November 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 11

Table of Contents Advisory Court Cases Opinions 1 Advisory Opinions Shays and Meehan v. FEC Court Cases AO 2004-27 On September 18, 2004, the U.S. 1 Shays and Meehan v. FEC Use of Campaign Funds for District Court for the District of 3 LaRouche’s Committee for a New Unpaid Salary of Former Columbia granted in part and denied Bretton Woods v. FEC in part the plaintiffs’ motion for 3 John Hagelin v. FEC Employees summary judgment in this case. The 3 New Litigation Quayle 2000 Inc. (the Committee) court remanded to the FEC a number may not use its remaining campaign of FEC regulations implementing Regulations funds to pay salary to campaign em- certain provisions of the Biparti- 9 Final Rules and Reporting Form ployees who agreed to work without for Inaugural Committees san Campaign Reform Act of 2002 salaries in 1999. Because the Com- (BCRA), requiring the Commission Alternative Dispute Resolution mittee initially treated the unpaid to reconsider these rules and/or the 9 ADR Program Update service as volunteer work and has way in which the rules were promul- never reported the unpaid amounts gated. The court also granted in part Administrative Fines as debt, it cannot now consider the and denied in part the Commission’s 12 Committees Fined for Late and funds to be a permissible use of request for summary judgment, Nonfiled Reports campaign funds. 2 U.S.C. §439a(a). upholding four of the challenged regulations. Background Publications The Commission filed a No- 13 Updated List of Federal PACs During the 2000 campaign, two tice of Appeal of this decision on Committee employees agreed to September 28, 2004, and plaintiffs Public Funding work without salaries from March cross-appealed on October 13, 2004. 13 Commission Certifies Matching 1 to March 31, 1999, when the The court denied the Commission’s Funds for Presidential Candidates Committee was low on funds. Each motion for a stay pending appeal employee signed a “Statement of 13 Federal Register on October 19, 2004, but confirmed Volunteer Services.” See 11 CFR that the Commission’s regulations 116.6. The Committee currently 14 Index remain in effect. has funds with which to pay these former employees the salary they Background would have received during this The BCRA required the Commis- sion to promulgate rules implement- ing its soft-money provisions within 90 days of the BCRA’s enactment, and to promulgate rules implement- ing other BCRA provisions within

(continued on page 5) (continued on page 2) Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Court Cases party alleges that an agency’s actions The court, however, found that (continued from page 1) are contrary to the statute, is called portions of other challenged regula- 270 days. President Bush signed the Chevron review, after the Supreme tions either failed to pass Chevron BCRA into law on March 27, 2002, Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., review or violated the Administrative and the Commission completed Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Procedure Act. These included: Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). In its rulemaking process within the • The coordinated communications Chevron review, the court asks first required timeframes. content test regulations at 11 CFR whether Congress has spoken to the On October 8, 2002, Representa- 109.21(c), including the provision tives Christopher Shays and Martin precise issue at hand. If so, then the excluding Internet communications Meehan filed a complaint charging agency’s interpretation of the statute from the coordinated communica- - that many of these regulations “con- must implement Congress’s unam tion rules at 11 CFR 109.21(c)(iv); biguous intent. If, however, Con- travene the language” of the statute • The definition of “agent” under the gress has not spoken explicitly to and “will frustrate the purpose and coordination rules at 11 CFR 109.3 the question at hand, the court must intent of the BCRA by allowing and the nonfederal funds rules at soft money to continue to flow into consider whether the agency’s rules 11 CFR 300.2(b); federal elections and into the federal are based on a permissible reading • The definitions of “solicit” and of the statute. political process.” The plaintiffs “direct” at 11 CFR 300.2(m) and asked the court to invalidate these In this case, the plaintiffs also 300.2(n); regulations, alleging that they are claimed that in some instances the • The safe harbor for federal candi- contrary to the statutory instructions FEC failed to engage in a reasoned dates’ and officeholders’ activities provided by Congress. See the De- analysis when it promulgated the at state party fundraisers at 11 CFR cember 2002 Record, page 13. regulations, or failed to follow 300.64(b); proper procedures regarding public • The definitions (for the purposes of notice and comment. Under the Ad- Court Decision defining “federal election activ- - The standard for judicial review ministrative Procedure Act, regula ity”) of voter registration activity, tions that are promulgated without in a case such as this, where one get-out-the-vote activity, voter a reasoned analysis may be found identification and generic campaign “arbitrary and capricious” and may activity at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)- be set aside by a reviewing court. 5 (a)(4) and 100.25; U.S.C. §706(2)(A). • The requirements for paying the Federal Election Commission The court found that the chal- salaries and wages of state party 999 E Street, NW lenged portions of four regulations committee employees who spend Washington, DC 20463 Chevron passed review and were less than 25 percent of their 800/424-9530 consistent with requirements of the compensated time on activities in 202/694-1100 Administrative Procedure Act: connection with a federal election 202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline) 202/219-3336 (TDD for the • The safe harbor at 11 CFR (11 CFR 300.33(c)(2); hearing impaired) 300.2(c)(3) that provides that an • The exemption allowing certain entity will not be considered to be federal election activity expenses Bradley A. Smith, Chairman directly or indirectly established, that are under $5,000 in the aggre- Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair maintained or controlled by anoth- gate to be paid entirely with Levin David M. Mason, Commissioner er entity based solely on activities funds (11 CFR 300.32(c)(4); Danny L. McDonald, that occurred before November 6, • The exemption for section Commissioner 2002; 501(c)(3) organizations from the Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner • The rules at 11 CFR 300.32(a)(4) electioneering communications Michael E. Toner, Commissioner providing for the payment of Levin rules at 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6); and James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director fund fundraising costs; • The requirement at 11 CFR Lawrence H. Norton, General • The rules at 11 CFR 300.30(c)(3), 100.29(b)(3)(i) that electioneering Counsel which describe permissible ac- communications must be distrib- Published by the Information counting procedures for keeping uted for a fee. Division nonfederal and Levin funds in a The court denied the plaintiffs’ single account; and Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff request to enjoin the Commission Director • The definition of “State commit- from enforcing these regulations Amy Kort, Editor tee,” “district committee” and “lo- and to require the Commission to cal committee” at 11 CFR 100.14. http://www.fec.gov commence proceedings to promul- gate new regulations within 15 days

2 November 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

of the court’s decision. Instead, the that these non-resident contributions Winona LaDuke, the Green Party of court remanded the case to the Com- unconstitutionally burdened his First the United States and the Constitu- mission for further action consistent and Fifth Amendment rights to asso- tion Party. It also granted in part and with the court’s opinion. ciate politically, both as a candidate denied in part the FEC’s cross-mo- U.S. District Court for the District and a voter, with other Alaska voters. tion for summary judgment. The of Columbia, CV02-1984. plaintiffs charged that the FEC —Amy Kort Court Decision erroneously dismissed their admin- In order to have standing to bring istrative complaint, which asserted suit in federal court, a plaintiff must that the Commission on Presidential LaRouche’s Committee for a meet a three-part test. The plaintiff Debates (CPD) was partisan and New Bretton Woods v. FEC must: therefore could not lawfully sponsor On July 29, 2004, the U.S. Court • Demonstrate an “injury in fact” Presidential debates. See also Hage- of Appeals for the District of Co- that is concrete, distinct and pal- lin et al. v FEC in the August 2004 lumbia granted the FEC’s motion to pable; Record, page 9, and the October dismiss this case. The plaintiff had • Establish a causal connection 2004 Record, page 3. asked the court to review the FEC’s between the injury and the conduct U.S. District Court for the District determination requiring it to repay described in the suit, such that the of Columbia, 1:04-cv-731. to the U.S. Treasury a portion of the injury is “fairly traceable” to the —Amy Kort Presidential primary matching funds action of the defendants and not it received for the 2000 Presidential the result of some third party that is election. However, the court found not before the court; and New Litigation that it lacked jurisdiction because the • Show the “substantial likelihood” plaintiff was concurrently seeking an that the requested relief will rem- Shays and Meehan v. FEC administrative reconsideration from edy the alleged injury in fact. On September 14, 2004, U.S. the Commission, and the plaintiff Representatives Christopher Shays The court found that the plaintiff could not seek judicial review until and Martin Meehan filed a complaint was unable to establish any of these the rehearing was concluded. See the in the U.S. District Court for the three requirements for standing. June 2004 Record, page 7. District of Columbia. The complaint Having found that the plaintiff —Amy Kort challenges the Commission’s alleged did not have standing in this case, “failure . . . to promulgate legally the court did not reach the issue of sufficient regulations to define the Jim Sykes v. FEC, et al. whether the case was also frivolous. term ‘political committee,’” par- The court granted the FEC’s motion On September 9, 2004, the U.S. ticularly as that term is applied to to dismiss the case in its entirety District Court for the District of so-called 527 organizations. The and found that there was no need to Columbia granted the FEC’s motion plaintiffs ask the court to require the convene a three-judge panel or to to dismiss and also granted all other Commission to promulgate regula- certify the plaintiff’s questions to the defendants’ requests for dismissal tions, on an expedited basis, defining appeals court. “to the extent that other defen- “political committee” and defining See the April 2004 Record, page dants’ motions to dismiss join in when a 527 organization becomes a 12. Defendant’s FEC’s motion….” The political committee. U.S. District Court for the District plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Definition of “political commit- of Columbia, 1:04CV00293. October 13, 2004. tee.” The Federal Election Campaign —Amy Kort Act (the Act) defines a “political Background committee” as “any club, committee, On February 24, 2004, Jim association or other group of per- Sykes, the Green Party’s nominee John Hagelin, et al. v. FEC sons” that receives contributions or in Alaska’s November 2 Senate On October 6, 2004, the U.S. makes expenditures aggregating in election, filed a complaint asking District Court for the District of Co- excess of $1,000 during a calendar the court to find unconstitutional lumbia granted the FEC’s motion to year. 2 U.S.C. §431(4); see also 11 unspecified provisions of the Federal stay its decision in this case, pend- CFR 100.5(a). Political committees Election Campaign Act (the Act) that ing appeal. On August 12, 2004, must register and report with the allow non-Alaska residents to make the court had granted in part and FEC and are limited in the sources contributions to a Senate candidate denied in part the motion for sum- and amounts of contributions they in Alaska’s 2004 general election, mary judgment brought against the may make and receive. 2 U.S.C. either personally or through politi- FEC by John Hagelin, Ralph Nader, cal committees. The plaintiff alleged Patrick Buchanan, Howard Phillips, (continued on page 4)

3 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Court Cases to the plaintiffs, the Commission did Bush-Cheney ’04 v. FEC (continued from page 3) not promulgate new rules addressing On September 17, 2004, Bush- §§433, 434, 441a(a)(1)-(2), 441b(a) the “major purpose” of an organiza- Cheney ’04 filed a complaint in the and 441f. tion or further clarifying when a 527 U.S. District Court for the District In Buckley v Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, organization is a “political commit- of Columbia. The complaint chal- 79 (1976), the Supreme Court stated tee” under the Act. lenges the FEC’s alleged failure to that the term “political commit- Court Complaint. The plaintiffs issue regulations interpreting the tee” only encompasses “organiza- allege that the Commission’s failure phrase “for the purpose of influ- tions that are under the control of a to issue new rules defining “politi- encing a federal election” which candidate or the major purpose of cal committee” leaves in place “a appears in the statutory definitions which is the nomination or election legally inadequate rule that fails to of “contribution” and “expendi- of a candidate.” The definition of properly implement the law, and ture.” 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(A)(i) and “political committee” set forth in the under which multiple section 527 431(9)(A)(i). The plaintiff asks Commission’s regulations repeats groups are currently spending tens the court to require the Commis- the statutory language described of millions of dollars of soft money sion to commence proceedings to above and does not refer to the plainly for the purpose, and with promulgate such regulations and, Court’s “major purpose” standard. the effect, of influencing the 2004 by extension, to address whether Definition of “527 organizations.” presidential and congressional elec- certain so-called 527 organizations The tax code at section 527 provides tions.” The plaintiffs ask the court to are “political committees” under the tax exempt treatment for certain find that the Commission’s decision Act. income received by a “political orga- not to promulgate regulations requir- Background. The Federal Elec- nization.” A “political organization” ing 527 organizations to register tion Campaign Act (the Act) is defined as a “party, committee, as political committees when their defines a “political committee” as association, fund, or other organiza- major purpose is to influence federal “any club, committee, association tion (whether or not incorporated) elections and they raise or spend or other group of persons” that organized and operated primarily for more than $1,000 to do so is: receives contributions or makes expenditures aggregating in excess the purpose of directly or indirectly • Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of of $1,000 during a calendar year. accepting contributions or making discretion and otherwise not in ac- 2 U.S.C. §431(4); see also 11 CFR expenditures, or both, for an exempt cordance with law; 100.5(a). Under the Act, political function.” 26 U.S.C. §527(e)(1). An • Contrary to the Act, as construed committees must register and report “exempt function” means the “func- by the Supreme Court, and invalid with the FEC and are limited in the tion of influencing or attempting to because it constitutes agency action sources and amounts of contribu- influence the selection, nomination, unlawfully withheld; and or appointment of any individual to • Invalid insofar as the Commission, tions they may make and receive. 2 any Federal, State, or local public by initiating a rulemaking, ac- U.S.C. §§433, 434, 441a(a)(1)-(2), 441b(a) and 441f. office or office in a political organi- knowledged the need to revisit the The Act defines “contribution” zation, or the election of Presidential definition of “political committee,” and “expenditure” in terms of funds or Vice Presidential electors . . .” 26 but failed to state its reasons for not raised or spent “for the purpose of U.S.C. §527(e)(2). addressing the “major purpose” test influencing any election for fed- FEC Rulemaking. On March 11, or the status of 527 organizations. 2004, the Commission published eral office.” 11 CFR 100.52(a) and The plaintiffs ask the court to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 100.111(a). require the Commission to begin an suggesting revisions to the defini- Court Complaint. The plaintiff expedited rulemaking to promulgate tion of political committee and other alleges that in McConnell v FEC the appropriate regulations to define changes to the regulations, including Supreme Court expanded the Act’s “political committee” and to define proposals to address when 527 orga- “for the purpose of influencing” when a 527 organization must regis- nizations meet the “major purpose” standard reach beyond “express ter and file as a political committee. requirement.1 On August 19, 2004, advocacy.” According to the plain- U.S. District Court for the District the Commission approved final rules tiff, the Commission has failed to of Columbia, 1:04CV01597. resulting from this Notice of Pro- respond to the Court’s decision by —Amy Kort posed Rulemaking, but, according adopting any regulations or taking any other action in advisory opin- ions or enforcement matters setting 1 See “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking forth clear standards for when enti- on Political Committee Status,” 69 FR ties organized under section 527 of 11736 (March 11, 2004).

4 November 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

the tax code are required to register to address which organizations are appropriate records in response to as political committees.1 political committees under the Act. the FOIA request. The plaintiff alleges that the U.S. District Court for the District U.S. District Court for the District Commission failed to address of Columbia , No. 1:04CV01612. of Columbia, 1:04CV01672. Amy Kort this issue through the rulemaking —Amy Kort — process. On March 11, 2004, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggesting Citizens for Responsibility and Advisory Opinions revisions to the definition of politi- Ethics in Washington v. FEC (continued from page 1) cal committee and other changes to On September 30, 2004, Citi- period had they not agreed to forgo the regulations, including proposals zens for Responsibility and Ethics salary payments.1 to address when 527 organizations in Washington (CREW) asked the become political committees under U.S. District Court for the District of Analysis the Act. The plaintiff contends that Columbia to find the FEC in viola- Treatment of unpaid employee the Commission subsequently con- tion of the Freedom of Information services. Under Commission regula- cluded this rulemaking, on August Act (FOIA) and to require the FEC tions, when a political commit- 19, by “promulgating rules on two to immediately respond to CREW’s tee does not pay an employee for collateral matters” while it “refused FOIA request by releasing all re- services rendered to the committee, to issue any rule addressing the sponsive documents. the unpaid amount may be treated central question that had prompted Background. On July 12, 2004, as either a debt owed by the politi- the rulemaking in the first place: the CREW, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corpo- cal committee to the employee, or as definition of a political committee ration, asked the FEC to provide it volunteer services if the employee and the requirement for Section 527 with a investigative report prepared signs a written statement agreeing to groups to register as political com- by counsel for Westar Energy Com- be considered a volunteer. 11 CFR mittees.” pany (Westar) regarding possible 116.6(a). If the service is considered The plaintiff alleges that the campaign finance violations by the a debt, the Committee must initially Commission’s failure to issue company. CREW believed the report disclose the debt in a timely manner, rules addressing the activities of had been voluntarily forwarded by and must continuously report that 527 organizations is arbitrary and Westar to the FEC. debt until the debt is extinguished. 2 capricious, an abuse of discretion The FEC denied CREW’s request U.S.C. §434(b)(8); 11 CFR 104.3(d) and not in accordance with law. The for information, citing the “confi- and 104.11(a) and (b); see also AOs plaintiff asks the court to: dentiality provision” of the Federal 1997-21, 1991-9 and 1977-58. In Election Campaign Act (the Act). this case, the two employees agreed • Declare that the Commission’s fail- to treat their employment as volun- ure to issue appropriate regulations Under this provision, any “notifica- tion or investigation made under this teer services, and the Committee has implementing the statutory phrase never reported the amounts as debt. “for the purpose of influencing a section shall not be made public by the Commission without the writ- Permissible uses of campaign federal election” constitutes agency funds. The Federal Election Cam- action unlawfully withheld and an ten consent of the person receiving such notification or the person with paign Act (the Act) provides four abuse of the FEC’s discretion; and categories of permissible uses of a • Issue an order requiring the FEC to respect to whom such investigation is made.” 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(12)(A). candidate’s campaign funds: promulgate, on an expedited basis, (continued on page 6) regulations implementing this CREW appealed the FEC’s denial statutory phrase and, by extension, of its FOIA request, arguing that the “confidentiality provision” does not 1 In 1999, the Committee received apply to the Westar report. matching funds under the Primary Matching Payment Account Act. In 1 Court complaint CREW alleges Entities organized under 26 U.S.C. 2002, the Commission approved an 527 are considered “political orga- that the statutory time limit for the FEC to respond to its FOIA ap- audit report finding that no repayment nizations,” defined generally as a of federal matching funds was required. party, committee or association that is peal has run out and that CREW After the audit, the Committee had cam- organized and operated primarily for has exhausted its available admin- paign funds remaining in its account. the purpose of influencing the selec- istrative remedies. See 5 U.S.C. However, because the Committee’s tion, nomination or appointment of any §522(a)(6)(C). CREW requests that account no longer contains federal individual to any federal, state or local the court find the FEC in violation of matching funds and the Committee does public office, or office in a political FOIA. CREW asks the court to order not owe a repayment, the analysis below organization. 26 U.S.C. §527(e)(1) and the FEC immediately to release all focuses only on the Federal Election (e)(2). Campaign Act. See 11 CFR 9038.2.

5 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Advisory Opinions with any of the other three permis- the purchase or construction of its (continued from page 5) sible uses of campaign funds. Thus, office building. 2 U.S.C. §453. Con- 1. Otherwise authorized expenditures the Committee may not use its cam- sistent with this amendment to the in connection with the candidate’s paign funds to make the payments to Act, Commission regulations pro- federal campaign; these former employees. vide that if a state party committee 2. Ordinary and necessary expenses Date Issued: September 9, 2004; uses nonfederal funds to purchase incurred as a federal officeholder; Length: 4 pages. or construct its office building, then 3. Contributions to charitable orga- —Amy Kort the sources, uses and disclosure of nizations described in 26 U.S.C. those funds are subject to state law (so long as funds are not donated by §170(c); and AO 2004-28 4. Unlimited transfers to national, foreign nationals). 11 CFR 300.35(a) Disclosure of Donations and (b)(1). Thus, Iowa may require state or local political party com- to State Party Committee mittees. its state party committees to disclose 2 U.S.C. §439a(a); 11 CFR 113.2.2 Nonfederal Office Building donors to nonfederal office building Fund funds.1 In no case may campaign funds The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Date Issued: September 9, 2004; be converted to “personal use” by Disclosure Board (the Board) may Length: 3 pages. any person. 2 U.S.C. §439a(b)(1); require Iowa state party committees —Amy Kort 11 CFR 113.2. Commission regula- to disclose donors to the commit- tions define “personal use” as “any tees’ nonfederal office building use of funds in a campaign account AO 2004-29 funds. The Federal Election Cam- Federal Candidate’s of a present or former candidate to paign Act (the Act) and Commission fulfill a commitment, obligation or regulations now specifically allow Support of Ballot Initiative expense of any person that would a state to require the disclosure of Committees exist irrespective of the candidate’s donors to such funds. 2 U.S.C. §453 Representative Todd Akin, a campaign or duties as a Federal and 11 CFR 300.35. member of Congress and candi- officeholder.” 11 CFR 113.1(g); 2 date for reelection, may support or U.S.C. §439a(b)(2). Background oppose ballot initiatives using his Because the Committee has never The Board administers the campaign funds, and may reference reported the unpaid amounts of these campaign finance laws in Iowa with the initiatives in solicitations for employees’ salaries as debts, there regard to state and local elections. his principal campaign committee are no debts or obligations that could Both the Iowa Democratic and (PCC). Representative Akin may give rise to an authorized expendi- Republican parties have nonfederal also appear in ads focusing on ballot ture under the first permissible use office building funds. In AO 1998-8, 3 initiatives if the ads are paid for by of funds listed above. Any pay- the Commission concluded that the his PCC, by the initiative commit- ment now for services that had been Act and Commission regulations tees with permissible funds and considered volunteer services since preempted the Iowa state law that within permissible contribution lim- 1999 would not be an authorized had sought to prohibit corporate its or by a combination thereof. Fi- expenditure of the Committee. 2 donations to state party committee nally, Representative Akin may use U.S.C. §439a(a)(1). The payment for nonfederal office building funds. contributions received by his PCC volunteer services also does not fit However, the Commission did not to make donations to state and local directly address the issue of whether candidates who support his positions federal law would also prohibit Iowa 2 In the Bipartisan Campaign Reform on specific ballot initiatives. Act of 2002, Congress removed “any from requiring disclosure of building other lawful purpose” from the list of fund donations. In its request for AO Background permissible uses of campaign funds in 1998-8, the Iowa Democratic Party In Missouri, citizens may use the section 439a. acknowledged the state’s ability to ballot initiative process to change 3 In addition, allowing the Committee regulate such disclosure under AO’s state laws and the state constitu- to pay these amounts in 2004 would 1997-14 and 1991-5. tion. Representative Akin would mean that, contrary to the volunteer like to support some ballot initiative services arrangements, unreported debts Analysis committees. He was not involved in or obligations did exist. Because these In the Bipartisan Campaign amounts were neither initially disclosed Reform Act of 2002, Congress 1 In its AO request, the Board stated that nor continuously reported, permitting amended the Act to provide that a it did not wish to prohibit corporate do- payment would result in reporting viola- state party may, subject to state law, nations to state party nonfederal office tions by the Committee. use exclusively nonfederal funds for building funds.

6 November 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

establishing any of the ballot initia- the three-pronged test defining a AO 2004-32 tive committees. None of the ballot coordinated communication at 11 SSF May Solicit Affiliated initiative committees are political CFR 109.21 (the source of payment LLC committees under the Federal Elec- prong, the conduct standard and the Spirit Airlines, Inc. PAC (Spirit tion Campaign Act and Commission content standard) and because the PAC), the separate segregated regulations. costs of the ads will likely exceed fund (SSF) of Spirit Airlines Inc. the contribution limits (and the (Spirit), may solicit the directors Analysis ballot initiative committees’ funds and senior employees of Oaktree Donations to ballot initiative may be from prohibited sources) ,the Capital Management LLC (Oaktree), committees from the PCC. Repre- PCC must reimburse the sponsor of provided that those persons qualify sentative Akin may use contributions the ad for the attributable portion as members of Oaktree’s restricted accepted by the PCC to make dona- of the cost of the communication class, because Spirit and Oaktree are tions to a ballot initiative commit- to avoid receiving an in-kind con- affiliated. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(i) and tee. The Act lists four categories of tribution, or an excessive or pro- ii(A)-(J). permissible uses of contributions hibited contribution.1 See 2 U.S.C. received by a federal candidate: §441a(a). Amounts that the PCC Background 1. Otherwise authorized expenditures donates to the sponsor organizations Oaktree is a limited liability in connection with the candidate’s may be treated as payment for the company that provides investment campaign; ads if the PCC specifically indicates management for various “Oak- 2. Ordinary and necessary expenses that purpose for the donation. tree funds,” which are “diversified incurred in connection with duties Representative Akin’s appear- private equity vehicles.” Through as a federal office holder; ance in advertisements paid for by two existing Oaktree funds and three 3. Contributions to organizations the PCC. Payments made by the Oaktree managed holding compa- described in 26 U.S.C. §170(c); PCC for ballot initiative ads featur- nies, created specifically for invest- and ing Representative Akin (referenced ment in Spirit, Oaktree has invested 4. Unlimited transfers to national, as either a Member of Congress or $125 million in Spirit. Oaktree has state or local party committees. a candidate) are permissible uses the ability to “direct or participate 2 U.S.C. §439a and 11 CFR of campaign funds under 2 U.S.C. in the governance of Spirit,” it may 113.2(a), (b) and (c). §439a(a), as discussed above. The select Spirit’s board of directors and ads must include all appropriate Donations from the PCC to the it has a significant presence on that disclaimers. See 11 CFR 110.11. board ballot initiative committees are Donations from the PCC to state permissible because they will be in and local candidates. Representa- Analysis connection with his campaign for tive Akin may also use contribu- The Federal Election Campaign reelection. tions received by his PCC to make Act (the Act) permits a corporation Referencing ballot initiative donations to candidates for state or its SSF to solicit its restricted donations in PCC solicitations. and local office who support his class and the restricted class of the Representative Akin may note in a positions on ballot initiatives. Such corporation’s subsidiaries, branches, solicitation for his PCC that funds donations will be in connection with divisions and affiliates and their received may be donated to ballot the Representative’s reelection cam- families. 2 USC §441b(b)(4)(A)(i); initiative committees that support paign and therefore are permissible 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1). The Commis- his positions. The contributions as “otherwise authorized expendi- sion has long held that affiliates received in response to such so- tures in connection with the cam- may include entities other than licitations must be treated like any paign for Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. corporations, including limited li- other contributions to the PCC and §439a(a)(1). ability companies. See AOs 2001- thus must comply with the amount Date Issued: September 30, 2004; 18, 1999-28 and 1982-18. The limitations, source prohibitions and Length: 8 pages. Commission considers an entity that reporting requirements of the Act. —Meredith Trimble owns a majority interest of another Representative Akin’s appearance organization to be affiliated per in ads paid for by ballot initiative se with that other organization. 11 committees. Representative Akin CFR 100.5(g)(2). In the absence of may appear in newspaper, radio 1 per se affiliation, the Commission or television ads disseminated in See Advisory Opinion 2004-1, which discusses a permissible allocation and may determine, on a case-by-case his district before the November basis, whether an organization is an 2 election that focus on the ballot attribution formula under 11 CFR 106.1(a). initiatives. Because the ads meet (continued on page 8)

7 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Advisory Opinions of these Oaktree senior employees expenses “associated with the ter- (continued from page 7) do not qualify as members of its mination of the candidate’s general affiliate of a corporation based on an restricted class, Spirit PAC may election campaign.” See 11 CFR examination of the relevant circum- still solicit such persons as part of a 9003.3(a)(2)(i)(A), 9003.3(a)(2)(i)(I) stantial factors found at 11 CFR permissible twice-yearly solicitation and 9004.11(a). Legal expenses 100.5(g)(4)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J). of all employees of Spirit and its af- and fees, fees for payment of staff One affiliation factor considers filiates. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(B) and and administrative overhead and whether an organization “owns a 11 CFR 114.5(a) and 114.6. See also office equipment expenses that controlling interest in the voting AOs 1994-7 and 1990-25. result from a recount generally fit stock” of another organization. 11 Date Issued: September 30, 2004; within these permissible GELAC CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(A); AO 1989- Length: 5 pages fund uses. Thus, Kerry-Edwards 17. Although Oaktree does not —Amy Pike may use GELAC funds to pay the directly own a controlling interest in expenses. See 11 CFR 9003.3(a)(2). All receipts and disbursements from Spirit, Oaktree controls 51 percent AO 2004-35 of the voting stock of Spirit through the GELAC account, including Presidential Campaigns those related to a recount, must be the two Oaktree funds and three May Use GELAC Funds for Oaktree-managed holding compa- reported to the FEC in a separate nies. In the context of the overall Recount Expenses report. 11 CFR 9003.3(a)(3)(ii) and relationship, the Commission con- Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. (Kerry- 9006.1(b)(2). cludes that Oaktree’s control of 51 Edwards), the authorized committee Date Issued: September 30, 2004; percent of the voting stock of Spirit of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Length: 3 pages. is strong evidence of affiliation. candidates Senators John Kerry and —Amy Kort Another affiliation factor consid- John Edwards, may use its gen- eral election legal and compliance ers whether one organization has AO 2004-36 the authority or ability to direct or (GELAC) fund to pay legal ex- to participate in the governance of penses, staff pay and office expenses Reporting In-Kind another sponsoring organization that might result from a recount of Contribution of Office Space through provisions of constitu- the November 2, 2004, Presidential Risley for Congress (the Com- tions, bylaws, contracts or other election. mittee) must report as an in-kind rules, or through formal or informal contribution one-fifth of the normal Background practices or procedures. 11 CFR rental value of donated office space Publicly funded Presidential 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(B). Oaktree has that it shares with four other candi- candidates may not raise or spend appointed four of the seven direc- date committees. funds for their campaigns outside tors of Spirit; two of these directors of the public funding grant, which are Oaktree principals. In addition, Background is $74.62 million dollars for the Spirit’s bylaws state that its direc- An individual contributor has 2004 election. However, the cam- tors are elected annually by holders donated office space to the Commit- paigns may accept contributions to of voting stock and such elections tee and four other candidates. The a GELAC fund, which may only be are “determined by a plurality of the office space is shared equally by all used to pay for certain expenses. votes cast.” Thus, Oaktree also has five committees. However, the com- See 11 CFR 9003.3(a)(2). Con- the ability to control the selection of mittees do not share telephone lines, tributions to a GELAC fund must all seven directors. staff, campaign resources or infor- comply with the amount limitations Considering these affiliation mation, and they do not intermingle and source prohibitions of Federal factors in the context of the over- funds. The usual and normal charge Election Campaign Act. See 11 CFR all relationship between Spirit and for the rental property is $2,000 per 9003.3(a)(1)(i). Oaktree, the Commission concludes month. that Spirit and Oaktree are affili- Analysis Analysis ated for the purposes of the Act and Although Commission regula- The provision of goods or servic- Commission regulations. Therefore, tions governing GELAC funds do es to a federal campaign at no charge Spirit PAC may solicit contribu- not specifically address recount or at less than the usual and normal tions from the directors and senior expenses, the regulations do provide charge is considered an in-kind con- employees of Oaktree provided that that GELAC funds may be used for tribution. 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1). In those persons qualify as members of certain legal and accounting compli- this case, the donation of the free use Oaktree’s restricted class. 11 CFR ance expenses and winding down of office space is an in-kind contri- 114.1(c) and 114.1(c)(1)(i). If any expenses, which are described as bution to each of the five campaigns

8 November 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

using the space. The value of the AOR 2004-38 the new FEC Form 13 “Report of in-kind contribution to the Com- Candidate’s raising and spend- Donations Accepted for Inaugural mittee is its proportionate share of ing of funds for recount expenses Committee(s)” will be available on the usual and normal rental value of (George Nethercutt and the Nether- the web at http://www.fec.gov/info/ the property for each month that the cutt for Senate Committee, October forms.shtml. Committee uses it. Consequently, 13, 2004) —Dorothy Yeager the contributor is giving $400 to the Committee on each rental due date.1 AOR 2004-39 For reporting purposes, it is as State party committee’s raising though the contributor is giving the and spending of nonfederal funds for Alternative Committee money to pay for the recount expenses (Washington State Dispute office space. As a result, the Com- Republican Party, October 13, 2004) mittee must report the receipt of this Resolution in-kind contribution as both a “con- tribution” and an “expenditure.” 11 ADR Program Update CFR 100.111(e) and 104.13(a)(2). Regulations The Commission recently re- The Committee must also item- solved fifteen additional cases under ize all contributions from a single Final Rules and Reporting the Alternative Dispute Resolution individual that aggregate in excess Form for Inaugural (ADR) program. The respondents, of $200 per election cycle. Thus, the Committees the alleged violations of the Federal Committee must report and itemize On September 30, 2004, the Election Campaign Act (the Act) and the in-kind contribution of office Commission approved final regula- the final disposition of the cases are space in the report covering the tions and a new disclosure form to listed below. dates on which the contribution was implement provisions of the Bipar- 1. The Commission reached received (in other words, the rental tisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 agreement with Friends of John due dates), along with the election- (BCRA) governing Presidential Conyers and M. Mickey Williams, to-date totals for this contributor. In inaugural committees. its treasurer, regarding the commit- the same report, the Committee must The new rules require inaugural tee’s failure to report receipts and also report the contribution amount committees to: disbursements and failure to accu- as an expenditure for rental of the rately report election-cycle-to-date space. 11 CFR 104.13(a)(2). • Register with the FEC by letter and beginning cash-on-hand figures. Date Issued: October 7, 2004; within 15 days after appointment The respondents acknowledged Length: 4 pages. by the President-elect; that a violation of the Act inadver- —Amy Kort • Report, within 90 days after the tently occurred due to a change in inauguration, all accepted (i.e., staff and interface problems between deposited) donations that aggregate old and new filing software, and they Advisory Opinion Requests $200 or more from a donor; agreed to pay a $7,500 civil penalty. • Report any refunds of reported In an effort to avoid similar errors in AOR 2004-37 donations; the future, the respondents agree to: Brochure made by federal • File supplements to disclose any candidate’s authorized committee or reportable donations accepted or • Appoint a staff member to be the leadership PAC expressly advocating refunds made after the initial filing; FEC compliance officer; election of other federal candidates; • Retain records for three years; and • Develop an FEC compliance manu- reimbursements by those candidates. • Reject donations from foreign al for staff use; 20-day expedited decision (Repre- nationals. • Attend an FEC seminar within 12 sentative Maxine Waters, Citizens months of the effective date of this The new rules, and their accom- for Waters and People Helping agreement; panying Explanation and Justifica- People, October 8, 2004) • Work with staff from the Reports tion were published in the October Analysis Division to ensure that 6, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 1 This contribution is subject to the reporting requirements are being 59775). The rules will take effect met; and Act’s contribution limits of $2,000 per on November 5, 2004. The Federal candidate, per election, and it must be Register notice containing the final aggregated with any other contributions that contributor has made for the same rules is available on the FEC web election. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A) and site at http://www.fec.gov/law/ 11 CFR 110.1(a) and (b)(1). law_rulemakings.shtml. In addition, (continued on page 10)

9 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Alternative Dispute conclude the activities of the com- ance officer from the committee Resolution mittee, they agree to work with the staff or employ an accounting firm (continued from page 9) FEC’s Reports Analysis Division to to ensure future compliance with the amend and conclude the committee’s Act, and they will designate commit- • Correct and file all relevant reports reporting obligation and to subse- tee staff to attend an FEC-sponsored within 90 days of the effective date quently file for termination. (ADR seminar within 12 months. (ADR of this agreement. (ADR 146*) 150*) 163/ MUR 5368) 2. The Commission reached 4. The Commission reached 7. The Commission reached agreement with Friends of David agreement with Richard Pombo for agreement with Superior Sav- Worley and Gregg Brasher, its trea- Congress and Randall Pombo, its ings Bank of New England, N. surer, regarding excessive contribu- treasurer, regarding the failure to ac- A., regarding contributions from tions resulting from the acceptance curately report receipts (the com- a national bank. The respondent of contributions designated for 2002 mittee’s amended report revealed an acknowledged making the contribu- General or Runoff elections, in 84 percent increase in unreported tions; however, it contends that the which the candidate did not partici- receipts). The respondents agreed to error was due to the mistaken belief pate. The respondents acknowledged pay a $2,500 civil penalty and, in an that the bank was governed by New that an inadvertent violation of the effort to resolve these matters and York state regulations rather than the Act occurred, and, upon learning of avoid similar errors in the future, Act. The respondent agreed to pay the time constraints for refunding, they agreed to work with staff of the a $1,000 civil penalty. In order to redesignating or reattributing exces- Reports Analysis Division to amend resolve this matter and avoid simi- sive contributions, they refunded their previously filed July 2003 lar errors in the future, it will adopt $11,500. The respondents agreed to Quarterly report and to resolve all and distribute within 30 days of the pay a $1,000 civil penalty, and, in an outstanding issues concerning this effective date of this agreement a effort to avoid similar errors in the report. In addition, they will desig- corporate policy advising bank offi- future, agreed to refund the remain- nate one staff member to be respon- cers and directors that it is illegal for ing $100,950 in excessive contribu- sible for FEC compliance and select any national bank to make a contri- tions. The respondents also agreed at least one individual representing bution or expenditure in connection to file amended reports reflecting the the committee to attend an FEC with any election to any political refunds and to work with FEC staff seminar on reporting requirements office or for any officer or direc- to terminate the committee within 90 within 12 months of the effective tor of a national bank to consent to days. (ADR 149*) date of this agreement. (ADR 153*) such a contribution or expenditure. 3. The Commission reached 5. The Commission reached The respondent will also appoint an agreement with Citizens Committee agreement with NARAL Pro-Choice appropriate bank officer to attend a for Gilman for Congress and Murray America PAC and John Botts, its FEC-sponsored seminar within 12 M. Rosen, its treasurer, regarding treasurer, regarding the committee’s months of the effective date of this excessive contributions resulting failure to file 24-hour reports for agreement. (ADR 148/ Pre-MUR from the acceptance of contributions independent expenditures. The 414) designated for the 2002 General respondents agreed to pay a $2,000 8. The Commission reached election, in which the candidate did civil penalty. (ADR 158*) agreement with Conservative not participate. 6. The Commission reached Leadership PAC and David Fenner, The respondents agreed to pay a agreement with John Sullivan for its treasurer, regarding the commit- $25,000 civil penalty. They contend Congress, Gregory Colpitts, its tee’s failure to provide contributor that they had disclosed informa- treasurer, and John Sullivan regard- information, adequately report the tion regarding redesignations of ing failure to accurately report debts. purpose of disbursements and amend contributions, provided copies of The respondents acknowledge that its Statement of Organization timely. refund checks, refunded all remain- inadvertent reporting violations may The respondents acknowledge ing campaign funds and amended have occurred when the committee that violations of the Act occurred their reports appropriately. They was converting to new compliance due to difficulties with the vendor noted that the committee had closed software. In an effort to avoid simi- with whom they contracted for its offices and had no funds in its lar errors in the future, the respon- reporting software and compli- accounts with which to make further dents agreed to work with Reports ance. Respondents were unable to refunds. In order to resolve this Analysis Division staff to ensure file amended reports because the matter and enable the respondents to compliance with reporting require- required information regarding “best ments, including filing amended re- efforts” and other matters was lost or * Cases marked with an asterisk were ports as necessary. The respondents destroyed. The respondents agreed internally generated within the FEC. will also designate an FEC compli- to pay a $2,000 civil penalty and,

10 November 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

in an effort to avoid similar errors the Reports Analysis Division to 13. The Commission closed the in the future, agreed to designate ensure that all reports filed with file involving Ciro D. Rodriguez a staff member to attend an FEC the Commission are accurate and for Congress and Juan J. Amaro, seminar within 12 months of the complete. They will file for termina- treasurer, regarding disclaimers. effective date of this agreement. The tion and accept an admonishment for The ADR Office recommended the respondents will work with Reports the numerous errors contained in the case be closed, and the Commission Analysis Division staff to determine Statement of Organization they filed. agreed to close the file. (ADR 180/ how to adequately supplement the (ADR 166/ MUR 5407) MUR 5417) reports and file an amended State- 11. The Commission reached 14. The Commission closed ment of Organization with a current agreement with Risley for Congress the file involving the Republican mailing address. (ADR 156*) and Jan Risley, its treasurer, regard- Liberty Caucus of Texas (RLC TX) 9. The Commission reached ing the committee’s failure to file and its treasurer, Don Zimmerman, agreement with Sonoma National disclosure reports, omitted dis- Wes Riddle for Congress Campaign Bank regarding contributions from claimer statements, failure to report and its treasurer, J. Anthony Van a national bank. The respondent receipts and disbursements and Slyke, and the Republican Liberty acknowledged purchasing tickets failure to file a 48-hour report. The Caucus PAC and its treasurer, Alan to an award dinner; however, it respondents acknowledged violat- H. Cousin, regarding disclaimers. contends that it was unaware that ing the Act when they failed to file The ADR Office recommended the the prohibition on national banks the Pre-Primary report and 48-hour case be closed, and the Commission contributing to election campaigns report on time. They agreed to pay agreed to close the file. (ADR 181/ would be applied to the purchase a $200 civil penalty and, in order to MUR 5423) of such tickets. The respondents resolve this matter and avoid similar 15. The Commission closed the agreed to pay a $500 civil penalty. errors in the future, agreed to work file involving the Missouri Repub- In order to resolve this matter and with the Reports Analysis Division lican State Committee (MSRC) and avoid similar issues in the future, it to ensure the Committee’s reports Harvey Tettlebaum, its treasurer, also agreed to adopt and distribute are correct and in compliance with concerning web site content, find- within 30 days of the effective date the regulations. (ADR 170/ MUR of this agreement a corporate policy 5436) (continued on page 12) advising bank officers and directors 12. The Commission reached that it is illegal for any national bank agreement with the Democratic to make a contribution or expendi- Party of Arkansas and Marcus FEC Accepts Credit ture in connection with any election Vaden, its treasurer, regarding the Cards The Federal Election to any political office or for any use of prohibited funds. The respon- Commission now accepts officer or director of a national bank dents acknowledge that a violation American Express, Diners Club to consent to such a contribution or of the Act occurred and agreed to and Discover Cards in addition expenditure. The respondent will pay a $1,000 civil penalty. More- to Via and MasterCard. While incorporate this policy statement over, they demonstrated that all but most FEC materials are available into its Standards of Conduct Policy. thirty-four of the filing fee assess- free of charge, some campaign (ADR 160/ Pre-MUR 418*) ments in question, which were paid finance reports and statements, 10. The Commission reached by nonfederal candidates from their statistical compilations, indexes agreement with Citizens for An- personal accounts and deposited in and directories require payment. derson and Marilyn Anderson, its the respondents’ federal account, Walk-in visitors and those treasurer, regarding the committee’s were reimbursed by the candidates’ placing requests by telephone may failure to file a Statement of Orga- committees with funds that were not use any of the above-listed credit nization timely and its filing of an prohibited under the Act. The total cards, cash or checks. Individuals incomplete Statement of Organiza- of those 34 filing fees, $34,019, was and organizations may also place tion. The respondents acknowledged transferred to the respondents’ non- funds on deposit with the office filing an incomplete Statement of federal account and amended reports to purchase these items. Since pre- Organization and stated that they were filed with the Commission. The payment is required, using a credit were unaware of the problem with respondents, in an effort to avoid card or funds placed on deposit their reports until the complaint was similar errors in the future, agreed can speed the process and delivery forwarded to them. They subse- to attend an FEC Seminar within of orders. For further information, quently corrected and filed on Janu- 12 months and to develop and use contact the Public Records Office ary 30, 2004, an amended report. a ballot access form to ensure that at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1120. They acknowledged their violations the ballot access fees are accurately of the Act and agreed to work with identified. (ADR 175*)

11 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees Fined for and Penalties Assessed (continued from page 11) ing that the alleged activity was 1. Allegiance Telecom Inc. PAC $500 not within the FEC’s jurisdiction. 2. Brock Hill Campaign $340 The ADR Office recommended the 3. Clay Cox for Congress $01 case be closed, and the Commission 4. Colleen for Congress $9001 agreed to close the file. (ADR 183/ 5. Committee to Elect Bill Kirby $01 MUR 5450) 6. Composition Roofers Local Union #30 —Amy Kort Political Action & Education Fund $1,8002 7. Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBC-PAC) $6,750 8. Daniel Webster for U.S. Senate $5,200 9. Ed Bryant for Congress $700 Administrative 10. Friends of Bob Graham Committee $1,850 11. Friends of Byron Dorgan ____3 Fines 12. Friends of Ferris $1,100 13. Friends of Giuliani Exploratory Committee $2,1004 Committees Fined for 14. Friends of Kent Conrad Year End 2002 ____3 Nonfiled and Late Reports 15. Friends of Kent Conrad April Quarterly 2003 ____3 The Commission recently pub- 16. Friends of Ron Packard $110 licized its final action on 39 new 17. Gary Nolan for President $380 Administrative Fine cases, bringing 18. General Aviation Manufacturers Association PAC the total number of cases released to (GAMAPAC) $340 the public to 1,012, with $1,368,827 19. Human Rights Campaign PAC $1,850 in fines collected by the FEC during 20. Idaho Republican Party $135 the four years that the program has 21. International Longshore and Warehouse been in place. Union—Political Action Fund $1,900 22. Jeff Ballenger for Congress April Quarterly 2003 $01 Civil money penalties for late 1 reports are determined by the num- 23. Jeff Ballenger for Congress July Quarterly 2003 $0 24. Jim Moore for the United States Senate $1754 ber of days the report was late, the 3 amount of financial activity involved 25. John Breaux Committee ____ and any prior penalties for viola- 26. Lincoln Club of San Diego County $1,875 tions under the administrative fines 27. Mark Boles for Congress $1,400 28. Massachusetts Green Party Federal Fund regulations. Penalties for nonfiled 5 reports—and for reports filed so late (NKA Green-Rainbow Party Federal Fund) $850 as to be considered nonfiled—are 29. McCarthy for Congress Committee $900 also determined by the financial 30. McDermott, Will & Emery LLP PAC $780 activity for the reporting period and 31. Nethercutt for Senate $9,600 any prior violations. Election sensi- tive reports, which include reports and notices filed prior to an election 1 This civil money penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the (i.e., 12-day pre-election, October report. quarterly and October monthly 2 This civil money penalty has not been collected. reports), receive higher penalties. Penalties for 48-hour notices that are 3 This case was dismissed. Misinformation received by the committee from the filed late or not at all are determined U.S. Postal Service led to report being filed late with the office of the Secre- by the amount of the contribution(s) tary of Senate. not timely reported and any prior 4 This civil money penalty was reduced after being recalculated for a change violations. in the number of days the report was late. The committee and the treasurer 5 are assessed civil money penalties The civil money penalty was initially calculated with as though the commit- when the Commission makes its tee had one prior violation. However, the penalty was reduced after being recalculated with a prior-violation factor of zero. final determination. Unpaid civil penalties are referred to the Depart- ment of the Treasury for collection.

12 November 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

when only part of the committee Committees Fined for and Penalties Assessed, name is known. Call the telephone cont. numbers above for assistance or visit the Public Records Office in Wash- 32. Owner-Operator Independent Drivers ington at 999 E St., NW. Association Inc. PAC (AKA OOIDA-PAC) $720 —Amy Kort 33. Perkins for Senate $3,200 34. Regence BluePAC $140 35. Republicans for Phil Bradley $1,3501 36. Skinner for Senate 2004 $500 Public Funding 37. Stace Williams for U.S. Congress April Quarterly 2004 $01 38. Stace Williams for U.S. Congress Year End 2003 $5,6252 Commission Certifies 39. Sutton for Congress $01 Matching Funds for Presidential Candidates 1 This civil money penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the On September 30, 2004, the report. Commission certified $102,321.33 2 This civil money penalty has not been collected. in federal matching funds to Presi- dential candidate Ralph Nader. The U.S. Treasury Department made the payment on October 1, 2004. This certification raises to $27,923,226.54 The committees listed in the PACronyms is posted on the the total amount of federal funds charts at left and above, along with FEC web site at http://www.fec. certified thus far to eight Presidential their treasurers, were assessed civil gov. Links to the document can be candidates under the Matching Pay- money penalties under the adminis- found by clicking the “Library” tab ment Account Act. trative fines regulations. at the bottom of the home page. Two Presidential Matching Payment Closed Administrative Fine case versions are available. One allows Account files are available through the FEC users to download and sort the date Under the Presidential Primary Press Office and Public Records Of- according to their preference: full Matching Payment Account Act, the fice at 800/424-9530. committee name, city, state or FEC federal government will match up to —Amy Kort ID number. $250 of an individual’s total contri- To order a free paper copy of butions to an eligible Presidential PACronyms, call the FEC’s Public primary candidate. A candidate must Records Office at 800/424-9530 or establish eligibility to receive match- 202/694-1120. PACronyms is also ing payments by raising in excess of available on diskette for $1. Publications $5,000 in each of at least 20 states Other PAC indexes, described be- low, may be ordered from the Public (continued on page 14) Updated List of Federal Records Office. PACs • An alphabetical list of all registered Federal Register The Commission has published PACs showing each PAC’s iden- the 2004 edition of PACronyms, a Federal Register notices are tification number, address, trea- list of the acronyms, abbreviations available from the FEC’s Public surer and connected organization and common names of federal politi- Records Office, on the web site ($13.25). cal action committees (PACs). at http://www.fec.gov/law/law_ • A list of registered PACs arranged For each PAC listed, the index rulemakings.shtml and from the by state, providing the same infor- provides the full name of the PAC, FEC faxline, 202/501-3413. mation as above ($13.25). its city, state, FEC identification • An alphabetical list of organiza- Notice 2004-13 number and, if not identifiable from tions that sponsor PACs, showing Presidential Inaugural Committee the full name, its connected, spon- the PAC’s name and identification Reporting and Prohibition on soring or affiliated organization. number ($7.50). Accepting Donations from The index is helpful in identifying Foreign Nationals; Final Rules PACs that are not readily identified The Public Records Office can and Transmittal to Congress (69 in their reports and statements on file also conduct database research to FR 59775, October 6, 2004) with the FEC. locate federal political committees

13 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Public Funding Candidates may submit requests (continued from page 13) for matching funds once each Index (i.e., over $100,000). Although an month. The Commission will certify an amount to be paid by the U.S. individual may contribute up to The first number in each citation Treasury the following month. 26 $2,000 to a primary candidate, only refers to the “number” (month) of CFR 702.9037-2. Only contributions a maximum of $250 per individual the 2004 Record issue in which the from individuals in amounts of $250 applies toward the $5,000 thresh- article appeared. The second num- or less are matchable. old in each state. Candidates who ber, following the colon, indicates The chart below lists the amount receive matching payments must the page number in that issue. For most recently certified to each agree to limit their committee’s example, “1:4” means that the article eligible candidate who has elected spending, limit their personal spend- is in the January issue on page 4. ing for the campaign to $50,000 and to participate in the matching fund submit to an audit by the Commis- program, along with the cumulative Advisory Opinions sion. 26 U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b) amount that each candidate has been 2003-28: Nonconnected PAC and 9035; 11 CFR 9033.1, 9033.2, certified to date. established by limited liability 9035.1(a)(2) and 9035.2(a)(1). —Amy Kort company composed entirely of corporations may become an SSF with the limited liability company as its connected organization, 1:20 2003-29: Transfer of funds from a Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Primary Candidates: nonfederal PAC to a federal PAC September Certification of an incorporated membership Candidate Certification Cumulative organization, 1:21 September 2004 Certifications 2003-30: Retiring campaign debt and repaying candidate loans, 2:1 Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $0 $7,615,360.39 2003-31: Candidate’s loans to campaign apply to Millionaires’ John R. Edwards (D)2 $0 $6,624,940.44 Amendment threshold, 2:2 2003-32: Federal candidate’s use Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $0 $4,104,319.82 of surplus funds from nonfederal

4 campaign account, 2:4 Dennis J. Kucinich (D) $0 $2,955,962.59 2003-33: Charitable matching plan with prizes for donors, 2:5 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)5 $0 $1,456,019.13 2003-34: Reality television show to Joseph Lieberman (D)6 $0 $4,267,796.85 simulate Presidential campaign, 2:6 Ralph Nader (I)7 $102,321.33 $798,827.32 2003-35: Presidential candidate may withdraw from matching payment Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $0 $100,000.008 program, 2:7 2003-36: Fundraising by federal 1 General Clark publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 11, 2004. candidate/officeholder for section 2 Senator Edwards publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on March 3, 2004. 527 organization, 2:8

3 2003-37: Nonconnected PAC’s use Congressman Gephardt publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on January 2, of nonfederal funds for campaign 2004. activities, 4;4 4 Congressman Kucinich became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2003-38: Funds raised and spent 2004. by federal candidate on behalf of 5 Mr. LaRouche became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2004. redistricting committee to defray

6 legal expenses incurred in redis- Senator Lieberman publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 3, tricting litigation, 3:14 2004. 2003-39: Charitable matching plan 7 Ralph Nader became ineligible to receive matching funds on September 2, 2004. conducted by collecting agent of 8 On May 10, 2004, the Commission determined that Reverend Sharpton must repay trade association, 3:10 this amount to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds he received in excess of his en- titlement. See the July 2004 Record, page 8.

14 November 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

2003-40: Reporting independent 2004-24: Use of contributor infor- MUR 4919: Fraudulent misrepresen- expenditures and aggregation for mation by commercial software tation of opponent’s party through various elections, 3:11 company, 10:6 mailings and phone banks, 6:2 2004-1: Endorsement ads result in 2004:25: Senator/national party of- MUR 4953: Party misuse of nonfed- contribution if coordinated com- ficer may donate personal funds eral funds for allocable expense, munications; “stand-by-your-ad” to voter registration organizations 6:3 disclaimer for ad authorized by that undertake federal election MUR 5197: Donations from Con- two candidates, 3:12 activity, 10:7 gressionally chartered corpora- 2004-2: Contributions from testa- 2004-26: Foreign national’s par- tions, 4:13 mentary trusts, 4:8 ticipation in activities of political MUR 5199: Campaign committee’s 2004-3: Conversion of authorized committees, 10:8 failure to report recount activities, committee to multicandidate com- 2004-27: Use of campaign funds for 6:4 mittee, 5:5 unpaid salary of former employ- MUR 5229: Collecting agent’s fail- 2004-4: Abbreviated name of trade ees, 11:1 ure to transfer contributions, 1:7 association SSF, 5:7 2004-28: Disclosure of donations to MUR 5279: Partnership contribu- 2004-6: Web-based meeting services state party committee nonfederal tions made without prior agree- to candidates and political com- office building fund, 11:6 ment of partners to whom contri- mittees, 5:7 2004-29: Federal candidate’s support butions were attributed, 8:3 2004-7: MTV’s mock Presidential of ballot initiative committees, MUR 5328: Excessive contributions election qualifies for press exemp- 11:6 to and from affiliated leadership tion—no contribution or election- 2004-30: Documentary and broad- PACs, 5:1 eering communication results, 5:8 cast ads do not qualify for media MUR 5357: Corporation’s reim- 2004-8: Severance pay awarded to exception from definition of elec- bursement of contributions, 2:1 employee who resigns to run for tioneering communication, 10:9 MUR 5447: State party committee’s Congress, 6:4 2004-31: Ads for business with same financial discrepancies and failure 2004-9: State committee status, 5:10 name as federal candidate not to pay allocable expenses from 2004-10: “Stand by your ad” dis- electioneering communications, federal account, 10:17 claimer for radio ads, 6:5 10:11 Naming of treasurers in enforcement 2004-12: Regional party organiza- 2004-32: SSF may solicit affiliated matters, proposed statement of tion established by several state LLC, 11:7 policy, 3:4 party committees, 8:4 2004-33: Corporate-sponsored ads Nonfilers, 3:16; 4:13, 6:7; 7:5; 8:13; 2004-14: Federal candidate’s appear- as electioneering communications 9:4; 10:7 ance in public service announce- and coordinated communications, ments not solicitation, coordinated 10:12 Court Cases communication or electioneering 2004-35: Presidential campaigns _____ v. FEC communication, 8:6 may use GELAC funds for re- – Akins, 4:10 2004-15: Film ads showing federal count expenses, 11:8 – Alliance for Democracy, 3:8; 10:4 candidates are electioneering com- 2004-36: Reporting in-kind contri- – Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. (I), 10:4 munications, 8:8 bution of office space shared by – Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. (II), 11:4 2004-17: Federal candidate’s com- five candidates, 11:8 – Citizens for Responsibility and pensation for part-time employ- Ethics in Washington, 11:5 ment, 8:8 Compliance – Cooksey, 8:11 2004-18: Campaign committee’s ADR program cases, 1:25; 4:15; 7:9; – Cox for Senate, 3:4 purchase of candidate’s book at 8:11; 11:9 – Hagelin, 4:11; 8:9; 10:3; 11:3 discounted price, 9:4 Administrative Fine program cases, – Kean for Congress, 3:7 2004-19: Earmarked contributions 1:24; 4:14; 6:9; 9:9; 11:12 – Lovely, 5:12 made via commercial web site, Enforcement Query System avail- – McConnell, 1:1 10:4 able on web site, disclosure policy – LaRouche’s Committee for a New 2004-20: Connecticut party conven- for closed enforcement matters Bretton Woods, 6:7; 9:3; 11:3 tion considered an election, 9:5 and press release policy for closed – O’Hara, 6:6; 8:11 2004-22: Unlimited transfers to state MURs; “enforcement profile” – Wilkinson, 4:9 party committee, 9:6 examined, 1:6; EQS update, 7:10 – Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 9:1; 2004-23: SSF’s solicitation of sub- MUR 4818/4933: Contributions in 10:1 sidiaries’ restricted classes, 10:5 the name of another and excessive contributions, 8:1 (continued on page 16)

15 Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2004

Index Federal election activity periods, 3:1 ventions, correction and effective (continued from page 15) Inaugural committees, Notice of date, 1:19 – Shays and Meehan (I), 11:1 Proposed Rulemaking, 5:1; final Travel on behalf of candidates and – Shays and Meehan (II), 11:3 rules, 11:9 political committees, final rules, – Sykes, 4:12; 11:3 Leadership PACs, final rules, 1: 18 1:19 FEC v. _____ Overnight delivery service, safe har- bor for timely filing of reports, 3:1 Reports – California Democratic Party, 4:9; Due in 2004, 1:9 8:10 Party committee coordinated and independent expenditures, Notice April reminder, 4:1 – Dear for Congress, 8:10 Convention reporting for Connecti- – Friends of Lane Evans, 3:9 of Proposed Rulemaking, 8:1 “Political committee” definition, cut and Virginia, 5:10 – Malenick, 5:13 July reminder, 7:1 – Reform Party of the USA, 9:3 definition of “independent ex- penditure,” allocation ratio for Kentucky special election reporting, Regulations nonconnected PACs, Notice 1:9 Administrative Fine program exten- of Proposed Rulemaking, 4:1; North Carolina special election sion, final rule, 3:1 Public hearing, 5:3; extension of reporting, 7:9 Contributions by minors, Notice of Commission’s consideration, 6:1; October reporting reminder, 10:1 Proposed Rulemaking, 5:3 Rules approved, 9:1 Electioneering communications, Public access to materials from FCC database, 3:3 closed enforcement matters, Peti- Electioneering Communication tion for Rulemaking, 3:4 Exemption, Petition for Rulemak- Public financing of Presidential ing, 9:4 candidates and nominating con-

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, NW PRESORTED STANDARD Washington, DC 20463 U.S. POSTAGE PAID FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300