June 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 6

Table of Contents Regulations Reports Regulations Compliance 1 Election Cycle Reporting Election Cycle Reporting July Reporting Reminder Reports Proposed for Authorized Committees filing on a quarterly 1 July Reporting Reminder Committees basis must file their second quar- 2 Nonfilers On April 27, 2000, the Commis- terly report by July 15. Those filing 3 Filing with Federal and State on a monthly schedule have a report Governments sion approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would due on July 20. 3 Advisory Opinions require candidate committees to Please note that, in addition to aggregate and report their receipts filing quarterly reports, committees 3 Federal Register and disbursements on an election- of candidates active in 2000 primary cycle basis rather than on a calen- and runoff elections must file pre- Audits dar-year basis, which is the current election reports and may have to file 4 Missouri Democratic Party system. 48-hour notices. PACs and party 6 Michigan Republican Party The proposed rules are based on committees filing on a quarterly Public Law 106-58, passed by basis may also have to file pre- Public Funding Congress in 1999. The law requires election reports. 7 Presidential Compliance Manual Committees of candidates who 7 April Matching Fund Payments the Commission to implement these new rules, beginning with the first are not active in 2000 elections must Court Cases reporting period after December 31, file a mid-year report by July 31. 8 FEC v. Freedom’s Heritage Forum 2000. For more information on 2000 8 FEC v. Heckman and Fund for The change to election cycle reporting, including reporting dates Conservative Majority reporting is intended to simplify and when to file 48-hour notices, 9 FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate recordkeeping and reporting.1 Under see the reporting schedules in the 9 Hooker v. FEC current regulations, candidate January and March 2000 Records. 9 FEC v. National Rifle Association committees track contribution limits To order the 2000 reporting sched- 9 FEC v. James Toledano on a per-election basis, but report ule handout, call 800/424-9530 or contributions on a calendar-year-to- 202/694-1100. Or use Faxline: 202/ Publications 501-3413 and request document 8 FEC Issues 1999 Annual Report date basis. Other receipts and disbursements are aggregated and 586. This information is also Outreach available at the FEC’s Web page: 10 Roundtables (continued on page 4) http://www.fec.gov/pages/report.htm. 10 Public Appearances Where to File Reports 1 Please note that these changes do not With the exception of Senate apply to unauthorized committees, and campaign committees and commit- the Commission does not expect to tees that support only Senate modify the rules applicable to those committees. (continued on page 3) Federal Election Commission RECORD June 2000

Nonfilers IN and NC Pre-primary Report Nonfilers: The campaign committees listed in the top chart failed to file pre- Candidate Office Sought primary reports in connection with the May 2 primary elections in Ron Gyure for Congress House IN/02 Indiana and North Carolina. The Ward for Congress House NC/04 reports, which were due April 20, were to include financial activity for Coble for Congress House NC/06 the period April 1 - 12. The second chart lists campaign Mike Taylor for Congress House NC/08 committees that failed to file pre- primary reports in connection with Clement for Congress House NC/09 the May 23 primary elections in Arkansas, Idaho and Kentucky. The Cass Ballenger for Congress Committee House NC/10 reports covered the period April 1 - May 3, and were due May 11. Mel Watt for Congress Committee House NC/12 The bottom chart lists campaign committees that failed to file reports covering the first quarter of calendar year 2000. The reports were due AR, ID and KY Pre-Primary Nonfilers: April 15. The FEC is required by law to Candidate Office Sought publicize the names of nonfiling campaign committees. 2 U.S.C. Jason Sutfin for Congress House AR/01 438(a)(7). The agency pursues enforcement action against nonfilers Rod Martin for Congress House AR/02 on a case-by-case basis.✦ Linda Pall Congress 2000 House ID/01

Don Bell for Congress/2000 House KY/04

Federal Election Commission 999 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20463 Quarterly Report Nonfilers: 800/424-9530 202/694-1100 202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline) Candidate Office Sought 202/219-3336 (TDD for the hearing impaired) Judy Smith for Congress House AR/04 800/877-8339 (FIRS) People for Royal Hart House PA/04 Darryl R. Wold, Chairman Danny L. McDonald, Dick Stewart for Congress House PA/19 Vice Chairman Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner People for Bellissimo House PA/04 David M. Mason, Commissioner Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel Administrative Fines Program Begins in July Published by the Information Beginning with the July reports, the Commission will implement an Division Administrative Fines program for late filing committees. For more Louise D. Wides, Director information, see the May Record, p. 1, and watch for further details in the July Greg J. Scott, Editor Record. http://www.fec.gov

2 June 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Reports Filing with Federal and State Governments (continued from page 1) Federal Government: State Government: candidates, all committees file their Type of Committee Where to File Is Copy Required? reports with the Federal Election Commission. (Reports should never U.S. Senate Campaigns Secretary of the Senate Yes be filed with the Clerk of the House.) * Senate campaign committees U.S. House and FEC Yes, unless waived continue to file their reports with the Presidential Campaigns Secretary of the Senate. PACs and Parties FEC Yes, unless waived* State Copies of Reports Waived in Most States PACs Supporting Only Secretary of the Senate Yes Due to a new state waiver U.S. Senate Candidates program, most committees no longer have to file copies of their * The Commission has certified that the following states and territories qualify for FEC reports at the state level. Under filing waivers: Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colorado, this new program, committees based Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, in, or supporting candidates in, 45 Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ne- states/territories no longer have to braska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, file copies of their reports with the North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon , Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South state because these states have Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Committees that file their qualified for the FEC’s waiver. (See reports at the FEC need not file copies in these states. the footnote in the chart (to the right) for a list of the states/territo- Note, also, that 11 CFR 108.8 exempts the District of Columbia from the state filing ries that have qualified for the requirement. waiver.) The Commission has granted waivers to these states and territories because they give the Advisory Federal Register public access to FEC reports Federal Register notices are through a computer located at their Opinions available from the FEC’s Public campaign finance records office. Records Office. Note, however, for the present Advisory Opinion Requests time, the waiver does not apply to Notice 2000-6 reports filed by Senate campaign AOR 2000-9 Administrative Fines; Notice of committees. They must continue to Application of FEC regulations Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR file copies of their reports with the and advisory opinions to commer- 16534, March 29, 2000) state. (Images of Senate reports will cial Web site that sells space to soon be available on the federal, state and local candidates Notice 2000-7 Commission’s Web site. Once this and issue organizations. (Voter.com, Electronic Filing of Reports by occurs, Senate campaigns will be able Inc., May 2, 2000) Political Committees; Notice of to take advantage of the state filing Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR waivers. Senate campaign filers AOR 2000-10 19339, April 11, 2000) should check the FEC’s Web site or Trade association PAC’s use of Notice 2000-8 consult their Reports Analyst for the Web site to request prior approval Public Financing of Presidential most up-to-date information.) from corporate members. Primary and General Election Consult the chart (above right) for (America’s Community Bankers Candidates; Final Rule; guidance on where to file FEC reports. PAC, May 15, 2000) Announcement of Effective Date Administrative Fines AOR 2000-11 (65 FR 20893, April 19, 2000) Starting with the July reports, late Reissue of corporate checks for Notice 2000-9 filers, nonfilers and committees that PAC contributions made through Election Cycle Reporting by fail to file 48-hour notices will be employee payroll deduction to Authorized Committees, Notice subject to administrative fines, replace original checks that PAC of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR ranging from $125 to $16,000. Read treasurer never deposited. (Georgia- 25672, May 3, 2000) more about the new program in the Pacific Corporation, May 15, 2000) upcoming July issue of the Record.✦

3 Federal Election Commission RECORD June 2000

Regulations tions received before January 1 Audits (continued from page 1) would be included in the current reported on a calendar-year-to-date election cycle totals, even though basis. Under the proposed new these contributions might count Audit of Missouri toward the limits for a different Democratic Party rules, authorized candidate commit- tees will itemize and report contri- election. An FEC audit of the Missouri butions, other receipts and Under the second alternative, Democratic Party, approved by the disbursements on an election-cycle which would apply to both reporting Commission on April 5, 2000, basis. and contribution limits, the election found that the committee improperly st Under current regulations, an cycle would begin on the 21 day allocated federal and nonfederal election cycle begins the day after after the general election for the seat expenses, misreported the proceeds the general election for the office or or office the candidate is seeking of joint fundraisers and received seat that the candidate seeks and (the day after the end of the post- excessive contributions. ends on the day of the next general general election reporting period) and would end on the 20th day after Federal/Nonfederal Allocation election for that seat or office. 11 CFR 100.3(b). The length of the the next general election for the seat The audit identified $223,458 in or office the candidate is seeking payments from the party’s election cycle depends on the office sought—a two-year cycle for House (the day the post-general reporting nonfederal account that should have period ends for that election). In been allocated between the candidates, six years for Senate candidates and four years for addition, this alternative would committee’s federal and nonfederal amend the regulations at 11 CFR accounts. The disbursements were Presidential candidates. Campaign finance reports are due monthly or 110.1 and 110.2 to extend the cut- for administrative and generic voter off date for attributing undesignated drive expenses such as contract quarterly, depending on the commit- tee, with a pre- and post-election contributions. Under current rules, services, travel reimbursements, undesignated contributions made salaries, bonuses, printing and voter report, and a year-end report due on January 31 of the following year. after the general election count registration. Based on the applicable toward the next upcoming election. allocation ratio (22 percent federal Under this definition of election cycle, either the post-general Under this alternative, undesignated and 78 percent nonfederal), the contributions made through 20 days party should have paid $49,161 of election report or the year-end report (for authorized candidate after the general election would these expenses with funds from its continue to be attributed to the federal account. Furthermore, based committees not required to file a post-election report) covers two recently held general election. As a on the FEC’s allocation regulations, result, the post-general election the party should have made the election cycles. The Commission seeks comments report would not cover two election original payments to vendors from cycles. However, year-end reports its federal account and transferred on two alternatives to this definition of election cycle, neither of which is filed by candidates who do not funds from the nonfederal account participate in the general election to the federal account to cover the actually included in the proposed rules. Under the first alternative, for (and therefore do not file a post- nonfederal share of the expenses. 11 general election report) would cover CFR 106.5(g). reporting purposes only, the election cycle would begin on January 1 of the entire post-election period Allocating Refunds and Rebates the year following the general through December 31 and, thus, two The committee also erroneously election for a seat or office and election cycles. deposited into its federal account would end on December 31 of the Certain changes to FEC Forms 3 $39,584 in refunds and rebates calendar year in which the next and 3P (used by House and Senate related to shared federal/nonfederal general election for that seat or campaigns and by Presidential expenses. The party failed to office is held. This approach would campaigns, respectively) will be transfer the nonfederal share of require fewer changes to current necessary under any of the three those refunds and rebates ($30,662) reporting practices and would avoid alternative approaches. For ex- to its nonfederal account. The party the need to include separate elec- ample, in instances where a single did not provide evidence to refute tion-cycle-to-date figures for two report (either the post-general or these findings. different election cycles in post- year-end) covers financial activity general reports (or year-end reports from two election cycles, the where no post-general report is Commission seeks comments on (continued on page 6) filed). However, under this alterna- how best to segregate that activity tive, post-general-election contribu- on the reporting form.

4 June 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Since the new regulations will The NPRM is available from the electronic form. Written comments take effect after the post-general and Public Records Office at 800/424- should be sent to the Federal year-end reporting periods for 2000 9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120; Election Commission, 999 E Street, have closed, many candidates will through the FEC’s Faxline at 202/ N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. have already reported receipts and 501-3413 (document 248); and on Faxed comments should be sent to disbursements related to the 2002, the FEC’s Web site—http:// 202/219-3923, with a printed copy 2004 or 2006 election cycles. To www.fec.gov. The notice was follow-up to ensure legibility. account for this, the Commission is published in the Federal Register on Electronic mail comments should be creating a one-time worksheet to May 3 (65 FR 25672, May 3, 2000). sent to [email protected]. Those help these campaigns aggregate The Commission seeks comments sending comments by electronic their election-cycle-to-date figures. on the proposed revisions to 11 CFR mail must include their full name, In addition to the changes 104.3, 104.7, 104.8 and 104.9, on electronic mail address and postal directly related to election cycle the alternative definitions of election service address within the text of reporting, the NPRM also proposes cycle discussed above, and on any their comments. Comments that do conforming amendments to the other issues raised by the new not contain the full name, electronic Commission’s “best efforts” regula- statutory requirements regarding mail address and postal service tions at 11 CFR 104.7. These election cycle reporting. All com- address of the commenter will not amendments would replace refer- ments should be addressed to be considered. No oral comments ences to the $200 per calendar year Rosemary C. Smith, Assistant can be accepted. The deadline for itemization threshold with a $200 General Counsel, and must be comments is June 2, 2000.✦ per election cycle threshold. submitted in either written or

Election Cycle for Congressional Candidates Current Definition of Election Cycle: November November Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Dec. 31 Election Election

Alternative 1:

November November Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Dec. 31 Election Election

Alternative 2:*

November November Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Dec. 31 Election Election

Close of Books Close of Books Post-General Report Post-General Report

* Note that this alternative would also amend the contribution aggregation rules at 11 CFR 110.1 and 110.2.

5 Federal Election Commission RECORD June 2000

Audits This audit was conducted pursu- paign related. The party did not (continued from page 4) ant to 2 U.S.C. 438(b), which disclose the receipts and disburse- authorizes the Commission to ments of this account on its federal Joint Fundraising conduct audits of any political or state disclosure reports. The audit The party participated in three committee that fails to meet the identified approximately $413,573 joint fundraisers from which it threshold level of compliance set by in expenses that the party paid from received $150,582 in net proceeds. the Commission. Subsequent to a this “administrative account” that The committee disclosed these net final audit report, the FEC may should have been allocated between receipts on it FEC reports, but failed choose to pursue unresolved issues its federal and nonfederal accounts. in some cases to itemize the indi- in an enforcement matter.✦ 11 CFR 106.5. These expenses vidual contributions included in its related to the State Convention, share of the gross proceeds from the State Committee meetings, Republi- fundraisers. Nor did it maintain Audit of Michigan can National Committee meetings/ proper records with respect to the Republican Party conferences, as well as the day-to- fundraisers. In response to the An FEC audit of the Michigan day operations of MRSC. interim audit report, however, the Republican State Committee Similarly, MRSC’s “Republican committee filed the required memo (MRSC), approved on April 13, National Convention” account— Schedules A, itemizing the contribu- 2000, revealed possible impermis- also a nonfederal account—paid tions, and provided copies of the sible expenditures on behalf of $78,538 in apparent allocable necessary records. federal candidates, shared federal/ expenses associated with the 1996 Presidential nominating convention, Excessive Contributions nonfederal (allocable) expenses and its nonfederal “operating The audit identified 18 excessive erroneously paid from nonfederal account” paid $10,951 for allocable contributions totaling $80,250. The accounts, misstatements of financial get-out-the-vote activity. committee transferred nine of the activity and reporting errors and In light of these findings, the contributions to its nonfederal omissions. interim audit report recommended account, and reattributed four others Impermissible Expenditures that MRSC transfer $183,353 from to spouses. The committee did not, MRSC used its salaried staff to its federal account to its nonfederal however, provide evidence that it operate a get-out-the-vote phone accounts to pay for the federal share had: bank on behalf of the 1996 Presi- of the allocable expenses and file •Informed contributors that it had dential and Vice Presidential memo Schedules H4 to disclose the transferred their funds to the nominees and three nonfederal activity. nonfederal account; candidates. Because MRSC used In response, MRSC reimbursed •Informed the contributors of their salaried staff, rather than volunteers, its nonfederal account $21,402 for option to receive refunds; or the phone bank did not qualify for the federal share of expenses it •Retained the donors’ authorization the regulatory exception that permits acknowledged were allocable. The to reattribute their contributions to a state or local party committee to party also demonstrated that $7,173 spouses. 11 CFR 110.1(b), finance a volunteer-operated phone of the alleged allocable expenses 110.1(k) and 110.2(b). bank on behalf of Presidential and identified in the audit were solely Vice Presidential nominees without In response to the Commission’s nonfederal. MRSC further con- considering its payments expendi- interim audit report, the committee tended that payments from its tures. 11 CFR 100.8(b)(18)(v). refunded three contributions totaling convention account were for social Instead, the audit concluded that the $25,250, received authorization to functions that did not relate to party had made a $5,794 contribu- transfer or reattribute 13 others, and federal elections. tion to or independent expenditure took no action on the two remaining Ultimately, the final audit report on behalf of Dole/Kemp ’96. MRSC excessive contributions identified in concluded that MRSC should neither accepted nor refuted this the audit. However, since the transfer $154,778 from its federal finding. committee did not receive the account to its nonfederal account authorizations to transfer or to cover the federal share of Shared Federal/Nonfederal allocable expenses. This figure took reattribute the contributions within Expenses 60 days of the treasurer’s initial into account the $21,402 transfer the MRSC used an “administrative party had already made and the receipt of the contributions (as account,” which was a nonfederal required by FEC regulations), that $7,173 in expenses that were solely account, to defray certain expenses nonfederal. option was not available to the that it considered to be non-cam- committee.

6 June 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Misstatement of Financial Activity The manual includes the April Matching Fund A comparison of MRSC’s Commission’s revised “Computer- Payments reported activity to its bank records ized Magnetic Media Requirements On April 28, 2000, the Commis- revealed misstatements of beginning for Title 26 Candidates/Committees sion approved an additional cash, total receipts and total dis- Receiving Federal Funding” $5,415,234.76 in matching fund bursements disclosed on the (CMMR). The CMMR sets forth payments to seven Presidential committee’s 1995 and 1996 reports. technical standards designed to candidates. With these latest certifi- In response to the interim audit ensure the compatibility of magnetic cations, the FEC has now declared report, MRSC filed amended reports media, provided for Commission nine candidates eligible to receive a to correct the misstatements. use during the matching fund total of $54,514,698.57 in federal submission process, and mandatory matching funds for the 2000 elec- Reporting Errors and Omissions audits of these publicly funded MRSC’s reports contained a tion. campaign committees. Due to a shortfall in the Presiden- number of errors and omissions. Copies of the manual are avail- Among the errors, the committee tial Election Campaign Fund, the able from the FEC’s Public Records U.S. Treasury Department has been failed to itemize and report: office at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or •Payroll disbursements of $284,919 making partial payments to the 202/694-1120. The manual is also qualified candidates, based on the (and related transfers from the available on the Commission’s Web nonfederal account to the federal Commission’s certifications. The site, as a PDF file, at http:// chart below lists the most recent account) on Schedules H3 and H4; www.fec.gov/pdf/ •Transfers of $634,239 from the certifications and cumulative Compliance2000.pdf.✦ ✦ nonfederal operating account to the payments for each candidate. federal allocation account for the nonfederal share of payments to Matching Funds for 2000 Presidential Candidates: vendors; •Bank charges and disbursements to April Certification vendors totaling $756,462; Candidate Certification Cumulative •Transfers of $13,500 to the March 2000 Certifications nonfederal account; and 1 •An $80,842 independent expendi- Gary L. Bauer (R) $ 68,422.52 $ 4,618,611.55 ture on behalf of a federal candi- Bill Bradley (D) 2 $ 277,762.50 $12,390,505.77 date. In response, MRSC filed all Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform) $ 117,809.16 $ 3,447,936.19 schedules as recommended.✦ Al Gore (D) $ 996,715.38 $14,122,762.38

John Hagelin (Natural Law) $ 134,910.00 $ 234,910.00 Public Funding Alan L. Keyes (R)3 $ 359,607.58 $ 2,592,093.75 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) 4 $0.00 $901,338.93 Presidential Compliance Manual Available John S. McCain (R) 5 $3,360,007.62 $14,004,015.00 The 2000 edition of the Financial 6 Control and Compliance Manual for Dan Quayle(R) $0.00 $2,102,525.00 Presidential Primary Candidates Receiving Public Financing is now 1 Gary L Bauer publicly withdrew from the race on February 4, 2000. available. The manual helps pub- 2 Bill Bradley publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000. licly funded Presidential campaigns 3 manage their accounting, reporting Alan L. Keyes became ineligible for matching funds on April 20, 2000. and recordkeeping, in compliance 4 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. became ineligible for matching funds on April 6, 2000. with the federal election laws. 5 John S. McCain publicly withdrew on March 9, 2000. 6 Dan Quayle publicly withdrew from the race on September 27, 1999.

7 Federal Election Commission RECORD June 2000

On February 4, 2000, the Ccourt the statement was merely a “com- Court Cases denied an FEC motion to reconsider ment on the status of the election,” its decision with respect to express not express advocacy. advocacy and disclaimers. Civil Action No. 3:98CV-549-S, FEC v. Freedom’s Heritage U.S. District Court for the Western Forum Current Decision: District of Kentucky at Louisville, On April 28, 2000, the U.S. Express Advocacy April 28, 2000.✦ District Court for the Western The court’s most recent decision District of Kentucky granted in part relates to the Forum’s motion to and denied in part the Freedom’s dismiss Count VII of the FEC v. Heckman and Fund Heritage Forum’s motion to dismiss Commission’s Second Amended for a Conservative Majority certain portions of the FEC’s Complaint. In Count VII, the FEC On April 28, 2000, the U.S. complaint against it. had alleged that seven flyers the District Court for the Eastern Forum had distributed in connection District of Virginia granted the Background with the 1994 elections—including FEC’s motion to hold Robert The Forum, a political committee the four on which the court had Heckman and Fund for a Conserva- that promotes pro-life and other already ruled—contained express tive Majority (FCM) in contempt of social issues, made expenditures in advocacy, but lacked the disclaimers court for failing to pay a court- connection with the planning and required by 2 U.S.C. §441d(a). imposed civil penalty and for failing holding of a political meeting and Having already ruled on four of to file disclosure reports, as the the mailing of several political the flyers, the court concluded that court had ordered. flyers during the 1994 Republican two of the three remaining flyers The court ordered Mr. Heckman primary in Kentucky. contained express advocacy and and FCM to pay the outstanding In its complaint, the Commission should have had disclaimers. civil penalty plus interest (amount- alleged that the Forum had violated The first of them was a “Congres- ing to $5,540); to pay a $5,000 sections §§441(a)(1)(A), 434(b) and sional Candidate Report” that contempt fine; and to file all out- 441d(a) of the Federal Election compared one candidate’s positions standing disclosure reports. If Mr. Campaign Act (the Act) by making on certain issues to those of his Heckman and FCM fail to comply excessive contributions, failing to opponents. It contained in a high- with the court’s orders within 10 report contributions and failing to lighted box: “IMPORTANT! days, the court will impose addi- include disclaimers on its communi- Registered Democrats and Republi- tional contempt fines of $100 per cations. Specifically, the Commis- cans can vote for [the named day until they do so. sion maintained that the Forum had candidate] who actively opposes the made coordinated expenditures liberal Clinton agenda. Vote No- (which are considered in-kind vember 8, 1994, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.” contributions) on behalf of a federal The court found that this statement candidate that exceeded the Act’s was an exhortation to vote for the FEC Issues 1999 contribution limits, and that the named candidate and therefore was Annual Report Forum had distributed communica- express advocacy. tions (seven flyers) containing The second express advocacy The FEC’s Annual Report 1999 express advocacy without the flyer was a sample ballot that is now available. The report de- required disclaimers. readers were to take to the polls on scribes the agency’s actions dur- On September 29, 1999, the court election day. It “explicitly urge[d] ing the last calendar year and in- ruled that the Forum’s expenditures the reader to vote for the ‘pro- cludes the package of legislative were permissible independent family’ candidates identified.” recommendations the Commis- expenditures—not coordinated The other flyer was an invitation sion recently transmitted to the expenditures (not contributions). that included the statement: “We President and Congress. The court also maintained that only have the Pro-Abortionists right Free copies of are available by one of the four flyers it reviewed where we want them, divided and calling the FEC’s Information Di- (exhibit 2) contained express fighting each other. Now [the named vision at 800/424-9530 or 202/ advocacy and, thereby, required a candidate] can win with only 40% 694-1100. It is also available disclaimer. For a summary of the of the vote!” Because the flyer through the FEC’s Web site at decision, see the December 1999 lacked Lacking an explicit exhorta- http://www.fec.gov/pdf/ar99.pdf. Record, p. 6. tion to vote, the court concluded that

8 June 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

For more information, see the to the first, which the court had FEC v. NRA (85-1018) Record, January 1997, p. 5, and dismissed with prejudice. On April 3, 2000, the U.S. November 1997, p. 1. After learning that the court’s District Court for the District of Civil Action No. 96-1567-A, U.S. initial dismissal had been with Columbia ordered the National Rifle District Court for the Eastern prejudice, the Commission filed Association (NRA) and its lobbying District of Virginia, Alexandria motions to vacate that dismissal and organization, the NRA America ✦ Division, April 28, 2000. thereby permit consideration of the Institute for Legal Action, to pay a second suit, and to alter or amend $25,000 civil penalty for violating the court’s judgment in the second the ban on corporate contributions FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate suit. Both motions were denied, and Committee and expenditures. 2 U.S.C. the Commission filed an appeal. §441b(a). The court levied an On March 8, 2000, the U.S. Court The appeals court affirmed the identical penalty against the NRA of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit district court’s decisions. Political Victory Fund, the NRA’s affirmed a district court order U.S. Court of Appeals for the political action committee. dismissing a civil enforcement Seventh Circuit, 99-1508 and 99- The violations related to the use ✦ action the FEC had brought against 2183. of corporate funds for electioneering the Al Salvi for Senate Committee activities in connection with federal and its treasurer. Hooker v. FEC (3-99-0794) elections in 1978, 1980 and 1982. In its original suit, filed on March Specifically, the NRA and its 3, 1998, the Commission had asked On April 12, 2000, the U.S. lobbying arm, the NRA Institute for the U.S. District Court for the District Court for the Middle Legislative Action, spent treasury Northern District of Illinois to find District of Tennessee granted the funds to support federal candidates that the Salvi committee had FEC’s motion to dismiss John Jay and were subsequently reimbursed misreported and failed to report in a Hooker’s constitutional challenges by the NRA Political Victory Fund. timely manner more than $1.1 concerning interstate campaign On April 24, 2000, the NRA million in contributions and loans. contributions and the Presidential appealed the district court’s decision (See the April 1998 Record, p. 4.) Primary Matching Payment Act. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the The district court dismissed the Mr. Hooker had alleged that the District of Columbia Circuit. case on technical grounds: The court Federal Election Campaign Act Case No. 85-1018 (JGP), U.S. held that the FEC had failed to preempts state laws that prohibit District Court for the District of obtain local counsel to process interstate campaign contributions, Columbia, April 3, 2000.✦ papers and handle emergencies.1 which he believes are unconstitu- The Commission refiled the suit. On tional. The court barred this chal- November 30, 1998, the district lenge because Mr. Hooker had New Litigation court dismissed the Commission’s raised and litigated the same issue in second suit because it was identical prior cases that were dismissed. FEC v. James Toledano Mr. Hooker had also contended On April 17, 2000, the FEC filed that the Presidential Primary Match- suit asking the U.S. District Court ing Payment Act was unconstitu- for the Central District of California tional because Congress lacked the to find that James Toledano, former 1 The Commission has had a long- power to enact it and because it Chair of the Orange County Demo- standing policy of asking courts to violated the Guarantee Clause of the cratic Central Committee (Orange waive the requirement to use local Constitution. The court dismissed County Party), violated 2 U.S.C. counsel when the agency is involved in this challenge for lack of standing. §432(b) by failing to forward two cases outside the Washington, DC, For more information, see page 5 $5,000 contributions to the treasurer area. Rather than relying on a local of the October 1999 Record.. of the Orange County Party within U.S. attorney (with the U.S. Department Case No. 3-99-0794, U.S. District 10 days after receiving them. of Justice), the Commission has Court for the Middle District of The contributions in question preferred to provide its own counsel in Tennessee, Nashville Division, were made by Debra and Paul an effort to ensure the agency’s April 12, 2000.✦ complete independence. In the vast LaPrade in early 1996. At the time, majority of cases, district court judges Ms. LaPrade’s brother, James M. have routinely waived the requirement Prince, was a candidate for the to use local counsel. In this case, the judge chose not to grant the (continued on page 10) Commission’s request for the waiver.

9 Federal Election Commission RECORD June 2000

Court Cases (continued from page 9) Outreach Public Appearances Democratic nomination for Con- gress in California’s 46th congres- FEC Roundtables June 1, 2000 sional district. The Commission will host Investigative Reporters and The LaPrades, who had already roundtable sessions in June and Editors given the maximum to the Prince August. New York, New York campaign, contributed to the Orange FEC roundtables, limited to 12 Bob Biersack County Party. Upon receipt of the participants per session, focus on a funds, Mr. Toledano opened a new range of subjects. See the table for June 2, 2000 bank account in the name of the dates and topics. All roundtables are The Urban Institute party, with only his own signature conducted at the FEC’s headquarters Washington, D.C. required for withdrawals, and in Washington, DC. Commissioner Mason deposited the LaPrades’ $10,000 Registration is $25 and will be Commissioner Thomas check into the account. He then accepted on a first-come, first- Louise Wides spent the money to finance a slate served basis. Please call the FEC mailer that advertised the California before registering or sending money June 2, 2000 Democratic Party’s endorsement of to be sure that openings remain in Campaigns for People Mr. Prince. the session of your choice. Prepay- Austin, Texas Unaware of the contributions and ment is required. The registration Bob Biersack expenditures, the Orange County form is available at the FEC’s Web Party’s treasurer was unable to site—http://www.fec.gov—and fulfill the Orange County Party’s from Faxline, the FEC’s automated registration and reporting obliga- fax system (202/501-3413, request tions under the federal election law. document 590). For more informa- The treasurer learned of the tion, call 800/424-9530 (press 1, LaPrades’ contributions and the then 3) or 202/694-1100.✦ existence of the new bank account only one day before the primary. The Commission learned of Mr. Roundtable Schedule Toledano’s actions through a letter sent by the Orange County Party Date Subject Intended Audience itself, and a complaint filed by another individual. After finding June 7 Partner/Partnership • Partnerships probable cause to believe that Mr. 9:30 - 11 a.m. Federal Election Activity • Lawyers, Accountants Toledano had violated §432(b), the and Consultants to Commission attempted, but failed, Above to reach a conciliation agreement with him.1 Unable to resolve the August 2 Update on New and Proposed •PACs matter, the Commission voted to 9:30 - 11 a.m. FEC Filing Regulations • House and Senate authorize this suit. • State Filing Waiver Campaigns SACV-00-376-DOC (ANx), U.S. • Mandatory Electronic Filing • Political Party District Court for the Central • Administrative Fines Committees District of California (Southern for Reporting Violations • Lawyers, Accountants Division), April 17, 2000.✦ • Election Cycle Reporting and Consultants to Above

1 In MURs 4389 and 4652, both related to this case, the LaPrades (the con- tributors) and the Prince for Congress Committee entered into conciliation agreements with the Commission.

10 June 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

2000-4: Automatic Deductions for Reports Index credit union PAC, 5:8 Reports due in 2000, 1:5 Reports due in July, 6:1 The first number in each citation Compliance State Filing Waiver, 1:2; 2:5, 4:3, refers to the “number” (month) of MUR 3774: Failure to allocate 5:5, 6:3 the 2000 Record issue in which the expenses between federal and Virginia Convention Reports, 5:5 article appeared. The second nonfederal accounts for get-out- number, following the colon, the-vote drive conducted by third indicates the page number in that party, 3:3 issue. For example, “3:4” means MUR 4322 and 4650: Violations by that the article is in the March issue candidate, campaign committees, on page 4. treasurer and relative, 2:1 MUR 4648: Failure to disclose Advisory Opinions purpose of expenditures and other 1999-24: Web site sponsored by violations, 3:4 LLC featuring information on candidates, 1:17 Court Cases 1999-29: Fundraising exemption _____ v. FEC from state limits for direct mailing – Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9 by Presidential committee, 1:19 – DNC, 4:6 1999-30: Application of allocation – DSCC, 1:2 ratio in state with single house – Hooker, John Jay, 6:9 legislature, 1:20 – Virginia Society for Human Life, 1999-31: Application of one-third Inc., 3:8 rule to prizes and premiums used FEC v. _____ in connection with payroll – Christian Coalition, 4:7 deduction, 1:21 – Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 6:8 1999-32: Indian tribe’s utility – Friend for Fasi, 3:9 authority treated as separate from – Fund for Conservative Majority the tribe, 3:4 (Heckman), 6:8 1999-33: Delayed transmittal of – National Rifle Association, 6:9 payroll deductions, 3:5 – Salvi for Senate Committee, 6:9 1999-34: Use of campaign funds to – Toledano, James, 6:9 finance charity event, 2:2 Other 1999-35: Soliciting for SSF through – Fireman v. USA, 1:13 electronic deduction system, 2:4 – Mariani v. USA, 1:3 1999-36: Fundraising via electronic – Reform Party v. Gargan, 5:9 checks and Internet fund transfers, – Shrink PAC v. Nixon, 3:7 3:5 Regulations 1999-37: PAC distribution of Administrative Fines, 5:1 express advocacy communica- Coordination, 1:14; 4:3 tions through Web site and e- Election Cycle Reporting, 6:1 mail, 4:1 Electronic Filing, 5:1 1999-39: Disaffiliation of SSFs after Electronic Freedom of Information corporate restructuring, 4:5 Act, 4:1 1999-40: Solicitation of members of Express Advocacy, 4:2 rural electric cooperatives, 5:6 Presidential Public Funding, 5:3 2000-1: Paid leave of absence for Repayments by Federally Financed attorney seeking federal office, Presidential Primary Campaign 4:5 Committees, 4:2 2000-2: Campaign rental of candi- State Waivers, 4:3 date-owned office, 5:7 2000-3: PAC’s payment for corpo- rate communication, 5:8

11 Federal Election Commission RECORD June 2000

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