April 1997 Federal Election Commission Volume 23, Number 4

Table of Contents

Information

1 FEC Announces Workshop Sites

for Candidates and Political

Committee Officials

Legislation

1 Commission Submits

Recommendations to Amend

FECA

800 Line

2 Reporting Amendments to

Previously Filed FEC Forms

Reporting

3 New Mexico Special Election

3 Texas Special Runoff Election

Special Elections

3 Party Spending Limit Set for

Special Elections

Compliance

4 MUR 4194

4 Correction: MUR 4090

4 FEC Increases Civil Penalties

Public Funding

5 Payment Determination Finalized

for Fulani Presidential Committee

Court Cases

6 New Litigation

7 Advisory Opinions

7 Federal Register Notices

8 New Head of Public Disclosure

Division Named

 8 Index

FEC Announces Workshop

Sites for Candidates and

Political Committee Officials

Specialists from the

Commission’s Information Division

will visit five cities this spring and

summer to educate political committee officials in various aspects of the

Federal Election Campaign Act.

They will meet with congressional

candidates and representatives of

political party committees and

PACs. Dates and specific locations

within all of the listed cities had not

been finalized before this issue of

the Record went to press. To receive

additional information, call the

Information Division at (800) 424-

9530 (press 1) or (202) 219-3420.

The five cities are:

• Trenton, NJ—April 16-18

• Des Moines, IA—April 30-May 2

• Madison, WI—May

• Phoenix, AZ—June

• Bismarck, ND—June

Regional conferences will be

scheduled later, beginning in the fall

of 1997. The first two will be held

in Seattle, in September, and

Atlanta, in October. Watch future

editions of the Record for additional

information. ✦

Information Legislation

Commission Submits

Recommendations to Amend

FECA

On February 19, the Commission

submitted 57 proposals to President

Bill Clinton and the U.S. Congress

for legislative action. If adopted, the

recommendations would likely ease

some of the filing burdens on

political committees and streamline

the administration of current campaign finance laws for the FEC.

Among the recommendations

were these:

• Issue Advocacy Advertising.

Clarify when issue advocacy

advertising (by corporations, labor

organizations, political parties and

other organizations) coordinated

with a federal candidate is impermissible activity.

• Definition of Political Committee.

Revise the definition of a political

committee to incorporate “major

purpose” as a test recognized by

the courts. The FEC believes that

revising the definition would

resolve the apparent conflict

between the U.S. Supreme Court’s

ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which

articulated the “major purpose”

test, and a recent appeals court

ruling that narrowly interpreted the

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1997

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

John Warren McGarry,

Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

statute to mean that the $1,000

threshold for contributions or

expenditures is the only determining factor for political committee

status for those groups making

contributions.

• Electronic Filing Threshold.

Amend the law to require that

political committees with a certain

level of financial activity file their

disclosure reports with the FEC

electronically. Started in January,

electronic filing is not currently

mandated for any committee.

Requiring certain committees to

file electronically would allow the

agency to disseminate data from

the reports more easily and efficiently, resulting in better use of

Commission resources. The

information would be standardized

in the FEC’s database, thereby

enhancing public disclosure.

Committees also would find it

easier to file and complete disclosure forms using electronic filing

methods.

• Campaign-Cycle Reporting.

Authorize candidate committees to

report on a campaign-to-campaign

basis, rather than the current

calendar-year cycle. Making this

change would eliminate burdensome record keeping and reporting

provisions that require campaigns

to track contributions on both

calendar-year and per-election

bases.

• Election Period Limitations.

Replace the current per-election

contribution limits with a single

limit that covers the entire election

cycle. The change would eliminate

complicated and time-consuming

bookkeeping requirements.

• Ensuring Independent Authority of

FEC in All Litigation. Authorize

the Commission to petition the

U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari

under Title 2. This change would

ensure nonpartisan enforcement of

the law. Currently the FEC must

ask the U.S. Solicitor General to

ask the Supreme Court to consider

a case.

• Filing Reports Using Registered or

Certified Mail. Eliminate the mail

or post mark date and require that

reports be filed with the FEC by

one specific due date. This would

simplify the law and prevent

delays in mail delivery of the

reports.

The recommendations were

submitted in three parts. The first

part included recommendations to

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of current laws. The second

part of the recommendations contain

proposals that address areas of the

Act that have been problematic. Part

three includes conforming legislative recommendations that would

correct outdated or inconsistent

parts of the Act. ✦

Legislation

(continued from page 1)

Reporting Amendments to

Previously Filed FEC Forms

Even the most careful committees

sometimes have to file amendments

to their disclosure documents when

they find errors or determine that

information was missing in the

initial filing.

Guidelines on Amending Reports

A committee must file an

amended report if it discovers that

an earlier report contained incorrect

information or if it receives late

information about a transaction that

already has been reported. 11 CFR

104.7(b)(4). In the case of updating

contributor information—name,

address, occupation and place of

employment—a committee may, as

an alternative, file an updated

Schedule A as a memo entry,

attached to its next scheduled report.

In order to file an amended

report, authorized candidate committees should complete a new

Summary Page (Form 3) and check

“YES” on line 3 where it asks if the

report being filed is an amendment

to a previous report. All other

committees should file either an

amended Form 3X or 3P and should

check the “YES” box on line 4b of

the Summary Page. A revised

Detailed Summary Page should also

be included if the information on it

has changed since the original filing.

In addition, committees should

submit a corrected version of the

FEC schedule that contained the

error or incomplete information.

Committees need only submit the

corrected pages—not the full report.

Transactions that have been reported

correctly do not need to be reported

again.

Alerting Public to Amendment

It is in a committee’s best interest

to clearly show where their reports

have been amended. The regulated

community, the press, watchdog

800 Line
April 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Party Spending Limit Set for

Special Elections

The coordinated party spending

limit for political party committees

that are supporting candidates vying

for seats in the U.S. House of

Representatives in 1997 is $31,810.

This figure is based on the formula

used for states with more than one

representative: $10,000 multiplied

by the cost-of-living adjustment.

FEC regulations provide for set

limits on expenditures by national

and state party committees on behalf

of candidates. 11 CFR 110.7 (a)(1)

and (b)(1). These coordinated party

expenditures must be used in

connection with the general election

of candidates for federal office. The

limits on coordinated party expenditures are in addition to limits on

how much party committees may

contribute to candidates and other

political committees. ✦

Special

Elections

New Mexico Special Election Reporting

 Committees* involved in the May 13 Special Election to fill the 3rd

Congressional District seat vacated by UN Ambassador Bill Richardson must

follow the reporting schedule below. Note that 48-hour notices are required of

authorized committees that receive contributions of $1,000 or more between

April 24 and May 10.

 Close of Certified/ Filing

 Books Registered Date

 Mail Date

Pre-General Report April 23 April 28 May 1

Post-General Report June 2 June 12 June 12

Mid-Year Report June 30 July 31 July 31

Texas Special Runoff Election Reporting

 Committees* involved in the April 12 Special Runoff Election to fill the 28th

Congressional District seat vacated by the late Congressman Frank Tejeda

must follow the reporting schedule below. Note that 48-hour notices are

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

more between March 24 and April 9. Also note that Pre-Runoff disclosure

reports, covering financial activity from February 24 to March 23, were due

on March 31.

Post-Runoff Report

Close of Certified/ Filing

Books Registered Date

Mail Date

May 2 May 12 May 12

June 30 July 31 July 31

* These committees include authorized committees of candidates running in

the election and other political committees that support these candidates and

do not file monthly.

** The Mid-Year report for committees participating in the Runoff should

cover financial activity between May 3 and June 30. The Mid-Year report for

committees that are not participating in the Runoff, but filed pre-election

reports for the March 15 Special General Election, should cover financial

activity between February 24 and June 30.

Mid-Year Report**

groups, researchers and the general

public will be reviewing the information; identifying the amended

information will help these reviewers find the changes.

Among the most important ways

to identify the amended information

is to attach a cover letter that

explains the changes made to the

report and where those changes are

located within the report. Here is

one example: “Changed designation

of disbursement from primary to

general election; see Schedule B,

page 3, entry H.” In addition,

committees may want to mark the

amended information by applying

underlining or adding stars or

asterisks. Larger committees that

file computer-generated reports may

want to type or legibly write in the

amended information directly on the

computer printout. Again, only

those pages with changes need to be

submitted to the FEC, not the entire

report.

Committees filing an amendment

in response to a letter from an FEC

analyst should address the amended

information to that person, who can

more quickly determine whether the

response is adequate.

For questions about filing

amended reports, call the FEC’s

Information Division at 1-800-424-

9530 (press 1). ✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1997

4

FEC Increases Civil Penalties

The FEC has increased by 10

percent the maximum amount of

civil monetary penalties that can be

assessed in cases involving violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). The increases

went into effect March 12. 62 Fed.

Reg. 11316 (Mar. 12, 1997).

The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA), adopted in 1996,

amended the Federal Civil Penalties

Inflation Adjustment Act to require

that the FEC and other executive

agencies adjust the top amount of

Compliance

1

 Section 110.3(c)(6) of FEC regulations, in effect until July 1993, permitted state campaign committees to

contribute to affiliated federal campaign committees provided they

registered as federal committees,

purged any nonfederal funds from their

accounts, filed reports required by the

Commission and otherwise complied

with the Act. After July 1993, state

campaign committees were no longer

permitted to transfer funds to affiliated

campaign committees.

Correction

 An article in the March

RECORD contained an incorrect

statement regarding certain

reason to believe findings made

by the Commission against

Firearms Training Systems, Inc.,

and its former president, Jody D.

Scheckter. The article suggested

that the Commission found

reason to believe that violations

with regard to six contributions

were committed knowingly and

willfully. In fact, the Commission

only found reason to believe that

violations surrounding the last

two of the six contributions were

committed knowingly and

willfully. In resolution of this

matter, the Commission accepted

a joint conciliation agreement

with Firearms Systems and Mr.

Scheckter in which neither party

admitted to a knowing and willful

violation of the Federal Election

Campaign Act.

MUR 4194

Congressman’s Federal,

State Committees Agree to

Pay $50,000 Civil Penalty

Mascara for Congress and the

Mascara Campaign Committee, the

federal and state political committees that supported Congressman

Frank Mascara’s campaigns for

congressional and municipal offices,

agreed to pay a $50,000 civil

penalty to the FEC for seven

violations of the law, including

improperly disclosing the terms of a

$40,000 bank loan.

Mascara for Congress, Mr.

Mascara’s principal campaign

committee, also agreed to return

$12,250 in excessive contributions

to the original contributors and to

amend its disclosure reports after

the Commission found that the

committee had violated Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

restrictions governing excessive

contributions. 2 U.S.C. §441a(f).

In April 1992, the state campaign

committee transferred $10,635 to

the federal committee. At the time

of the transfer, the committee

registered as a federal committee, as

required by FEC regulations in

effect.1

 Immediately thereafter, it

requested termination as a federal

committee.

However, the state committee

continued for another year to make

transfers to the federal campaign

committee and failed to disclose the

transfers or the sources of the funds

contained in the transfers, in violation of 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(4)(B).

Among the transfers was a $40,000

loan that Mr. Mascara secured and

then contributed to the state campaign committee. That committee

transferred the bank loan to the

federal committee, where it was

used in connection with Mr.

Mascara’s 1992 federal campaign.

The state campaign committee then

proceeded to repay the $40,000

bank loan.

The state campaign committee

failed to register as a federal political committee, in violation of 2

U.S.C. §433(a). It also failed to file

disclosure reports with the FEC

about the loan payments, in violation of 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(5)(D).

Further, the state campaign committee raised $21,742 in contributions

that exceeded the limits of the Act

(but would have been permissible

under Pennsylvania law) to pay off

the $40,000 loan, in violation of 2

U.S.C. 441a(f). These transactions

were reported on Pennsylvania state

reports.

Mascara for Congress also

violated 2 U.S.C. §441a(f) when it

indirectly accepted the $12,250 in

excessive contributions. These

excessive contributions resulted

from the fact that they came from

persons who already had contributed

the maximum to Mascara for

Congress.

Additionally, Mascara for

Congress filed the required Schedule C-1s with the FEC disclosing

certain additional lines of credit,

along with bank statements evidencing the draws, but it did not file the

original agreements for the lines of

credit, in violation of 11 CFR

104.3(d)(2).

Finally, Mascara for Congress

failed to file 48-hour notices with

the FEC for 34 contributions it

received totaling $76,000. 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(6)(A). The $40,000 loan

was part of that total.

The FEC discovered the discrepancies in the committees’ reports

during the agency’s normal course

of reviewing disclosure reports. The

Commission found reason to believe

the violations had occurred and

entered into conciliation agreements

with Mr. Mascara and his federal

and state committees prior to

finding probable cause to believe

that they had violated the election

law. ✦
April 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

their current civil penalties, and

continue to do so at least once every

four years after that, based on the

Consumer Price Index (CPI). 28

U.S.C. §2461 nt.

The DCIA also stipulated that

this first increase in penalties could

be no greater than 10 percent of the

current penalty amount, despite the

fact that the CPI has increased by

far more than 10 percent since the

penalties were enacted in 1977 and

1980. Therefore, the penalties have

been increased by 10 percent.

As a result of the change, the

general provisions found at 2 U.S.C.

437g(a)(5) and (6) now call for a

maximum penalty of the greater of

the amount of any contribution or

expenditure involved in the violation or $5,500, up from $5,000. The

maximum penalty for knowing and

willful violations increased from

$10,000 to $11,000.

Civil penalties assessed for

violating the Act’s confidentiality

provisions (i.e., for making FEC

information concerning investigations and other matters public)

increased to $2,200 and, for knowing and willful violations, to $5,500.

The penalties had been assessed at

$2,000 and $5,000. 2 U.S.C.

437g(a)(12).

The increases apply only to

violations that have occurred since

the new penalties took effect.

The DCIA required the Commission to implement these changes by

adopting regulations. The penalties

for violating campaign finance had

only been found in the Act, and not

the regulations. Accordingly, the

Commission adopted 11 CFR

111.24 to implement this new

requirement. Because these revisions are required by law, they are

regarded as technical amendments

and are exempt from the notice and

comment requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act and

from the legislative review requirements of the Act. Consequently, the

new regulations became effective

immediately upon publication in the

Federal Register. ✦

Repayment Determination

Finalized for Fulani

Presidential Committee

On March 6, 1997, the Commission released a final repayment

determination for the Lenora B.

Fulani for President committee and

Dr. Lenora B. Fulani, instructing

them to repay to the U.S. Treasury

$117,269 of the public funds they

received during the 1992 election

cycle. (See the November 1995

Record.) The major findings of the

report are summarized here.

The repayment includes: $18,767

for nonqualified campaign expenses

that the Committee disbursed to a

vendor; $73,750 for nonqualified

campaign expenses to individuals

that cannot be traced; $1,394 in lost

money orders.1

 The Commission’s

determination is a pro rata portion of

the nonqualified expenses that were

paid with federal matching funds.

The formula for determining the

repayment is explained at 11 CFR

9038.2(b)(2)(iii). The Commission

also made a final determination that

the Committee repay $23,357 in

public funds received in excess of

the candidate’s entitlement. 26

U.S.C. §9038(b)(1). Specifically:

• The Fulani committee made

$43,562 in nonqualified campaign

expenses to New Alliance Productions, Inc., when it purchased bulk

orders of the journal, National

Alliance, at more than twice its

bulk rate price during a ninemonth period in 1992.

• The committee failed to properly

distribute and document $171,182

in checks paid to campaign

workers.

• The committee could not demonstrate that $3,235 in unsold money

orders were used in connection

Public Funding with Dr. Fulani’s seeking of the

Presidential nomination.

During the 1992 election cycle,

the Fulani committee met the

conditions set forth in 26 U.S.C.

§9033(a) and qualified to receive

just over $2 million in public funds

under the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act.

The Fulani committee spent just

over $4 million between March 6,

1991, and October 31, 1992. However, Dr. Fulani lost her eligibility to

receive public funds on August 20,

1992.

After the date of ineligibility, a

candidate may continue to receive

matching funds until December 31

of the election year provided that,

on the date of payment, the candidate has net outstanding debts for

qualified campaign expenses and

necessary winding down costs. 11

CFR 9034.1(b) and 9034.5(a)(1). A

qualified campaign expense is any

purchase, payment, gift or anything

of value that is incurred on behalf of

a candidate or authorized committee

during the eligibility period and is

made in connection with the

candidate’s campaign for nomination.

FEC statutes and regulations also

require any candidate who receives

public funds in excess of his or her

entitlement to repay that amount to

the Treasury Department. 26 U.S.C.

§9038(b)(1). ✦

1

 This repayment was made in January

1994.

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

 Use the FEC’s Flashfax service

to obtain FEC material fast. It

operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week. Over 300 FEC

documents—reporting forms,

brochures, FEC regulations—can

be faxed almost immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial

202/501-3413 and follow the

instructions. To order a complete

menu of Flashfax documents,

enter document number 411 at the

prompt.
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1997

6

FEC v. Charles Woods for U.S.

Senate

The FEC asks the court to find

that a corporation and a subsidiary

of a corporation, both owned by

Charles Woods, made prohibited

contributions to his 1992 campaign

for the Democratic nomination for a

Senate seat in Nevada.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act prohibits corporations from

making contributions in connection

with a federal election. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(a). The statute also prohibits

political committees from accepting

such contributions.

The FEC alleges that:

• Quinn River Ranch, which is

wholly owned by Mr. Woods,

contributed $290,000 to the

Charles Woods for U.S. Senate

committee.

• WTVY-FM, a subsidiary of

another corporation that Mr.

Woods owns, called Woods

Communications Group, used its

corporate American Express card

to charge $1,426.43 in expenses

for the committee.

• Mr. Woods’s committee accepted

the corporate contributions.

• The campaign committee and its

treasurer failed to file the required

48-hour notices for two contributions, totaling $28,000, that the

committee received between

August 13 and August 29, 1992. 2

U.S.C. §434(a)(6)(A).

U. S. District Court for the

District of Nevada, 97-00182-DWH,

February 10, 1997. ✦

New Litigation

FEC v. Public Citizen

The FEC asks the court to find

that Public Citizen Inc. and its

separate segregated fund, Public

Citizen Inc.’s Fund for a Clean

Congress (the Fund), violated

several sections of the law during

the 1992 election when the Fund

opposed the re-nomination of

Congressman Newt Gingrich. Public

Citizen was an incorporated nonprofit membership association, and

the Fund was a political committee

that had not qualified as a

multicandidate committee.

Before the 1992 primary election,

the Fund contacted Friends of

Herman Clark for Congress, the

authorized campaign committee of

Herman Clark. Mr. Clark was Mr.

Gingrich’s only challenger in the

Republican primary. Representatives from the Fund and Clark for

Congress communicated several

times between their initial contact in

April 1992 and the primary election,

which was held three months later

on July 21. The two organizations

discussed the Clark campaign’s

intent, plans and needs and reviewed

suggestions about how to defeat Mr.

Gingrich.

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act, expenditures made

by any person in cooperation with a

candidate or his or her committees

are considered contributions to the

candidate. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(7)(B)(i). They are commonly known as coordinated

expenditures. As a result of the

coordination between the Fund and

the Clark campaign, a series of Fund

expenditures made in opposition to

Mr. Gingrich’s campaign represented coordinated expenditures on

behalf of the Clark campaign.

Court Cases Specifically, the Fund paid for a

television advertisement known as

“Boot Newt,” which expressly

advocated Mr. Gingrich’s defeat;

the Fund mailed postcards to

approximately 6,000 voters in the

Sixth District urging them to “Boot

Newt” at the polls; and the Fund

distributed fliers with the “Boot

Newt” message. These and other

coordinated expenditures to defeat

Mr. Gingrich cost $59,200, representing excessive contributions of

$58,200 on behalf of the Clark

campaign. The Fund failed to report

the $59,200 as contributions to

Clark for Congress in violation of 2

U.S.C. §434(b).

In addition, the Fund’s disclaimer

on its “Boot Newt” television

advertisement failed to state whether

or not it was authorized by the

candidate. Commission statutes

stipulate that a communication must

indicate whether or not it is authorized by a candidate or a candidate’s

committee and identify who paid for

it. 2 U.S.C. §441d(a)(2) and (3).

Similarly, the Fund failed to include

the proper disclaimer on its “Boot

Newt” flyers.

Public Citizen failed to follow the

statutory requirements for soliciting

contributions to the Fund. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(3)(B). It failed to inform

those solicited of the political

purpose of the Fund in its solicitation letters. Public Citizen also

failed to inform solicitees that they

had a right to refuse to contribute to

the Fund without reprisal and that its

contribution guidelines were merely

suggestions.

The FEC asks the court to assess

civil penalties against Public Citizen

and the Fund, and to order the Fund

to amend its reports to the FEC and

refund any contributions it received

as a result of the solicitation letters.

U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Georgia,

Atlanta Division, 97-0358-FMH,

February 4, 1997. ✦
April 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

AO 1996-46

Exemption from FECA

Filing Requirements

The Socialist Workers Party

National Campaign Committee and

committees supporting candidates of

the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)

may remain exempt from disclosing

information on their FEC disclosure

forms that identify contributors and

persons to whom expenditures are

made.

The SWP has been a minor party

in the United States since 1938.

While the party has fielded candidates in numerous elections since

1948, none has ever been elected to

office in a partisan election and

SWP candidates receive very low

vote totals.

In 1979, the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia first

granted the SWP national committee

and committees supporting SWP

candidates a partial reporting

exemption, which allowed them to

file disclosure reports without

identifying the names, addresses,

occupations or places of employment of contributors and other

entities as required under 2 U.S.C.

§434(b)(3), (5) and (6). When this

exemption expired in 1984, the

court approved an updated settlement agreement in 1985 with an

expiration date in 1988. The SWP

missed the deadline for reapplication when the agreement expired,

but subsequently sought a determination from the Commission to

continue the partial reporting

exemption. In 1990, the Commission issued Advisory Opinion 1990-

13 granting the same exemption the

district court had decreed in 1985.

This exemption expired at the end of

last year.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) requires political

committees that are registered with

Advisory

Opinions

the FEC to file reports disclosing

their disbursements and receipts,

including the identification of

individuals and other persons who

make contributions of more than

$200 in a calendar year. However,

in Buckley v. Valeo the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that under

certain circumstances the Act’s

disclosure requirements as applied

to a minor party would be unconstitutional because the threat to First

Amendment rights outweighed the

need for full disclosure. Evidence of

this risk “need show only a reasonable probability that the compelled

disclosure of a party’s contributors’

names will subject them to threats,

harassment, or reprisals from either

Government officials or private

parties,” the high court said.

In weighing this issue in AO

1990-13, the Commission considered both present-day and historical

incidents of harassment of the SWP

and its supporters, including the FBI

surveillance of the SWP from 1941

to 1976. In its request for a renewal,

the SWP submitted documentation

of numerous incidents of harassment

occurring between 1990 and 1996.

Such harassment appears to have

been intended to intimidate the SWP

and its supporters from engaging in

their political activities and expressing their political views. While

hostility from governmental sources

appears to have abated, the continuation of a significant amount of

harassment from private and local

police sources, coupled with the

long history of harassment of the

SWP, is sufficient evidence that

there is a reasonable probability that

public disclosure of the previously

exempted information will subject

persons in the exempted categories

to threats or harassment.

SWP committees still must

comply with all other requirements

of the Act and Commission regulations, such as filing reports on time,

maintaining records of contributions

and disbursements, and adhering to

the Act’s contribution limits and

prohibitions.

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1997-3

Qualification as state committee of

political party (Constitution Party of

Pennsylvania, December 20, 1996; 1

page plus 16-page attachment) ✦

In granting the exemption

renewal, the Commission added a

new condition that requires SWP

committees to assign a code number

to each individual or entity from

whom it receives contributions

aggregating in excess of $200

during a calendar year. This will

allow FEC staffers and the public

who review disclosure reports to

determine whether any contributor

has exceeded the contribution limits

found at 2 U.S.C. §441a.

This exemption will be in effect

through December 31, 2002. To

seek a further renewal of the exemption, SWP officials must submit a

new advisory opinion request at

least 60 days before that date.

Date Issued: March 11; Length: 9

pages. ✦

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1997-1

Filing Dates for Texas Special

Elections (62 FR 8449, February

25, 1997)

Notice 1997-2

Filing Dates for New Mexico

Special Elections (62 FR 10562,

March 7, 1997)

Notice 1997-3

Final Rule; Adjustment to Civil

Monetary Penalty Amounts (62

FR 11316, March 12, 1997)

Notice 1997-4

Rulemaking Petition: Definition

of Member of Membership

Association; Notice of

Availability (62 FR 13355, March

20, 1997)
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 April 1997

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1997 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indicates the

page number in that issue. For

example, “1:4” means that the

article is in the January issue on

page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1996-35: Status of Green Party as

national committee, 1:10

1996-42: SSF disaffiliation following corporate spin off, 1:11

1996-45: Use of campaign funds,

1:12

1996-46: Continuation of exemption

from select FECA reporting

provisions, 4:7

1996-48: Application of “news

story” exemption, 2:5

1996-49: Affiliation between PAC

of joint venture partnership and

SSF of corporate partner, 3:7

1996-50: Disaffiliation of SSFs, 3:9

1996-51: Qualification as state

committee of political party, 3: 9

1996-52: Resolicitation of excess

campaign funds for nonfederal

campaign, 3:10

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate,

4:6

– Christian Action Network, 1:5

– DSCC (95-2881), 3:2

– Fund For a Conservative Majority,

1:5

– McCallum, 2:4

– Parisi, 1:4

– Public Citizen, 4:6

– Williams, 2:3

_____ v. FEC

– Akins et al., 2:1

– Bush-Quayle ‘92 Primary Committee, 3:5

– DCCC (96-0764), 1:4

– DNC (96-2506), 1:5

– DSCC (96-2184), 1:2

– Hooker, 1:5

– NRCC (96-2295), 1:2

– Reilly, 1:4

– RNC (94-5248), 2:5

Reports

Electronic Filing, 2:1

Schedule for 1997, 1:6

Special Election, New Mexico, 4:3

Special Election, Texas, 3:6; 4:3

800 Line

Amended Reports, 4:2

Debt settlement and committee

termination, 1:8

Veteran FEC Staffer

Heads Public

Disclosure Division

 Patricia Klein Young has been

named the new Assistant Staff

Director of the FEC’s Public

Disclosure Division. She assumed

that post on March 17.

 Mrs. Young has worked at the

Commission for 18 years, starting

her career in the Public Records

Office. She was Chief of the

Public Records Office from 1981

to 1985. From there, she moved

to the Information Division where

she served as a Public Affairs

Specialist from 1985 to 1992. She

had been the Deputy Assistant

Staff Director of the Public

Disclosure Division since 1992.

 A 1979 graduate of Trinity

College in Washington, D.C.,

Mrs. Young holds a bachelor of

arts degree in political science

and international relations. She

replaces Kent C. Cooper, who

resigned from the Commission in

January.