit. One party committee

may authorize another party committee to make an expenditure

against its limit. Local committees

may only make coordinated party

expenditures with advance authorization from another committee.

Coordinated party expenditure

limits are separate from the contribution limits; they also differ from

contributions in that the party

committee must spend the funds on

behalf of the candidate rather than

give the money directly to the

campaign. Although these expenditures may be made in consultation

with the candidate, only the party

Party

Activities

Authority to Make Coordinated Party Expenditures on

Behalf of House, Senate and Presidential Nominees

National Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of House,

Senate and Presidential nominees. May

authorize 1

 other party committees to make

expenditures against its own spending

limits. Shares limits with national Congres

sional and Senatorial campaign committees.

State Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of House

and Senate nominees seeking election in the

committee’s state. May authorize 1

 other

party committees to make expenditures

against its own spending limits. May be

authorized1 by national committee to make

expenditures on behalf of Presidential

nominee that count against the national

committee’s limit.

Local Party Committee May be authorized 1

 by national or state

party committee to make expenditures

against its limits.

Calculating 2004 Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits

Amount Formula

Presidential Nominee $16,249,699 2¢ x VAP2 x COLA3

Senate Nominee See table on The greater of:

page 16 $20,000 x COLA or

2¢ x state VAP x COLA

House Nominee in States

with Only One Representative $74,620 $20,000 x COLA

House Nominee in Other States $37,310 $10,000 x COLA

Nominee for Delegate or

Resident Commissioner 4 $37,310 $10,000 x COLA

1 The authorizing committee must provide prior authorization specifying the amount

the committee may spend.

2

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

3COLA means cost-of-living adjustment. The applicable COLA is 3.731.

4American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands elect

Delegates; Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner.

1

 In states that have only one U.S.

House Representative, the coordinated

party expenditure limit for the House

nominee is $74,620, the same amount

as the Senate limit.

(continued on page 16)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

16

Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for

2004 Senate Nominees

Voting Age Population Expenditure

State (in thousands) Limit

Alabama 3,393 $253,186

Alaska* 460 $74,620

Arizona 4,061 $303,032

Arkansas 2,044 $152,523

California 26,064 $1,944,896

Colorado 3,398 $253,559

Connecticut 2,648 $197,594

Delaware* 619 $74,620

Florida 13,095 $977,149

Georgia 6,388 $476,673

Hawaii 960 $74,620

Idaho 994 $74,620

Illinois 9,423 $703,144

Indiana 4,592 $342,655

Iowa 2,251 $167,970

Kansas 2,028 $151,329

Kentucky 3,124 $233,113

Louisiana 3,319 $247,664

Maine 1,019 $76,038

Maryland 4,131 $308,255

Massachusetts 4,946 $369,071

Michigan 7,541 $562,709

Minnesota 3,811 $284,377

Mississippi 2,120 $158,194

Missouri 4,297 $320,642

Montana* 702 $74,620

Nebraska 1,298 $96,857

Nevada 1,660 $123,869

New Hampshire 981 $74,620

New Jersey 6,507 $485,552

New Mexico 1,373 $102,453

New York 14,657 $1,093,705

North Carolina 6,320 $471,598

North Dakota* 487 $74,620

Ohio 8,621 $643,299

Oklahoma 2,633 $196,474

Oregon 2,710 $202,220

Pennsylvania 9,535 $711,502

Rhode Island 832 $74,620

South Carolina 3,124 $233,113

South Dakota* 569 $74,620

Tennessee 4,447 $331,835

Texas 15,878 $1,184,816

Utah 1,609 $120,064

Vermont* 482 $74,620

Virginia 5,588 $416,977

Washington 4,635 $345,864

West Virginia 1,419 $105,886

Wisconsin 4,139 $308,852

Wyoming* 380 $74,620

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

for the House nominee is $74,620, the same amount as the Senate limit. In other

states, the limit for each House nominee is $37,310.

committee making the expenditure—not the candidate committee—

must report them. (Coordinated

party expenditures are reported on

FEC Form 3X, line 25, and are

always itemized on Schedule F,

regardless of amount.)

The accompanying tables on

pages 15 and 16 include:

• Information on which party

committees have the authority to

make coordinated party expenditures;

• The formula used to calculate the

coordinated party expenditure

limits; and

• A listing of the state-by-state

coordinated party expenditure

limits. ✦

—Amy Kort

Nonfilers

Nonfilers

The Byron for Congress and

McPeek for Congress committees

failed to file 2003 Year End Reports.

On December 30, 2003, the

Commission notified principal

campaign committees that the Year

End report was due on January 31,

2004. Committees that failed to file

the report were notified on February

6, 2004, that their reports had not

been received and that their names

would be published if they did not

respond within four business days.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act requires the Commission to

publish the names of principal

campaign committees if they fail to

file 12 day pre-election reports or

the quarterly report due before the

candidate’s election. 2 U.S.C.

§437g(b). The agency may also

pursue enforcement actions against

nonfilers and late filers on a caseby-case basis.

—Amy Kort

Party Activities

(continued from page 15)
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

17

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Candidates:

January Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

January 2004 Certifications

Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $1,414,638.38 $5,147,992.85

John R. Edwards (D) $297,835.57 $3,665,875.24

Richard A. Gephardt (D)2 $567,353.84 $3,699,141.94

Dennis J. Kucinich (D) $2,111,153.83 $2,846,819.05

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) $244,750.90 $1,083,599.24

Joseph Lieberman (D)3 $384,403.19 $3,994,061.23

1 General Clark publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 11, 2004.

2 Congressman Gephardt publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on January 2,

2004.

3 Senator Lieberman publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 3,

2004.

Commission Certifies

Matching Funds for

Presidential Candidates

On January 30, 2004, the Commission certified $5,020,135.71 in

federal matching funds to six

Presidential candidates for the 2004

election.1

 The U.S. Treasury Department made the payments on February 2, 2004. Thus far, the six

eligible candidates have been

certified $20,437,489.55. By

comparison, in 2000 matching fund

payments during a comparable

period went to eight candidates,

totalling $39,633,318.37.

Shortfall

On February 2 the balance in the

Presidential Election Campaign

Fund (the Fund) was insufficient to

pay these certifications in full.

Instead, candidates received payments of approximately 46 cents per

dollar certified. Thus, only

$17,743,939.12 of the total amount

certified to 2004 Presidential

candidates has been paid to date,

leaving $2,693,550.43 unpaid.

Reduced payments will continue

until the Fund has been replenished

by future $3 checkoff designations

on 2003 tax returns, at which time

each campaign will receive the

amount that it is due. For more

information on the shortfall in the

Fund, see the January 2004 Record,

page 23.

Presidential Matching Payment

Account

Under the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act, the

federal government will match up to

$250 of an individual’s total contributions to an eligible Presidential

primary candidate. A candidate

must establish eligibility to receive

matching payments by raising in

excess of $5,000 in each of at least

20 states (i.e., over $100,000).

Public Funding

1 Note that Howard Dean, John Kerry

and President Bush have declined to

participate in the Matching Fund

program.

Although an individual may contribute up to $2,000 to a primary

candidate, only a maximum of $250

per individual applies toward the

$5,000 threshold in each state.

Candidates who receive matching

payments must agree to limit their

spending and submit to an audit by

the Commission. 26 U.S.C.

§9033(a) and (b); 11 CFR 9033.1

and 9033.3.

Candidates may submit requests

for matching funds once each

month. The Commission will certify

an amount to be paid by the U.S.

Treasury the following month. Only

contributions from individuals in

amounts of $250 or less are matchable.

The chart below lists the amount

certified to each candidate in

January, along with the cumulative

amount that each candidate has been

certified to date.

The Commission has also certified $14,592,000 to each of the two

major political parties, for their

2004 Presidential Nominating

Conventions.✦

—Amy Kort

Statistics

Semiannual PAC Count

Shows Decrease in 2003

According to the FEC’s semiannual political action committee

(PAC) count, the number of federally registered PACs continued to

decline in the second half of 2003,

from 3,945 on July 1, 2003, to 3,868

on January 1, 2004. This figure

represents a 77-committee decrease

from the July 1 count and a 159-

committee decrease from January 1,

2003.

Corporate PACs remain the

largest category, with 1,538 committees. Nonconnected PACs

remain the second-largest group,

(continued on page 18)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

18

Conference Schedule

for 2004

Conference for House and

Senate Campaigns and Political

Party Committees

March 16-17, 2004

Washington, DC

Conference for Corporations

and their PACs

April 22-23, 2004

Washington, DC

Conference for Trade

Associations, Membership

Organizations and their PACs

May 25-26, 2004

Boston, MA

Campaign Finance Law

Training Conferences

House and Senate Campaigns and

Party Committees

The FEC will hold a conference

in Washington, DC, March 16-17,

2004, for House and Senate campaigns and political party committees. The conference will consist of

a series of workshops conducted by

Commissioners and experienced

FEC staff who will explain how the

federal campaign finance law, as

amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),

applies to each of these groups.

Workshops will specifically address

rules for fundraising and reporting

and will explain the new provisions

of the BCRA. A representative from

the IRS will also be available to

answer election-related tax questions.

The conference will be held at the

Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel,

located near the National Mall and

Smithsonian museums in Washington, DC. The conference registration

fee is $360, which covers the cost of

the conference, materials, meals and

Outreach

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected1 Total

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

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

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

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

Jul. 97 1,602 332 826 41 118 953 3,875

Dec. 97 1,597 332 825 42 117 931 3,844

Jul. 98 1,565 325 820 43 112 897 3,762

Dec. 98 1,567 321 821 39 115 935 3,798

Jul. 99 1,540 318 826 38 115 941 3,778

Jan. 00 1,548 318 844 38 115 972 3,835

Jul. 00 1,523 316 812 39 114 902 3,706

Jan. 01 1,545 317 860 41 118 1,026 3,907

Jul. 01 1,525 314 872 41 118 1,007 3,877

Jan. 02 1,508 316 891 41 116 1,019 3,891

Jul. 02 1,514 313 882 40 110 1,006 3,865

Jan. 03 1,528 320 975 39 110 1,055 4,027

Jul. 03 1,534 320 902 39 110 1,040 3,945

Jan. 04 1,538 310 884 35 102 999 3,868

*

Committees with no activity for the election cycle are not included in the mid-year

and year-end PAC count.

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

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

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

with 999 committees. The chart at

right shows the complete mid-year

and year-end PAC figures since 1995.

A complete listing of PAC

statistics is available in the agency’s

February 2, 2004, press release.

The press release is available:

• On the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/news.html;

• From the Public Records office

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

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 ).✦

—Amy Kort

a $10 late fee that took effect

February 21.

The Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel

is located at 480 L’Enfant Plaza

SW., Washington, DC. To make

reservations, call toll free (800/635-

5065) or locally (202/484-1000, ext.

5000) and state that you are attending the FEC conference. Parking is

available at the hotel for a fee of $15

per day and $22 overnight. The

hotel is located near the L’Enfant

Plaza Metro and the Virginia

Railway Express stations.

Corporations and their PACs

The FEC will hold a conference

in Washington, DC, for corporations

and their PACs April 22-23, 2004.

Commissioners and experienced

FEC staff will explain the campaign

finance law’s requirements for these

Statistics

(continued from page 17)

Semiannual PAC Count—1995-2004
March 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

19

Reporting Roundtables Index

On April 7, 2004, the Commission will host two roundtable

sessions on election year reporting,

including new disclosure requirements under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. See the

chart below for details. Both sessions will be followed by a halfhour reception at which each

attendee will have an opportunity to

meet the campaign finance analyst

who reviews his/her committee’s

reports. Representatives from the

FEC’s Electronic Filing Office will

also be available to meet with

attendees.

Attendance is limited to 30

people per session, and registration

($25) will be accepted on a firstcome, first-served basis. Please call

the FEC before registering or

sending money to ensure that

openings remain. Prepayment is

required. The registration form is

groups, including regulations

concerning fundraising methods,

corporate communications, the use

of corporate facilities and reporting.

An IRS representative will be

available to answer election-related

tax questions.

The conference will be held at the

Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel. The

conference registration fee is $350,

which covers the cost of the conference, materials and meals. A late

charge of $10 will be added for

registrations received on or after

March 23.

A room rate of $189 per night

(single or double) is available for

conference attendees who make

reservations on or before March 22.

To make reservations, call toll free

(800/635-5065) or locally (202/484-

1000, ext. 5000) and state that you

are attending the FEC conference.

Room rates for reservations made

after March 22 are based on availability.

Registration

Complete conference program

and registration information is

available online. Conference

registrations will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis, and

registrations are limited to two

representatives per organization.

FEC conferences are selling out

quickly, so please register early. For

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

April 7 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon9:30 - 11 a.m. PACs and Party Committees, sible for filing FEC

Reception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for PACs and

11-11:30 a.m. reception Parties (Up to 30 may

(Session number 0401A) attend)

April 7 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon1:30 - 3 p.m. Candidates and their Committees, sible for filing FEC

Reception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for Candidate

3-3:30 p.m. reception Committees (Up to 30

(Session number 0401B) may attend)

registration information concerning

any FEC conference:

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail to

lauren@sylvestermanagement.com.✦

—Amy Kort

available on the FEC’s web site at

http://www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm and from Faxline, the

FEC’s automated fax system (202/

501-3413, request document 590).

For more information, call 800/424-

9530 (press 1, then 3) or 202/694-

1100.✦

—Jim Wilson

(continued on page 20)

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2004 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “1:4” means

that the article is in the January

issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

2003-28: Nonconnected PAC

established by LLC composed

entirely of corporations may

become an SSF with LLC as its

connected organization, 1:20

2003-29: Transfer of funds from a

nonfederal PAC to a federal PAC

of an incorporated membership

organization, 1:21

2003-30: Retiring campaign debt

and repaying candidate loans, 2:1

2003-31: Candidate’s loans to

campaign apply to Millionaires’

Amendment threshold, 2:2

2003-32: Federal candidate’s use of

surplus funds from nonfederal

campaign account, 2:4

2003-33: Charitable matching plan

with prizes for donors, 2:5

2003-34: Reality television show to

simulate Presidential campaign,

2:6

2003-35: Presidential candidate may

withdraw from matching payment

program, 2:7

2003-36: Fundraising by federal

candidate/officeholder for section

527 organization, 2:8
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2004

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Index

(continued from page 19)

2003-38: Funds raised and spent by

federal candidate on behalf of

redistricting committee to defray

legal expenses incurred in redistricting litigation, 3:14

AO 2003-39: Charitable matching

plan conducted by collecting

agent of trade association, 3:10

AO 2003-40: Reporting independent

expenditures, 3:11

AO 2004-1: Endorsement ads result

in contribution if coordinated

communications, 3:12

Compliance

ADR program cases, 1:25

Administrative Fine program cases,

1:24

Enforcement Query System, disclosure policy for closed enforcement matters and press release

policy for closed MURs; “enforcement profile” examined, 1:6

MUR 5229: Collecting agent’s

failure to transfer contributions,

1:7

MUR 5357: Corporation’s reimbursement of contributions, 2:1

Naming of treasurers in enforcement

matters, proposed statement of

policy, 3:4

Nonfilers, 3:16

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– Alliance for Democracy, 3:8

– Cox for Senate, 3:4

– Kean for Congress, 3:7

– McConnell v. FEC, 1:1

FEC v. _____

– Friends of Lane Evans, 3:9

Regulations

Administrative Fine program

extension, final rule, 3:1

Electioneering communications,

FCC database, 3:3

Federal election activity periods, 3:1

Leadership PACs, final rules, 1: 18

Overnight delivery safe harbor, 3:1

Public access to materials from

closed enforcement matters,

Petition for Rulemaking, 3:4

Public financing of Presidential

candidates and nominating

conventions, correction and

effective date, 1:19

Travel on behalf of candidates and

political committees, final rules,

1:19

Reports

Due in 2004, 1:9

Kentucky special election reporting,

1:9