April 2005 Federal Election Commission Volume 31, Number 4

Table of Contents

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 3)

 Court Cases

 1 EMILY’s List v. FEC

 3 Kean for Congress v. FEC

 3 Judicial Watch v. FEC

 4 Alliance for Democracy v. FEC

 Reports

 1 April Reporting Reminder

 Regulations

 4 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on Candidate Solicitation at 

State, District and Local Party 

Fundraisers

 5 Federal Register

 6 Advisory Opinions

 Compliance

 6 MUR 5020: Corporate Facilitation

 Public Funding

 8 Matching Fund Certification

 Publications

 8 2005 Edition of Directory of 

Federal and State Disclosure and 

Election Offices Available

 Alternative Dispute Resolution

 9 ADR Program Update

 Outreach

 10 Roundtable

 10 FEC Conferences

 10 Index

April Reporting Reminder

All principal campaign committees of House and Senate candidates 

must file quarterly in non-election 

years as well as in election years 

and, as a result, must file a report by 

April 15. 11 CFR 104.5(a). 

Principal campaign committees 

of Presidential candidates must file a 

report on April 15, if they are quarterly filers, or on April 20, if they are 

monthly filers.

Political action committees 

(PACs) and party committees that 

file on a monthly basis, including all 

national party committees and certain political action committees and 

state, district and local party committees, have a report due on April 

20. (See the April 2003 Record, page 

5, for more information on monthly 

filing for state, district and local 

party committees.) 

Committees that were involved in 

the March 8, 2005, Special General 

Election in California’s Fifth Congressional District may have special 

filing requirements in April. See the 

February 2005 Record, page 3, for 

more details.

New Reporting Forms and 

Electronic Filing Software

The Commission recently updated 

its electronic filing format to Version 

Court Cases Reports

EMILY’s List v. FEC

On February 25, 2005, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiff’s request 

for a preliminary injunction in this 

case. 

EMILY’s List, a nonconnected 

political action committee (PAC) 

that maintains both federal and 

nonfederal accounts, filed a complaint on January 12 challenging the 

Commission’s regulations regarding 

the treatment of funds received in 

response to certain solicitations and 

its amended rules regarding federal/

nonfederal fund allocation ratios 

for PACs.1

 The plaintiff alleged that 

the Commission’s rules violate the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

and the First Amendment, and asked 

the court to enjoin the Commission 

from administering or enforcing the 

regulations. 

Background

The rules in question, which were 

published on November 23, 2004, 

define as “contributions”:

1

 The final rules were published in the 

November 23, 2004, Federal Register 

(68 FR 68056). The rules took effect 

on January 1, 2005. See the December 

2004 Record, page 1.
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2005

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)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Michael E. Toner, Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald, 

 Commissioner

Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, 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

5.2 0.1 in order to reflect changes in 

Commission regulations that took effect on January 1.1

 FECFile Version 

5.2, supported by the new format, 

is available for download from the 

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

elecfil/updatelist.html. Committees 

using commercial software should 

contact their vendors for more 

information about the latest software 

release. Only reports filed in the new 

format version will be accepted.

Political action committees and 

party committees that file on paper 

reporting forms must use the FEC’s 

revised Form 3X, which contains 

updated H Schedules that conform 

to the new allocation rules for PACs. 

These rules took effect on January 

1. (See the December 2004 Record, 

page 1.) The new version of the form 

is available on the FEC web site 

at http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.

shtml. Filers will receive a copy 

of the revised Form 3X with their 

report notices.

Filing Electronically

Under the Commission’s mandatory electronic filing regulations, 

individuals and organizations2

who receive contributions or make 

expenditures in excess of $50,000 

in a calendar year—or expect to do 

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

Electronic filers who instead file on 

paper or submit an electronic report 

that does not pass the Commission’s 

validation program will be considered nonfilers and may be subject 

to enforcement actions, including 

administrative fines. 11 CFR 104.18.

Senate committees and other 

committees that file with the Secretary of the Senate are not subject to 

the mandatory electronic filing rules, 

but may file an unofficial electronic 

copy of their reports with the Commission in order to speed disclosure. 

Timely Filing for Paper Filers

Reports sent by registered or 

certified mail, by Express or Priority Mail with delivery confirmation 

or by overnight mail with an on-line 

tracking system must be postmarked, 

or deposited with the mailing 

service, by the filing deadline. A 

committee sending its reports by 

certified mail should keep its mailing 

receipt with the postmark as proof 

of filing because the U.S. Postal 

Service does not keep complete records of items sent by certified mail. 

A committee sending its reports by 

2

 The regulation covers individuals and 

organizations required to file reports 

with the Commission, including any person making an independent expenditure. 

Disbursements made by individuals or 

unregistered entities for electioneering 

communications do not count toward the 

$50,000 threshold for mandatory electronic filing. See 11 CFR 104.18(a).

registered, Express or Priority mail, 

or by an overnight delivery service, 

should also keep its proof of mailing 

(or other means of transmittal) of its 

reports.

Reports sent by other means—including first class mail and courier—must be received by the FEC 

before it closes its doors on the filing 

deadline. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(5) and 

11 CFR 104.5(e).

For those filers who are not 

required to file their reports electronically, paper forms are available 

on the FEC’s web site (http://www.

fec.gov/info/forms.shtml) and from 

FEC Faxline, the agency’s automated fax system (202/501-3413). 

Filing Frequency for PACs 

PACs may file on either a semiannual or a monthly basis in non-election years. Committees wishing to 

change their filing frequency must 

notify the Commission in writing when filing a report under the 

committee’s current schedule. Electronic filers must file this request 

electronically. A committee may 

change its filing frequency only once 

per calendar year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

Filing Frequency for Party 

Committees

A state, district or local party 

committee that filed monthly in 2004 

due to its federal election activity 

must notify the Commission in writing if it wishes to file semiannually 

in 2005. 11 CFR 104.5(b)(2). Electronic filers must file this request 

electronically.

Additional Information

For more information on 2005 

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the 

January 2005 Record;

• Call and request the reporting 

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 or 202/694-1100;

• Fax the reporting tables to yourself 

using the FEC’s Faxline (202/501-

3413, document 586); or

• Visit the FEC’s web page at http://

www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.

Reports

(continued from page 1)

1

 See “Final Rules on Political Committee Status” in the December 2004 

Record, page 1.
April 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

(continued on page 4)

shtml to view the reporting tables 

online. 

 —Amy Kort

• All funds received in response to a 

communication that indicates that 

any portion of the funds received 

will be used to support or oppose 

the election of a clearly identified 

federal candidate; and 

• At least 50 percent of the funds 

received from such a communication if it refers to both federal and 

nonfederal candidates.

The rules also provide that a PAC 

that maintains federal and nonfederal accounts must use at least 50 

percent federal funds to pay for administrative and voter drive expenses 

and the costs of public communications that refer to a political party, 

but not to any clearly identified candidate. Voter drives and communications that refer to a clearly identified 

federal candidate, but no clearly 

identified state candidate, must be 

paid for entirely with federal funds.

The plaintiff alleged that the 

Commission exceeded its statutory 

authority in these regulations by 

requiring that funds be considered 

“contributions” under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act even if they 

will also be used for nonfederal elections or other nonfederal activities. 

Similarly, the plaintiff alleged that 

the new allocation rules exceed the 

Commission’s statutory authority by 

requiring federal funds to be used to 

pay for nonfederal activities. 

The plaintiff further alleged that 

the regulations violate the APA because the Commission failed to give 

proper notice of the final regulations and failed to provide a rational 

explanation for its decisions. 

Court Decision

When deciding whether to grant 

a preliminary injunction, courts 

consider whether:

• The party requesting the injunction 

is substantially likely to win the 

case on its merits;

• The requester would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were 

not granted;

• An injunction would substantially 

injure other interested parties; and

• The public interest would be furthered by the injunction.

In this case, the court found that 

each of these standards weighed 

in favor of the FEC and that "the 

interests of both Defendant and the 

public would be disserved by the 

granting of Plaintiff's motion." Thus 

the court ordered that EMILY's List's 

motion for a preliminary injunction 

be denied.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 1:05CV00049.

 —Amy Kort

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

Kean for Congress 

Committee v. FEC

On February 15, 2005, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FEC’s motion for 

this case to be voluntarily remanded 

to the Commission so that it can 

apply the Supreme Court decision in 

McConnell v. FEC to the facts of the 

plaintiff’s administrative complaint. 

Background

On January 5, 2004, Kean for 

Congress Committee (the Committee) asked the court to find that the 

Commission acted contrary to law 

when it dismissed the plaintiff’s 

administrative complaint, designated 

MUR 5024. 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 unanimously 

dismissed the administrative complaint after splitting 3-3 on whether 

to find reason to believe the CRG 

violated the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Order

The court remanded MUR 5024 

to the Commission until April 15, 

2005, to permit the FEC to reconsider its dismissal of the administrative 

complaint in light of the McConnell

decision. The court also granted 

the FEC’s motion to hold summary 

judgment in abeyance. 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 1:04CV00007.

 —Amy Kort

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC

On February 17, 2005, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FEC’s motion for 

summary judgment in this case, and 

denied the plaintiff’s cross motion 

for summary judgment. 

Background

On August 17, 2001, Judicial 

Watch, Inc., a nonprofit, public 

interest organization, asked the court 

to find that the Commission acted 

contrary to law when it failed to 

initiate an investigation in response 

to the organization’s administrative complaint. The April 10, 2001, 

complaint alleged that Representative Tom DeLay and the National 

Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) sold meetings with 

top Bush Administration officials in 

exchange for campaign contributions 

to the NRCC. Judicial Watch contended that the NRCC was required 

to report these meetings to the 

Commission as “offsets to contributions” under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act). 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b)(4) and 11 CFR 104.3. 

Court Decision

The standard for judicial review 

in a case such as this, where one 

party alleges that an agency’s actions 

are contrary to the statute, is called 
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2005

4

Chevron review, after the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., 

Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). In 

Chevron review, the court asks first 

whether Congress has spoken to the 

precise issue at hand. If so, then the 

agency’s interpretation of the statute 

must implement Congress’s unambiguous intent. If, however, Congress has not spoken explicitly to the 

question at hand, then the court must 

defer to the agency’s interpretation 

of the statute if the interpretation is 

reasonable and is consistent with the 

statute’s purpose.

In its arguments before the court, 

the Commission explained that, 

since its inception in 1975, it has 

interpreted the statutory requirement 

of reporting “offsets” to contributions in its strict accounting sense as 

referring only to financial transactions. Thus, the Commission did not 

find that the NRCC was required 

by the Act to report the meetings 

described in Judicial Watch’s administrative complaint as “offsets” to 

contributions. 

In looking at the language at 2 

U.S.C. §434(b)(4), the court found 

that Congress had not spoken 

directly to the issue of whether this 

statutory requirement was meant 

also to include other non-monetary 

offsets, such as the alleged contributions-for-access scheme detailed in 

the plaintiff’s administrative complaint. Furthermore, the court found 

that the Commission’s interpretation 

of the statute was not unreasonable, and the “FEC’s decision not to 

further investigate Judicial Watch’s 

administrative complaint with regard 

to section 434(b)(4)(F) was therefore 

neither contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.”

The plaintiffs had also challenged 

the Commission’s decision not to 

investigate beyond the scope of 

possible violations of this particular 

provision of the statute, as well as 

its decision not to report to other law 

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

enforcement agencies some or all of 

the alleged illegal activity described 

in the administrative complaint. 

The court, however, found that it 

is within the FEC’s discretion to 

determine whether a violation of the 

Act has occurred, and only then is it 

directed to conduct an investigation. 

Furthermore, the court found that 

while the Commission can refer apparent violations of the law to other 

law enforcement agencies, such action “is clearly not mandated by the 

statute and failure to report does not 

constitute an abuse of discretion.”

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 1:01CV01747.

 —Amy Kort

Alliance for Democracy v. 

FEC

On February 28, 2005, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted the Commission’s 

motion to dismiss this case, finding 

that the plaintiffs lacked standing. 

Background

On January 26, 2004, the Alliance 

for Democracy, a non-profit, nonpartisan advocacy group, Hedy Epstein and Ben Kjelshus (collectively 

the plaintiffs) filed a court complaint alleging that the Commission 

wrongfully dismissed the central 

allegations of the plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, designated MUR 

5181. The administrative complaint 

alleged that Spirit of America PAC 

(SOA) unlawfully donated a fundraising list of approximately 100,000 

donors to Ashcroft 2000, former 

Attorney General John Ashcroft’s 

2000 Senate campaign committee. 

According to the administrative 

complaint, the two committees also 

failed to disclose the donation of the 

list or its value. 

The FEC closed the investigation of MUR 5181 on December 11, 

2003, with a conciliation agreement 

that imposed a $37,000 civil penalty 

for violations stemming from the 

transfer of list rental income.1 The 

Commission failed to find probable 

cause to believe that the transfer of 

the mailing list constituted an inkind contribution, or that the value 

of the list had to be reported as a 

contribution. See the March 2001 

Record, page 8.

Court Decision

In order to have standing in court, 

the plaintiffs must show an “injuryin-fact” that is fairly traceable to the 

challenged actions of the defendant 

and is likely to be redressed by a 

favorable decision by the court. In 

this case, the plaintiffs claimed that 

they suffered an “informational 

injury” resulting from SOA’s and 

Ashcroft 2000’s failure to report 

the exact value of the mailing list 

in question. However, the court 

found that, because the Commission has already made public all of 

the information that it is statutorily 

required to disclose regarding MUR 

5181, the plaintiffs have not suffered 

an informational injury based on the 

Commission’s actions. The court 

granted the Commission’s motion to 

dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 1:04CV00127.

 —Amy Kort

1

 The conciliation agreement and 

supporting documents are available 

through the FEC’s Enforcement Query 

System on the FEC web site at www.

fec.gov.

Regulations

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Candidate 

Solicitation at State, District 

and Local Party Fundraising 

Events

On February 14, 2005, the Commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking 
April 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

comments on proposed changes to 

its rule governing appearances by 

federal candidates and officeholders at state, district and local party 

fundraisers. 11 CFR 300.64. 

Background

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), federal candidates, officeholders and their agents 

may not solicit, receive, direct, 

transfer or spend nonfederal funds 

in connection federal or nonfederal 

elections. However, the Act permits 

them to speak or be featured guests 

at state, district and local party fundraisers, where nonfederal funds may 

be raised. See 2 U.S.C. §441i(e). 

Currently, Commission regulations permit federal candidates and 

officeholders to speak at such fundraisers “without restriction or regulation.” However, in Shays v. FEC

the court found that, although this 

regulation was a permissible interpretation of the statue, the Commission had not satisfied the “reasoned 

analysis” requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

The court remanded the regulation 

to the Commission for further action 

consistent with its opinion. Accordingly, the Commission is revisiting 

the exemption for federal candidates 

and officeholders speaking at party 

fundraising events.

Proposed Revisions to Explanation 

and Justification

The Commission proposes revising the Explanation and Justification 

for the final rule on federal candidate/officeholder activities at party 

fundraisers in order to comply with 

the court’s findings. According to the 

court, the Commission’s explanation 

and justification for the fundraising provision at 11 CFR 300.64(b) 

did not satisfy the APA’s reasoned 

analysis requirement in two respects. 

First, the court held that the Commission’s construction of the statute 

as permitting federal candidates and 

officeholders to speak without restriction or regulation at these events 

was not compelled by the language 

of the statute. 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(3). 

Second, the court stated that “the 

FEC has not explained how examining speech at fundraising events 

implicates constitutional concerns 

that are not present when examining 

comments made at other venues.” 

The NPRM provides proposed 

amendments to the Explanation and 

Justification for the final rule at 11 

CFR 300.64(b) that would address 

the court’s concerns. The Commission requests comments on these 

proposed amendments. Additionally, 

commenters are invited to submit 

other rationales for the current regulation.

Proposed Revision to Regulations

Although amending the Explanation and Justification would be 

sufficient to comply with the court’s 

order, the Commission proposes, as 

a second alternative, to replace the 

current regulation at section 300.64 

with a rule barring federal candidates and officeholders from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring 

or spending any nonfederal funds 

when speaking at party fundraising events. The Commission seeks 

public comments on this approach, 

as well as on other considerations. 

For example, the Commission asks 

whether, under this approach, federal 

candidates and officeholders should 

be permitted to solicit Levin funds 

at party fundraising events. The 

Commission also requests comments 

on whether it would be appropriate 

to permit written notices or oral disclaimers similar to those discussed 

in AOs 2003-3 and 2003-36. Those 

advisory opinions permit federal 

candidates and officeholders to 

solicit federally permissible funds at 

other types of fundraising events by 

using either written notices or oral 

disclaimers. 

Comments

All comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Assistant General Counsel, and must 

be submitted in either written or 

electronic form by March 28, 2005. 

Written comments should be sent to 

the Federal Election Commission, 

999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 

20463. Faxed comments should be 

sent to 202/219-3923, with a printed 

copy follow-up to insure legibility. 

Electronic mail comments should 

be sent to statepartyfr@fec.gov and 

may also be submitted through the 

Federal eRegulations Portal at www.

regulations.gov. All electronic comments must include the full name, 

electronic mail address and postal 

service address of the commenter. 

Comments that do not contain this 

information will not be considered. 

No oral comments can be accepted. 

If the Commission receives sufficient requests to testify, it may hold 

a hearing on these proposed rules. 

Commenters wishing to testify must 

indicate this in their comments. 

The full text of the NPRM is 

available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml and from the FEC 

faxline, 202/501-3413.

 —Amy Kort

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the web site 

at http://www.fec.gov/law/law_

rulemakings.shtml and from the 

FEC faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2005-6

Candidate Solicitation at 

State, District and Local Party 

Committee Fundraising Events, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(70 FR 9013, February 24, 2005)

Notice 2005-7

Price Index Increases for 

Expenditure and Contribution, 

Corrected Notice of Expenditure 

and Contribution Limitation 

Increases (70 FR 11658, March 9, 

2005)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2005

6

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2004-43

Sale of Ad Time Not a 

Contribution

A broadcaster’s decision to offer 

Senator Christopher Bond the Lowest Unit Charge (LUC) for airing 

campaign ads did not result in an inkind contribution under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Background

The Communications Act generally requires broadcasters to charge 

a candidate the LUC for his or her 

political ads in the 45 days before 

a primary election and during the 

60 days before a general election. 

However, a federal candidate is not 

entitled to the LUC if any of his 

or her ads make a direct reference 

to his or her opponent and fail to 

contain a statement identifying the 

candidate and stating that the candidate approved the communication.1

47 U.S.C. §315(b). 

The Missouri Broadcasters 

Association (MBA), a voluntary 

association of broadcasters who are 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensees, asked the 

FEC to assume that Senator Bond’s 

broadcast ads did not satisfy this 

requirement and then asked whether 

a broadcaster’s sale of ad time at the 

LUC would result in a contribution 

to Senator Bond. The FECA and 

Commission regulations provide that 

a contribution results from the provision of services, such as advertising services, at less than the usual 

and normal charge. See 11 CFR 

100.53(d)(1).

Analysis

In this case, a broadcaster’s provision of the LUC to Senator Bond did 

not result in an in-kind contribution. 

The Commission reviewed Senator 

Bond’s ads as provided by MBA and 

concluded that there was no violation of any disclaimer requirement 

over which the Commission has 

jurisdiction. The Commission noted 

that the FECA’s disclaimer requirements are substantially similar 

to those of the Communications 

Act, and that the Commission has 

substantial expertise in evaluating 

disclaimer issues. Moreover, the 

Commission noted that the FCC 

has not yet promulgated regulations 

implementing the stand-by-your-ad 

requirements in the Communications 

Act and has not put forth a different conclusion on the merits of this 

case. Thus, because the Commission 

found that there was no violation of 

the disclaimer requirements, in this 

instance, providing the LUC did not 

result in an in-kind contribution.

Concurring and Dissenting 

Opinions

Chairman Thomas issued a 

concurring opinion on February 16, 

and Commissioner Mason issued 

a concurring opinion on February 

17, 2005. Vice Chairman Toner 

and Commissioner Smith issued a 

dissenting opinion on February 17, 

2005.

Date Issued: February 14, 2005; 

Length: 3 pages.

 —Amy Kort

1

 Note that the stand-by-your-ad requirements in both the FECA and the 

Communications Act were added by the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002. The FECA requires a similar, but 

not identical, statement in political ads. 

2 U.S.C. §441d(d)(1). See also 11 CFR 

110.11(c)(3). 

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2005-2

Fundraising in connection with 

nonfederal elections by federal 

officeholder who is candidate for 

state office (Senator Jon Corzine and 

Corzine for Governor, Inc., February 

23, 2005)

AOR 2005-3

Affiliation of membership organizations and solicitation of members 

of one for contributions to the SSF 

of the other. (American College of 

Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 

March 2, 2005)

Compliance

MUR 5020: Corporate 

Facilitation

The Commission has entered into 

conciliation agreements with Atlantic City Showboat, Inc. (Showboat), 

Marina Associates, Mirage Resorts, 

Inc. (Mirage), Herbert Wolfe, David 

Jonas and the Gormley for Senate 

Primary Election Fund (the Committee) to resolve violations of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act) resulting from contributions 

facilitated by Showboat, Marina 

Associates and Mirage to William 

Gormley’s 2000 Senate campaign in 

New Jersey. The three conciliation 

agreements entered into by these 

respondents resulted in total civil 

penalties of $115,000. 

Background

 The Act prohibits a corporation from making a contribution of 

money or anything of value in connection with any election for federal 

office. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). Corporations, including officers, directors or 

other representatives acting as agents 

for the corporation, are also prohibited from “facilitating the making 

of contributions to candidates or political committees, other than to the 

separate segregated funds of the corporations.” Facilitation means “using 

corporate . . . resources or facilities 

to engage in fundraising activities in 

connection with any federal election. 

11 CFR 114.2(f)(1).

Generally, communications by 

a corporation to its executives or 

administrative personnel are not 

considered contributions. 2 U.S.C. 
April 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

§441b(b)(2)(A). However, if the 

activity goes beyond mere communication and becomes facilitation, 

that activity results in a prohibited 

contribution by the corporation or 

its officers or directors because the 

corporation has provided something of value to the candidate or 

campaign committee. See 11 CFR 

114.2(f)(1) and (2) and AOs 1987-29 

and 1986-4.1

Conciliation Agreements

Agreement with Showboat, Marina Associates, Mr. Jonas and Mr. 

Wolfe. According to the conciliation 

agreement with Showboat, Marina Associates, Mr. Jonas and Mr. 

Wolfe, Mr. Gormley contacted Mr. 

Wolfe, an executive at Showboat, in 

early 2000 and asked him to raise 

funds for the campaign. During an 

executive meeting at Showboat, 

Mr. Wolfe invited employees to 

contribute to the campaign, telling 

them that contributions left with his 

secretary would be forwarded to the 

Committee.

Mr. Wolfe asked Mr. Jonas, an 

executive at Marina Associates, to 

raise funds for the campaign at Marina Associates. Mr. Jonas and his 

supervisor sent a memorandum to 

management team members asking 

them to consider making a contribution. Marina Associates employees 

who contributed to the Committee 

delivered their contributions to Mr. 

Jonas’s office, as requested by the 

memorandum, and left them with his 

secretary, who kept them in her desk. 

Thereafter, a representative from the 

Committee went to Mr. Wolfe’s and 

Mr. Jonas’s casino offices to pick 

up the contribution checks that had 

been collected. The campaign committee reported depositing $13,000 

in contributions from Showboat 

employees and their spouses. It 

reported depositing $24,275 in contributions from Marina Associates 

employees and their spouses.

In order to settle the matter, 

Showboat, Marina Associates and 

their employees did not contest the 

finding that they violated the Act 

by using corporate resources improperly to facilitate contributions. 

Showboat, Marina Associates., Mr. 

Jonas and Mr. Wolfe are jointly and 

severally responsible for a $53,000 

civil penalty, and they will cease and 

desist from violating the Act.

Agreement with Mirage. According to the conciliation agreement 

with Mirage, Mirage held a fundraiser for the Committee on February 9, 

2000, at the Le Cirque restaurant in 

Las Vegas, Nevada. Mirage planned 

and organized the fundraiser, including reserving a location, arranging 

for catering, sending invitations 

and soliciting contributions. Mirage initially sent invitations only 

to executives within its restricted 

class. Subsequently, Punam Mathur, 

then a Mirage executive, talked to 

other people about the fundraiser, 

including several people outside 

the restricted class and outside 

the corporation. She invited these 

individuals to attend the fundraiser and contribute. Ms. Mathur 

also instructed her assistant to fax 

invitations to individuals outside 

the corporation, work out a catering 

menu for the fundraiser, obtain a 

contribution commitment from some 

non-attendees and send a messenger 

to collect contribution checks—all 

as part of her work responsibilities. 

Following the fundraiser, which was 

attended by 29 individuals, Mirage 

collected and forwarded $28,000 

in contributions, including checks 

dated before and after the fundraiser, 

to the Committee. 

Mirage admitted to violating the 

law by using corporate resources to 

facilitate contributions to the Committee. Mirage must pay a $40,000 

civil penalty and will cease and 

desist from violating the Act. The 

Commission found reason to believe 

that Ms. Mathur violated the law for 

consenting to the facilitation. As part 

of the conciliation agreement with 

Mirage, Ms. Mathur, without admitting or denying any violations of the 

Act, agreed to cease and desist from 

violating the Act. The Commission 

took no further action against Ms. 

Mathur and sent her an admonishment letter. 

Agreement with Gormley for Senate Primary Election Fund. According to the conciliation agreement 

with the Committee, the Committee 

accepted $63,275 in contributions 

facilitated by Showboat, Marina 

Associates and Mirage (one contribution for $2,000 was returned to the 

donor). In addition, the Committee 

accepted an excessive in-kind contribution of $723 in the form of an 

airline ticket to attend the Las Vegas 

fundraiser and failed to report the 

contribution, and it failed to report 

an in-kind contribution of $220 from 

the candidate for payment of his hotel bill in Las Vegas. The Committee 

must pay a $22,000 civil penalty and 

will cease and desist from violating 

the Act.

Additional Information

For additional information on this 

case, please visit the Commission’s 

Public Records Office or consult 

the Enforcement Query System on 

the FEC’s web site and enter case 

number 5020.

 —Amy Kort

1

 Exceptions to the general prohibition 

against corporate facilitation include 

soliciting contributions to be sent 

directly to candidates so long as the solicitation is directed to the corporation’s 

restricted class and soliciting contributions that are to be collected and 

forwarded by the corporation’s separate 

segregated fund. 11 CFR 114.2(f)(3)(ii) 

and (4)(ii).
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2005

8

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Primary Candidates: 

February Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative 

February 2005 Certifications

Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $0 $7,615,360.39

John R. Edwards (D)2 $0 $6,654,161.44

Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $0 $4,104,319.82

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $0 $3,291,962.59

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)5 $0 $1,456,019.13

Joseph Lieberman (D)6 $0 $4,267,796.85

Ralph Nader (I)7 $5,142.50 $891,028.39

Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $0 $100,000.008

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

2 Senator Edwards publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on March 3, 2004.

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

2004.

4 Congressman Kucinich became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 

2004.

5 Mr. LaRouche became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2004.

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

2004.

7 Ralph Nader became ineligible to receive matching funds on September 2, 2004.

8

 On May 10, 2004, the Commission determined that Reverend Sharpton must repay 

this amount to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds he received in excess of his entitlement. See the July 2004 Record, page 8.

Commission Certifies 

Matching Funds for 

Presidential Candidate

On February 24, 2005, the 

Commission certified $5,142.50 

in federal matching funds to one 

Presidential candidate for the 2004 

election. The U.S. Treasury Department made the payment on March 

1, 2005. This certification raises to 

$28,380,648.61 the total amount of 

federal funds certified thus far to 

eight Presidential candidates under 

the Matching Payment Account Act.

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). 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 committee’s 

spending, limit their personal spending for the campaign to $50,000 and 

submit to an audit by the Commission. 26 U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b) 

and 9035; 11 CFR 9033.1, 9033.2, 

9035.1(a)(2) and 9035.2(a)(1).

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. 26 

CFR 702.9037-2. Only contributions 

from individuals in amounts of $250 

or less are matchable. 

The chart above lists the amount 

most recently certified to each 

eligible candidate who elected to 

Public Funding

participate in the matching fund 

program, along with the cumulative 

amount that each candidate has been 

certified to date. 

 —Amy Kort

Publications

Directory of Federal and 

State Disclosure and Election 

Offices Available

The 2005 edition of the Combined Federal/State Disclosure and 

Election Directory is now available. 

This annual publication provides a 

listing of the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure 

of campaign finances, lobbying, 

personal finances, public financing, candidates on ballots, election 

results, spending on state initiatives 

and other financial filings. Additionally, it includes contact information for national and international 

associations that deal with campaign 

finance and elections. The contact 

information for each agency includes 

e-mail and Internet addresses.

The Directory is available in 

paper copy, on diskette and on the 

FEC web site at http://www.fec.
April 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

gov/pubrec/cfsdd/cfsdd.shtml. The 

web version, which provides hyperlinks directly to the web pages of the 

federal and state agencies listed, will 

be updated periodically throughout 

the year.

Free paper copies may be obtained by calling the Public Records 

Office at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-

1120.

 —Amy Kort

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently resolved nine additional cases under 

the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program. The respondents, 

the alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

the final disposition of the cases are 

listed below. 

1. The Commission reached 

agreement with Carol Moseley 

Braun for President and Moti 

Agarwal, its treasurer, concerning 

the committee’s failure to disclose 

outstanding debt. The respondents 

contended there is a bona fide

disagreement about whether they 

owe a debt to an individual who 

filed the complaint with the Commission that became the source of 

this ADR case. The respondents cite 

a lack of evidence to support that 

complaint. Nevertheless, committees are generally obliged to report a 

debt, even if that debt is in dispute. 

In this case, the respondents agreed 

that if the complainant provides 

sufficient evidence to support his 

claim of an outstanding debt, then 

they will amend their FEC reports to 

list the claim as a bona fide debt. In 

the interim, the respondents agreed 

to comply with FEC regulations and 

to file an amended 2003 Year End 

Report listing the amount in dispute. 

The respondents also agreed to note 

the amount of the disputed debt on 

the next appropriate monthly report 

and to continue to list the disputed 

debt on subsequent reports until the 

debt is resolved or the committee is 

terminated. (ADR 162/MUR 5412) 

2. The Commission reached 

agreement with U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC and Gus Machado, 

its treasurer, regarding excessive 

contributions and failure to report 

disbursements accurately. These 

respondents contended that the 

violation in question resulted from 

an inadvertent reporting error. The 

committee listed an expenditure 

for a luncheon as an incurred debt 

and independent expenditure, rather 

than as an operating expense. Upon 

learning of the error, the respondents 

filed an amended report correctly 

identifying the debt as an operating 

expense. The respondents acknowledged their unintended error in the 

subject report filed with the Commission. In order to resolve this 

matter and ensure consistent and 

accurate compliance with FEC 

regulations—including any future 

regulatory changes—the respondents agreed to select and send two 

representatives from the committee 

to attend an FEC seminar on federal 

election campaign reporting requirements within 14 months of the effective date of this agreement.

With respect to two additional 

respondents named in this case, 

Martinez for Senate and its treasurer 

Charles W. Pluckett, the ADR Office recommended that the case be 

closed, and the Commission agreed 

and closed the file. (ADR 182/MUR 

5448) 

3. The Commission closed the 

file regarding Kerry for President, 

Inc. and Robert Farmer, its treasurer, 

concerning the committee’s alleged 

failure to accurately report a contribution. The ADR Office recommended that the case be closed, and 

the Commission agreed and closed 

the file. (ADR219/MUR 5478)

4. The Commission reached 

agreement with Victory 2004/California Republican Party and Douglas 

Boyd, its treasurer, regarding failure 

to report receipts, reimbursements 

and debts and failure to report accurately allocable operating expenditures and contributions. The 

respondents acknowledged that continuing software problems resulted 

in inadvertent violations of the Act 

and agreed to pay a $15,000 civil 

penalty. In an effort to avoid similar 

errors in the future, the respondents 

agreed to work with the Commission’s Reports Analysis Division to 

ensure all reports are accurate and to 

have committee staff attend an FEC 

seminar within 12 months of the effective date of this agreement. (ADR 

187*)

5. The Commission reached 

agreement with Congressional 

Majority Committee and Robin L. 

Foster, its treasurer, regarding the 

committee’s failure to report disbursements. The respondents stated 

that they inadvertently failed to include disbursements for a portion of 

the period covered by the 2003 July 

Quarterly Report and agreed to pay 

a $1,000 civil penalty. In an effort 

to avoid similar errors in the future, 

the respondents agreed to develop 

a compliance/financial manual for 

use by committee staff and to have 

the compliance/financial manager 

attend an FEC seminar within 12 

months of the effective date of this 

agreement. (ADR 188*)

6. The Commission closed the file 

involving Steven Fulop for Congress, Inc., Dave Lankelevich, its 

treasurer, Reform Democratic Organization of Jersey City and Edward 

Santiago, its treasurer, regarding 

allegations involving failure to file a 

timely Statement of Candidacy and 

to report in-kind contributions. The 

ADR Office recommended that the 

case be closed, and the Commission 

*Cases marked with an asterisk were 

internally generated within the FEC.

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2005

10

agreed and closed the file. (ADR 

206/MUR 5462) 

7. The Commission closed the file 

involving Friends of Larry Klayman, 

its treasurer, James R. Graham, and 

Larry Klayman regarding the alleged 

personal use of campaign funds. The 

ADR Office recommended that the 

case be closed, and the Commission 

agreed and closed the file. (ADR 

214/ MUR 5532) 

8. The Commission closed the file 

involving Robert G. Whittel for Congress, its treasurer, Jason Melton, 

and Robert G. Whittel regarding the 

alleged failure to report disbursements and to file timely disclosure 

reports. The ADR Office recommended that the case be closed, and 

the Commission agreed and closed 

the file. (ADR 220/ MUR 5482) 

9. The Commission closed the 

file involving Friends of Schumer 

and Steven Goldenkranz, its treasurer, regarding the alleged use of 

government funds to pay for travel 

in a federal election. The ADR Office recommended that the case be 

closed, and the Commission agreed 

and closed the file. (ADR 221/ MUR 

5490) 

 —Amy Kort

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

(continued from page 9)

Roundtable Schedule

Date Subject Intended Audience

Reporting Requirements 

for Candidates and their 

Committees, followed by 

Reception to Meet FEC 

Reports Analysis and 

Electronic Filing Staff

Individuals responsible 

for filing FEC reports for 

candidate committees

Outreach

Roundtable for Committee 

Treasurers

On April 6, 2005, the Commission will host a roundtable session on reporting requirements 

for candidates and their campaign 

committees. Individuals responsible 

for filing FEC reports for candidate 

committees are invited to attend. 

Participants will have an opportunity 

to speak with representatives from 

the FEC’s Reports Analysis and 

Electronic Filing offices at a reception following the roundtable. See 

the chart below for details.

 The roundtable will be held at 

9:30 a.m. at the FEC, 999 E. St., 

NW., Washington DC. Attendance is 

limited to 30 people, and registration 

is accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Please call the FEC 

before registering or sending money 

to ensure that openings remain. The 

registration form is available on the 

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

and from Faxline, the FEC’s automated fax system (202/501-3413, 

request document 590). For more 

information, call the Information 

Division at 800/424-9530, or locally 

at 202/694-1100.

 —Amy Kort

FEC Campaign Finance Law 

Conferences in 2005

Each year the Federal Election 

Commission sponsors a number of 

conferences where Commissioners 

and FEC staff conduct a variety of 

technical workshops on the campaign finance law. Discussion topics 

include fundraising, reporting and 

communications. Workshops are 

designed for those seeking an introduction to the basic provisions of the 

law as well as for those more experienced in campaign finance law. The 

schedule on page 11 lists the dates 

and locations for conferences to be 

held in 2005. This year, conferences 

held in Washington, DC, will feature 

an opportunity for each participant 

to meet the FEC Campaign Finance 

Analyst who reviews his or her 

committee’s FEC reports.

Conference for Corporations and 

their PACs

The Commission will hold a 

conference for corporations and their 

PACs April 25 through 27, 2005, 

at the Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel 

in Washington, DC. The registration fee for this conference is $375 

for participants who register on or 

before March 24, and $385 for late 

registrations. 

Due to the high level of interest in this conference, the FEC can 

only accept registrations from two 

individuals representing any single 

organization. Registration is accepted on a first-come, first-served basis, 

and FEC conferences often fill to 

capacity, so please register as early 

as possible.

The Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel 

is located at 480 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW., Washington, DC. A room rate 

of $189 (single or double) is available for conference participants 

who make reservations on or before 

March 24. Call 1-800/635-5065 to 

make room reservations. You must 

mention that you are attending the 

FEC conference in order to receive 

the special group rate. After March 

24, room rates are based on availApril 6, 2005

9:30-11:30
April 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

Index

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2005 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

2004-40: Status of state party as 

state committee of political party, 

1:8

2004-41: Non-affiliation of SSFs, 

2:4

2004-42: LLC as connected organization for SSF, 2:7

AO 2004-43: Discounted sale of ad 

time not a contribution, 4:6

2005-45: Accounting method for 

determining excess contributions 

under Millionaires’ Amendment, 

3:7

ability. 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. 

Conference for Trade Associations, 

Labor Organizations, 

Membership Organizations and 

their PACs

The FEC will host a conference 

for trade associations, labor organizations and membership organizations (and the PACs of any of these 

groups) this spring. The conference 

will take place June 1-3 in Chicago, 

IL. The registration fee is $400 per 

attendee, and a late fee of $10 will 

be added to registrations received 

after May 11.

The conference will be held at 

the Hyatt Regency Chicago on the 

Riverwalk, 151 E. Wacker Drive, 

Chicago, IL 60601. The hotel is 

located one block off of Chicago’s 

Magnificent Mile. Complete registration information will be available 

online soon.

Registration Information

Complete registration information for FEC conferences is 

available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/info/outreach.

shtml#conferences.

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

at 1-800/246-7277. For questions 

about the conference program, or 

to receive e-mail notification when 

registration begins, call the FEC’s 

Information Division at 1-800/424-

9530 (or locally at 202/694-1100) or 

send an e-mail to Conferences@fec.

gov.

 —Amy Kort

Conferences

Schedule for 2005

Conference for Corporations 

and their PACs

April 25-27, 2005

Loews L’Enfant Plaza

Washington, DC

Conference for Trade 

Associations, Membership 

Organizations, Labor 

Organizations and their PACs

June 1-3, 2005

Hyatt Regency Chicago

Chicago, IL

Conference for Campaigns, 

Parties and Corporate/Labor/

Trade PACs

September 14-15, 2005

Hyatt Regency Islandia

San Diego, CA

Conference for Campaigns, 

Parties and Corporate/Labor/

Trade PACs

October 25-26, 2005

Crowne Plaza Hotel 

San Antonio Riverwalk

San Antonio, TX

Compliance

Administrative fines assessed, 2:13

ADR program cases closed, 1:9; 

2:12; 4:9

MUR 5020: Corporate facilitation, 

4:6

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Alliance for Democracy, 4:4

– Augusti and Augusti for Congress, 

1:12

– Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington, 2:10

– EMILY’s List, 3:1; 4:1

– Judicial Watch, 4:3

– Kean for Congress, 4:3

Regulations

“Agent” definition for coordinated 

and independent expenditures and 

nonfederal funds regulations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 3:4

BCRA technical amendments, final 

rules, 1:6

Candidate solicitation at state, 

district and local party committee 

fundraisers, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 4:4

Contributions by minors to candidates and party committees, 3:3

“De minimis” exemption for Disbursement of Levin funds by state, 

district and local party committees. 3:6

Filing by Priority Mail, Express 

Mail and overnight delivery, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2:1

Party committee donations to certain 

tax-exempt organizations and 

political organizations, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 1:7

Payroll deductions for contributions 

to trade association SSF, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 2:2

Reports

April reporting reminder, 4:1

California special election reporting, 

2:3

Due in 2005, 1:3

Electronic filing software, FEC 

Form 3X, updated, 2:1
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2005

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION