November 2001 Federal Election Commission Volume 27, Number 11

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Use of the Internet in Federal

Elections

3 Definition of “Political

Committee” Rulemaking held in

Abeyance

Court Cases

1 Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc. v. FEC

3 Federal Register

5 Advisory Opinions

Outreach

5 Regional Conference in San

Francisco for Candidates, Parties

and PACs

5 Public Appearances

5 FEC Announces Spring

Conference Schedule

Administrative Fines

6 Committees Fined for Nonfiled

and Late Reports

Alternative Dispute Resolution

7 ADR Update

Information

7 FEC Expands Acceptance of

Credit Cards

7 Index

Compliance

Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on Use of the

Internet in Federal Elections

On September 27, 2001, the

Commission approved a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

seeking comments on proposed

regulations concerning the use of

the Internet for campaign-related

activities.1

 The proposed rules

would address:

• Campaign-related Internet activity

conducted by individuals; and

• Hyperlinks and endorsement press

releases placed on web sites

established by corporations and

labor organizations.

The NPRM was published in the

October 3, 2001, Federal Register

(66 FR 50358) and is open to public

comments until December 3, 2001.

Internet Activity by Individuals

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) exempts from the

definition of contribution certain

individual volunteer activities. 2

U.S.C. §431(B)(ii). The CommisRegulations

1

 On November 5, 1999, the Commission published a Notice of Inquiry

seeking comments on a wide range of

issues related to the use of the Internet

for campaign activity. 64 FR 60360.

Virginia Society for Human

Life, Inc. v. FEC

On September 17, 2001, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit upheld a district court

decision that 11 CFR 100.22(b) is

unconstitutional. The regulation

defines “express advocacy” as a

communication that, when taken as

a whole and with limited reference

to external events (such as proximity to an election), can only be

interpreted by a reasonable person

as unambiguously advocating the

election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate.1

The appeals court, however,

found that the district court’s

Court Cases

1

 The FEC adopted the regulation at 11

CFR 100.22(b) based on its reading of

the Ninth Circuit’s decision in FEC v.

Furgatch, in which the court concluded

that “speech need not include any of

the words listed in Buckley [v. Valeo,

such as “vote for,” “elect,” “support,”

“cast your ballot for,” “Smith for

Congress,” “vote against,” etc.] to be

express advocacy under the [Federal

Election Campaign] Act, but it must,

when read as a whole, and with limited

reference to external events, be susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation

but as an exhortation to vote for or

against a specific candidate.”

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 3)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2001

2

sion proposes to clarify the status of

individual Internet activity for the

purpose of this exemption by adding

new section 11 CFR 117.1, which

would describe Internet activities

not considered contributions or

expenditures. Proposed section

117.1 would state that no contribution or expenditure would result

when an individual used computer

equipment, software, Internet

services or Internet domain names

for the purposes of influencing a

federal election so long as the

individual:

• Received no compensation; and

• Personally owned the computer

equipment, software, Internet

services and Internet domain

names.

For the purposes of the proposed

regulation, Internet services personally owned by the individual would

include Internet access and web

hosting services provided by an

Internet service provider (ISP). The

ISP must, however, provide such

services as part of an agreement

between the ISP and the individual

acting in his or her capacity as an

individual.2

 The proposed exceptions would not apply to equipment,

services or software owned by an

individual’s employer, even if the

individual used them as part of

volunteer activity conducted on his

or her own time.3

Under the proposed exceptions at

section 117.1, the costs associated

with the Internet activities described

above would not count toward the

individual’s contribution limits and

would not be independent expenditures. Individuals would not be

required to disclose these costs

when they exceeded $250 in a

calendar year, nor would they be

required to include disclaimer

statements. 2 U.S.C. §§434(c) and

441d. See also 11 CFR 109.2, 109.3

and 110.11. The exceptions would

apply whether or not the

individual’s activities were known

to or coordinated with any candidate, authorized committee or party

committee. See 11 CFR 100.23.

Hyperlinks on Corporate and

Labor Organization Web Sites

The Act prohibits corporations

and labor unions from making

contributions or expenditures to

influence federal elections. 2 U.S.C.

§441b. Proposed section 11 CFR

117.2 would exempt from the

definitions of contribution and

expenditure the establishment and

maintenance of a hyperlink from the

web site of a corporation or labor

organization to the web site of a

candidate or party committee. The

web site may be accessible to the

general public, and the corporation

or labor union may selectively

provide hyperlinks to a candidate,

political committee or political party

without providing hyperlinks to any

opposing candidate, committee or

party.

However, three conditions must

be met in order for the hyperlink to

be exempted:

1. The corporation or labor union

must not charge for providing a

hyperlink to other organizations,

or must charge only a nominal

amount.

2. The hyperlink may not be a

coordinated general public

political communication under

11 CFR 100.23.

3. The hyperlink may not be

anchored to an image or graphic

material that expressly advocates

the election or defeat of any

candidate. Similarly, the text

surrounding the hyperlink may

not contain express advocacy. 11

CFR 100.22. The exemption

still applies, however, if the

hyperlink is anchored to the text

of the URL of a candidate’s or

party committee’s web site, and

the text of the URL expressly

advocates the election or defeat

of a federal candidate.

Endorsement Press Releases on

Corporate and Labor

Organization Web Sites

Under the current regulations,

corporations and labor unions may

publicly announce their endorsement of candidates through press

releases and press conferences so

long as the disbursements for these

2

 The individual’s use of servers,

storage devices and other equipment

owned by the ISP and made available

to the individual as part of the agreement would also be covered by the

exception, regardless of where the

equipment was physically located.

3

 Note that if the use of a corporation’s

or labor organization’s computer

facilities is “occasional, isolated or

incidental,” no contribution or expenditure from the corporation or labor

organization would result so long as the

individual reimbursed the corporation or

labor organization for any associated

increase in overhead or operating costs.

11 CFR 114.9(a) and (b).

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

David M. Mason, Vice Chairman

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Bradley Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Acting Assistant

 Staff Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Regulations

(continued from page 1)
November 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

activities are de minimis (very

small). The press release and notice

of the press conference must be

distributed only to the representatives of the news media that the

corporation or labor organization

ordinarily contacts for non-political

purposes. 11 CFR 111.4(c)(6).

The Commission proposes adding

new section 117.3 to address

endorsement press releases on

corporate and labor organization

web sites. The new section would

allow a corporation or labor organization to make a press release

announcing a candidate endorsement available to the general public

on its web site provided that four

conditions were met:

1. The corporation or labor organization ordinarily made press

releases available to the general

public on its web site;

2. The press release was limited to

an announcement of the endorsement and a statement of the

reasons for the endorsement;

3. The press release was made

available in the same manner as

other press releases made

available on the web site; and

4. The costs of making the press

release available on the web site

were de minimis.

4

The proposed regulation would

not allow a corporation or labor

organization to post on its web site

express advocacy materials, such as

banner advertisements for a candidate.

The Commission invites comments on any of these proposals.

The full text of the NPRM is

available on the FEC web site at

http://www.fec.gov/register.htm and

from the FEC faxline, 202/501-3413

(request document 244).

All comments should be addressed to Rosemary C. Smith,

Assistant General Counsel, and

must be submitted in either written

or electronic form by December 3,

2001. Written comments should be

sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. Faxed comments

should be sent to 202/219-3923,

with a printed copy follow-up to

insure legibility. Electronic mail

comments should be sent to

internetnprm@fec.gov and must

include the full name and postal

service address of the commenter.

Comments that do not contain this

information will not be considered.

No oral comments can be accepted.✦

—Amy Kort

4

 Proposed section 117.3 would

partially supersede AO 1997-16, in

which the Commission found that an

endorsement that was posted on a

corporation’s web site and available to

the general public was a prohibited

corporate expenditure under 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2)(A) and 11 CFR 114.4.

Definition of “Political

Committee” Rulemaking

held in Abeyance

On September 27, 2001, the

Commission voted to hold in

abeyance the proposed rulemaking

on the definition of “political

committee.”

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office, on FEC web site

at http://www.fec.gov/

register.htm and from the FEC

faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2001-14

The Internet and Federal

Elections; Candidate-Related

Materials on Web Sites of

Individuals, Corporations and

Labor Organizations; Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (66 FR

50358, October 3, 2001).

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

injunction, which prohibited the

FEC from enforcing the regulation

against any party throughout the

country, was too broad. Instead, the

appeals court limited the injunction

to bar the FEC from enforcing the

regulation against the Virginia

Society for Human Life, Inc.

(VSHL). The appeals court also

rejected the VSHL’s cross-appeal,

which asked the court to require the

FEC to repeal the regulation. The

appeals court found that ruling 11

CFR 100.22(b) unconstitutional and

barring the FEC from enforcing the

regulation against Plaintiffs gave the

VSHL complete relief.

(continued on page 4)

The Commission had approved

an Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking

comment on several proposals that

would revise the rules governing the

definition of “political committee”

at 11 CFR 100.5. The Notice,

which was published in the March

7, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR

13681), addressed:

• Possible revisions to the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure,” which may trigger political

committee status;

• Whether a “major purpose” test

should be incorporated into the

definition, and, if so, how this test

should be applied; and

• The treatment as political committees of so-called 527 organizations

(organizations established under

section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code).

The rulemaking will be indefinitely suspended pending, among

other things, possible legislative or

court action and the completion of

other rulemaking projects.✦

—Phillip Deen
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2001

4

2

 The Commission adopted this policy

because it found that the Fourth

Circuit’s decision in FEC v. Christian

Action Network “in effect invalidated

the regulation.”

Background

The VSHL is a nonprofit, taxexempt membership corporation,

which accepts corporate contributions. The group had planned to

distribute voter guides to the general

public in connection with the 2000

federal election cycle. The guides

outlined the VSHL’s stance on

abortion-related issues and tabulated

candidates’ positions on these

issues. The VSHL also planned to

produce radio advertisements that

would compare the positions of the

candidates for President and U.S.

Senator for Virginia on abortionrelated issues. The VSHL planned to

run these ads in Northern Virginia

or the District of Columbia one

week before the election.

On January 6, 1999, the VSHL

submitted a petition for rulemaking

to the FEC, requesting that it repeal

11 CFR 100.22(b). The VSHL

argued that the definition of “express advocacy” was overly broad,

and, thus, some of its planned

activities might constitute prohibited

corporate expenditures. See 2

U.S.C. §441b. The Commission did

not vote to open a rulemaking. On

August 9, 1999, the VSHL asked the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, Richmond

Division, to require the FEC to act

on its petition and to prohibit the

Commission from enforcing 11 CFR

100.22(b).

District Court Decision

On January 4, 2000, the district

court issued an injunction prohibiting the FEC from enforcing 11 CFR

100.22(b) “against the VSHL or

against any other party in the United

States of America.” Relying on

Buckley v. Valeo, the district court

concluded that the regulation at

100.22(b) was unconstitutional. The

district court said that the Buckley

court defined express advocacy as

“communications that in express

terms advocate the election or defeat

of a clearly identified candidate for

federal office.” The court found that

by allowing the FEC to regulate

advocacy based upon the understanding of the audience rather than

the actual message of the advocate,

the regulation at 100.22(b) failed the

Buckley test. Moreover, the district

court concluded, the regulation

empowered the FEC to regulate

issue advocacy, which was “clearly

forbidden by Buckley.” See the

March 2000 Record, page 8.

Appeals Court Decision

Plaintiff’s Standing and Timing

of Judicial Intervention. On appeal,

the FEC argued that the VSHL

lacked standing to sue. The FEC

maintained that, because it had

adopted a policy of not enforcing 11

CFR 100.22(b) in the Fourth

Circuit, the VSHL faced no credible

threat of prosecution.2

 The FEC

also argued that the case was not

appropriately timed for judicial

intervention because the VSHL’s

allegations about its planned activities were not sufficiently concrete.

The appeals court, however, held

that the VSHL had standing and that

its allegations created a controversy

that was concrete enough for the

court to address. First, the court

found that the VSHL faced a threat

of prosecution, despite the FEC’s

policy in the Fourth Circuit. The

FEC’s policy statement was only

recorded in FEC meeting minutes,

which “do not carry the binding

force of law.” If sitting Commissioners were to change their minds,

or new Commissioners were to

disagree with the policy, the court

reasoned, then the FEC could again

enforce the regulation in the Fourth

Circuit. Moreover, some of the

VSHL’s planned activity could

occur outside of the Fourth Circuit

where it would not be protected

even if the policy remained in place.

Similarly, the court found that the

case was ripe for judicial decision

because the VSHL could not have

engaged in its planned activities—

nor could it engage in similar

activities in the future—without the

threat of penalty.

Constitutional Issues. The

appeals court, relying on Buckley,

agreed with the district court that the

regulation violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional because

it “shifts the focus of the express

advocacy determination away from

the words themselves to the overall

impressions of the hypothetical,

reasonable listener or viewer.”

The FEC argued that a too

narrow reading of the express

advocacy requirement would allow

corporations and unions to circumvent, with “little more than careful

diction,” the Federal Election

Campaign Act’s prohibitions against

corporate expenditures. 2 U.S.C.

§441b. The appeals court, however,

stated that it was bound by previous

Supreme Court decisions and that a

broader reading of “express advocacy” must come “from an imaginative Congress or from further review

from the Supreme Court.”

Scope of Injunction. The appeals

court found that the district court

abused its discretion by issuing a

nationwide injunction against the

FEC’s enforcement of the regulation. The appeals court found that a

nationwide injunction:

• Exceeded what was necessary to

give full relief to the VSHL

because an injunction covering the

VSHL alone adequately protected

it from prosecution;

• Deprived the FEC of the opportunity to argue its case in other

courts of appeals;

• Conflicted with the principle that a

federal court of appeals’s decision

is only binding within its circuit;

and

• Deprived the Supreme Court of the

benefit of decisions from several

courts of appeals.

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)
November 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

The appeals court concluded that

the injunction to bar the Commission from enforcing the regulation

must be limited to protect only the

VSHL anywhere in the country.

Repeal of Regulation. The

appeals court rejected the VSHL’s

request that it order the FEC to open

a rulemaking to consider the repeal

of 11 CFR 100.22(b). The court

found it had given the VSHL

complete relief by ruling the regulation unconstitutional and authorizing an injunction that prohibited the

FEC from enforcing the regulation

against the VSHL.

The appeals court remanded the

case to the district court in order to

have the injunction amended so that

its protection is limited to the

VSHL.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit, 00-1252 and 00-

1332.✦

—Amy Kort

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 2001-16

Extension of 70-day window for

transferring funds for allocable

expenses after suspension of party

fundraising due to national emergency (Democratic National Committee, September 28, 2001)✦

Advisory

Opinions

Outreach

Regional Conference in San

Francisco for Candidates,

Parties and PACs

In February, the Federal Election

Commission will hold a comprehensive, two and one-half day conference in San Francisco. This

conference is designed to help

federal political committees and

U.S. House and Senate candidates

understand and comply with the

federal campaign finance law. The

conference will provide an overview

of the basic provisions of the federal

election law and discuss specific

requirements that apply to candidates, political parties and corporate,

labor and trade association PACs (as

well as their sponsoring organizations).

The conference will consist of a

series of workshops presented by

Commissioners and experienced

FEC staff. A representative from the

Internal Revenue Service will be

available to answer election-related

tax questions.

The conference will be held

February 5-7, 2002, at the Grand

Hyatt Hotel in San Francisco,

California. The registration fee for

the conference is $375, which

covers the cost of the conference,

reception, materials and meals. The

registration fee must be received by

January 14. A late registration fee of

$10 will be added as of January 15,

2002. A full refund will be made

available for all cancellations made

before that date.

A room rate of $218 is available

for hotel reservations made by

January 14. Call the Grand Hyatt

Hotel at 415/398-1234. After

January 14, room rates are subject to

availability. The hotel is located

downtown on Union Square, near

cable cars, Chinatown and the

shopping district.

Registration

Conference registrations will be

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Attendance is limited,

and other FEC conferences have

sold out in the past, so please

register early.

For registration information:

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/732-9004;

• Visit the FEC web site at

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.html#Conferences; or

• Send an email to

toni@sylvestermanagement.com.✦

—Amy Kort

Public Appearances

November 3, 2001

First Saturday Society

Royal Oak, Michigan

Commissioner Smith

November 7, 2001

American University

Washington, D.C.

Vice Chairman Mason

November 12, 2001

Center for National Security Law,

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, Virginia

Commissioner Smith

FEC Announces

Spring Conferences

Conference for Candidate and

Party Committees

Date: To Be Announced

Location: Washington, D.C. Area

(To Be Announced)

Conference for Corporations

Date: April 22-24, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Conference for Trade

Associations

Date: May 22-24, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)

Conference for Member and

Labor Organizations

Date: June 26-28, 2002

Location: Washington, D.C.

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2001

6

Committees Fined for

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently

publicized its final action on 42 new

Administrative Fine cases, bringing

the total number of cases released to

the public to 282.

Civil money penalties for late

reports are determined by the

number of days the report was late,

the amount of financial activity

involved and any prior penalties for

violations under the administrative

fine regulations. Penalties for

nonfiled reports—and for reports

filed so late as to be considered

nonfiled—are also determined by

the financial activity for the reporting period and any prior violations.

Election sensitive reports, which

include reports and notices filed

prior to an election (i.e., 12 Day preprimary, October quarterly and

October monthly reports), receive

higher penalties. The committees

and the treasurers are assessed civil

money penalties when the Commission makes its final determination.

Unpaid civil money penalties are

referred to the Department of the

Treasury for collection.

The committees listed in the chart

at right, along with their treasurers,

were assessed civil money penalties

under the administrative fine

regulations.

Closed Administrative Fine case

files are available through the FEC

Press Office, at 800/424-9530 (press

2) and the Public Records Office, at

800/424-9530 (press 3).✦

—Phillip Deen

 1. American Hotel Motel PAC $3,000

 2. American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science $1,000

 3. Bayne for Congress $4,500

 4. Big Mack for Congress $79

 5. Bob Shrauger for Congress $1,400

 6. Carroll 2000 $2,7001

 7. Chicago Board of Options Exchange Inc. PAC $1,000

 8. Clark for Senate $1,350

 9. Committee for Responsible Government of Temple-Inland Inc.

(Committee for Good Government of Temple-Inland Inc.) $600

10. Cosgrove for Congress Committee $900

11. Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. PAC $1,000

12. CSX Corporation Good Government Fund $600

13. DeWayne Graham for Congress Committee $900

14. Duncan/Hilleary Congressional Celebration Committee $02

15. Exxon Mobil Corporation PAC (12 Day Pre-General) $9,000

16. Exxon Mobil Corporation PAC (30 Day Post-General) $800

17. Friends of Barry Ford $375

18. Friends of Houghton $9,000

19. Friends of Mike Forbes $650

20. Friends of Ron Packard $900

21. Garza for Congress Committee $2,000

22. Hochberg for Congress $9,500

23. John Fee for Congress $1,3003

24. Jon Amores for Congress $450

25. Lauren Beth Gash for Congress $9,900

26. Lehigh Valley Democratic Committee $1,800

27. National Auctioneers Association PAC (AUCTIONPAC) $1,000

28. National Fisheries Institute Fisheries PAC (FISHPAC) $1,000

29. New York State Committee of the Working Family Party $2,700

30. Paul Rappaport for U.S. Senate $600

31. PECO Energy Company PAC

(Philadelphia Electric Company PAC) $1,125

32. Plasterers Local 8 PAC Fund/Operative Plasterers & Cement

Mason International Assn. of the U.S. & Canada 8 $1,000

33. Pryce for Congress $6,000

34. Rely on your Beliefs Fund $1,300

35. Rosenthal for Congress ——4

36. Tico Perez for Congress Campaign $02

37. Transport Workers Union—Local 100

Political Contributions Committee $4,000

38. Tricon Global Restaurants Inc. Good Government Fund $1,000

39. Trinity Industries Employee PAC Inc. $2,000

40. Service Employees International Union Local

99 Federal PAC $504

41. Service Employees International Union

Local 434-B Federal COPE $2,700

42. YOB 2000 (Y2K) $1,850

Administrative Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

Fines

2Penalty reduced due to lack of activity on the report.

3 This civil money penalty has not been collected.

4

 The Commission took no further action in this case.

1Partial payment made.
November 2001 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

ADR Program Update

On September 26, 2001, the

Commission made public three

additional cases resolved under the

Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) program. In each case, the

ADR office concluded that the

allegations against the respondents

were unsubstantiated. The Commission concurred and agreed to

dismiss matters arising from complaints against:

• The Moran for Congress Committee, committee treasurer Robert

Morrison, and the Honorable

James P. Moran concerning the

alleged personal use of campaign

funds;

• Michael J. Becker and Claire W.

Clemens concerning alleged

perjury during an investigation of a

previous matter under review; and

• The Susan Davis for Congress

Committee, committee treasurer

Carolyn Witt and Susan Davis

concerning the alleged use of

nonfederal funds for a federal

election.

Closed ADR-negotiated settlement summaries are available from

the Public Records Office at 999 E

Street, NW., Washington, DC

20463. The Public Records Office

may also be contacted at 800/424-

9530 (press 3).✦

—Amy Kort

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2001 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

Alternative disposition of 2001-5,

5:6

2000-24: Preemption of state

election law mandating fixed

allocation ratio for administrative

and voter drive expenses, 2:2

2000-27: Status of party as state

committee, 3:6

2000-28: Disaffiliation of trade

associations and their PACs, 2:3

2000-30: Nonconnected PAC’s

receipt and use of securities, 5:1

2000-32: Reporting uncollectable

loan, 1:9

2000-34: Name and acronym of

SSF, 2:5

2000-35: Status of party as state

committee, 1:10

Index

FEC Expands Acceptance of

Credit Cards

The Federal Election Commission now accepts American Express,

Diners Club and Discover Cards in

addition to Visa and MasterCard.

Information

While most FEC materials are

available free of charge, some

campaign finance reports and

statements, statistical compilations,

indexes and directories require

payment. Walk-in visitors and those

placing requests by telephone may

use any of the above-listed credit

cards, cash or checks. Individuals

and organizations may also place

funds on deposit with the office to

purchase these items. Since prepayment is required, using credit

cards or funds placed on deposit can

speed the processing and delivery of

orders. For further information,

contact the Public Records Office at

800/424-9530 (press 3) or 202/694-

1120.✦

—Amy Kort

2000-36: Disaffiliation of nonconnected PACs, 2:5

2000-37: Use of campaign funds to

purchase and present Liberty

Medals, 2:6

2000-38: Registration of party

committee due to delegate

expenses, 2:7

2000-39: Status of party as state

committee, 2:8

2000-40: Donations to legal defense

fund of Member of Congress, 3:7

2001-1: Use of political party’s

office building fund to pay

building renovation costs and

fundraising expenses of building

fund, 4:5

2001-2: Status of party as state

committee, 4:6

2001-3: Use of campaign funds to

purchase an automobile for

campaign purposes, 5:5

2001-4: Use of electronic signatures

for PAC contributions by payroll

deduction, 6:6

2001-6: Status of party as state

committee, 6:7

2001-7: Nonaffiliation of LLC PAC

with SSFs of member companies

of the LLC, 8:6

2001-8: Campaign committee’s

purchase of candidate’s book for

distribution to contributors, 8:9

2001-9: Former Senator’s use of

excess campaign funds to pay

expenses resulting from media

inquiries made after his term

expired, 9:1

2001-10: Employment of

candidate’s spouse by campaign

committee, 9:4

2001-11: Late transfer from

nonfederal to federal account of

state party committee after bank

transfer problem, 10:1

Compliance

Committees fined under Administrative Fines Program, 2:6, 4:7, 5:7,

6:5, 7:8, 9:6, 10:5, 11:6

MUR 4594: Prohibited Foreign

National Contributions, 6:8

(continued on page 8)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Presorted Standard

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2001

MUR 4762: Prohibited union

contributions and other violations,

2:9

MUR 5029: Contributions in the

name of another made by corporation and government contractor,

2:10

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– AFL-CIO and DNC Services

Corp./DNC, 9:8

– Beaumont, 2:8, 3:2, 5:6, 6:9

– Buchanan, 1:10

– Cunningham, 8:4

– DNC, 2:8. 3:2

– Dole, 5:6

– Judicial Watch, 10:3

– Kieffer, 7:7

– Miles for Senate, 3:3

– Nader, 4:8, 6:9

– Natural Law Party of the United

States of America, 1:10, 2:8, 3:2

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 11:1

FEC v. _____

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 8:1

– Friends for Fasi, 6:8

– NRA, 8:3, 10:3

– Toledano, 7:8

Other

– Hooker v. All Campaign Contributors, 1:10

– Hooker v. Sundquist, 4:8

Regulations

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on definition of

“political committee,” 4:1

Final rules for general public

political communications coordinated with candidates and party

committees; independent expenditures, 1:2, 6:3

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

brokerage loans and lines of

credit, 9:1

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

reporting of independent expenditures and last-minute contributions, 6:1

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

use of Internet in federal elections, 11:1

 “Political committee” definition

rulemaking held in abeyance, 11:3

Reports

Amendments to Statements of

Organization, 2:1

Arkansas special election, 9:5

Arizona state filing waiver, 6:10

California special election, 3:5

Committees required to file tax

returns, 3:4

Florida special election, 7:4

July reporting reminder, 7:1

Massachusetts special election, 7:6

Nevada state filing waiver, 2:2

Pennsylvania special election, 4:5

Reports due in 2001, 1:4

South Carolina special election,

10:4

Virginia special election, 5:6

Index

(continued from page 7)