September 1994

Table of ContentsRegulationsRevised Personal Use Rules

ComplianceI Foreign National Donors3 FEC Targets Higher-Priority

Cases4 MUR 3418, '84 Glenn Campaign

to Pay $65,0004 MUR 3816, Failure to File 48-

Hour Notices Results in $20,000Penalty

4 Nonfilers Published4 MURs Released to the Public

Publications3 Foreign NationalBrochure

15 Mail-In Order Form

Letters5 FEC Asks Parties to Inform

Contributors About$25,000 Limit

Information5 New Federal Telephone Service

for TDD Users14 Flashfax Menu

Reports6 Upcoming Reporting

Court Cases7 LaRouche v. FEC (92-1555)8 Center for Responsive Politics v.

FEC8 FEC v. MichiganRepublican State

Committee8 RNC v. FEC (94-1017)9 New Litigation

Clearinghouse10 Summary of State Campaign Laws

10 Advisory Opinions

15 Index

Federal Election Commission

Regulations

FEC Seeks Comments onRevised Personal Use Rules

The Commission seeks publiccomment on a revised version ofproposed regulations implementingthe prohibition on the personal useof campaign funds (2 U.s.C.§439a). The agency redrafted therules, reflecting comments made onthe first set of proposed regulations,published in August 1993, andtestimony presented at a January1994 public hearing.

The revised proposed rules werepublished in the Federal Register onAugust 17 (59 FR 42183). Com­ments must be submitted in writingby October 3. They should be sentto Susan E. Propper, AssistantGeneral Counsel, 999 E Street, NW,Washington, DC 20463.

The Commission expects toapprove final personal use regula­tions in time for them to becomeeffective early in the 1995-96election cycle.

Definition of Personal Use(11 CFR 113.1(g)

Under the revised rules, personaluse would be any use of campaignfunds conferring a benefit on acandidate or a member of thecandidate's family-a benefit thatwas not primarily related to the

(continued on page 2)

Volume 20, Number 9

Compliance

Foreign National DonorsPay $160,000 in Penalties

At an August 3 press conference,FEC Chairman Trevor Potterannounced that an investigation intocampaign contributions by foreignnationals resulted in civil penaltiestotaling $162,225 against 26 con­tributors. The investigation uncov­ered more than $300,000 in illegaldonations made to over 140 Hawai­ian state and local campaigns duringfour election cycles. The FEC sentout letters of admonishment torecipient campaigns and partycommittees telling them to refundthe illegal donations or otherwise ridtheir accounts of the money. The

I investigation stemmed from threecomplaints eventually merged intoMatter Under Review (MUR) 2892.

"For many years," the Chairmanexplained, "it has been illegal forany foreign national, whether anindividual, corporation or govern­ment, to make a contribution ofmoney or any other thing of value toany U.S. candidate. This is one ofthe few prohibitions in the federalelection laws that applies to candi­dates at every level of governmentin this country-state and local aswell as federal."

The illegal donors in MUR 2892were, for the most part, U.S. corpo­

(continued on page 3)

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Regulations(continued from page J)

candidate's campaign or, in the caseof an incumbent, to the ordinary andnecessary duties of a federal office­holder. ( "Federal officeholder," inthis context, means a Member ofCongress, the President or the VicePresident. 2 U.S.c. §431(3);II CFR 1I3.I (c).)

Under the proposed rules, theCommission would use the samedefinition in determining whetherthe use of campaign funds to confera benefit upon someone other thanthe candidate or the candidate' sfamily would result in personal use.

The proposed rules apply thepersonal use definition to severalsituations, highlighted below.

• Campaign Salary Paid to Candi­date or Family Member. The ruleswould prohibit the payment of acampaign salary to the candidatebut would permit a member of thecandidate's family to be paid acampaign salary not exceeding the

Federal Election Commission999 E Street, NWWashington, DC 20463

800/424-95302021219-3420202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)2021219-3336 (TDD)

Trevor Potter, ChairmanDanny L. McDonald,

Vice ChairmanJoan D. Aikens,CommissionerLee Ann Elliott, CommissionerJohn Warren McGarry,

CommissionerScott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, StaffDirectorLawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the InformationDivision

LouiseD. Wides,DirectorStephanie Fitzgerald, Editor

2

fair market value of the servicesprovided.

• Campaign's Rental of Candidate­Owned Property. A campaigncould rent property owned by thecandidate or a member of thecandidate's family if the paymentsdid not exceed fair market valueand if the property were not beingused as the personal residence ofthe candidate or one of his or herfamily members.

• Candidate 's Personal LivingExpenses. Use of campaign fundsto pay the candidate' s personalliving expenses (e.g., mortgage orrent, groceries, clothing, tuition,legal expenses) would be prohib­ited unless the expenses wereprimarily related to the campaignor to federal officeholder duties.

• Third-Party Payment of Candi­date's Personal Expenses . Ifsomeone other than the campaignwere to pay such expenses, thepayments would be consideredcontributions, subject to thecontribution limits, unless: (1) thepayments were made from anaccount held jointly by the candi­date and a family member; or(2) the payments were madeirrespective of candidacy and hadbeen made before the individualbecame a candidate; or (3) thepayments were donations to a legalexpense trust fund establishedunder House or Senate rules.

• Candidate 's Purchase of Cam­paign Assets. A candidate or amember of his or her family couldpurchase campaign assets at fairmarket value plus an allocatedportion of any depreciation.

• Definition of Family Member. Forpurposes of the personal use rules,members of a candidate's familywould include his or her spouse,children, parents, grandparents,siblings and in-laws. An individualhaving a committed relationshipwith the candidate would also beconsidered a family member.

• Combined Personal and Campa ignTravel. The rules would require a

Septembe r 1994

person who combined personaltravel with campaign or office­holder travel to reimburse thecampaign for personal expenseswithin 30 days.

• Personal Use of Campaign Ve­hicle. Reimbursement for personaluse of a campaign vehicle wouldalso have to be made within 30days (but no reimbursement wouldbe necessary if the expenses werede minimis).

• Donations to Chari ty. A campaignwould be permitted to donatefunds to a section 170(c) charityunless the candidate receivedcompensation from the charitybefore it had spent the donation forexpenses unrelated to the candi­date' s personal benefit.

• Expenses Under House and SenateRules. The rules would permit thecampaign to pay "political ex­penses" under U.S. House rules or"officially connected expenses"under U.S. Senate rules as long asthe expenses were expendituresunder II CFR 100.8 or ordinaryand necessary expenses incurred inconnection with federal office­holder duties.

Officeholder's Use of ExcessCampaign Funds (11 CFR 113.2)

The proposed rules would permitthe use of excess campaign funds todefray officeholder expenses,including the expenses of travelrelated to officeholder duties and thecosts of winding down the Congres­sional office of a former Member.

Additional Comments Sought onRecordkeeping and Reporting

The Commission receivedcomments and testimony suggestingthat more complete disclosure ofcampaign expenditures would beuseful in enforcing the personal useban. The FEC invites comments onhow the reporting requirements or,alternatively, the recordkeepingrequirements could be amended topromote compliance without undulyburdening campaign committees...

September 1994

Compliance(continued from page 1)

rations owned by Japanese parentcompanies I or by Japanese andKorean individuals. The donationsviolated the foreign national prohi­bition because they were financedby the foreign parent/owner orbecause individual foreign nationalswere involved in making decisionsconcerning the contributions. Inaddition to these contributions,foreign funds were donated byJapanese corporations and foreignindividuals.

Chairman Potter said that theFEC highlighted this case, not totarget a particular state or national­ity-the FEC is pursuing foreigncontribution allegations in otherstates-but to focus attention on theforeign national prohibition, which"is not as widely known and under­stood as it should be...especially inthe foreign business community ."He announced the publication of anew FEC brochure on the foreignnational prohibition (see box). Thebrochure was sent to state electionoffices, U.S. subsidiaries of foreigncorporations , foreign-owned U.S.corporations and Washingtonembassies . •

I Hawaii law permits corporations tocontribute to nonfederal campaigns.

FEC Targets Higher-PriorityEnforcement Cases

On July 6, the Commissionannounced that it had closed 29lower-priority enforcement cases I inorder to focus resources on moresignificant cases placed on a fasttrack. In a related development , theagency released figures showing asurge in the amount of civil penal­ties respondents have agreed to payin FEC enforcement cases.

(FEC enforcement cases are alsocalled MURs or Matters UnderReview. They are initiated by theFEC and through outside complaintsand referrals.)

In December 1993, the Commis­sion adopted an enforcementprioritization system to come togrips with a burgeoning caseloadinvolving multiple respondents andcomplex financial transactions.Previously, the agency had pursuedall cases but found that it was takingtoo long to resolve them. Under thenew system, the FEC targets itslimited investigative resources oncases that are considered higherpriority. Some of the factors the

I The 29 cases are listed in a July 6FEC press release available from thePublic Records Office. Call 800/424­9530 (press 3 if using a tou ch tonephone) or 202/219-4140.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Commission considers in ratingcases are:

• Whether there was knowing andwillful intent to violate the law;

• The apparent impact of the allegedviolation on the election process;

• The amount of money involved;• The age and timing of the viola­

tion; and• Whether the case involved a

particular area of the law thatneeds attention (such as foreignnational contributions).

Based on these and other factors,I the Commission pursues a wide

range of cases, both large and small,in different areas of the law. Lower­priority cases may be pursued astime and resources permit, or theCommission may decide-as it did

I in the 29 cases recently closed-thatsome cases do not warrant the timeand expense of an investigation. Thenet benefit of the new approach is toresolve the significant cases asquickly as possible.

The Commission adopted thenew system to provide for moreeffective enforcement and thus deterviolations of the campaign financelaw. To this end, the agency has alsotoughened its policy on civil penal­ties, as reflected in the table. •

(Compliance continued on page 4)

Penalties Imposed in MURs

• Contributions from PACs sponsoredby foreign-owned U.S. businessesand U.S . subsidiaries of foreigncorporations;

Foreign Nationals, a New BrochureThe FECrecently published • Nonfederal contributions made

Foreign Nationals, an easy-to-read directly by those corporations andbrochure that explains the foreign businesses ; andnational prohibition. Thatprohibition • Foreign-national involvement inapplies to contributions andexpendi- ballot issues andotherpoliticaltures made by foreign nationals in activity notconnected withanyconnection with any United States election to political office.election to political office, local state To ordera free copy, use the formor federal. The brochure discusses: on page 15. Or, you can have the

brochure faxed to you throughFlashfax. Call 202/501-2413 from atouch tone phone andenter 324, thedocument number of the brochure.

Fiscal NumberYear of Cases I Amount

FY 1986 161 $175,830FY 1987 145 $301,165FY 1988 168 $271,780FY 1989 157 $428,225FY 1990 161 $227,900FY 1991 220 $429,862FY 1992 165 $265,403FY 1993 87 $572,599FY 19942 62 $695,804

I ' lncludes only thos e cases that resultedin civil penalties.

I 2 Through July 1994.

3

Nonfilers PublishedThe candidate committees listed below failed to file required campaign

finance reports. The list is based on the FEC press releases of May 20, June3, June 24, July 15 and July 29. The Commission is required by law topublicize the names of nonfiling authorized committees. 2 U.S.c. §438(a)(7).The agency pursues enforcement action against nonfi1ers on a case-by-casebasis...

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance(continued from page 3)

MUR3418'84 Glenn PresidentialCampaign to Pay $65,000 forFailing to Report Interest

The 1984 John Glenn PresidentialCampaign agreed to pay a $65,000civil penalty for failing to reportaccumulated interest on bank loansmade in connection with his 1984Presidential campaign. The penaltywas included in a conciliationagreement signed by the campaignon June 6, 1994. The violationscame to the Commission's attentionthrough a complaint filed in Sep­tember 1991.

In February 1984, the campaignreceived loans totaling $2 millionfrom four Ohio banks. Between1986 and 1991 the unpaid intereston the loans had accrued to$779,594, but the campaign failed todisclose the interest as outstandingdebts in its FEC reports file duringthat period. 2 U.S.c. §434(b)(8).

The campaign should havereported the accrued interest owedto each bank on Schedule D-P, thedebt schedule for Presidentialcampaigns. The law requirescontinuous reporting of debts eachreporting period until they arerepaid. 11 CFR 104.11(a) and (b).

In addition to payment of the$64,000 penalty, the conciliationagreement required the campaign tofile amended forms to report theaccrued interest owed to the fourOhio banks...

MUR3816Failure to File 48-HourNotices on Candidate LoansResults in $20,000 Penalty

The Gwen Margolis CampaignFund agreed to pay a $20,000 civilpenalty for failing to file 48-hournotices disclosing $200,000 incontributions in the form of loansfrom the candidate.

Gwen Margolis, a 1992 candidatefor Congress, loaned her campaign

September 1994

committee $75,000 on October 19,1992, and another $125,000 onOctober 29. Both loans were subjectto 48-hour reporting. The committeereported the loans in its 30-day post­general report but failed to file a 48­hour notice for either loan.

The federal campaign finance lawrequires candidate committees tofile 48-hour notices on contributionsof $1,000 or more-includingloans I-if the contributions arereceived after the 20th day but morethan 48 hours before the election.The notice must reach the state andfederal filing offices within 48 hoursafter the committee's receipt of thecontribution. 2 U.S.c. §434(a)(6)(A).(See "48-Hour Notices," page 6.)

Under the terms of the concilia­tion agreement, the committeeagreed to pay $5,000 of the penaltyinitially and to complete payment in20 monthly installments. ..

MURS Released to the PublicListed below are FEC enforce­

ment cases (Matters Under Reviewor MURs) recently released forpublic review. They are based onthe FEC press releases of May 31and June 3, 21 and 24, and July 11.Files on closed MURs are availablefor review in the Public RecordsOffice.

Candidate

Bush, JamesCarroll, StevenCurtis, Ronald L.Dinsmore, Robert

Farrell-Donaldson, MarieHollowell, Jr., MelvinHume, JoeKelly, JohnLesser, RogerMcFarland, DouglasMcInnish, HughOlson, GenRappaport, JonTodd, GaryWills, Matthew

4

Office Sought

House, GN02Senate/MOHouse, CN41House, CN05

House, MVl4House, MV14House, KS/02Senate, MIHouse, MD/08Senate, MNHouse, ALl05Senate, MNHouse, CN29Senate, MAHouse, KY/06

Report Not Filed

Pre-PrimaryPre-PrimaryPre-PrimaryApril QuarterlyPre-PrimaryPre-PrimaryPre-PrimaryPre-PrimaryJuly QuarterlyJuly QuarterlyJuly QuarterlyPre-RunoffJuly QuarterlyPre-PrimaryJuly QuarterlyPre-Primary

MUR3175Respondents: (a) Mary C. Bingham(KY); (b) DNC Services Corpora­tionlDemocratic National Commit­tee, Robert T. Matsui, treasurer(DC); (c) Democratic SenatorialCampaign Committee, G. WayneSmith, Treasurer (DC)

(continued on page 12)

I Bank loans, however, are not consid­ered contributions if made in theordinary course ofbusine ss, butendorsements and guarantees ofbankloans are considered contributions.

September 1994

Letters

Commission Asks Partiesto Inform ContributorsAbout $25,000 Limit

On July 21, the Chairman andVice Chairman of the FederalElection Commission sent a letter tothe chairs of the national commit­tees of the two major parties,'asking for their assistance in helpingcontributors avoid exceeding their$25,000 annual limit. Under theelection law, individuals may notgive more than $25,000 annually intotal contributions to candidates andpolitical committees. 2 U.S.c.§44Ia(a)(3) .

Application of Annual LimitThe letter asked the committees

to inform individual donors thatwhen they contribute to a candidate,the contribution counts against thecontributor' s annuallimit for theyear in which the candidate seekselection, regardless of the year inwhich the contribution is made. Theletter goes on to explain that, bycontrast, an individual's contribu­tion to a party committee or a PACcounts against the annual limit forthe year in which the contribution isactually made (provided that thecontribution has not been earmarkedfor a particular candidate whoseelection falls in a different calendaryear).

Joint ContributionsWith regard to joint contributions

(using a single check or otherwritten instrument), the letterpointed out that both donors mustsign the check or an accompanyingwritten statement in order for thecontribution to be split betweenthem. Without both signatures, the

/ The letters were sent to the Demo­cratic and Republican national commit­tees. House campaign comm ittees andSenate campaign commiuees.

entire amount of the contributioncounts against the annual limit ofthe individual who signs the checkor equivalent instrument.

Contributions to Federal andNonfederal Accounts

The letter further explained thatwhen a political committee deposits,into its federal account, contribu­tions that were intended for thenonfederal account, such depositswill be aggregated with othercontributions made by the samedonor during the same calendar yearto federal committees. If the totalamount exceeds $25,000, themisdeposits can create the appear­ance that the contributor exceededhis or her annual limit.

To avoid this situation, theCommission alerted committees tothe rules governing deposits intofederal accounts. I I CFR102.5(a)(2) and (3). The letter alsosuggested that political committeesencourage their contributors toindicate the intended purpose oftheir contributions-federal ornonfederal--on the check or in anaccompanying note. -+

Information

New Service for TDD UsersBroadens Telephone Accessto Federal Agencies

Individuals with speech andhearing impairments now havegreater access to federal agenciesthrough a new telephone servicecalled the Federal Information RelaySystem (FIRS). The new serviceallows individuals using TDDs(telecommunication devices for thedeaf) I to call federal agencies and

J A TDD user communicates using akeyboard and screen.

Federal Election Commiss ion RECORD

employees-or receive calls fromthem- by means of an intermediary"agent" who relays the conversationbetween the TOO user and the voiceuser.

TOO and voice users can callFIRS at 800-877-8339 from 8 AM to8 PM, Monday through Friday.

The system works this way: ATOO user calls FIRS and gives the

I agent the phone number of thefederal employee to be called. Theagent makes the call on a separateline. The conversation can thenbegin. The agent reads aloud thewords of the TOO user and key­boards the words of the voice user.

Here are some tips about usingFIRS. Before calling, make sure youhave the phone number you want(including area code) ready to giveto the agent. When the agentconnects your call, direct yourconversation to the other party as ifthe agent were absent. Do not makecomments to the agent during yourconversation because they will berelayed to the other party. Voiceusers should speak in a slow andclear manner. If you have to leave amessage, you may want to note thatyou are calling through FIRS.

The system enables federalemployees to conduct business moreeffectively with the hearing andspeech impaired community andbroadens access for communitymembers to federal government jobsand advancement opportunities.

To order a brochure on FIRS, callthe FEe' s Information Division,800/424-9530 (press 1 if using atouch tone phone) or 2021219-3420.The FEC is open from 9 AM to 5:30PM. -+

(Information continued on page 14)

5

Federal ElectionCommission RECORD

Reports

Upcoming ReportsTo find out your committee's

reporting obligations from October1994 through January 1995, refer tothe accompanying table and chart.

To assist committee treasurers­who must sign reports and are heldresponsible for filing reports ontime-the FEC sends them noticesof upcoming deadlines. Treasurerswho rely on someone else to com­plete the committee's reports shouldimmediately forward reportingnotices (with enclosed forms) to thatperson.

For further information, call theInformation Division: 800/424 -9530(press I if using a touch tone phone)or 202/219-3420.

Where to FileTreasurers must file original

reports with the appropriate federaloffice (FEC, Clerk of the House orSecretary of the Senate) and simul­taneously file copies with theappropriate state filing offices . Seethe instructions on the back of FECforms. A list of state filing offices isavailable through the FEC's Flash­fax service. Call 202/50 1-34 13 andenter document code 303.

48-Hour Noticeson Contributions

• Wh o Mu st File. Authorizedcommittees of candidates in theNovember 8 general election,including unopposed candidates.

• When Filing Is Required. Whenthe committee receives a contribu­tion of $1,000 or more betweenOctober 20 and November 5. The

September 1994

requirement applies to all types ofcontributions, including in-kind,personal loans, endorsements andguarantees of bank loans andcontributions (of any type) madeby the candidate.

• When to Fil e. The notice mustreach federal and state filingoffices within 48 hours of thecommittee' s receipt of the contri­bution. II CFR 104.5(f). Forty­eight hour notices (but not otherreports) may be faxed. Fax num­bers: Clerk of the House-202/225­7781; Secretary of the Senate- 2021224-1851.

• What to Fil e. Form 6 or a state­ment containing the same informa­tion.

• Subse quent Reporting. Contribu­tions must be disclosed a secondtime in the 30-day post-generalelection report.

What Reports to File, October 1994 Through January 1995

12-Day 30-DayQuarterly Monthly Pre-General Post-General Year-End

House and Senate Campaigns ~ ~ and ~ ~of 1994 Candidates (October) required if candidate runs in November 8(se e "48-Ho ur Notices") general election, even if unopposed

Other House and Senate ~Campaigns

Presidential Campaigns 1 ~ or ~ ~(October) (Oct. - Dec.)

PACs and Party Committees ~ ~ and ~ ~Filing Monthly (October) filed in lieu of November and(see "24-Hour Reports ") December monthly reports

PACs and Party Committees ~ ~ ~ ~Filing Quarterly (October) required if committee must be filed(see "2 4-Ho ur Reports") makes contributions regardless

or expenditures of activityto influence the

November 8 electionduring the pre-general

reporting period 2

I Presidential committees that wish to change their filin g f requency during 1994 should notify the Commission in writing.

2 The reporting period extends f rom the closing date of the last report through October 19. If the last report was the Octoberquarterly, the reporting period would cover October I though October 19.

6

September 1994 Federal Election Commission RECORD

JReport~ sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the filing date(except In the case of the pre-gen eral election report ; see f ootnote 3). Reports sentby othe r means must be recei ved by the filing date. I I CFR 104.5(e).

2 Pres identia l committees fi ling month ly must also fi le the November and Decembermonthly repo rts.

J If sent by registered or certified mail, the 12-day pr e-general elec tion report mustbe postmarked by October 24.

Court Cases

When to Report

'Petitions challenging FEC repay mentdeterminations are fi led with this court.

2 The entire repayment was $151,260;only $109,149 was contested.

private contributions to satisfy thedebt. The agency therefore orderedthe campaign to return $109,149 inmatching fund payments made afterthat date. This repayment determi­nation was based on an FEC regula­tion, 11 CFR 9034.1(b), whichstates that a candidate can receivepost-DOl matching funds to theextent that, on the date of payment,the sum of matching funds andcontributions "received on or afterthe date of ineligibility" [emphasisadded] does not exceed remainingnet debts.

The LaRouche campaign chal­lenged the FEC regulation as unrea­sonable and contrary to the intent ofthe public funding statute to encour­age participation in the politicalsystem. Specifically, the campaignargued that, under a fair reading ofthe statute and FEC regulations, thecampaign was entitled to collectmatching funds for contributionsreceived after the 001 without hav­ing to credit the contributionsagainst the net debts figure. Other­wise, the campaign said, the candi­date would be limited in his abilityto continue the campaign.

The court, however, found thatthe FEC' s interpretation of its ownregulation was "compelling" and itsinterpretation of the statute, reason­able. The statute "rnake]s] clear,"the court said, "that Congresswished to restrict the availability ofmatching payments to candidates itconsidered viable."

The court rejected several otherarguments made by the LaRouchecampaign, including the claim thatthe FEC' s repayment determinationhad improperly created a new rule toaddress post-DOl matching fundentitlements when the candidatecontinues to campaign. The courtsaid that the Commission hadmerely concluded that "the existingrule was not affected by Mr.LaRouche's decision, in 1988, tocontinue the good fight rather thanto wind up his campaign...." •

(Court Cas es continued on page 8)

Filing Date 1

October ISOctober 20October 27 3

December 8January 31, 1995

LaRouche v, FEe(No. 92-1555)

On July 8, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit I upheldan FEC determination ordering the1988 LaRouche Presidential cam­paign to return $109,149 in federalmatching funds to the U.S. Trea­sury.'

At issue was the entitlement of acandidate to matching funds afterhis date of ineligibility (DOl) . OnMay 26, 1988, after receiving lessthan 10 percent of the vote in twoconsecutive primaries, LyndonLaRouche became ineligible toreceive matching funds to continuehis campaign but was still entitled tomatching funds to help defraypreexisting net campaign debts ofabout $330,000. On that basis, thecampaign continued to receivematching fund payments throughOctober 1988. However, an FECaudit later found that, by July 22,the campaign had received sufficientpost-DOl matching funds and

September 30September 30October 19November 28December 31

Period Coveredclosingdate of last report through

Report

October QuarterlyOctober Monthly 2

12-Day Pre-Election30-Day Post-ElectionYear-End

24-Hour Reportson Independent Expenditures

• Who Mus t File. PACs and otherpersons who make independentexpenditures supporting or oppos­ing candidates in the November 8election.

• When Filing Is Required. Whenthe committee or person makes anindependent expenditure of $1,000or more (by itself or aggregatedwith other independent expendi­tures made to the same payee) be­tween October 20 and November6. The requirement also applies towritten contracts to make indepen­dent expenditures, even if unpaid.

• When to File. Information must bereported within 24 hours after theindependent expenditure is made.The report must be filed with theappropriate federal and state filingoffices. See 11 CFR 104.4(c).(Twenty-four hour reports may notbe faxed.)

• What to File. Committees fileSchedule E; other persons useForm 5. Alternatively, the commit­tee or person may file a statementdisclosing the same information asthat reported on the scheduIe orform.

• Subsequent Reporting. Expendi­tures must be disclosed a secondtime in the 30-day post-generalelection report. •

7

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases(continuedfrom page 7)

Center for ResponsivePolitics v, FEC

This case was voluntarily dis­missed as moot when the Commis­sion took action on three complaintsthe Center had filed with the agencyin 1990 and 1991 (MURs 3175,3249 and 3325). The Center hadfiled suit to force the FEC to takeaction but , in March 1994, agreed tosuspend the litigation for fourmonths while the FEC worked toresolve the MURs, which concernedexcessive contributions .

The U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia dismissed thecase on July 11, 1994. (No . 92­2250(SSH)) . ..

FEC v.Michigan RepublicanState Committee

The FEC and the defendantconunittee agreed to settle twocounts of a complaint and to litigatethe third. Under the terms of a July18, 1994, consent order, the Michi­gan Republican State Committee,the federal committee of the Michi­gan Republican Party, agreed to paya $12,500 penalty for knowinglyaccepting $5 ,550 in excessivecontributions and for depositing intoits account $35,655 in impermis­sible, nonfederal contributions, aviolation of 11 CFR 102.5 .

With respect to the misdeposit ofnonfederal funds, the contributionswere contained in a transfer fromthe Republican National Conunittee.The deposit was impermissiblebecause the contributions were notspecifically designated for thefederal account. See 11 CFR102.5(a)(2)(i). The conunitteeagreed to transfer the funds to thestate party 's nonfederal account.

The consent order was entered bythe U.S. Court for the WesternDistrict of Michigan, SouthernDivision (No. 5:94-CV-27).

8

Litigation is pending on the thirdFEC claim-that the conunittee hadexceeded the §441a(d) coordinatedparty expenditure limit on behalf ofthe party's nominee in the 1984 U.S.Senate race ...

RNC v. FEC (94-1017)Granting summary judgment to

the FEC on July 22, the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Columbiarejected a challenge to the FEe'srevised "best efforts" regulations.

The revised rules, which becameeffective March 3, 1994, explainwhat steps a committee treasurermust take in order to demonstratethat he or she has used best effortsto obtain and report requiredinformation on individual contribu­tors whose aggregate contributionsto the committee exceed $200 in acalendar year. See II CFR 104.7(b) .The Federal Election Campaign Act(FECA) allows committees to retaincontributions lacking requiredinformation only if the treasurer canshow "best efforts." 2 U.S.c.§432(i) .

The FEC first promulgatedregulations interpreting the bestefforts provision of the FECA in1980. Recently, however, theagency became concerned by thefailure of many committees toprovide complete contributorinformation for a substantial per­centage of their contributions. Theagency adopted the 1994 revisionsto strengthen the rules , adding twonew requirements. First, conunitteesmust clearly display the followingstatement in solicitations for contri­butions: "Federal law requirespolitical committees to report thename, mailing address, occupationand name of employer for eachindividual whose contributionsaggregate over $200 in a calendaryear." Second, committees mustmake a follow-up request formissing information; the request

September 1994

may not include an additionalsolicitation or material on any othersubject.

The plaintiffs in the case- theRepublican National Conunittee, theNational Republican SenatorialCommittee and the NationalRepubli can Congressional Commit­tee-argued that these requirementsviolated free speech right s byimpermissibly limiting the languageand subject matter of solicitations.The court said that the committees 'arguments failed because the bestefforts regulations are not compul­sory but "merely [provide] a 'safeharbor' for any committee that isunable to obtain all of the requiredinformation."

In a related argument, the com­mittees contended that the require­ment for a follow-up request wouldcurtail free speech by imposingadditional costs on committees,leaving less money for politicalspeech. The conunittees claimedthat this infringement was notjustified by a compelling govern­ment interest because compliancewith the disclosure requirements hadbeen sufficiently high under the oldrules .

Noting that the committees didnot introduce any evidence on theoverall level of compliance, thecourt said that the added costs to theconunittees--estimated at $1.50 to$6.00 per letter-was a "minimalburden" given the strong govern­ment interest in disclosure ofcontributor information. 'Thisinformation," the court said, "pro­vides an 'essential means' touncover violations of the FECA, iscritical to informing the electorate...,and deters corruption or even theappearance of corruption in thepolitical system. "

In another line of argument, thecommittees claimed that the revisedregulations contradicted legislati veintent, citing a statement in a 1979House conunittee report that thebest efforts provision in the FECA(2 U.S.c. §432(i)) did not require

September / 994

committees to make multiplerequests for information. Describingthe 1979 report as merely oneCongressional committee's post­enactment opinion that providedlittle assistance on how to interpretthe intent of Congress in 1976, thecourt found it insufficient to over­turn the FEe's interpretation of bestefforts.

The committees have filed anappeal. ..

New Litigation

Whitmore and Quinlan v. FECJoni Whitmore, a Green Party

candidate for the House of Repre­sentatives, and James Quinlan, avoter in the at-large Congressionaldistrict in Alaska,I challengeprovisions in federal election lawthat allow persons who are notresidents of Alaska's Congressionaldistrict to make contributions, eitherindividually or through a PAC, tocandidates seeking election asAlaska's representative in theHouse. Plaintiffs argue that allowingcontributions from nonresidents ofthe district violates their constitu­tional rights to equal protection ofthe laws, to vote, to politicallyassociate and to be governed by arepublican form of government. '

t Mr. Quinlan fil es the suit on his ownbehalfand as a class action suit onbehalfof registered voters in Alaska 'sat-large district who do not mak econ tributions to any candidates fo r theHouse.

2 Plaintiffs explain: "The go vernment ofthe United States ofAmerica is not ademocracy-it is a republic Therepublican fo rm ofgove rnment...re­quires each memb er of the United StaesHouse of Repres entative s to representthe interests of. and to be accountablefor their legislative acts to, an equaland discr ete numb er of United Stat esresidents. "

Plaintiffs claim that successfulcandidates who receive contribu­tions from nonresidents are notexclusively answerable to the votersin their district. They further claimthat nonresident contributorsexercise undue influence overelection outcomes in the Alaska at­large district, thus denying Alaskanresidents equal representation intheir government. Ms. Whitmoredecided to refuse any contributionsfrom persons who are not residentsof the Alaska district, and sherequested the other candidatesrunning in the primary and generalelections to do the same. Thecandidates named as defendants inthis suit declined Ms. Whitmore' srequest.

Plaintiffs argue that these candi­dates, by accepting money fromnonresidents, will cause Ms. Whit­more's campaign irreparable harm.As a result, plaintiffs request apermanent injunction prohibiting thedefendant candidates from solicitingor accepting out-of-district contribu­tions.

Plaintiffs also seek a declaratoryjud gment from the court stating thatthe Federal Election Campaign Actviolates Article I and the First andFifth Amendments of the Constitu­tion by allowing these contributions.

U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Alaska, Civil Action No.A94-289 CIV, June 30, 1994.

Albanese v. FECSal Albanese, an unsuccessful

Democratic candidate in a 1992House race, and a group of NewYork voters, ask the court to findthat the federal electoral systemunconstitutionally excludes potentialcandidates who do not have suffi­cient funds to mount a competitivecampaign against an incumbent.

The plaintiffs contend that, byparticipating in this system, defen­dants Federal Election Commissionand Susan Molinari, Member ofCongress from New York's 13th

Federal Electio n Commission RECORD

Congressional District and Mr.I Albanese's opponent in the 1992

election, have denied plaintiffs thefollowing constitutional rights:(I) equal protection rights under theFifth and Fourteenth Amend­ments- specifically, equal partici­pation the electoral and legislative

I process; (2) electoral rights underArticle 1, which requires that theU.S. House of Representatives"shall be composed of Memberschosen...by the people of the severalStates"; and (3) the First Amend-

I ment right to speak and associatefreely in the electoral process.Additionally, plaintiffs claim thatthe Federal Election Campaign Actviolates the constitutional rightslisted above. To remedy thesealleged inequities, Mr. Albaneseasks the court to order Congress toestablish a public financing systemfor Congressional elections and to

I rule that the current campaignfinance system is unconstitutional.

Mr. Albanese argues that thecurrent system favors incumbents,wealthy candidates and candidatesbacked by monied interests. Heclaims that incumbents, especially,receive public subsidies not avail­able to other office seekers.

He specifically claims that thedefendant Member of Congressunfairly subsidized her campaignwith her public salary, Congres­sional franking privilege and use ofoffice staff for reelection activities.

He further contends that hisopponent enjoyed significant namerecognition as a result of her incum­bency and that his inability to raisesufficient funds to purchase mediaadvertising impeded him fromgaining sufficient name recognitionto compete effectively.

He claims that an additionaladvantage of incumbency in generalis the ability to raise money frominterests who have benefited fromthe incumbent' s legislative efforts.

Mr. Albanese concludes that thecurrent campaign finance system

(continued on page 10)

9

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases(continued from page 9)

discriminates against him andcandidates like him-those withoutthe personal wealth to compensatefor the alleged sources of supportavailable only to incumbents-andtherefore violates their constitu­tional right to equal participation inthe electoral process.

U.S. District Court for theEastern Division of New York, CivilAction No. 94-3299, July 18,1994.•

Clearinghouse

Updated Summary of StateCampaign Finance LawsReleased

The FEC's National Clearing­house on Election Administrationrecently published CampaignFinance Law 94, the latest edition.The publication summarizes thecampaign finance laws in each stateand includes state code citations.

For quick reference, a series ofcharts list each state's reportingrequirements, contribution andsolicitation restrictions and expendi­ture limits.

This publication would beparticularly valuable for PACswhose nonfederal election activityrequires them to comply with lawsin several states.

Campaign Finan ce Law 94 ispriced at $40 and is available fromthe U.S. Government PrintingOffice. To order, list the title andstock number (052-006-00054-6),enclose a check payable to theSuperintendent of Documents, andsend the order to the Superintendentof Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC20402.

For information on this and otherClearinghouse publications, call800/424-9530 (press 4 if using atouch tone phone) or 202/219-3670. •

10

AdvisoryOpinions

AO 1994-19Affiliation Between NationalMembership Associationand State Societies

The separate segregated fund(SSF) established by the AmericanSociety of Anesthesiologists, Inc.(ASA) is affiliated with the SSFsestablished by ASA componentsocieties in North Carolina andFlorida. Contributions made andreceived by the three SSFs aresubject to the limits for a singlecommittee.

ASA, a national medical society,is a not-for-profit membershipassociation with 30,000 members.Generally, an individual's member­ship in ASA is contingent uponprior membership in one of the 48state component societies charteredby ASA's Board of Directors. To bechartered, these state societies mustsubmit articles of incorporation andbylaws, a list of officers and mem­bers, and a declaration of intent tocomply with ASA guidelines forethical practice.

The Commission concluded that,for purposes of determining whetherthe SSFs of ASA and the statesocieties are affiliated, ASA may becategorized as both a trade associa­tion I and a federation of tradeassociations.'

I A trade association is a memb ershiporganization composed ofpersonsengaged in a similar or related line ofcommerce, and organized to promoteand improve business conditions in thatline of commerce but not to engage inbusiness for profit. 11 CFR 114.8(a).

2A f ederation of trade associations isan organization representing tradeassociations involved in the same lineof commerce. 11 CFR 114.8(g).

September 1994

ASA can be considered a tradeassociation by virtue of its member­ship, its purpose and its tax status.ASA bylaws characterize the 48state entities as "state componentsocieties" chartered by ASA.Committees that are established,financed, maintained or controlledby a membership organization,including related state and localentities of that organization, areconsidered per se (or automatically)affiliated under FEC regulations.II CFR 11O.3(a)(2)(iv). The Com­mission concluded that the statecomponent societies qualify as stateentities of ASA. The SSFs of thestate component societies aretherefore automatically affiliatedwith ASA' s SSF and with eachother.

ASA may also be considered afederation of trade associations forpurposes of determining affiliation.FEC regulations indicate that, whilea federation' s state entities are notper se affiliated, they may beaffiliated if they satisfy certaincriteria listed in II CFR 100.5(g)(4). II CFR 114.8(g)(l). Applyingthose criteria, the Commissionconcluded that the state entities areaffiliated with ASA. While ASA'soverlapping membership with thestate entities is one obvious factorindicating affiliation, the mostprominent factor is ASA' s authorityto charter the state societies, torevoke their charters and to establishcertain membership and governancerequirements.

Affiliated committees share acommon set of limits on contribu­tions received and made. Transfersbetween affiliated committees,however, may be made withoutlimit. II CFR 102.6(a)(l).

Date Issued: July 21, 1994;Length: 5 pages. •

September 1994

AO 1994-20Donation of Campaign Assetto Local Government

The Committee for CongressmanCharlie Rose may donate therecreational vehicle (RV) thatserved as the committee's mobilecampaign office to the HealthDepartment of Cumberland County,North Carolina, for use as a healthclinic. The committee purchased theRV during the 1992 election cyclebut no longer uses it.

Noncash AssetsIn several advisory opinions, the

Commission has concluded thatnoncash assets of a candidate'scampaign are covered by the phrase"excess campaign funds" at 11 CFR113.1(e). Under 2 U.S.c. §439a,excess campaign funds may bedonated to any charitable organiza­tion described in 26 U.S.c. §170(c).Section 170(c) provides that a gift toany political subdivision of a state isa "charitable contribution" if madefor "exclusively public purposes."The Commission concluded that theuse of the vehicle as a mobile healthclinic was an exclusively publicpurpose and that the gift wastherefore expressly permitted under§439a .

ReportingThe donation will not be an

expenditure by the committeebecause it will not be made toinfluence Mr. Rose's reelection, andthe committee will not receive anybenefit from making the gift. Thefair market value of the RV (i.e., the"blue book" price) should thereforebe reported as a memo entry "otherdisbursement" on Schedule B. (Ifthe committee were to deliver thevehicle as a part of a campaignevent, then the gift would be viewedas a campaign expenditure andwould have to be reported as such.)

Date Issued: July 15, 1994;Length : 4 pages ...

I AO 1994-21Solicitation in Dues InvoiceSent to NonsolicitableMembers

The American PharmaceuticalAssociation may include a solicita­tion for contributions to its separatesegregated fund on a standardmembership renewal invoice sent toall 30,000 members even throughabout 1,000 members are noteligible for solicitation under thedefinition of "member" (11 CFR114.1(e)(2». The proposed solicita­tion outside the solicitable classmeets the conditions set forth in pastadvisory opinions: (1) the percent­age of nonsolicitable persons-3percent-is relatively small (deminimis); (2) the invoice states thatcontributions received from ineli­gible members will be returned; and(3) the Association (the Commissionassumes) will screen and return suchcontributions.

The Commission has specificallyrejected proposals to solicit outsidethe restricted class-even with theprecautions in (2) and (3)-whennonsolicitable persons composed 10to 20 percent of the total solicitationand, in another instance, 15 percentor 8,000 persons. AOs 1980-139and 1979-50. By contrast, theCommission approved solicitationssent to 1,000 nonsolicitable personsrepresenting 3 percent of the totalsolicitation (AO 1978-97) and 3,200nonsolicitable persons or .16 percentof the total solicitation (AO 1981-7) .

These last two opinions involvedsolicitations published in an organi­zation's newsletter or magazine.The Associations 's solicitationinvolves a similar situation in thatthe special printing of a smallnumber of invoices without thesolicitation would be impracticaland unduly cumbersome.

Date Issued: July 29, 1994;Length: 4 pages . ..

Federal Election Commission RECORD

AO 1994-22Candidate Committee'sLease of PropertyOwned by Candidate

The Patrick Combs for UnitedState Congress committee may leasea mobile home for campaignpurposes, at fair market rate, from abusiness the candidate owns withhis father, provided that the leaseagreement conforms in all respectsto normal business practices. Thecandidate and his father are the soleowners of Woody Combs AutoSales and Leasing.

Goods and services provided atthe usual and normal charge are notconsidered contributions and are notsubject to the limits of the FederalElection Campaign Act. 11 CFR100.7(a)(1)(iii). If the committeewere to pay less than that amount tolease the mobile home, it would bereceiving a contribution fromWoody Combs Auto Sales andLeasing, which , as a partnership, issubject to the $1,000 per candidate,per election limit. On the otherhand, if the committee were to paymore than the usual and normalcharge, the excess amount wouldaugment the earnings of a candi­date-owned asset (the partnership)and thus violate the ban on thepersonal use of campaign funds .2 U.S.c. §439(a).

The use of "dealer plates" by thecampaign would be permissible ifthe use were consistent with normalbusiness practice and if the commit­tee paid fair market value for thebenefit. Date Issued: July 28, 1994;Length: 4 pages ...

AO 1994-23Payroll DeductionAuthorizations Transferredto New PAC

Northrop Grumman, a newcorporation created through themerger of the Northrop and Grum­man Corporations, currently main-

(continued on page 12)

11

AOR 1994-26Bank line of credit to candidateapproved before candidacy estab- I

lished. (Scott Douglas Cunningham;July 22, 1994; 9 pages)

AOR 1994-27Solicitation of employees enrolledin corporation 's stock ownershipplan . (Consumer Power CompanyEmployees for Better Government-

Federal Election Commis sion RECORD

Advisory Opinions(continued from page 11)

tains two separate segregated funds(SSFs) previously established by theformer companies. In consolidatingthe two into a new SSF, NorthropGrumman does not have to seekreauthorizations from employeeswho had authorized payroll deduc­tions of contributions to either of thetwo SSFs .

Northrop Grumman plans to sendparticipants a letter notifying themof the change in SSFs. The letterwill include a form for modifying orcancelling a deduction. The corpora­tion must send the letter beforeimplementing the payroll deductiontransfer. The letter must remindparticipants of their continuing rightto revoke a payroll deductionauthorization without reprisal andmust include statements on thepolitical purpose of the SSF and thevoluntary nature of SSF contribu­tions. II CFR I 14.5(a)(2)-(5). AO1991-19. Date Issued : July 29 ,1994; Length : 3 pages . •

Advisory Opinion RequestsAdvisory opinion requests

(AORs) are available for review andcomment in the Public RecordsOffice.

AOR 1994-25Nonprofit corporation formed byfour members of the LibertarianParty for purpose of staging nationalnominating convention. (FEEEnterprises, Inc. ; July 22, 1994;7 pages plus attachments)

Federal; August II, 1994; 4 pagesplus 42-page attachment)

AOR 1994·28Application of foreign natio~a! .definition to U.S . nationals living In

American Samoa. (CongressmanEni F. H. Faleomavaega ; August 12,1994; 2 pages plus 10-page attach­ment ) •

Alternate Disposition ofI Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1994·18The Commission could not reachagreement, by the required four-votemajority, on whether variousmembership classes of the Interna­tional Council of Shopping Centersqualified as "members" eligible torecei ve contribution solicitationsand partisan communications from

I the Council. See Agenda Document#94-81.

AOR 1994-24I This request was closed without

issuance of an opin ion because it didnot qualify as an advisory opini.o~

request. The facts related to activitythat had already taken place ratherthan to ongoing or future acti vity , asrequired under II CFR 112.1 (b).

Submitted by Chattem, Inc ., therequest asked whether the corpora­tions' s severance payment to acompany executive running forCongress, and the continued pay­ment of his medical benefits whenhe converted to hourly employment,were permissible. •

Septemb er 1994

ICompliance(continued f rom page 4)

Complainant: Ellen S. Miller,Executive Director, Center for

I Responsive Politics (DC)Subject: Excessive contributions ;$25 ,000 annual limit

IDisposition: (a) $ 15,000 civilpenalty (excessive contributions; . .$25,000 annual limit); (b) $500 CIVIl

Ipenalty (excessive contributions);(c) reason to believe but took nofurther action

MUR 3360Respondents: (a) Jack Kemp forPresident, Scott B. Mackenzie,treasurer (VA); (b) Victory' 88,Scott B. Mackenzie, trea surer (VA);(c) Dannemeyer for Congress, JohnT. Poortinga, treasurer (CA ); (d) 48other respondentsComplainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Corporate contributions;prohibited in-kind contributions:excessive contributions; expendi­tures in excess of the Iowa and NewHampshire limits; calculation ofmedia transportation costs; record­keeping and reporting; joint fund­raising noticeDisposition: (a) $100,000 civilpenalty; (b) and (c) $20,000 civilpenalty; (d) reason to believe buttook no further action

MUR 3418Respondents: Friends of JohnGlenn (formerly known as JohnGlenn Presidential Committee), LynGlenn, treasurer (OH)Complainant: Robert T . Bennett,Chairman, Ohio Republican StateCentral and Executive CommitteeSubject: Failure to report debts(accrued interest on bank loans)Disposition: $65,000 civil penalty

MUR 3538/3526fPre-MUR 257Respondents (all in FL) : (a) Law­rence J. Smith; (b) Larry Smith forCongress Committee, Joseph A.Epstein, trea surerComplainants: Lawrence J. Smith(sua sponte); Earl Rodney (FL)

/ 2

September 1994

Subject: Knowing and willfulconversion of campaign funds topersonal use; failure to reportdisbursements in full; failure todeposit receipts into designatedcampaign depository in timelymannerDisposition: (a) $20,000 civilpenalty; due to unusual circum­stances in this case, FEC acceptedpayment of $5,000 (personal use);(b) $5,000 civil penalty (reporting;deposits)

MUR3616Respondents (all in NY): (a) NitaLowey; (b) Nita Lowey for Con­gress, Aaron Eidelman, treasurerComplainant: Sandra Monteiro(NY)Subject: Failure to file report ontime; disclaimer; failure to report in­kind contributionsDisposition: (a) No reason tobelieve (disclaimer); (b) reason tobelieve but took no further action;sent admonishment letter (dis­claimer)

MUR 3627Respondents: (a) Ross the BossCommittee, Jack W. McGrath,treasurer (CA); (b) 1-S00-GO­PEROT (CA)Complainant: Loron WilliamKnowlon (CA)Subject: Failure to report debtDisposition: (a) Reason to believebut took no further action; sentadmonishment letter; (b) no reasonto believe

MUR 3679Respondents: (a) Perot '92 (for­merly known as Perot PetitionCommittee), Mike Poss, treasurer(TX); (b) Orville H. Brettman (lL)Complainant: Orville Brettman (IL)Subject: Failure to reimburse cam­paign expenses; failure to registerand reportDisposition: (a) No reason tobelieve (reimbursement); (b) reasonto believe but took no further action(registration, reporting); sentadmonishment letter

MUR3726Respondents: (a) Perot '92 (for­merly known as Perot PetitionCommittee), Mike Poss, treasurer(TX); (b) Denis L. Hemmerle (CA)Complainant: Denis L.Hemmerle(CA)Subject: Failure to disclose dis­puted debts; excessive contributionsDisposition: (a-b) Reason tobelieve but took no further action;sent admonishment letters

MUR 3741Respondents: Perot '92 (formerlyknown as Perot Petition Commit­tee), Mike Poss, treasurer (TX)Complainant: Charles S. Turpin(OK)Subject: Failure to report financialactivitiesDisposition: Reason to believe buttook no further action; sent admon­ishment letter

MUR 3757Respondents: Huffington forCongress, Eleanor F. Wyatt, trea­surer (CA)Complainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Failure to file 4S-hournoticeDisposition: $20,000 civil penalty

MUR3825Respondents: Mike Kreidler forCongress Committee, Krista Bunch,treasurer (WA)Complainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Failure to file 4S-hournotices

I Disposition: $2,250 civil penalty

MUR 3833Respondents : Committee to ElectDemar Dahl to the United StatesSenate, Theodore N. McPhee,treasurer (NV)Complainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Failure to file 4S-hournoticesDisposition: $4,500 civil penalty

MUR 3840Respondents: (a) New York '92Host Committee, Inc., Henry Miller,

Federal Election Commission RECORD

treasurer; (b) Foundation of JewishPhil anthropies of Greater MiamiFederation, Inc.; (c) Steptoe &JohnsonComplainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Impermissable contribu­tionsDisposition: (a)-(c) Reason tobelieve but took no further action

MUR 38991Pre·MUR 296Respondent: D. Lloyd Wilson (NE)Complainant: FEC initiated; EllenS. Miller, Executive Director,Center for Responsive Politics (DC)Subject: Excessive contributions;$25,000 annual limitDisposition: $15,000 civil penalty

MUR3927Respondent: Mrs. Stanley Stone(WI)Complainant: FEC initiatedSubject: $25,000 annual contribu­tion limitDisposition: $S,OOOcivil penalty

MUR 3928Respondent: Roy H. Cullen (TX)Complainant: FEC initiated (LosAngeles Times article 9/25/91)Subject: $25,000 annual contribu­tion limitDisposition: $9,000 civil penalty

MUR 3931Respondents: (a) Luis V. Gutierrez(IL); (b) Gutierrez for Congress,Raul Vega, treasurer (IL); (c) CBS,Inc. (NY)Complainant: Juan M. Soliz (IL)Subject: In-kind corporate contribu­tion; press exemptionDisposition: (a)-(c) No reason tobelieve

MUR 3961Respondents: Friends of ConnieMack, Robert I. Watkins, treasurer(FL)Complainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Excessive contributionsDisposition: Reason to believe buttook no further action; sent admon­ishment letter.

13

441 . Sect ion 441442. Section 442451 . Section 45 1452. Section 452453. Section 453454 . Section 454455. Section 455

812. AO 1994-12813. AO 1994-13815. AO 1994-15816. AO 1994-16818 . AO 1994- 188 19. AO 1994-19820. AO 1994-20821. AO 1994-21822. AO 1994-22821. AO 1994-21

Federal Election Commis sion RECORD

Information(con tinued from page 5)

Flashfax MenuTo order any of these docum ents,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call 202/501-3413 on a touch tone phone. Youwill be asked for the numbers of thedocuments you want, your fax numberand your regular number. The docu­ments will be faxed shortly thereafter.

Disclosure30 I. Guide to Researching Public

Records302. Access ibility of Public Records

Office303. Federal/State Records Offices304. Using FEC Campaign Financ e

Information305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data306. Direct Acces s Program (DAP)307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

Limitations315. Contributions316. Coordin ated Party Expenditure

Limits317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting318. Volunteer Activity319. Independent Expend itures320. Local Party Activity32 1. CorporatelLabor Faci lities322. CorporatelLabor Communications323. Trade Associations324. Foreign Nationals

Public Funding330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections331 . The $3 Tax Checkoff332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff333. Recipients of Public Funding334 . Presidenti al Fund Tax Check off

Status

Compliance340. Candidate Registration341. Committee Treasurers342 . Political Ads and Sol icitations343 . 10 Questi ons from Candidates344 . Reports Due in 1994345. Primary Dates and Deadlines for

Ballot Access346. Filing A Comp laint

Federal Election Commission40 I. The FEC and the Federal Cam­

paign Finance Law402. La Ley Federal relativ a al Finan­

ciamiento de las Carnpafias

14

, 403 . State and Local Elections and theFederal Campaign Law

404 . Compliance with Laws Outsidethe FEe' s Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissionersand Officers

406. Telephone Directory407. Table of Organization408 . Index for 1993 Record Newsletter409 . Free Publications411 . Complete Menu of All Mater ial

Available

Clearinghouse on ElectionAdministration425. List of Report s Available426 . Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act427. National Voter Registrat ion Act

of 1993 (see also document 226)

Money in Politics Statistics625. 1991-92 Political Money626. 1993 Year-End PAC Count627 . 1993-94 Congressional628. 1993-94 National Party629. 1993-94 PAC Finances

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201 )100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions101. Part 101 , Candidate Statu s and

Designations102. Part 102, Registration, Organiza­

tion and Recordkeeping byPoliti cal Comm ittees

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees105. Part 105, Document Filing106. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate

and Committee Activities107. Part 107, President ial Nominating

Convention, Registration andReport s

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reportsand Statements with State Office s

109. Part 109, Independent Expendi­tures

110. Part 110, Contribution andExpenditure Limitations andProhibit ions

I I I. Part I II, Compliance Procedure112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions113. Part 113, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to SupportFederal Officeholder Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and LaborOrganization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candi­

dates and Political Committees200. Part 200, Petit ions for Rulemaking

September 1994

I 20 I. Part 20 I, Ex Parte Commun ica-tions

Recent Actions on Regulations,Including Explanationsand Justifications225. Use of Candidate Names226. Rules to Implement Natio nal

Voter Registrat ion Act of 1993227. Presidential Nominating Conven-

tions

Forms36 1. Form I, Statem ent of Organiz ation362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Author ized Committee365 . Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received367. Form 7, Report of Communication

Costs368. Form 8, Debt Settl ement Plan369. Form 1M, Notification of Multi-

candidate Status

Schedules370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts371. Schedule B, Itemized Disburse­

ments372. Schedules C and C- I , Loans373. Schedule D, Debts and Obliga­

tions374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent

Expenditures375 . Schedule F, Itemized Coord inated

Expenditures376. Schedule s H1- H4, Allocation377 . Schedule 1, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)431. Section 431432. Section 432433. Sect ion 433434. Section 434437. Section 437438. Section 438439. Section 439

Advisory Opinions802. AO 1994-2803. AO 1994-3804. AO 1994-4805. AO 1994-5806 . AO 1994-6807. AO 1994-7808. AO 1994-8809. AO 1994-9810 . AO 1994-108 11. AO 1994-11

Sep tember 1994 Federal Election Commission RECORD

The first number in each citationrefers to the "number" (month) ofthe 1994 Record issue in which thearticle appeared. The second number,following the colon, indicates thepage number in that issue. Forexample, " 1:4" means that thearticle is in the January issue onpage 4.

Advisory Opinions1993-18: Corporate plan to foster

political participation, 2: I1993-1 9: Retiring 1984 Presidential

debt, I:131993-20: Purchase and distribution

of candidate biography, 2:31993-21: Preemption of Ohio law,

2:41993-22: Usc.of excess funds by

retired House Member, 3:51993-23: PAC disaffiliation, 3:61993-24: Definition of member, 4:61993-25: Preemption of Wisconsin

law restricting contributions from I

lobbyists, 3:71994-2: Preemption of Minnesota

law restricting contributions from I

lobbyists, 5:61994-3: Charitable matching plan

for twice-yearly solicitations, 6:4;correction, 7:6

1994-5: Candidate status, 6:5;correction, 7:6

Name

Organization

Zip Code

members, 9: II1994-22: Candidate committee 's

lease of property owned bycandidate, 9: I I

1994-23: Payroll deduction authori­zations transferred to new PAC,9:11

Cour t CasesFEC v.- America's PAC, 8:8- GOPAC, 6:5- LaRouche (94-658-A), 7:3- Michigan Republican State

Committee, 4:7; 9:8- National Republican Senatorial

Corrunittee (93-1612), 1:12; 4:7- Political Contributions Data, Inc.

(pe D), 5:4- Rodriguez, 6:5- Survival Education Fund, Inc., 3: I

I - Williams, I: 12v. FEC

- Akins (92-1864), 5:4- Albanese, 9:9- Center for Responsive Politics,

I :12; 9:8- Freedom Republicans, Inc., 3:3- Froelich, 2:2; 8:9- Fulani, 8: I I- Jordan, 8:9- LaRouche (92-1100), I: 12

(continued on page 16)

State

Phone Number

City

Address

No. of Copies

(If ordering more than 25 copies, please include your phone number.)

1994-6: Charitable matching planfor twice-yearly solicitations, 7:4

1994-7: Charitable matching planfor twice-yearly solicitations;treasurer as custodian, 7:4

1994-8: Campaign's rental of officespace from candidate-ownedcorporation, 7:4

1994-9: Transfers from nonfederalPACs; effect of corporate reorga­nization on affiliation, 7:5

1994-10: Waiver of bank fees forpolitical corrunittee borrowers, 8:6

1994-1 1: SSF activities of federalcontractor partnership, 7:6

1994-12: Definition of memberapplied to association's governingand membership structure, 8:6

1994-1 3: Video slate card listingmultiple candidates, 7:6

1994-1 5: Cable series moderated byHouse Member seeking reelec­tion, 8:7

1994-16: PAC contributions re­funded to former employees, 8:7

1994-19: Affiliation betweennational membership associationand state societies, 9: 10

1994-20: Donation of campaignasset to local government, 9: II

1994-21: Solicitation in duesinvoice sent to nonsolicitable

~-----------------------Order Form for Foreign National BrochureSee box on page 3. Also available Through Flashfax (document 324 ).

Send yourorder to: Federal Election CommissionInformation Division999 E Street, NWWashington. DC20463

911. AO 1993-11912. AO 1993-12913. AO 1993-13914. AO 1993-14915. AO 1993-15916. AO 1993-16917. AO 1993-17918. AO 1993-18919. AO 1993-19920. AO 1993-20921. AO 1993-21922. AO 1993-22923. AO 1993-23924. AO 1993-24925 . AO 1993-25

Index

822. AO 1994-22823. AO 1994-23824. AO 1994-24825. AO 1994-25900. Brochure901. AO 1993-1902. AO 1993-2903. AO 1993-3904. AO 1993-4905. AO 1993-5906. AO 1993-6907. AO 1993-7908. AO 1993-8909. AO 1993-9910. AO 1993-1 0

15

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index(continued fro m page 15)

- LaRouche (92-1555), 9:7- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (NRSC), 5:5; 7:2- Republican Nation al Committee

(RNC) (94-1017), 7:3; 9:8- Wh itmore and Quinl an , 9:9

ReportsSchedule for 1994, I :4; correc­

tion, 2: 1- change in Florida and South

Carolina election dates, 4:6

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use, $300*Printed on recycled paper

- reporting rem inders, April, 3:1;July, 6: I ; October throu ghJanuary, 9:6

Special election s- Kentu cky (2nd District), 5:9- Oklahoma (6th Distr ict), 3:7- Oklahoma (Senate) , 7:2

800 Line ArticlesHelp - my report is late, 6:1Registrati on by candidates and their

committees, I: 14

September 1994

Bulk Rate MailPostage and Fees Paid

Federal Election CommissionPermit Number G-31