September 1996 Federal Election Commission Volume 22, Number 9

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 Regulations to Conform with

Colorado Republican Ruling

Court Cases

1 New Litigation

3 On Appeal?

800 Line

3 Last-Minute Independent

Expenditures: 24-Hour Reporting

Information

4 Correction: Convention Donations

by Local Individuals

5 Record Available On-line

8 Budgetary Cutbacks Reduce

Record

Election Administration

4 Campaign Finance Law 96

4 Advisory Opinions

Statistics

7 1996 Midyear PAC Count

7 Index

Regulations

(continued on page 2)

Regulations to Conform with

Colorado Republican Ruling

The Commission took steps to

comply with a recent Supreme Court

decision by deleting an FEC regulation that prohibited party committees from making independent

expenditures in House and Senate

elections. In a related action, the

agency published a request for

comments on a rulemaking petition

submitted by Democrats seeking

guidance on how national party

committees may make independent

expenditures.

Background

The Supreme Court ruled in June

that party committees are capable of

making independent expenditures.

Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee v. FEC, 116

S.Ct. 2309, June 26, 1996 (summarized in the August Record). An

independent expenditure is an

expenditure for a communication

that expressly advocates the election

or defeat of a clearly identified

federal candidate but that is made

“independently” in that it is not

coordinated with any candidate.

11 CFR 100.16 and 109.1(a).

Independent expenditures are not

subject to the dollar limits set forth

in the Federal Election Campaign

Act.

Court Cases

New Litigation

FEC v. The Christian Coalition

The FEC asks the court to find

that the Christian Coalition, a

corporation, made prohibited in-kind

contributions and independent

expenditures on behalf of Republican candidates during the 1990, 1992

and 1994 election cycles (in violation

of 2 U.S.C. §441b) and failed to

report the independent expenditures

(in violation of 2 U.S.C. §434(c)).

Specifically, the FEC alleges that

the Christian Coalition:

• Made prohibited in-kind contributions by coordinating, cooperating

or consulting with candidates when

making expenditures for voter

identification drives, get-out-thevote drives and voter guides.

• Made prohibited in-kind contributions by coordinating with the

National Republican Senatorial

Committee when making expenditures for voter guides distributed in

several states.

• Made a prohibited and unreported

independent expenditure by

expressly advocating the defeat of

a candidate at a conference.

• Made prohibited and unreported

independent expenditures for

direct mailings whose content—

(continued on page 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)

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, 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

Stephanie Fitzgerald, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

Removal of Independent

Expenditure Prohibition

The Commission had previously

taken the position that party committee spending on behalf of

candidates was subject to either the

contribution limits or the coordinated party expenditure limits of the

Act, and that party committees were

incapable of making independent

expenditures because of their close

ties to candidates. Reflecting that

view, section 110.7(b)(4) of FEC

rules stated that party committees

could not make independent expenditures in connection with the

general election campaign of

candidates for the U.S. House of

Representative or Senate. That

provision has now been deleted

from the regulations, effective

August 7, 1996 (61 FR 40961).

The change is limited to independent expenditures advocating the

election or defeat of House and

Senate candidates—not Presidential

candidates—since the Colorado

Republican Court specifically said

that its decision did not address

issues that might grow out of the

public funding of Presidential

campaigns.

Petition for Rulemaking

The FEC is seeking comments on

a rulemaking petition submitted by

the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign

Committee. The Committees request

that the FEC amend its regulations

to provide “meaningful guidance”

on independent expenditures by

national party committees.

The Petition for Expedited

Rulemaking is available from the

Public Records Office and from the

FEC’s Flashfax service (document

#231).

Public comments on the petition

must be submitted in writing by

September 6 to: Susan E. Propper,

Assistant General Counsel, 999 E

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463.

Although the Committtees have

requested that the FEC prepare new

rules in time for the general election

in November, it is unlikely that the

agency will be able to do so, given

the time needed to satisfy the

statutory notice and comment

requirements and the legislative

review requirements. The Committees have, however, requested an

advisory opinion on similar issues

(AOR 1996-30).1 These issues may

also be affected by ongoing litigation in the Colorado Republican

case. (The Supreme Court remanded

the case to the lower courts for

further proceedings consistent with

its decision.) ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

New Litigation

FEC v. McCallum

The FEC alleges that Elkin

McCallum made $250,000 in

excessive contributions in the form

of three loans to the Tsongas for

President Committee, the committee

authorized by Senator Paul E.

Tsongas for his 1992 Presidential

campaign. The FEC further alleges

that, in the case of one of the loans

in the amount of $100,000, Mr.

McCallum attempted to circumvent

the contribution limits knowingly

and willfully by making the check

payable to the Committee’s chief

fundraiser with the intention that the

funds would eventually be provided

to the Committee.

The Commission therefore asks

the court to find that Mr. McCallum

made excessive contributions in

violation of 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)

(A), assess the appropriate civil

penalties and permanently enjoin

him from committing similar

violations.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Massachusetts, 96-

11418WGY, July 12, 1996. ✦

cover letters and scorecards rating

incumbents on their House and

Senate votes—constituted express

advocacy on behalf of candidates

receiving high scores and against

candidates receiving low scores.

The Commission further asks the

court to enjoin the Christian Coalition from violating §§441b and

434(c) and to assess an appropriate

civil penalty for each violation.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 1:96CV01781,

July 30, 1996. ✦

2

Federal Election Commission RECORD September1996

1 The Commission failed to issue an

opinion because it could not reach

agreement by the required 4-vote

majority. See Agenda Document #96-85

(meeting of 8/22/96).
800 Line

Last-Minute Independent

Expenditures: 24-Hour

Reporting

This article explains the 24-hour

reporting of independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more

that are made shortly before an

election.

Who Reports

Any person making independent

expenditures is responsible for

complying with independent

expenditure reporting requirements:

• Political committees registered

with the FEC;

• Other groups of persons that are

not FEC-registered political

committees; 1

• Individuals; and

• Qualified nonprofit corporations

exempt under 11 CFR 114.10 from

1 Note that an unregistered group whose

federal election activity exceeds $1,000

in a calendar year must register as a

political committee under federal law if

its major purpose is campaign activity—i.e., making payments or donations

to influence any election to public

office. 11 CFR 100.5(a) and AO

1996-13.

On Appeal?

The FEC voted on whether to appeal the following court

decisions:

Appeal?

Republican National Committee v. FEC (94-1017) No

Clifton v. FEC (96-66-P-H) Yes

Appellate court, D.C. Circuit, upheld FEC’s “best efforts”

regulations (11 CFR 104.7(b)) except the specific language

required when seeking contributor information. See the April

1996 Record, page 10.

District court, Maine, ruled that FEC regulations on voting

records and voter guides (11 CFR 114.4(c)(4) and (5)) were

invalid because they regulate issue advocacy and therefore go

beyond the FEC’s authority. See the July 1996 Record, page 1.

the prohibition on corporate

independent expenditures.

Definition of Independent

Expenditure

An independent expenditure is an

expenditure for a communication

which expressly advocates the

election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate and which is

not made with the cooperation or

prior consent of, or in consultation

with, or at the request or suggestion

of, any candidate or his or her

authorized committees or agents.

11 CFR 100.16 and 109.1(a).

What Triggers 24-Hour Reporting

The requirement to file a 24-hour

report is triggered when a person

makes independent expenditures

aggregating $1,000 or more between

2 and 20 days before the election.

11 CFR 104.4(b), 104.5(g) and

109.2(b).

When to Report

Information on a last-minute

independent expenditure must be

reported within 24 hours after such

expenditure is made. 11 CFR

104.4(b), 104.5(g) and 109.2(b). (A

political committee must disclose a

last-minute independent expenditure

a second time on a Schedule E filed

with its next scheduled report.

11 CFR 104.3(b)(3)(vii).)

Reporting Forms

Information on last-minute

independent expenditures must be

disclosed in a statement or on

Schedule E (political committees) or

Form 5 (other groups, individuals,

qualified nonprofit corporations).

2 U.S.C. §434(c); 11 CFR 104.4(a)

and 109.2(a).

What to Report

A 24-hour report must include the

following:

• The political committee’s name,

address and FEC identification

number or, in the case of an

individual, group or qualified

nonprofit corporation, the reporting person’s name, address and, if

applicable, occupation and employer.

• The name and address of the payee

(i.e., the vendor or other person

who received payment for providing goods or services related to the

independent expenditure).

• The date, amount and purpose of

the expenditure;

• The name of the candidate, the

office sought and whether the

expenditure was made to support

or oppose the candidate.

• The name, address, occupation and

employer of each person who

made a contribution in excess of

$200 for the purpose of furthering

the independent expenditure.

However, this requirement to

include contributor information

does not apply to political committees.

• A notarized statement certifying

that the expenditure was made

without the cooperation or consent

of any candidate or authorized

committee, and, in the case of a

corporation, that the corporation is

a qualified nonprofit corporation

under 11 CFR 114.10.

• The signature of the committee

treasurer or, in the case of an

individual, a group or a qualified

nonprofit corporation, the signature of the individual filling out the

report. (continued on page 4)

3

September 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
4

Federal Election Commission RECORD September1996

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1996-23

Disaffiliation of Reorganized

Corporations and Their

PACs

Due to circumstances resulting

from a corporate reorganization,

three separate segregated funds

(SSFs), previously affiliated through

the parent-subsidiary relationship of

their connected organizations, are

no longer affiliated, based on an

analysis of the affiliation factors in

FEC regulations. Therefore, they no

longer share the same limits on

contributions received or made.

11 CFR 100.5(g)(2) and

110.3(a)(1)(ii).

Background

The former ITT Corporation (Old

ITT) completed a corporate breakup

that resulted in three independent,

publicly-traded companies operating

in separate business areas:

1. ITT Corporation (New ITT),

which specializes in hospitality,

gaming, entertainment and

information services businesses;

2. ITT Industries, Inc., which

consists of three manufacturing

businesses; and

3. ITT Hartford Group, Inc., made

up of insurance providers.

On December 19, 1995, the day

of the breakup, approximately

56,000 shareholders of Old ITT

received stock in each of the three

new companies. Active public

trading of these stocks rapidly

diversified the ownership.

Prior to the breakup, three SSFs

existed; after the breakup, each SSF

was designated as the PAC of one of

the three new companies.

Analysis of Affiliation Factors

When an entity is not an acknowledged subsidiary of another,

FEC regulations provide for an

examination of several factors to

800 Line

(continued from page 3)

11 CFR 104.3(b)(3)(vii), 104.5

(g), 109.2 and 114.10(e). See also

instructions to FEC Form 5.

Where to File

• Reports on independent expenditures are filed with the FEC,

except that reports on independent

expenditures supporting or opposing only U.S. Senate candidates

are filed with the Secretary of the

Senate.

• Copies must also be filed with the

Secretary of State (or equivalent

officer) of the states in which the

candidates supported or opposed

are seeking election. 11 CFR

104.4(c).

The report may not be faxed

because an original signature is

required. ✦

Correction: Contributions to

Convention Host Committees

by Local Individuals

An article in the February 1996

Record stated that “any individual

or any local business, local labor

organization or other local organization may donate funds or make inkind donations to a host committee

to defray certain convention-related

expenses.”

The sentence should have read:

“any local individual or any local

business....”

The article, “Presidential Nominating Conventions: Permissible

Corporate/Labor Activity,” appeared

on page 7.

Commission regulations at 11

CFR 9008.52(c) permit local

individuals to donate funds and

make in-kind donations to a host

committee to be used for a variety

Information

of purposes, such as promoting the

city, facilitating commerce, defraying construction costs in the convention center and defraying the city’s

additional costs for transportation or

law enforcement.

Local individuals are individuals

who reside in the Metropolitan Area

of the convention city. 11 CFR

9008.52(c)(2) and AO 1995-32. ✦

Election

Administration

Updated Summary of State

Campaign Finance Laws

The FEC’s Office of Election

Administration recently published

Campaign Finance Law 96, which

summarizes the campaign finance

laws of each state and includes state

code citations.

For quick reference, a series of

charts lists each state’s reporting

requirements, contribution restrictions, solicitation restrictions and

expenditure limits.

The publication would be particularly valuable for PACs whose

nonfederal election activity requires

them to comply with laws in several

states.

Campaign Finance Law 96 is

available for purchase from the

Government Printing Office. To

order, list the title and stock number

(052-006-00059-7), enclose a $40

check payable to the Superintendent

of Public Documents, and send the

order to the Superintendent of

Public Documents, Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402. ✦
5

September 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

(continued on page 6)

determine whether one company is

an affiliate of another and, hence,

whether their respective SSFs are

affiliated. This list of factors

(11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(A)–(J) and

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(A)–(J)) is not

exhaustive; other factors may be

considered. See AO 1995-36.

Moreover, there is no formula

whereby the presence of a specific

number of factors indicates affiliation. In proposed disaffiliation

situations, the historic background

of the relationships provides a

context for assessing the factors. See

AOs 1995-36 and 1994-9.

In this particular situation, the

Commission considered the following factors:

Common Ownership. None of the

companies owns stock in the others.

See 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(A). As a related

matter, the common shareholder

base of the companies appears to be

decreasing rapidly due to vigorous

public trading of stock.

Authority Over Another Company. None of the companies has

authority to participate in the

governance of the others; nor does

any company have the right to hire,

demote or otherwise control the

decisionmakers of the others. See

11 CFR 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(B) and (C).

Funding of SSFs. Since the

breakup, it appears that there have

been no transfers of funds between

the SSFs, and there has been no

indication that one SSF will solicit

contributions on behalf of another

SSF. See 11 CFR 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(G)

and (H).

Formation, Overlap and Continuity. Old ITT still survives in reincorporated form as ITT Industries,

which could thus be viewed as the

entity responsible for the formation

of the other two companies. See

11 CFR 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(I). However,

the three entities can also be viewed

as newly created entities, with none

responsible for the formation of the

others. In addition, all three entities

existed in some form prior to

breakup.

Facts indicate some continuity

between the board of Old ITT and

the boards of the new companies.

Although the presence of some old

board members on the boards of

spun-off companies may, by itself,

not be particularly significant, some

of the members of the board of Old

ITT continue to serve on the boards

of more than one of the three

present companies. This overlap

may indicate an ongoing relationship among the three companies.

See 11 CFR 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(E) and

(F).

This situation, however, is

balanced by the presence of several

other circumstances. First, each

company held a shareholder election

of its board in May 1996, by which

time public trading had substantially

reduced common ownership.

Second, two of the boards were

enlarged by one new member each.

Third, most of the board members

are not overlapping.

Conclusion

In view of these countervailing

considerations with respect to the

composition of the boards, and in

the absence of other affiliation

factors, the three companies (and

their respective SSFs) are not

affiliated. Date Issued: July 12,

1996; Length: 7 pages. ✦

AO 1996-26

Corporation as Collecting

Agent for PAC of Affiliated

Association

Because FTD, Inc. (the Corporation) and the FTD Association, a

nonprofit corporation, are affiliated

entities, with a relationship analogous to that of dependent branches

of a common enterprise, the Corporation may act as a collecting agent

for the Association’s separate

segregated fund, FlowerPAC.

Background

The FTD (Florists Transworld

Delivery)—created nearly a hundred

years ago—was divided into the

present two entities in 1995, with

the Corporation acting as the

clearinghouse for flower orders, and

the Association assuming the trade

association functions.

The Corporation bills its subscribers (which overlap with the

Association’s membership) for

monthly Association dues. The

Association proposed using this

billing arrangement to collect

monthly contributions to

FlowerPAC from Association

members. Acting as a collecting

agent, the Corporation would

deposit the combined dues/contributions into a separate account; the

Association would then transfer the

contributions to FlowerPAC.

The collecting agent rules at

11 CFR 102.6(b) allow an organization to collect contributions for a

separate segregated fund (SSF) and

to pay the related solicitation costs

without having to register and report

as a political committee. A collecting agent may be the SSF’s connected organization, or a subsidiary,

branch or local unit of the connected

organization, or a committee

affiliated with the SSF. (Collecting

agents must follow the procedures

set forth at 11 CFR 102.6(c).)

Record Available

On-Line

Each new Record issue is

available on the World Wide Web

several days before it reaches

subscribers. To get a head start,

you can download the issue

(usually by the first of the month)

from the FEC’s web site: http://

www.fec.gov. Record issues are

listed under the menu option Help

for Candidates, Parties and

PACs. Once downloaded, you can

view the document using the

Adobe® Acrobat® Reader, or

you can print it. (Only 1996

issues are available.)
Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

AO 1996-27

Qualifying as State Party

Committee

The Libertarian Party of Illinois

qualifies as a state committee of the

Libertarian Party because it meets

the two necessary requirements:

(1) its relationship with the national

party is based on an agreement

under which it performs activities

commensurate with the day-to-day

operation of the party on a state

level; and (2) it has achieved ballot

access for the party’s Presidential

and other federal candidates.

2 U.S.C. §431(15); 11 CFR 100.14;

AOs 1995-49 and 1992-30.

The Illinois Party’s rules show

that it meets the first requirement.

Under those rules, it is responsible

for promoting the ideals and principles of the Libertarian Party and

for holding state conventions. The

rules also contemplate the creation

of local clubs and committees. The

convention rules outline the procedures for nominating state candidates and for selecting delegates to

the Libertarian Party’s national

convention.

The Illinois Party meets the

second requirement because it

gained ballot access for the Party’s

1992 Presidential candidate and for

its 1993 6th Congressional District

candidate and because it received

sufficient votes (5 percent for one

statewide race) in the 1994 election

to qualify for the ballot in 1996.

Date Issued: July 18, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

Analysis

Although the relationship between the Association and the

Corporation is not that of standard

corporate affiliates, the two organizations are affiliated based on the

affiliation factors in FEC rules. For

example:

• Because the two appoint directors

to each other’s governing boards

(these appointments constitute at

least 20 percent of each board),

each entity has the right to participate in the governance of the other

and, through this control, each

plays a role in the employeerelated decisions of the other.

• All of the subscribers to the

Corporation are members of the

Association, and there is also some

overlap in their employees.

• The payments by the Corporation

to the Association for services (10

percent of the Association’s

revenue), and the agreements

regarding the Association’s use of

the Corporation-owned FTD

Mercury Man logo, indicate an

ongoing transfer of funds between

the two.

• Finally, because Corporationappointed members of the

Association’s board joined in the

vote to establish FlowerPAC, the

Corporation played some role in

the establishment of the SSF.

11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(B)–(I) and

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(B)–(I).

As an affiliate of the Association,

the Corporation may pay the

administrative costs of FlowerPAC.

See AOs 1992-17, 1988-14 and

1983-19. (Any SSF established by

the Corporation would automatically be affiliated with FlowerPAC.)

In conclusion, although neither

entity can be considered a subsidiary of the other, both operate as

dependent branches of a common

enterprise, based on their common

origin and the complementary roles

they play in the florist industry.

Therefore, the Corporation may act

as a collecting agent, and the

proposed billing procedures may be

used to handle the payment of

contributions to FlowerPAC.

Date Issued: July 18, 1996;

Length: 7 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1996-30

Standards for “independence” of

independent expenditures by party

committees. (Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign

Committee; July 15, 1996; 7 pages)

The Commission failed to issue

an opinion because it could not

reach agreement by the required 4-

vote majority. See Agenda Document #96-85 (meeting of 8/22/96).

AOR 1996-31

Corporate voter guides distributed

as televised ads. (Sierra Club; July

15, 1996; 3 pages plus 8-page

attachment and 1-page supplement)

AOR 1996-31 was withdrawn by

the Sierra Club on August 13, 1996.

AOR 1996-32

Retroactive reallocation of administrative expenses and corrective

transfer from nonfederal account.

(National Republican Senatorial

Committee; July 15, 1996; 7 pages)

The Commission failed to issue

an opinion because it could not

reach agreement by the required 4-

vote majority. See Agenda Document #96-91 (meeting of 8/22/96).

AOR 1996-33

Contributions from state legislators

to federal candidate whose state

campaign committee plans to

contribute surplus funds to same

legislators. (Colantuono for Congress, July 30, 1996; 5 pages)

AOR 1996-34

Campaign’s payment of travel

expenses of Congressman’s family.

(Thornberry for U.S. Congress,

August 1, 1996; 6 pages)

AOR 1996-35

Status of Green Party as national

committee of political party.

(Greens/Green Party USA, August

6

Federal Election Commission RECORD September1996
(continued on page 8)

Statistics

1996 Midyear PAC Count

As of July 1, 1996, there were

4,033 PACs registered with the

FEC. This represents an increase of

17 PACs since the last six-month

count. (The number of PACs does

Midyear and Year-End PAC Counts, 1990-1996

Trade/ Corp. w/o

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

Jul. ’90 1,782 346 753 58 139 1,115 4,193

Dec. ’90 1,795 346 774 59 136 1,062 4,172

Jul. ’91 1,745 339 749 57 137 1,096 4,123

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jul. ’95 1,670 334 804 43 129 1,002 3,982

Dec. ’95 1,674 334 815 44 129 1,020 4,016

Jul. ’96 1,645 332 829 43 126 1,058 4,033

1 Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On

the other hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general

public, while solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

9, 1996; 1 page plus 62-page

attachment)

AOR 1996-36

Special elections resulting from

court order to void primary elections

in redrawn districts: contribution

limits, surplus funds, party expenditures, accounting. (Members of

Congress Frost, Lee, Bentsen, Green

and Johnson; August 14, 1996; 4

pages)

AOR 1996-37

Contribution limits for special

election resulting from court order

to void primary elections in redrawn

district. (Brady for Congress,

August 15, 1996; 1 page) ✦

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1996 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

1995-38: Corporate vendor and

nonconnected PAC with common

officer, 1:14

1995-40: Disaffiliation of PACs, 3:7

1995-41: Preemption of state

disclosure requirements, 2:3

1995-42: Using campaign funds to

pay child-care expenses, 2:3

1995-43: Refunding legal fees to

candidate committee, 3:8

1995-44: Presidential primary

candidate excused from filing 48-

hour notices, 3:8

1995-45: Qualified campaign

expenses for ballot access, 3:9

1995-46: Purchase of candidate’s

book by his campaign, 3:9

1995-47: Use of campaign funds for

travel to party’s Presidential

nominating convention, 5:7

1995-48: Preemption of Georgia law

limiting receipt of contributions,

3:10

1995-49: Status of a state affiliate of

national party committee, 6:6

1996-1: Corporate partisan communications, 5:7

1996-2: Providing free on-line

accounts to candidates, 6:6

1996-3: Determining political

committee status, 6:7

1996-4: Public funding shortfalls

and bridge loans, 5:8

1996-5: Returning illegal contributions, 5:9

1996-7: Public funding certifications, 5:9

1996-8: Local party committees and

building funds, 7:6

1996-9: Building a library center

with excess campaign funds, 6:7

1996-10: Corporate employees as

stockholders, 7:7

1996-11: Incumbent appearances at

convention of membership

organization, 7:9

1996-12: Criteria for qualified

campaign expenses, 7:10

1996-13: Property owned by limited

liability company used for

campaign events, 8:6

1996-14: Use of excess campaign

funds for moving expenses, 7:11

1996-15: Discarding envelopes used

to mail reports to state, 7:11

1996-16: Defining a news entity, 7:11

1996-17: Cars provided as official

vehicles of convention, 7:12

7

September 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

not necessarily correspond to PAC

financial activity, since many

registered PACs have little or no

activity.) The table below shows

midyear and year-end PAC counts

since 1990. A July 11, 1996, press

release contains PAC counts dating

back to 1974. The press release may

be ordered via the Flashfax system:

202/501-3413, document #526. ✦
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 1996

Index

(continued from page 7)

1996-18: Conduit accounts, 8:7

1996-19: Use of campaign funds for

travel to Presidential nominating

convention: wife and children, 8:8

1996-20: Use of campaign funds for

travel to Presidential nominating

convention: chief of staff, 8:8

1996-21: Membership organization

communications, 8:9

1996-22: Public funding for nonmajor party candidates, 8:10

1996-23: Disaffiliation of reorganized corporations and their

PACs, 9:4

1996-24: Use of campaign funds for

certain legal expenses, 8:10

1996-26: Corporation as collecting

agent for PAC of affiliated

association, 9:5

1996-27: Qualifying as state party

committee, 9:6

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Christian Coalition, 9:1

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 8:1

– DSCC (95-2881), 1:5

– GOPAC, 4:1

– Hartnett, 4:12

– Legi-Tech, 4:9

– McCallum, 9:2

– Murray, 8:5

– National Right to Work, 4:11

– Parisi, 3:6

– Wofford, 6:4

_____ v. FEC

– Albanese, 5:4

– Buchanan, 6:4

– Center for Responsive Politics, 1:3

– Chamber of Commerce, 1:2

– Clifton, 5:6; 7:1

– Common Cause (94-02104), 5:5

– DCCC (1:96CV00764), 6:4

– DSCC (95-0349), 7:5

– Grover, 7:6

– Hooker, 3:7

– Jordan, 4:12

– ME Right to Life Committee, 1:3; 4:9

– MN Citizens Concerned for Life,

3:6; 6:3

– RNC (94-1017), 4:10

– Reilly, 8:5

– Stockman, 2:9

– Whitmore, 3:6

On Appeal?, 5:6; 7:6; 9:3

Reports

Electronic filing system, FEC

authorized to develop, 2:2

Point of entry change for House

candidates, 2:1

Reporting reminders, 4:3; 6:1

Schedule for 1996, 1:5

Special elections, 2:5; 3:2; 7:16

Budgetary Cutbacks

Reduce Record

Due to budget constraints, the

Record will no longer feature:

• Lists of recently released MURs

(Matters Under Review);

• Hearings on proposed

regulations;

• Summaries of audit reports; and

• Summaries of public funding

repayment determinations and

hearings.

The Record will also reduce the

size and number of graphs on

campaign finance statistics. These

measures will reduce the number

of pages per issue, thus reducing

printing and mailing costs.

Information on new MUR

releases and the other topics

listed above remain available in

the FEC’s Public Records Office.

800 Line

Ballot access payments, 2:8

Bundling by individuals, 8:2

Conventions, permissible corporate

and labor activity, 2:7

- correction, 9:4

Filing tips, 5:1

Last minute independent expenditures: 48-hour notices, 9:3