November 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 11

Table of Contents

Reports

1 New FEC Forms for 2001

2 New Reporting Requirements

4 Commission Extends State Filing

Waiver to Senate Elections

4 Georgia Receives State Waiver

4 Advisory Opinions

8 Federal Register

Court Cases

8 Lenora B. Fulani v. FEC

8 Becker v. FEC

8 Missouri Republican Party v.

Charles F. Lamb

9 Wertheimer v. FEC

10 Buchanan v. FEC

10 Reform Party of the United States

v. John Hagelin and Reform Party

of the United States v. Gerald M.

Moan

10 Natural Law Party of the United

States of America v. FEC

Compliance

10 Commission Launches Alternative

Dispute Resolution Program

Public Funding

12 Hagelin-Goldhaber Denied Public

Funding

12 September Matching Funds

Statistics

13 Congressional Campaigns, Parties

and PACs

Outreach

14 Public Appearances

14 Roundtables

Compliance Reports

New FEC Forms for 2001

To comply with new statutory

reporting requirements, the Commission has updated its campaign

finance disclosure forms 1, 1M, 2, 3,

3X, 3P, 4, 5, 6 and 8. These forms

have been revised, as appropriate, to

respond to reporting requirements

such as mandatory electronic filing

for committees whose contributions

or expenditures exceed $50,000 per

year and election-cycle reporting for

authorized committees—both of

which take effect for reporting

periods beginning on or after

January 1, 2000—and the state

filing waivers program already in

effect in many states.1

 Additionally,

forms 1, 3 and 3X have been

reformatted so that staff can process

them faster and more easily and so

that they can eventually be read

electronically through optical

character recognition (OCR), in

anticipation of the Commission’s

future use of this technology. The

new forms were transmitted to

Congress on September 15, 2000.

The Commission will make the new

forms available for use in the first

reporting periods covering activity

1

 For a list of states that have qualified

for the filing waiver, see page 3.

in 2001.2 They will be included, for

the first time, in prior notices of

reporting obligations mailed to

treasurers in 2001.

Because they have been reformatted, the new forms differ in appearance from the current forms. Other

notable changes to the forms are

listed below:

• New codes for categorizing the

“purpose of disbursements”

(Schedule B for Forms 3 and 3X;

Schedules E, F and H4 for Form

3X). Committees will be asked to

voluntarily assign a code to

identify the purpose of the disbursement in addition to providing

the required written description.

These codes will be included in the

instructions.

• Revised instructions that inform

committees of the new rules

governing election-cycle reporting,

mandatory electronic filing and

waivers from filing with certain

states, as appropriate.

• Separate booklets of instructions

for filling out forms 3, 3X and 3P.

2

 The first regular reports required to

be filed on the new forms are the

February 20 report for monthly filers,

the mid-year report for quarterly filers

and the April 15 report for Presidential

committees that file quarterly. Reports

that cover activity for 2000, such as the

year-end report filed January 31, 2000,

will use the current forms.

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

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)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Darryl R. Wold, Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Bradley Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Amy L. Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

These instructions will be included

with the forms in the prior notices

mailed to committees and will also

be viewable on the FEC’s Web site

at www.fec.gov.

• Space on Form 1 for e-mail

address and Web site. Form 1 has

been revised to provide space for a

committee’s e-mail address

(required of electronic filers only),

as well as the committee’s Internet

Web site address if the committee

has such a site (required of all

committees under the new regulations).

• A new Post-Election Detailed

Summary Page for authorized

candidate committees only.

Candidate committees will use this

new form in place of the Detailed

Summary Page and portions of the

Summary Page when they file the

Reports

(continued from page 1)

3

 For candidates who are nominated for

the general election, the new page must

be included with the Post-General

report filed 30 days after the general

election. For candidates who do not

participate in the general election, the

new page must be included with the

first report filed after the close of the

election cycle, normally the year-end

report.

first report after the general

election.3

 Candidate committees

will use this form only at this time,

when the committee must disclose

activity for two election cycles in

one report (under the new electioncycle reporting rules). For all

other reports filed during the

election cycle, candidate committees will use the regular Detailed

Summary Page.

For more information about

mandatory electronic filing or

election-cycle reporting, see page 1

of this issue. For information on

state waivers, see page 3 of this

issue.✦

New Reporting Requirements

New reporting requirements will

be in effect for reporting periods

that begin on or after January 1,

2001:

• Mandatory electronic filing, which

affects most committees, individuals and organizations that receive

contributions or make expenditures

in excess of $50,000 in a calendar

year; and

• Election Cycle Reporting, which

affects authorized candidate

committees only.

Mandatory Electronic Filing

Beginning with the reporting

periods that start on or after January

1, 2001, all committees that receive

contributions or make expenditures

in excess of $50,000 in a calendar

year, or that have reason to expect to

do so,1

 must submit their reports

electronically. Any filers who are

required to file electronically, but

who file on paper, will be considered nonfilers and may be subject to

enforcement action. The mandatory

electronic filing provisions (11 CFR

104.18) apply to any political

committee or other person required

to file reports, statements and

designations with the FEC. This

includes all filers except Senate

1

 Once filers actually exceed the

threshold, they have “reason to expect”

to exceed the threshold in the following

two calendar years. 11 CFR 104.18

(a)(3)(i). This means they must continue

to file electronically for the next two

years (January through December).

Filers with no historic data on which to

base their calculations should expect to

exceed the threshold if they either

receive contributions or make expenditures that exceed one-quarter of the

threshold amount in the first quarter of

the calendar year, or they receive

contributions or make expenditures that

exceed one-half of the threshold amount

in the first half of the calendar year. 11

CFR 104.18 (a)(3)(ii). The regulations

allow an exception to the requirement

of filing for the following two calendar

years for candidate committees:

• That have $50,000 or less in net debts

outstanding on January 1 of the year

following the election;

• That anticipate terminating prior to

the next election year; and

• Whose candidate has not qualified as

a candidate for the next election and

does not intend to become a candidate

in the next election. 11 CFR 104.18

(a)(3)(i).

While all committees must file electronically in the year in which they

exceed the threshold, authorized

candidate committees meeting these

requirements do not “expect to exceed

the threshold” in the following two

calendar years and, therefore, need not

file electronically during those periods

unless they actually exceed the threshold.
November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

candidate committees, which file

with the Secretary of the Senate.2

Application of the $50,000

Threshold. Each unauthorized

committee (PAC or party committee) must file electronically if the

total contributions or total expenditures of that committee exceed, or

are expected to exceed, the $50,000

threshold. The threshold is calculated on a per-committee basis, and

each committee calculates its own

contributions and expenditures

separately and files separately, even

if it is affiliated with another

committee.

By contrast, all committees

authorized by one candidate must

file electronically if their combined

total contributions or combined total

expenditures exceed, or are expected to exceed, the threshold.

Individuals and qualified nonprofit corporations whose independent expenditures exceed, or are

expected to exceed, the $50,000

threshold must also file electronically.

Voluntary Electronic Filing.

Voluntary electronic filers must

continue to file electronically for the

remainder of the calendar year

unless the Commission determines

that unusual circumstances make

continued electronic filing impractical. 11 CFR 104.18(b). No such

waiver by the Commission, however, has been established for

mandatory electronic filers.

Election Cycle Reporting for

Candidate Committees

Beginning with the reporting

periods that start on or after January

1, 2001, authorized committees of

federal candidates must aggregate

and report receipts and disbursements on an election-cycle basis.

The new rules do not affect unauthorized committees, such as PACs

and party committees.

The change to election-cycle

reporting is intended to simplify

recordkeeping and enhance reporting. Under current regulations,

candidate committees monitor

contribution limits on a per-election

basis, but disclose their financial

activity on a calendar-year-to-date

basis. Under the new system,

committees will report all of their

receipts and disbursements on an

election-cycle basis. 11 CFR 104.3

Definition of Election Cycle.

Under FEC regulations, an election

cycle begins the day after the

general election for a seat or office

and ends on the day of the next

general election for that seat or

office. 11 CFR 100.3(b). The

length of the election cycle, thus,

depends on the office sought. For

example, the election cycle is

generally two years for House

candidates, six years for Senate

candidates and four years for

Presidential candidates.

Transition to Election-Cycle

Reporting. Because the new regulations will take effect after the postgeneral and year-end reporting

periods for 2000 have closed, some

candidate committees will have

already reported receipts and

disbursements related to the 2002,

2004 or 2006 election cycles. These

committees will need to include this

previously-disclosed activity in their

election-cycle-to-date figures,

beginning with their first report

under the new system.3

 In some

cases, the activity may span several

years. For example, a Senate

candidate for a 2002 election who

has been receiving contributions and

making disbursements since the last

election for that seat (in 1996) will

2

 Senate candidates, however, are

encouraged to voluntarily file electronically with the FEC to ensure faster

disclosure.

need to account for that activity as

part of his or her election-cycle-todate reporting.

Aggregating election-cycle

contributions for reporting purposes

may differ from aggregating these

amounts for the purposes of calculating contribution limits. For

reporting purposes only, committees

must include all contributions

received during an election cycle

even if a contribution is designated

for another election cycle. For

example, if, after an election, a

committee receives a check that the

contributor has designated to pay

the debts of that past election, the

committee will disclose this contribution as part of the total contributions for the reporting period and

election cycle in which it received

the contribution, even though the

contribution will count against the

contributor’s limit in the prior

election cycle.

Revised Forms

The Commission recently revised

reporting forms 1, 1M, 2, 3, 3X, 3P,

4, 5, 6 and 8 in order to reflect

changes in the reporting requirements. The revised forms will be

available for reporting periods that

start on or after January 1, 2001.

Revised software will also be made

available, and the FEC is now

conducting regular workshops on

using the FEC’s electronic filing

software. For more information

about these workshops, call 202/

694-1250.

For more information on the new

forms, see page 1 of this issue. For

more information on mandatory

electronic filing, see the August

2000 Record, page 1. To learn more

about election-cycle reporting, see

the August 2000 Record, page 4.✦

3

 For most campaigns, the first report

under the new system will be the midyear report, due July 31, 2001.

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

4

Commission Extends State

Filing Waiver to Senate

Elections

On September 27, 2000, the

Commission extended the State

Filing Waiver Program to include

campaigns for U.S. Senate and other

political committees that support

only U.S. Senate candidates.

Under the State Filing Waiver

program, filers whose reports are

available on the FEC Web site need

not file duplicate copies of their

reports in states that provide adequate public access to the

Commission’s site.

In the past, the waiver did not

apply to Senate committees because

their reports—which are filed with

the Secretary of the Senate—were

not available on the FEC Web site.

Now, through a joint effort of the

Commission and the Secretary of

the Senate, computer images of

those reports are available on the

FEC’s site. As a result, beginning

with the October 15, 2000, quarterly

report, Senate committees are no

longer required to file copies of their

reports in states certified for the

State Filing Waiver Program.1

 ✦

1

 The Commission has certified that the

following states and territories qualify

for filing waivers: Alabama, American

Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

Mexico, New York, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon , Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,

Virgin Islands, Washington, West

Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Committees that file their reports at the

FEC need not file copies in these states.

Commission Certifies

Georgia for State Filing

Waiver

On September 29, 2000, the

Commission certified that Georgia

qualified for a state filing waiver.

Consequently, federal committees

and candidates in Georgia did not

have to file duplicate copies of their

federal reports with the Georgia

state election office, beginning with

the October 15th Quarterly

Report.✦

Reports

(continued from page 3)

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1999-38

Reporting Disputed and

Unpayable Debts

The Ken Calvert for Congress

Committee (the Committee) may

stop reporting three disputed or

unpayable debts, so long as it

follows certain reporting procedures

to account for the disposition of

these debts.

The Committee has, through

several Form 3 reports dating back

to 1994, reported, on Schedule D,

three specific debts that the Committee contends it does not owe.1

For the reporting period ending June

30, 1999, the Committee “charged

off” these amounts simply by

deleting the creditors from the

report. However, the Commission

found that this method created a

discrepancy in the report and that

the Committee’s amended reports

did not meet the obligation of

accounting for these debts.

Under Commission regulations,

committees filing with the FEC

must disclose their outstanding

debts and obligations. If these

obligations are settled for less than

their reported value, each report

filed under 11 CFR 104.1 must

contain a statement explaining how

the obligation was discharged.

Debts must be reported in every

report until they are no longer

outstanding. 11 CFR 104.11(a). 2

In this case, the Committee was

correct to report the disputed debts

in its earlier reports since the

vendors initially made demands for

payment for services rendered to the

committee. However, given that all

three vendors have ceased their

efforts to obtain payment, have not

challenged the Committee’s contention that the payments were unwarranted and have let the California

statute of limitations expire, the

Committee is not obligated to

indefinitely report these debts.

Before discontinuing its reporting of

these debts, however, the Committee must explain how each debt was

resolved using the guidelines that

follow.

In its next report, the Committee

must take two steps. First, it should

file a Schedule D on which it:

1

 The vendors in question are

Fieldworks Development, Pacific West

Communications and Gangi Graphics.

In the case of Fieldworks Development,

the Committee claims that the debt was

not paid because the services provided

were unsatisfactory and that the

California Statue of Limitations has

now expired on the claim. According to

the Committee, Pacific West Communications’ and Gangi Graphics’ disputed

amounts represent overcharges, which

the Committee did not feel obligated to

pay and which they erroneously

reported as Schedule D debts. Moreover, Pacific West no longer exists as a

business.

2

 In cases where a committee might not

know the exact amount of the debt, they

must report an estimated amount and

must either amend the report(s)

containing the estimate or indicate the

correct amount once the correct

amount is determined. 11 CFR

104.11(b). Commission regulations

explain the method for reporting

disputed debts at 11 CFR 104.3 and

104.11.
November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

• Lists the three disputed debts, each

with an outstanding balance of

zero as of the close of the billing

period; and

• Enters in parentheses, in the

column provided to show payments made during the reporting

period, an amount indicating that

each debt was paid in full.

Second, the Committee should

include a memo entry on Schedule

D to explain its representation that

the debts have been, in effect, paid.

The memo entry should cite this

advisory opinion and explain that:

• The debts were disputed;

• The vendors no longer seek

payment;

• The statute of limitations for the

debts has expired; and

• The Committee will no longer list

these debts on its Schedule D.

Once the Committee has taken

these steps, it will have no future

reporting obligations regarding

these three debts.

Date issued: June 14, 2000;

Length: 6 pages.✦

AO 2000-20

Creation of Nonconnected

Committee

The proposed Committee for

Quality Cancer Care will qualify as

a nonconnected PAC, despite its ties

to various cancer-related professional and trade associations.

Each of the five cancer-care

professionals who will comprise the

committee’s board of directors is

involved with one or more professional or trade associations concerned with cancer patient care.

Only two, however, have ties to the

same association. The committee

will share office space with one of

the associations—the Oncology

Nursing Society (ONS)—but will

pay all of its own establishment,

administrative and solicitation

expenses from the contributions it

receives. The committee will pay

ONS for its use of office space,

photocopiers and telephones, based

on the amount of time or space it

uses.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) provides for two types

of PACs: separate segregated funds

(SSFs) and nonconnected committees. An SSF is directly or indirectly

established, administered or financially supported by a “connected

organization”—an incorporated

entity, such as a trade association. A

nonconnected committee cannot

receive support from incorporated

organizations. Instead, it must

defray its operating costs from the

contributions it receives.

None of the professional or trade

associations with ties to the Committee for Quality Cancer Care,

including the ONS, will function as

the committee’s connected organization. This conclusion is based on

two factors:

• Since the committee will pay its

own expenses—including commercially-reasonable payments to

ONS for use of its facilities—none

of the associations will provide

financial support to the committee;

and

• The committee’s leadership is

diversified enough to demonstrate

an organizational independence

from the associations.

As a result, the committee will be

a nonconnected committee rather

than a separate segregated fund.

Issued: September 15, 2000;

Length: 5 pages.✦

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record starting

with January 1996 are available

through the Internet as PDF files.

Visit the FEC’s World Wide Web

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

click on “What’s New” for this

issue. Click “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” to see back issues. Future Record issues will be

posted on the web as well. You

will need Adobe® Acrobat®

Reader software to view the publication. The FEC’s web site has

a link that will take you to Adobe’s

web site, where you can download

the latest version of the software

for free.

1

 The additional trade associations

requesting this advisory opinion were

the American Land Title Association,

the Council of Insurance Agents and

Brokers, the Independent Insurance

Agents of America and the Society of

Independent Gasoline Marketers of

America.

(continued on page 6)

AO 2000-22

Use of Electronic Signature

for Trade Associations’

“Permission to Solicit”

Authorizations

The Air Transportation Association of America, along with a

number of other incorporated trade

associations (the Associations),1

may accept corporate members’

electronic signatures as written

authorization to solicit these members’ restricted class for the Associations’ respective separate

segregated funds (SSF).

Under Commission regulations, a

trade association must obtain written

authorization from a member

corporation before soliciting the

member’s restricted class. 11 CFR

114.8(d) and (e). The Associations

propose to implement a system

whereby they would obtain electronic written authorization by one

of two methods:

• Sending e-mail to corporate representatives, requesting their approval

to solicit their members and attaching an SSF solicitation form; and

• Placing the corporate approval

form on the secured “membersonly” portion of its Internet Web
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

6

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

AO 2000-23

Preemption of New York

Election Code

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations preempt a New York

State statute that prohibits certain

pre-primary spending by political

parties as it applies to the New York

State Democratic Committee’s (the

Committee) contributions, expenditures and exempt payments in

support of federal candidates.

Section 2-126 of the New York

Election Code prohibits parties from

spending money to support any

candidate until after the primary

election.1

 Under the Act, however,

the Committee, as a qualified,

multicandidate committee filing

with the Commission, may:

• Contribute up to $5,000 per

election to a House or Senate

candidate;

• Make unlimited exempt party

expenditures on behalf of its

nominees; and

• Make expenditures supporting its

Senatorial and Congressional

candidates within the limits

provided under 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d)(3). See 2 U.S.C.

§§441a(a)(2), 441a(d)(3) and

431(9)(B)(iv), (ix) and (x).

The Act and Commission regulations preempt any state law with

respect to federal elections. 2

U.S.C. §453 and 11 CFR 108.7.

Section 108.7(b)(3) specifically

preempts state laws concerning

limits on contributions and expenditures in connection with federal

candidates and committees.

In this case, the Commission

determined that the New York

provision, as applied to federal

candidates, does not regulate those

areas defined as interests of the

state, but rather places restrictions

on the federal election activities of

party committees. The New York

provision not only prevents the

Committee from making contributions, but also limits its ability to

take advantage of other opportunities specifically granted under the

Act. See also AOs 1995-48, 1993-

25, 1989-12.

The Commission recognized,

however, that the Act and Commission regulations do not compel New

York officials to defer to its conclusion in this opinion, and that judicial

review was the appropriate process

for making a final determination of

federal preemption questions such

as those addressed in this opinion.✦

site and restricting access to the

form to the corporate representatives through coded passwords.

Under both methods, the corporate representative would provide

written approval via an electronic

signature, and the Associations, in

turn, would send a notice to the

representative, confirming receipt of

the signed approval. Additionally,

the Associations would comply with

all regulations governing corporate

approvals. 11 CFR 114.7(a),

114.7(c) and 114.8(c).

In two past advisory opinions

involving contributor authorization

of deductions for contributions to an

SSF, the Commission approved the

use of an electronic signature by

computer and the use of a phone

process involving a unique account

number accompanied by other

safeguards, concluding that, like a

traditional signature, they were

unique identifiers of the authorizing

individuals. See AOs 1999-3 and

1999-6. In this case, the Associations’ proposal is permissible so

long as security measures are taken

to verify that the permission-tosolicit forms are only available to

authorized corporate representatives, and so long as the Associations have the ability to verify that

each electronically signed authorization came from the corporate

representative. Additionally, as with

any prior approvals wherein the

corporate representative grants

approval on behalf of the corporate

member, the electronic approval

form should indicate that the

approval is on behalf of the specified, named corporation. A copy of

the electronic approval must be

maintained, in a readily available

form, for three years, including a

record that verifies that the electronic signature came from the

particular corporate representative.

Date: September 15, 2000;

Length: 5 pages.✦

1

 The New York Congressional primary

elections were held September 12,

2000.

AO 2000-29

Determining Number of

Federal Elections in

Louisiana

Louisiana federal candidates may

accept contributions for a primary

election, which the Federal Election

Commission (the Commission)

determined was held on August 18,

2000, and a general election, which

will be held on November 7, 2000.

In congressional districts where no

candidate receives over 50 percent

of the vote in the general election,

candidates may also accept contributions for a December 9, 2000,

runoff election. Because of

Louisiana’s unique circumstances

and federal election schedule,

candidates may consider contributions received earlier in this election

cycle, that are otherwise lawful

under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), as within the

Act’s limits if they were:

• Received before the issuing of this

advisory opinion; and

• Within the combined limits of

either $2000 per donor or $10,000

per multicandidate committee

donor.

In July 2000, the Commission

sent notices to Louisiana federal

candidates apprising them of its

interpretation that the 2000 federal
November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

election cycle in Louisiana had only

a general election, on November 7,

2000, and a December runoff

election, but only for candidates in

races where no one obtained over 50

percent of the vote. In response, all

nine Members of Congress representing Louisiana 1

 requested an

advisory opinion on this matter.

Elections

Because November 7, 2000, is

prescribed by federal statute as the

national election date, it cannot be

considered a primary election date

in Louisiana. 2 U.S.C. §7. However,

Commission regulations allow an

independent candidate, or one that

seeks election without nomination

by a major political party, to choose

one of three possible dates as his/her

“primary election date.” One choice

is the last day to qualify for the

general election ballot in a given

state. 11 CFR 100.2(c)(4)(i). In this

case, federal candidates in Louisiana

had no opportunity to seek nomination in a Congressional primary

election because Louisiana no

longer includes Congressional

offices on its open primary election

ballots. Moreover, neither of the

two major state political parties

offered an alternative nomination

process. Thus, in effect, all candidates for Congress are seeking

office in the November general

election without nomination by a

political party. They may consider,

as their primary election date, the

last day to qualify for the November

7 ballot in Louisiana. That filing

date was August 18, 2000. 11 CFR

100.2(c)(4).

Candidates who qualify to

participate in the December 9, 2000,

runoff election may also accept and

retain contributions for this election.

11 CFR 100.2(d)(2). Candidates

may not, however, ask contributors

to redesignate contributions designated for the runoff election to

another election if the runoff

election is not held or if they do not

qualify for it. Instead, candidates

must refund these contributions no

later than January 6, 2001 (60 days

after the general election). Under

Commission regulations, the

redesignation option is only available with respect to contributions

made for an election that has already

occurred or is certain to occur in the

future. A runoff election is contingent upon the outcome of the

general election.

Contribution Limits and

Designations

The Act and Commission regulations apply contribution limits on a

per contributor, per election, basis.

Contributions are presumed to be

for the next upcoming election,

unless otherwise designated by the

contributor. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(1)—

(6) and 110.2(b)(1)—(6). But, in

the 2000 election cycle, Louisiana

candidates may treat contributions

received before the date when this

opinion was issued (October 19,

2000) differently. Contributions

received during this time period that

are within the contributor’s combined limits for the 2000 primary

and general elections (and are

otherwise permissible) will be

considered within the Act’s limits.

Contributions received after October

19, 2000, however, must be governed by the Commission’s designation regulations and the rules

relating to the possible return of

contributions for a runoff election, if

not held.

Reporting

Because the August 18 “primary

election” date has passed, and

because candidates and committees

were required to file their October

15 reports as though there were no

primary election, candidates and

committees need not file a retroactive 12-day pre-election report. All

other reports should be filed as

usual.

Future Elections

Candidates in future Louisiana

election cycles may rely on this

opinion and accept otherwise

permissible contributions for both

the primary and the general elections, assuming that the Louisiana

Congressional electoral system

remains the same. Undesignated

contributions received up to the last

day for ballot qualification for the

general election will count against

the limits for the primary election,

and undesignated contributions

received after this date will count

against the limits for the general

election.

Date Issued: October 19, 2000;

Length: 7 pages.✦

1

 Requesters are U.S. Representatives

W.J. “Billy” Tauzin, Richard H. Baker,

John Cooksey, Jim McCrery, David

Vitter, William Jefferson and Chris

John, as well as Senators John Breaux

and Mary Landrieu.

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2000-28

Disaffiliation of trade associations and their PACs (American

Seniors Housing Association,

September 26, 2000)

AOR 2000-29

Defining primary and general

elections in 2000 for Louisiana

Congressional candidates (W.J.

“Billy” Tauzin et al., October 2,

2000)

AOR 2000-30

Valuing in-kind contribution of

stock (pac.com, October 3, 2000)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

8

Court Cases

Lenora B. Fulani v. FEC

(1:00CV01018 (WBB))

On May 5, 2000, Lenora B.

Fulani asked the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia to find

that the FEC’s dismissal of her

complaint against the Democratic

National Committee (DNC), President Clinton, the Clinton/Gore ’96

Primary Committee and others was

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion and contrary to law.

In her FEC complaint, Dr. Fulani

had alleged that the respondents

conspired “to prevent a challenge to

President Clinton in the 1996

presidential primaries.” Among

other things, Dr. Fulani contended

that the DNC, in coordination with

the Clinton campaign, had spent

“tens of millions of dollars in soft

money on a television advertising

campaign to promote Clinton’s

candidacy . . . .”

In its consideration of Dr.

Fulani’s complaint, the Commission

was equally divided on whether the

DNC, the primary committee and

President Clinton violated statutory

provisions or regulations with

respect to television advertisements

funded by the DNC.1

 On March 9,

2000, the Commission found “no

reason to believe” the Federal

Election Campaign Act had been

violated with respect to actions

undertaken by Mr. Harold Ickes (a

1996 campaign worker), which were

unrelated to the DNC’s advertisements. The Commission then closed

the files in this matter. Dr. Fulani’s

petition seeks judicial review of the

Commission’s dismissal pursuant to

2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8).

1:00CV01018 (WBB), U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia.✦

1

 The Commission took action on Dr.

Fulani’s complaint, MUR 4713, along

with MURs 4407 and 4544.

Becker et al. v. FEC

On September 1, 2000, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Massachusetts denied Ralph Nader

and his organizational supporters’

motion for a preliminary injunction

to set aside the Federal Election

Commission’s Debate Regulations.

11 CFR 110.13(a)(1), 114.4(f)(1)

and 114.4(f)(3). The court found

that these regulations are not in

excess of the FEC’s statutory

authority under the Federal Election

Campaign Act. The court also

dismissed the complaint for lack of

standing with regard to the individual-voter plaintiffs.

By consent of the parties, the

district court entered a final judgment in favor of the FEC on September 14, 2000. The plaintiffs

filed an appeal of this decision on

September 15, 2000, and asked for

an expedited review. The U.S.

Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit granted the motion for

expedited review, and heard oral

argument on October 5, 2000.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Massachusetts; 00-cv11192 (PBS); on appeal, 00-2124.

See the August Record, p. 13.✦

Missouri Republican Party, et

al. v. Charles F. Lamb, et al.

On September 11, 2000, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit reversed the district court’s

judgment and ruled that Missouri’s

limitations on political party contributions to candidates were unconstitutional. The court concluded that

this case differed from the Buckley

v. Valeo and Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC cases

because it involved limits on

contributions from a political party

whereas the other two involved

contributions from individuals.

In Buckley, the Supreme Court

ruled that individual contribution

limits were constitutional because

they imposed “only a marginal

restriction upon the contributor’s

ability to engage in free communication.” The circumstances are

different in this case, however,

because the contributor is a political

party, the court said. The court

noted that the relationship between

candidates and individuals is not

nearly as close as that between

candidates and parties. The identities of candidates and parties are

often “virtually indistinguishable

from each other.” Whereas an

individual can potentially corrupt a

candidate with a contribution,

parties and candidates have such “a

unity of purpose” that the threat of

corruption is “not a very realistic

one.” In addition, the court said that

“a party’s contribution provides an

ideological endorsement and carries

a philosophical imprimatur that an

individual’s contribution does not,

and thus it cannot properly be called

a ‘contribution’ in the same sense

that the individual contributions in

Buckley were.”

The court also maintained that, in

this case, there was no evidence that

limiting parties’ contributions would

reduce corruption or measurably

decrease the number and instances

when individuals circumvented their

own contribution limits. Finally, the

court held that its ruling also applied

to Missouri’s limits on party in-kind

contributions.

U.S. District Court for the Eighth

Circuit, 00-1773/2686.✦

Federal Register

Federal Register Notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 2000-18

Mandatory Electronic Filing;

Final Rules and Announcement

of Effective Date (65 FR 38415,

June 21, 2000)
November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

1

 The campaign may, however, accept

contributions designated for its general

election legal and compliance (GELAC)

fund. This fund is a special account

maintained to pay for legal and

accounting expenses related to complying with the campaign finance law.

Compliance expenses do not count

against the expenditure limit. Contributions to the GELAC fund are, however,

subject to the limits and prohibitions of

the federal campaign finance laws.

3

Under the FECA, “express advocacy”

refers to a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat

of a clearly identified candidate.

Wertheimer et al. v. FEC

On September 13, 2000, Fred

Wertheimer, Scott Harshbarger and

Archibald Cox (plantiffs referred to

as Wertheimer) filed a complaint

against the Federal Election Commission in the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia. The

court dismissed the complaint for

lack of standing.

Complaint

Wertheimer asked that the court

require the Commission to determine whether, under the Presidential

Matching Fund Act (the Fund Act),

political parties’ expenditures for

“issue ads” that are coordinated

with, and further the election of,

presidential candidates constitute

contributions to and expenditures by

the candidates.

The Fund Act requires major

party Presidential nominees who

accept public funding to limit their

spending to those public funds.

They are not permitted to accept any

contributions for their campaigns.1

26 U.S.C. §9003(b).

With regard to the 2000 Presidential election, both major party

nominees have accepted public

funds. At the same time,

Wertheimer alleged, the national

parties of both candidates (in

addition to the coordinated expenditures they are permitted to make on

behalf of their respective candidates) had made expenditures in the

form of issue ads, often paid for

with nonfederal funds (frequently

called “soft money” in the popular

press).2

According to Wertheimer, the

national parties claimed that the use

of soft money contributions to fund

these advertisements was not for the

purpose of influencing a federal

election—and thus not a contribution—because the ads did not

contain specific phrases of “express

advocacy” 3 such as “vote for” or

“vote against” a particular candidate. Wertheimer, however, contended that these ads—even if they

did not contain “express advocacy”—were contributions to the

candidates, because they had been

closely coordinated with the candidates. Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the FECA), any

expenditure made “by any person in

cooperation, consultation, or concert

with, or at the request or suggestion

of, a candidate, his authorized

political committees, or their

agents” is considered a contribution.

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)(i). Moreover, these expenditures were,

according to Wertheimer, “in kind”

contributions—contributions of

goods or services—which are both

contributions to the candidate and

expenditures by the candidate.

As a result, Wertheimer contended, Presidential candidates had

both accepted private contributions

and exceeded the spending limit set

by the Fund Act. Wertheimer further

alleged both that the FEC knew of

these practices in the 1996 election

and failed to implement or construe

the law to prohibit such uses, and

that these practices continued in the

2000 election cycle.

Wertheimer asked that the court

declare that:

• Under the Fund Act, all expenditures by political parties that

further the election of their respective Presidential candidates, and

that are coordinated with those

Presidential candidates, are

contributions to and expenditures

by the Presidential candidates—

including party expenditures on

advertisements that do not contain

“express advocacy;” and

• Except as expressly provided by

the FECA, major party candidates

(and their committees) who choose

to finance their campaigns with

public funds may not lawfully

coordinate with their respective

political parties on party expenditures—including party expenditures for advertisements that

further their candidate’s election to

federal office.

District Court

On October 10, 2000 the court

granted the Commission’s motion to

dismiss the complaint for lack of

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs alleged that

they had standing because they had

marked the box on their income tax

returns directing the Treasury to

place $3 of their taxes in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

But “a tax payer’s disagreement

with an appropriation” is not

sufficient to confer standing, the

court said. Plaintiffs also alleged an

interest in knowing whether candidates were complying with the law,

but the court found that a generalized claim of harm does not confer

standing. Finally, the court concluded it did not have the jurisdiction to analyze the disclosure

provisions in the context of allegations under the Fund Act.

 U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 1:00 cv 02203

(CKK).✦

2

 The national parties are permitted to

make limited coordinated expenditures

on behalf of their nominees in the

general election. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d).

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

10

Court Cases

(continued from page 9)

Buchanan et al. v. FEC

On September 14, 2000, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia granted the FEC’s motion

for summary judgment and denied

the plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment in this case. The district

court ruled that, although the

plaintiffs had standing to challenge

the FEC’s dismissal of their administrative complaint against the

Commission on Presidential Debates, they failed to show that the

FEC’s interpretation of the debate

regulations at 11 CFR 110.13 was

arbitrary and capricious.

The plaintiffs appealed, and were

granted an expedited appeal concerning the single issue of whether a

debate must include all nominees

who have qualified for public

funding in order to comply with the

“objective criteria” standard set out

in the Commission’s debate regulations. The U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

affirmed the district court’s order on

this issue on September 29, 2000.

The remaining issues will be

decided on a non-expedited schedule.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 00-1775

(RWR); U.S. Court of Appeals for

the D.C. Circuit, 00-5337. See also

the September 2000 Record, page

8.✦

Natural Law Party of the

United States of America, et

al. v. FEC

On September 21, 2000, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia granted the FEC’s motion

for summary judgment in this case,

ruling against the Natural Law Party

of the United States of America, Dr.

John Hagelin and John Moore (the

plaintiffs). The court held that,

although the plaintiffs had standing

to challenge the FEC’s dismissal of

their administrative complaint

against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), they failed

to show that the FEC’s interpretation of the debate regulations at 11

CFR 110.13 was arbitrary and

capricious.

The plaintiffs appealed. After

expedited briefing on the issue of

whether the 15 percent electoral

support requirement in CPD’s

selection criteria is illegal, the Court

of Appeals affirmed the district

court’s order on this issue on

September 29, 2000. The remaining

issues will be decided on a nonexpedited schedule.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 00-2138

(ESH); U.S. Court of Appeals for

the D.C. Circuit, 00-5338.✦

1

 See 2 U.S.C. §438(b).

Reform Party of the United

States v. John Hagelin et al.

and Reform Party of the

United States v. Gerald M.

Moan et al.

On September 15, 2000, the

Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Los

Angeles, South District, enjoined

John Hagelin and his agents from

representing Dr. Hagelin and Nat

Goldhaber to the public as the

Reform Party (the Party) Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees.

The court found that the votes taken

first to remove Gerald Moan as the

Chair of the Party and to nominate

James Mangia to that position, and

subsequently to nominate John

Hagelin as the Party’s Presidential

candidate, violated the requirements

of the Party’s constitution. The

court further found that Patrick J.

Buchanan and Ezola Foster were the

properly nominated candidates of

the Reform Party.

The court granted a preliminary

injunction enjoining Dr. Hagelin

and his agents from:

• Soliciting donations on behalf of

the Party, either from party members or from the general public;

• Distributing press releases or

making any communications on

behalf of the Party;

• Operating a Web site on behalf of

the Party;

• Making expenditures on behalf of

the Party;

• Undertaking any effort or committing any act to promote John

Hagelin and Nat Goldhaber as the

official candidates of the Reform

Party; and

• Using the name of the “Reform

Party of the United States” or any

of the Party’s logos.

The U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Virginia had

previously dismissed a similar

complaint filed by the Party against

Dr. Hagelin and Sue Harris

DeBauche. That court found that

the complaint did not fall within its

jurisdiction.

Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Los

Angeles, South District, NC

028469.✦

Commission Launches

Alternative Dispute

Resolution Program

Launched on October 1, 2000, the

Commission’s new Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR) program

is in full swing. The ADR office

has contacted five committees

against whom complaints of violating the Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) have been filed. The

office explained the program to

Compliance
November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

them and offered them the option of

having their cases considered for

processing in the ADR program.

The ADR program aims to

resolve complaints and Title 2

audits for cause1

 through direct and,

when necessary, mediated negotiations.

When a complaint or an internal

referral is filed with the Commission, the Office of General Counsel

(OGC) provides the respondent with

information about the ADR option

and makes an initial determination

as to whether the case is appropriate

for the ADR program. OGC—or

FEC Commissioners—refer cases to

the ADR office, which operates

under the direction of the Staff

Director. Cases are referred to the

ADR office prior to the

Commission’s finding “Reason to

Believe” that the respondent violated the law. The ADR office

evaluates each case to decide

whether it meets the requirements

for the program. In order to have a

case considered for treatment within

the ADR program, respondents

must:

• Express a willingness to engage in

the ADR process;

• Agree to set aside the statute of

limitations while the complaint is

pending in the ADR office; and

• Agree to participate in bilateral

negotiations and, if necessary,

mediation.

Once the Commission approves a

case for ADR processing, the ADR

office notifies the respondent and

forwards proposed dates and times

for engaging in bilateral negotiations and/or mediation.

Bilateral Negotiations

The bilateral negotiation phase

involves direct negotiations between

the respondent and a representative

from the ADR office. Negotiations

aim to resolve the complaint or

referral in a way that is both satisfying to the respondent and in compliance with the Act. While

compliance with the Act is stressed

in the negotiations, the negotiated

settlement may not always include

an admission of guilt on the part of

the respondent.

Mediation

If a settlement is not reached in

bilateral negotiations, the case

proceeds to mediation. Respondents

select a mediator from a pool of 15

mediators from across the country

who are uniquely qualified to

mediate within this program because

they have received a thorough

orientation on the Act and the

Commission.

The mediator meets with the

parties both jointly and separately as

needed. In accordance with Section

574 of the ADR Act and 2 U.S.C.

§437g (a) (4) (B) and (a) (12) (A),

information disclosed in mediation

remains strictly confidential.

Information discussed in closed

“caucus” meetings between the

mediator and a single party cannot

be shared with the other party unless

that party has given the mediator

express permission to do so. If no

settlement is reached, the records

are purged and the case is referred

back to OGC for normal processing.

At this point, the statute of limitations begins again. If a settlement is

reached, only the parties’ summaries

of their case are placed on the

public record.

Settlement

Settlements reached, either

through negotiations or mediation,

will be sent by the ADR office to

the Commissioners for their approval. An approved settlement is a

matter of public record, which states

that the settlement was negotiated or

mediated and that it cannot serve as

a precedent for the resolution of

future cases. Complaints and

referrals will be processed, on

average, within five months following their receipt by the ADR

office.✦

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

 The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names

of political action committees

(PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

 To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free under the “Using

FEC Services” icon at the FEC’s

web site—http://www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

 registered PACs showing each

 PAC’s identification number,

 address, treasurer and

 connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

 organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

 identification number ($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., N.W.
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

12

Hagelin-Goldhaber Denied

Public Funding

On September 12, 2000, the

Commission made an initial determination to deny John Hagelin and

Nat Goldhaber’s request for public

funding as the Presidential and Vice

Presidential nominees of the Reform

Party. The Commission found that

Hagelin-Goldhaber did not have

ballot access as the Reform Party

ticket in enough states to qualify for

public funds under the Presidential

Election Campaign Fund Act (the

Fund Act).

The Reform Party qualifies as a

“minor party” under the Fund Act

because its nominee received more

than 5 percent, but less than 25

percent, of the total number of

popular votes received by all

Presidential candidates in the last

general election. 26 U.S.C.

§9002(7). As a result, its Presidential nominees are eligible for a

portion of the public funds allotted

to major party candidates. However, in order to receive these funds,

the minor party nominees must also

meet a series of additional requirements, one of which is that the

candidates qualify for ballot access

as their party’s nominees in at least

ten states. 11 CFR 9002.2(a)(2).

Although Hagelin-Goldhaber

submitted documentation showing

that they had ballot access in at least

ten states, the Commission found

that they had qualified to appear as

the Reform Party’s candidates in

only three states. As a result, the

Commission made an initial determination that Hagelin-Goldhaber

did not meet the eligibility requirements necessary to receive public

funds.✦

Public Funding

September Matching Fund

Payments

On September 29, 2000, the

Commission certified $689,270.98

in matching funds to six Presidential candidates. The U.S. Treasury

Department made the payments the

first day of September.

With these latest certifications,

the FEC has now declared ten

candidates eligible to receive a total

of $60,663,907.69 in federal

matching funds for the 2000

Matching Funds for 2000 Presidential Candidates:

September Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

 September 2000 Certifications

Gary L. Bauer (R) 1 $35, 106.01 $4,860,166.94

Bill Bradley (D) 2 $0.00 $12,462,047.69

Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform) 3 $202,103.93 $4,326,522.44

Al Gore (D) 4 $0.00 $15,456,083.75

John Hagelin (Natural Law) 5 $76,677.00 $650,347.06

Alan L. Keyes (R) 6 $226,214.69 $4,247,219.60

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) 7 $90,012.65 $1,375.129.60

John S. McCain (R) 8 $0.00 $14,475,333.10

Ralph Nader (G) 9 $59,156.70 $723,307.65

Dan Quayle(R) 10 $0.00 $2,087,749.46

1 Gary L. Bauer publicly withdrew from the race on February 4, 2000.

2 Bill Bradley publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

3 Patrick J. Buchanan became ineligible for matching funds on August 11, 2000.

4 Al Gore became ineligible for matching funds on August 16, 2000.

5 John Hagelin became ineligible for matching funds on August 31, 2000.

6 Alan L. Keyes became ineligible for matching funds on April 20, 2000.

7

 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., became ineligible for matching funds on August 16,

2000.

8 John S. McCain publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

9 Ralph Nader became ineligible for matching funds on August 17, 2000.

10 Dan Quayle publicly withdrew from the race on September 27, 1999 .

election. The above chart lists the

most recent certifications and

cumulative certifications (and

payments) for each candidate. ✦
November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Statistics

Fundraising and

Contributions Increase for

Congressional Campaigns,

Parties and PACs

The Commission has compiled

summaries of the financial disclosure reports of Congressional

campaign committees, Democratic

and Republican party committees

and political action committees

(PACs) for the period between

January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000.

The summaries show an increase in

fundraising for, and contributions to,

federal candidates during the first 18

months of the 2000 election cycle as

compared with the same period in

the prior election cycle.

Congressional Campaign

Committees

Congressional candidates raised a

record $652.7 million between

January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000,

representing a 35 percent increase

over the same period of the 1998

election cycle. House candidates

raised $393 million (up 34 percent

over the same period in 1997-98)

and Senate candidates raised $259.7

million (up 36 percent over the same

period in the previous election

cycle).

Democratic and Republican Party

Committees

Both Republican and Democratic

party committees showed increased

fundraising during the first 18

months of the 2000 cycle, compared

with fundraising from the same

period in the 1998 election cycle.

The federal accounts of Republican

party committees raised $245.7

million, spent $193 million and had

cash-on-hand of $65.3 million.

Democratic committees raised

$143.6 million, spent $105.5 million

and ended the period with cash-onPAC Contributions: First 18 Months

of 2000 Election Cycle

(continued on page 14)

National Party Committee Receipts: First 18

Months of 1996 and 2000 Election Cycles

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

Republicans

Democrats

Corp. 

w/out Stock

Trade Cooperative

Membership

Health

NonconnectedCorporate Labor

Millions

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400

Soft Money

Hard Money

2000

1996

2000

1996

Millions

Democrats

Republicans
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

14

Outreach

FEC Roundtables

The Commission will host

another roundtable session on

December 6, 2000. See the table for

more details.

FEC roundtables, limited to 12

participants per session, are conducted at the FEC’s headquarters in

Washington, DC.

The registration fee is $25, and

participants will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis. Please

call the FEC before registering or

sending money to be sure that

openings remain in the session.

Prepayment is required. The registration form is available at the

FEC’s Web site—http://

www.fec.gov/pdf/rndtabl.pdf—and

from Faxline, the FEC’s automated

fax system (202/501-3413, request

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 (press 1) or

202/694-1100.✦

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

December 6 New FEC Alternative • Lawyers and

9:30 - 11 a.m. Dispute Resolution Program Consultants to PACs,

• Explanation and Q/A about Campaigns and

new program for settling Political Parties

complaints and audit • Committee treasurers

referrals

• How program works

• Benefits for regulated

community

hand of $40.4 million. The Republican totals reflect a gain of 27

percent and the Democratic totals a

gain of 33 percent, compared with

the same period in the last election

cycle.

Record amounts of nonfederal

funds—“soft money”—were also

raised during this period. In soft

money, the Democrats raised $124.2

million while the Republicans raised

$130.2 million—a 134 percent and

an 81 percent increase, respectively,

since this period in the last election

cycle.

Political Action Committees

PACs contributed $167 million to

federal candidates between January

1, 1999, and June 30, 2000, representing a 24 percent increase over

the same 18-month period in the

prior election cycle. An analysis of

4,393 PACs showed total receipts of

$430.6 million and disbursements of

$357.7 million for the first eighteen

months of the 2000 election cycle,

representing a 20 percent increase

over the receipts from the same

period in the last election cycle.

Cash-on-hand was $212.2 million.

PACs contributed $133.4 million

to incumbent candidates, $14.3

million to challengers and $19.3

million to candidates for open seats.

During this period PACs contributed

roughly equal amounts to Democratic and Republican candidates—

$80.3 million to Democratic

candidates and $86.3 million to

Republican candidates. Additionally, PACs reported spending $1.9

million in independent expenditures.

Additional information is available in three news releases dated

September 26 and 27, 2000. The

releases, which include statistical

information dating back as far as six

years, are available:

• On the FEC Web site at

www.fec.gov;

• From the Public Records Office

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

Press Office (800/424-9530, press

5); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at

202/501-3413 and request documents 612 for Congressional

Campaign Committee statistics,

613 for National Party Committee

statistics and 614 for PAC

statistics).✦

Statistics

(continued from page 13) Public Appearances

November 3, 2000

Mackinac Center for Public

Policy

Midland, Michigan

Commissioner Smith

November 9, 2000

International Foundation for

Election Systems

Washington, D.C.

Vice Chairman McDonald

November 13, 2000

Center for National Security Law

Charlottesville, Virginia

Commissioner Smith

November 15, 2000

Claremont McKenna College

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Wold

Commissioner Mason

November 15-18, 2000

National Association of Business

Political Action Committees

Naples, Florida

Commissioner Smith

Bob Biersack

George Smaragdis

November 19-23, 2000

Tribunal Supremo Electoral

Antigua, Guatemala

Vice Chairman McDonald
November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2000 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “3:4” means

that the article is in the March issue

on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

Alternative disposition of 2000-09,

10:5

Reconsideration of 2000-08, 10:5

1999-24: Web site sponsored by

LLC featuring information on

candidates, 1:17

1999-29: Fundraising exemption

from state limits for direct mailing

by Presidential committee, 1:19

1999-30: Application of allocation

ratio in state with single house

legislature, 1:20

1999-31: Application of one-third

rule to prizes and premiums used

in connection with payroll

deduction, 1:21

1999-32: Indian tribe’s utility

authority treated as separate from

the tribe, 3:4

1999-33: Delayed transmittal of

payroll deductions, 3:5

1999-34: Use of campaign funds to

finance charity event, 2:2

1999-35: Soliciting for SSF through

electronic deduction system, 2:4

1999-36: Fundraising via electronic

checks and Internet fund transfers,

3:5

1999-37: PAC distribution of

express advocacy communications through Web site and email, 4:1

1999-38: Reporting disputed and

unpayable debts, 11:4

1999-39: Disaffiliation of SSFs after

corporate restructuring, 4:5

1999-40: Solicitation of members of

rural electric cooperatives, 5:6

2000-1: Paid leave of absence for

attorney seeking federal office,

4:5

2000-2: Campaign rental of candidate-owned office, 5:7

2000-3: PAC’s payment for corporate communication, 5:8

2000-4: Automatic Deductions for

credit union PAC, 5:8

2000-5: Application of $25,000

limit to contributions by Indian

tribe, 7:8

2000-6: Use of federal convention

funds to develop voter data base

and balloting system, 7:9

2000-7: Use of corporate web sites

to provide PAC information and

solicit contributions, 7:9

2000-10: “Permission to solicit

form” placed on trade association

Web page, 8:8

2000-11: Misplaced payrolldeducted contributions, 8:9

2000-12: Using campaign funds to

pay convention expenses of

former presidential candidates,

9:5

2000-13: Internet video coverage of

Republican and Democratic

national conventions, 8:9

2000-14: Status of New York State

Committee of the Working

Families Party as state committee,

9:6

2000-15: Payroll deduction by trade

association’s affiliated member,

9:7

2000-16: Political ads on Internet

for academic study, 10:2

2000-17: Establishment of separate

segregated fund by subsidiary of

foreign corporation, 9:7

2000-18: Closing date for Nader

2000 matching funds, 10:3

2000-19: Retroactively reallocating

ballot composition ratio, 10:4

2000-20: Creation of nonconnected

committee, 11:5

2000-21: New York Conservative

Party as State Committee, 10:5

2000-22: Electronic signature for

trade associations’ “permission to

solicit” authorizations, 11:5

2000-23: Preemption of New York

election code, 11:6

2000-29: Determining number of

Louisiana federal elections, 11:6

Compliance

Administrative Fines Program,

5:1,7:1, 10:1

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Program, 7:2, 8:10, 11:10

MUR 3774: Failure to allocate

expenses between federal and

nonfederal accounts for get-outthe-vote drive conducted by third

party, 3:3

MUR 4322 and 4650: Violations by

candidate, campaign committees,

treasurer and relative, 2:1

MUR 4648: Failure to disclose

purpose of expenditures and other

violations, 3:4

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 8:12

– Arlen Specter ‘96, 8:14

– Becker, 8:13, 11:8

– Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9

– Patrick J. Buchanan, et. al., 9:8.

11:10

– DNC, 4:6

– DSCC, 1:2

– Fulani, Lenora B., 7:7, 11:8

– Hooker, John Jay, 6:9, 7:8

– Natural Law Party, 11:10

– Unified Independent Party,

Committee for, 7:8

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 3:8

– Wertheimer, 11:9

FEC v. _____

– Christian Coalition, 4:7

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 7:1, 10:6

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 6:8

– Friend for Fasi, 3:9, 8:14

– Fund for Conservative Majority

(Heckman), 6:8

– National Rifle Association, 6:9

– Salvi for Senate Committee, 6:9

– Toledano, James, 6:9

Other

– Fireman v. USA, 1:13

– Hooker v. All Contributors, 8:15

– Mariani v. USA, 1:3, 7:7

– Missouri Republican Party v.

Charles Lamb, 11:8

(continued on page 16)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

– Reform Party v. Gargan, 5:9, 7:8

– Reform Party v. John Hagelin and

Reform Party v. Gerald M. Moan,

11:10

– Shrink PAC v. Nixon, 3:7

Regulations

Administrative Fines, 5:1, 7:1

Coordination, 1:14; 4:3

Election Cycle Reporting, 6:1, 8:4

Electronic Filing, 5:1, 8:1

Electronic Freedom of Information

Act, 4:1

Express Advocacy, 4:2

Presidential Public Funding, 5:3

Repayments by Federally Financed

Presidential Primary Campaign

Committees, 4:2

State Waivers, 4:3, 7:5

Index

(continued from page 15)

Reports

Georgia special election, 9:4

New forms for 20001, 11:1

New reporting requirements, 11:2

October reporting reminder, 9:1

On-line 48-hour notices, 10:1

Reports due in 2000, 1:5

Reports due in July, 6:1

State Filing Waiver, 1:2; 2:5, 4:3,

5:5, 6:3, 7:5, 11:4

Virginia Convention Reports, 5:5

Web access to Senate candidates’

campaign finance reports, 10:1