FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
JUly 1992 999E Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 18, Nurrber7
situation could not include any points for local offices. The new rules, based on Advisory Opinion 1991-25, now authorize commdttees to include nonfederal point(s) in their ratios if partisan local candi NEW ALLOCATlm REGULATI<:::fiS dates are expected on the ballot "Ln any EFFECTIVE JUNE 18 regularly scheduled election during the The revised regulations on the alloca two-year congressional cycle." tion of federal and nonfederal expenses (continued) became effective on June 18, ~992, as announced in the Federal Register of that date.V TWo changes to the allocation rules allow state and local party committees to 1 IUDnATIWS: Allocation Rules Effective revise their ballot composition ratios and apply the revised ratios retroactively to 2 PUBLICATICfiS: 1991 Annual Report certain joint federal/nonfederal expenses paid since January 1, 1991, the start of the current allocation cycle. However, the deadline for making retroactive realloca PARTY ACTIVITIES tions is July 18, 1992. 3 Retroactive Reallocation of Revised Two other changes are not retroactively Ballot composition Ratio effective. These changes apply to all committees subject to the allocation rules, PUBLIC FUND~ including separate segregated funds and 6 June Matching Fund Payments nonconnected committees. 6 Final Repayment, 1988 Gephardt Cormnittee The revisions are briefly described below. 7 NNISC1l1Y OPINIOOS
Changes to Ballot Composition l0.tios of canrr CASES State and LoCal Party CoDmittees 8 FEe v , Wright 9 White v. FEC New Nonfederal Point. Under the first 10 New Litigation change, all state and local party comRdt tees may include an additional nonfederal STATISTICS point in their ballot composition ratios. 10 Candidate and party Committees 11 CFR l06.5(d)(1)(ii). lWDITS LoCal office Point When Local and state 12 List of Final Audit Reports Released Officers Elected in Different Years. The second change applies only to state and 11 CFR 106.5(d)(1){ii). (Note that state party committees may add only one FEe ISSUES 19911lNNUAL REPCm' nonfederal point for local offices on the On June 1, the FEC published its Pallot, while local party committees may Aru'lual Report for 1991, a review of add a maxillll.lllt of two potnts.) the agency's activities during that • year. The report opens with a discus Retroactive Reallocation. Using a sion of the predicted shortfall of revised ballot composition ratio based on public funds needed for the Presiden the new rules, state and local party tial elections and the agency's comli.ttees have the opportunity to reallo efforbs to educate the public on the cate adrndnistrative and generic voter drive $1 tax checkoff, the sale source of cost.s paid since January 1, 1991. However, Presidential public funding. Legal committees will have only until July 18 to issues addressed by the Commission in reallocate these expenses and make correc 1991 ace also eXamined, including tive transfers from their nanfederal C01Jrt rulings on corporate communica ~ccounts to their federal accounts. see tions and the use of soft money in article on page 3 explaining how to calcu federal elections. Tables and graphs late and report these adjustments. provide data on the financial activity of political committees as well as the Olanges '!hat Apply to All camnittees FEe's operation and budget. Finally, As noted above, the following changes the report includes the agency's sug to the allocation rules are not retro gestions for changes in the campaign actively effective: finance law, which were presented to o Committees now have a 70-day window the president and Congress earlier (expanded from 40 days) to transfer funds this year. from the nonfederal account to the feder To order a free copy of Annual al account to pay for the nonfederal Report 1991, call 800/424-9530 or share of a joint expense. (The window 202/219-3420. begins 10 days before the federal account pays the vendor and ends 60 days after the payment.) 11 CFR 106.5(g)(2)(ii)(8) and l06.6(e)(2)(ii)(B). o committees now have a 60-day period following a fundraisifl(j program or event FEDERAL l\OOlSTER lO'lICES to adjust the fundraising ratio and to Copies of Federal Register notices transfer funds between the federal and are available from the PUblic Records nonfederal accounts to reflect the Office. - revised allocation. (When reporting these adjustment transfers, committees 1992-8 must enter the date of the event, a new 11 CFR Part 200: Administrative Regu requirement.) 11 CFR 106.5(f) and lations (Petitions for Rulemaking); IOG.6(d). Notice of proposed Rulemaking (57 FR 20430, May 13, 1992) Federal Election Carrmission, 999 E Street, t'M'. washington, DC 20463 800/424-9530 202;219-3420 202/219-3336 (TDD) Joan D. Aikens, Chairman Walter J. Stewart, secretary of the Senate, SCott E. 'ltlomas, Vice Chai rman Ex Officio commdssioner Lee Mn Elliott Donnald IC Anderson, Clerk Qf the House of Danny L. I"IeDona1d Representatives, EX Officio commdssioner John warren !'ICGarry Trevor Potter 2 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 2. Determine 'lbtal Administrative,IVoter Ddve Payments to Be Reallocated PARTY AC1rlVITIES Next, determine the total amount paid by the federal and nonfederal accounts for administrative and generic voter drive • RE'mOP.CTIVE APPLlCATIOO OF REVISED BALLOr expenses from January 1, 1991, through the e::atPOSITIC6 RATI.O current date. You should rely on canmittee Under the new allocation regulations, records, although your committee's previous $tate and local party committees may reports may provide some help. include an extra nonfederal point in their o 1991 TotaL Determine the total amount ballot composition ratios, i.e., the ratio of the c~ttee's administrative)Voter used to allocate joint federal and non drive payments for 1991. The Schedule H4 federal adrrdnistrative and generic voter filed with the cornmi ttee's year-end drive expenses. Additionally, certain report for 1991 may be a help. The last state and local party committees--those "event year-to-date" entry for an located in states where local officers are administrative/voter drive payment should elected only in odd years while statewide show the total payments for 1991. officers are elected in even years--may o 1992 Total. Now determine the total further adjust the ratio to include local amount of the committee'S administrative/ partisan offices on the ballot. (See voter drive payments from the beginninq article on page 1.) of 1992 through the current date. The committees now have a limited oppor schedule H4 filed with the committee's tunity-until July l8--to apply the last report should show total payments adjusted ballot composition ratio retro reported thus far in 1992. The conunit actively to payments made since January 1, tee's records should provide the amount 1991, and to make adjustment transfers from paid for administrative/voter drive their nonfederal accounts to their federal expenses from the closing date of the accounts. last report through the cur.ent date. This article explains how to calculate o lldd the Totals. Add the 1991 and 1992 and report retroactive reallocations and totals to arrive at the total amount of transfers. It is based on Advisory administrative/Voter drive payments that Opinions 1991-25 and 1991-15. In the "may be reallocated under the revised examples used here, a state party committee ratio. revises its ratio to include the additional ExaJIIple. The state party commi ttee nonfederal point. The same method should found that its 1991 year-to-ctate total for be used by those committees located in adrndnistrative/voter drive payments was states which elect local offices in odd $85,000. years and state officers in even yaars.ll The committee's most recent report (the 1992 second quarter report covering through 1. Calculate Revised Ratio .June 30) shows a year-to-datE total of First, calculate the revised ratio. $10,000. Comttee records from July 1 ExaJuple. The old ratio used by a state throuqh the current date (July 15) indicate party committee for the 1991-92 election that the committ~e paid another $5,000 in cycle was 28 percent federal/72 percent admdnistrative/Voter drive expenses in nonfederal (2 federal points and 5 1992. The current year-to-date total for nonfederal points). wi th the addition of 1992 is therefore $15,000 ($10,000 plus another nonfederal point, the new ratio is $5, 000). 25 percent federalj75 percent nonfederal (2 Thus, th~ total amount of administra federal points and 6 nonfederal points). tive/voter drive payments that may be reallocated is $100,000 ($85,000 plus $15,(00). 3. Determine Federal and Nonfederal A100Unts ~ith respect to these committees, state under old Ratio committees may now add one nonfederal point Apply the old ratio to the total for local partisan offices on the ballot in calculated above. This will give you the odd years, and local committees may add a amount paid by each account. maximum of two nonfederal points for such Example. Applying the old ratio (28 offices. See AO 1991-25, summarized in the percent federalj72 percent nonfederal) to october 1991 Record, page 9. These non the $100,000 total, the committee found it federal point{s) are in addition to the spent $28,000 from its federal account and extra nonfederal point available to all $72,000 from its nonfederal account. state and local party committees. (continued) 3 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 4. Determine Federal and Nonfederal1WOunts Under Revised Ratio NO'"" apply the revised ratio to the same total. Example. Under the committee'S new • ratio (25 percent federal;75 percent 000 federal), the federal share is $25,000 and the nonfederal, $75,000. S. Calculate Amount of Nonfederal Transfer The difference between the old and revised nonfederal portions is the ~t that may be transferred from the nonfederal account to the federal account. Note, however, that the transfer must take place by the July 18 deadline. Example. $75,000 (new ratio) minus $72,000 (old ratio) equals $3,000, the amount the comrni ttee may tiranefer by July 18. 6. RepOrt Adjusblents and Transfer In the next report due, report the revised ratio (on Schedule Hl) and the transfer from the nonfederal aCcoWlt (on Schedule H3). You must also make en adjustment on Schedule H4 to reflect the reallocation of administrative and generic voter drive payments. These steps are illustrated below. • Schedule Hl.: Show the revised ballot composition formula; explain that the revision is based on the new allocation rules. STATE AND LOCAL PARTY COMMITTEES REVISED RATIO BALLOT COMPOSITION CHECK ALL OFFICES APP£:,ARING ON THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION BAllOT: .. - ..--- ._-._-- --_.. NUMBER OF .- rolNl$ 1. PRESIDENT IXI (1 POINT) . 2. SENATE .0 (1 POINT) ... ll.S. "----"--.. -----~ 3.U.S. CONGRESS IZ (1 POINT} ... 1 4.. SUB10TAL- FEDERAL{ADO 1,2. AN03j ... 2 5. GOVERNOR _ 00{1 POIN1) .... 1 6. OTHER STATEWIDE OFFICE(S) oo (1 OR' POINTS) .... 1 7. STATE SENATE 00 (1 POINT) ... 1 a. STATE REPRESENTATIVE IZ(t POINT) ... 1 9. LOCAL CANDIDATES 1>1 (1 OR 2POINTS) ... 1 +1---- -Extra nonfederal authorized 10. SUBTQTAl- NON·FEDERAL (ADD 5,6.7,8, AND 9) .."'--- 6 point by June 1992 11. TOTAL POINTS (LINE 4 PLUS LINE 10) ~ ~ .... 8 amendment to -.J allocation rules FEDERAL A.LLOCATION ..LINE 4 DIVIDED BY LINE 1j ~ ,~ [ 2 5 ~ • 4 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 schedule 83: Report the transfer from the nonfederal account to the federal account; explain that the transfer adjusts for the revised ratio. NAME OF ACCOUNT DATE OFRECEIPT State Party Committee--Nonfederal 7-16... 92 $ 3,000.00 AOMlII.NOTER DRIVE AMOUNr i) Tolal AdministrativeNlller Orille .... .c~.9. .... i9.-.¢U~.~.t .. $ 3 r 000 • 00 for revised ratio) ii) Direct Fundraising (List Events·Amount forEach) a) b) ---~------~ c)--- d) e) T:-:ot-.al"":"A-mo-l)..,.nt;:-:O:T:-:'ra-ns~je-rr--ed:"'1F:-()'-;:D:""ire~ct7:F~u:-nd:-ra~is~in-g-...~....-... iii! Exempt ActivilylOirect Candidale Suppo1 Ust Even:s·Amolint For Each' a) _ b) _ c) . _ dl ,------:~-...",...... ,...-.. -::-...."..-_--:-<.,....,....-::-:-__ e)Total ArnO'Jnl trarsterred For Exempt Activit~IDjroc\ Candidate Su rt , . schedule H4: To adjust the federal and o In the total box, enter zero. nonfederal shares of administrative/Voter o In the federal share box, enter the ~dve parnents, enter the following amount of the transfer as a negative J.nformatJ.on: number (to reduce the overall federal o In the name and address box, explain that share of adadnistrative/Yoter drive the entry is an adjustment to reflect the payments) . revised ratio applied retroactively from o In the nonfederal share box, enter the January 1, 1991, through the date of the transfer amount as a positive number (to last payment that was reallocated. (In increase the overall nonfederal share of the exanple, the date was July 15.) the payments). o In the date box, enter the date of the o It is not necessary to fill in the "event tr-ansfer. Remember, the transfer must be yeac-to-date" total because the adjust made by the July 18 deadline. (In the ment entry, with its zero amount, does example, the transfer was received on not affect the year-to-date totaL July 16.) A. FULL NAME, MAILING ADDRESS 4l/f'WOE PUAP/JSflEVEHT DAn TOTAL AMQl/Nf FEOERAl SHARE NON·FEOERAL SHARE Adjustment to re~lect revised ratio applied 7-16-92 0 -$3,000 $3,000 retroactively from (traJ,lsfer 1/1/91--7L15/92 date) CATEGORY: 81 AOMINISTAATIIJENOTER DRIVE o FUNORAlSING U EXEMPT EVENT YEAR·TODATE: S o DIRECT CANDIDATE SUPPORT 5 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 GEPBNU1l' ccmu'l"l'EE: FINAL REPAYMENl' NIJUNT '. PUBLIC FUNOING On May 21, the Conunission made a final determination that the Gephardt for Presi dent committee, Inc., must repay $118,944 • JUNE JIIA'l'CBING FUND P1OO!EN1'S in primary matching funds to the U.S. on May 21 and 28, the Commission certi Tre~su["y. The repayment represents the pro fied a total of $5.6 Rdllion in matching rata portion!/ of $452,544, the anKnnlt the fund payments to 1992 Presidential candi commission det.ermined was paid in excess of dates. The U.S. Treasury made the payments the rowe expenditure limit. The Conunittee early in June. As of the June payment, had received $3.4 million in primary match primary candidates had received $28 ndllion ing funds for the 1988 Presidential cam in matching funds, as shown in the table. paign. Candidates have requested almost $3.4 mil In the final audit report on the lion for the July payment. Gephardt Conunittee, the agency had made an candidates who withdraw from the race initial determination that the committee's or who fail to receive at least 10 percent excess spending totaled $480,849. The of the vote in two consecutive primaries final determination reduced that amount by may still receive matching funds to wind $28,305. down thei.: campaigns and to retire debts The agency decreased the amount of incurred before the date on which they medi;:;t ~)(pcnses allocable to the Iowa limit became ineligible for matching funds. by $24,490. This reduction was made in considsration of the Committee'S written Matching Fund payments response to audit report findings and the Corrmittee's oral presentation on the fiOO cumulative ings.2/ The remaining reductions were Payment"""" Total based-on additiona! documentation submitted by the Commi t.tee, Republicans In a statement of reasons 5~pporting Patrick Buchanan $ 263,303 s 3,140,803 the final repayment determination, the George Bush 1,329,418 6,114,606 conmission noted that a future addendwn to the final audit report; nay include addi Democrats tional expenses in excess of the Iowa LarryAgran 100, ODOlf 100,000 limit, which would increase the repayment • Jerry Brown 1,669,742- 3,686,787 eeount, Furthermore, the Committee may Bill Clinton $1,089,690 5,330,339 have received matching funds above the Tom Harkin~/ 42,313 1,852,808 amount needed to retire its debts, in which Bob Kerrey2/ 55,584 1,839,264 case it would have to repay the difference. Paul Tsongas2/ 935,972 2,378,918 The final audit report and the state Douglas Wilder~/ c 289,027 ment of reasons are available in the Public Records Office. New Alliance Party Lenora Fulani 134,724 1,309,053 Total. $5,620,745 $28,041,605 l,IMr. Agran's payment was certified on May lA ratio formula is used to calculate what 21. The other payments were certified on portion of the excessive expenditures May 28. represented the payment of public funds as opposed to private contributions. That 2/These candidates have withdrawn from the amount-the pro rata portion-is Subject to Presidential race. Governor Wilder with repayment. drew on January 8, senator Kerrey on March 6, Senator Harkin on March 9 and former 2The Comrodttee addressed the Commission in Senator Tsongas on March 19. a November 6, 1991, open session. • 6 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18 Number7 AIJVISORY OPlNIaf SUMfIIARlES AD 1992-12: Candidate's Personal Use and suture OWnecshi.p of • campaign van ADVISORY OPINIC»{ mtlUESTS During his campaign for re-election, Recent requests for advisory opinions Congressman Larry LaRocco may. on occasion, (AORs) are listed below. The full text of make personal use of a van leased by the each ADR is available for review and com teaccco for Congress campaign; as long as ment in the FEe's Public Records Office. he reimburses the commdttee from his personal funds for use of the van, this J\OR 1992-18 arrangement will not result in the candi CaAPaign's use of property jointly owned by date's personal use of campaign funds, candidate and spouse. (Requested by which is prohibited under 2 u.s.c. §439a. Congressman Richard Ray; Date Made Public: (His committee should report the reimburse May 21 1 1992; Length: 7 pages) ments as "other receipts. ") AD 1984-59. For similar reasons, Mr. LaRocco may AOR 1992-19 assume full personal use of the van after Federal cempaiqn-e lease of computers the November 1992 election, when he will purchased with prohibited funds by state substitute his name on the bank note in campaign. (Requested by the Mike Kreidler place of the coromdttee's name and begin for Congress Committee; Date Made Public: making payments on the lease from his June 2, 1992; Length: 6 pages) personal foods. When the three-year lease expires, Mr. LaRocco will own the van. Am 1992-20 This is a permissible arrangement assuming Checks payable to SSF by corporate members that the bank is making its u~ual and nor of connected organization used for adminis mal charge for the leasing transaction and tration of SSF. (Requested by American that, when the lease is transferred to his Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Date name, Mr. LaRocco will reimburse his co~ Made Public: June 5, 1992; Length: 2 mittee a portion of any charges paid to se pages) cure the lease, such as a security deposit. Moreover, if the lease provides for a dis /\OR 1992-21 counted purchase price, he may have to pay • Oonation of campaign funds to National Fund the coaattitee a portion of the discount. for u.s. Botanical Garden. (Requested by Any tax laws or House rules that might Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan; Date Made apply to the proposed activity are outside Public~ June 5, 1992; Length: 5 pages the Commission's jurisdiction. (Date plus lO-page attachment) Issued: May 15, 1992; Length: 3 pages) ADa 1992-22 For-profit enterprise by individual to sell NJ 1992-14: candidate's Designation of T-shirts bearing her original candidate Excess campaign Funds in Event slogan. (Requested by Robin Langer; Date of His Death Made Public: June 11, 1992; Length: 4 Because the federal campaign finance law pages) does not limit the time when excess cam paign funds may be distributed, ccneresssan NJR 1992-23 Dan Burton may issue instructions on the Use of corporate funds to pay for media ads future use of excess funds in the event of on record of Congressman seeking reelec his death. tion. (Requested on behalf of National Mr. Burton's proposal to donate his Rifle Assocication's Political Victory campaign'S excess funds to a nonprofit, Fund; Date Made Public: June 12, 1992; tax-exempt charitable foundation is a Length: 11 pages) permissible use of excess campaign funds under 2 U.S.C. §439a. That provision specifically permits excess funds to be donated to a charity described in 26 U.S.C. §170(c). Because excess campaign funds may also be used "for any other lawful pur pose, II the funds may be donated to the foundation even if it does not qualify as as §170(c) charity. In that case, however, • (continued) 7 JUly 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 the designation could have adverse federal book , the agency asked the district court tax consequences. to enforce the order. 'l'he opinion did not address the prohi bition on the conversion of excess fW1ds to Distcict court Decision the can.didate's personal use since Mr. Bur In its November 12, 1991, jUdgment,l/ ton stated that his personal estate would the court concluded that the FEC's order not receive any financial benefit from the complied with a three-pronged test for foundation. validity: the investi9o.tion was for a Payments to the foundation would be lawful purpose; the information sought was reportable by the c~ign committee as relevant; and the agency's demand was "other disbursements." The Commission did reasonable. The court therefore ordered not express an opinion on the application Mr. Wright to answer the FEe's questions. of any tax law or other state or federal In reaching its decision, the court consid law ootside the FEC's jUrisdiction. (Date ered but rejected Mr. wright's arguments, Issued: May 15, 1992; Length: 3 pages) which challenged the FEe's authority to investigate his activities. (Mr. Wright also filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that, with the eepeal of 54411 in August 1991, the FEe lost jurisdiction to bring the action. on october 16, 1991, for the reasons discussed below, the court denied FEe v. WRIGllT Mr. Wright's motion.) On November 12, 1991, a u.s. district court ordered James C. Wright, Jr., fo~r Speech or Debate Clause. Fortner Speaker of the U.S. House of Representa Speaker Wright relied on the speech or tives, to answer the FEC's questions in debate clause in the Constitution for connection with an adBUnistrative complaint several of his arguments. The clause filed against him. The court also ordered states that "for any Speech or Debate in Mr. wright to pay the FEe'S court costs. either House, they [Senators or Representa (U.S. District Court for the Northern tives] shall not be questioned in any other District of Texas, Fort worth Division, place." Article I, Section 6. Civil Action No. 4-91-0542-A.) Mr. Wright contended that the clause The fOrnler Speaker appealed tl\€ judg nullified the FEe's authority to seek ment on January 9, 1992. Howeve r , .he later answers to questions on activities that filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as took place when he was a House Member. The moot since he and the FEe had reached a court, however, found that the clause did settlement with respect to the administra not apply to the FEC's questions, which tive complaint (MUR 2649). The FEe did not concerned activities tha~ occurred "out object to the motion, and on May I, 1992, side, and away from, the House" and which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth were trtotally unrelated to anything done in Circuit dismissed the appeal. (Civil the course of the legislative process.•.• ll Action No. 92-1033.) Mr. Wright also argued that the rEC violAted the clause bec~use, in deciding to Background pursue an investigation, the agency relied In July 1988, citizens for Reagan filed on "speech or debate" material, namely, a an admJnisttative complaint alle9ing that report prepared by an outside counsel at Speaker wright violated 2 U.S.C. §441i. the request of the House Corranittee on That provision, now repealed, prohibited a Standards of Official Conduct when that federal officeholder from accepting mote body was investigating the sale of the than a $2,000 honorarium for a speech, Speaker's book. The court rejected the appearance or article. The complaint argument, p:>inting out that the report specifically alleged that Speaker Wright, lacked any "speech or debate" content but during 1985 and 1986, accepted excessive merely contained findings related to the honoraria disguised as proceeds from the Speaker's financial affairs. Moreover, the sale of his book, Reflections of a Public court said that the relevant findings in Man. In January 1990, the c01lItIission foUnd the report (i.e.• his alleged circumvention reason to believe Me. Wr:ight had Violated of the honoraria limit) were "independent S44li and opened an investigation into the of anything that occurred in any kind of matter. When he refused to comply with an House proceeding." FEe order seeking answers to questions about his appearances and the sale of his lReported at 777 F.Supp. 525. 8 JUly 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 The former Speaker again invoked the WHITE v, ax:; speech or debate clause with respect to his On April 24, 1992, the u.s. District testimony before the House committee, Court for the Western Distdct of pennsyl arguing that the clause immunized him from vania granted the FEC's motion to dismiss • having to answer the FEC's questions on the this case based on the report and recom same matters. However, because he testi mendation of the magistrate judge, which fied before the Committee "in his capacity the court adopted as its opinion. (Civil as a 'lI1itness and not in his legislative Action No. 91-1201.) capacity," the court found no merit to this William D. White challenged the argurrent constitutionality of 11 CFR 110.11(~), Finally. he argued that the constitu which pennits candidates (except those tion's s&lf-discipline clause, when read receiving public funding1/) to make with the speech or debate clause, effec unlimited contributions of personal funds tively allocated to the HOuse the sole to their own campaigns. Mr. White claimed author.i ty to enforce violations of the that the rule violated the equal protection honorarium limit by Members. The self provision of the Fifth Amendment by discipline clause states, in part: "Each conferring a privilege on candidates that House may determine the Rules of its Pro is denied to other citizens. He sought an ceedings [andl punish its Members for dis order compelling candidates to pay a orderly Behavior•..• " Article I, Section penalty in the amount of their excessive 5. The couet rejected this argument for contributions. He also sought a prelimi two reasons. First, it "is tantamount to a nary injunction barring candidates from contention that the relevant provisions of making contributions to thefr own campaigns the Act are unconstitutional." second, it in excess of $1,000. The court denied that "fails to recognize that the standards of rrot Lon on Au9Ust 26, 1991. conduct and rules of enforcement found in In ruling on the issues, the court the Act are, indeed, self-disciplinary pointed out that the Supreme Court uphAld rules-the combined votes of the two Houses the challenged provision in Buckl~ ceeated the statutory provisions.in vateo, In that case, the High Court recog question." nized that "the use of personal funds reduces the candidate's dependence on Repeal of S441i. In another line of outside contributions and thereby counter argument, Mr. Wright claimed that the FEe acts the coercive pressures and attendant • no longer had authority to investigate or risks of abUse to which the (Federal Elec enforce §441i because of recent legisla tion Campaign] Act's contribution limita tion: The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (ef tions ere directed." The district court fective January 1, 1991), which prohibited also cited California Medical Association House Members from accepting honoraria and v , FEC, in which the Supreme Court held amended §44li to remove House Members trom thaI~he di&~rities in the Act's contribu its scope; and the repeal of §441i later tion provisions do not violate equal that year, on August 14. protection rights. The court first noted that the Ethics Because the supreme Court has already Reform Act effectively repealed §441i ruled on the issue raised. by Mr. White, the insofar as it applied to House Members. district court found that there was no need The court went on to point out that, if to certify his constitutional challenge Congress had intended to elimJnate the pursuant to 2 u.s.c. S437h.~/ The court FEe's authority to enforce §441i violations therefore granted the FEC's motion to dis occurring before the repeal, the legisla miss based on plaintiff's failure to state tion would have expressed that intent. a claim for which relief may be granted. "Thus, to this day, p the court stated, (Litigation continued) "§44li is deemed to be in full force and effect as to any conduct of Wright occur ring before the date of its repeal." 1presidentiaJ candid~te~ who receive public funds are subject to a $50,000 limit on contributions to their own campaigns. 2Thi s provision provides for review of constitutional issues: the u.s. district court immediately certifies to the U.S. court of appeals all questions of the • constitutionality of the federal Election Campaign Act. 9 JUly 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 Hou6e and senate CCDlpaigns The Kay 10 release on 1992 candidate FEe v. America's PAC activity provides the following statistics: The FEe asks the court to find that o A detailed summary of 1992 "ouse and America's PAC, cegistered as a state cam Senate campaigns broken down. by political mittee, and its executive director and party affiliation and candidate status actin9 treasurer violated several provi (incumbent, challenger, open seat); sions of the law based on the following o A IS-month comparison of House and Senate claims: activity for the 1992, 1990 and 19B8 1. Having received an earmarked contri election cycles; bution from Physicians IntecindemnityjPAC o Six-year summaries of current Senate (PI/PAC, also a state committee), America'S candidates; PAC altered the notation on the check from o A financial profile of candidates 1n each "Bill Press for U.S. Senate" to ~political House r ~ce; and contribution" and then deposit.ed it. By o Rankings of House and senate candidates failing to forward the earmarked contribu in terms of their: overall receipts, tion to the Press corrmcittee, and by failing contributions from individuals, contribu to provide the committee and the FEe with tions ftom PACs, disbursements, cash on required information on the contribution, hand and debts. defendants violated 2 U.S.C. §432{b), The graphs on page 11 compet.re 15-month 2. The conversion of the $2,000 contri median receipts and cash on hand for House bution from an earmarked contribution to a candidates over three election cycles. contribution to America's PAC caused the PAC to become a federal political cOMmittee National Party ActiVity under §431 (4HAl, with attendant registra As shown below, the national Republican tion and reporting obligations. Defendants party committees raised and spent more than never fulfilled those Qbligations, in the Democratic national comrni ttoes by a violation of 55433 and 434. wide margin during the first 15 months of 3. Because the PI/pAC contribution con the 1992 election cycle. The t Nonfederal ACtivity Disburse-- <:ash ACTIVITY OF CMDIM.'l'FS .AND PARTY (lllIfiT!'EES Receipts ments on Hand 'l"HIO.GI IWlCH 31, 1992 The press office recently relea~d DeDloctatic $10.2 $ 9.3 $1.6 campaign finance statistics on the finan Republican $26.1 $19.2 $6.3 cial activity of national party committees and 1992 Congressional campaigns. The releases cover activity as of March 31, 1992, which encompasses the first 15 months T;able lists aggregate activity, as of of the 1992 election cycle. aoth press March 31, 1992, of the three national-level releases may be ordered from the Public committees of each party (the national Records Office; call 800/424-9530 (ask for committee and the House and Senate canpaign Public Records) or 202/219-4140. committees) . 10 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number7 1 House Campaigns: Democrats Median Receipts and Cash on Hand )I Receipts First 15 Months of Election Cycle 2 • _ Cash on Hand Chart I Republicans Incumbents 3 _ Receipts Thousands $250 ,-----.~------_ Cash on Hand Chart II Challengers 3 Thousands $30 ---~------$2001------, $20 L..-.--..-..- $10 a $150 1992 1990 1988 Chartm Open Seat Candidates 3 Thousand$ $60...------$100 $50 ~---____l $40 $30 $50 $20 $10 o o 1992 1990 1968 1992 1990 1988 1 These charts reflectthe activity of Housecampaigns that reported raisJng somemoney before March 31 of the election year. ~ An electioncyclecovers a two-year period: the year beforethe election year and tl1e election year. These charts show activity as of March31 of the election year, that is, 15 months into the election cycle. 3N:lle the difference in scales between Chart I and Cna-ts II and III. 11 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18,Number 7 FINM. IWDIT REPORTS Rl!LFA5m FEe PUBLISHES l'lOOFILEBS Listed below, in chronological order, The Commission recently cited the com are the final audit reports released by the mittees of the candidates listed below for Commission between January and May 1992. failing to file reports. The names of The FEe is required to audit Presi authorized conmnttees that fail to file dential and convention coromi ttees that reports are pubaished pursuant to 2 u.s.c. received public funds. In addition, the §438(a)(1). Enforcement actions against Commission may audit any committee whose nonfilers are pursued on a case-by-case reports indicate that the committee has not basis. met threshold requirements for substantial compliance with the Federal Election Cam paign Act. 2 U.S.C. S438(b). office Report Not Copies of audit reports are available candidate Sought Filed for review in the Public Records Office and may be ordered from th~t office. Call Taylor House-ALj07 Pte-Primary 800/424-9530 (ask for Public Records) or Posner House-CA,lSl Pre-Primary 202/219-4140. McCuen House-AIV04 Pre-Runoff Orton House-UTj03 Pre-Convention Riverside County Republican Central Coomittee Date Released: January 2, 1992 Length: 7 pages MURS RELEl\SED TO THE PUBLIC Listed below are MURs (FEe enforceaent IlUrray for congress cases) recently released for public review. Date Released: January 2, 1992 the list is based on the FEe press release Length: 2 pages of May 11 and 22 and June I, 1992. Files on closed MURs are available for revie~ in Bt.lb Allen for COngress the Public Records Office. Date Released: January 21, 1992 unless otherwise noted, civil penalties Length: 2 pages resulted from conciliation agreements reached between the respondents and the GeOrge Bush for President CCIIIni.ttee, Inc. Commission. Date Released: February 24, 1992 Length: S9 pages JIIUR 2768 Resporxlents (all in NO): (a) North Dakota cardino '88 Btdte Republican Federal Account, YVonne M. Date Released: March 51 1992 Kroll, treasurer (NO); (b) Strinden for Length: 10 pages U.S. Senate, Donald Miller, treasurer; (e) Earl S. Strinden Enron Political Action Coamitt:ce Ccaplalrumt: George Gaukler, Chairman, Date Released: March 31, 1992 North Dakota Democratic NPL Party Length: 4 pages Subject: EXcessive coordinated expendi tures and contributions koedeatlS for: Robertson, Inc. Disposition: (a) $7,500 civil penalty; Date Released: April 15, 1992 (b)-(cl No reason to believe Length: 63 pages plus at.tachnents flI.IR 2797 Jesse Jackson for President '88 Coumittee; Respondents (all in AL): (a) Alabama Jesse Jackson for President 'SB Com:ni.ttee- 6ducation Associationj (bl Perkins & california; New Yorkers for Jesse Jackson Associates, Inc.; (e) Joseph W. Perkins; Date Released: Apdl 22, 1992 (d) Harry H. Ferguson, Jr.; fe} Cynthia K. Length: 33 pages plus attachments Perkins; (f) Ivy Hunter; (g) Fred Hunter; (h) W. Lee IhIdson; (i) Fred DeLoach; (j) Laurie Enslen; (k) Shed Arnold Brown; (1) Joyce Miller Albright; (m) Grover Gene Hillf (n) Daniel Mark Perkins; {c) Loretta T. Perkins 12 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number7 Caaplainant: Referral by Department of JIlUR 3205 Justice Respondents: Oklahoma Leadership council, Subject: Contributions in the names of C. Wesley Lane II, treasurer others; corporate contributions Complainant: FEC initiated • Disposition: (a) No probable cause to Subject: Failure to disclose expenses believe; (b) reason to believe but took no properly; failure to allocate administra further action; (el $5,000 civil penalty; tion expenses (dl $5,000 civil penalty (e) $400 civil Disposition: (1) $900 civil penalty (dis penalty; (f) $400 civil penalty; (g) $400 closure); (2) no probable cause to believe civil penalty; (h) reason to believe but (allocation) took no further action; (i) reason to be lieve but took no further action; (j) $350 MlJR 3208 civil penalty; (k) $300 civil penalty; Respondents: Senate Committee for Bo (1) $400 civil penalty; (m) no probable Thomas, Margaret S. Thomas, treasurer (NCj cause to believe; (n) reason to believe but COmplainant: FEe initiated took no further action; (0) reason to be SUbject: Failure to file ca-ncer notices lieve but took no further action Disposition: $7,500 civil penalty KUR 3085 MlJR 3211 Respondents: {a} Democratic Study Group Respondents: The LaRouche Democratic Cam Campaign Fund, William H. Hagan, treasurer petqn (1988 Presidential commi ttee) , Edward (DC); (b) Heublein, Inc. (CT); (c) Trans Spannaus, treasurer (VA) continental Pipe Line Corporation (Tit); Caaplainant: FEe initiated (d) The National Education Association of Subject: Excessive contribUtions; expendi the united States (DC) tures in excess of state limits Complainant: FEe initiated Disposition: (1) $1,500 civil penalty SUbject: Corporate and labor contribu (excessive contributions); (2) no probable tions; disclaimer cause to believe (state limits) Disposition: fa) $450 civil penalty; (b) and (c) reason to believe but took no MUR 3256 further action; (d) $1,000 civil penalty Respondents: Alexander Campaign coentttee, Julis R. Smith, treasurer (AR) JroR 3124 Complainant: FEC initiated • Respondents: fa) The Atlanta '88 Commit SUbject: Failure to file 48-hour notices tee, rnc., M.ichael Lomax, treasurer (GA); Disposition: $5,850 civil penalty (b) Production Arts Lighting, Inc. (NY); (c) pro-Mix, Inc. (N:!); (d) Kimball Audio MlJR 3321/3142/2857/2832 Visual (TX); (e) First National Bank of Respondents: Republican party of Dade Atlanta (now known as Wachovia Bank of County (FL) Georgia, N.A.); (f) citfbenk, N.A. (NY) Complainant; fEC initiated canp1ainant: FEe initiated Subject: Failure to file reports on time; SUbject: Contributions by a national bank; failure to amend Statement of Organization contributions to convention committee from on time outside metropolitan statistical area Disposition: $2.000 civil penalty Dicposition: fa) Reason to believe but took no further action; (b)-(d) took no I'I1JR 3373 action; (e)-(f) reason to believe but took Respondents: united Association Local 725, no further action Pipefitters-Air Conditioning political Action Committee, Eric S. Johnson, treas MOB. 3148 urer (FL) Respondents (all in NY): (a) 'mrov the complainant: FEC- initiated Rascals Out, Dennis G. wedra, treasurer; Subject: Failure' to file reports on time (b) Commdttee of 100 Democrats, DOminick A. Disposition; $353 civil penalty Fusco, treasurerj (c) Dominick A. Fusco; (d) Stefan Miller lllUR 3425 Coraplainant: Arnold Linhardt, on behalf of Respondents (all in GA): (a) Coverdell Engel for Congress (NY) Senate Committee, Marvin S~th, treasurer; SUbject: Excessive contributions; failure (b) Paul D. Coverdell; (c) Breakfast Club to disclose contributions; improper author Explorers and treasurer ized commdttee name; disclaimer Complainant; David E. Stahl, Campaign Disposition: (a) $3,500 civil penalty; Director, Georgians for Bob Barr - u. S. • (b) $900 civil penalty; (c) $250 civil Senate penalty; (d) $1,300 civil penalty (continued) 13 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 SUbject: Failur~ to register and repoct Disposition: (a) Reason to believe but PllBLlC APl'EAlWICES took no further action; (b) no reason to believe; (e) reason to believe but took no 7/1 Georgetown University further action washington, DC • Michael Dickerson, Public JlIUB 3490 Records Respondents: (a) Executive Office of the Dorothy Hutcheon, Information president, The White House (DC); (b) Citi Services zens for Arlen Specter, Stephen J. Har melin, treasurer (PA) 1/10 American university Complainant: Eric Bradway {PAl washington. DC Subject: Use of government facilities Greg Scott, Information Disposition: (a)-(b) No reason to believe Services Michael Dickerson, Public I'IllR 3500 Records Respondents: (a) Brown for president, Jodie Evans, treasurer (CAl; (bl Garry B. 7/13 Atlantic and Pacific Exchange Trudeau; (c) universal Press syndicate Washington, DC (MO), (d) Raleigh News & Observer (OC) Chaiman Joan D. Aikens complainant: J. Edgar Williams (NC) Michael Dickerson, Public Subject: Excessive and corporate Records contributions Di8p)sition: (a)-(d) No reason to believe 7/20-24 Conference of Canadian Election Officials Whitehorse, YUkon Chai rman Joan Aikens John Surina, Staff Director 7;21 International Center Washington, DC Louise Wides, Information Services William Kimberling, Clearing • house on Election Adminis tration Michael Dickerson, Public Records 7(30 Institute of Alternative Journalism Seattle, Washington Kent Cooper, Public Disclosure • 14 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 - . ; . ... • '!he first number in each 1992-2: party reallocation of - NRA political Victory Fund, citation refers to the "number" staff salaries as fundraising 1:7 jfl101lth) of the 1992 Record expenses, 4:10 - Populist Party (92-0674), issue in which the article 1992-3: Corporation's payment 5:9 appeared; the second number, of benefits for emplo~e/ - Schaefer, Friends of, 6:6 following the colon, indicates candidate on unpaid leave, - wright, 7:8 the page rnseber in that issue. 5:8 v, l'EC 1992-4: Campaign's payment of --=-Akins, 1:8, 3:7 ADYIlUlY OP1NIQG candidate's living expenses - BranGtool, 3:6 1991-29: Contributions received and spouse's salary, 4:10 - Common CAuse (91 2914). 1:9 and Jll2lde by corporation's 1992-5: candidate's appearance - common cause (92-0249), 3:8 employee pledge program, 1: 4 in cable public affairs - Preeda. Republicans, Inc •• 1991-32: Charges for consult- programs, 5:8 ~:7; 6:7 ant's fundraising services, 1992-6: Honorarium paid to - LaRoudhe, 4:8 5t6 candidate for: speech en cam - Nntional Rifle Association 1991-33: Allocation of expenses paign issues, 4:11 Of America (NEA) (69-301l), when party conunittee adminis 1992-1: corporate PAC's $olici 4:8 - ters primary election, 1:6 totion of friWlchise person - Schaefer, 6:6 1991-34: committee sale of nel, 6:4 - SE§nnaus, 6:6 access to voter data base as 1992-6: Tax seminars as fund - 'J'nnsel'. 3:7 or.going venturE, 1:6 raising IlIechanism, 5:8 -~. 1:9 1991-35: Application of alloca 1992-9: cooperative's twice tion rules when SSF's nanted yearly solicitation through lW'OIUlNG eIal account pays its own raffle at annual meeting, pre-primary reporting dates administrative expenses, 2:10 6:5 - Correction. AX, 7:16 1991-36: coqporation'5 payment 1992-10: committee's disburse - Correction. OR, SC, 5:9 of employee's travel expenses ment to nonptof! t voter - Rouse and Senate. 1:14 to attend party fundraiser, ocqanization, 6:5 - Presidential, 2:10; 3:10 3:5 1992-11: computer-generated Schedule for 1992, 1:10; 3:8; 1991-37: Nonconnected PAC's SUl'l1l!lary page and detailed 6:2 plIyment to incorporated fi r'Jl SUllIllary page, 6:6 for shared facilities and 1992-12: Candidate's future SPJ!NDlN3 LIIU'l'S FOR 1992 services contributed to com ownership of campaigll van. COordinated party, 3:1 • rdtteas, 3:5 1:1 Presidential, 3:14 1991-36: Repayment of embezzled 1992-14: candidate'S designa funds to candidate comDlttee, tion of excess ClmPaign funds 60G-LDm Am'lCLES 3:6 in event of his death, 1:7 Compliance with laws outside 1991-39: Contributions sus FBC's jurisdiction. 3:12 pected of being made in oanes ""'" Cl\SES Contributions: receipt and of others, 4:9 l'EC v. deposit, 6:10 1992-1: campaign salary paid to ---=--Ns~POj 1:7 t.ast-minute contributions: 48 candidate; reimbursements for - America'S ~AC, 7:10 hour notices required, 1:18 caJlIpaign expenses, 4:9 Registr!ltion by candidates and their comndttees, 2:12 •• ,,~.s. Goverc.ment Pdntlng Of fico , 19n - 312_0)4/4oJ013 15 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 JULy 15 QlJUn'ERLy I sw sw FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, NW BulkRate Mail Washington, DC 20463 Postage and Fees Paid Federal Election Commission Permit Number G-31 Official Business