November 1993

Table 0 Conte

Budget

Electronic Filing and Enhanced

Enforcement for 1995

ourt Cases

FECv, Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign Committee

3 FE v. Maggin for Congress

Committee

onferences

2 PAC onferenee in Washington,

DC, December 13 and 14

omputer Resources

2 New Brochure on FEC's Direct

Access Program (DAP)

4 Federal Register

Motor Voter

4 Comments Sought on Mail-In Voter

Registration Formand Biennial

Reports to Congress

Public Funding

5 Robertson Campaign Required to

Repay $300,000

6 dvisory Opinions

Regulation

6 Comment Period Extended for

Personal UseRulemaking

pccial Elections

6 Michigan Special Election

ompliancc

7 IURs Released to the Public

7 Indcx

Federal Election Commission

Budget

Electronic Filing and

Enhanced Enforcement

Proposed in 1995 Budget

On October I, 1993, the Commis-

'ion "em OMB and Congre a budget request for $29.8 million and 347

full time equivalent staff (FfE) for

fiscal year 1995. The document asks

for $6.3 million more than the anticipated FY 1994 appropriation. The

, increase would be used primarily to

pay for the following programs:

• Electronic filing of campaign

finance reports submitted to the

Federal Election Commission and

enhancement of the FEC's computer

equipment. The program would cost

nearly $4 million and require 7 additional staff for FY 1995.

• The 1996 Presidential funding program. Additional auditors would

replace GAO auditors who, during

previous Presidential cycles, had

been detailed to the FEC on a nonreimbursable basis.

• Audits of20 to 25 political committees (out of a total of more than

8,000). This program, which would

be carried Ollt under 2 U.S.c.

§438(b), would assure that committees with the most egregious reporting problems would be audited,

even in Presidential election years.

(contin ued on page 2)

Volume 19,Num

Court Cases

FE v, olorado Republi

Federal Campaign Comm

A Colorado district court rec

ruled that a communication by 

committee is subject to the coor

nated party expenditure limits u

2 .S.c. §441a(d) only if it "ex

pressly advocates" the election 

defeat of a candidate. The court

defined "express advocacy" as 

direct plea for specific action, u

words such as "elect," "support

"defeat" or " reject."

Based on these conclusions, 

August 31, 1993, the LJ .S. Distr

Court for the District of Colorad

granted summary judgment to t

I defendant Committee.The cour

I that the Commirtee's$1 5,OOO e

diture for a radio ad, because it 

not contain "express advocacy," 

not subject to the coordinated p

expenditure limit. The FEC had

claimed that the advertisement h

caused the Committee to exceed 

party expenditure limit in a Sen

race.

The Adverti erncnt

In April 1986-four months 

the Democratic primary and sev

months before the November ge

election- the Committee ran a 

ad in response to a series of tele

(continued on p
Federal ElectionCommission RECORD

Budget

[continued from page J)

• Enforcement of the $25,CXJO annual

limit on contributions from individuals. At a cost of $238,600, the pregram would need 4 additionalstaff.

If the electronic fil ing program

were fully funded, the Commission

would begin to implement it in time

for (he 1996 elections. It would be

available for the national party committees and large PACs, which fil e

reports with the FEe. (House and

Senate committees. which file with

the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively, would

not be included in this program.)

Under th is proposal, the Commission

would begin to develop a program

whereby smaller PACs and party

committees could file data by

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street. NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

2021219-.1420

202121 9-3.1 36 (TOO)

Scott E. Thomas,Chairman

Trevor Pott er, Vice Chairman

.Joan D. Aikens,Commissioner

Lee Ann Elliot!. Commissioner

Dannv L. McDonald.

Co~ iss ionc

.John Warren McGarry.

Commissioner

watterJ. Stewart. Secretary

of the Senate. Ex Officio

Commissioner

Donnald K. Anderson.Clerk

of the House of Representatives,

Ex Officio Commissioner

John C. Surma, Staff Director

LawrenceM. Nob le. General

Counsel

Published by the lnformanon

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Stephanie Fitzgerald. Eduor

" lake Lange. Graphics Adv isor

2

magnetic disk. In addition, the FEC

would develop software specificat ions

for those committees that wanted to

file computer-generated paper copies

of FEC reports.

The request for funds to implement

electronic filing came in response to

suggestions from Congressional oversight committees. While acknowledging that the system should increase

the breadth and scope of data collected (e.g., more detailed disbursement da ta) and reduce (he time

required to capture the data. the Commission made clear that the program

would be expensive. particularly during development and installation.

Furthermore. if the agency chose to

maintain a consistent data base (i.e.•

posting itemized expenditures on

hardcopy filers), FEC staff would

have to manually capture more data

from reportsfiled on paper.

Commenting on the budget submission. the Commission's request

stated that "with the fate of proposed

campaign finance reform legislation

in doubt. it is even more imperative

that the Commission receive adequate

funds to vigorously enforce the existing laws and promote the widest possible disclosure of campaign finance

data." •

November 

Conferences

FEC to Hold December PA

Conference in Washington, 

On December 13and 14, the F

will hold a I Y.! day conference in

Washington, DC. for corporation

trade associations, labor organiza

and their PACs. FEC Commissio

and staff will conduct workshops

each type of organization.

The $ 125 registration fee cove

conference materials and three m

(two continental breakfasts and o

lunch).

The conference will be held at 

Washington Hilton and Towers C

ference Center. 191 9 Connecticut

Avenue, NW, Washington. DC 2

(202/483-3CXJO). To receive the g

rate of $120 per night for a single

room. make your reservation by N

vember 2 1 and notify the hotel th

you will be attending the FEC co

ence.

For more information. or to pl

your name on the mailing list for

registration materials,call the FE

800/424-9530 DC 202/219-3420. •

Computer

Resources

OAP Brochure Poblished

The FEC recently published a

brochure to explain the agency's

Direct Access Program (DAP).T

program provides on-line comput

access to campaign finance infon

lion, advisory opinions and COUl1 

abstracts. (For a full description o

program, see the January Record.

To order a copy of this brochu

or to receive additional informati

about DAP, contact the Data Syst

Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/

3730. •
•

•

•

November /993

Court Cases

{continuedfrom ptlge I)

ads sponsored by the campaign

committee of then-Congressman

Wirth. a Democrat.

TheCornrnitree's ad contrasted

Mr. Wirth's statements in his TV ads

with his Congressional voting record.

and concluded with the words: "Ti m

Wirth has a right to run for the Senate.

but he doesn't have a right to change

the facts."

"The Committee reponed the

$15.(0) payment as an operating

expense for "voter information to

Colorado vorers-c-advenising."

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act, the Committee was

authorized to spend up 10 a certain

limit on coordinated partyexpenditures made " in connection with the

general election campaign" of the

Republican Party candidate running in

the U.S. Senate race in Colorado.

2 U.S.c. §441a(d)() )' The Committee, however, had assigned its entire

1986 spending authority to the

National Republican Senatorial

Committee.

The Commission argued that the

radio ad constituted a coordinated

party expenditure and that the Comminee. no longer having any spending

authority, had violated the §44l a(d)

limit.

The Court's Decision

Coordinated \'s. ind epend ent

Expenditures.The court rejected the

Committee's argument that the ad

was an " independent expenditure"

(rather than a coordinated expenditurej-c-a nd thus notsubject to spending limits-because it was aired

before the Republican candidate had

been nominated. The COUrl noted thai

the FEC and the courts have said that

party committees are incapable of

making independent expenditures.

The court concluded that the Committee's expenditure "was made on

behalf of the Republican candidate.

whomever that might be: and it is

irrelevant that no particular person

had been designated: '

"In Connection With," Pursuant to

§44 la(d), Ihe Commit tee 's expenditure would be subject to the §44 la(d)

limits only if it were made"in

connection with" the general election

campaign of the Senate nominee.

TIle court looked to the Supreme

Court's interpretation of ''in connection with" in Federal Election

Commission v. Massachus etts

Citizensfor Life,Inc.(MCFL),which

involved the prohibition on corporate

and labor contributions and expendilures under 2 U.s.c. §441 b. In

MCFL, the Supreme Court held that

"an expenditure must consnrute

'express advocacy' in order 10 be

subject to the prohibition of §44 I b."

MCFL.479 U.S. 238. 249 (1986).

The district coun found that the rule

of starurory construcnon-c-i.e..

identical words used in different parts

of the same statue have the same

meaning-applied 10 sections 44 1b

and 441a(d) because they had a

similar purpose, to regulate expendilures by multiperson organizations.

The court therefore concluded:

" '[E]xpress advocacy' is required in

order for a coordinated expenditure to

be 'in connection with' the general

election campaign of a candidate for

federal office under section 441a

(d)() .'·

Relying on its interpretation in

Advisory Opinion 1985-14, the FEC

argued that "in connection with," as

used in §441a(d), meant that a

communication was subject to the

expenditure limit if it contained an

electioneering message and a reference to a clearly identified candidate

(as opposed to express advocacy of a

clearly identified candidate). The

court. however, found that. because

coordinated party expenditures

implicate free speech concerns, the

"express advocacy" standard was

necessary to prevent undue regulation

of political speech.

"Express Advocacy," After

concluding thai "express advocacy"

was necessary for coordinated

expenditures 10 be subject to §441a(d)

limits. the coun considered whether

-~Fede ralEleClionCommission RE

the comminee's radio ad constir

"express advocacy." "When det

mining whether speech consuru

"express advocacy,'" the COull s

"the focus is on the actual word

used." The coun pointed out tha

Supreme Court. in Buckley v, Va

defined "express advocacy" as

"express words of advocacy of

election or defeat, such as 'vote 

'elect.' 'support.' 'cast your bal

for,' 'Smith for Congress: 'vol

against: 'defeat: or 'reject.:" R

ley. 424 U.S. I. 46 n.52 (1976).

Using this language as a "bri

line" (est for express advocacy, 

coun said that vltjbe Advertisem

does not contain any w ords wh

expressly advocateaction. At b

plaintiff suggests, the Advertise

contains an indirect plea for act

While the FEC never reache

issue of whether (he ad constitu

"express advocacy:' (he agency 

argue that the ad urged the publ

vote against Mr. Wirth in favor 

eventual Republican nominee b

on (he surrounding circumstanc

The ad responded to Mr. Wirth 

ads; he was identified as a Sena

candidate; and the disclaimer id

fied the Republican Committee 

ad's sponsor. The coun, howev

declined to consider the surroun

circumstances, holding that the

Buckley Coun created a bright-

test for express advocacy. +

FEe v, Maggio for Congr

Committee

On June 29,1993, the U.S. D

Court for the District of New H

shire held defendants Elliott S.

Maggin for Congress Committe

its treasurer. Andi T.Johnson, i

contempt of coun for failing to 

civil penalties and the FEC's co

and anomeys fees (No. C86-4o

The assessments have remained 

since they were imposed under 

August 1986 court order.

[connnued 011 
FederalElection Commission RECORD

Court Cases

(conlinuedfrom page 3)

The court further ordered Ms.

Johnson to provide the FEC with

financial records on her resources and

liabilities within 20 days and to

appear before the coun 30 days after

submitting the records. A 510,000

civil penalty and interest on the earlier

penalties will be assessed against her

if she fails to provide the information.

Under the 1986judgment, the

court found that the defendants had

violated the Federal Election Campaign ACI by failing to file a 1984

quarterly report. The court ordered

each defendant 10 pay a $5,000 civil

penalty and permanently enjoined

them from further violations of the

Act. Defendants were also ordered to

pay $2,569 to cover the FEC's costs

and attorneys fees. •

Federal Register

Copies of Federal Register notices

are availahle from the Public

Records Office.

1993-22

11 CFR Part R: National Voter

Registration Act; Advance Notice

of Proposed Ru lemaking (58 FR

51132. September 30. 1993)

1993-23

[I CFR Parts 100 and 113:

Personal Use of Campaign Funds;

Extension of Comment Period and

Notice of Hearing Request (58 FR

52040.October 6. 19( 3)

1993-24

II CFR Parts 107, 11 4: and 9008:

Presidennal Election Campaign

Fund and Federal Financingof

Presidential Nominating

Conventions; Announcement of

Hearing (58 FR52700, October J2,

1993)

4

Motor Voter

Commission Seeks Comments

0 11 Mail-in Registration Form

and Biennial Reporting

The FEC recently asked election

officials and other interested parties

for their help in creating a national

mail-in voter registration form, one of

the Commission's new responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (the motor voter law).The

fonn must be ready by January 1995.

The agency also asked for guidance on what voting information the

FEC should request from the states

for compilation in biennial reports to

Congress. Beginning in June 1995

and every two years thereafter, the

agency will be required to report to

Congress on the impact of the motor

voter law and on ways to improve

state and federal procedures.

The Commission requested the

comments in an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking published in the

Federal Register on September 30;

comments were due November I (58

FR 51132). The notice is summarized

below. Eventually, the FEC will

prescribe regulations on the specifics

of the form and the information to be

provided by the states to the FEe.

(Under the motor voter law. the

Commission has a limited authority to

create rules in these areas only; it has

no enforcement powers.)

In drafting final rules, the agency

will also consider the resuIts of

surveys conducted by the FEe's

Clearinghouse on Election Administration. The surveys will provide

information on state laws and registration procedures.

The Clearinghouse has taken a

number of steps to provide information to the states on their responsibilities Li nder the motor voter law,

another of the FEC's responsibilities.

In its most recent effort, this fall the

Clearinghouse met with key state

officials at regional conferences in

Novemner 

Seattle, Dallas, Chicago, Boston 

Atlanta.

Nationa l Ma il-in

Voter Registr ation Form

Content. The motor voter law

requiresthe form to include sever

items, Stich as voter eligibility

requirements.

As to information to be filled i

the applicant. the form may requi

only that information which is

"necessary" to process the applic

and administer the election proce

The Commission asked for comm

on what information would be

"necessary" but pointed out that t

could be conflicts betwee n curren

practice and what is "necessary"

under the law.

Formal. The Commission rais

number of issues on the format of 

voter registration form. One conc

was how to accommodate the dif

ferent state voter-eligibility requi

ments and the different informati

on where to mail the form.

Placing a top priority on creati

"user friendly" form. the agency 

asked to what extent the fonn cou

be designed for special populatio

foreign language versions for tho

jurisdictions covered by the langu

minority requirements of the Vot

Rights Act; the use of large type f

the visually impaired. as recommended by the Americans with

Disabilities Act: and the use of

simplified language and format to

meet the needs of the marginally

literate.

The Commission suggested th

one practical way to meet these

several needs would be to develo

booklet with tear-out application

forms .

Report to Congress

The FEC also asked for sugge

tions on what information it shou

report 10 Congress and how the

information could be obtained wi

unduly burdening state officials.

While the reports will cover so

basic statistics on registration and
•

•

•

N(lI'emMI' /993 _

voting. the FEe observed that other

data might also be helpful: statistics

on registration at public assistance or

public services offices. and the

percentage of registrants who voted,

broken down by type and/or location

of registration. The agency sought

comment on how this information

could be gathered without violating

privacy rights. +

Public Funding

Robertson's 1988Campaigo

Required to Repay ,7

in Public Funds

Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential

campaign. Americans for Robertson.

must repay $290.794 in public funds

10 the U.S. Treasury. The campaign

had received over $10.4 million in

primary matching funds.

The final repayment amount.

approved by the Commission on

September 23. represents the pro rata

portion of over $950,000 in nonqualilied campaign expenses incurred by

the campaign.(Only the portion of

nonqualified campaign expenses that

were defrayed with public funds arc

subject to repayment. A ratio formula

is used 10 determine that amount.)

The campaign was also ordered to

refund $105,635 to news media

organizarlons for travel overcharges.

In the final audit report. the

Commission had initially asked for a

5388544 repayment but, based on the

campaign's response to that report,

reduced the amount by $97,750.

The final audit report(containing

the initial repayment determination)

and the Commission's statement of

reasonssupporting the final repayment dererminauon are available for

review in the FEe's Public Records

Office. A summary of the repayment

findings appears below.

Break Down of Repayment

The 5290.794 final repayment

consists of several components:

• For exceeding the Iowa and New

Hampshire expenditure limits by

5789,409, the campaign must repay

$240.882. the pro rata portion. (The

agency also determined that the

campaign had exceeded the overall

spending limit by $648,525 but

based the repayment on the larger

amount. the excessive state spending.)

• The campaign must repay $22.728

for nonqualitied campaign expenses

associated with the Republican

National Convention. The expenses

were incurred after the candidate's

date of ineligibility. when the

campaign was required to limit its

activitiesto winding down the

campaign. The convention expenses.

however. did not appear to be

legitimate wind-down costs.

• The campaign failed to document

$17,008 in transfers and must pay

the pro rata portion, $5,190.

• Finally, the campaign must make a

$21.994 repayment representing the

pro rata portion of other nonqualifl ed campaign expenses, including

$71,761 in tax penalties.

Press Travel Refund

The campaign must refund

S105,635 to news media flrrns that

were overcharged for travel on

campaign aircraft. The campaign

failed to use the prescribed method

for determining how much to charge

the media for travel {i.e., dividing the

actual transportation costs among the

individuals on a campaign night).

Instead, it charged passengers the first

class airfare.

Challenge to Repayment

In its December 1992 oral presentenon, the Robertson campaign

disputed the FEe's iniliaIrepayment

determination. claiming thai the

agency had failed 10 notify the

campaign of the final repayment

amount within the three-year deadline. (See 26 V.S.c. §9038(c).) The

Fdefat Elee/ion Commission REC

Commission, however, said that t

campaign had raised the issue too 

for agency consideration.

As explained in the FEe's

statement of reasons, an oral pres

lion must be based on the written

materials subrnnred in response to 

initial repayment determination.

I I CFR 9038.2(cX2) and (3).The

agency said that the Robertson

campaign. by failing to include th

three-year notification argument 

written response. waived its right 

raise the argument during the ora

presentation or at any future stage 

the repayment proceedings. inclu

a COUlt challenge to the final repa

rnent.' II CFR 9038.5(b). Conse

quently, the agency did not consi

the argument in reaching the fina

repayment determination for the

Robenson campaign. +

I By contrast,the Dllkal..is and Simo

t'residemiat campaigns raised a sim

notiftcalion argument in a lime/y fa

Afttr considering their argunlettls, h

ever, IIU!Commission concluded tha

three-yearrequirement had teen sa

....hrn tbe campaigns were notified o

prellmiflary repavmentcalculation 

eluded in the interim audit repoa. (

lire April / 993 issue. page lJ .) The 

campaigns again raisedme notifica

issue in w ur!suits challenging tne

of?,ency'sfinal repayment determina

(See the u~us' issue,page 7.)
Novembe

Party committees and PACs m

have 10 file pre- and post-genera

election reports if they made (or

intend 10 make)contributionsor

expendituresin connection with 

December 7 specia l genera l elec

tion in Michigan's 3rdCongressional District. Forfunher

information, see the October 199

Record, page 6, or call the Commission.

Michigan Special

Election

Persona l Use Comment Pe

Extended

The Commission has extende

45 days, the comment period for 

proposed regulations on persona

of campaign funds. (For a summ

of the proposed rules. see the Oc

Record.t Comments must be rec

by November 13. See 58 FR 52(

Additionally, anyone intereste

testifying at a public hearing on t

proposed rules should notify the

Commission before the end ofth

comment period.

Comments and requests to tes

must be in writing, and should be 

to Ms. Susan E. Propper, Assista

General Counsel, 999 E Street, N

Washington, DC 20463. The com

ments will be made available for

public review in the FEC's Publi

Records Office. •

Regulations

work, plan sales strategies and h

other "supervisory, administrativ

professional responsibilities." By

contrast. the two classes of telem

keting representatives focus prim

on sales.

Date issued: September 30, 19

Length: 5 pages. •

Moreover. the Act and Commission

regulations do not perrnitfederal

contractors to segregate the proceeds

of their contracts from other funds as

a means of avoiding the prohibitions

of section 441c. The Commission

noted. however, thai individual

members of the tribe could make

personal contributions or form a

nonconnecred political committee.

II CFR I 15.6 and AOs 1985-23.

1984-10 and 1984-12.

Date Issued; September 17, 1993;

Length: 7 pages. •

AO 1993-1 6

Solicitab le Class

lor Corporate SSF

Blue Cross of California (BCC)

proposed to solicit contributionsto its

separate segregated fund (SSF) from

three classes of employees. Only one

of those classes-regionalsales managers-ccan be solicited as "executive

or administrative personnel" under

II CFR 114.5.

Under that regulation, an SSF may

solicit contributions. at any time, from

its executive or administrative personnel. stockholders and the families of

both groups. I 11 CFR 114.5(g).

"Executive or administrative personnel" is defined as corporate employees who are paid on a salary basis and

"have policymaking, managerial.

professional, or supervisory responsibilities: ' 11 CFR 114.1(c).

All three classes of employees that

BCC planned 10 solicit-c-telemarketing representatives. lead telemarketing representatives and regional

sales managers-are paid. in part. on

a salary basis. but only the sales managers have sufficient supervisory

responsibilities to qualify as "executive or administrative personnel."

Unlike the other classes, the managers

routinely monitor the quality ofsales

I Twice a year, a corporation may solicit

contributions from the rest ofits employees. I I eFR 114.6(a).

Federal EleetiollCQmm ~~ iOIl RE ~O~R~D,--- --,-~~:'

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1993-1 2

IndianTribe as a Federal

Contractor

The Mississippi Band of the

Choctaw Indians qualifies as a

"federal contractor" because the tribe

has entered into procurement contracts with agencies of the federal

government. As a result, the tribe may

not make contributions in connection

with federal elections during the terrn

of these agreements. 2 U.S.c. §44l c.

The Choctaw Tribe entered into

three types of agreements with the

government: self-determination

contracts, grant agreements and

procurement contracts. Self-determination contracts with the U.S. Department of the Interior provide funds to

the tribe to run programs otherwise

provided by Interior for the benefit of

the tribe.I Grant agreements provide

federal funds (e.g., for vocational

training) [0 the tribe because of its

status as a government entity. The

procurement contracts involve the

sale of tribe-produced items to the

federal government (e.g., Bureau of

Indian Affairs).

Under Commission regulations.

the ban on contributions by federal

contractors applies to a person who

enters into a contract with the government to provide property or services.

I I CFR 115.1.The tribe's se

determination contracts and grant

agreements do not involve (he

provision of property or services to

the government, but its procurement

contracts do-making the tribe a

federal contractor.

As a federal contractor, the tribe

may not make contributions in

connection with federal elections.

I Indian Self-Determination and Educe -

tiona!AssistaJlce Act, 25 USc. §450.

6
•

•

•

November 1993

Compliance

MlJRs Released to the Public

Listed below are FEeenforcement

cases (Maners Under Review or

MUR s) recently released for public

review. The list is based on the FEe

press releases of September 27 and

October4, 1993. Files on closed

MURs are available for review in the

Public Records Office.

Mt:R 3524

Respondents: (a) Oregon Republican

Patt y, Craig C. Brenton, treasurer; (b )

Re-Elect Packwood Committee,

Geoffrey Brown, treasurer (OR)

Com pla ina nt: Democrat ic Senatorial

Campai gn Committee (DC)

Subject: Failure to report properly

costs associated with advertisements:

failure to report in-kind contribution

Disposition: (a) 510,000 civ il

penalty; (b) no reason to believe

Mt:IU534

Respondents: (a) Clinton for President Committee, Robert Fanne r,

treasurer (AR); (b) Andrew Jac kson

(SC); (c) Darrell Jackson (SC);

(d) Heyward Bannister (SC); (e) Sunrise Enterprise of Columbi a, Inc.

(SC ); (f) Bible Church of Atlas Road,

Inc. (SC)

Compla inant: Robert l .ee Williams

(SC)

Subj ect: Distribution of campaign

literature

Disposition: (aj-tf) Rejected General

Coun sel's recommendations and

instead found no reason to believe

Mt:R 3536

Respondents: (a) William J. McCuen

(AR); (b) persons unknown

Com plainant: Beryl Anthony, Jr.

(DC)

Subject : Fraudule nt misrepresentation

Disposition : (a) and (b) Reason to

believe but took no further action

MUR 3714/3612

Respondents (all in PAl: (a) Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters,

Richard Wyckoff, president ;

(b) Richard Thornburgh; (c) Senator

Harris Wofford; (d) Fred Friendly;

(e) WPX I Television; (f) Senator

Arlen Specter; (g) Citizens for Arlen

Specter. Stephen Harmelin, treasurer;

(h) Lynn Yeakel; (i) I.ynn Yeakel for

U.S. Senate, Sidney Rosenblatt ,

treasurer; U) KSKA-TV; (k) League

of Women Voters of Pennsylvania,

Diane Edmundson, chair

Complainant: William D. White (PA)

Subject: Debate; corporate contributions

Disp osition : (a) Reason to believe but

took no further action; (b)-(k) took no

action

MUR 3785

Responden ts: (a) MIG Political

Action Committee, Kathleen I..

Gutin, treasurer (FL); (b) Robert D.

Barwick (FL)

Compla ina nt: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions;

failure to ident ify source of conrribulion

Disposition : (a) $4,000 civ il penalty;

(b)$ 1,500civil penalty

MUR 3792

Respondents: Your Ballot Guide, Jill

Barad. treasurer (CA)

Compla ina nt: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition : SI ,OOOcivil penalty

MUR 3799

Resp ond en ts: Barnett People for

Better Government, Inc.- Federal,

Brian Babcock, treasurer (FL)

Compla ina nt: FEC initiated

Subj ect : Excessive contributions

Disposition : SI,9OO civil penalty .

Index

The first number in each citat

refe rs to the "number" (month) 

1993 Record issue in which the a

appeared. The second number, fo

ing the colon, indicates the page 

ber in that issue.

Advis ory Opinions

1992-38: Loan from Presidential

campaign's legal and complia

fund to public funding accoun

1992-40: Commissions earned b

state party committees. 2:5

1992-4 1; Solicitation of mem ber

1992-42: Bank depos it lost in ma

3:3

1992-43: Preempt ion of state law

fundraising restrictions, 3:4

1992-44: Qualifying as national 

committee, 6:5

1993-1; Campaign's rental of sto

unit from candidate, 4:8

1993-2: Application of party spe

limits to Tex as special runoff 

1993-3: Retroactive reallocation 

1991-92 activity, 5:I

1993-4: Electronic payment of b

through computer. 6:5

1993-5: 1992 contributions misp

at post office, 6:6

1993-6: Use of excess funds by

former House member, 7:6

1993-7: Name of corporate PAC

1993-8: Preempti on of state law

prohibitin g contributions from

incorporated committees, 9:6

1993-9: Preemption of state law

prohibiting corporate donation

party building fund, 10:8

1993- 10: Use of excess campaig

funds, 9:7

1993- 11: Transfer from nonfede

campaign to 1988 Presidential

compliance fund, 10:8

1993-12: Indian tribe as federal

contractor, 11:6

1993-13: Excess campaign funds

donated for scho larships, 10;9

1993- 14: Preemption of state law 

registration, reporting and con

tion requirements. 10:9

(continued on p
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index

(continued/rom page 7)

1993-15 : Funds raised for legal

expenses related to DOJinvestigation of campaign con ultant, 10:I0

1993-16:Solicitable class for corporate SSF, 11:6

Court Cases

FECv . _ _

- America's PAC, 4:10

- Californians for a Strong America,

to:3

- Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 11:1

- International Funding Institute, 1:2;

5:2

- Maggin for CongressCommittee,

11:3

- Miller, 6:8

ational Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-0365), 6:8

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

*Printed on recycled paper

- People & Politics, Inc., 3:3

- Political Contributions Data, lnc.,

8:6

v. FEC

- Common Cause (92-0249 (JHG)),

4:to

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

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (93-132 1), 8:7

- Dukakis, 8:7

- Khachaturian, 8:5

- LaRouche (92-1100), 9:3

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

- 1 ational Rifle Association (92-

5078),4:10

- Simon, 8:7

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

- White (93-771),6:8

U.S. Senator John Seymour Committee v. Dianne Feinstein, 1:8

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

Novembe

Reports

Last-minute contributions: 48-ho

reporting.4:7

Reporting problems, letter to new

candidates, 4:8

Schedule for 1993, 1:3; 6:I

Special elections

- California, Mississippi, Ohio,

Texas and Wisconsin, 3:I; 4:7

- Michigan, 9:10: 10: 6: 11 :6

Slate fil ing, 9:6

800 Line Articles

Credit card contributions, 5:5

Party committee allocation: carry

debts from previous election c

2:7

$25,000 annual limit, 4:2

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commiss

Permit Number G-31