JUly 1992

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999E Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 18, Nurrb

NEW ALLOCATlm REGULATI<:::fiS

EFFECTIVE JUNE 18

The revised regulations on the allocation of federal and nonfederal expenses

became effective on June 18, ~992, as

announced in the Federal Register of that

date.V

TWo changes to the allocation rules

allow state and local party committees to

revise their ballot composition ratios and

apply the revised ratios retroactively to

certain joint federal/nonfederal expenses

paid since January 1, 1991, the start of

the current allocation cycle. However, the

deadline for making retroactive reallocations is July 18, 1992.

Two other changes are not retroactively

effective. These changes apply to all

committees subject to the allocation rules,

including separate segregated funds and

nonconnected committees.

The revisions are briefly described

below.

Changes to Ballot Composition l0.tios of

State and LoCal Party CoDmittees

New Nonfederal Point. Under the first

change, all state and local party comRdttees may include an additional nonfederal

point in their ballot composition ratios.

11 CFR l06.5(d)(1)(ii).

LoCal office Point When Local and state

Officers Elected in Different Years. The

second change applies only to state and

local party committees located in states

wherg state officers are elected in even

years while partisan local officers are

elected only in odd years. under the

former rules, party committees in this

lThe final rules, and their explanation and

justification, were published in the March

13, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 8990). A

detailed summary of the revisions appeared

in the April 1992 Record.

situation could not include any points f

local offices. The new rules, based on

Advisory Opinion 1991-25, now authorize

commdttees to include nonfederal point(s

in their ratios if partisan local candidates are expected on the ballot "Ln any

regularly scheduled election during the

two-year congressional cycle."

(continu

1 IUDnATIWS: Allocation Rules Effec

2 PUBLICATICfiS: 1991 Annual Report

PARTY ACTIVITIES

3 Retroactive Reallocation of Revised

Ballot composition Ratio

PUBLIC FUND~

6 June Matching Fund Payments

6 Final Repayment, 1988 Gephardt Cormn

7 NNISC1l1Y OPINIOOS

canrr CASES

8 FEe v , Wright

9 White v. FEC

10 New Litigation

STATISTICS

10 Candidate and party Committees

lWDITS

12 List of Final Audit Reports Released

<XXWLIANCE

12 Nonfilers

12 MURs Released to Public

14 FUBLIC APPFJ\RAOCES

15 INDEX.

REPORl'S

16 July 15 Reporting waivers

16 Alaska primary Date Changed
July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR 106.5(d)(1){ii). (Note that state

party committees may add only one

nonfederal point for local offices on the

Pallot, while local party committees may

add a maxillll.lllt of two potnts .)

Retroactive Reallocation. Using a

revised ballot composition ratio based on

the new rules, state and local party

comli.ttees have the opportunity to reallocate adrndnistrative and generic voter drive

cost.s paid since January 1, 1991. However,

committees will have only until July 18 to

reallocate these expenses and make corrective transfers from their nanfederal ~ccounts to their federal accounts. see

article on page 3 explaining how to calculate and report these adjustments.

Olanges '!hat Apply to All camnittees

As noted above, the following changes

to the allocation rules are not retroactively effective:

o Committees now have a 70-day window

(expanded from 40 days) to transfer funds

from the nonfederal account to the federal account to pay for the nonfederal

share of a joint expense. (The window

begins 10 days before the federal account

pays the vendor and ends 60 days after

the payment.) 11 CFR 106.5(g)(2)(ii)(8)

and l06.6(e)(2)(ii)(B).

o committees now have a 60-day period

following a fundraisifl(j program or event

to adjust the fundraising ratio and to

transfer funds between the federal and

nonfederal accounts to reflect the

revised allocation. (When reporting

these adjustment transfers, committees

must enter the date of the event, a new

requirement.) 11 CFR 106.5(f) and

IOG.6(d).

Volume 18~ Number 7

FEe ISSUES 19911lNNUAL REPCm'

On June 1, the FEC published its

Aru'lual Report for 1991, a review of

the agency's activities during that

year. The report opens with a discussion of the predicted shortfall of

public funds needed for the Presidential elections and the agency's

efforbs to educate the public on the

$1 tax checkoff, the sale source of

Presidential public funding. Legal

issues addressed by the Commission in

1991 ace also eXamined, including

C01Jrt rulings on corporate communications and the use of soft money in

federal elections. Tables and graphs

provide data on the financial activity of political committees as well as the

FEe's operation and budget. Finally,

the report includes the agency's suggestions for changes in the campaign

finance law, which were presented to

the president and Congress earlier

this year.

To order a free copy of Annual

Report 1991, call 800/424-9530 or

202/219-3420.

FEDERAL l\OOlSTER lO'lICES

Copies of Federal Register notices

are available from the PUblic Records

Office. -

1992-8

11 CFR Part 200: Administrative Regulations (Petitions for Rulemaking);

Notice of proposed Rulemaking (57 FR

20430, May 13, 1992)

Federal Election Carrmission, 999 E Street, t'M'. washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530 202;219-3420 202/219-3336 (TDD)

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

SCott E. 'ltlomas, Vice Chai rman

Lee Mn Elliott

Danny L. I"IeDona1d

John warren !'ICGarry

Trevor Potter

Walter J. Stewart, secretary of the Senate,

Ex Officio commdssioner

Donnald IC Anderson, Clerk Qf the House of

Representatives, EX Officio commdssioner

2
FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

•

July 1992

PARTY AC1rlVITIES

RE'mOP.CTIVE APPLlCATIOO OF REVISED BALLOr

e::atPOSITIC6 RATI.O

Under the new allocation regulations, $tate and local party committees may

include an extra nonfederal point in their

ballot composition ratios, i.e., the ratio

used to allocate joint federal and nonfederal adrrdnistrative and generic voter

drive expenses. Additionally, certain

state and local party committees--those

located in states where local officers are

elected only in odd years while statewide

officers are elected in even years--may

further adjust the ratio to include local

partisan offices on the ballot. (See

article on page 1.)

committees now have a limited opportunity-until July l8--to apply the

adjusted ballot composition ratio retroactively to payments made since January 1,

1991, and to make adjustment transfers from

their nonfederal accounts to their federal

accounts.

This article explains how to calculate

and report retroactive reallocations and

transfers. It is based on Advisory

Opinions 1991-25 and 1991-15. In the

examples used here, a state party committee

revises its ratio to include the additional

nonfederal point. The same method should

be used by those committees located in

states which elect local offices in odd

years and state officers in even yaars.ll

1. Calculate Revised Ratio

First, calculate the revised ratio.

ExaJuple. The old ratio used by a state

party committee for the 1991-92 election

cycle was 28 percent federal/72 percent

nonfederal (2 federal points and 5

nonfederal points). wi th the addition of

another nonfederal point, the new ratio is

25 percent federalj75 percent nonfederal (2

federal points and 6 nonfederal points).

~ith respect to these committees, state

committees may now add one nonfederal point for local partisan offices on the ballot in

odd years, and local committees may add a

maximum of two nonfederal points for such

offices. See AO 1991-25, summarized in the

october 1991 Record, page 9. These nonfederal point{s) are in addition to the

extra nonfederal point available to all

state and local party committees.

3

Volume 18, Numbe

2. Determine 'lbtal Administrative,IVoter

Ddve Payments to Be Reallocated

Next, determine the total amount pai

by the federal and nonfederal accounts fo

administrative and generic voter drive

expenses from January 1, 1991, through th

current date. You should rely on canmit

records, although your committee's previo

reports may provide some help.

o 1991 TotaL Determine the total amoun

of the c~ttee's administrative)Vote

drive payments for 1991. The Schedule 

filed with the cornmi ttee's year-end

report for 1991 may be a help. The la

"event year-to-date" entry for an

administrative/voter drive payment sho

show the total payments for 1991.

o 1992 Total. Now determine the total

amount of the committee'S administrati

voter drive payments from the beginnin

of 1992 through the current date. The

schedule H4 filed with the committee's

last report should show total payments

reported thus far in 1992. The conunit

tee's records should provide the amoun

paid for administrative/voter drive

expenses from the closing date of the

last report through the cur.ent date.

o lldd the Totals. Add the 1991 and 1992

totals to arrive at the total amount o

administrative/Voter drive payments th

"may be reallocated under the revised

ratio.

ExaJIIple. The state party commi ttee

found that its 1991 year-to-ctate total f

adrndnistrative/voter drive payments was

$85,000.

The committee's most recent report (

1992 second quarter report covering throu

.June 30) shows a year-to-datE total of

$10, 000. Comttee records from July 1

throuqh the current date (July 15) indic

that the committ~e paid another $5,000 i

admdnistrative/Voter drive expenses in

1992. The current year-to-date total fo

1992 is therefore $15,000 ($10,000 plus

$5, 000).

Thus, th~ total amount of administra

tive/voter drive payments that may be

reallocated is $100,000 ($85,000 plus

$15,(00).

3. Determine Federal and Nonfederal A100

under old Ratio

Apply the old ratio to the total

calculated above. This will give you th

amount paid by each account.

Example. Applying the old ratio (28

percent federalj72 percent nonfederal) t

the $100,000 total, the committee found 

spent $28,000 from its federal account a

$72,000 from its nonfederal account.

(continu
4. Determine Federal and Nonfederal1WOunts

Under Revised Ratio

NO'"" apply the revised ratio to the same

total.

Example. Under the committee'S new

ratio (25 percent federal;75 percent 000-

federal), the federal share is $25,000 and

the nonfederal, $75,000.

July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7

S. Calculate Amount of Nonfederal Transfer

The difference between the old and

revised nonfederal portions is the ~t

that may be transferred from the nonfederal

account to the federal account. Note,

however, that the transfer must take place

by the July 18 deadline.

Example. $75,000 (new ratio) minus

$72,000 (old ratio) equals $3,000, the

amount the comrnittee may tiranefer by July

18.

6. RepOrt Adjusblents and Transfer

In the next report due, report the

revised ratio (on Schedule Hl) and the

transfer from the nonfederal aCcoWlt (on

Schedule H3). You must also make en

adjustment on Schedule H4 to reflect the

reallocation of administrative and generic

voter drive payments. These steps are

illustrated below. 

Schedule Hl.: Show the revised ballot

composition formula; explain that the

revision is based on the new allocation

rules.

REVISED RATIO

STATE AND LOCAL PARTY COMMITTEES

BALLOT COMPOSITION

CHECK ALL OFFICES APP£:,ARING ON THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION BAllOT:

10. SUBTQTAl- NON·FEDERAL (ADD 5,6.7,8, AND 9) ..

11. TOTAL POINTS (LINE 4PLUS LINE 10) ..

4.. SUB10TAL- FEDERAL{ADO 1,2. AN03j .

1. PRESIDENT IXI (1 POINT) .

2. ll.S. SENATE .0 (1 POINT) ...

3.U.S. CONGRESS IZ(1 POINT} .

.. - ..--- ._-._-- --_..

NUMBER OF

rolNl$ .- "----"-- .. -----~

.. 1

2 ..

.. 1

.. 1

.. 1

.. 1

.. 1

+1----

"'--- 6

.. 8 -.J

5.GOVERNOR _ 00{1 POIN1) ..

6. OTHER STATEWIDE OFFICE(S) oo (1 OR' POINTS) ..

7. STATE SENATE 00 (1 POINT) .

a. STATE REPRESENTATIVE IZ(t POINT) .

9. LOCAL CANDIDATES 1>1 (1 OR 2POINTS) . -Extra nonfederal

point authorized

by June 1992

amendment to

allocation rules

FEDERAL A.LLOCATION ..LINE 4DIVIDED BY LINE 1j ,~ [ 2 5

4
July1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Numbe

schedule 83: Report the transfer from the

nonfederal account to the federal account;

explain that the transfer adjusts for the

revised ratio.

NAME OF ACCOUNT

State Party Committee--Nonfederal

AOMlII.NOTER

DRIVE AMOUNr

i) Tolal AdministrativeNlller Orille .....c~.9..... i9.-.¢U~.~.t .. $ 3 r 000 • 00

for revised ratio)

ii) Direct Fundraising (List Events·Amount forEach)

a)

b) ---~---------~

c)---

d)

e) T:-:ot-.al"":"A-mo-l)..,.nt;:-:O:T:-:'ra-ns~je-rr--ed:"'1F:-()'-;:D:""ire~ct7:F~u:-nd:-ra~is~in-g-.......-...

iii! Exempt ActivilylOirect Candidale Suppo1

Ust Even:s·Amolint ForEach'

a) _

b) _

c) . _

dl ,------:~-...",........,...-.. -::-...."..-_--:-<.,....,....-::-:-__

e)Total ArnO'Jnl trarsterred For Exempt Activit~IDjroc\

Candidate Su rt , .

DATE OFRECEIPT

7-16...92 $ 3,000.00

schedule H4: To adjust the federal and

nonfederal shares of administrative/Voter

~dve parnents, enter the following

J.nformatJ.on:

o In the name and address box, explain that

the entry is an adjustment to reflect the

revised ratio applied retroactively from

January 1, 1991, through the date of the

last payment that was reallocated. (In

the exanple, the date was July 15.)

o In the date box, enter the date of the

tr-ansfer. Remember, the transfer must be

made by the July 18 deadline. (In the

example, the transfer was received on

July 16.)

o In the total box, enter zero.

o In the federal share box, enter the

amount of the transfer as a negative

number (to reduce the overall federal

share of adadnistrative/Yoter drive

payments) .

o In the nonfederal share box, enter the

transfer amount as a positive number (

increase the overall nonfederal share 

the payments).

o It is not necessary to fill in the "ev

yeac-to-date" total because the adjust

ment entry, with its zero amount, does

not affect the year-to-date totaL

A. FULL NAME, MAILING ADDRESS 4l/f'WOE PUAP/JSflEVEHT DAn TOTAL AMQl/Nf FEOERAl SHARE NON·FEOERAL

Adjustment to re~lect SHARE

revised ratio applied 7-16-92 0 -$3,000 $3,000

retroactively from (traJ,lsfer

1/1/91--7L15/92 date)

CATEGORY: 81 AOMINISTAATIIJENOTER DRIVE o FUNORAlSING U EXEMPT

EVENT YEAR·TODATE: S o DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT

5
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

'. PUBLIC FUNOING

Republicans

Patrick Buchanan $ 263,303 s 3,140,803

George Bush 1,329,418 6,114,606

Democrats

LarryAgran 100, ODOlf 100,000

Jerry Brown 1,669,742- 3,686,787

Bill Clinton $1,089,690 5,330,339

Tom Harkin~/ 42,313 1,852,808

Bob Kerrey2/ 55,584 1,839,264

Paul Tsongas2/ 935,972 2,378,918

Douglas Wilder~/ c 289,027

New Alliance Party

Lenora Fulani 134,724 1,309,053

Total. $5,620,745 $28,041,605

JUNE JIIA'l'CBING FUND P1OO!EN1'S

on May 21 and 28, the Commission certified a total of $5.6 Rdllion in matching

fund payments to 1992 Presidential candidates. The U.S. Treasury made the payments

early in June. As of the June payment,

primary candidates had received $28 ndllion

in matching funds, as shown in the table.

Candidates have requested almost $3.4 million for the July payment.

candidates who withdraw from the race

or who fail to receive at least 10 percent

of the vote in two consecutive primaries

may still receive matching funds to wind

down thei.: campaigns and to retire debts

incurred before the date on which they

became ineligible for matching funds.

Volume 18,Number 7

GEPBNU1l' ccmu'l"l'EE:

FINAL REPAYMENl' NIJUNT

On May 21, the Conunission made a final

determination that the Gephardt for President committee, Inc., must repay $118,944

in primary matching funds to the U.S.

Tre~su["y. The repayment represents the pro

rata portion!/ of $452,544, the anKnnlt the

commission det.ermined was paid in excess of

the rowe expenditure limit. The Conunittee

had received $3.4 million in primary matching funds for the 1988 Presidential campaign.

In the final audit report on the

Gephardt Conunittee, the agency had made an

initial determination that the committee's

excess spending totaled $480,849. The

final determination reduced that amount by

$28,305.

The agency decreased the amount of

medi;:;t ~)(pcnses allocable to the Iowa limit

by $24,490. This reduction was made in

considsration of the Committee'S written

response to audit report findings and the

Corrmittee's oral presentation on the fiOOings.2/ The remaining reductions were

based-on additiona! documentation submitted

by the Commi t.tee , In a statement of reasons 5~pporting

the final repayment determination, the

conmission noted that a future addendwn to

the final audit report; nay include additional expenses in excess of the Iowa

limit, which would increase the repayment

eeount , Furthermore, the Committee may

have received matching funds above the

amount needed to retire its debts, in which

case it would have to repay the difference.

The final audit report and the statement of reasons are available in the Public

Records Office.

cumulative

Payment

""""

Total

July 1992

Matching Fund payments

l,IMr. Agran's payment was certified on May

21. The other payments were certified on

May 28.

2/These candidates have withdrawn from the

Presidential race. Governor Wilder withdrew on January 8, senator Kerrey on March

6, Senator Harkin on March 9 and former

Senator Tsongas on March 19.

lA ratio formula is used to calculate what

portion of the excessive expenditures

represented the payment of public funds as

opposed to private contributions. That

amount-the pro rata portion-is Subject to

repayment.

2The Comrodttee addressed the Commission in

a November 6, 1991, open session.

6
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

July 1992

ADVISORY OPINIC»{ mtlUESTS

Recent requests for advisory opinions

(AORs) are listed below. The full text of

each ADR is available for review and comment in the FEe's Public Records Office.

J\OR 1992-18

CaAPaign's use of property jointly owned by

candidate and spouse. (Requested by

Congressman Richard Ray; Date Made Public:

May 21 1 1992; Length: 7 pages)

AOR 1992-19

Federal cempaiqn-e lease of computers

purchased with prohibited funds by state

campaign. (Requested by the Mike Kreidler

for Congress Committee; Date Made Public:

June 2, 1992; Length: 6 pages)

Am 1992-20

Checks payable to SSF by corporate members

of connected organization used for administration of SSF. (Requested by American

Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Date

Made Public: June 5, 1992; Length: 2

pages)

/\OR 1992-21

Oonation of campaign funds to National Fund

for u.s. Botanical Garden. (Requested by

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan; Date Made

Public~ June 5, 1992; Length: 5 pages

plus lO-page attachment)

ADa 1992-22

For-profit enterprise by individual to sell

T-shirts bearing her original candidate

slogan. (Requested by Robin Langer; Date

Made Public: June 11, 1992; Length: 4

pages)

NJR 1992-23

Use of corporate funds to pay for media ads

on record of Congressman seeking reelection. (Requested on behalf of National

Rifle Assocication's Political Victory

Fund; Date Made Public: June 12, 1992;

Length: 11 pages)

7

Volume 18 Numb

AIJVISORY OPlNIaf SUMfIIARlES

AD 1992-12: Candidate's Personal Use and

suture OWnecshi.p of

campaign van

During his campaign for re-election,

Congressman Larry LaRocco may. on occasio

make personal use of a van leased by the

teaccco for Congress campaign; as long a

he reimburses the commdttee from his

personal funds for use of the van, this

arrangement will not result in the candi

date's personal use of campaign funds,

which is prohibited under 2 u.s.c. §439a

(His committee should report the reimbur

ments as "other receipts. ") AD 1984-59.

For similar reasons, Mr. LaRocco may

assume full personal use of the van afte

the November 1992 election, when he will

substitute his name on the bank note in

place of the coromdttee's name and begin

making payments on the lease from his

personal foods. When the three-year lea

expires, Mr. LaRocco will own the van.

This is a permissible arrangement assumin

that the bank is making its u~ual and no

mal charge for the leasing transaction an

that, when the lease is transferred to h

name, Mr. LaRocco will reimburse his co~

mittee a portion of any charges paid to 

cure the lease, such as a security depos

Moreover, if the lease provides for a di

counted purchase price, he may have to p

the coaattitee a portion of the discount.

Any tax laws or House rules that mig

apply to the proposed activity are outsid

the Commission's jurisdiction. (Date

Issued: May 15, 1992; Length: 3 pages)

NJ 1992-14: candidate's Designation of

Excess campaign Funds in Ev

of His Death

Because the federal campaign finance law

does not limit the time when excess campaign funds may be distributed, ccneresss

Dan Burton may issue instructions on the

future use of excess funds in the event o

his death.

Mr. Burton's proposal to donate his

campaign'S excess funds to a nonprofit,

tax-exempt charitable foundation is a

permissible use of excess campaign funds

under 2 U.S.C. §439a. That provision

specifically permits excess funds to be

donated to a charity described in 26 U.S

§170(c). Because excess campaign funds m

also be used "for any other lawful purpose, II the funds may be donated to the

foundation even if it does not qualify as

as §170(c) charity. In that case, howev

(continue
JUly 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7

the designation could have adverse federal

tax consequences.

'l'he opinion did not address the prohibition on the conversion of excess fW1ds to

the can.didate's personal use since Mr. Burton stated that his personal estate would

not receive any financial benefit from the

foundation.

Payments to the foundation would be

reportable by the c~ign committee as

"othe r disbursements." The Commission did

not express an opinion on the application

of any tax law or other state or federal

law ootside the FEC's jUrisdiction. (Date

Issued: May 15, 1992; Length: 3 pages)

FEe v. WRIGllT

On November 12, 1991, a u.s. district

court ordered James C. Wright, Jr., fo~r

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to answer the FEC's questions in

connection with an adBUnistrative complaint

filed against him. The court also ordered

Mr. wright to pay the FEe'S court costs.

(U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Texas, Fort worth Division,

Civil Action No. 4-91-0542-A.)

The fOrnler Speaker appealed tl\€ judgment on January 9, 1992. Howeve r , .he later

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as

moot since he and the FEe had reached a

settlement with respect to the administrative complaint (MUR 2649). The FEe did not

object to the motion, and on May I, 1992,

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit dismissed the appeal. (Civil

Action No. 92-1033.)

Background

In July 1988, citizens for Reagan filed

an admJnisttative complaint alle9ing that

Speaker wright violated 2 U.S.C. §441i.

That provision, now repealed, prohibited a

federal officeholder from accepting mote

than a $2,000 honorarium for a speech,

appearance or article. The complaint

specifically alleged that Speaker Wright,

during 1985 and 1986, accepted excessive

honoraria disguised as proceeds from the

sale of his book, Reflections of a Public

Man. In January 1990, the c01lItIission foUnd

reason to believe Me. Wr:ight had Violated

S44li and opened an investigation into the

matter. When he refused to comply with an

FEe order seeking answers to questions

about his appearances and the sale of his

8

book , the agency asked the district court

to enforce the order.

Distcict court Decision

In its November 12, 1991, jUdgment,l/

the court concluded that the FEC's order

complied with a three-pronged test for

validity: the investi9o.tion was for a

lawful purpose; the information sought was

relevant; and the agency's demand was

reasonable. The court therefore ordered

Mr. Wright to answer the FEe's questions.

In reaching its decision, the court considered but rejected Mr. wright's arguments,

which challenged the FEe's authority to

investigate his activities.

(Mr. Wright also filed a motion asking

the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing

that, with the eepeal of 54411 in August

1991, the FEe lost jurisdiction to bring

the action. on october 16, 1991, for the

reasons discussed below, the court denied

Mr. Wright's motion.)

Speech or Debate Clause. Fortner

Speaker Wright relied on the speech or

debate clause in the Constitution for

several of his arguments. The clause

states that "for any Speech or Debate in

either House, they [Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other

place." Article I, Section 6.

Mr. Wright contended that the clause

nullified the FEe's authority to seek

answers to questions on activities that

took place when he was a House Member. The

court, however, found that the clause did

not apply to the FEC's questions, which

concerned activities tha~ occurred "outside, and away from, the House" and which

were trtotally unrelated to anything done in

the course of the legislative process.•.•ll

Mr. Wright also argued that the rEC

violAted the clause bec~use, in deciding to

pursue an investigation, the agency relied

on "speech or debate" material, namely, a

report prepared by an outside counsel at

the request of the House Corranittee on

Standards of Official Conduct when that

body was investigating the sale of the

Speaker's book. The court rejected the

argument, p:>inting out that the report

lacked any "speech or debate" content but

merely contained findings related to the

Speaker's financial affairs. Moreover, the

court said that the relevant findings in

the report (i.e .• his alleged circumvention

of the honoraria limit) were "independent

of anything that occurred in any kind of

House proceeding."

lReported at 777 F.Supp. 525.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

JUly 1992

The former Speaker again invoked the

speech or debate clause with respect to his

testimony before the House committee,

arguing that the clause immunized him from

having to answer the FEC's questions on the

same matters. However, because he testified before the Committee "in his capacity

as a 'lI1itness and not in his legislative

capacity," the court found no merit to this

argurrent

Finally. he argued that the constitution's s&lf-discipline clause, when read

with the speech or debate clause, effectively allocated to the HOuse the sole

author.i ty to enforce violations of the

honorarium limit by Members. The selfdiscipline clause states, in part: "Each

House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings [andl punish its Members for disorderly Behavior•..• " Article I, Section

5. The couet rejected this argument for

two reasons. First, it "is tantamount to a

contention that the relevant provisions of

the Act are unconstitutional." second, it

"fails to recognize that the standards of

conduct and rules of enforcement found in

the Act are, indeed, self-disciplinary

rules-the combined votes of the two Houses

ceeated the statutory provisions.in

question."

Repeal of S441i. In another line of

argument, Mr. Wright claimed that the FEe

no longer had authority to investigate or

enforce §441i because of recent legislation: The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (effective January 1, 1991), which prohibited

House Members from accepting honoraria and

amended §44li to remove House Members trom

its scope; and the repeal of §441i later

that year, on August 14.

The court first noted that the Ethics

Reform Act effectively repealed §441i

insofar as it applied to House Members.

The court went on to point out that, if

Congress had intended to elimJnate the

FEe's authority to enforce §441i violations

occurring before the repeal, the legislation would have expressed that intent.

"Thus, to this day, p the court stated,

"§44li is deemed to be in full force and

effect as to any conduct of Wright occurring before the date of its repeal."

9

Volume 18, Numbe

WHITE v, ax:;

On April 24, 1992, the u.s. District

Court for the Western Distdct of pennsy

vania granted the FEC's motion to dismis

this case based on the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which

the court adopted as its opinion. (Civi

Action No. 91-1201.)

William D. White challenged the

constitutionality of 11 CFR 110.11(~),

which penni ts candidates (except those

receiving public funding1/) to make

unlimited contributions of personal fund

to their own campaigns. Mr. White claim

that the rule violated the equal protect

provision of the Fifth Amendment by

conferring a privilege on candidates tha

is denied to other citizens. He sought 

order compelling candidates to pay a

penalty in the amount of their excessive

contributions. He also sought a prelim

nary injunction barring candidates from

making contributions to thefr own campa

in excess of $1,000. The court denied t

rrot Lon on Au9Ust 26, 1991.

In ruling on the issues, the court

pointed out that the Supreme Court uphA

the challenged provision in Buckl~

vateo , In that case, the High Court rec

nized that "the use of personal funds

reduces the candidate's dependence on

outside contributions and thereby count

acts the coercive pressures and attendan

risks of abUse to which the (Federal Ele

tion Campaign] Act's contribution limita

tions ere directed." The district court

also cited California Medical Associatio

v , FEC, in which the Supreme Court held

thaI~he di&~rities in the Act's contri

tion provisions do not violate equal

protection rights.

Because the supreme Court has alread

ruled on the issue raised. by Mr. White, 

district court found that there was no n

to certify his constitutional challenge

pursuant to 2 u.s.c. S437h.~/ The cour

therefore granted the FEC's motion to d

miss based on plaintiff's failure to sta

a claim for which relief may be granted

(Litigation continu

1presidentiaJ candid~te~ who receive pu

funds are subject to a $50,000 limit on

contributions to their own campaigns.

2Thi s provision provides for review of

constitutional issues: the u.s. distric

court immediately certifies to the U.S.

court of appeals all questions of the

constitutionality of the federal Electio

Campaign Act.
JUly 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7

cash

Disburse- on

Beceipts ment.s Band Debt5

15-Un'B lCrIVIT'l OF HATICIW. PMlY

COMMITTEES~l/ 1992 ELECTI"Qi cYCLE

(BUllions of dollars)

Federal Activity

T;able lists aggregate activity, as of

March 31, 1992, of the three national-level

committees of each party (the national

committee and the House and Senate canpaign

committees) .

$1.6

$6.3

s 3.2 sr.7

$12.6 $1.5

$ 9.3

$19.2

$28.6

$87.8

Disburse-- <:ash

Receipts ments on Hand

$10.2

$26.1

Nonfederal ACtivity

National Party ActiVity

As shown below, the national Republican

party committees raised and spent more than

the Democratic national comrnittoes by a

wide margin during the first 15 months of

the 1992 election cycle. The t<tble is

based on the May 17 press release, which

provides more detailed data on national

party committees.

oe.ocratic $ 30.0

Bepublican $101.5

DeDloctatic

Republican

Hou6e and senate CCDlpaigns

The Kay 10 release on 1992 candidate

activity provides the following statistics:

o A detailed summary of 1992 "ouse and

Senate campaigns broken down. by political

party affiliation and candidate status

(incumbent, challenger, open seat);

o A IS-month comparison of House and Senate

activity for the 1992, 1990 and 19B8

election cycles;

o Six-year summaries of current Senate

candidates;

o A financial profile of candidates 1n each

House r ~ce; and

o Rankings of House and senate candidates

in terms of their: overall receipts,

contributions from individuals, contributions ftom PACs, disbursements, cash on

hand and debts.

The graphs on page 11 compet.re 15-month

median receipts and cash on hand for House

candidates over three election cycles.

ACTIVITY OF CMDIM.'l'FS .AND PARTY (lllIfiT!'EES

'l"HIO.GI IWlCH 31, 1992

The press office recently relea~d

campaign finance statistics on the financial activity of national party committees

and 1992 Congressional campaigns. The

releases cover activity as of March 31,

1992, which encompasses the first 15 months

of the 1992 election cycle. aoth press

releases may be ordered from the Public

Records Office; call 800/424-9530 (ask for

Public Records) or 202/219-4140.

FEe v. America's PAC

The FEe asks the court to find that

America's PAC, cegistered as a state cammittee, and its executive director and

actin9 treasurer violated several provisions of the law based on the following

claims:

1. Having received an earmarked contribution from Physicians IntecindemnityjPAC

(PI/PAC, also a state committee), America'S

PAC altered the notation on the check from

"Bill Press for U.S. Senate" to ~political

contribution" and then deposit.ed it. By

failing to forward the earmarked contribution to the Press corrmcittee, and by failing

to provide the committee and the FEe with

required information on the contribution,

defendants violated 2 U.S.C. §432{b),

2. The conversion of the $2,000 contribution from an earmarked contribution to a

contribution to America's PAC caused the

PAC to become a federal political cOMmittee

under §431 (4HAl, with attendant registration and reporting obligations. Defendants

never fulfilled those Qbligations, in

violation of 55433 and 434.

3. Because the PI/pAC contribution contained corporate funds, the conversion of

the contribution al~ caused defendants to

violate §441b(a) by knowingly accepting a

prohibited contribution.

The FEe asks the court to:

o Order defendants to refund the $2,000

contribution to PljPAC;

o Order them to file a Statement of Organization and all outstanding reports;

o Assess a civil penalty a9ainst them; and

o Pe~ently enjoin them from further

similar violations of the Act.

U.S. oistrict Court for the Central

District of california, Civil ~ction No.

92-2747 (JMI); May 6, 1991.

10
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

July 1992

House Campaigns:1

Median Receipts and Cash on Hand

First 15 Months of Election Cycle 2

Chart I

Incumbents 3

Thousands

$250 ,-----.~------------

Democrats

) I Receipts

_ Cash on Hand

Republicans

_ Receipts

_ Cash on Hand

Volume 18, Numb

Chart II

Challengers 3

Thousands

$30 ---~--------

$60...------------------

Chartm

Open Seat Candidates 3

Thousand$

1988

1990 1988

1992 1990

1992

a

o

$10

$20

$30

$20 L..-.--..-..-

$10

$40

$50 ~---____l

1992 1990 1968

o

$50

$100

$2001------------,

$150

1 These charts reflectthe activity of Housecampaigns that reported raisJng somemoney before March31 of the ele

year.

An electioncyclecovers a two-year period: the year beforethe electionyear and tl1e election year. These charts 

activity as of March31 of the election year, that is, 15 months into the election cycle.

3N:lle the difference in scales between Chart I and Cna-ts II and III.

11
July 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18,Number 7

FEe PUBLISHES l'lOOFILEBS

The Commission recently cited the committees of the candidates listed below for

failing to file reports. The names of

authorized conmnttees that fail to file

reports are pubaished pursuant to 2 u.s.c.

§438(a)(1). Enforcement actions against

nonfilers are pursued on a case-by-case

basis.

MURS RELEl\SED TO THE PUBLIC

Listed below are MURs (FEe enforceaent

cases) recently released for public review.

the list is based on the FEe press release

of May 11 and 22 and June I, 1992. Files

on closed MURs are available for revie~ in

the Public Records Office.

unless otherwise noted, civil penalties

resulted from conciliation agreements

reached between the respondents and the

Commission.

JIIUR 2768

Resporxlents (all in NO): (a) North Dakota

Btdte Republican Federal Account, YVonne M.

Kroll, treasurer (NO); (b) Strinden for

U.S. Senate, Donald Miller, treasurer;

(e) Earl S. Strinden

Ccaplalrumt: George Gaukler, Chairman,

North Dakota Democratic NPL Party

Subject: EXcessive coordinated expenditures and contributions

Disposition: (a) $7,500 civil penalty;

(b)-(cl No reason to believe

FINM. IWDIT REPORTS Rl!LFA5m

Listed below, in chronological order,

are the final audit reports released by the

Commission between January and May 1992.

The FEe is required to audit Presidential and convention coromittees that

received public funds. In addition, the

Commission may audit any committee whose

reports indicate that the committee has not

met threshold requirements for substantial

compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act. 2 U.S.C. S438(b).

Copies of audit reports are available

for review in the Public Records Office and

may be ordered from th~t office. Call

800/424-9530 (ask for Public Records) or

202/219-4140.

Riverside County Republican Central

Coomittee

Date Released: January 2, 1992

Length: 7 pages

IlUrray for congress

Date Released: January 2, 1992

Length: 2 pages

Bt.lb Allen for COngress

Date Released: January 21, 1992

Length: 2 pages

GeOrge Bush for President CCIIIni.ttee, Inc.

Date Released: February 24, 1992

Length: S9 pages

cardino '88

Date Released: March 51 1992

Length: 10 pages

Enron Political Action Coamitt:ce

Date Released: March 31, 1992

Length: 4 pages

koedeatlS for: Robertson, Inc.

Date Released: April 15, 1992

Length: 63 pages plus at.tachnents

candidate

Taylor

Posner

McCuen

Orton

office

Sought

House-ALj07

House-CA,lSl

House-AIV04

House-UTj03

Report Not

Filed

Pte-Primary

Pre-Primary

Pre-Runoff

Pre-Convention

Jesse Jackson for President '88 Coumittee;

Jesse Jackson for President 'SB Com:ni.ttee--

california; New Yorkers for Jesse Jackson

Date Released: Apdl 22, 1992

Length: 33 pages plus attachments

12

flI.IR 2797

Respondents (all in AL): (a) Alabama

6ducation Associationj (bl Perkins &

Associates, Inc.; (e) Joseph W. Perkins;

(d) Harry H. Ferguson, Jr.; fe} Cynthia K.

Perkins; (f) Ivy Hunter; (g) Fred Hunter;

(h) W. Lee IhIdson; (i) Fred DeLoach;

(j) Laurie Enslen; (k) Shed Arnold Brown;

(1) Joyce Miller Albright; (m) Grover Gene

Hillf (n) Daniel Mark Perkins; {c) Loretta

T. Perkins
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

July 1992

Caaplainant: Referral by Department of

Justice

Subject: Contributions in the names of

others; corporate contributions

Disposition: (a) No probable cause to

believe; (b) reason to believe but took no

further action; (el $5,000 civil penalty;

(dl $5,000 civil penalty (e) $400 civil

penalty; (f) $400 civil penalty; (g) $400

civil penalty; (h) reason to believe but

took no further action; (i) reason to believe but took no further action; (j) $350

civil penalty; (k) $300 civil penalty;

(1) $400 civil penalty; (m) no probable

cause to believe; (n) reason to believe but

took no further action; (0) reason to believe but took no further action

KUR 3085

Respondents: {a} Democratic Study Group

Campaign Fund, William H. Hagan, treasurer

(DC); (b) Heublein, Inc. (CT); (c) Transcontinental Pipe Line Corporation (Tit);

(d) The National Education Association of

the united States (DC)

Complainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Corporate and labor contributions; disclaimer

Disposition: fa) $450 civil penalty;

(b) and (c) reason to believe but took no

further action; (d) $1,000 civil penalty

JroR 3124

Respondents: fa) The Atlanta '88 Committee, rnc., M.ichael Lomax, treasurer (GA);

(b) Production Arts Lighting, Inc. (NY);

(c) pro-Mix, Inc. (N:!); (d) Kimball Audio

Visual (TX); (e) First National Bank of

Atlanta (now known as Wachovia Bank of

Georgia, N.A.); (f) ci tfbenk, N.A. (NY)

canp1ainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Contributions by a national bank;

contributions to convention committee from

outside metropolitan statistical area

Dicposition: fa) Reason to believe but

took no further action; (b)-(d) took no

action; (e)-(f) reason to believe but took

no further action

MOB. 3148

Respondents (all in NY): (a) 'mrov the

Rascals Out, Dennis G. wedra, treasurer;

(b) Commdttee of 100 Democrats, DOminick A.

Fusco, treasurerj (c) Dominick A. Fusco;

(d) Stefan Miller

Coraplainant: Arnold Linhardt, on behalf of

Engel for Congress (NY)

SUbject: Excessive contributions; failure

to disclose contributions; improper authorized commdttee name; disclaimer

Disposition: (a) $3,500 civil penalty;

(b) $900 civil penalty; (c) $250 civil

penalty; (d) $1,300 civil penalty

13

Volume 18, Numb

JIlUR 3205

Respondents: Oklahoma Leadership counci

C. Wesley Lane II, treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to disclose expenses

properly; failure to allocate administra

tion expenses

Disposition: (1) $900 civil penalty (di

closure); (2) no probable cause to believ

(allocation)

MlJR 3208

Respondents: Senate Committee for Bo

Thomas, Margaret S. Thomas, treasurer (N

COmplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file ca-ncer notice

Disposition: $7,500 civil penalty

MlJR 3211

Respondents: The LaRouche Democratic Ca

petqn (1988 Presidential committee) , Edw

Spannaus, treasurer (VA)

Caaplainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Excessive contribUtions; expen

tures in excess of state limits

Disposition: (1) $1,500 civil penalty

(excessive contributions); (2) no probab

cause to believe (state limits)

MUR 3256

Respondents: Alexander Campaign coenttte

Julis R. Smith, treasurer (AR)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour notice

Disposition: $5,850 civil penalty

MlJR 3321/3142/2857/2832

Respondents: Republican party of Dade

County (FL)

Complainant; fEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file reports on tim

failure to amend Statement of Organizatio

on time

Disposition: $2.000 civil penalty

I'I1JR 3373

Respondents: united Association Local 7

Pipefitters-Air Conditioning political

Action Committee, Eric S. Johnson, treas

urer (FL)

complainant: FEC- initiated

Subject: Failure' to file reports on tim

Disposition; $353 civil penalty

lllUR 3425

Respondents (all in GA): (a) Coverdell

Senate Committee, Marvin S~th, treasure

(b) Paul D. Coverdell; (c) Breakfast Clu

Explorers and treasurer

Complainant; David E. Stahl, Campaign

Director, Georgians for Bob Barr - u. S.

Senate

(continue
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

7/13 Atlantic and Pacific Exchange

Washington, DC

Chaiman Joan D. Aikens

Michael Dickerson, Public

Records

7/20-24 Conference of Canadian

Election Officials

Whitehorse, YUkon

Chai rman Joan Aikens

John Surina, Staff Director

1/10 American university

washington. DC

Greg Scott, Information

Services

Michael Dickerson, Public

Records

Volume 18, Number 7

International Center

Washington, DC

Louise Wides, Information

Services

William Kimberling, Clearinghouse on Election Administration

Michael Dickerson, Public

Records

7;21

PllBLlC APl'EAlWICES

7/1 Georgetown University

washington, DC

Michael Dickerson, Public

Records

Dorothy Hutcheon, Information

Services

July 1992

I'IllR 3500

Respondents: (a) Brown for president,

Jodie Evans, treasurer (CAl; (bl Garry B.

Trudeau; (c) universal Press syndicate

(MO), (d) Raleigh News & Observer (OC)

complainant: J. Edgar Williams (NC)

Subject: Excessive and corporate

contributions

Di8p)sition: (a)-(d) No reason to believe

JlIUB 3490

Respondents: (a) Executive Office of the

president, The White House (DC); (b) Citizens for Arlen Specter, Stephen J. Harmelin, treasurer (PA)

Complainant: Eric Bradway {PAl

Subject: Use of government facilities

Disposition: (a)-(b) No reason to believe

SUbject: Failur~ to register and repoct

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe but

took no further action; (b) no reason to

believe; (e) reason to believe but took no

further action

7(30 Institute of Alternative

Journalism

Seattle, Washington

Kent Cooper, Public Disclosure

14
•

July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

- . . .. . ;

<INDEX

Volume 18, Numbe

•

••

'!he first number in each

citation refers to the "number"

jfl101lth) of the 1992 Record

issue in which the article

appeared; the second number,

following the colon, indicates

the page rnseber in that issue.

ADYIlUlY OP1NIQG

1991-29: Contributions received

and Jll2lde by corporation's

employee pledge program, 1: 4

1991-32: Charges for consultant's fundraising services,

5t6

1991-33: Allocation of expenses

when party conunittee administers primary election, 1:6

1991-34: committee sale of

access to voter data base as

or.going venturE, 1:6

1991-35: Application of allocation rules when SSF's nantedeIal account pays its own

administrative expenses, 2:10

1991-36: coqporation'5 payment

of employee's travel expenses

to attend party fundraiser,

3:5

1991-37: Nonconnected PAC's

plIyment to incorporated fi r'Jl

for shared facilities and

services contributed to comrdtteas, 3:5

1991-36: Repayment of embezzled

funds to candidate comDlttee,

3:6

1991-39: Contributions suspected of being made in oanes

of others, 4:9

1992-1: campaign salary paid to

candidate; reimbursements for

caJlIpaign expenses, 4:9

1992-2: party reallocation of

staff salaries as fundraising

expenses, 4:10

1992-3: Corporation's payment

of benefits for emplo~e/

candidate on unpaid leave,

5:8

1992-4: Campaign's payment of

candidate's living expenses

and spouse's salary, 4:10

1992-5: candidate's appearance in cable public affairs

programs, 5:8

1992-6: Honorarium paid to

candidate for: speech en campaign issues, 4:11

1992-1: corporate PAC's $olicitotion of friWlchise personnel, 6:4

1992-6: Tax seminars as fundraising IlIechanism, 5:8

1992-9: cooperative's twiceyearly solicitation through

raffle at annual meeting,

6:5

1992-10: committee's disbursement to nonptof!t voter

ocqanization, 6:5

1992-11: computer-generated

SUl'l1l!lary page and detailed

SUllIllary page, 6:6

1992-12: Candidate's future

ownership of campaigll van.

1:1

1992-14: candidate'S designation of excess ClmPaign funds

in event of his death, 1:7

""'" Cl\SES l'EC v. ---=--Ns~POj 1:7 - America'S ~AC, 7:10

- NRA political Victory Fu

1:7 - Populist Party (92-0674)

5:9

- Schaefer, Friends of, 6:

- wright, 7:8

v, l'EC

--=-Akins, 1:8, 3:7

- BranGtool, 3:6 - Common CAuse (91 2914). 

- common cause (92-0249), 

- Preeda. Republicans, Inc 

~:7; 6:7 - LaRoudhe, 4:8 - Nntional Rifle Associati

Of America (NEA) (69-30

4:8 -

- Schaefer, 6:6

- SE§nnaus, 6:6

- 'J'nnsel'. 3:7

-~. 1:9

lW'OIUlNG

pre-primary reporting dates - Correction. AX, 7:16

- Correction. OR, SC, 5:9 - Rouse and Senate. 1:14 - Presidential, 2:10; 3:10

Schedule for 1992, 1:10; 3:8

6:2

SPJ!NDlN3 LIIU'l'S FOR 1992

COordinated party, 3:1

Presidential, 3:14

60G-LDm Am'lCLES

Compliance with laws outside

FBC's jurisdiction. 3:12

Contributions: receipt and

deposit, 6:10

t.ast-minute contributions: 4

hour notices required, 1:18

Registr!ltion by candidates an

their comndttees, 2:12

,,~.s. Goverc.ment Pdntlng Of fico , 19n - 312_0)4/4oJ013 15
July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7

and Senate nominees. (These conventioas

are being held from July 20 though July

25, with the exception noted below. rOt

specific convention dates as we~l ~s

reporting dates, call the FEe.)

ALMKA PR1l'IARY M'1'E <lIAN:iW

The date of the Alaska primary has been

changed from August 25 to September 8. The

pre-election reporting datQs that appea~ed

in the January issue have therefore been

changed. The revised reporting dates are

shown below.

Alaska primary, septE!Ptler 8

JULy 15 QlJUn'ERLy I<EPIJM': WAIVERS

The second quartet: report., due July 15,

is waiv~d if the committee is cequired to

file a pte-election report during the

pedod July 5 throu9h .July 15. see 11 eFR

l04.5(a){1)(iii)(Cl and (c)(l)(i}{C).

The pre-election reports listed below

have filing dates that fall within the July

5-15 period. TherefOte, committees

required to file one of these reports do

not have to file the July 15 quarterly

report. Commi ttees should be sure, howeverf to file the pre-election report on

time.

D GeOrgia Primary: The pre-primary report

for the .July 21 primary. (Filing date:

July 9; registered/certified mailing

date: July 6.)

o Connecticut Conventions: Pre-convention

reports for the Democratic and Repub- lican~1 conventions held to elect House

Close of

Books

August 19

ReCJ·/Cert. 1

Mailing Date

August 24

Filing

Date

August 27

lException: The waiver does not apply to

the 4th Congressional oisc.ict Republican

convention on July 11, since the preconvention report is due on June 29 (registered/certified maiLing date is June 26).

lReports sent by registered or certified

mail must be postmarked by the rnailin<J

date; otherwise, they must be received by

the filing date.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

sw sw

BulkRate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31