November 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 11

Table of Contents in 2001.2 They will be included, for ComplianceReports the first time, in prior notices of Reports reporting obligations mailed to 1 New FEC Forms for 2001 treasurers in 2001. 2 New Reporting Requirements New FEC Forms for 2001 Because they have been reformat- 4 Commission Extends State Filing To comply with new statutory ted, the new forms differ in appear- Waiver to Senate Elections reporting requirements, the Com- ance from the current forms. Other 4 Georgia Receives State Waiver mission has updated its campaign notable changes to the forms are finance disclosure forms 1, 1M, 2, 3, 4 Advisory Opinions listed below: 3X, 3P, 4, 5, 6 and 8. These forms • New codes for categorizing the 8 Federal Register have been revised, as appropriate, to respond to reporting requirements “purpose of disbursements” such as mandatory electronic filing (Schedule B for Forms 3 and 3X; Court Cases Schedules E, F and H4 for Form 8 Lenora B. Fulani v. FEC for committees whose contributions 8 Becker v. FEC or expenditures exceed $50,000 per 3X). Committees will be asked to 8 Missouri Republican Party v. year and election-cycle reporting for voluntarily assign a code to Charles F. Lamb authorized committees—both of identify the purpose of the dis- 9 Wertheimer v. FEC which take effect for reporting bursement in addition to providing 10 Buchanan v. FEC periods beginning on or after the required written description. 10 Reform Party of the January 1, 2000—and the state These codes will be included in the v. and Reform Party filing waivers program already in instructions. of the United States v. Gerald M. 1 • Revised instructions that inform Moan effect in many states. Additionally, forms 1, 3 and 3X have been committees of the new rules 10 of the United governing election-cycle reporting, States of America v. FEC reformatted so that staff can process them faster and more easily and so mandatory electronic filing and Compliance that they can eventually be read waivers from filing with certain 10 Commission Launches Alternative electronically through optical states, as appropriate. Dispute Resolution Program character recognition (OCR), in • Separate booklets of instructions anticipation of the Commission’s for filling out forms 3, 3X and 3P. Public Funding future use of this technology. The 12 Hagelin-Goldhaber Denied Public new forms were transmitted to (continued on page 2) Funding 12 September Matching Funds Congress on September 15, 2000. The Commission will make the new 2 The first regular reports required to Statistics forms available for use in the first be filed on the new forms are the 13 Congressional Campaigns, Parties reporting periods covering activity February 20 report for monthly filers, and PACs the mid-year report for quarterly filers and the April 15 report for Presidential Outreach committees that file quarterly. Reports 14 Public Appearances that cover activity for 2000, such as the 1 For a list of states that have qualified 14 Roundtables year-end report filed January 31, 2000, for the filing waiver, see page 3. will use the current forms. Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Reports first report after the general do so,1 must submit their reports (continued from page 1) election.3 Candidate committees electronically. Any filers who are will use this form only at this time, required to file electronically, but These instructions will be included when the committee must disclose who file on paper, will be consid- with the forms in the prior notices activity for two election cycles in ered nonfilers and may be subject to mailed to committees and will also one report (under the new election- enforcement action. The mandatory be viewable on the FEC’s Web site cycle reporting rules). For all electronic filing provisions (11 CFR at www.fec.gov. other reports filed during the 104.18) apply to any political • Space on Form 1 for e-mail election cycle, candidate commit- committee or other person required address and Web site. Form 1 has tees will use the regular Detailed to file reports, statements and been revised to provide space for a Summary Page. designations with the FEC. This committee’s e-mail address includes all filers except Senate (required of electronic filers only), For more information about as well as the committee’s Internet mandatory electronic filing or Web site address if the committee election-cycle reporting, see page 1 of this issue. For information on has such a site (required of all 1 committees under the new regula- state waivers, see page 3 of this Once filers actually exceed the issue.✦ threshold, they have “reason to expect” tions). to exceed the threshold in the following • A new Post-Election Detailed two calendar years. 11 CFR 104.18 Summary Page for authorized (a)(3)(i). This means they must continue candidate committees only. New Reporting Requirements to file electronically for the next two Candidate committees will use this New reporting requirements will years (January through December). new form in place of the Detailed be in effect for reporting periods Filers with no historic data on which to Summary Page and portions of the that begin on or after January 1, base their calculations should expect to Summary Page when they file the 2001: exceed the threshold if they either receive contributions or make expendi- • Mandatory electronic filing, which tures that exceed one-quarter of the affects most committees, individu- threshold amount in the first quarter of als and organizations that receive the calendar year, or they receive contributions or make expenditures contributions or make expenditures that in excess of $50,000 in a calendar exceed one-half of the threshold amount year; and in the first half of the calendar year. 11 Federal Election Commission • Election Cycle Reporting, which CFR 104.18 (a)(3)(ii). The regulations 999 E Street, NW affects authorized candidate allow an exception to the requirement Washington, DC 20463 committees only. of filing for the following two calendar 800/424-9530 years for candidate committees: 202/694-1100 Mandatory Electronic Filing • That have $50,000 or less in net debts 202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline) Beginning with the reporting outstanding on January 1 of the year 202/219-3336 (TDD for the following the election; hearing impaired) periods that start on or after January 800/877-8339 (FIRS) 1, 2001, all committees that receive • That anticipate terminating prior to contributions or make expenditures the next election year; and Darryl R. Wold, Chairman in excess of $50,000 in a calendar • Whose candidate has not qualified as Danny L. McDonald, year, or that have reason to expect to Vice Chairman a candidate for the next election and David M. Mason, Commissioner does not intend to become a candidate Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner in the next election. 11 CFR 104.18 Bradley Smith, Commissioner (a)(3)(i). Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner 3 For candidates who are nominated for While all committees must file elec- James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director the general election, the new page must tronically in the year in which they Lawrence M. Noble, General be included with the Post-General exceed the threshold, authorized Counsel report filed 30 days after the general candidate committees meeting these election. For candidates who do not requirements do not “expect to exceed Published by the Information participate in the general election, the the threshold” in the following two Division new page must be included with the calendar years and, therefore, need not Louise D. Wides, Director first report filed after the close of the file electronically during those periods Amy L. Kort, Editor election cycle, normally the year-end unless they actually exceed the thresh- http://www.fec.gov report. old.

2 November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

candidate committees, which file The new rules do not affect unau- need to account for that activity as with the Secretary of the Senate.2 thorized committees, such as PACs part of his or her election-cycle-to- Application of the $50,000 and party committees. date reporting. Threshold. Each unauthorized The change to election-cycle Aggregating election-cycle committee (PAC or party commit- reporting is intended to simplify contributions for reporting purposes tee) must file electronically if the recordkeeping and enhance report- may differ from aggregating these total contributions or total expendi- ing. Under current regulations, amounts for the purposes of calcu- tures of that committee exceed, or candidate committees monitor lating contribution limits. For are expected to exceed, the $50,000 contribution limits on a per-election reporting purposes only, committees threshold. The threshold is calcu- basis, but disclose their financial must include all contributions lated on a per-committee basis, and activity on a calendar-year-to-date received during an election cycle each committee calculates its own basis. Under the new system, even if a contribution is designated contributions and expenditures committees will report all of their for another election cycle. For separately and files separately, even receipts and disbursements on an example, if, after an election, a if it is affiliated with another election-cycle basis. 11 CFR 104.3 committee receives a check that the committee. Definition of Election Cycle. contributor has designated to pay By contrast, all committees Under FEC regulations, an election the debts of that past election, the authorized by one candidate must cycle begins the day after the committee will disclose this contri- file electronically if their combined general election for a seat or office bution as part of the total contribu- total contributions or combined total and ends on the day of the next tions for the reporting period and expenditures exceed, or are ex- general election for that seat or election cycle in which it received pected to exceed, the threshold. office. 11 CFR 100.3(b). The the contribution, even though the Individuals and qualified non- length of the election cycle, thus, contribution will count against the profit corporations whose indepen- depends on the office sought. For contributor’s limit in the prior dent expenditures exceed, or are example, the election cycle is election cycle. expected to exceed, the $50,000 generally two years for House threshold must also file electroni- candidates, six years for Senate Revised Forms cally. candidates and four years for The Commission recently revised Voluntary Electronic Filing. Presidential candidates. reporting forms 1, 1M, 2, 3, 3X, 3P, Voluntary electronic filers must Transition to Election-Cycle 4, 5, 6 and 8 in order to reflect continue to file electronically for the Reporting. Because the new regula- changes in the reporting require- remainder of the calendar year tions will take effect after the post- ments. The revised forms will be unless the Commission determines general and year-end reporting available for reporting periods that that unusual circumstances make periods for 2000 have closed, some start on or after January 1, 2001. continued electronic filing impracti- candidate committees will have Revised software will also be made cal. 11 CFR 104.18(b). No such already reported receipts and available, and the FEC is now waiver by the Commission, how- disbursements related to the 2002, conducting regular workshops on ever, has been established for 2004 or 2006 election cycles. These using the FEC’s electronic filing mandatory electronic filers. committees will need to include this software. For more information previously-disclosed activity in their about these workshops, call 202/ Election Cycle Reporting for election-cycle-to-date figures, 694-1250. Candidate Committees beginning with their first report For more information on the new Beginning with the reporting under the new system.3 In some forms, see page 1 of this issue. For periods that start on or after January cases, the activity may span several more information on mandatory 1, 2001, authorized committees of years. For example, a Senate electronic filing, see the August federal candidates must aggregate candidate for a 2002 election who 2000 Record, page 1. To learn more and report receipts and disburse- has been receiving contributions and about election-cycle reporting, see ments on an election-cycle basis. making disbursements since the last the August 2000 Record, page 4.✦ election for that seat (in 1996) will

2 Senate candidates, however, are encouraged to voluntarily file electroni- cally with the FEC to ensure faster 3 For most campaigns, the first report (continued on page 4) disclosure. under the new system will be the mid- year report, due July 31, 2001.

3 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Reports Commission Certifies off” these amounts simply by (continued from page 3) Georgia for State Filing deleting the creditors from the Commission Extends State Waiver report. However, the Commission found that this method created a On September 29, 2000, the Filing Waiver to Senate discrepancy in the report and that Commission certified that Georgia Elections the Committee’s amended reports qualified for a state filing waiver. On September 27, 2000, the did not meet the obligation of Consequently, federal committees Commission extended the State accounting for these debts. and candidates in Georgia did not Filing Waiver Program to include Under Commission regulations, have to file duplicate copies of their campaigns for U.S. Senate and other committees filing with the FEC federal reports with the Georgia political committees that support must disclose their outstanding state election office, beginning with only U.S. Senate candidates. debts and obligations. If these the October 15th Quarterly Under the State Filing Waiver obligations are settled for less than Report.✦ program, filers whose reports are their reported value, each report available on the FEC Web site need filed under 11 CFR 104.1 must not file duplicate copies of their contain a statement explaining how reports in states that provide ad- Advisory the obligation was discharged. equate public access to the Debts must be reported in every Commission’s site. Opinions report until they are no longer In the past, the waiver did not outstanding. 11 CFR 104.11(a). 2 apply to Senate committees because AO 1999-38 In this case, the Committee was their reports—which are filed with Reporting Disputed and correct to report the disputed debts the Secretary of the Senate—were Unpayable Debts in its earlier reports since the not available on the FEC Web site. vendors initially made demands for Now, through a joint effort of the The Ken Calvert for Congress payment for services rendered to the Commission and the Secretary of Committee (the Committee) may committee. However, given that all the Senate, computer images of stop reporting three disputed or three vendors have ceased their those reports are available on the unpayable debts, so long as it efforts to obtain payment, have not FEC’s site. As a result, beginning follows certain reporting procedures challenged the Committee’s conten- with the October 15, 2000, quarterly to account for the disposition of tion that the payments were unwar- report, Senate committees are no these debts. ranted and have let the longer required to file copies of their The Committee has, through statute of limitations expire, the reports in states certified for the several Form 3 reports dating back Committee is not obligated to State Filing Waiver Program.1 ✦ to 1994, reported, on Schedule D, indefinitely report these debts. three specific debts that the Com- Before discontinuing its reporting of 1 mittee contends it does not owe. these debts, however, the Commit- For the reporting period ending June 1 tee must explain how each debt was The Commission has certified that the 30, 1999, the Committee “charged resolved using the guidelines that following states and territories qualify for filing waivers: Alabama, American follow. Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colo- 1 The vendors in question are In its next report, the Committee rado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Fieldworks Development, Pacific West must take two steps. First, it should Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Communications and Gangi Graphics. file a Schedule D on which it: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, , In the case of Fieldworks Development, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minne- the Committee claims that the debt was sota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, not paid because the services provided New Hampshire, New Jersey, New were unsatisfactory and that the 2 In cases where a committee might not Mexico, New York, North Carolina, California Statue of Limitations has know the exact amount of the debt, they North Dakota, , Oklahoma, now expired on the claim. According to must report an estimated amount and Oregon , Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, the Committee, Pacific West Communi- must either amend the report(s) South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennes- cations’ and Gangi Graphics’ disputed containing the estimate or indicate the see, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, amounts represent overcharges, which correct amount once the correct Virgin Islands, Washington, West the Committee did not feel obligated to amount is determined. 11 CFR Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. pay and which they erroneously 104.11(b). Commission regulations Committees that file their reports at the reported as Schedule D debts. More- explain the method for reporting FEC need not file copies in these states. over, Pacific West no longer exists as a disputed debts at 11 CFR 104.3 and business. 104.11.

4 November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

• Lists the three disputed debts, each AO 2000-20 financial support to the committee; with an outstanding balance of Creation of Nonconnected and zero as of the close of the billing Committee • The committee’s leadership is period; and diversified enough to demonstrate The proposed Committee for • Enters in parentheses, in the an organizational independence Quality Cancer Care will qualify as column provided to show pay- from the associations. a nonconnected PAC, despite its ties ments made during the reporting to various cancer-related profes- As a result, the committee will be period, an amount indicating that sional and trade associations. a nonconnected committee rather each debt was paid in full. Each of the five cancer-care than a separate segregated fund. Second, the Committee should professionals who will comprise the Issued: September 15, 2000; include a memo entry on Schedule committee’s board of directors is Length: 5 pages.✦ D to explain its representation that involved with one or more profes- the debts have been, in effect, paid. sional or trade associations con- The memo entry should cite this cerned with cancer patient care. AO 2000-22 advisory opinion and explain that: Only two, however, have ties to the Use of Electronic Signature for Trade Associations’ • The debts were disputed; same association. The committee • The vendors no longer seek will share office space with one of “Permission to Solicit” payment; the associations—the Oncology Authorizations • The statute of limitations for the Nursing Society (ONS)—but will The Air Transportation Associa- debts has expired; and pay all of its own establishment, tion of America, along with a • The Committee will no longer list administrative and solicitation number of other incorporated trade these debts on its Schedule D. expenses from the contributions it associations (the Associations),1 receives. The committee will pay may accept corporate members’ Once the Committee has taken ONS for its use of office space, electronic signatures as written these steps, it will have no future photocopiers and telephones, based authorization to solicit these mem- reporting obligations regarding on the amount of time or space it bers’ restricted class for the Asso- these three debts. uses. ciations’ respective separate Date issued: June 14, 2000; The Federal Election Campaign ✦ segregated funds (SSF). Length: 6 pages. Act (the Act) provides for two types Under Commission regulations, a of PACs: separate segregated funds trade association must obtain written (SSFs) and nonconnected commit- authorization from a member tees. An SSF is directly or indirectly corporation before soliciting the Back Issues of the established, administered or finan- member’s restricted class. 11 CFR Record Available on cially supported by a “connected 114.8(d) and (e). The Associations the Internet organization”—an incorporated propose to implement a system entity, such as a trade association. A whereby they would obtain elec- This issue of the Record and all nonconnected committee cannot tronic written authorization by one other issues of the Record starting receive support from incorporated of two methods: with January 1996 are available organizations. Instead, it must through the Internet as PDF files. defray its operating costs from the • Sending e-mail to corporate repre- Visit the FEC’s World Wide Web contributions it receives. sentatives, requesting their approval site at http://www.fec.gov and None of the professional or trade to solicit their members and attach- click on “What’s New” for this associations with ties to the Com- ing an SSF solicitation form; and issue. Click “Campaign Finance mittee for Quality Cancer Care, • Placing the corporate approval Law Resources” to see back is- including the ONS, will function as form on the secured “members- sues. Future Record issues will be the committee’s connected organiza- only” portion of its Internet Web posted on the web as well. You tion. This conclusion is based on (continued on page 6) will need Adobe® Acrobat® two factors: Reader software to view the pub- 1 The additional trade associations lication. The FEC’s web site has • Since the committee will pay its requesting this advisory opinion were a link that will take you to Adobe’s own expenses—including com- the American Land Title Association, web site, where you can download mercially-reasonable payments to the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, the Independent Insurance the latest version of the software ONS for use of its facilities—none of the associations will provide Agents of America and the Society of for free. Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.

5 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Advisory Opinions AO 2000-23 party committees. The New York (continued from page 5) Preemption of New York provision not only prevents the Election Code Committee from making contribu- site and restricting access to the tions, but also limits its ability to The Federal Election Campaign form to the corporate representa- take advantage of other opportuni- Act (the Act) and Commission tives through coded passwords. ties specifically granted under the regulations preempt a New York Act. See also AOs 1995-48, 1993- Under both methods, the corpo- State statute that prohibits certain 25, 1989-12. rate representative would provide pre-primary spending by political The Commission recognized, written approval via an electronic parties as it applies to the New York however, that the Act and Commis- signature, and the Associations, in State Democratic Committee’s (the sion regulations do not compel New turn, would send a notice to the Committee) contributions, expendi- York officials to defer to its conclu- representative, confirming receipt of tures and exempt payments in sion in this opinion, and that judicial the signed approval. Additionally, support of federal candidates. review was the appropriate process the Associations would comply with Section 2-126 of the New York for making a final determination of all regulations governing corporate Election Code prohibits parties from federal preemption questions such approvals. 11 CFR 114.7(a), spending money to support any as those addressed in this opinion.✦ 114.7(c) and 114.8(c). candidate until after the primary In two past advisory opinions election.1 Under the Act, however, involving contributor authorization the Committee, as a qualified, AO 2000-29 of deductions for contributions to an multicandidate committee filing SSF, the Commission approved the with the Commission, may: Determining Number of use of an electronic signature by Federal Elections in computer and the use of a phone • Contribute up to $5,000 per Louisiana election to a House or Senate process involving a unique account Louisiana federal candidates may candidate; number accompanied by other accept contributions for a primary • Make unlimited exempt party safeguards, concluding that, like a election, which the Federal Election expenditures on behalf of its traditional signature, they were Commission (the Commission) unique identifiers of the authorizing nominees; and • Make expenditures supporting its determined was held on August 18, individuals. See AOs 1999-3 and 2000, and a general election, which 1999-6. In this case, the Associa- Senatorial and Congressional candidates within the limits will be held on November 7, 2000. tions’ proposal is permissible so In congressional districts where no long as security measures are taken provided under 2 U.S.C. §441a(d)(3). See 2 U.S.C. candidate receives over 50 percent to verify that the permission-to- of the vote in the general election, solicit forms are only available to §§441a(a)(2), 441a(d)(3) and 431(9)(B)(iv), (ix) and (x). candidates may also accept contri- authorized corporate representa- butions for a December 9, 2000, tives, and so long as the Associa- The Act and Commission regula- runoff election. Because of tions have the ability to verify that tions preempt any state law with Louisiana’s unique circumstances each electronically signed authoriza- respect to federal elections. 2 and federal election schedule, tion came from the corporate U.S.C. §453 and 11 CFR 108.7. candidates may consider contribu- representative. Additionally, as with Section 108.7(b)(3) specifically tions received earlier in this election any prior approvals wherein the preempts state laws concerning cycle, that are otherwise lawful corporate representative grants limits on contributions and expendi- under the Federal Election Cam- approval on behalf of the corporate tures in connection with federal paign Act (the Act), as within the member, the electronic approval candidates and committees. Act’s limits if they were: form should indicate that the In this case, the Commission • Received before the issuing of this approval is on behalf of the speci- determined that the New York advisory opinion; and fied, named corporation. A copy of provision, as applied to federal • Within the combined limits of the electronic approval must be candidates, does not regulate those either $2000 per donor or $10,000 maintained, in a readily available areas defined as interests of the per multicandidate committee form, for three years, including a state, but rather places restrictions donor. record that verifies that the elec- on the federal election activities of tronic signature came from the In July 2000, the Commission particular corporate representative. 1 The New York Congressional primary sent notices to Louisiana federal Date: September 15, 2000; candidates apprising them of its Length: 5 pages.✦ elections were held September 12, 2000. interpretation that the 2000 federal

6 November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

election cycle in Louisiana had only 11 CFR 100.2(d)(2). Candidates committees need not file a retroac- a general election, on November 7, may not, however, ask contributors tive 12-day pre-election report. All 2000, and a December runoff to redesignate contributions desig- other reports should be filed as election, but only for candidates in nated for the runoff election to usual. races where no one obtained over 50 another election if the runoff percent of the vote. In response, all election is not held or if they do not Future Elections nine Members of Congress repre- qualify for it. Instead, candidates Candidates in future Louisiana senting Louisiana 1 requested an must refund these contributions no election cycles may rely on this advisory opinion on this matter. later than January 6, 2001 (60 days opinion and accept otherwise after the general election). Under permissible contributions for both Elections Commission regulations, the the primary and the general elec- Because November 7, 2000, is redesignation option is only avail- tions, assuming that the Louisiana prescribed by federal statute as the able with respect to contributions Congressional electoral system national election date, it cannot be made for an election that has already remains the same. Undesignated considered a primary election date occurred or is certain to occur in the contributions received up to the last in Louisiana. 2 U.S.C. §7. However, future. A runoff election is contin- day for ballot qualification for the Commission regulations allow an gent upon the outcome of the general election will count against independent candidate, or one that general election. the limits for the primary election, seeks election without nomination and undesignated contributions by a major political party, to choose Contribution Limits and received after this date will count one of three possible dates as his/her Designations against the limits for the general “primary election date.” One choice The Act and Commission regula- election. is the last day to qualify for the tions apply contribution limits on a Date Issued: October 19, 2000; general election ballot in a given per contributor, per election, basis. Length: 7 pages.✦ state. 11 CFR 100.2(c)(4)(i). In this Contributions are presumed to be case, federal candidates in Louisiana for the next upcoming election, had no opportunity to seek nomina- unless otherwise designated by the Advisory Opinion Requests tion in a Congressional primary contributor. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(1)— election because Louisiana no (6) and 110.2(b)(1)—(6). But, in AOR 2000-28 longer includes Congressional the 2000 election cycle, Louisiana Disaffiliation of trade associa- offices on its open primary election candidates may treat contributions tions and their PACs (American ballots. Moreover, neither of the received before the date when this Seniors Housing Association, two major state political parties opinion was issued (October 19, September 26, 2000) offered an alternative nomination 2000) differently. Contributions process. Thus, in effect, all candi- received during this time period that AOR 2000-29 dates for Congress are seeking are within the contributor’s com- Defining primary and general office in the November general bined limits for the 2000 primary elections in 2000 for Louisiana election without nomination by a and general elections (and are Congressional candidates (W.J. political party. They may consider, otherwise permissible) will be “Billy” Tauzin et al., October 2, as their primary election date, the considered within the Act’s limits. 2000) last day to qualify for the November Contributions received after October 7 ballot in Louisiana. That filing 19, 2000, however, must be gov- date was August 18, 2000. 11 CFR erned by the Commission’s designa- AOR 2000-30 100.2(c)(4). tion regulations and the rules Valuing in-kind contribution of Candidates who qualify to relating to the possible return of stock (pac.com, October 3, 2000) participate in the December 9, 2000, contributions for a runoff election, if runoff election may also accept and not held. retain contributions for this election. Reporting Because the August 18 “primary 1 Requesters are U.S. Representatives election” date has passed, and W.J. “Billy” Tauzin, Richard H. Baker, because candidates and committees John Cooksey, Jim McCrery, David were required to file their October Vitter, William Jefferson and Chris 15 reports as though there were no John, as well as Senators John Breaux primary election, candidates and and Mary Landrieu.

7 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Becker et al. v. FEC restriction upon the contributor’s Court Cases On September 1, 2000, the U.S. ability to engage in free communi- District Court for the District of cation.” The circumstances are Massachusetts denied different in this case, however, Lenora B. Fulani v. FEC because the contributor is a political (1:00CV01018 (WBB)) and his organizational supporters’ motion for a preliminary injunction party, the court said. The court On May 5, 2000, Lenora B. to set aside the Federal Election noted that the relationship between Fulani asked the U.S. District Court Commission’s Debate Regulations. candidates and individuals is not for the District of Columbia to find 11 CFR 110.13(a)(1), 114.4(f)(1) nearly as close as that between that the FEC’s dismissal of her and 114.4(f)(3). The court found candidates and parties. The identi- complaint against the Democratic that these regulations are not in ties of candidates and parties are National Committee (DNC), Presi- excess of the FEC’s statutory often “virtually indistinguishable dent Clinton, the Clinton/Gore ’96 authority under the Federal Election from each other.” Whereas an Primary Committee and others was Campaign Act. The court also individual can potentially corrupt a arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dismissed the complaint for lack of candidate with a contribution, discretion and contrary to law. standing with regard to the indi- parties and candidates have such “a In her FEC complaint, Dr. Fulani vidual-voter plaintiffs. unity of purpose” that the threat of had alleged that the respondents By consent of the parties, the corruption is “not a very realistic conspired “to prevent a challenge to district court entered a final judg- one.” In addition, the court said that President Clinton in the 1996 ment in favor of the FEC on Sep- “a party’s contribution provides an presidential primaries.” Among tember 14, 2000. The plaintiffs ideological endorsement and carries other things, Dr. Fulani contended filed an appeal of this decision on a philosophical imprimatur that an that the DNC, in coordination with September 15, 2000, and asked for individual’s contribution does not, the Clinton campaign, had spent an expedited review. The U.S. and thus it cannot properly be called “tens of millions of dollars in soft Court of Appeals for the First a ‘contribution’ in the same sense money on a television advertising Circuit granted the motion for that the individual contributions in campaign to promote Clinton’s expedited review, and heard oral Buckley were.” candidacy . . . .” argument on October 5, 2000. The court also maintained that, in In its consideration of Dr. U.S. District Court for the this case, there was no evidence that Fulani’s complaint, the Commission District of Massachusetts; 00-cv- limiting parties’ contributions would was equally divided on whether the 11192 (PBS); on appeal, 00-2124. reduce corruption or measurably DNC, the primary committee and See the August Record, p. 13.✦ decrease the number and instances President Clinton violated statutory when individuals circumvented their provisions or regulations with own contribution limits. Finally, the respect to television advertisements court held that its ruling also applied funded by the DNC.1 On March 9, Missouri Republican Party, et to Missouri’s limits on party in-kind 2000, the Commission found “no al. v. Charles F. Lamb, et al. contributions. reason to believe” the Federal On September 11, 2000, the U.S. U.S. District Court for the Eighth Election Campaign Act had been Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 00-1773/2686.✦ violated with respect to actions Circuit reversed the district court’s undertaken by Mr. Harold Ickes (a judgment and ruled that Missouri’s 1996 campaign worker), which were limitations on political party contri- unrelated to the DNC’s advertise- butions to candidates were unconsti- Federal Register ments. The Commission then closed tutional. The court concluded that the files in this matter. Dr. Fulani’s this case differed from the Buckley Federal Register Notices are petition seeks judicial review of the v. Valeo and Nixon v. Shrink Mis- available from the FEC’s Public Commission’s dismissal pursuant to souri Government PAC cases Records Office. 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8). because it involved limits on 1:00CV01018 (WBB), U.S. contributions from a political party Notice 2000-18 District Court for the District of whereas the other two involved Mandatory Electronic Filing; ✦ Columbia. contributions from individuals. Final Rules and Announcement In Buckley, the Supreme Court of Effective Date (65 FR 38415, 1 The Commission took action on Dr. ruled that individual contribution June 21, 2000) Fulani’s complaint, MUR 4713, along limits were constitutional because with MURs 4407 and 4544. they imposed “only a marginal

8 November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Wertheimer et al. v. FEC with nonfederal funds (frequently Wertheimer asked that the court On September 13, 2000, Fred called “soft money” in the popular declare that: press).2 Wertheimer, Scott Harshbarger and • Under the Fund Act, all expendi- According to Wertheimer, the Archibald Cox (plantiffs referred to tures by political parties that national parties claimed that the use as Wertheimer) filed a complaint further the election of their respec- of soft money contributions to fund against the Federal Election Com- tive Presidential candidates, and these advertisements was not for the mission in the U.S. District Court that are coordinated with those purpose of influencing a federal for the District of Columbia. The Presidential candidates, are election—and thus not a contribu- court dismissed the complaint for contributions to and expenditures tion—because the ads did not lack of standing. by the Presidential candidates— contain specific phrases of “express including party expenditures on advocacy” 3 such as “vote for” or Complaint advertisements that do not contain “vote against” a particular candi- Wertheimer asked that the court “express advocacy;” and date. Wertheimer, however, con- require the Commission to deter- • Except as expressly provided by tended that these ads—even if they mine whether, under the Presidential the FECA, major party candidates did not contain “express advo- Matching Fund Act (the Fund Act), (and their committees) who choose cacy”—were contributions to the political parties’ expenditures for to finance their campaigns with candidates, because they had been “issue ads” that are coordinated public funds may not lawfully closely coordinated with the candi- with, and further the election of, coordinate with their respective dates. Under the Federal Election presidential candidates constitute political parties on party expendi- Campaign Act (the FECA), any contributions to and expenditures by tures—including party expendi- expenditure made “by any person in the candidates. tures for advertisements that cooperation, consultation, or concert The Fund Act requires major further their candidate’s election to with, or at the request or suggestion party Presidential nominees who federal office. accept public funding to limit their of, a candidate, his authorized spending to those public funds. political committees, or their They are not permitted to accept any agents” is considered a contribution. District Court contributions for their campaigns.1 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)(i). More- On October 10, 2000 the court 26 U.S.C. §9003(b). over, these expenditures were, granted the Commission’s motion to With regard to the 2000 Presiden- according to Wertheimer, “in kind” dismiss the complaint for lack of tial election, both major party contributions—contributions of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs alleged that nominees have accepted public goods or services—which are both they had standing because they had funds. At the same time, contributions to the candidate and marked the box on their income tax Wertheimer alleged, the national expenditures by the candidate. returns directing the Treasury to parties of both candidates (in As a result, Wertheimer con- place $3 of their taxes in the Presi- addition to the coordinated expendi- tended, Presidential candidates had dential Election Campaign Fund. tures they are permitted to make on both accepted private contributions But “a tax payer’s disagreement behalf of their respective candi- and exceeded the spending limit set with an appropriation” is not dates) had made expenditures in the by the Fund Act. Wertheimer further sufficient to confer standing, the form of issue ads, often paid for alleged both that the FEC knew of court said. Plaintiffs also alleged an these practices in the 1996 election interest in knowing whether candi- and failed to implement or construe dates were complying with the law, the law to prohibit such uses, and but the court found that a general- ized claim of harm does not confer 1 The campaign may, however, accept that these practices continued in the 2000 election cycle. standing. Finally, the court con- contributions designated for its general cluded it did not have the jurisdic- election legal and compliance (GELAC) tion to analyze the disclosure fund. This fund is a special account 2 The national parties are permitted to provisions in the context of allega- maintained to pay for legal and make limited coordinated expenditures accounting expenses related to comply- tions under the Fund Act. on behalf of their nominees in the U.S. District Court for the ing with the campaign finance law. general election. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d). Compliance expenses do not count District of Columbia, 1:00 cv 02203 ✦ against the expenditure limit. Contribu- 3Under the FECA, “express advocacy” (CKK). tions to the GELAC fund are, however, refers to a communication that ex- (continued on page 10) subject to the limits and prohibitions of pressly advocates the election or defeat the federal campaign finance laws. of a clearly identified candidate.

9 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Court Cases tial and Vice-Presidential nominees. Natural Law Party of the (continued from page 9) The court found that the votes taken United States of America, et first to remove Gerald Moan as the al. v. FEC Buchanan et al. v. FEC Chair of the Party and to nominate On September 21, 2000, the U.S. On September 14, 2000, the U.S. James Mangia to that position, and District Court for the District of District Court for the District of subsequently to nominate John Columbia granted the FEC’s motion Columbia granted the FEC’s motion Hagelin as the Party’s Presidential for summary judgment in this case, for summary judgment and denied candidate, violated the requirements ruling against the Natural Law Party the plaintiffs’ motion for summary of the Party’s constitution. The of the United States of America, Dr. judgment in this case. The district court further found that Patrick J. John Hagelin and John Moore (the court ruled that, although the Buchanan and were the plaintiffs). The court held that, plaintiffs had standing to challenge properly nominated candidates of although the plaintiffs had standing the FEC’s dismissal of their admin- the Reform Party. to challenge the FEC’s dismissal of istrative complaint against the The court granted a preliminary their administrative complaint Commission on Presidential De- injunction enjoining Dr. Hagelin against the Commission on Presi- bates, they failed to show that the and his agents from: FEC’s interpretation of the debate dential Debates (CPD), they failed regulations at 11 CFR 110.13 was • Soliciting donations on behalf of to show that the FEC’s interpreta- arbitrary and capricious. the Party, either from party mem- tion of the debate regulations at 11 The plaintiffs appealed, and were bers or from the general public; CFR 110.13 was arbitrary and granted an expedited appeal con- • Distributing press releases or capricious. cerning the single issue of whether a making any communications on The plaintiffs appealed. After debate must include all nominees behalf of the Party; expedited briefing on the issue of who have qualified for public • Operating a Web site on behalf of whether the 15 percent electoral funding in order to comply with the the Party; support requirement in CPD’s “objective criteria” standard set out • Making expenditures on behalf of selection criteria is illegal, the Court in the Commission’s debate regula- the Party; of Appeals affirmed the district • Undertaking any effort or commit- tions. The U.S. Court of Appeals court’s order on this issue on ting any act to promote John for the District of Columbia Circuit September 29, 2000. The remaining Hagelin and as the affirmed the district court’s order on issues will be decided on a non- official candidates of the Reform this issue on September 29, 2000. expedited schedule. Party; and The remaining issues will be U.S. District Court for the • Using the name of the “Reform decided on a non-expedited sched- District of Columbia, 00-2138 Party of the United States” or any ule. (ESH); U.S. Court of Appeals for of the Party’s logos. ✦ U.S. District Court for the the D.C. Circuit, 00-5338. District of Columbia, 00-1775 The U.S. District Court for the (RWR); U.S. Court of Appeals for Western District of Virginia had the D.C. Circuit, 00-5337. See also previously dismissed a similar the September 2000 Record, page complaint filed by the Party against Compliance 8.✦ Dr. Hagelin and Sue Harris DeBauche. That court found that the complaint did not fall within its Commission Launches Reform Party of the United jurisdiction. Alternative Dispute States v. John Hagelin et al. Superior Court of the State of Resolution Program and Reform Party of the California for the County of Los Launched on October 1, 2000, the United States v. Gerald M. Angeles, South District, NC Commission’s new Alternative Moan et al. 028469.✦ Dispute Resolution (ADR) program On September 15, 2000, the is in full swing. The ADR office Superior Court of the State of has contacted five committees California for the County of Los against whom complaints of violat- Angeles, South District, enjoined ing the Federal Election Campaign John Hagelin and his agents from Act (the Act) have been filed. The representing Dr. Hagelin and Nat office explained the program to Goldhaber to the public as the Reform Party (the Party) Presiden- 1 See 2 U.S.C. §438(b).

10 November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

them and offered them the option of compliance with the Act is stressed having their cases considered for in the negotiations, the negotiated PACronyms, Other processing in the ADR program. settlement may not always include PAC Publications The ADR program aims to an admission of guilt on the part of Available resolve complaints and Title 2 the respondent. The Commission annually audits for cause1 through direct and, publishes PACronyms, an when necessary, mediated negotia- Mediation alphabetical listing of acronyms, tions. If a settlement is not reached in abbreviations and common names When a complaint or an internal bilateral negotiations, the case of political action committees referral is filed with the Commis- proceeds to mediation. Respondents (PACs). sion, the Office of General Counsel select a mediator from a pool of 15 For each PAC listed, the index (OGC) provides the respondent with mediators from across the country provides the full name of the information about the ADR option who are uniquely qualified to PAC, its city, state, FEC and makes an initial determination mediate within this program because identification number and, if not as to whether the case is appropriate they have received a thorough identifiable from the full name, for the ADR program. OGC—or orientation on the Act and the its connected, sponsoring or FEC Commissioners—refer cases to Commission. affiliated organization. the ADR office, which operates The mediator meets with the The index is helpful in identify- under the direction of the Staff parties both jointly and separately as ing PACs that are not readily Director. Cases are referred to the needed. In accordance with Section identified in their reports and ADR office prior to the 574 of the ADR Act and 2 U.S.C. statements on file with the FEC. Commission’s finding “Reason to §437g (a) (4) (B) and (a) (12) (A), To order a free copy of Believe” that the respondent vio- information disclosed in mediation PACronyms, call the FEC’s lated the law. The ADR office remains strictly confidential. Disclosure Division at 800/424- evaluates each case to decide Information discussed in closed 9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120. whether it meets the requirements “caucus” meetings between the PACronyms also is available on for the program. In order to have a mediator and a single party cannot diskette for $1 and can be case considered for treatment within be shared with the other party unless accessed free under the “Using the ADR program, respondents that party has given the mediator FEC Services” icon at the FEC’s must: express permission to do so. If no web site—http://www.fec.gov. settlement is reached, the records Other PAC indexes, described • Express a willingness to engage in are purged and the case is referred the ADR process; below, may be ordered from the back to OGC for normal processing. Disclosure Division. Prepayment • Agree to set aside the statute of At this point, the statute of limita- limitations while the complaint is is required. tions begins again. If a settlement is • An alphabetical list of all pending in the ADR office; and reached, only the parties’ summaries • Agree to participate in bilateral registered PACs showing each of their case are placed on the PAC’s identification number, negotiations and, if necessary, public record. mediation. address, treasurer and Settlement connected organization ($13.25). Once the Commission approves a • A list of registered PACs case for ADR processing, the ADR Settlements reached, either through negotiations or mediation, arranged by state providing the office notifies the respondent and same information as above forwards proposed dates and times will be sent by the ADR office to the Commissioners for their ap- ($13.25). for engaging in bilateral negotia- • An alphabetical list of tions and/or mediation. proval. An approved settlement is a matter of public record, which states organizations sponsoring PACs showing the PAC’s name and Bilateral Negotiations that the settlement was negotiated or identification number ($7.50). The bilateral negotiation phase mediated and that it cannot serve as The Disclosure Division can involves direct negotiations between a precedent for the resolution of also conduct database research to the respondent and a representative future cases. Complaints and locate federal political committees from the ADR office. Negotiations referrals will be processed, on when only part of the committee aim to resolve the complaint or average, within five months follow- name is known. Call the telephone referral in a way that is both satisfy- ing their receipt by the ADR numbers above for assistance or ing to the respondent and in compli- office.✦ visit the Public Records Office in ance with the Act. While Washington at 999 E St., N.W.

11 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Matching Funds for 2000 Presidential Candidates: Public Funding September Certification Candidate Certification Cumulative Hagelin-Goldhaber Denied September 2000 Certifications Public Funding Gary L. Bauer (R) 1 $35, 106.01 $4,860,166.94 On September 12, 2000, the Commission made an initial deter- (D) 2 $0.00 $12,462,047.69 mination to deny John Hagelin and Nat Goldhaber’s request for public Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform) 3 $202,103.93 $4,326,522.44 funding as the Presidential and Vice 4 Presidential nominees of the Reform (D) $0.00 $15,456,083.75

Party. The Commission found that 5 Hagelin-Goldhaber did not have John Hagelin (Natural Law) $76,677.00 $650,347.06 ballot access as the Reform Party Alan L. Keyes (R) 6 $226,214.69 $4,247,219.60 ticket in enough states to qualify for public funds under the Presidential Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) 7 $90,012.65 $1,375.129.60 Election Campaign Fund Act (the Fund Act). John S. McCain (R) 8 $0.00 $14,475,333.10 The Reform Party qualifies as a “minor party” under the Fund Act Ralph Nader (G) 9 $59,156.70 $723,307.65 because its nominee received more than 5 percent, but less than 25 (R) 10 $0.00 $2,087,749.46 percent, of the total number of popular votes received by all 1 Gary L. Bauer publicly withdrew from the race on February 4, 2000.

Presidential candidates in the last 2 general election. 26 U.S.C. Bill Bradley publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000. §9002(7). As a result, its Presiden- 3 Patrick J. Buchanan became ineligible for matching funds on August 11, 2000. tial nominees are eligible for a 4 Al Gore became ineligible for matching funds on August 16, 2000. portion of the public funds allotted 5 to major party candidates. How- John Hagelin became ineligible for matching funds on August 31, 2000. ever, in order to receive these funds, 6 Alan L. Keyes became ineligible for matching funds on April 20, 2000. the minor party nominees must also 7 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., became ineligible for matching funds on August 16, meet a series of additional require- 2000. ments, one of which is that the candidates qualify for ballot access 8 John S. McCain publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000. as their party’s nominees in at least 9 Ralph Nader became ineligible for matching funds on August 17, 2000. ten states. 11 CFR 9002.2(a)(2). 10 Dan Quayle publicly withdrew from the race on September 27, 1999 . Although Hagelin-Goldhaber submitted documentation showing that they had ballot access in at least ten states, the Commission found that they had qualified to appear as September Matching Fund election. The above chart lists the the Reform Party’s candidates in Payments most recent certifications and cumulative certifications (and only three states. As a result, the On September 29, 2000, the payments) for each candidate. ✦ Commission made an initial deter- Commission certified $689,270.98 mination that Hagelin-Goldhaber in matching funds to six Presiden- did not meet the eligibility require- tial candidates. The U.S. Treasury ments necessary to receive public Department made the payments the ✦ funds. first day of September. With these latest certifications, the FEC has now declared ten candidates eligible to receive a total of $60,663,907.69 in federal matching funds for the 2000

12 November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

PAC Contributions: First 18 Months Statistics of 2000 Election Cycle

Fundraising and Millions $45 Contributions Increase for Democrats Congressional Campaigns, Republicans Parties and PACs $40 The Commission has compiled summaries of the financial disclo- $35 sure reports of Congressional campaign committees, Democratic $30 and Republican party committees and political action committees $25 (PACs) for the period between January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000. $20 The summaries show an increase in fundraising for, and contributions to, federal candidates during the first 18 $15 months of the 2000 election cycle as compared with the same period in $10 the prior election cycle. Congressional Campaign $5 Committees Congressional candidates raised a $0 record $652.7 million between Corporate Labor Non- Trade Cooperative Corp. January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000, connected Membership w/out Stock Health representing a 35 percent increase over the same period of the 1998 election cycle. House candidates raised $393 million (up 34 percent National Party Committee Receipts: First 18 over the same period in 1997-98) Months of 1996 and 2000 Election Cycles and Senate candidates raised $259.7 million (up 36 percent over the same period in the previous election Hard Money cycle). Soft Money Democratic and Republican Party Committees Both Republican and Democratic Democrats party committees showed increased 1996 fundraising during the first 18 months of the 2000 cycle, compared with fundraising from the same 2000 period in the 1998 election cycle. The federal accounts of Republican party committees raised $245.7 Republicans million, spent $193 million and had 1996 cash-on-hand of $65.3 million. Democratic committees raised $143.6 million, spent $105.5 million 2000 and ended the period with cash-on- $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 (continued on page 14) Millions

13 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Statistics (800/424-9530, press 3) and the (continued from page 13) Press Office (800/424-9530, press Public Appearances hand of $40.4 million. The Republi- 5); and November 3, 2000 can totals reflect a gain of 27 • By fax (call the FEC Faxline at Mackinac Center for Public percent and the Democratic totals a 202/501-3413 and request docu- Policy gain of 33 percent, compared with ments 612 for Congressional Midland, Michigan the same period in the last election Campaign Committee statistics, Commissioner Smith cycle. 613 for National Party Committee Record amounts of nonfederal statistics and 614 for PAC ✦ November 9, 2000 funds—“soft money”—were also statistics). International Foundation for raised during this period. In soft Election Systems money, the Democrats raised $124.2 Washington, D.C. million while the Republicans raised Vice Chairman McDonald $130.2 million—a 134 percent and Outreach an 81 percent increase, respectively, November 13, 2000 since this period in the last election FEC Roundtables Center for National Security Law cycle. The Commission will host Charlottesville, Virginia Commissioner Smith Political Action Committees another roundtable session on December 6, 2000. See the table for PACs contributed $167 million to November 15, 2000 federal candidates between January more details. FEC roundtables, limited to 12 Claremont McKenna College 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000, repre- Washington, D.C. senting a 24 percent increase over participants per session, are con- ducted at the FEC’s headquarters in Chairman Wold the same 18-month period in the Commissioner Mason prior election cycle. An analysis of Washington, DC. The registration fee is $25, and 4,393 PACs showed total receipts of November 15-18, 2000 $430.6 million and disbursements of participants will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Please National Association of Business $357.7 million for the first eighteen Political Action Committees months of the 2000 election cycle, call the FEC before registering or sending money to be sure that Naples, Florida representing a 20 percent increase Commissioner Smith over the receipts from the same openings remain in the session. Prepayment is required. The regis- Bob Biersack period in the last election cycle. George Smaragdis Cash-on-hand was $212.2 million. tration form is available at the PACs contributed $133.4 million FEC’s Web site—http:// www.fec.gov/pdf/rndtabl.pdf—and November 19-23, 2000 to incumbent candidates, $14.3 Tribunal Supremo Electoral million to challengers and $19.3 from Faxline, the FEC’s automated fax system (202/501-3413, request Antigua, Guatemala million to candidates for open seats. Vice Chairman McDonald During this period PACs contributed document 590). For more informa- tion, call 800/424-9530 (press 1) or roughly equal amounts to Demo- ✦ cratic and Republican candidates— 202/694-1100. $80.3 million to Democratic candidates and $86.3 million to Roundtable Schedule Republican candidates. Addition- ally, PACs reported spending $1.9 Date Subject Intended Audience million in independent expenditures. Additional information is avail- December 6 New FEC Alternative • Lawyers and able in three news releases dated 9:30 - 11 a.m. Dispute Resolution Program Consultants to PACs, September 26 and 27, 2000. The • Explanation and Q/A about Campaigns and releases, which include statistical new program for settling Political Parties information dating back as far as six complaints and audit • Committee treasurers years, are available: referrals • On the FEC Web site at • How program works www.fec.gov; • Benefits for regulated • From the Public Records Office community

14 November 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

2000-2: Campaign rental of candi- Compliance Index date-owned office, 5:7 Administrative Fines Program, 2000-3: PAC’s payment for corpo- 5:1,7:1, 10:1 rate communication, 5:8 Alternative Dispute Resolution The first number in each citation 2000-4: Automatic Deductions for Program, 7:2, 8:10, 11:10 refers to the “number” (month) of credit union PAC, 5:8 MUR 3774: Failure to allocate the 2000 Record issue in which the 2000-5: Application of $25,000 expenses between federal and article appeared. The second limit to contributions by Indian nonfederal accounts for get-out- number, following the colon, tribe, 7:8 the-vote drive conducted by third indicates the page number in that 2000-6: Use of federal convention party, 3:3 issue. For example, “3:4” means funds to develop voter data base MUR 4322 and 4650: Violations by that the article is in the March issue and balloting system, 7:9 candidate, campaign committees, on page 4. 2000-7: Use of corporate web sites treasurer and relative, 2:1 to provide PAC information and MUR 4648: Failure to disclose Advisory Opinions solicit contributions, 7:9 purpose of expenditures and other Alternative disposition of 2000-09, 2000-10: “Permission to solicit violations, 3:4 10:5 form” placed on trade association Reconsideration of 2000-08, 10:5 Web page, 8:8 Court Cases 1999-24: Web site sponsored by 2000-11: Misplaced payroll- _____ v. FEC LLC featuring information on deducted contributions, 8:9 – Akins, 8:12 candidates, 1:17 2000-12: Using campaign funds to – ‘96, 8:14 1999-29: Fundraising exemption pay convention expenses of – Becker, 8:13, 11:8 from state limits for direct mailing former presidential candidates, – Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9 by Presidential committee, 1:19 9:5 – Patrick J. Buchanan, et. al., 9:8. 1999-30: Application of allocation 2000-13: Internet video coverage of 11:10 ratio in state with single house Republican and Democratic – DNC, 4:6 legislature, 1:20 national conventions, 8:9 – DSCC, 1:2 1999-31: Application of one-third 2000-14: Status of New York State – Fulani, Lenora B., 7:7, 11:8 rule to prizes and premiums used Committee of the Working – Hooker, John Jay, 6:9, 7:8 in connection with payroll Families Party as state committee, – Natural Law Party, 11:10 deduction, 1:21 9:6 – Unified Independent Party, 1999-32: Indian tribe’s utility 2000-15: Payroll deduction by trade Committee for, 7:8 authority treated as separate from association’s affiliated member, – Virginia Society for Human Life, the tribe, 3:4 9:7 Inc., 3:8 1999-33: Delayed transmittal of 2000-16: Political ads on Internet – Wertheimer, 11:9 payroll deductions, 3:5 for academic study, 10:2 FEC v. _____ 1999-34: Use of campaign funds to 2000-17: Establishment of separate – Christian Coalition, 4:7 finance charity event, 2:2 segregated fund by subsidiary of – Colorado Republican Federal 1999-35: Soliciting for SSF through foreign corporation, 9:7 Campaign Committee, 7:1, 10:6 electronic deduction system, 2:4 2000-18: Closing date for Nader – Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 6:8 1999-36: Fundraising via electronic 2000 matching funds, 10:3 – Friend for Fasi, 3:9, 8:14 checks and Internet fund transfers, 2000-19: Retroactively reallocating – Fund for Conservative Majority 3:5 ballot composition ratio, 10:4 (Heckman), 6:8 1999-37: PAC distribution of 2000-20: Creation of nonconnected – National Rifle Association, 6:9 express advocacy communica- committee, 11:5 – Salvi for Senate Committee, 6:9 tions through Web site and e- 2000-21: New York Conservative – Toledano, James, 6:9 mail, 4:1 Party as State Committee, 10:5 Other 1999-38: Reporting disputed and 2000-22: Electronic signature for – Fireman v. USA, 1:13 unpayable debts, 11:4 trade associations’ “permission to – Hooker v. All Contributors, 8:15 1999-39: Disaffiliation of SSFs after solicit” authorizations, 11:5 – Mariani v. USA, 1:3, 7:7 corporate restructuring, 4:5 2000-23: Preemption of New York – Missouri Republican Party v. 1999-40: Solicitation of members of election code, 11:6 Charles Lamb, 11:8 rural electric cooperatives, 5:6 2000-29: Determining number of 2000-1: Paid leave of absence for (continued on page 16) Louisiana federal elections, 11:6 attorney seeking federal office, 4:5

15 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2000

Index Reports Georgia special election, 9:4 (continued from page 15) New forms for 20001, 11:1 – Reform Party v. Gargan, 5:9, 7:8 New reporting requirements, 11:2 – Reform Party v. John Hagelin and October reporting reminder, 9:1 Reform Party v. Gerald M. Moan, On-line 48-hour notices, 10:1 11:10 Reports due in 2000, 1:5 – Shrink PAC v. Nixon, 3:7 Reports due in July, 6:1 State Filing Waiver, 1:2; 2:5, 4:3, Regulations 5:5, 6:3, 7:5, 11:4 Administrative Fines, 5:1, 7:1 Virginia Convention Reports, 5:5 Coordination, 1:14; 4:3 Web access to Senate candidates’ Election Cycle Reporting, 6:1, 8:4 campaign finance reports, 10:1 Electronic Filing, 5:1, 8:1 Electronic Freedom of Information Act, 4:1 Express Advocacy, 4:2 Presidential Public Funding, 5:3 Repayments by Federally Financed Presidential Primary Campaign Committees, 4:2 State Waivers, 4:3, 7:5

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, NW Bulk Rate Mail Washington, DC 20463 Postage and Fees Paid Federal Election Commission Permit Number G-31 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300

Printed on recycled paper