September 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 9

Table of Contents

800 Line

1 Excessive Contributions

2 Voter Registration: Part I

Party Generic Voter Drives

3 Voter Registration: Part II

Corporate and Labor Activity

Reports

1 October Reporting Reminder

4 Georgia Special Election

Reporting

5 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

8 Patrick J. Buchanan, et al. v. FEC

Outreach

9 FEC Roundtables

9 Public Appearances

Public Funding

10 Public Funding for Bush-Cheney

10 July Matching Fund Payments

Compliance

11 Nonfilers

Reports

Reports 800 Line

Excessive Contributions

When a committee receives an

excessive contribution, the committee may remedy the violation by

refunding the excessive amount or

by seeking a redesignation and/or

reattribution of it. Until the committee receives instructions from the

contributor, it cannot use the

excessive portion of the contribution.

In the case of a redesignation, the

contributor instructs the committee

to use the excessive portion of a

contribution for an election other

than the one for which the funds

were originally given. In the case of

a reattribution, the contributor

instructs the committee to attribute

the excessive portion of the contribution to another individual—for

example, a portion of a contribution

from a joint checking account may

be reattributed to the other account

holder.

While the committee is waiting

for a contributor to redesignate or

reattribute the excess portion of the

contribution, it may not use the

excessive funds, but must put them

aside. The committee must be

prepared to make a full refund of the

excessive portion within 60 days if

the contributor fails to reattribute or

redesignate the funds.

(continued on page 2)

October Reporting Reminder

Committees should take note of

the following due dates for October

reports:

• Third quarter reports for quarterly

filers are due on October 15

(reporting period July 1-September

30).

• Monthly reports for monthly filers

are due on October 20 (reporting

period September 1-30).

• Pre-general reports are due on

October 26 (reporting period

October 1-18). Candidate committees must file this report if their

candidate is running in the general

election. PACs and party committees that file quarterly must file

this report if they make contributions or expenditures in connection

with an election during this

reporting period. PACs and party

committees that file on a monthly

schedule must file a pre-general

report in lieu of the scheduled

November monthly report.

Last Minute Reports

In addition to these reports,

candidate committees may also have

to file 48-hour notices on lastminute contributions, and PACs and

(continued on page 5)
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2000

2

How to Request Redesignations

and Reattributions

Committees seeking a

redesignation or reattribution must

comply with the following rules.

Prohibition Against Use of

Funds. Until the excessive portion

of a contribution is either redesignated or reattributed, it is an illegal

contribution. Thus, the committee

cannot spend the excessive portion

of the contribution. To ensure that

the committee will be able to make

the refund—should that be necessary—the committee may either

maintain sufficient funds in its

regular account to make the refund

or establish a separate account

solely for the deposit of possibly

illegal contributions. 11 CFR

103.3(b)(4).

Control of Funds. The contributor, and not the committee, ultimately controls the funds and how

they are used. When contacting the

contributor, the committee must

offer to refund the contribution if

the contributor does not wish to

reattribute or redesignate the funds.

11 CFR 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(A) and

110.1(k)(3)(ii)(A).

Time Limits. A committee must

either deposit or return the excessive

portion of the contribution within

ten days of the treasurer’s receipt of

the check. If the committee finds

that it has deposited an excessive

contribution, the committee has 60

days from the date the treasurer

received the contribution to obtain

either a redesignation or a

reattribution for the excessive

portion. If the committee does not

receive instruction, it must refund

the excessive portion within 60

days. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(B),

110.1(k)(2), 110.1(3)(ii)(B),

103.3(b)(3) and 103.3(a).

Documentation. A contributor

redesignating or reattributing a

contribution must make his or her

wishes known in writing. Additionally, reattribution requires the

signature of both the initial contributor and the individual to whom

the excessive portion is reattributed.

11 CFR 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(A) and

110.1(k)(1).

Records. The committee must

keep documentation for each

reattribution and redesignation to

verify that it was received within the

60-day time limit. Documentation

must include one of the following:

• A copy of the postmarked envelope bearing the contributor’s

name, return address or other

identifying information;

• A copy of the signed statement

authorizing the reattribution or

redesignation with a date stamp

showing the date of the

committee’s receipt; or

• A copy of the written

redesignation or reattribution dated

by the contributor. 11 CFR

110.1(1)(6).

These records must be maintained by the committee for three

years. 11 CFR 102.9(c).✦

800 Line

(continued from page 1)

Voter Registration: Part I

Party Generic Voter Drives

Special rules govern the reporting

and funding of generic voter drives

conducted by political parties. The

following activities are considered

generic voter drive activities:

• Voter identification;

• Voter registration;

• Get-out-the-vote drives; and

• Any other activities that urge the

general public to register, vote or

support candidates of a particular

party or associated with a particular issue, without mentioning a

specific candidate. 106.5(a)(2)(iv).

The costs associated with these

activities are not considered contributions or coordinated party expenditures; however, party committees

must report these costs, and committees must allocate the costs between

their federal and nonfederal accounts. 11 CFR 106.5(a).

Allocation: General Rule

Party committees and party

organizations must use federally

permissible funds for at least a

portion of the costs of generic voter

drives.1

 11 CFR 106.5(a)(2)(iv).

The party committee may choose to

pay all of the costs of the voter drive

with federally permissible funds or

may allocate the costs between

federal and nonfederal monies in

accordance with the party

committee’s allocation ratio.2

1

 Party organizations are organizations

that are not political committees under

11 CFR 100.5.

2

 In recent enforcement actions against

the California Democratic Party and

the National Republican Senatorial

Committee, the Commission found that

a party committee must use a portion of

federally permissible funds for the costs

of generic voter drives even if it

provides funds to a third party that

conducts the drive. See the March

2000 issue of the Record, page 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 A. 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
September 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

State and Local Allocation Ratios

State and local party committees

use the ballot composition method

when allocating generic voter drive

expenses. Costs are allocated

according to the ratio of federal

offices to total federal and

nonfederal offices expected to be on

the ballot in the next federal general

election held in the state or geographic area of the committee. With

certain exceptions, the allocation

ratio must be calculated at the

beginning of the two-year election

cycle (for example, in January 1999

for the 1990-2000 cycle).3

 The

committee calculates the ratio by

assigning points to the federal and

nonfederal offices to be listed on the

general election ballot. The federal

allocation percentage is obtained by

dividing the number of federal

points by the total number of points.

11 CFR 106.5(d)(1).

House and Senate Allocation Ratios

House and Senate campaign

committees of a national party

allocate costs for generic voter

drives according to the ratio of

funds spent on behalf of federal

candidates to total money spent on

behalf of federal and nonfederal

candidates during a two-year federal

election cycle. The calculation

includes only funds contributed to—

or spent on behalf of—specific

candidates. The calculation does

not include overhead or other

generic costs not attributable to any

particular candidate. A minimum of

65 percent of such costs must be

allocated as federal expenses.

The committee calculates the

ratio at the beginning of the election

cycle, based on federal- and

nonfederal-candidate spending in a

prior comparable two-year election

cycle (or a reasonable estimate of

candidate spending for the coming

two years). On each report thereafter, the committee adjusts the ratio

to reconcile it with actual disbursements for federal and nonfederal

candidates made to date. If the

nonfederal account has paid more

than its share, the committee must

transfer funds from the federal to the

nonfederal account to reflect the

adjusted ratio. 11 CRF 106.5(c).

National Party Allocation Ratios

National party committees use a

fixed ratio when allocating generic

voter drive expenses. At least 65

percent of such expenses must be

allocated as federal expenses during

a Presidential election year; in other

years, at least 60 percent must be

allocated as federal. 11 CFR

106.5(b).

Payment of Allocated Expenses

A party committee must pay the

entire amount of an allocable

expense from the federal account

and may transfer funds from the

nonfederal to the federal account

only to cover the nonfederal share of

the expense. Alternatively, a party

committee may establish a separate

federal account—an allocation

account—to use to pay allocable

expenses. In this case, the committee transfers money to the allocation

account from the federal and

nonfederal accounts in proportion to

each account’s share of the expenses.

Reporting

A state or local party committee

uses Schedule H1 to calculate its

ballot composition ratio at the

beginning of the two-year federal

election cycle. Each reporting

3

 There are five states—Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and

Virginia—for which the calculation

method is different because those states

do not hold federal and nonfederal

elections during the same year. See 11

CFR §106.5(d)(2).

4

 For more information on allocation,

see the Campaign Guide for Political

Party Committees, pages 19, 47 and 50-

51.

period, the committee discloses

transfers from the nonfederal

account to the federal (or allocation)

account to pay the allocated

nonfederal portion of generic voter

drive costs using Schedule H3. The

total amount of transfers itemized

on Schedule H3 is entered on Line

18 of the Detailed Summary Page.

Such transfers must be made within

a 70-day window (no more than 10

days before or 60 days after an

allocated payment is made).

Committees report payments,

showing the federal and nonfederal

shares, on Schedule H4. The federal

and nonfederal payment totals that

appear on Schedule H4 are entered

on Lines 21a(i) of the Form 3X

Detailed Summary Page.4 ✦

Voter Registration: Part II

Corporate and Labor Activity

While corporations and labor

organizations are generally prohibited from making any contribution

or expenditure in connection with a

federal election, they may, under

certain conditions, conduct voter

registration and get-out-the-vote

(GOTV) drives directed to the

general public.1

 2 U.S.C. §441b, 11

CFR 114.4(c)(2).

(continued on page 4)

1

 Different rules apply when corporations and labor organizations target

such drives to their restricted classes.

See the Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations, pp 47-

53, and 11 CFR 114.3(c)(4).
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2000

4

Georgia Special Election Reporting

 The Special Election to fill the U.S. Senate seat of the late Senator Paul

Coverdell will be held on November 7, 2000. Should no candidate achieve a

majority vote, a Special Runoff Election will be held on November 28,

2000, between the top two vote-getters. Note that 48-hour notices are

required of authorized committees that receive contributions of $1,000 or

more between October 19 and November 4 for the Special General Election

and between November 9 and November 25 for the Runoff Election.

Committees involved in any of these elections must follow the reporting

schedules below.*

For Committees Involved Only in Special General When No

Runoff is Held:

 Close of Reg./Cert Filing

 Books Mail Date Date

Pre-General Report Oct. 18 Oct. 23 Oct. 26

Post-General Report Nov. 27 Dec. 7 Dec. 7

Year-End Report Dec. 31 Jan. 31, 2001 Jan. 31, 2001

For Committees Involved in Special General and Special

Runoff:

 Close of Reg./Cert Filing

 Books Mail Date Date

Pre-General Report Oct. 18 Oct. 23 Oct. 26

Pre-Runoff Report Nov. 8 Nov. 13 Nov. 16

Post-Runoff Report Dec. 18 Dec. 28 Dec. 28

Year-End Report Dec. 31 Jan. 31, 2001 Jan. 31, 2001

For Committees Involved Only in Special General When

Both Special General and Runoff Elections Are Held:

 Close of Reg./Cert Filing

 Books Mail Date Date

Pre-General Report Oct. 18 Oct. 23 Oct. 26

Year-End Report Dec. 31 Jan. 31, 2001 Jan. 31, 2001

For Committees Involved Only in Special Runoff:

 Close of Reg./Cert Filing

 Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Runoff Report Nov. 8 Nov. 13 Nov. 16

Post-Runoff Report Dec. 18 Dec. 28 Dec. 28

Year-End Report Dec. 31 Jan. 31, 2001 Jan. 31, 2001

*PACs and party committees must also adhere to their reporting requirements

for the regularly scheduled November 7 general election. The addition of these

reports may affect the coverage dates of some of the Special Election reports.

See the October Reporting Reminder on page 1.

Limitations on Generic Voter

Drive Activity Directed to General

Public

Although corporations and labor

organizations may make communications on any subject to their

restricted class, when making

communications to the general

public—including other employees

and their families—certain restrictions apply. 11 CFR 114.4(a).

No Express Advocacy. The

corporation or labor organization

may not expressly advocate the

election or defeat of a particular

candidate or the candidates of a

particular party. 11 CFR

114.4(d)(1).

No Coordination. Registration

and GOTV drives cannot be coordinated with any candidate or any

political party. 11 CFR 114.4(d)(2).

No Targeting. The corporation or

labor organization may not aim the

drive primarily at those voters

registered with, or intending to

register with, the party favored by

the corporation or labor organization. Similarly, the services and

voter information must be made

available regardless of the voter’s

political preference. 11 CFR

114.4(d)(3), 114.4(d)(4).

Written Notification. During the

drive, the corporation or labor

organization must provide written

notice of the nonpreferential nature

of the service to those who receive

the information or assistance. 11

CFR 114.4(d)(6).

Payments to Individuals Conducting the Activity. The corporation or

labor organization may not pay the

individuals conducting the drive

based on the number of persons

assisted who support a particular

candidate or political party. 11 CFR

114.4(d)(5).✦

800 Line

(continued from page 3)
September 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Reports

(continued from page 1)

party committees may need to file

24-hour reports to disclose any lastminute independent expenditures.

Administrative Fines

The Commission has recently

implemented a new Administrative

Fines program for assessing civil

penalties for violations involving:

• Failure to file reports on time;

• Failure to file reports at all; and

• Failure to file 48-hour notices.

Under this program, the Commission will assess civil money penalties based on a schedule of penalties

in cases where it determines a

committee has committed one of the

above violations. Reports due in

October are considered “Election

Sensitive,” which means that the

penalty amount can be increased.

The schedule of penalties included

in the new regulations—and other

information on the new program—is

available on the FEC Web site at

http//www.fec.gov/af/af.shtml.

See also the July 2000 Record, page 1.

More Information

For more information on 2000

reporting dates:

• Visit the FEC’s website at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/charts.htm to

view the reporting tables;

• Obtain a faxed copy of the reporting tables by calling FEC Faxline

(202/501-3413, request documents

586 and 587);

• See the reporting tables in the

January 2000 Record; or

• Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

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

1100.✦

AO 2000-12

Using Campaign Funds to

Pay Convention Expenses of

Former Candidates

Former Presidential candidates

Bill Bradley and John McCain may

use federal matching funds to pay

for travel and other expenses

associated with their parties’

national conventions, so long as

their convention expenses are

“qualified campaign expenses”

directed toward fundraising efforts

to pay down their campaigns’

outstanding obligations. Additionally, Mr. Bradley and Senator

McCain may use campaign funds

from other, non-presidential committees to pay for convention

expenses involved in fundraising for

these committees without violating

the prohibition against the personal

use of campaign funds.

Although neither Mr. Bradley nor

Senator McCain is an active candidate for the Presidency, both of their

Presidential campaign committees

have debts outstanding, and both

continue to receive matching funds

to pay these debts. Additionally,

neither former candidate has “released” his delegates, and each plans

to travel to his respective convention in order to:

• Attend receptions hosted by his

campaign to thank delegates and

supporters and to encourage their

continued support;

• Attend fundraising events to retire

his campaign’s primary election

debts; and

• Participate in the official proceedings of the convention.

Under the Act and Commission

regulations, a candidate and candidate committee have wide discretion

in making expenditures to influence

the candidate’s election, but they

may not convert campaign funds to

personal use—that is, they may not

use the funds for any expense that

would exist irrespective of the

candidate’s campaign or duties as a

federal office holder. Additionally,

under the Matching Fund Act, a

committee may use matching funds

to pay for “qualified campaign

expenses,” which include any lawful

purchases, payments or anything of

value incurred by the candidate or

committee in connection with his

campaign for nomination. 26

U.S.C. §9032(9).

Matching Funds

In the past, the Commission has

determined that the expenses

necessary to travel to, and attend, a

Presidential nominating convention

are nonqualified expenses for

candidates who are no longer

seeking the party’s nomination. In

this case, however, Mr. Bradley and

Senator McCain may use federal

matching funds to pay for travel to

the convention and for activities at

the convention that are a part of

their committees’ “winding down”

expenses. Specifically, following

Commission guidelines, they may

use matching funds to pay for gifts

and “thank-you” receptions for

committee employees, consultants

and volunteers.1

 Commission

guidelines do not permit the use of

matching funds to pay for travel

expenses to attend or organize these

events. However, the former candi1

 A committee that is in the process of

“winding down” from a campaign may

give gifts and monetary bonuses to

committee employees, consultants and

volunteers provided that such gifts do

not exceed $150 total per individual

and the total of all gifts does not exceed

$20,000. 11 CFR 9034.4(a)(3)(i).

Advisory

Opinions
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2000

6

dates may use matching funds to

pay for their campaigns’ fundraising

activities at the conventions and the

travel expenses of the former

candidates and their staffs going to

the conventions to participate in

these fundraisers. These fundraising

expenses are considered qualified

campaign expenses.

The Commission, however,

recognizes several limitations to the

use of matching funds for convention-related fundraising activities:

• The campaign committees must

have outstanding net debts at the

time of the conventions;

• For fundraising expenses to be

considered qualified, they must be

for specific fundraising events and

not, for example, for promotional

material that may be used in later

fundraising efforts;2

• Expenses related to participation in

the official convention proceedings

cannot be considered qualified

expenses; and

• If either candidate or his staff

participates in other (nonfundraising) aspects of the convention, the portion of the expenses

related to that participation is not a

“qualified expense.”

Funds from Other Registered

Committees

Other registered federal committees may also pay a portion of the

convention expenses of these former

candidates under certain circumstances. Mr. McCain is a candidate

for the Senate as well as a former

Presidential candidate. As a candidate for the Senate, he may find

opportunities at the convention to

participate in fundraising efforts for

his Senate campaign and to meet

with constituents of his district to

discuss issues of importance to his

role as a Senator. Expenses for

these campaign-related or officeholder activities would not be

considered personal use by the

candidate and could be paid for by

Mr. McCain’s Senate campaign

committee. Similarly, Senate

campaign funds may be used to

cover expenses of staff and volunteers in connection with his Senate

activity at the convention.

Mr. Bradley, while not currently

a candidate or an office holder, has

converted his Senatorial campaign

committee into a nonconnected

political committee. The personal

use restrictions would apply to any

Senate campaign funds remaining in

the account of this nonconnected

PAC. 11 CFR 113.2(e)(5) and AO

1993-22. The PAC could, nevertheless, pay expenses related to its

fundraising activities at the convention since those expenses would not

represent a personal use of campaign funds.

Issued: July 24, 2000;

Length: 11 pages.✦

2

 At the time each campaign committee

is audited, it will be expected to

produce documentation that links each

expense to a specific fundraising event

at the convention. See 11 CFR

9033.11.

AO 2000-14

Status of State Party as State

Committee of Political Party

The New York State Committee

of the Working Families Party (the

Committee) meets all of the Federal

Election Commission’s (the Commission) requirements for state

committee status.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) defines a state committee as “the organization which,

by virtue of the bylaws of a political

party, is responsible for the day-today operation of such political party

at the State level, as determined by

the Commission.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(15).

In past Advisory Opinions, the

Commission has identified three

requirements necessary for state

committee status in those cases

where, although the organization

was affiliated with a national

political party, the party itself had

not yet achieved the status of a

national committee. AOs 1998-27,

1998-23, 1997-29 and 1997-7. In

these cases, the organization had to

satisfy the following criteria:

• The organization must have a

state-affiliated agreement that

“delineates activities commensurate with the day-to-day operation”

of a party at a state level;

• The state affiliate must gain ballot

access for at least one Congressional candidate; and

• The state party’s candidate must

qualify as a candidate under FEC

regulations.

The Committee meets all three

requirements. It satisfies the first

requirement because the Working

Families Party’s (the Party) bylaws

set out a comprehensive organizational structure for the Party from

the statewide level down through

local levels, and they clearly identify the role of the Committee.

The Party satisfies the second

requirement—ballot access for a

congressional candidate—in that

Hillary Rodham Clinton qualifies

for ballot access in the 2000 Senate

election, as the candidate of the

Working Families Party. Although,

in the past, the Commission granted

state committee status to organizations whose candidates had attained

ballot access in a prior election,

Mrs. Clinton’s assured access in the

upcoming election, on the Working

Families Party line, satisfies the

second criterion. Finally, the

committee meets the third criterion

because Mrs. Clinton satisfies the

requirements for becoming a federal

candidate under 2 U.S.C. §441a(d).

Date Issued: July 24, 2000;

Length: 5 pages.✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)
September 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

AO 2000-15

Payroll Deduction by Trade

Association’s Affiliated

Member

The New York State Credit

Union League, Inc. (New York

League)—a member and affiliate of

the Credit Union National Association, Inc. (CUNA)—may use payroll

deduction to collect contributions

from its restricted class for CUNA’s

separate segregated fund (CULAC).

11 CFR 114.8(e)(3) and 100.5 (g).

CUNA is a trade association with

51 members that are leagues representing the 50 states and the District

of Columbia. In an earlier Advisory

Opinion, the Commission found that

CUNA qualified as a federation of

trade associations and that the state

leagues could be considered

branches, divisions or local units of

CUNA. AO 1998-19.

Under Commission regulations, a

corporate member of a trade association may not use payroll deduction to collect contributions for the

association’s SSF. 11 CFR

114.8(e)(3). Moreover, a member

corporation is not considered a

connected organization of the trade

association’s SSF.

By contrast, an affiliated branch,

division or local unit of a trade

association is considered an affiliated entity of the association, under

the Act. As such, it may function as

a collecting agent for the

association’s SSF, and may pay the

costs of soliciting and transmitting

contributions. 11 CFR 102.6(b)(1)

and 102.6 (c)(2)(i).

In this case, the New York

League is not only a member of

CUNA, but also an affiliate. As an

affiliate, it may use payroll deduction to collect contributions from its

restricted class for CULAC.

Date Issued: July 17, 2000;

Length: 6 pages.✦

AO 2000-17

Establishment of Separate

Segregated Fund by

Subsidiary of Foreign

Corporation

Extendicare Health Services, Inc.

(Extendicare), a United States

subsidiary of a Canadian corporation, may establish and maintain a

political action committee (PAC)

because the PAC will be managed

and authorized only by U.S. citizens

and permanent aliens residing in the

U.S.

Structure and Composition

Extendicare Inc., a Canadian

corporation, is the parent company

of Extendicare, which is based in

Wisconsin. Extendicare’s current

board of directors is comprised of

three individuals, only one of whom

is a U.S. citizen.

Extendicare plans to establish a

special committee comprised only

of U.S. citizens and permanent

resident aliens (Special Committee)

to direct and manage a PAC. This

PAC would solicit contributions

from eligible personnel of

Extendicare and its subsidiaries who

may lawfully make such contributions. The Special Committee

would have the authority to approve

and amend the bylaws governing the

PAC and to appoint members of the

PAC Committee. The PAC Committee, in turn, would administer the

PAC without review or approval by

the Special Committee or

Extendicare’s board of directors. It

would decide:

• Whom to solicit;

• The recipients and timing of PAC

contributions; and

• The nature and timing of the

PAC’s expenditures.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) prohibits a foreign

national from making a contribution, directly or through any other

person, or an expenditure in connection with an election to any political

office. Additionally, the Act prohibits any person from soliciting,

accepting or receiving a contribution

from a foreign national. 2 U.S.C.

§441e(a) and 11 CFR 110.4(a)(1)

and (2).

Under the Act, the term “foreign

national” includes any corporation

or other group organized under the

laws of or having its principal place

of business in a foreign country. 2

U.S.C. §441e(b)(1). A corporation

organized under the laws of any

state within the U.S. that has its

principal place of business in the

U.S. is not a foreign principal and,

thus, is not bound by the prohibition

against contributions from foreign

nationals.

Correction

Electronic Filing. The August

2000 Record incorrectly stated

that, “all filers (whether

electronic or paper) must

include on their Statement of

Organization the URL for their

Web site, if they maintain one,

and their e-mail address, if they

have one.”

The statement should have

read: “All filers (whether

electronic or paper) must

include on their Statement of

Organization the URL for their

Web site, if they maintain one.

Those committees that file

electronically must also include

their e-mail address on their

Statement of Organization.” In

other words, only committees

that file electronically are

required to include their e-mail

address on their Statement of

Organization.

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2000

8

In this case, Extendicare, as a

U.S. based corporation, may establish and maintain a PAC under the

following conditions:

•Extendicare’s board must delegate

all decisions concerning the

administration of the PAC to the

Special Committee, a corporate

personnel group comprised solely

of U.S. citizens and green card

holders.

• The appointees to the PAC Committee must be U.S. citizens and

green card holders and, as with any

other corporate PAC, qualify as

executive or administrative

personnel of Extendicare or of one

of its affiliated corporations. 2

U.S.C. §441b(b)(7) and 11 CFR

114.1(c).

• Extendicare may exercise control

over the PAC by making general

corporate policy decisions such as

the decision to establish or terminate the PAC. Other administrative decisions relating to the

PAC’s personnel and operating

procedures, however, must be

made only by U.S. citizens and

green card holders.

• With regard to the board’s control

over the PAC’s budget and personnel, the Commission recommended

taking a “reasonable approach.”

For instance, the board might set a

budget ceiling for the PAC’s

administrative expenses and

monitor the Special Committee’s

and PAC Committee’s compliance

with the ceiling, without otherwise

participating in the administration

of the PAC. Similarly, performance evaluations of PAC personnel might be based exclusively on

input by the Special Committee or

PAC Committee.

Date Issued: July 28, 2000;

Length: 11 pages.✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7) Court Cases

Patrick J. Buchanan, et al. v.

FEC

On July 25, 2000, Presidential

candidate Patrick Buchanan,

Buchanan Reform (his principal

campaign committee), and Angela

Buchanan asked the court to require

the Federal Election Commission

(the Commission) to reconsider its

dismissal of their March 2000

administrative complaint against the

Commission on Presidential Debates

(the CPD). An amended complaint

was filed on July 31, 2000, to add

the Reform Party of the United

States of America and Pat Choate as

plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that the

CPD failed to register as a political

committee and to report receipts and

expenditures. Moreover, they argue

that the CPD’s staging of presidential debates does not fall within the

Federal Election Campaign Act’s

(the Act) “safe harbor” for corporate

sponsorship of nonpartisan candidate debates (2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(ii) and 11 CFR 110.13);

thus, the CPD is making and

accepting illegal corporate contributions and prohibited corporate

expenditures.

The CPD is a not-for-profit

corporation that staged all of the

presidential debates in 1988, 1992

and 1996, and, according to plaintiffs, is expected to stage all of the

presidential debates this year. The

CPD has announced that it will

sponsor a series of presidential

debates in October 2000. In order to

stage these debates, the CPD accepts

contributions from various individuals and organizations, including forprofit corporations, in excess of

$1,000, and has made payments for

goods and services in excess of

$1,000.

“Safe Harbor” for Staging

Candidate Debates

Under FEC regulations, certain

nonprofit corporations may stage or

sponsor candidate debates, exempt

from the prohibition against corporate contributions, so long as

specific rules are followed. For

example, the debates must be

between at least two candidates, and

must be staged so as not to promote

or advance one candidate over

another. A debate sponsor must

also use “pre-established objective

criteria” for choosing which candidates will participate. 11 CFR

110.13.

Plaintiffs allege that the CPD

fails to qualify for this exemption in

two respects. First, they argue that

the CPD is a bipartisan organization,

organized by and supporting the

Democratic and Republican parties,

which therefore does not qualify as

a nonpartisan organization. Second,

plaintiffs allege that the CPD’s

criterion of including only those

candidates who have demonstrated

at least a 15 percent level of support

in the national electorate, as measured by the average of five national

polls, is subjective rather than

objective because it is designed to

exclude third party candidates.1

Plaintiffs argue that, for presidential

candidates, eligibility to receive

federal funding is the objective

criterion that should be used.

Filing as Political Committee

Under the Act, a political committee is required to register with

the Commission and disclose its

contributions and expenditures once

1

 Plaintiffs further argue that this

measure is subjective because such

polls have significant error rates and

each poll will have a different sample

size, sample make-up and error rate.

New Litigation
September 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

September 13 Pre-Election Reporting • PACs

9:30 - 11 a.m. Tune-Up • House and Senate

• October Deadlines Campaigns

• Last-Minute Notices • Political Party

• Problems to Avoid Committees

• Your Questions Answered • Lawyers, Accountants

and Consultants to

Above

December 6 New FEC Alternative

9:30 - 11 a.m. Dispute Resolution Program • Lawyers and

• Explanation and Q/A about Consultants to PACs,

the FEC’s new program for Campaigns and

settling complaints and Political Parties

audit referrals

• How Program Works

• Benefits for Regulated

Community

Filled!

Waiting List

Only

its expenditures or its contributions

(received) exceed $1,000 in a

calendar year. 2 U.S.C. §431(4)(A).

Plaintiffs contend that the CPD is an

illegal political committee because it

has received contributions and made

expenditures in excess of $1,000 in

this calendar year, but has neither

registered with the Commission nor

reported its contributions and

expenditures.

Relief

Plaintiffs maintain that, given

these circumstances, the FEC must

find that the CPD is acting as a

political committee that is illegally

accepting corporate funds and

making corporate expenditures in

support of the Democratic and

Republican parties, while failing to

register and report as a political

committee.

Plaintiffs ask the court to:

• Declare the Commission’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative

complaint to be arbitrary and

capricious and contrary to law, and

issue an order directing the Commission to act in conformance with

the court’s declaration;

• Declare all of the CPD’s expenditures and all of the contributions to

the CPD to be illegal corporate

expenditures and contributions

under 2 U.S.C. §441b; and

• Declare that the CPD’s debate

criteria do not conform to the

FEC’s regulations at 11 CFR

110.13 and 114.4(f) and that the

CPD must use criteria that include

all candidates eligible for federal

funding.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, Civil Action

No. 00-1775 (RWR), July 25,

2000.✦

FEC Roundtables

The Commission will host

roundtable sessions in September

and December.

FEC roundtables, limited to 12

participants per session, focus on a

range of subjects. See the table for

dates and topics. All roundtables are

conducted at the FEC’s headquarters

in Washington, DC.

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 (press 1,

then 3) or 202/694-1100.✦

Outreach Public Appearances

September 13, 2000

International Republican Institute

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Wold

September 13, 2000

American University

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Mason

Kevin Salley

September 15, 2000

American University

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Smith

Kevin Salley

September 27, 2000

American University

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Mason
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2000

10

Matching Funds for 2000 Presidential Candidates:

July Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

 July 2000 Certifications

Gary L. Bauer (R) 1 $20,737.88 $4,791,877.82

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

Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform)3 $169,921.43 $4,022,171.84

Al Gore (D) 4 $138,209.62 $15,456,083.75

John Hagelin (Natural Law) $75,360.00 $389,495.00

Alan L. Keyes (R) 5 $451,676.48 $3,777,020.84

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) 6 $49,772.61 $1,234,148.46

John S. McCain (R) 7 $7,542.00 $14,475,333.10

Ralph Nader (G) 8 $178,628.03 $278,628.03

Dan Quayle(R) 9 $0.00 $2,102,525.00

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

6

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

2000.

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

8 Ralph Nader became ineligible for matching funds on August 12, 2000.

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

July Matching Fund

Payments

On July 31, 2000, the Commission certified $1,091,848.05 in

matching funds to eight Presidential

candidates. The U.S. Treasury

Department made the payments the

first day of August.

With these latest certifications,

the FEC has now declared ten

candidates eligible to receive a total

of $58,989,331.53 in federal

matching funds for the 2000

election. The chart lists the most

recent certifications and cumulative

certifications (and payments) for

each candidate. ✦

Public Funding

Public Funding for BushCheney

On August 4, 2000, the Federal

Election Commission approved

public funding for the general

election campaign of Republican

Presidential nominee George W.

Bush and his running mate Richard

Cheney. The U.S. Treasury Department made the payment of $67.56

million in federal funds shortly

thereafter.

Under the Presidential Election

Campaign Fund Act, the Democratic

and Republican nominees are each

entitled to a grant of $20 million

increased by a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). In order to receive

public funding, the Bush-Cheney

campaign agreed to abide by the

overall spending limit and other

legal requirements, including a postcampaign audit. Additionally, as

major party nominees, they agreed

to limit campaign spending to the

amount of the public funding grant

and not to accept private contributions for their campaign. They also

agreed not to spend more than

$50,000 in the aggregate of their

own personal funds. The campaign

may, however, accept contributions

designated for its general election

legal and compliance (GELAC)

fund. This fund is a special account

maintained exclusively 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.

The Republican National Committee may spend an additional

$13,680,292 for coordinated expenditures on behalf of the BushCheney campaign. These funds are

subject to the limits, prohibitions

and disclosure requirements of the

Federal Election Campaign Act.✦
September 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Candidate Office Sought Report Not Filed

Bonagofski, Kevin House WA/03 July Quarterly

Diaz-Balart, Lincoln House FL/21 July Quarterly

Garrett, Grant G. House MI/09 Pre-Primary

Lawson, John W. House WA/04 July Quarterly

Taylor-Shelby, Mary Senate WA July Quarterly

Taylor-Shelby, Mary Senate WA Pre-Primary

Thomas, Jesse L. House CO/01 Pre-Primary

Troutt, Eric D. House OK/02 July Quarterly

Turner, Thomas A. House MI/10 Pre-Primary

Volgy, Tom House AZ/05 July Quarterly

Nonfilers

The campaign committees of the

candidates listed at right failed to

file required campaign finance

disclosure reports. The list is based

on recent FEC news releases. The

FEC is required by law to publicize

the names of nonfiling campaign

committees. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7).

The agency pursues enforcement

actions against nonfilers on a caseby-case basis.✦

Compliance

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

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

Index 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

1999-39: 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 deducion by trade

association’s affiliated member,

9:7

2000-17: Establishment of separate

segregated fund by subsidiary of

foreign corporation, 9:7

Compliance

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Program, 7:2, 8:10

MUR 3774: Failure to allocate

expenses between federal and
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 September 2000

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

– Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9

– Patrick J. Buchanan, et. al., 9:8

– DNC, 4:6

– DSCC, 1:2

– Fulani, Lenora B., 7:7

– Hooker, John Jay, 6:9, 7:8

– Unified Independent Party,

Committee for, 7:8

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 3:8

FEC v. _____

– Christian Coalition, 4:7

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 7:1

– 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

– Reform Party v. Gargan, 5:9, 7:8

– 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

Reports

Georgia special election, 9:4

October reporting reminder, 9:1

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

Virginia Convention Reports, 5:5