September 1995

Table of Contents

ReportsPilot Program for ElectronicFiling Gets Underway

PublicationsDisclosure Directory Now on Disk

Conferences2 Three FEC Conferences to be

Held in Washington, DC

Court Cases2 FEC v. Christian Action Network

3 Advisory Opinions

Statistics7 Midyear PAC Count

Public Funding7 Convention Funding

Compliance7 MURs Released to the Public

8 Federal Register Notices

Information9 Flashfax Menu

10 Index

Federal Election Commi ssion

Reports

Pilot Program for ElectronicFiling Gets Underway

The FEC has invited a number ofPACs, party committees andcandidate committees to participatein a voluntary pilot program todevelop an electronic filing systemfor campaign disclosure reports.Ultimately, committees would beable to submit reports via computer,either on disk or through telecom­munications technology . Pilotprogram invitees were chosen fortheir proximity to the FEC and toinclude committees of various typesand sizes with disclosure reports ofvarying complexity .

In letters dispatched recently tothe Democratic National Commit­tee, the Republican National Com­mittee, 24 members of the Houseand Senate, and selected politicalaction committees, FEC ChairmanDanny L. McDonald wrote:

"[We] want to acquire somepractical, real world knowledge ofwhat [electronic filing] means to thepolitical committees who file withus." He asked the committees, "toadvise us about their current reportpreparation and records maintenancepractices."

(continued Oil page 2)

Volume 21, Number 9

Publications

Combined Federal and StateDisclosure Directory 1995Now Available on Disk

The Combined Federal and StateDisclosure Directory 1995 is nowavailable on a 3.5" disk for only $5.This electronic version of theDirectory may be purchased for usewith both IBM and MacIntoshversions of the following word pro­cessing software: Microsoft Word,WordPerfect and Microsoft Write.

The Directory lists the federaland state offices responsible fordisclosing and dispensing informa­tion on a variety of election-relatedtopics, as well as lobbying andcorporate registration information.See page 6 of the May 1995 Recordfor a more detailed description ofthe Directory.

Disk packages of the Directorymay be purchased at the FEC'sPublic Records Office. They mayalso be ordered by telephone (800/424-9530, extension 3, or 202/219­4140) or by mail (Public DisclosureDivision, Federal Election Commis­sion , 999 E Street, NW, Washing­ton , DC, 20463 ).

A one-page, descriptive andinstructive flyer on the Directorydisk package is available throughthe automated Flashfax system. Toreceive it via fax, just dial 202/501­3413 and request document 308. ..

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Reports(continued from page 1)

This information will assist theFEC in developing a uniformelectronic filing system that is userfriendly, efficient for the FEC andcost effective for the taxpayers. At alater stage, committees may beasked to provide a representativesampling of data.

Invitees who volunteer for theprogram will have the opportunityto help shape the structure of theautomated process that will ulti­mately emerge from the project.Participant committees, it should benoted, will still need to submit papercopies of their FEC disclosurereports to the appropriate federaland state offices.•

Federal Election Commission999 E Street, NWWashington, DC 20463

800/424-95302021219-3420202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)202/219-3336 (TOO)

Danny L. McDonald, ChairmanLee Ann Elliott, Vice ChairmanJoan D. Aikens, CommissionerJohn Warren McGarry,

CommissionerTrevor Potter, CommissionerScott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, StaffDirectorLawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the InformationDivision

Louise D. Wides, DirectorDario Bard, Editor

2

Conferences

Three FEC Conferences toBe Held in Washington, DC

FEC conferences offer basic andadvanced workshops on the federalcampaign finance law and provideattendees the opportunity to discussproblems and questions with FECCommissioners and staff, andrepresentatives of the InternalRevenue Service. For 1995 andearly 1996, the FEC has scheduledthe following three conferences atthe Madison Hotel, Washington, DC:

• December 11-12, 1995: Corporate/Labor Conference; $165* registra­tion fee;

• January 11-12, 1996: Membership/Trade Association Conference ;$165' registration fee; and

• March 8, 1996: Candidate Confer­ence; $110' registration fee.

Additionally, the FEC is hostingregional conferences in San Anto­nio, TX (September 7-8 at the LaMansion del Rio Hotel), SanFrancisco, CA (October 23-24, atthe Miyako Hotel) and Chicago, IL(April 11-12, 1996, at the DrakeHotel). See page 1 of the July 1995Record for details on the San Anto­nio and San Francisco conferences.

To receive registration materialsand further information on these andother conferences, call 800/424­9530 or 202/219-3420.•

•This fee includes the cost of allconference materials and two or threemeals (two continental breakfasts and alunch), dep ending on the length of theconference. Hotel accommodations areextra.

September 1995

Court Cases

FEC v. Christian ActionNetwork

On June 28, 1995, the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Western District ofVirginia, Lynchburg Division,dismissed this case. The FEC hadbrought suit against the ChristianAction Network (CAN) for makingindependent expenditures I withcorporate funds, for failing toinclude the proper disclaimer on itspolitical communications and forfailing to file the required reportswith the FEe. (See page 7 of theDecember 1994 Record for asummary of the FEC's original suit.)

The communications in ques­tion-a television advertisement andtwo newspaper advertisements thatran during the weeks leading up tothe 1992 Presidential generalelection-assailed then-candidateBill Clinton 's al1eged position onhomosexual issues.

The court ruled that the commu­nications were outside the Commis­sion's jurisdiction because they didnot expressly advocate the electionor defeat of Bill Clinton.

The court reached this conclusionon the basis of the Supreme Court 'sdecision in Buckley v. Valeo . In thatcase, the Supreme Court said that,for a communication to be consid­ered an independent expenditure andthus subject to FEC regulation, itmust expressly advocate the electionor defeat of a clearly identifiedcandidate.' In reviewing relevant

I An independent expenditure is an ex­penditure made without any coordina­tion with a candidate 's campaign for acommunication which expressly advo­cates the election or defeat of a clearlyidentified candidate forfederal office.

2 The Court listed the following examplesofwords that constitute express advocacy:"vote for, .. "e lect," "support," "castyour ballot for, " "Smith for Congress, ""vote against, " "defeat, " "reject. "

September 1995

court decisions since Buckley, thecourt found that "political expres­sion, including discussion of publicissues and debate on the qualifica­tions of candidates , enjoys extensiveFirst Amendment protection" andthat the courts "have adopted a strictinterpretation of the 'expressadvocacy ' standard ... . Thus,courts generally have been disin ­clined to entertain arguments madeby the Commission that focus onanything other than the actuallangua ge used in an advertisement."

In arguing the case, the FEC hadrelied on the Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit' s deci sion in FEev. Furgatch. In that case, the appea lscourt considered the timing andcontext of a comm unication indetermining the existence of expressadvocacy . The FEC stressed thatthos e elements were important hereas well: the CAN television adver­tisement aired in the weeks leadingup to the 1992 gen eral election, and,although the ad did not containwords that expressly advocated BillClinton's defeat, its imagery, music,editing, coloring, etc . clearlycon veyed that message .

The FEC also pointed out that thenewspaper ads-both of whichreferred to the "voting public" andone of which referred to a Presiden­tial deb ate scheduled for that day­conveyed a mess age identical to thatof the televi sion ad. Viewed collec­tively, the FEC contended, the threeads sent voters the mess age to voteagainst Bill Clinton and his policiesin the November elections.

The court reco gnized the validityof the Furgatcn approach but notedthat the Furgatch court stated thatthe context and timing of a commu­nication were peripheral to theactual words them selves, andtherefore should be given onl ylimited wei ght when determiningthe presence of express advocacy.

Focusing on the words containedin the ads, the court said there wasno call for electoral act ion. Thenewspaper ads' reference to the

"voting publ ic" "does not per setranslate into an exhortation tovote. "

Finding that express advocacywas absent from the ads , the courtconcluded that "the Defendants'advertisements represent the verytype of issue advocacy the BuckleyCourt sought to exempt fromgovernment regulation ."

U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Virginia,Lynchburg Division, No . 94-0082­L, June 28, 1995 . •

AdvisoryOpinions

AO 1995-16Attaining National PartyStatus

The National Committee of theU.S. Taxpayers Party (the party )qualifies as a national party commit­tee for purposes of the FederalElection Campaign Act (the Act)because it has placed candidates forvarious federal offices on the ball otsof num erous states and engaged inparty-building as well as oth er typesof activities characteristic of anational party.

A national party committee maymake coordinated party expendi­tures under 2 U.S.c. §44Ia(d) andenjo ys higher contribution limitsthan other committees .

Political Party StatusBefore a party committee can

qualify as a national party commit­tee the party must qualify as apolitical party under the Act. Toqu alify as a politi cal part y, a partymust successfully place a candidatefor federal offi ce on a ballot, and theballot must identify that candidateas the party' s nominee. 2 U.S .C.§431(16). In past elections, the U.S.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Taxpayers Party 's Presidential andCon gres sional candidates appearedon the ballot as the nominees ofparties identified or affiliated withthe U.S. Taxpayers Party. Thisaccomplishm ent earned the U.S.Taxpayers Party political partystatu s under the Act.

National Party StatusTo attain nation al party status, a

committee of a political party mustdo more than focus its activitiessolely on Presidential elections(AOs 1980-131 and 1978-58); itmust do more than engage inact ivitie s that are limited to only onestate (AO 1976-95 ); and it musthave more than a limited number offederal candidates on state ballots(AOs 1992-44 and 1988-45).

In the past, the Commission hascon sidered a number of factorswhen determining whether a politi­cal party qualifi ed as a nation alparty committee. Specifically, theCommission has looked at whetherthe party :

• Succeeded in placing candidatesfor various federal offices on theballot in numerous states;

• Conducted party-building activitiessuch as voter registration and get­out-the-vote drives on an ongoingbasis (rather than with respect to aparticular election);

• Publicized issues of importance tothe pol itical party and its adherentsthrou ghout the nation ;

• Held a national convention ;• Established a national headquarters

office ; and• Established state party affiliates.

The U.S. Taxpayers Partypreviously sought national status inAO 1992-44. In that opinion, theCommission concluded that thePart y had not yet reached a level ofact ivity to qualify as a nationalcommittee. (See page 5 of the June1993 Record for a summary of theopinion .) Sin ce then , the Part y hasshown significant development.

(continued on page 4)

3

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions(cont inued from page 3)

Specifically, the Party held avoter registration drive in Delaware;previously, its party-building effortswere only in the planning stages . Onthe financial side, during the 1993­94 election cycle the Party took in$60,000 in receipts and made$58,000 in disbursements; before, itwas unclear whether the Party hadeven opened a bank account. Alsoof note, the Party held severalnational committee meetingsthroughout the nation following its1992 convention.

Finally, the Party made progressin obtaining ballot access for non­Presidential candidates, an impor­tant element in achieving nationalcommittee status. At the time of theprevious request, the Party had ,gained ballot access for 9 candidatesfor the U.S. Congress in 3 states. Bycontrast, in the 1994 election cycle,the Party had 14 Congressionalcandidates on the ballot in 6 stateslocated in several sections of thecountry.

These factors, taken collectively,qualify the U .S. Taxpayers Party asa national party committee.

This opinion did not address anypublic funding issues, since theywere not raised in the advisoryopinion request.

Date Issued: July 14, 1995;Length: 6 pages. ..

AO 1995-17Trade Association Federationand Affiliated State andLocal Units; Donation ofRaffie Prizes and One-ThirdRule

The National Association ofRealtors (NAR) qualifies as afederation of trade associationscomposed of state and local tradeassociations. RPAC is NAR'sseparate segregated fund. Becaus~

the national, state and local associa­tions are affiliated with one another,

4

individuals qualifying as "members"of state and local units may besolicited for donations of funds tounderwrite costs of solicitingcontributions to RPAC and fordonations of merchandise for RPACfundraisers sponsored by the stateand local associations. The value ofthe items donated for a particularevent may be aggregated for pur­poses of determining whether anyreimbursement is required under the"one-third rule."

Associations as Trade/Membership Associations withQualified Members

NAR and the state and localassociations qualify as trade associa­tions under 11 CFR lI4.8(a)because they are composed ofpersons in a related line of com­merce (real estate) who are orga­nized to promote and improvebusiness in that line of commerce.The associations appear neither tobe organized to operate at a profitnor to have their net earnings inureto the benefit of any member.

The associations each havemembers (REALTORs and thoseREALTOR-ASSOCIATEs withvoting rights) who qualify as"members" under FEC rules be­cause (1) they have an obligation topay regular dues and (2) are entitledto vote directly for at least onemember of the highest governingbody or, alternatively, to vote forthose who select at least one mem­ber of the governing body . This isone wayan association's membersmay qualify as "members" forpurposes of federal election law .II CFR l14.I(e)(2)(ii).

NAR as Federation of TradeAssociations

Under 11 CFR 114.8(g)(l), afederation of trade associations is anorganization that is composed oftrade associations united in a similaror allied line of commerce.

In the case at hand, the state andlocal associations participate asunits of a national body bound by

September 1995

the rules of that body. Althougheach state and local trade associa­tion has its own governance mecha­nism, NAR prescribes model bylawsthat result in consistent rules,organizational structures and goalsacross national, state and locallevels. State associations are collec­tively represented on NAR's boardof directors and local associationsare collectively represented on theboards of the state associations.NAR collects dues from the stateand local associations, and the stateassociations collect dues from thelocal associations. As anotherunifying factor a local associationmust belong to a state association inorder to be a NAR member. Takentogether, these factors create aninteractive relationship among thethree tiers of organizations. As thenational entity, NAR qualifies as afederation of trade associations.

AffiliationNAR and the state and local

associations are affiliated with eachother because:

• The state and local entities havethe power to participate in NAR'sgovernance through the selectionof NAR Directors and the member­ship of their officials on the NARBoard;

• NAR controls key aspects of thegovernance of the state and localentities;

• NAR has virtually completemembership overlap with the stateand local entities; and

• The state and local entities haveongoing dues-paying obligations toNAR.

These factors constitute affilia­tion for purposes of federal electionlaw . II CFR 100.S(g)(4)(i) and(g)(4)(ii), and 11 CFR 11O.3(a)(3)(i)and (a)(3)(ii). See also AdvisoryOpinion (AO) 1994-19. 1

I Under other FEC rules. NAR and thestate and local associations are per seaffiliated. See 11 CFR 100.5(g)(3)(iv)and 110.3(a)(2)(iv).

September / 995

Fundraising Prizes and the One­Third Rule

A corporation, including anincorporated trade association, maypay for the solicitation expenses ofits separate segregated fund. II CFR114.5(b). In the past , the Commis­sion has permitted corporate mem­bers of trade associations to helpdefray the solicitation expenses ofthe association 's separate segregatedfund by donating funds and mer­chandise, such as raffle prizes.Similarly, the individual membersof NAR's state and local affiliatesmay be solicited for, and donatefunds and merchandise to, theirassociations for the purpose ofdefraying RPAC's solicitationexpenses .

NAR's state and local affiliatesplan to conduct fundraising socialevents for RPAC that involve thesale raffl e or auction of itemssolicited and donated by individualmembers . The proceeds collectedfrom these fundrai sers should becompared with the value of theprizes contributed under the one ­third rule at II CFR 114.5(b)(2).That rule states that a reasonablepractice to follow is for the PAC toreimburse the membership associa­tion for the costs which exceed one­third of the money contributed.

Any reimbursement owed by thePAC per the one-third rul e shouldbe given to the assoc iation sponsor­ing the event , which may thendecide how to di stribute the reim­bursed amount among the donors .See AO 1982-36 .

Since the reimbursement underthe one-third rule is to be made tothe membership organization, theamount of the reimbursement maybe ascertained by aggregating thevalue of the items. This includes thevalue of all prizes and entertainmentprovided for the event by theassociation and the individualdonors. In calculating the value ofthese item s, the membership organi­zation may omit solicitation costs

and costs for food , drinks and theuse of fac ilities . See AOs 1980-50and 1979-72.

Date Issued : July 28 , 1995;Length: 13 pages...

AO 1995-19Discovering IllegalContributions in aCommittee's Treasury

Mr. Subodh Ch andra, treasurer ofthe Indian-American LeadershipInvestment Fund (the Fund) mustundertake best efforts to confirm thelegality of contributions he nowsuspects were made in the name ofanother; he deposited these contri­butions because they appearedlawful at the time of receipt. Toconfirm a suspect contribution ' slegality , Mr. Chandra may requestwritten or oral confirmation fromeach contributor. He must keep awritten memorandum on a confir­mation made orally. Contributionsthat remain questionable must bedisgorged , as described below.

Thi s advisory opinion does notrequire the Fund to take any actioncontrary to any advice it receivesfrom the U.S . Department of Justice(DOJ). However, should the Fundchoose not to contact contributorsbased on DO] advice, it may not usethe questionable contributions forany of its expenses; these moniesmust be disgorged as described below .

BackgroundMr. Ch andra first learned of the

suspect contributions in a meetingwith a Baltimore Sun repo rter whoalleged that certain of the Fund 'scontributors in Maryland madesizable contributions although they"did not appea r to have the financialmean s" to make them . The reporter' ssubsequent article contained asser­tions by some of the individual s thatthey had been reimbursed for theircontributions. All of the contribu­tions from Maryland were transmittedto the Fund by a Baltimore attorne y.

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Handling Suspect ContributionsThe specificity of the reporter's

allegations, as manifested in thearticle and his meeting with Mr.Ch andra, raise genuine questions asto the legality of certain contribu­tions. The Fund is therefore obligatedto take some form of ameliorativ eact ion with respect to these genu­inel y questionable contributions.The Fund 's proposal to seek confir­mation from its contributors com­plie s with the requirements at11 CFR 103.3 (b)(l ).

In his advisory opinion request,Mr. Chandra asked the Commissionto offer further guida nce. Accord­ingly , the Commission suggests thatunder the circumstances Mr. Chandraconsider seeking confirmations forall contributions received fromMaryland .

In instances where the Commis­sion has investi gated and deter­mined that there is culpability on thepart of the recip ient committee, theCommission often views the expedi­tious refund or dis gorgement ofunlawful contributions as a mitigat­ing fact or in determining an appro­priate civil pen alty .

Contributions made illeg ally arenormally returned to the contributor,but in this case the individualsuspected of reimbursing others 'contributions denies having don e so.Therefore, contributions that are notconfirmed to be legal must, within30 day s of this opinion, be disbursedfor any lawful purpose unrelated toa federal campaign . Appropriatepayee s are federal , state and localgovernment ent itie s and qu alifiedcharit able org anizat ions described in26 u.s.c. §170(c). See AO 1991­39. 11 CFR 103.3(b )(2).

Furthermore, the Fund may havecredible information indicating,despite any contributor explanationand assertion of legality that mightbe offered, that a certain contribu­tion was made in the name ofanother . In this situation, the Fund

(continued on page 6)

5

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Advisory Opinions(continued from page 5)

should disgorge the amount of thecontribution as described above.

Date Issued: July 28, 1995;Length: 6 pages.•

AO 1995-21Campaign's Use of FundsAwarded in Law Suit

The Larson for U.S. SenateCommittee (the committee) may usethe $1,500 it was awarded in acampaign-related law suit to payattorney 's fees in that case. On thenext FEC report due, the committeemust disclose the court award underthe "other receipts" category of theDetailed Summary Page and itemizeit on Schedule A.

A North Dakota court awardedthe committee the $1,500 in a lawsuit the committee had filed againstthe local Sheriff's office for dam­age s arising from the seizure of thecommittee's campaign videotapesfrom local television stations.

Applicability of the ContributionLimits

The Federal Election CampaignAct (the Act) defines a contributionas money or anything of value givenfor the purpose of influencing anelection for federal office. 2 U.S .C.§431 (8)(A). Certain fund s receivedby a political committee are notconsidered contributions and thus donot count against the contributionlimits . For example, interest earnedon a committee's bank accountbalance is not considered a contribu­tion-nor is a vendor rebate orrefund, if made in the ordinarycourse of business. See AdvisoryOpinions 1994-10 , 1986-1 and 1981­6. Similarly, the $1,500 legal awardis not considered a contribution andmay therefore be accepted in full bythe committee since the contributionlimits are not applicable.

6

Paying Legal Fees with CourtAwarded Monies

FEC regulations state that theCommission will consider on acase -by-case basi s whether the useof campaign fund s to pay legalexpenses violates the personal useban. 11 CFR 113.I(g)(l)(ii)(A). Thepersonal use ban forbid s: "any useof funds in a campaign account of apre sent or former candidate to fulfilla commitment, obligation or ex­pense of any person that would existirrespective of the candidate'scampaign or duties as a Federalofficeholder." 11 CFR 113.1(g).

The law suit in this case arosefrom circumstances that are clearlyattributable to the campaign. Thecommittee may therefore pay theattorney 's fees with its campaignfund s, including the $1 ,500 awardmoney.

The committee should disclosepayments for the legal costs asoperating expenditures.

The Commission expresses noopinion on the tax ramifications ofthe proposed transaction; that issuefalls outside the FEC's jurisdiction.

Date Issued : July 28, 1995;Length : 4 pages .•

AO 1995-23Paying Legal Expenses withCampaign Funds

Congressman Christopher Shaysmay use campaign funds to pay forlegal cost s arising out of a law suitbrought against him by one of hisopponents for office in 1994; heis accused of having removedplaintiff's campaign signs. Thepersonal use ban does not barCongressman Shays from usingcampaign funds for this purpose.

The regulations banning personaluse of campaign funds forbid: "anyuse of funds in a campaign accountof a present or former candidate tofulfill a commitment, obligation orexpense of any person that wouldexist irrespective of the candidate 'scampaign or duties as a Federal

September 1995

officeholder." 11 CFR 113.1(g) .I

FEC regulations further state thatthe Commission will consider on acase-by-case basi s whether the useof campaign funds for legal ex­penses constitutes personal use .11 CFR lI3 .l (g)(l )(ii )(A) .

In this case, Congressman Shay'slegal expenses arise directly fromhis campaign activity and hisposition as a candidate. They aretherefore clearly attributable to thecampaign and may be paid withcampaign fund s.

In its FEC reports, the committeeshould disclose these legal costs asoperating expenditures.

The Commission expresses noopinion on the tax ramifications ofthe proposed trans action ; that issuefalls outside the FEe's jurisdiction.

Date Issued : July 20, 1995 ;Length: 4 pages.•

Advisory Opinion RequestsAdvisory opinion requests

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

AOR 1995-26Use of campaign funds to pay duesof club whose facilities are used forcampaign fundraisers (SenatorFrank Murkowski ; July 19, 1995 : 1page )

AOR 1995-27Solicitation of restricted class ofbusiness trust members of tradeassociation (National Association ofReal Estate Investment Trusts;August 1, 1995; 5 pages plus 4-pageattachment) •

I The regulations became effective April5, 1995. They are not in the 1995edition of FEC regulations. but the fi nalrules are available as reprints of theFederal Regist er not ice (60 FR 7826,February 9, 1995). Call the FEC toorder a copy, or use Flashfax (202/501­3413) to order docum ent #2 28.

September /995

Statistics

1995 Midyear PAC CountAs of July 1,1995, there were

3,982 PACs registered with theFEe. This represents an increase of28 PACs since January I, 1995, andan increase of 49 PACs over lastyear's midyear total. (The numberof PACs does not necessarilycorrespond with PAC financialactivity , since many registeredPACs have little or no activity.)

The table below shows themidyear and year-end PAC countsover the past half decade by PACtype . An August 2, 1995, FEC pressreleases contains similar figuresdating back to 1974's year-end PACcount. This press release may beordered through the Flashfaxsystem; dial 202/501-3413 andrequest document 626 .•

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Midyear and Year-End PAC Counts, July 1990-July 1995

Trade! Corp. w!oMember! Coop- Capital Non-

Corporate Labor Health erative Stock connected I Total

luI. '90 1,782 346 753 58 139 1,115 4,193Dec. '90 1,795 346 774 59 136 1,062 4,172luI. '91 1,745 339 749 57 137 1,096 4,123Dec. '91 1,738 338 742 57 136 1,083 4,094luI. '92 1,731 344 759 56 144 1,091 4,125Dec. '92 1,735 347 770 56 142 1,145 4,195luI. '93 1,715 338 767 55 139 1,011 4,025Dec. '93 1,789 337 761 56 146 1,121 4,210luI. '94 1,666 336 777 53 138 963 3,933Dec. '94 1,660 333 792 53 136 980 3,954luI. '95 1,670 334 804 43 129 1,002 3,982

J Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administra­tive expenses, while the other categories of PACs hav e corp orate or labor "con­nected organizations " that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs . Onthe other hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the generalpublic, while solicitations by corporate and lahar PACs are restri cted.

Public Funding

Major Parties Receive $12Million Public FundingGrant for '96 Conventions

In early July, the Democratic andRepublican 1996 convention com­mittees each recei ved $12,024,000from the U.S. Treasury . The moneyis to be used to plan and conducteach party's 1996 Presidentialnominating convention.

The Democrats will hold theirnational convention in Chicago,August 26-29, 1996. The Republi­cans will hold their national conven­tion in San Diego, August 10-16,1996.

Federal election law permitseligible national parties to receivepublic funds to pay the official costsof their Presidential nominating

conventions. The FEC certified thatboth committees met all the eligibil­ity requirements for public funding.

Committees accepting publicfunding agree to certain conditions,including abiding by spendinglimits, filing periodic disclosurereports and undergoing a detailedFEC audit.

Reflecting inflationary trends, the1996 convention grant is nearly $1million more than the 1992 grant of$11.048 million. The 1996 fundingwill be further adjusted in March of1996, when the committees willreceive an additional payment basedon this year's inflation.

Public funding of Presidentialelections is financed by the Presi­dential Election Campaign Fund,which receives its monies fromtaxpayers participating in thevoluntarily $3 "check off' onfederal income tax forms . •

Compliance

MURs Released to the PublicListed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (MattersUnder Review or MURs) recentlyreleased for public review. Thislisting is based on the FEC pressrele ases of July 13 and 31 , andAugust 2, but it doe s not include 30MURs in which the Commissiontook no action. Files on closedMURs are available for review inthe Public Records Office.

I MUR 3191/3226Respondents: (all in NH ): (a)Friends of Bill Zeliff Committee;(b) Christmas Farm Inn , Inc.; (c)Representative William H. Zeliff,Jr.; (d) Sydna T. Zeliff; (e) FirstNH-White Mountain BankComplainant: Joseph F. Keefe ,Keefe for Congress 1990 Committee

(continued on page 8)

7

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance(continued from page 7)

(NH) (3191); FEC initiated (3226)Subject: Corporate contributions(loans and advances); failure to file48 hour notices (two candidate loanstotalling $97,000); excessivecontributionsDisposition: (a-b) $30,000 civilpenalty; (c) insufficient votes to findprobable cause to believe; (d-e) noreason to believe

MUR3375Respondents: (a) Paul Simon forPresident, James C. Rosapepe,treasurer (IL); (b) Jader Fuel Co.,Inc. (lL); (c) Groves Printing Co.,Inc. (NC); (d) Watchell, Lipton,Rosen, & Katz (NY)Complainant: FEC initiated (1988Presidential audit)Subject: Failure to itemize receiptsand disbursements; misstatingfinancial activity; excessive contri­butions; corporate contributionsDisposition: (a) Reason to believe,but took no further action (all of theabove); (b) reason to believe, buttook no further action (corporatecontributions) ; (c) no probable causeto believe; (d) reason to believe, buttook no further action (excessivecontributions)

MUR 3682/3655Respondents: (all in PA): (a) Foxfor Congress Committee, FrankJenkins, treasurer; (b) Jon D. Fox;(c) Jewish ExponentComplainant: Kenneth Smukler,

Federal RegisterFederal Register notices are

available from the FEC's PublicRecords Office.

1995·11II CFR 106, 9002-9004, 9006­9008, 9032-9034, 9036 and9038-9039: Public Financing ofPresidential Primary and GeneralElection Candidates; Final Rule,Announcement of Effective Date(60 FR42429, August 16, 1995)

8

Campaign Manager, Marjorie Mar­golies-Mezvinsky for Congress (PA)Subject: DisclaimersDisposition: (a) $950 civil penalty;(b-e) no reason to believe

MUR3787Respondents: (a) Georgia Republi­can Party Committee, Marvin H.Smith, treasurer; (b) Arthur L.Williams, Jr. (GA)Complainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Excessive contributions;corporate contributions; unautho­rized §441a(d) expenditures onbehalf of Presidential nominee;failure to maintain receipt recordsDisposition: (a) Reason to believebut took no further action (all of theabove); (b) $5,000 civil penalty(excessive contributions)

MUR 3973/Pre-MUR 284Respondents: Bob Davis (MI) andthe Bob Davis for Congress Commit­tee, Kathleen J. O'Leary, treasurer (MI)Complainant: Referral by U.S.Department of JusticeSubject: Failure to use designateddepository and to maintain recordsfor petty cash disbursementsDisposition: Reason to believe buttook no further action

MUR 4005/Pre-MUR 301Respondents: (all in CT): (a)General Dynamics Corporation; (b)Neil D. Ruenzel and Craig B.Haines, Jr., General DynamicsCorporation Electric Boat Division;(c) Sam Gejdenson Re-electionCommittee, Patricia TediscoLagrenga, treasurerComplainant: Sua sponte (Pre­MUR 301); Thomas J. Diascro, Jr.,Campaign Manager, Munster forCongress '94 (CT) (4005)Subject: Corporate contributions;contributions by government contractorDisposition: (a) $8,500 civilpenalty; (b) reason to believe; (c) noreason to believe

MUR4043Respondents: (a) Paul Barden(WA); (b) Barden for Congress,

September 1995

Sylvia Barnes, treasurer (WA); (c)Vickie Schmitz (WA)Complainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Excessive contributions;exceeding $25,000 annual limitDisposition: (a-c) $25,000 civilpenalty; (b) refund $1,500 inexcessive contributions

MUR4109Respondents: (a) Thomas M. Barrett(WI); (b) Barrett for Congress,Catherine Shaw, treasurer (WI)Complainant: Matthew OlsonBrumbaugh (WI)Subject: DisclaimersDisposition: (a) No reason tobelieve; (b) reason to believe buttook no further action; sent admon­ishment letters.

MUR4213Respondents: Minnesota Demo­cratic-Farmer-Labor Party, WilliamJ. Davis, treasurerComplainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Unauthorized §441a(d)expenditures on behalf of Presiden­tial nominee; impermissible transferfrom nonfederal account to federalaccount; use of nonfederal funds topay federal expenses and expendi­tures on behalf of Presidentialticket; failure to itemize contribu­tions from political committees;failure to disclose contribution anddisbursement informationDisposition: Reason to believe buttook no further action; sent admon­ishment letter

MUR4214Respondents: North CarolinaDemocratic Victory Fund, JimYoung, treasurerComplainant: FEC initiatedSubject: Unauthorized §441a(d)expenditures on behalfof Presidentialnominee; use of nonfederal funds forfederal activity; inaccuratedisclosureof joint fundraising receiptsDisposition: Reason to believe buttook no further action; sent admon­ishment letter.

September 1995

Information

Flashfax MenuTo order any of these documents,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call 2021501·3413 on a touch tone phone. Youwill be asked for the numbers of thedocuments you want, your fax numberand your telephone number. The docu­ments will be faxed shortly thereafter.

Disclosure30 I. Guide to Researching Public

Records302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office303. Federal/State Records Offices304. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information305. State Computer Access to FEC

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

Information308. Combined Federal/State Disclo­

sure Directory 1995 on Disk309. Selected Political Party Organiza-

tions and Addresses

Limitations315. Contributions316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting318. Volunteer Activity319. Independent Expenditures320. Local Party Activity321. Corporate/Labor Facilities322. CorporatelLabor Communications323. Trade Associations324. Foreign Nationals325. The $25,000 Annual Contr ibution

Limit326. Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Public Funding330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections331. The $3 Tax Checkoff332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff333. Recipients of Public Funding334. Presidential Fund Tax Checkoff

Status335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance340. Candidate Registration34 1. Committee Treasurers342. Political Ads and Solicitations343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Reports Due in 1995345. Primary Dates and Deadlines for

Ballot Access346. Filing A Complaint347. 1995 FEC Regional Conferences

Federal Election Commission40 1. The FEC and the Federal Cam­

paign Finance Law402. La Ley Federal relativa al Finan­

ciamiento de las Campanas403. State and Local Elections and the

Federal Campaign Law404. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC' s Jurisdiction405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers406. Telephone Directory407. Table of Organization

I408. Index for 1994 Record Newsletter409. Free Publications4 10. Personnel Vacancy Announce­

ments

I41 I. Complete Menu of AII Material

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

IAdministration424. List of Reports Available425. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

I426. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations427. National Voter Registration Act

Iof 1993

428. The Electoral College429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System430. Primary Functions of an Electoral

System

Money in Politics Statistics625. 1991-92 Political Money626. 1995 Midyear PAC Count627. 1993-94 Congressional628. 1993-94 National Party629. 1993-94 PAC Finances

1996 Presidential Election650. 1996 Pre liminary Presidential

Primary and Ca uc us Dates65 1. Se lected Cam paig n Na mes and

Addresses652. Sel ecte d Campaign Finance

Figures

Regulations (11 CF R Parts 100·201)100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions101. Part 10J, Candidate Status and

Designations102. Part 102, Registration, Organiza­

tion and Recordkeeping byPolitical Committees

Federa l Election Commission RECORD

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

Committees105. Part 105, Document FilingJ06. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate

and Committee Activities107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating

Convention, Registration andReports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reportsand Statements with State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expendi­tures

J JO. Part 110, Contribution andExpenditure Limitations andProhibitions

I J I. Part JJ I, Compliance Procedure11 2. Part 11 2, Advisory OpinionsI 13. Part 11 3, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to SupportFederal Officeholder Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and LaborOrganization Activity

J 15. Part 115, Federal Contractors116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candi­

dates and Political Committees200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking20 I. Part 201, Ex Parte Communica-

tions

Recent Actions on Regulations,Including Explanationsand Justifications227. Presidential Nominating Conven­

tions228. Personal Use of Campaign Funds229. Express Advocacy; Independent

Expenditures; Corporate andLabor Organization Expenditures

Forms361. Form I, Statement of Organization362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee365. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

ContributionslLoans Received367. Form 7, Report of Communication

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

candidate Status

Schedul es370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts371. Schedule B, Itemized Disburse­

ments(continued on page 10)

9

441. Section 44 1442. Section 442451. Section 451452. Section 452453. Section 453454. Section 454455. Section 455

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Information(continued f rom page 9)

372. Schedules C and C-l , Loans373. Schedule D, Debts and Obliga­

tions374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent

Expenditures375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordina ted

Expenditures376. Schedules HI - H4. Allocation377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)43 1. Section 43 1432. Section 432433. Section 433434. Section 434437. Section 437438. Section 438439. Section 439

Adv isory Opinions701. AO 1995-1702. AO 1995-2703. AO 1995-3704. AO 1995-4705. AO 1995-5706. AO 1995-6707. AO 1995-7708. AO 1995-8709. AO 1995-9710. AO 1995-107 11. AO 1995-1 1712. AO 1995-127 13. AO 1995-13714. AO 1995-14715. AO 1995-15716. AO 1995-16717. AO 1995- 17718. AO 1995-18719. AO 1995-19720. AO 1995-20721. AO 1995-2 1722 . AO 1995-22723. AO 1995-23801. AO 1994-1802. 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- 10

/ 0

811. A0 1994- I 18 12. AO 1994-12813. AO 1994-13814. AO 1994-14815. A0 1994- 15816. AO 1994-16817. AO 1994-17818. AO 1994-18819. AO 1994-19820. AO 1994-20821. AO 1994-21822. AO 1994-22823. AO 1994-23824. AO 1994-24825. AO 1994-25826. AO 1994-26827. AO 1994-27828. AO 1994-28829. AO 1994-29830. AO 1994-3083 1. AO 1994-31832. AO 1994-32833. AO 1994-33834. AO 1994-34835. AO 1994-35836. AO 1994-36837. AO 1994-37838. AO 1994-38839. AO 1994-39840. AO 1994-40900. 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 1993-99 10. AO 1993-10911. AO 1993-11912. AO 1993- 129 13. AO 1993-139 14. AO 1993-149 15. AO 1993-15916. AO 1993- 16917. AO 1993-17918. AO 1993-189 19. AO 1993-19920. AO 1993-20921. AO 1993-2 1922. AO 1993-22923. AO 1993-23924. AO 1993-24925. AO 1993-25

Septembe r / 995 .

I

I Index

The first number in each citationrefers to the "number" (month) ofthe 1995 Record issue in which thearticle appeared. The second number,following the colon, indicates thepage number in that issue. For ex­ample, " 1:4" means that the articleis in the January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions1994-33: Calling card solicitations,

3:51994-34: Consolidating membership

association PACs following amerger, 3:7

1994-35: Terminating reportingobligations, 5:5

1994-36: Solicitat ion of stockhold­ers in an employee-ownedcompany, 5:5

1994-37: Allocating between federaland nonfederal campaigns, 3:7

1994-39: Solicitation of affiliates bya membership organization, 3:8

1994-40: Storing records on micro­film, 3:9

1995- 1: Respondents and theconfidentiality provisions, 4:8

1995-2: Membership organization'ssolicitation of representatives ofmember firms, 6:3

1995-3: Running simultaneousSenate and Presidential cam­paigns, 4:8

September / 995

1995-5 : Use of contributor listsderived from FEC reports. 4:9

1995-7: Candidate' s personalliability for bank loan, 6:4

1995-8: Committee's rental ofcandidate-owned office andequipment. 6:5

1995-9: Operating a politicalcommittee in cyberspace. 6:6

1995-10: Ownership of committeerecords, 6:7

1995-11: Status of limited liabilitycompa ny. 6:8

1995-12: Affiliation and crosssolicitation between trade associa ­tion federa tion and state associa­tions, 8:9

1995- 13: Definition of memberapplied to membership associa­tion, 8: I0

1995-14: Operating a PAC booth ata joi nt convention, 8:11

1995-15: Foreign-owned subsidiary:earmarked contributions andpayroll deductions, 8: 12

1995- 16: Attaining national partystatus, 9:3

1995-17: Trade associa tion federa­tion and affi liated state and localunits; donation of raffle prizes andone-third rule, 9:4

1995- 18: Campaign funds given forportrait of former House Commit ­tee Chairman, 8:13

1995- 19: Discovering illegalcontributions in a committee' streasury, 9:5

1995-20: Camp aign funds used fortravel expenses of candidate ' sfamily, 8:14

1995-21: Campaign' s use of fundsawarded in law suit, 9:6

1995-23: Paying legal expenses withcampaign funds, 9:6

Compli ance$25.000 Annual cont ribution limit,

4: 1MUR 2884: Reporting misstate­

ments and excessive contribu­tions,7:2

MUR 3452: Excess ive contribu-tions, 6:8

MUR 3540: Corporate facilitation, 1:2MUR 3650: Loan guarantors, 1:2MUR 40 16/4076 : Reporti ng ear-

marked contributions, 7:2

Court CasesFEC v.- Branstool, 6:12- Christian Action Network, 9:2- Citizens for Wofford, 6:13- Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee. 8:1- Free the Eagle, 8:5- Fu1ani (94-4461), 6:12- Michigan Republ ican State

Committee, 5:4- Montoya, 2:7; 5:4- NRA Political Victory Fund, 2: I- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-1612), 4:4; 8:4- Popul ist Party. 7:9

Federal Election Commission RECORD

- RUFFPAC, 8:5- Williams, 4:5

v. FEC- Albanese, 7:8- Condon, 3:5- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (93- 132 1), 1:10- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-0349), 4:8- Dukakis, 7:9- Freedom Republicans, 2:6- Froelich , 8:5- Fulani (94- 1593), 4:6- Lytle, 1:10, 2:7- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (94-5148) , 5:4- Robertson, 4:6- Simon , 7:9- Whitmore, 2:7- Wilson, 2:7; 5:1Mclnt yre v. Ohio, 6: 12Rove v. Thornburgh, 4:7

ReportsPilot program for elec tronic filing

gets underway, 9:1Schedule for 1995, 1:4

800 Line ArticlesAdministrative termination, 2:9Corporate facilitation, 6:1

1/