September 1999 

Table of Contents 

Information 

1 FEC AOs Now on the Internet 

Regulations 

1	 Definition of Membership


Organization and Member


3	 Documentation for Matchable 

Credit/Debit Card Contributions to 

Presidential Candidates 

12 Party Committee Coordinated 

Expenditures and Media Travel 

13 Voter Guide Rulemaking Petition 

Court Cases 

4	 FEC v. Christian Coalition 

7	 Advisory Opinions 

Audits 

10	 Statements on Audits of the 1996 

Presidential Campaigns 

Public Funding 

12	 Dole Eligible for Matching Funds 

13	 Federal Register 

Outreach 

14 Monthly Roundtables


14 Public Appearances


15 Conferences


Election Administration 

15 Advisory Panel Meeting 

17 Revisions to National Mail Voter 

Registration Form Approved 

Publications

 1 Candidate Guide


15 Campaign Finance Law Supp.


800 Line 

16	 Earmarked Contributions 

Statistics 

18	 Midyear PAC Count 

19	 Index 

Federal Election Commission 

Information 

FEC Advisory Opinions Now 

on the Internet 

On August 15, 1999, the Commission made its advisory opinions 

(AOs) issued since 1977 available 

on its Web site. AOs are official 

Commission responses to questions 

relating to the application of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act to a 

specific, factual situation. The 

public can now search for AOs by 

using words or phrases or can 

retrieve an advisory opinion by 

entering the year and AO number. 

To use the AO search system, once 

on the FEC’s Web site (http:// 

www.fec.gov), click on “Search and 

Retrieve Commission Advisory 

Opinions.” For more information, 

call the FEC at 800/424-9530 or 

202/694-1100.✦ 

Volume 25, Number 9 

Regulations 

Definition of Membership 

Organization and Member: 

Final Rules 

On July 22, the Commission 

approved final rules—and the 

Explanation and Justification for the 

rules—that govern who qualifies as 

a “member” of a membership 

organization. The final rules were 

transmitted to Congress on July 23, 

1999, and published in the July 30, 

1999, Federal Register. Unless 

Congress enacts and the President 

signs legislation disapproving the 

regulations, the date the regulations 

take effect will be published in the 

Federal Register following the 

review period. 

(continued on page 2) 

Campaign Guide for Candidates Now Available 

A revised Campaign Guide for 

Congressional Candidates and 

Committees is now available from 

the Commission. The Guide 

provides clear guidelines on: 

• Contribution limits and 

prohibitions; 

• Sources of candidate support; 

• Campaign activity; and 

• Recordkeeping and reporting. 

The new Guide has been sent to 

every registered candidate 

committee. Copies are available for 

free by calling 800/424-9530 (press 

1) or 202/694-1100. Additionally, 

the new Guide can be accessed 

from the FEC’s Web site (http:// 

www.fec.gov) by clicking on “Help 

for Candidates, Parties and 

PACs.”✦ 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

Regulations 

(continued from page 1) 

Definition of Membership 

Organizations 

The Commission replaced the 

term “membership association” with 

“membership organization” at 

11 CFR 100.8(b)(4)(iv)(A) and 

114.1(e)(1). The replacement is the 

term used in the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act). 

Membership organization means 

an unincorporated association (for 

purposes of 11 CFR 100.8 only)1

, a 

trade association, a cooperative, a 

corporation without capital stock, or 

1

 Unincorporated associations fall 

under the regulation’s definition of 

membership organization for purposes 

of the internal communications exemption at 11 CFR 100.8 only. Unincorporated associations include entities that 

are not trade associations, cooperatives, corporations without capital stock 

or labor organizations, but that 

nonetheless meet the requirements for 

membership organizations. 

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) 

800/877-8339 (FIRS) 

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman 

Darryl R. Wold, Vice Chairman 

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner 

David M. Mason, Commissioner 

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner 

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner 

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director 

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel 

Published by the Information 

Division 

Louise D. Wides, Director 

Cheryl Fowle, Editor 

http://www.fec.gov 

a local, national, or international 

labor organization that: 

• Is composed of members, some or 

all of whom are vested with the 

power and authority to operate or 

administer the organization, 

according to the organization’s 

articles, bylaws, constitution or 

other formal organizational 

documents;2 

• Expressly states the qualifications 

and requirements for membership 

in its articles, bylaws, constitution 

or other formal organizational 

documents;3 

• Makes its articles, bylaws, constitution and other formal organizational documents available to its 

members;4 

• Expressly solicits persons to 

become members; 

• Expressly acknowledges the 

acceptance of membership, such as 

by sending a membership card or 

including the member’s name on a 

membership newsletter list; and 

2

 The Commission notes that organizations would be able to delegate administrative and related responsibilities to 

smaller committees or other groups of 

members; the new rule does not require 

that all members approve all organization actions. Additionally, membership 

organizations with self-perpetuating 

boards of directors will be considered 

to have met this requirement if all 

members of the board are themselves 

members of the organization, as long as 

the organization has chosen this 

structure and it meets all other requirements of these regulations. 

3

 The Commission notes that this 

provision would not preclude the board 

of directors or other committees from 

setting specific requirements, such as 

the amount of dues or other qualifications or requirements. 

4

 Organizations may impose reasonable 

copying and delivery fees for this 

service. They may also make these 

documents available at their headquarters or other offices, where members 

may consult and copy them. 

• Is not organized primarily for the 

purpose of influencing the nomination for election, or election, of any 

individual for Federal office. 

Definition of Member 

Members must satisfy the requirements for membership in a 

membership organization, affirmatively accept the membership 

organization’s invitation to become 

a member and either: 

• Have some significant financial 

attachment to the membership 

organization, such as a significant 

investment or ownership stake; or 

• Pay annual dues set by the membership organization;5

 or 

• Have a significant organizational 

attachment to the membership 

organization that includes: 

- affirmation of membership on at 

least an annual basis6

 and 

- direct participatory rights in the 

governance of the organization.7 

5

 The regulations do not specify a 

minimum amount of dues. As long as 

organizations maintain and enforce an 

annual (or more frequent) dues 

requirement, payments within a flexible 

window or subject to a reasonable 

grace period would meet this requirement. 

6

 The regulations provide some flexibility in interpreting the phrase “annual 

affirmation.” For example, activities 

such as attending and signing in at a 

membership meeting or responding to a 

membership questionnaire would 

satisfy this requirement. 

7

 The regulation cites as examples of 

“direct participatory rights” the right 

to vote directly or indirectly for at least 

one individual on the membership 

organization’s highest governing 

board; the right to vote on policy 

questions where the highest governing 

body of the membership organization is 

obliged to abide by the results; the right 

to approve the organization’s annual 

budget; or the right to participate 

directly in similar aspects of the 

organization’s governance. 

2 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

The Commission will determine 

the membership status of retired, 

student and lifetime members, and 

other persons who do not meet the 

above requirements but have a 

relatively enduring and independently significant attachment to the 

organization, on a case-by-case 

basis through the advisory opinion 

process. 

Other Changes 

State Law Inapplicable. The 

determination of whether an organization has members for purposes of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act) will be determined under 

these new regulations, and not by 

the definitions of state law, which 

may either include or exclude 

persons as members of an organization for reasons unrelated to the Act. 

• Multitiered Organizations. When a 

membership organization has a 

national federation structure or has 

Amending Bylaws to Conform to 

New Regulations 

The Commission recognizes that 

organizations may have to amend 

their bylaws to comply with these 

new requirements and that this can 

be a lengthy process. Consequently, 

the Commission will consider an 

organization to be in compliance 

with the new rules as long as the 

organization makes the necessary 

changes to come into compliance at 

the first opportunity available under 

the organization’s rules, assuming 

that the other requirements of the 

rules are met. 

More Information 

The full text of the final rules 

appears in the Federal Register (64 

FR 41266, July 30, 1999). This 

document is available from the FEC’s 

Public Disclosure Office and through 

the FEC Faxline. Dial 202/501-3413 

and request document 229.✦ 

those regulations.) At the time the 

Record went to print, the legislative 

review period for those regulations 

had not yet expired. If they are 

disapproved, then the new rules on 

required documentation will not 

take effect because they are a 

corollary to the earlier rules. 

The new documentation rules 

were published in the Federal 

Register (64 FR 42584, August 5, 

1999) and are also before Congress 

for a 30-legislative day review 

period. Unless Congress enacts and 

the President signs legislation 

disapproving the regulations, both 

sets of rules will apply retroactively 

to contributions made on or after 

January 1, 1999. 

Amendments to Regulations 

The Commission made the 

following changes to its regulations: 

• Add to 11 CFR 9036.1 (threshold 

submissions) new paragraph (b)(7) several levels, including, for stating that, in the case of a example, national state and/or Documentation fo contribution made by a credit or r local affiliates, a person who 

qualifies as a member of any entity Matchable Cr debit card, including one made edit/Debit 

over the Internet, the candidate within the federation or of any Card Contributions to must provide sufficient documentation to the Commission to insure affiliate will also qualify as a Presidential Candidates: 

member of all affiliates for pur- Final Rules that the contribution was made by 

a lawful contributor who intended poses of these rules. On July 30, 1999, the Commis­

• Definition of Membership Organi­ sion approved final rules providing to make the contribution to the zation for Purposes of Corporate/ guidance on the documentation that campaign committee submitting it Labor Activity. Revised section must be provided before credit and for matching fund payments. It 114.1(e) is identical to revised debit card contributions to Presiden­ further states that additional section 100.8(b)(4)(iv), except that tial candidates will be matched with information on the documentation the reference to unincorporated public funds. The rules also state accompanying such contributions associations, which appears in that more detailed guidance will be will be found in the Commission’s revised 11 CFR 100.8(b)(4), found in the Commission’s Guide- PIGO. applies only to Part 100 and not to line for Presentation in Good Order • Add to 11 CFR 9036.2 (additional Part 114, since Part 114 addresses (PIGO). submissions for matching fund only activities by corporations and Previously, on June 10, the payments) new paragraph labor organizations. 

Advisory Opinions Superseded 

Commission had approved new (b)(1)(vii) that is identical to the 

regulations that allow contributions paragraph discussed above. 

made by credit or debit card, The new rules supersede that 

portion of Advisory Opinion 1993­ including those made over the More Information

Internet, to be matched under the 24 that requires voting rights to The full text of the rules appears Presidential Primary Matching establish membership. in the Federal Register (64 FR Payment Account Act. Those rules 

were published in the Federal 

Register on June 17, 1999. 64 FR 

42584), which is available through 

the FEC Faxline. Dial 202/501 3413 

The new rules expand the options 

of multitiered organizations to 

communicate across tiers. The and request document 240.✦ 

32394 (June 17, 1999). (See the July options were approved in AO 1991­

24.
 1999 Record, p. 4, for an article on (continued on page 12) 

3 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

Court Cases 

FEC v. Christian Coalition 

On August 2, 1999, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted in part and denied 

in part motions for summary 

judgment by both the Federal 

Election Commission (the “FEC” or 

“Commission”) and the Christian 

Coalition (the “Coalition”). 

The Commission had alleged that 

the Coalition had made three 

expenditures for communications 

that expressly advocated the election 

or defeat of clearly identified 

candidates. The court held that the 

following two communications did 

not contain express advocacy and, 

therefore, did not violate the Federal 

Election Campaign Act’s (the 

“Act”) ban on corporate contributions and expenditures made in 

connection with federal elections: 

• A 1992 Montana speech by Ralph 

Reed, then-Executive Director of 

the Coalition; and 

• A 1994 nationwide direct mail 

package entitled “Reclaim 

America.” 

The court held that a third communication, a 1994 mailing by the 

Georgia Christian Coalition, did 

expressly advocate the election of 

then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 

violation of the Act. 

The court also held that the 

Coalition violated the Act by 

making a prohibited corporate 

contribution to Oliver North’s 

Senate campaign by giving it a 

mailing list. 

The Commission also alleged that 

the Coalition coordinated its voter 

guides during the 1990, 1992 and 

1994 elections with various federal 

candidates. In all but one instance, 

the court decided that there was no 

coordination. In one election 

campaign, Oliver North’s 1994 U.S. 

Senate campaign in Virginia, the 

court determined that there were 

contested issues to be resolved after 

a future hearing. 

Background and Holding 

The Christian Coalition is a 

nonprofit, nonstock corporation, 

originally incorporated in Virginia 

and doing business in the District of 

Columbia. In 1992 both the Democratic Party of Virginia and the 

Democratic National Committee 

filed complaints against the Coalition with the FEC. The two complaints were merged. The 

Commission found probable cause 

to believe the Coalition had violated 

the Act and attempted conciliation 

with the Coalition. After that 

attempt failed, the Commission filed 

this lawsuit in 1996. 

The court determined that the two 

main issues in the litigation were: 

• Whether “express advocacy” is 

limited to communications that use 

specific phrases or “magic words,” 

such as “Vote for Smith,” or 

whether a more substantive inquiry 

into the clearly intended effect of a 

communication is appropriate; and 

• What level of contact between a 

campaign and a corporation 

constitutes “coordination” and 

thereby converts a corporate 

expenditure that influences an 

election into a prohibited contribution. 

Express Advocacy. With regard to 

the first issue, the court concluded 

that an express advocacy communication is one that a reasonable 

person would understand contains 

an explicit directive—using an 

active verb (or its functional equivalent)—that unmistakably exhorts the 

audience to take electoral action to 

support or defeat a clearly identified 

candidate. The verb (or its functional equivalent) must be considered in the context of the entire 

communication, including temporal 

proximity to the election. 

Corporate Coordinated Expenditure. With respect to the second 

issue, the district court limited its 

decision to “expressive coordinated 

expenditures” by corporations. The 

court explained that an “expressive 

coordinated expenditure” is an 

expenditure for a communication 

that (although not containing 

express advocacy) is “made for the 

purpose of influencing a federal 

election in which the spender is 

responsible for a substantial portion 

of the speech and for which the 

spender’s choice of speech has been 

arrived at after coordination with the 

campaign.” Such expenditures are 

coordinated if the candidate requests 

or suggests the expenditure, or if the 

spender engages in substantial 

discussion or negotiation with the 

campaign about the 

communication’s content, timing, 

location, mode, intended audience 

or volume. 

Express Advocacy Issues 

Express Advocacy Standard. The 

FEC alleged that in three instances 

the Coalition used general treasury 

funds to finance independent 

communications that contained 

express advocacy (i.e., expressly 

advocated the election or defeat of a 

clearly identified candidate) and 

thereby violated §441b of the Act, 

which prohibits corporations and 

unions from making expenditures in 

connection with federal elections. 

Based on decisions by the 

Supreme Court and lower courts in 

other jurisdictions, the district court 

held that, in order for an expenditure 

to contain express advocacy and, if 

made by a corporation, violate 

§441b of the Act, the following 

attributes are necessary: 

• The communication must contain 

an explicit directive. It must use an 

active verb or its functional 

equivalent (e.g., “Vote for Smith” 

or “Smith for Congress” or an 

unequivocal symbol). 

4 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

• The “active verb or its immediate 

equivalent—considered in the 

context of the entire communication, including its temporal proximity to the election—must 

unmistakably exhort the [receiver] 

to take electoral action to support 

the election or defeat of a clearly 

identified candidate.” Electoral 

action includes campaigning for 

and/or contributing to a clearly 

identified candidate, as well as 

voting for or against the candidate. 

The court said that it is a pure 

question of law as to whether a 

reasonable person would understand 

the communication to expressly 

advocate a candidate’s election or 

defeat. Once the identity of the 

speaker (organization paying for the 

communication) and the content of 

the communication are proven, a 

court must determine whether the 

communication contains express 

advocacy “solely as a matter of 

law.” 

Ralph Reed’s 1992 Montana 

Speech. The FEC alleged that the 

Christian Coalition used general 

treasury funds to pay travel expenses and compensation to Ralph 

Reed, then-Executive Director of 

the Coalition, for a speech that 

expressly advocated the defeat of 

Pat Williams, the Democratic U.S. 

Representative from Montana’s 

First District. 

The court held that, while Reed’s 

speech made references to the 

Democratic incumbent, it did not 

direct the audience to do anything. 

He predicted that “victory will be 

ours” and that “we’re going to see 

Pat Williams sent bags packing . . . 

in November.” The court said this 

was “prophecy rather than advocacy,” because Reed’s speech did 

not contain an explicit exhortation 

to the audience to take action to 

defeat Representative Williams. 

“[I]t can only be concluded that 

Reed exhibited precisely the ‘ingenuity and resourcefulness’ in his 

verb choice that the Buckley Court 

envisioned possible to circumvent 

the prohibition on express advocacy. 

As others have acknowledged, 

results such as this appear 

unsatisfyingly formalistic, allowing 

precisely the sort of communications Congress sought to prohibit to 

remain immune from liability. . . . 

But the Supreme Court felt that the 

First Amendment required a choice 

between a toothless provision and 

one with an overbite; results such as 

this flow directly from that choice.” 

“Reclaim America” 1994 Mailing. The FEC alleged that portions 

of a mass mailing called “Reclaim 

America” included prohibited 

express advocacy. The Commission 

argued that, when read in conjunction with the enclosed Christian 

Coalition scorecard (rating incumbents on specific votes), the cover 

letter could only be understood to 

urge support of those incumbents 

rated favorably and defeat of those 

rated unfavorably. 

Though acknowledging that the 

cover letter contained explicit 

directives (e.g., “stand together,” 

“get organized”), the court concluded that a reasonable person 

could understand the cover letter as 

a directive to engage in lobbying or 

issue advocacy with all candidates. 

The scorecard did not identify 

which incumbents were candidates 

in 1994 and did not provide an 

electoral endorsement of any 

particular candidate. As a result, 

there was no express advocacy, and 

the expenditures did not violate 

§441b. 

Georgia Mailing in 1994. The 

FEC alleged that a mailing by the 

Georgia Christian Coalition state 

affiliate (for which the Coalition 

admitted it was responsible and 

liable) contained a cover letter from 

the Coalition’s state chair expressly 

advocating the re-election of 

Congressman Newt Gingrich. The 

mailing also contained a copy of the 

Coalition’s nationwide Congressional scorecard. 

The court held that, unlike the 

other two communications discussed above, “the Georgia mailing 

was expressly directed at the readeras-voter.” The cover letter announced upcoming primary 

elections and enclosed two items 

“[to] help you prepare for your trip 

to the voting booth.” The second 

item was the congressional 

scorecard. The letter stated that 

Newt Gingrich, a Christian Coalition “100 percenter,” was the only 

incumbent facing a primary opponent. The letter also exhorted the 

voter to take the scorecard to the 

polls in the general election. “While 

marginally less direct tha[n] saying 

‘Vote for Newt Gingrich,’ the letter 

in effect is explicit that the reader 

should take with him to the voting 

booth the knowledge that Speaker 

Gingrich was a ‘Christian Coalition 

100 percenter’ and therefore the 

reader should vote for him. While 

the ‘express advocacy’ standard is 

susceptible of circumvention by all 

manner of linguistic artifice, merely 

changing the verb ‘vote’ into the 

noun, ‘trip to the voting booth’ is 

insufficient to escape the limited 

reach of ‘express advocacy.’” 

Coordination Issues 

Corporate Coordinated Expenditures. The court explained that 

§441b of the Act prohibits corporations from making any contributions 

or expenditures in connection with 

any federal election, and the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, 

established that expenditures made 

in coordination with a campaign are 

contributions. The court further 

stated that, in FEC v. Massachusetts 

Citizens For Life, the Supreme 

Court “determined that Congress 

plainly intended the Act to reach 

corporate expenditures in connection with a federal election. . . . 

(continued on page 6) 

5 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

Court Cases 

(continued from page 5) 

Under that construction, it is manifest that the Coalition’s expenditures 

on voter guides fall within 

Congress’s intended scope for 

§441b.” 

The district court went on to 

distinguish “expressive coordinated 

expenditures” from other coordinated expenditures. According to 

the court, an “expressive coordinated expenditure” is an expenditure 

“for a communication made for the 

purpose of influencing a federal 

election in which the spender is 

responsible for a substantial portion 

of the speech and for which the 

spender’s choice of speech has been 

arrived at after coordination with the 

campaign.” The court distinguished 

this type of coordinated expenditure 

from other types such as coordinated expenditures for 

noncommunicative materials (e.g., 

food or travel expenses for campaign staff). 

The court held constitutional that 

portion of the FEC’s regulations that 

would treat, as contributions, 

“expressive coordinated expenditures” made at the request or 

suggestion of the campaign. In the 

absence of a request or suggestion 

from the campaign, the court 

explained, an expressive expenditure is still coordinated where the 

candidate or his agent exercises 

control over the communication, or 

where there has been substantial 

discussion or negotiation between 

the campaign and the spender about 

such things as the contents, timing, 

location, mode, intended audience, 

or volume of the communication. A 

substantial discussion, the court 

explained, is one from which the 

spender and the campaign emerge as 

partners (not necessarily equal 

partners) or joint venturers in the 

expressive expenditure. “This 

standard limits §441b’s contribution 

prohibition on expressive coordinated expenditures to those in which 

the candidate has taken a sufficient 

interest to demonstrate that the 

expenditure is perceived as valuable 

for meeting the campaign’s needs or 

wants.” 

The court stated that, under this 

standard, a voter guide would be 

considered a coordinated expenditure if the conversation between the 

spender and the campaign went well 

beyond inquiry and included, for 

example, discussion or negotiation 

over the selection and phrasing of 

issues to be included in the candidate survey or voter guide. “Coordination requires some to-and-fro 

between corporation and 

campaign . . . .” 

With respect to get-out-the-vote 

(“GOTV”) telephone activity, the 

court held that the level of discussion must involve negotiation 

regarding such things as the contents of the scripts, when the calls 

are to be made, location or the 

audience—including which databases will be used to choose call 

recipients or the number of people 

to be called. 

Using this standard, the court 

evaluated the facts surrounding the 

Coalition’s expenditures for voter 

guides involving the following 

campaigns. 

Bush/Quayle ’92 Presidential 

Campaign. The court held that the 

Coalition’s voter guides and GOTV 

expenditures, in connection with the 

1992 Presidential election, did not 

qualify as coordinated expenditures—primarily because the court 

concluded that the Bush/Quayle ’92 

campaign staff, armed with foreknowledge of the Coalition’s plans, 

chose not to respond to the 

Coalition’s implicit offers to discuss 

those plans. Although Pat Robertson 

(Chairman of the Board and former 

President of the Coalition) and Reed 

had special access to the Bush/ 

Quayle ’92 campaign, and Reed had 

extensive discussions with campaign staff regarding the campaign’s 

thinking on strategic issues, and the 

Coalition told the campaign it 

intended to issue voter guides, “the 

Coalition did most of the talking.” 

Moreover, there was no request or 

suggestion by the candidate that the 

Coalition make expenditures for the 

voter guides. The corporation’s 

possession of “insider” knowledge 

from the campaign did not, in itself, 

establish coordination. More overt 

acts are required, the court said. 

Helms for Senate 1990, Inglis for 

Congress 1992 and Hayworth for 

Congress 1994. With regard to three 

Congressional campaigns (Helms 

for Senate in 1990, Inglis for 

Congress in 1992 and Hayworth for 

Congress in 1994), the court found 

no coordination. In each case, 

someone was simultaneously 

involved in both the Coalition and 

the campaign, but the court said that 

such “insider trading” was not 

sufficient to establish coordination 

without more overt acts such as 

expenditures being made at the 

suggestion or request of the campaign. 

North for Senate 1994. In one 

case, North for Senate in 1994, the 

Coalition gave to Oliver North’s 

campaign a list of previous delegates to the Virginia Republican 

convention who were also supporters of the Coalition. The court 

determined that such lists have 

commercial value, and therefore the 

contribution of the list to the North 

campaign was a prohibited corporation contribution. 

The Coalition also distributed 

voter guides in Virginia in 1994. 

However, there is a material question of fact as to whether North’s 

campaign manager discussed with 

Reed which issues should be 

included in the voter guide. That 

issue, along with the fair market 

value of the mailing list, will be 

determined in later court proceedings. 

6 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

National Republican Senatorial 

Campaign Committee. The FEC also 

had alleged that the Coalition had 

coordinated with the National 

Republican Senatorial Campaign 

Committee to create and distribute 

voter guides in several states the 

NRSC considered key in the 1990 

elections. The NRSC had contributed $64,000 to the Coalition but 

had not become a partner in the 

voter guides by discussing their 

contents or points of distribution. 

The court concluded, therefore, that 

the Coalition had not violated the 

Act since there had been no discussion or negotiation with regard to 

the contents or distribution of the 

voter guides. 

Further Proceedings 

As described above, the court 

intends to hold further proceedings 

to determine whether the Coalition 

coordinated its expenditures with 

the North campaign, the value of the 

list provided to the North campaign 

and the cost of the Georgia mailing. 

After these matters are decided, the 

court will determine the appropriate 

civil penalty. To avoid delaying any 

appeal until after the remaining 

issues are decided, the court entered 

final judgment on those matters that 

had been resolved, and also stated in 

its opinion that its decision “involves controlling questions of law 

as to which there is substantial 

ground for difference of opinion and 

that an immediate appeal from the 

order may materially advance the 

ultimate termination of the 

litigation.”✦ 

Advisory

Opinions 

AO 1999-14 

Testamentary Bequests in 

Excess of Contribution 

Limits 

The Council for a Livable World 

(CLW) may not accept contributions 

in excess of $5,000 that are made in 

testamentary bequests even if it 

places the excess in an escrow 

account and withdraws $5,000 or 

less per year for political use. 

CLW is a nonconnected 

multicandidate committee. It 

proposed soliciting and accepting 

testamentary bequests of up to 

$100,000. It planned to place any 

funds exceeding $5,000—the 

applicable annual contribution limit 

under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act)—in an escrow 

investment account. In the future, it 

would withdraw up to $5,000 per 

year for political purposes. 

Commission regulations state 

that, for purposes of contribution 

limits, contributions are made when 

the contributor gives up control over 

the contribution. 11 CFR 

110.1(b)(6). Since the contributor 

(the testamentary estate) would 

relinquish control over all the funds 

at the time they were distributed by 

the estate, the entire amount of the 

bequest would be considered a 

contribution. CLW would have 

control over those funds, including 

those that were placed in an escrow 

account. For example, CLW would 

have the power to determine the 

investment strategy for those funds. 

Previous FEC Advisory Opinions 

(AOs) held that the testamentary 

estate is the legal successor to the 

testator and would, therefore, be 

subject to the contribution limits for 

individuals. AOs 1988-8, 1986-24 

and 1983-13. These AOs allowed 

lump sum bequests in excess of the 

$5,000 per calendar year contribution limit as long as the excess funds 

were placed in an escrow account 

and were not used in any way to 

benefit the recipient committee. 

This opinion supersedes the portions 

of those AOs that would have 

permitted CLW to accept bequests 

in excess of $5,000 and to place 

those amounts (exceeding $5,000) 

in escrow. 

Arrangements Based on Previous 

Opinions 

The Commission determined that, 

if a committee is already drawing 

bequested funds from such an 

escrow account (set up in reliance 

on the superseded AOs), or an 

individual has already died and the 

bequested funds will be distributed 

to the committee pursuant to a will, 

such arrangements may continue as 

long as there is no material distinction from the situations presented in 

the superseded AOs, which are 

listed above. 

Date Issued: July 16, 1999; 

Length 4 pages.✦ 

AO 1999-15 

Membership Status of 

Members of Unincorporated 

Unit of Trade Association 

Members of ARDA-ROC,1 an 

unincorporated unit of ARDA,2

 a 

trade association, may be solicited 

for contributions to the separate 

segregated fund (SSF) of ARDA or 

to an SSF established by ARDAROC. 

Background 

ARDA is a nonprofit corporation, 

organized in the District of Columbia as a trade association. Its 

purposes include uniting people 

engaged or interested in the resort 

(continued on page 8) 

1

 American Resort Development 

Association-Resort Owners Coalition 

2

 American Resort Development 

Association 

7 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

Advisory Opinions 

(continued from page 7) 

development industry and timeshare 

issues. ARDA-ROC is an unincorporated part of ARDA, which is 

dedicated to protecting and enhancing the ownership of vacation resort 

properties and the interests of 

individual owners. ARDA-ROC’s 

membership numbers 335,000. It is 

governed by a nine-person executive 

group and is subject to the bylaws of 

ARDA and to the ARDA-ROC 

policy and procedures that were 

written by ARDA. 

Individual timeshare owners are 

eligible to join ARDA-ROC by 

paying an annual $3 fee (solicited 

by ARDA and its members) to 

ARDA-ROC. 

Proposed Changes to the 

Organizations’ Structures 

ARDA and ARDA-ROC propose 

the following changes to the structures of the two organizations: 

• ARDA-ROC’s current policy and 

procedures would become its 

articles of organization; 

• Individual ARDA-ROC members 

would be granted a more direct 

role in its operations; 

• Local chapters would be formally 

recognized; 

• ARDA-ROC membership would 

be available only to timeshare 

owners who pay regular dues as set 

by the executive group and local 

chapters (if a local chapter is 

available); 

• Individual timeshare owner 

members would directly elect an 

individual to the ARDA-ROC 

executive group to serve a twoyear term; 

• The executive group would choose 

one executive group member to 

serve on the ARDA board of 

directors; and 

• The ARDA board of directors 

would increase in size by one 

director (the one to be chosen by 

the ARDA-ROC executive group). 

ARDA as Membership 

Organization 

Under Commission regulations, a 

“membership association” is defined 

as a membership organization, a 

cooperative or a corporation without 

capital stock that expressly provides 

for members in its bylaws, expressly 

solicits members and expressly 

acknowledges the acceptance of 

membership. 11 CFR 114.1(a)(1). 

ARDA qualifies as a membership 

organization under 11 CFR 

114.1(e)(1). Its bylaws provide for 

members, it solicits members and it 

acknowledges its members by 

sending members newsletters and 

other materials. 

Status of ARDA-ROC Members 

The term “member” is defined in 

Commission regulations and has 

been interpreted in FEC v. National 

Right to Work Committee (459 U.S. 

197 (1982)) and Chamber of 

Commerce v. FEC (69 F. 3rd 600 

(D.C. Cir. 1995) petition for rehearing denied, 76 F.3d 1234 (1996)). In 

NRWC, the U.S. Supreme Court 

suggested that members are to be 

defined, at least in part, by analogy 

to stockholders of business corporations and members of labor unions. 

ARDA-ROC members qualify as 

members of ARDA under the 

restrictive standard in the 

Commission’s former regulations.3 

• Members of ARDA-ROC pay dues 

to ARDA-ROC, which is a subgroup of ARDA; and 

• The members of ARDA-ROC elect 

at least one member of ARDAROC’s executive group, which 

chooses a member to serve on 

ARDA’s board of directors, its 

highest governing body. 

3

 See 11 CFR 114.1(e)(2). The definition contained in this provision was 

struck down by the court in Chamber of 

Commerce v. FEC (69 F.3d 

600(D.C.Cir. 1995), petition for 

rehearing denied, 76 F.3d 1234(1996)) 

for being “unduly restrictive.” 

Affiliation 

Should ARDA-ROC (as a part of 

ARDA) form a political committee, 

the committee would be considered 

an SSF, affiliated with ARDA PAC. 

The Commission based this determination on the following affiliation 

factors found at 11 CFR 

100.5(g)(4)(ii) and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)4

: 

• ARDA-ROC was created by 

ARDA; 

• ARDA-ROC advertised to prospective members in its solicitation 

materials as being part of ARDA; 

• A member of the ARDA-ROC 

executive group serves on the 

highest governing body of ARDA 

(the board of directors); 

• The president of ARDA and the 

chair of ARDA PAC automatically 

sit on ARDA-ROC’s executive 

board; 

• The president of ARDA appoints 

the director of ARDA-ROC and 

other personnel; and 

• All members of ARDA-ROC are 

members of ARDA. 

Solicitation 

Under the Act, incorporated 

membership organizations or their 

SSFs may solicit voluntary contributions to the SSF from the 

organization’s members and their 

families and the organization’s 

executive and administrative 

personnel and their families. ARDA 

PAC or an SSF established by 

ARDA-ROC may solicit members 

of ARDA-ROC because they are 

members of ARDA. 

Date Issued: July 16, 1999; 

Length: 7 pages.✦ 

4

 Affiliation in this case is not based on 

11 CFR 100.5(g)(3)(iv) because that 

provision is limited to affiliation 

between SSFs established by membership organizations and its related state 

and local units; ARDA-ROC is not a 

state or local chapter of ARDA. 

8 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

AO 1999-16 

Solicitation of Members of 

Regional Chapters of Trade 

Association 

Commercial Finance Association 

(CFA) or its separate segregated 

fund (CFA-PAC) may solicit the 

individual members of CFA’s 

affiliated local chapters. CFA and its 

local chapters are affiliated trade 

associations for purposes of Commission regulations. 

Background 

CFA is a not-for-profit tax 

exempt organization and is a trade 

group for the asset-based financial 

services industry. Its members 

include nearly all of the money 

center banks, small independent 

finance companies, and large 

commercial banks that are publicly 

held or owned by industrial companies and foreign banks. CFA 

members provide asset-based 

commercial financing and factoring 

products and services to small and 

medium sized business on an 

international, national, regional and 

local scale. 

CFA has a separate segregated 

fund (SSF), the Commercial Finance 

Association PAC (CFA PAC). 

CFA has established 15 regional 

chapters—only one of which is 

incorporated—to offer business 

forums, networking opportunities 

and educational programs to the 

employees of CFA member companies. Membership in the chapters is 

limited to directors, officers and 

employees of the CFA member 

companies. 

CFA Status as Membership 

Association 

Under Commission regulations, a 

“membership association” is defined 

as a membership organization, a 

cooperative or a corporation without 

capital stock that expressly provides 

for members in its bylaws, expressly 

solicits members and expressly 

acknowledges the acceptance of 

membership. 11 CFR 114.1(e)(1). 

Both CFA and its local chapters 

qualify as membership associations 

under the regulations. Their bylaws 

provide for “members.” They both 

solicit new members and they both 

acknowledge the acceptance of 

membership. Additionally, CFA and 

its local chapters qualify as trade 

associations under Commission 

regulations because they are membership organizations that engage 

“in a similar or related line of 

commerce” and are organized to 

promote and improve business 

conditions in that line of commerce. 

Further, they operate as nonprofit 

business organizations. 11 CFR 

114.8(a). 

Membership Status 

The term “member” is defined in 

Commission regulations and has 

been interpreted in FEC v. National 

Right to Work Committee1 and 

Chamber of Commerce v. FEC.

2

 In 

NRWC, the U.S. Supreme Court 

suggested that members are to be 

defined, at least in part, by analogy 

to stockholders of business corporations and members of labor unions. 

Members of CFA and the individual chapters each qualify as 

members of their respective organizations under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. Similar to stockholders in a corporation, the members of each organization have an 

annual dues obligation and have 

participatory rights. In CFA, each 

member company selects its own 

representative on the board of 

directors. That representative has 

the right to vote for the executive 

committee (CFA’s highest governing body) and to vote for officers. In 

a chapter, the individual member 

has the right to vote for the officers 

who comprise the board of directors 

(a chapter’s highest governing body) 

1

 459 U.S. 197 (1982) 

2

 69 F. 3d 600 (D.C. Cir. 1995) petition 

for rehearing denied, 76 F.3d 1234 

(1996) 

and to amend the bylaws, subject to 

the approval of CFA. 

Affiliation 

Commission regulations provide 

that an SSF that is established by a 

national membership association is 

per se affiliated with the SSFs 

established by its related state and 

local entities. 11 CFR 

100.5(g)(3)(iv). 

The Commission found it helpful 

to look at the factors of affiliation at 

11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii) (which are 

typically applied when organizations are not per se affiliated) to 

determine whether the chapters were 

related local units of CFA. If they 

were, they would be per se affiliated. Pertinent CFA characteristics 

include the following: 

• CFA created local chapters for the 

express purpose of representing it 

at the local level; 

• CFA has the ability to direct or 

participate in the governance of the 

chapters and to exercise control 

over the activities of the officers; 

and 

• Many chapter members sit on 

CFA’s board and committees. 

Commission regulations clearly 

contemplate affiliation between 

corporations and unincorporated 

organizations. 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1). 

Further, the regulations provide that 

the restricted class of the unincorporated organizations may be solicited 

for contributions to the corporation’s SSF (just as the restricted 

class of a corporate affiliate would 

be). 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1). AOs 1997­

13, 1996-38, 1989-8 and 1983-48. 

Given the foregoing factors, the 

Commission determined that the 

local chapters are affiliated with 

CFA and that members of the local 

chapters are in the restricted class of 

their respective chapters. Those 

members are, therefore, solicitable 

by CFA or CFA-PAC. 

Date Issued: July 26, 1999, 

Length: 9 pages.✦ 

(continued on page 10) 

9 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

Advisory Opinions 

(continued from page 9) 

AO 1999-18 

Use of Nonfederal Points in 

State Party Allocation Ratio 

The San Diego County Republican Central Committee (the Committee), a local party committee, 

may treat the candidates it endorses 

and supports in local races as 

partisan local candidates and may, 

therefore, use the two additional 

nonfederal points in its allocation 

ratio for administrative expenses 

and generic voter drive costs. 

Commission Regulations 

Commission regulations require 

state and local party committees 

with separate federal and nonfederal 

accounts to allocate their administrative expenses and generic voter 

drive costs between those accounts 

using the “ballot composition 

method.” 11 CFR 106.5(d). Under 

this method, expenses are allocated 

“based on the ratio of federal offices 

expected on the ballot to total 

federal and nonfederal offices 

expected on the ballot in the next 

general election to be held in the 

committee’s state or geographic 

area.” This ratio is determined by 

the number of categories of federal 

and nonfederal offices on the ballot. 

11 CFR 106.5(d)(1)(i). The regulations then list the relevant federal 

and state offices and how they 

should be counted for purposes of 

the ratio. 11 CFR 106.5(d)(1)(ii). 

In addition, the regulations 

provide that local party committees 

may include in their ratio “a maximum of two additional nonfederal 

offices if any partisan local candidates are expected on the ballot in 

any regularly scheduled election 

during the two-year Congressional 

election cycle.” 11 CFR 

106.5(d)(1)(ii). 

The Committee states that it will 

endorse and support at least two 

candidates in local races who will 

appear on the 2000 ballot in San 

Diego County. However, according 

to Article II, section 6(a), of the 

California Constitution, local 

elections are to be “nonpartisan.” 

Article II, section 6(b), provides that 

“(n)o political party...may endorse, 

support, or oppose a candidate for 

nonpartisan office.” 

Previous Commission Decisions 

Two past Advisory Opinions 

(AOs) have addressed a similar 

topic—whether state parties in 

California may use the one additional nonfederal point in the 

allocation formula for partisan local 

candidates on the ballot (note, 

however, that under the regulation, 

local party committees may be able 

to use two additional points). As 

explained below, the Commission’s 

reliance on court decisions to 

determine whether the state party 

committee was entitled to the 

additional points in those AOs led to 

differing results. 

In AO 1991-6, for example, the 

FEC concluded that the state party 

committee could use the extra 

point(s) because the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had 

ruled that section 6(b) was unconstitutional.1

 In a later opinion, AO 

1991-27, the FEC reversed its 

conclusion, based on a subsequent 

ruling by the Supreme Court, which 

had by then vacated the Ninth 

Circuit’s opinion.2 

More recently, in 1996, a U.S. 

District Court ruled, once again, that 

section 6(b) was unconstitutional, 

violating the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments, and enjoined its 

1 Geary v. Renne, 991 F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 

1990) (en banc). 

2

 The Supreme Court ruled that the case 

was not ripe for resolution and did not 

reach the merits of Section 6(b). It 

remanded the case to the lower courts 

with instructions to dismiss the relevant 

cause of action without prejudice. 

Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 315 

(1991). 

enforcement.3

 The Commission 

concluded that, under those circumstances, the Committee could treat 

the candidates it endorses and 

supports as partisan local candidates 

and could, therefore, use the two 

additional nonfederal points in its 

allocation ratio.4

 The Commission’s 

position may change if there are 

future legal developments indicating 

that section 6(b) can be lawfully 

applied or enforced. 

Date issued: July 30, 1999; 

Length: 3 pages.✦ 

Advisory Opinion Requests 

Advisory opinion requests are 

available for review and comment in 

the Public Records Office. 

AOR 1999-21 

Qualification of incorporated 

membership organization as federation of trade associations; membership categories (U.S. Apple 

Association Political Action Committee, July 7, 1999; 56 pages)✦ 

Audits 

Commissioners Issue 

Statements on Audits of the 

1996 Presidential Campaigns 

FEC Vice Chairman Darryl Wold 

and Commissioners Lee Ann Elliott, 

David Mason and Karl Sandstrom 

issued a Statement of Reasons on 

3 California Democratic Party v. 

Lungren, 919 F. Supp. 1397 (N.D. Cal. 

1996). 

4

 In AO 1991-6, the Commission stated 

that the phrase “partisan local candidates” could be read “to cover those 

situations in which parties actively 

support, endorse or oppose candidates 

even though the candidates are not 

denoted as candidates of a particular 

party on the ballot.” 

10 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

the FEC’s audits of the Clinton and 

Dole 1996 Presidential campaign 

committees. The Statement concluded that the phrase “electioneering message” should not be used to 

administer the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) or FEC 

regulations. This statement is 

noteworthy because the concurrence 

of four Commissioners represents 

the legal position of the Commission. (For a story on the completed 

audits, see the July 1999 Record, p. 

10.) 

Background 

In auditing the Dole and Clinton 

committees, the FEC Audit staff and 

Office of General Counsel (the 

staff) analyzed media advertisements the Democratic and Republican National Committees ran during 

1995 and 1996. The analysis 

concluded that the cost of the 

advertisements constituted in-kind 

contributions (or, in some instances, 

coordinated party expenditures) by 

the parties on behalf of their respective Presidential candidate’s committees. 

To determine whether the advertisements were made “for the 

purpose of influencing” or “in 

connection with” a federal election, 

the staff looked to whether the ads 

referred to a “clearly identified 

candidate” and whether they contained an “electioneering message.” 

The staff found both factors present 

in the ads and concluded that the 

cost of the ads were in-kind contributions from the parties to their 

respective Presidential candidates. 

(Under FEC regulations, in-kind 

contributions are regarded as both 

contributions to a committee and 

expenditures by that committee. 

11CFR 100.7(a)(1)(iii) and 

100.8(a)(1)(iv).) The staff also 

recommended that the Commission 

determine that the applicable 

Presidential campaign spending 

limits for publicly funded candidates 

were exceeded in part because of the 

cost of the ads and that the Commission require a repayment of Presidential matching funds. For varying 

reasons, the Commissioners unanimously rejected the staff’s total 

repayment recommendations 

stemming from the party ads. 

Statement of Reasons by 

Commissioners Wold, Elliott, 

Mason and Sandstrom 

Vice Chairman Wold and Commissioners Elliott, Mason and 

Sandstrom’s Statement of Reasons 

expressed their disagreement with 

the use of “electioneering message” 

as a test to determine whether 

communications are “for the purpose of influencing” elections and 

therefore constitute expenditures or 

contributions under the Act. The 

Commissioners gave two reasons 

for their determination: 

• “Electioneering message” cannot 

be used as a substantive test to 

determine if a communication is 

made “for the purpose of influencing” federal elections because it is 

derived from FEC Advisory 

Opinions (AOs) and is not found in 

the Act or FEC regulations; and 

• “Electioneering message” cannot 

be used as a shorthand expression 

for the Commission’s interpretation of the statutory standard of 

“for the purpose of influencing” an 

election because the AOs from 

which the phrase was taken (AOs 

1985-14 and 1984-15) do not use it 

as a clear, consistent application of 

the statutory standard. Additionally, the phrase, by itself, is too 

vague and too broad to have a 

sufficiently definite meaning. 

Procedural Defects with “Electioneering Message” Standard. The 

four Commissioners argued that 

“electioneering message” cannot be 

a rule because it is not in the 

regulations. They argue that the Act 

prohibits the FEC from creating 

rules of conduct in any way other 

than through the rulemaking process. 2 U.S.C. §§437f and 438(d). 

Even if the term was used to paraphrase the Commission’s reasoning 

in two advisory opinions, the phrase 

was not sufficiently defined in the 

AOs to give the regulated community guidance. In fact, they argue, 

the phrase was not defined in either 

AO. 

Substantive Difficulties with 

“Electioneering Message” Standard. The Commissioners wrote that 

the “electioneering message” 

standard suffers from vagueness and 

overbreadth. It is vague because it 

does not sufficiently distinguish 

between issue discussion and 

candidate advocacy. The standard is 

overbroad because, given the nature 

of campaigning, communications 

inevitably encompass both. 

Statement for the Record by 

Commissioners Thomas and 

McDonald 

FEC Chairman Scott Thomas and 

Commissioner Danny McDonald 

filed a Statement for the Record in 

response to the Statement of Reasons written by the other Commissioners. They argued that the 

“electioneering message” phrase 

was used in AO 1985-14 simply as a 

shorthand reference to the “for the 

purpose of influencing” and “in 

connection with” tests in the statute—both central to the legal 

analysis of coordinated party 

expenditures. Commissioners 

Thomas and McDonald maintained 

that the regulated community has 

had long-standing notice of the 

underlying statutory provisions, and 

the Commission’s use of a paraphrase in the AO neither expanded 

nor diminished those rules of law. 

They also noted that the Statement 

of Reasons, issued by the other four 

Commissioners, did not purport to 

supersede the conclusions in any 

prior AOs. Finally, they pointed out 

that certain regulations duly passed 

by the Commission still use the 

“electioneering message” language 

as a legal standard.✦ 

11 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

Public Funding 

Dole Eligible for Matching 

Funds 

On July 30, 1999, Elizabeth Dole 

became eligible for public matching 

funds for her primary election race 

for the Republican nomination for 

President. Already, Democrat Bill 

Bradley and Republicans Gary L. 

Bauer, Dan Quayle and John 

McCain have been certified as being 

eligible for matching funds. 

To establish eligibility, a candidate must raise $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in matchable contributions in at least 20 different states. 

Only contributions received from 

individuals, and only up to $250 of a 

contributor’s total, are matchable by 

the federal government. 

Eligible candidates must agree to 

limit their spending, use funds for 

campaign-related expenses only, 

keep financial records and submit 

their records for an FEC audit. 

Once declared eligible, candidates can submit additional contributions for matching funds on the 

first business day of every month. 

The U.S. Treasury will begin paying 

out the FEC-certified amounts in 

January 2000. A Presidential 

primary candidate in the 2000 

election can receive a maximum of 

$16.75 million in matching funds. 

All matching fund submissions 

are available at the FEC’s Web site 

—http://www.fec.gov—as 

downloadable FTP files. Go to 

“Financial Information About 

Candidates, Parties and PACs” and 

follow the links. Instructions are on 

the Web site. 

Copies of the threshold submissions only are also available from 

the FEC’s Public Records Office. 

Call 800/424-9530 or 202/694­

1120.✦ 

Regulations 

(continued from page 3) 

Party Committee 

Coordinated Expenditures 

and Media Travel: Final 

Rules 

On July 29, 1999, the Commission approved final rules regarding 

two issues: 

• Coordinated expenditures made by 

party committees on behalf of 

Presidential and Congressional 

candidates prior to nomination and 

• Transportation and services 

provided by Presidential campaign 

committees to the news media 

covering the campaign. 

The final rules were published in 

the Federal Register and transmitted 

to Congress for a 30-legislative day 

review period. Unless Congress 

enacts and the President signs 

legislation disapproving the regulations, the date the regulations take 

effect will be published in the 

Federal Register following the 

review period. 

Party Committee Coordinated 

Expenditures Made Before 

Nomination 

Background. Section 441a(d) of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act) permits national, state and 

local party committees to make 

limited general election campaign 

expenditures on behalf of their 

candidates. These expenditures are 

in addition to the amount of direct 

contributions they may make to 

those candidates. These 441a(d) 

expenditures are referred to as 

“coordinated party expenditures” 

because they may be made after 

extensive coordination between the 

party and the candidate’s campaign. 

Amendments to Regulations. The 

Commission amended 11 CFR 

110.7 by adding paragraph (d) 

stating that party committees may 

make coordinated party expenditures in connection with the general 

election before their candidates have 

been nominated and that all 

prenomination coordinated expenditures are subject to the coordinated 

expenditure limits, whether or not 

the candidate with whom they are 

coordinated receives the party’s 

nomination. 

This amendment is consistent 

with the Commission’s policy of 

allowing prenomination coordinated 

expenditures. See Advisory Opinions (AOs) 1985-14 and 1984-15. 

The new language covers all 

Presidential candidates, whether or 

not they receive federal funding, as 

well as Congressional candidates. 

Presidential Campaign 

Expenditures for Transportation 

and Services Made Available to 

Media Personnel; Reimbursements 

Background. Expenditures by 

publicly funded Presidential campaigns for transportation and other 

services provided to representatives 

of the news media covering the 

Presidential primary and general 

election campaigns are, in most 

cases, treated as qualified campaign 

expenses subject to the overall 

spending limitations of 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(b). However, committees are 

allowed to accept limited reimbursement for these expenses from the 

media, and to deduct any reimbursements received from the amount of 

expenditures that are subject to the 

overall expenditure limitation. 11 

CFR 9004.6 and 9034.6. 

Amendments to Regulations. The 

Commission made the following 

changes to its regulations: 

• Amend 11 CFR 9004.6 (governing 

general election campaigns) to add 

a new paragraph ((a)(3)) specifying that publicly funded Presidential campaigns may seek 

reimbursement from the media 

only for the items listed in the 

White House Press Corps Travel 

Policies and Procedures issued by 

the White House Travel Office. 

These guidelines are suitable for 

both incumbent candidates and 

nonincumbent challengers in 

Presidential primary and general 

12 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

elections. In addition, media 

personnel may request items or 

services not specifically enumerated in those guidelines, and 

campaigns can bill the requesting 

media personnel for those items or 

services. 

• Amend 11 CFR 9004.6 (governing 

general election campaigns) to add 

a new paragraph ((b)(3)) specifying that Presidential campaign 

committees have 60 days to 

provide each media representative 

traveling or attending a campaign 

event with an itemized bill for each 

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office. 

Notice 1999-12 

Definition of “Member” of a 

Membership Organization; Final 

Rules and Transmittal of 

Regulations to Congress (64 FR 

41266, July 30, 1999) 

Notice 1999-13 

Party Committee Coordinated 

Expenditures; Costs of Media 

Travel With Publicly Financed 

Presidential Candidates; Final 

Rule and Transmittal of 

Regulations to Congress (64 FR 

42579, August 5, 1999) 

Notice 1999-14 

Rulemaking Petition: Voting 

Records and Voter Guides (64 FR 

46319, August 25, 1999) 

Notice 1999-15 

Matching Credit Card and Debit 

Card Contributions in 

Presidential Campaigns; Final 

Rules and Transmittal of 

Regulations to Congress (64 FR 

42584, August 5, 1999) 

Notice 1999-16 

Filing Dates for the California 

Special Election; Notice of Filing 

Dates for Special Election (64 FR 

42696, August 5, 1999) 

segment of the trip. The bill should 

specify the amounts charged for 

each of the following categories: 

air transportation, ground transportation, housing, meals, telephone 

services, and other billable items 

stated in the White House Travel 

Office’s Travel Policies and 

Procedures. The amendment also 

specified that payments for uncontested charges from the media 

representatives are due 60 days 

after the date of the bill. 

• Amend 11 CFR 9034.6 (governing 

primary election campaigns) to 

follow those amendments made to 

section 9004.6, as discussed above. 

More Information 

The full text of the final rules 

appears in the Federal Register (64 

FR 42579, August 5, 1999), which 

is available through FEC Faxline. 

Dial 202/501-3413 and request 

document 242.✦ 

Comments Sought on Voter 

Guide Rulemaking Petition 

On August 19, 1999, the Commission approved for publication in 

the Federal Register a Notice of 

Availability relating to its regulations governing the distribution by 

corporations and labor organizations 

of voting records and voter guides 

beyond their restricted classes. 11 

CFR 114.4(c)(4) and 114.4(c)(5). 

The notice invites comments on a 

petition for rulemaking submitted to 

the FEC by the James Madison Center 

for Free Speech, on behalf of the Iowa 

Right to Life Committee, Inc. 

The petition urges the Commission to repeal these rules to conform 

its regulations to the declaration by 

the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Maine in Clifton v. FEC. 

The Court declared the regulations 

invalid because they were 

inseverable from regulations struck 

down by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the First Circuit in Clifton v. 

FEC, 927 F.Supp. 493 (D.Me. 

1996), modified in part and remanded in part, 114 F.3d 1309 (1st 

Cir. 1997). The regulations in 

question, found at 11 CFR 

114.(c)(4) and 114.4(c)(5), state that 

voter guides prepared on the basis of 

written responses from candidates to 

questions posed by a corporation or 

labor organization (1) must not 

include an “electioneering message” 

and (2) may not score or rate the 

candidates’ responses in a way that 

conveys an “electioneering message.” The First Circuit invalidated 

the portions of these regulations that 

prohibit the voter guides from 

containing an “electioneering 

message” (11 CFR 114.4(c)(5)(ii) 

(D) and (E)). For a previous article 

on the 1998 district court order in 

Clifton, see the July 1998 Record, p. 4. 

The Notice of Availability seeks 

comments on whether the FEC 

should initiate a rulemaking in 

response to the petition. The Commission routinely provides an 

opportunity for comments on rulemaking petitions before the agency 

considers the merits of the petition. 

The petition and notice are 

available from the Public Records 

Office at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or 

202/694-1120; through the FEC’s 

Faxline at 202/501-3413 (document 

# 241); and at the FEC’s web site— 

http://www.fec.gov. The notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 25, 1999. 64 FR 46319. 

Public comments must be submitted in either written or electronic 

form to Rosemary C. Smith, Acting 

Assistant General Counsel. Written 

comments should be mailed to the 

Federal Election Commission, 999 

E. St., NW, Washington, DC 20463. 

Faxed comments should be transmitted to 202/219-3923, with a copy 

mailed to the preceding address to 

ensure legibility. Comments also 

may be sent by e-mail to 

voterguides@fec.gov. Electronic 

submissions must include the 

commenter’s full name, e-mail 

address and postal mail address. The 

deadline for comments is September 

24, 1999.✦ 

13 
Federal Election Commission RECORD	 September 1999 

Outreach 

FEC Conducts Monthly 

Roundtable Sessions 

The FEC is conducting monthly 

roundtable sessions for the regulated 

community at its offices in Washington. The roundtable sessions, 

limited to 12 participants per 

session, focus on a range of topics. 

See the table at right for dates and 

topics. 

Registration is $25 and will be 

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

before registering or sending money 

to be sure that openings remain in 

the session of your choice. Prepayment is required. The registration 

form is available at the FEC’s Web 

site—http://www.fec.gov—and 

from Faxline, the FEC’s automated 

fax system (202/501-3413, request 

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 or 202/694­

1100. 

Individuals who have signed up 

for a roundtable but who will be 

unable to attend are strongly encouraged to call the FEC and cancel 

their registration so that the next 

person on the waiting list may 

attend in their place.✦ 

Roundtable Schedule 

Date Subject Intended Audience 

Filled! 

Waiting List 

Only 

September 1	 Fundraising Through 

9:30 - 11 a.m.	 Payroll Deductions 

(Code #999) 

October 6	 Making Contributions 

9:30 - 11 a.m.	 to Federal Candidates: 

Designations, 

Redesignations and 

Reattributions 

(Code #1099) 

•	 Corporate PAC Staff 

•	 Lawyers, Accountants 

and Consultants to 

Corporate PACs 

•	 House and Senate 

Campaigns 

• PACs 

•	 Political Party Staff 

•	 Lawyers, Accountants 

and Consultants to 

Above 

November 3 

9:30 - 11 a.m. 

Update on New FEC 

Regulations 

• Definition of Member 

• 

• 

Trade/Member PACs 

Recipients of 

Contributions from 

• Contributions from 

Limited Liability 

Companies 

(Code #1199) 

• 

• 

LLCs (e.g., PACs and 

Campaigns) 

LLCs 

Lawyers, Accountants 

and Consultants to 

Above 

Public Appearances 

September 8, 1999 

American University 

Washington, D.C. 

Karl Sandstrom, Commissioner 

September 8, 1999 

George Washington University 

Law School 

Washington, D.C. 

Scott Thomas, Chairman 

September 13, 1999 

Hudson Institute 

Washington, D.C. 

David Mason, Commissioner 

September 13, 1999 

American University 

Washington, D.C. 

David Mason, Commissioner 

Kevin Salley, Deputy Assistant 

Staff Director, Public Disclosure 

Division 

September 16, 1999 

Perkins Coie LLP and Roll Call 

Washington, D.C. 

Scott Thomas, Chairman 

David Mason, Commissioner 

September 16, 1999 

Practising Law Institute 

Washington, D.C. 

David Mason, Commissioner 

September 21, 1999 

The American Council of Young 

Political Leaders 

Washington, D.C. 

Danny McDonald, Commissioner 

September 21, 1999 

Business Government Relations 

Council 

Washington, D.C. 

Scott Thomas, Chairman 

14 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Regional Conference (includes 

candidate, corporate/labor and 

party workshops) 

Date: September 27-29, 1999 

Location: Chicago, IL 

(Fairmont Hotel) 

Registration: $265 

Regional Conference (includes 

candidate, corporate/labor and 

party workshops) 

Date: November 15-17, 1999 

Location: San Francisco 

(Grand Hyatt) 

Registration: $250 

Candidate Conference 

Date: February10-11, 2000 

Location: Washington, DC 

(Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill) 

Registration: To be determined 

FEC Conference Schedule

 The FEC continues its series of conferences on campaign finance this fall. 

See below for details. To register for any conference, call Sylvester 

Management at 800/246-7277 or send an e-mail to 

tsylvester@worldnet.att.net. For program information, call the FEC’s 

Information Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1100. A regularly updated 

schedule for the conferences and a downloadable invitation/registration form 

appear at the FEC’s Web site. Go to http://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm for 

the latest information. 

Regional Conference (includes 

candidate, corporate/labor and 

party workshops) 

Date: March 8-10, 2000 

Location: Miami, FL 

(Sheraton Biscayne Bay) 

Registration: $240 

Corporate and Labor 

Conference 

Date: May 2000 

Location: Washington, DC 

Registration: To be determined 

Membership and Trade 

Association Conference 

Date: June 2000 

Location: Washington, DC 

Registration: To be determined 

Publications 

Campaign Finance Law ’98 

Supplement Available 

The Commission recently 

published a supplement to the 

previously published Campaign 

Finance Law ’98. The supplement 

summarizes the campaign finance 

laws of the U.S. territories and 

possessions of American Samoa, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Campaign Finance Law is 

published every two years as an 

updated outline summary of the 

state campaign finance laws. Quick 

reference charts of the state campaign finance laws, excerpted from 

Campaign Finance Law’98 and the 

Supplement, can be found on the 

FEC’s Web site (http://www.fec.gov) 

by clicking first on “Using FEC 

Services” and then on “Quick 

Reference Charts of State Campaign 

Finance Laws.” 

Copies of Campaign Finance 

Law ’98 Supplement are available 

for free from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office. A limited number 

of copies of Campaign Finance Law 

’98 are also still available. For 

ordering information, call 800/424­

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.✦ 

Election 

Administration 

Office of Election 

Administration Advisory 

Panel Meeting 

On August 6-7, 1999, the FEC’s 

Office of Election Administration 

Advisory Panel met in Chicago. The 

Agenda for the two-day meeting 

included lectures and discussions on 

the following topics: 

• National Voter Registration Act 

Report (for a story on the NVRA 

Report, see the August 1999 

Record, p. 5) 

• The Accessibility of the Election 

Process 

• Biometrics Report/Internet Voting 

• A Political Retrospective on the 

20th Century 

• The 2000 Census 

• Recent Developments in Election 

Case Law 

• Contested Elections 

• Updating the Voting Systems 

Standards. 

The Advisory Panel is comprised 

of twenty State and local election 

officials and two associate members 

from Canada and Mexico. Members 

are selected by the FEC for two-year 

terms based on geographic representation and State/local balance. The 

Panel provides guidance on allocating resources and helps to ensure 

that the Office of Election 

Administration’s research and 

information gathering functions are 

focused to the benefit of election 

officials at all levels.✦ 

(continued on page 17) 

15 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

800 Line 

Earmarked Contributions to 

Candidates (Bundling) 

An earmarked contribution is one 

which the contributor directs (either 

orally or in writing) to a clearly 

identified candidate or his or her 

authorized committee through an 

intermediary or a conduit. Earmarking is sometimes referred to as 

“bundling” because, in many cases, 

the conduit receives several contributions that are earmarked for a 

candidate and forwards them all 

together (in a “bundle”). 

Definition of Conduit or 

Intermediary 

Who is a Conduit. Anyone who 

receives and forwards an earmarked 

contribution to a candidate committee is considered a conduit or 

intermediary. 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2). 

Individuals, political committees, 

unregistered committees and 

partnerships may act as conduits for 

earmarked contributions. 11 CFR 

110.6(b). 

Persons Not Considered Conduits. Certain individuals and 

organizations are not considered 

conduits even though they may 

participate in activities to raise 

money for a candidate. These 

persons include: 

• An employee or full-time volunteer working for a candidate 

committee; 

• An individual who occupies a 

significant position in a 

candidate’s campaign and who is 

expressly authorized to raise 

money on behalf of the candidate; 

• A committee affiliated with the 

candidate committee; and 

• A commercial fundraising firm 

retained by the candidate committee. 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2)(i). 

Prohibitions Apply. No corporation, labor organization or other 

entity prohibited from making 

contributions in connection with 

federal elections may act as a 

conduit for an earmarked contribution. A separate segregate fund 

(SSF),1

 however, may act as a 

conduit. 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2)(ii); 

114.3(c)(2). 

Furthermore, an individual is not 

permitted to receive a contribution 

on behalf of a candidate when acting 

as the representative of a prohibited 

entity (i.e., a corporation, labor 

organization, national bank, foreign 

national or federal government 

contractor). 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2)(i)(A) 

and (E). 

Earmarking and Contribution 

Limits 

General Rule. An earmarked 

contribution is considered to have 

been made by the original contributor, thus counting against his or her 

contribution limit with respect to the 

recipient candidate. The conduit’s 

own contribution limit is not 

affected unless the conduit exercises 

direction or control over the 

contributor’s choice of recipient 

candidate. In that case, the contribution is considered to have been 

made by both the original contributor and the conduit, and it counts 

against both of their respective 

contribution limits. 11 CFR 110.6(d) 

Contribution Earmarked Through 

SSF. An unsolicited earmarked 

contribution, transmitted to a 

candidate through an SSF, counts 

against the original contributor’s 

limits to the recipient candidate, but 

not against the SSF’s own contribution limits to the candidate. However, if the earmarked contribution 

1

 A political committee established by a 

corporation or labor organization, 

popularly called a corporate or labor 

PAC. 11 CFR 114.1(a)(2)(iii). 

was solicited from the restricted 

class2

 by a communication from the 

SSF’s connected organization3

 and 

was collected by the SSF, it is 

considered a contribution to both the 

SSF and the candidate, and from 

both the individual contributor and 

the SSF. Under these circumstances, 

in addition to counting against the 

contributor’s limits, the contribution 

automatically counts against the 

SSF’s contribution limits regardless 

of whether the SSF exercised 

direction or control over the choice 

of recipient. 11 CFR 114.2(f)(2)(iii) 

and 114.2(f)(4)(iii). 

Forwarding Earmarked 

Contributions 

The conduit must forward an 

earmarked contribution, along with 

a report (described below), to the 

recipient authorized committee 

within 10 days. 11 CFR 102.8(a) 

and (c); 110.6(b)(2)(iii). 

Reporting Earmarked 

Contributions 

An earmarked contribution must 

be reported by both the conduit and 

the recipient authorized committee. 

Reports by Political Committee 

Conduit. A political committee that 

serves as a conduit of an earmarked 

contribution must disclose the 

earmarked contribution, regardless 

of amount, on two separate reports: 

(1) the committee’s next regularly 

scheduled FEC report and (2) a 

special transmittal report sent to the 

recipient authorized committee. 

11 CFR 110.6(c)(1). 

2

 The executive and administrative 

personnel, members and stockholders 

(and the families of each) of a corporation or labor organization. 11 CFR 

114.3(a); 114.5(g); 114.7(a) and (h); 

and 114.8(c), (h) and (i). 

3

 An organization that uses its treasury 

funds to establish, administer or solicit 

contributions to a separate segregated 

fund. 11 CFR 100.6. 

16 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

The conduit’s next regularly 

scheduled report must indicate 

whether the earmarked contribution 

was: 

• Transmitted through the conduit’s 

account, in which case each 

contribution must be reported on 

the reporting schedules for itemized receipts and disbursements 

(Schedules A and B); or 

• Transmitted in the form of the 

original contributor’s check, in 

which case each earmarked 

contribution must be reported as a 

memo entry4

 on Schedules A and 

B. 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(iv) and (v). 

The report to the recipient 

committee must be forwarded at the 

same time as the earmarked contribution. 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(iii). 

Reports by Unregistered Conduit. 

A conduit that is not a registered 

political committee (that is, the 

conduit is an individual, a partnership or a group) must file two 

reports: (1)Within thirty days of 

forwarding the contribution, the 

conduit must file a report by letter 

with the Federal Election Commission (not the Secretary of the 

Senate); and (2) The conduit must 

file a transmittal report by letter and 

attach it to the contribution that it 

forwards to the recipient candidate 

committee. 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(ii). 

Contents of Reports by Conduit. 

All of the above reports filed by a 

conduit must contain the following 

information: 

• The name and mailing address of 

the original contributor and, if the 

contribution is from an individual 

and exceeds $200, the contributor’s occupation and employer; 

• The amount of the earmarked 

contribution; 

4

 Supplemental information on a 

reporting schedule. The dollar amount 

in a memo entry is not incorporated 

into the total figure. 

• The date the contribution was 

received by the conduit; 

• The recipient of the contribution, 

as designated by the contributor; 

• The date the contribution was 

forwarded to the recipient; and 

• Whether the contribution was 

passed on in cash, by the contributor’s check or by the conduit’s 

check. 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(iv) 

Report by Recipient Committee. 

The recipient of an earmarked 

contribution may also have a special 

reporting obligation. If earmarked 

contributions received from a single 

conduit exceed $200 in a calendar 

year, the recipient committee must 

file a Schedule A, where it: 

• Identifies the conduit by name and 

address (and occupation and 

employer if the conduit is an 

individual); 

• Reports the date of receipt and 

total amount of earmarked contributions received from that conduit; 

and 

• Itemizes the original contributions 

from each individual whose total 

contributions to the committee 

aggregate over $200 per calendar 

year (including the occupation and 

employer of the contributor, the 

amount earmarked and the date 

received by the conduit). 11 CFR 

110.6(c)(2).✦ 

Election Administration 

(continued from page 15) 

FEC Approves Revisions to 

National Mail Voter 

Registration Form 

On July 19, 1999, the FEC 

approved a large number of revisions to the National Mail Voter 

Registration form, which was last 

updated September 1997. The mailin registration card now incorporates 

the new “official election mail” 

postal logo to provide speedy 

delivery of election materials. In 

addition, there were substantial 

changes to the form’s state instructions. 

Because of the large number of 

changes in the state instructions, the 

Office of Election Administration 

recommends that users replace all 

previous copies of the form rather 

than use an addendum. In addition 

to providing printing instructions for 

the entire form, the FEC is providing separate instructions for printing 

only the registration card. Those 

cards can then be combined with 

information on how to access state 

instructions on the FEC’s Web site 

(http://www.fec.gov). For additional 

information, call the FEC at 800/ 

424-9530 (then press 4) or 202/694­

1095.✦ 

The FEC Takes Visa and Mastercard

 FEC customers can pay for FEC materials with Visa or Mastercard. Most 

FEC materials are available free of charge, but some are sold, including 

financial statistical reports ($10 each), candidate indexes ($10) and PAC 

directories ($13.25). The FEC also has a 5¢ per page copying charge for paper 

documents and a 15¢ per page copying charge for microfilmed documents.

 Paying by credit card has its advantages. For instance, since the FEC will not 

fill an order until payment is received, using a credit card speeds delivery by 

four to five days.

 Visitors to the FEC’s Public Records Office may make payments by credit 

card. Regular visitors, such as researchers and reporters, who in the past have 

paid for FEC materials out of their own pockets, may make payments with a 

company credit card.

 The credit card payment system also reduces costs and paperwork associated 

with check processing, enabling FEC staff to better serve the walk-in visitor. 

17 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

Statistics 

Midyear PAC Count Shows 

Slight Decrease From 1998 

The FEC’s semiannual PAC 

count reveals that the number of 

PACs has decreased slightly since 

the last count was taken in December 1998. The table at right shows 

the midyear and year-end PAC 

figures since 1991. To see a complete listing of PAC statistics dating 

back to 1975, visit the FEC’s Web 

site (http://www.fec.gov) or request 

a copy of the agency’s July 20 press 

release (call 800/424-9530 and press 

3 for the Public Records Office or 

press 5 and ask for the Press 

Office).✦ 

Change of Address 

Political Committees

Trade/ Corp. w/o 

Member/ Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected 1 Total 

Dec. ’91 1,738 338 742 57 136 1,083 4,094 

Jul. ’92 1,731 344 759 56 144 1,091 4,125 

Dec. ’92 1,735 347 770 56 142 1,145 4,195 

Jul. ’93 1,715 338 767 55 139 1,011 4,025 

Dec. ’93 1,789 337 761 56 146 1,121 4,210 

Jul. ’94 1,666 336 777 53 138 963 3,933 

Dec. ’94 1,660 333 792 53 136 980 3,954 

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. ’972 1,602 332 826 41 118 953 3,875 

Dec. ’973 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 

1 Nonconnected 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. 

2

 During the first six months of 1997, 227 PACs were administratively terminated 

because of inactivity. 

3

 During the second six months of 1997, 107 PACs were administratively terminated 

because of inactivity. 

Treasurers of registered political committees 

automatically receive the Record. A change of 

address by a political committee (or any change to 

information disclosed on the Statement of 

Organization) must, by law, be made in writing on 

FEC Form 1 or by letter. The treasurer must sign the 

amendment and file it with the Secretary of the 

Senate or the FEC (as appropriate) and with the 

appropriate state office. 

Other Subscribers

 Record subscribers who are not registered 

political committees should include the following 

information when requesting a change of address: 

• Subscription number (located on the upper left 

corner of the mailing label); 

• Subscriber’s name; 

• Old address; and 

• New address. 

Subscribers (other than political committees) may 

correct their addresses by phone as well as by mail. 

18 
September 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Index 

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 1999 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 

1998-22: Application of expenditure 

definition and disclaimer requirements to web site containing 

express advocacy, 1:16 

1998-23: Status as state committee 

of political party, 1:16 

1998-26: Candidate committee’s 

acceptance of loan repayment 

from contested election trust fund 

that contains funds loaned to it by 

candidate, 3:5 

1998-27: Status as state committee 

of political party, 3:6 

1999-1: Use of campaign funds to 

pay salary to candidate, 4:5; 6:6 

1999-2: Use of corporate treasury 

funds to provide meals to employees attending candidate forums, 

4:6 

1999-3: Use of digital signatures by 

restricted class to authorize 

payroll deductions, 5:5 

1999-4: Applicability of contribution limits to local party organization conducting federal activity 

and affiliated with state party 

committee, 6:3 

1999-5: Revising state party ballot 

composition ratio for new executive office, 6:4 

1999-6: Use and publication of 

information about annuity allotment program permitting union 

member retirees to make contributions to SSF, 6:4 

1999-7: Free hyperlinks on government web site to web sites of 

candidates, 6:5 

1999-8: Investment of excess campaign funds in mutual funds, 6:6 

1999-9: Matching credit card 

contributions received by Presidential primary candidates via 

Internet, 7:5 

1999-10: SSF solicitation of member policyholders of mutual 

insurance company, 7:7 

1999-11: Federal candidate’s use of 

funds from state-level account, 7:7 

1999-12: Preemption of Pennsylvania disclosure requirements 8:4 

1999-13: Use of Corporate Aircraft, 

8:4 

1999-14: Testamentary bequests 

that exceed contribution limits, 

9:7 

1999-15: Membership status of 

unincorporated unit of trade 

association, 9:7 

1999-16: Solicitation of chapter 

members of trade association, 9:9 

1999-18: Calculation of allocation 

ratio by local party committee, 

9:10 

Compliance 

MUR 4546: Failure to provide 

contributor information and 

demonstrate “best efforts,” 5:8 

MUR 4632: Untimely reports; 

failure to amend Statement of 

Organization; treasurer’s absence, 

7:10 

MUR 4750: Excessive contributions, 1:13 

MUR 4751: Excessive and improper 

transfers of nonfederal funds, 

excessive contributions, corporate 

contributions, 2:2 

MUR 4796: Corporate contributions, contributions in the names 

of others, 1:13 

MUR 4797/4798: Prohibited 

transfers from unregistered party 

organization to party committees, 

failure to allocate, 8:6 

MUR 4834: Foreign national 

contribution, contribution in the 

name of another, 3:7 

MUR 4879: Corporate contributions 

in the names of others, 8:6 

Court Cases 

FEC v. _____ 

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee 

(98C-4933), 4:5 

– Christian Coalition, 9:4 

– Colorado Republican Federal 

Campaign Committee, 4:1 

– David Gentry for Congress 

Committee, 7:10 

– Forbes, 4:5 

_____ v. FEC 

– Judd, 1:3; 4:5 

– Judicial Watch, 7:8 

– Mariani, 2:1 

– National Committee of the Reform 

Party, 4:4 

– Perot ’96 (98-1022), 6:1 

– RNC (98-5263), 1:2 

Other 

– Burris v. Russell, 1:3 

– Cincinnati v. Kruse, 1:3 

– Fireman v. United States, 5:7 

– USA v. Hsia, 7:9 

Regulations 

Debates, 7:5 

Definition of “Member” of Membership Association, 1:10; 3:1; 

5:6, 9:1 

Electronic FOIA, 4:7 

Express Advocacy, 3:2; 6:7 

Limited Liability Companies, 1:11; 

8:1 

Matching Credit Card and Debit 

Card Contributions in Presidential 

Campaigns, 7:4, 9:3 

Party Committee Coordinated 

Expenditures and Media Travel, 

9:12 

Public Financing of Presidential 

Primary and General Election 

Candidates, 1:7; 3:1; 5:6 

Soft money, 1:12 

Status of, 3:3 

Voter Guide Petition, 9:13 

Reports 

Electronic filing, 1:6; 2:1 

Reports due in 1999, 1:4 

Reports due in July, 7:1 

Special election, California, 8:9 

Special election, Georgia, 2:3 

Special election, Louisiana, 4:7 

Statistics 

Congressional, 2:4; 6:8 

PAC, 3:11; 7:2, 9:18 

Party, 3:4; 6:8 

19 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1999 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW Bulk Rate Mail 

Washington, DC 20463 Postage and Fees Paid 

Federal Election Commission 

Permit Number G-31 

Official Business


Penalty for Private Use, $300


Printed on recycled paper