Table of Contents A Message from the ChairmanRenato P. Mariani v. USA, et al. On December 15, 1998, Renato P. Mariani filed a civil action under 2 U.S.C. §437h, challenging the constitutionality

January 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 1

A Message from the ChairmanThe year 2000 promises to be an exciting and challenging one at the FEC,

particularly with respect to the expanding role of computer technology incampaign finance.

Responding to political committees’ growing interest in using the Internetfor political advocacy and fundraising, the Commission has formally askedfor public comment on the possible need for new rules specifically governingthis type of activity (64 Federal Register 60360, November 5, 1999).

We have already taken advantage of the possibilities the Internet presentsby giving the public access to campaign finance reports and our own publica-tions through our Web site (www.fec.gov). And, since last August, we havemade our advisory opinions available there also. In the final weeks of 1999,we redesigned our Web site, offering additional information in a more userfriendly way.

This year, we will implement a legislative amendment to the FederalElection Campaign Act requiring political committees operating above acertain threshold of activity to file their FEC reports electronically. Publiclyfunded Presidential committees are already required to electronically filetheir reports. In addition, many other committees have already begun to filetheir reports electronically on a voluntary basis.

Questions will arise as we make these changes. When they do, call our800 number (800/424-9530) for assistance. In addition, you can obtain ourpublications and other materials 24 hours a day through our Faxline, anautomated fax-on-demand system (202/501-3413).

As we try to meet the challenges of the coming year, we welcome yourcomments and suggestions.✦

State Filing Waivers Reduce Committees’Filing Obligations, see page 2.

Table of Contents1 Message from the Chairman

Information2 State Filing Waivers

Court Cases2 DSCC v. FEC3 Renato P. Mariani v. USA

13 Simon C. Fireman v. USA13 On Appeal?

Commissioners3 2000 Chairman and Vice

Chairman Elected

Reports5 Reports Due in 2000

13 Federal Register

Regulations14 NPRM on Coordination

Public Funding16 Reform Party Convention

Publications16 PACronyms

16 Corrections

Outreach16 Public Appearances17 Conferences17 Monthly Roundtables

17 Advisory Opinions

23 Index

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

2

Federal Election Commission999 E Street, NWWashington, DC 20463

800/424-9530202/694-1100202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)202/219-3336 (TDD for the hearing impaired)800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Scott E. Thomas, ChairmanDarryl R. Wold , Vice ChairmanLee Ann Elliott , CommissionerDavid M. Mason, CommissionerDanny L. McDonald, CommissionerKarl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff DirectorLawrence M. Noble, General Counsel

Published by the Information DivisionLouise D. Wides, DirectorJennifer A. Han, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Most Committees No LongerFile State Copies of Reportsin Twelve States

On December 8, the Commissioncertified Arkansas, Florida, Idaho,Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Ne-braska, New York, North Dakota,South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsinas eligible for the State FilingWaiver Program. These states nolonger have to receive and maintainpaper copies of most FEC reports intheir state’s campaign financerecords office.

As a result, beginning with theDecember 1999 monthly report,most political committees that usedto file copies of their reports in these12 states will no longer have to doso. Senate candidates, however,must continue to file copies of theirreports with the states.1

In the twelve states certified, thepublic will now be able to reviewand copy campaign reports of most

federal candidates by accessing theFEC’s Web site (www.fec.gov) oncomputers located at the state’scampaign finance records office.

The FEC began posting disclo-sure reports filed by Presidential andHouse candidates, parties andpolitical action committees on itsWeb site in 1997. It has sinceexpanded the site to include elec-tronic filings and a query systemthat allows for on-line searches ofthe campaign finance database. Byaccessing the FEC’s Web site, thepublic in the certified states will beable to view PAC, party and Presi-dential reports filed since 1993 andHouse candidate reports filed since1996.

The concept for the state waiverprogram originated in December1995, when President Clintonsigned Public Law 104-79, whichexempts a state from receiving andmaintaining paper copies of federalcampaign finance reports providedthat the state, “as determined by theCommission, has a system thatpermits electronic access to, andduplication of, reports and state-ments that are filed with the Com-mission.”

On October 14, 1999, the Com-mission implemented the law byapproving the State Filing WaiverProgram. Under this program, theCommission requires states tosubmit a letter certifying that theyhave a computer system that allowsthe public:

• To electronically access the reportsand statements that are filed withthe Commission; and

• To duplicate them.

1 The law requires Senate candidatecommittees to file their reports andstatements with the Secretary of theSenate. Because the Commission isunable at the present time to scan thesereports, the reports are not currentlyavailable to the public through theCommission’s Web site.

To receive the FEC’s state waivercertification, states:

• Must have at least one computerterminal that can electronicallyaccess the Commission’s Webpage, with at least one printer(connected either directly orthrough a network); and

• Must, to the greatest extent pos-sible, allow anyone requestingfederal campaign finance data touse the computer terminal at anytime during regular business hours.

As more states request andreceive FEC certification for theprogram, the Commission willannounce their names in futureissues of the Record and will postthem on the FEC Web site(www.fec.gov).

For more information on thewaiver, please see page 17 of theDecember 1999 Record.✦

Information

Court CasesDemocratic SenatorialCampaign Committee, Inc.,v. FEC, et al.

This case, which dates back to1993, began when the DemocraticSenatorial Campaign Committee(DSCC) filed an administrativecomplaint, alleging that the NationalRepublican Senatorial Committee(NRSC) had circumvented theFederal Election Campaign Act’s(the Act’s) contribution limits byfunneling soft money throughnonprofit organizations, which thenmade expenditures on behalf of theNRSC.

In 1995, the DSCC filed suit inthe U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia against theFEC, charging that the agency hadfailed to take action on its adminis-trative complaint within a reason-able time. In April 1996, the courtruled that the FEC’s inaction was

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/dec99.pdf

January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Commissioners

New Chairman and ViceChairman Elected

On December 16, 1999, theCommission elected Darryl R. Woldas its Chairman and Danny L.McDonald as Vice Chairman for2000.

Mr. Wold, a Republican, wasnominated to the FEC by PresidentClinton on November 5, 1997, andconfirmed by the Senate on July 30,1998.

Prior to his appointment, Mr.Wold was in private law practice inOrange County, California. Inaddition to his own practice, he wascounsel for election law litigationand enforcement matters to Reedand Davidson, a firm that practiceselection and political law.

Chairman Wold graduated cumlaude from Claremont McKennaCollege in California and received alaw degree from Stanford Univer-sity. He is a member of the Califor-nia bar, and is admitted to practicebefore the U.S. Supreme Court.

Vice Chairman McDonald, aDemocrat, has previously served asboth chairman and vice chairman.Prior to his initial appointment in1981, Commissioner McDonaldserved as General Administrator ofthe Oklahoma Corporation Commis-sion. Additionally, he served assecretary of the Tulsa CountyElection Board and as Chief Clerkof that Board. CommissionerMcDonald was a member of theAdvisory Panel to the FEC’sNational Clearinghouse on ElectionAdministration. He is currentlypresident of the American Councilof Young Political Leaders.

Commissioner McDonald receiveda Bachelors degree from OklahomaState University and attended the JohnF. Kennedy School of Government atHarvard University. He has served asa member of the JFK School Advi-sory Board for State and LocalGovernment.✦

contrary to law. 2 U.S.C.§437g(a)(8). The court denied theDSCC’s request for injunctiverelief, however, because the FEChad recently found “reason tobelieve” that the NRSC had violatedthe Act. The court subsequentlyordered the Commission to pay theDSCC’s attorney’s fees. A yearlater, the court again found that theCommission had acted contrary tolaw, this time because the FEC hadnot completed its investigation nordecided whether there was “prob-able cause to believe” that theNRSC had violated the Act. Thecourt ordered the FEC to take actionwithin 30 days. In June 1997, theFEC explained that it could notcomplete its work by that deadline,and it appealed the district courtorder. The FEC also appealed theprevious court order to pay theDSCC’s attorney’s fees. On April10, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia Circuitremanded these two cases to thedistrict court after finding that theissue of whether the DSCC hadstanding under the Constitution tolitigate its claims had not beenresolved.

On October 18, 1999, the U.S.District Court concluded that theDSCC had constitutional standing tolitigate these cases. However, inregard to the first case, the courtdecided that the DSCC did notqualify as a “prevailing party” asdefined in the Equal Access toJustice Act, and therefore vacated itsearlier decision to award the DSCCattorney’s fees. The court didreconfirm its prior order in thesecond case that found the Commis-sion to have unreasonably delayedtaking action on the administrativecomplaint filed by the DSCC andrequired the Commission to con-clude the matter within 30 days.

For previous Record articles, seepage 4 of the June 1998 issue andpage 7 of the August 1998 issue.✦

Renato P. Mariani v. USA, et al.On December 15, 1998, Renato

P. Mariani filed a civil action under2 U.S.C. §437h, challenging theconstitutionality of the FederalElection Campaign Act’s (the Act’s)prohibitions on corporate contribu-tions and contributions in the nameof others. 2 U.S.C. §§441b and441f. Section 437h of Title 2assigns the en banc court of appealsthe role of decision maker onconstitutional challenges to theAct’s provisions. The district courtis responsible for:

• Determining whether a constitu-tional challenge is frivolous and, ifnot,

• Making findings of fact andcertifying the issues to be resolvedby the appellate court.

The FEC successfully petitionedthe U.S. District Court for theMiddle District of Pennsylvania tointervene in this case and filed amotion to have the matter dismissed,which was denied by the districtcourt on March 25, 1999.

Factual FindingsOn October 27, 1999, the U.S.

District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Pennsylvania came to thefollowing factual conclusions:

• Mr. Mariani, a corporate execu-tive, is being prosecuted in federalcourt for violating the Act’sprohibitions on corporate contribu-tions and contributions in the nameof others by funneling fundsthrough individuals to variousfederal campaign committees.

• The purpose of the corporate andconduit contribution bans is toavoid corruption and the appear-ance of corruption in the federalelective process that may occurwhen large and/or undisclosedcontributions are made to candi-dates seeking federal office.

(continued on page 4)

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/june98.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/aug98.pdf


4

• “Contributions or expendituresmade on behalf of candidates forfederal office are referred to [as]‘hard money.’”

• Corporations have the ability tomake large contributions topolitical parties and to fund “issueadvocacy” communications.“Such contributions are referred toas ‘soft money.’”

• There are important theoreticaldistinctions between hard and softmoney—distinctions that are“intended to avoid the corruptinginfluence of large contributorssupporting a particular candidate.”

• Soft money is easier to raise thanhard money because it can bedonated in large sums and it cancome from corporate treasuries.

• Soft money has grown from about$19 million in 1980 to more than$260 million in 1996.

• Soft money is used in part to fund“issue advocacy.” “While ‘issueadvocacy’ is supposed to bedistinguishable from ‘candidateadvocacy,’ the distinction is oftenillusory.”

• “Issue advocacy” funded by softmoney has increased substantially.

• “Sponsors of ‘issue advocacy’ areable to avoid the Act’s contribu-tion limits and disclosure require-ments applicable to candidate ads.”

• Candidates for federal office areinvolved in raising “soft money.”“Candidates raising soft money areoften rewarded by having allocatedto their campaigns all or part of thesoft money they raise.”

• “Candidates for federal officeknow which corporations are largecontributors of soft money.”

• “The contribution of corporatetreasury funds secures corporateofficials access to high governmentofficials, including elected offi-cials, as well as candidates forfederal office.”

• “Access to candidates and highfederal government officeholdersis often the quid pro quo for largesoft money contributions.”

• “Corporations are often motivatedto make large soft money contribu-tions by the access it buys.”

• “Access to candidates for federaloffice provided by soft moneycorporate contributions has thesame appearance of corruption aswould access provided by corpo-rate hard money contributions tothose same candidates.”

• “Soft money contributions fromcorporate treasuries can influencethe outcome of federal elections.”

• Soft money contributions fromcorporate treasuries in connectionwith federal elections, by way ofboth donations to political partiesand issue advocacy, “have thesame ability to corrupt and giverise to the same appearance ofcorruption as would contributionsfrom corporate treasuries to thecampaign committees of candi-dates for federal office.”

• “The public does not perceive anymeaningful distinction betweenhard money and soft money.”

• “Corporations are now able tomake expenditures that influencethe outcome of federal electionswithout the public having a clearunderstanding that a particularcorporation is making substantialcontributions with the intent topromote the chances of a particularcandidate for federal office.”

• “Corporate soft money contribu-tions enable corporations to dothat which the corporate hardmoney contribution ban is intendedto avoid: corporate support ofcandidates for federal electiveoffice.”

• “Corporations are now able tomake expenditures in connectionwith federal elections that have theability to corrupt and cause anappearance of corruption that the

ban on corporate contributions tocandidates for federal electiveoffice was intended to avoid.”

Certified Issues of LawBased on the above findings of

fact, the district court certified thefollowing issues of law for consider-ation by the appellate court:

• Whether the prohibition in 2U.S.C. §441b on contributions bycorporations from corporatetreasury funds to candidates forfederal office, in the context of thepresently existing law that other-wise permits corporations toexpend unlimited amounts ofcorporate treasury funds thatinfluence the outcome of federalelections, violates the FirstAmendments.

• Whether the prohibition in 2U.S.C. §441b on contributions bycorporations from corporatetreasury funds to candidates forfederal office is overly broad andtherefore unconstitutional on itsface.

• Whether the prohibition in 2U.S.C. §441f on contributions inthe name of another to candidatesfor federal office violates the FirstAmendment.

• If the answer to the first twoquestions above is “yes” but theanswer to the third is “no”:—Whether 2 U.S.C. §441f isunconstitutional when it prohibitsconduit contributions of corporatefunds to candidates for federaloffice; and—Whether 2 U.S.C. §441f isinseverable from 2 U.S.C. §441band should therefore be invalidatedin light of the unconstitutionalityof the latter provision.✦

Court Cases(continued from page 3)



5

2Note that an authorized committee of a2000 candidate must file on a quarterlybasis in 2000 even if the candidatewithdraws before participating in theprimary. However, such a committeewould not have to file a pre-primaryreport (or other election reports) unlessthe candidate’s name remained on theballot.3 Since 48-hour notices do not have tobe signed by the treasurer, they may besent by mailgram, telegram ortelefacsimile (fax) machine in order tomeet the 48-hour requirement. AO1988-32. Fax numbers for: theSecretary of the Senate--202/224-1851;FEC--202/219-0174. Note: Otherreports and statements may not befaxed.4 A pre-convention report is requiredonly if the convention has authority tonominate. See 11 CFR 100.2(e).

Reports Due in 2000This article on filing require-

ments for election year 2000 issupplemented by accompanyingreporting tables.

It is the responsibility of thecommittee treasurer to file requiredreports on time. To assist treasurers,the Commission sends committeesFEC reporting forms and notices ofupcoming reporting deadlines.

For further information onreporting or to order extra forms,call the FEC: 800/424-9530 (press1) or 202/694-1100. Additionally,most forms are available at theFEC’s Web site (http://www.fec.gov) and from theagency’s Faxline system (dial 202/501-3413).

Reports Covering 2000 ActivityTo find out which reports your

committee must file in 2000, checkthe Guide to Reporting chart onpage 6. Please note that committeesactive in special elections in 2000may have to file additional specialelection reports, as explained below.

Committees Active in SpecialElections

Committees authorized bycandidates running in any 2000special election must file specialelection reports in addition toregularly scheduled reports. 11CFR 104.5(h). They are alsorequired to comply with the 48-hournotice requirement for contributionsof $1,000 or more (including loans)received shortly before an election.See 11 CFR 104.5(f).

Reports

1 Currently twelve states have qualifiedfor the state waiver: Arkansas, Florida,Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan,Nebraska, New York, North Dakota,South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin.

PACs and party committeessupporting candidates running inspecial elections also may have tofile pre- and post-election reportsunless they file on a monthly basis.11 CFR 104.5(c)(3) and 104.5(h).However, all PACs are subject to24-hour reporting of independentexpenditures made shortly before anelection. See 11 CFR 104.4(b) and(c) and 104.5(g).

When timing permits, the Recordwill alert committees to specialelection reporting dates in 2000.

Waiver of State FilingOn October 14, 1999, the Com-

mission approved a state filingwaiver program, relieving qualifiedstates of the requirement to makepaper copies of FEC reports avail-able to the public.

As a result, beginning with theDecember 1999 monthly report,most political committees will nolonger have to file copies of theirreports at the state level in the statesthat have received the waiver.1 Theexception is Senate candidates.They must continue to file copies oftheir reports with the states.

All Committees: Year-EndReports Covering 1999 Activity

All committees must file a 1999Year-End report due January 31,2000. The coverage and reportingdates are found on page 7.

Authorized Committeesof Candidates

2000 House and Senate Candi-dates. Authorized committees of2000 House and Senate candidatesfile the following reports:

• Quarterly reports;2

• A pre-primary report;• Pre- and post-general election

reports (if the candidate partici-pates in the general election); and

• 48-hour notices on contributions of$1,000 or more received after the20th day, but more than 48 hours,before the day of each election inwhich the candidate participates.These notices are due within 48hours of the committee’s receipt ofthe contribution. 11 CFR 104.5(a)(1) and (f).3

Note: Committees are required tofile election reports and 48-hournotices even if the candidate isunopposed in the election. More-over, these reporting requirementsstill apply even if a primary orgeneral election is not held becausethe candidate is unopposed orreceived a majority of votes in theprevious election. However, noreport is required for a primaryelection that is not held because thecandidate was nominated by acaucus or convention,4 for which apre-election report would havealready been filed. See 11 CFR110.1(j).


http://www.fec.gov/reporting.html




6

Guide to 2000 ReportingAll committees must also file a 1999 Year-End Report, due January 31, 2000.

Required Reports

Pre- Pre- Post-Type of Filer Semiannual Quarterly Monthly Primary 1 General General

House and Senate Campaigns ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓of 2000 Candidates required only if candidate runs in election

Other House and Senate ✓Campaigns2

Presidential Campaigns3 ✓ ✓ ✓Anticipating Activity required only if candidateof at Least $100,000 runs in election

Presidential Campaigns3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓With Activity required only if candidate runs in electionLess Than $100,000

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓ ✓Filing Monthly filed in lieu of November and December monthly reports

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Filing Quarterly4 required only if committee required makes contributions or regardless

expenditures in connection of activity with election during the reporting period5

1 Category also includes pre-convention and pre-runoff reports.2 Special election candidates must file additional reports pertaining to their special elections. See periodic Record announce-ments.3 Presidential committees that wish to change their filing frequency during 2000 should notify the Commission in writing.4 PACs and party committees that filed on a semiannual basis in 1999 file on a quarterly basis in 2000. To avoid the need to filepre-primary and pre-runoff reports, these committees may change to monthly filing if they first notify the Commission in writing.Committees may change filing frequency only once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).5 A reporting period begins with the close of books for the last report filed and ends with the closing date for the applicablereport.


7

1999 Year-End ReportNote: All committees file this report.

Report Period Covered Filing Date1

Year-End Closing date January 31, 2000of last reportthrough 12/31/99

2000 Monthly ReportsReport Period Covered Filing Date1

February January 1-31 February 20 2

March February 1-29 March 20April March 1-31 April 20May April 1-30 May 20 2

June May 1-31 June 20July June 1-30 July 20August July 1-31 August 20 2

September August 1-31 September 20October September 1-30 October 20Pre-General 3 October 1-18 October 26Post-General Oct. 19-Nov. 27 December 7Year-End Nov. 28-Dec. 31 January 31, 2001

2000 Quarterly ReportsReport Close of Books Filing Date1

1st Quarter March 31 April 15 2

2nd Quarter June 30 July 15 2

3rd Quarter September 30 October 15 2

Year-End December 31 January 31, 2001

Pre- and Post-Election Reportsfor November 7 General Election2

Report Close of Books Filing Date1

Pre-General3 October 18 October 26Post-General November 27 December 7

1 Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the filing date(except in the case of the pre-general election report; see footnote 2). Reports sentby other means must be received by the filing date. 11 CFR 104.5(e).2 Note that the filing date falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended whenthey fall on nonworking days.3 If sent by registered or certified mail, the pre-general must be postmarked byOctober 23.

Other House and Senate Candi-dates. Committees authorized byHouse and Senate candidates whoran or intend to run in a year otherthan 2000 file on a semiannualbasis. 11 CFR 104.5(a)(2).

Presidential Candidates. Allcommittees authorized by Presiden-tial candidates must file on either amonthly or a quarterly schedule.11 CFR 104.5(b)(2).

A Presidential committee wishingto change its filing schedule shouldnotify the Commission in writing.

Presidential committees active inthe 2000 race that have receivedcontributions or made expendituresaggregating $100,000 or thatanticipate this level of activity fileon a monthly basis. If the candidateruns in the general election, thecampaign must file pre-and post-general election reports in lieu of theNovember and December monthlyreports.

Presidential committees active inthe 2000 race with financial activityunder $100,000 file on a quarterlybasis. They must also file pre- andpost-election reports for the elec-tions they run in.

Presidential committees retiringdebts from previous campaigns mayfile on either a monthly or a quar-terly schedule.

PACs and Party CommitteesPACs (separate segregated funds

and nonconnected committees) andparty committees that filed on asemiannual basis during 1999 nowfile on a quarterly basis. Monthlyfilers continue on the monthlyschedule. PACs and party committeesmay, however, change their filingschedule, as explained later in thissection.

Note that all PACs, whicheverschedule they follow, are subject tothe 24-hour filing requirement forlast-minute independent expendi-tures (also explained later).



8

Quarterly Filers. A PAC or partycommittee that files on a quarterlybasis must additionally file a post-general election report. 11 CFR104.5(c)(1)(i) and (iii).

Quarterly filers may also have tofile pre-convention, pre-primary, pre-runoff and pre-general electionreports. The requirement to file apre-election report is triggered if thecommittee makes a contribution orexpenditure in connection with theelection during the applicablereporting period. 11 CFR 104.5(c)(1)(ii). A reporting period beginsthe day after the close of books forthe last report filed and continuesthrough the close of books for thepre-election report.

Note that, although the FECsends committees notices of upcom-ing reporting deadlines for quarterlyreports and general election reports,the agency does not send PACs orparty committees pre-electionreporting notices for Congressionalconventions, primaries or runoffs.

Monthly Filers. Unlike quarterlyfilers, PACs and party committeesfiling on a monthly basis do not filepre-election reports for conventions,primaries or runoff elections. Theymust, however, file pre- and post-general election reports in lieu of theNovember and December monthlyreports. Monthly filers must alsofile a Year-End report. 11 CFR104.5(c)(3).

Changing the Filing Schedule.PACs and party committees filingon a quarterly schedule may changeto a monthly schedule in order toavoid having to file pre-convention,pre-primary and pre-runoff reports.The committee must first notify theCommission in writing. Thenotification should accompany areport filed under the committee’scurrent reporting schedule. Acommittee may change its filingfrequency only once a year. 11 CFR104.5(c).

24-Hour Reports on IndependentExpenditures. Any PAC (includinga monthly filer) that makes indepen-

dent expenditures in connectionwith any election (convention,primary, runoff, general) may haveto file a 24-hour report. This reportis required when a committee makesindependent expenditures aggregat-ing $1,000 or more after the 20thday, but more than 24 hours, beforethe day of the election. The reportmust be filed within 24 hours afterthe expenditure is made. For moreinformation on the 24-hour report-ing requirement, see 11 CFR104.4(b) and (c) and 104.5(g). Seealso “Where to File” (below) forspecial filing requirements.

Where to FileCommittee treasurers must file

FEC reports with the appropriatefederal and state filing offices.Please note that:

• The addresses for the federaloffices (FEC and Secretary of theSenate) appear in the instructionsto the Summary Page of FECForms 3 and 3X.

• A list of state filing offices isavailable from the Commission.

House Candidate Committees.Principal campaign committees ofHouse candidates file with the FEC.11 CFR 105.1. The principalcampaign committee must simulta-neously file a copy of each reportand statement with the Secretary ofState (or equivalent officer) of thestate in which the candidate seeks(or sought) election. 2 U.S.C.§439(a)(2)(B).5

Senate Candidate Committees.Principal campaign committees ofSenate candidates file with theSecretary of the Senate, as appropri-ate. 11 CFR 105.2. The principalcampaign committee must simulta-neously file a copy of each reportand statement with the Secretary ofState (or equivalent officer) of thestate in which the candidate seeks(or sought) election. 2 U.S.C.§439(a)(2)(B).

Presidential Candidate Commit-tees. Principal campaign commit-tees of Presidential candidates file

with the FEC. 11 CFR 105.3. Theprincipal campaign committee mustalso file a copy of each report andstatement with the filing office ofeach state in which the committeemakes expenditures. 2 U.S.C.§439(a)(2)(A); 11 CFR 108.2.5

Candidate Committees with MoreThan One Authorized Committee. Ifa campaign includes more than oneauthorized committee, the principalcampaign committee files, with itsown report, the reports prepared bythe other authorized committees aswell as a consolidated report (FECForm 3Z or page 5 of FEC Form 3P,as appropriate). 11 CFR 104.3(f).

PACs and Party Committees.Generally PACs and party commit-tees file with the FEC. There are,however, exceptions:

• Committees supporting onlySenate candidates file with theSecretary of the Senate; and

• PACs file 24-hour notices disclos-ing independent expenditures onbehalf of House and Senatecandidates with the FEC and theSecretary of the Senate as appro-priate. 11 CFR 104.4(c) and104.5(g).

PACs and party committees mustsimultaneously file copies of reportsand statements with the Secretary ofthe State (or equivalent officer) asfollows5:

• Committees making contributionsor expenditures in connection withHouse and Senate campaigns alsofile in the state in which thecandidate seeks election. Thecommittee is required to file onlythat portion of the report appli-cable to the candidate in that state(e.g., the Summary Page and theschedule showing the contributionor expenditure). 2 U.S.C. §439(a)(2)(B); 11 CFR 108.3.

5 Please see article on the waiver ofstate office filings on page 2.



9

Pre-Election Reporting Dates:2000 Primary and Runoff Elections

Registered/CertifiedState or Territory Election Day Close of Books† Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date‡

Alabama June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25Runoff: June 27 June 7 June 12 June 15

Alaska August 22 August 2 August 7 August 10

American Samoa November 7 October 18 October 23 October 26Runoff: November 21 November 1 November 9 1 November 9

*Arizona September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

Arkansas May 23 May 3 May 8 May 11Runoff: June 13 May 24 May 292 June 1

*California March 7 February 16 February 212 February 24

Colorado August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

*Connecticut September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*Delaware September 9 August 20 August 25 August 28

District of Columbia May 2 April 12 April 17 April 20

*Florida September 5 August 16 August 21 August 24Runoff: October 3 September 13 September 18 September 21

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the lastreport filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurredbefore the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.‡ Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by thefiling date.1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed date falls one day before the primary date.2 Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.


10

Registered/CertifiedState or Territory Election Day Close of Books† Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

Georgia July 18 June 28 July 3 July 6 3

Runoff: August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

Guam September 2 August 13 August 18 August 21

*Hawaii September 23 September 3 September 8 September 11

Idaho May 23 May 3 May 8 May 11

Illinois March 21 March 1 March 6 March 9

*Indiana May 2 April 12 April 17 April 20

Iowa June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

Kansas August 1 July 12 July 17 July 20

Kentucky May 23 May 3 May 8 May 11

Louisiana November 7 October 18 October 23 October 26Runoff: December 9 November 19 November 24 November 27

*Maine June 13 May 24 May 292 June 1

*Maryland March 7 February 16 February 212 February 24

*Massachusetts September 19 August 30 September 42 September 7

*Michigan August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

*Minnesota September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the lastreport filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurredbefore the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.‡ Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by thefiling date.2 Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.3 The July Quarterly report is waived for committees filing the Georgia pre-primary report. See 11 CFR 104.5(a)(1)(iii)(C) and(c)(1)(i)(C).


11


*Mississippi March 14 February 23 February 28 March 2Runoff: April 4 March 15 March 20 March 23

*Missouri August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

*Montana June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

*Nebraska May 9 April 19 April 24 April 27

*Nevada September 5 August 16 August 21 August 24

New Hampshire September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*New Jersey June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

*New Mexico June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

*New York September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

North Carolina May 2 April 12 April 17 April 20Runoff: May 30 May 10 May 15 May 18

*North Dakota June 13 May 24 May 292 June 1

*Ohio March 7 February 16 February 21 February 24

Oklahoma August 22 August 2 August 7 August 10Runoff: September 19 August 30 September 42 September 7

Oregon May 16 April 26 May 1 May 4

*Pennsylvania April 4 March 15 March 20 March 23

Puerto Rico November 14, 1999 October 25, 1999 October 30, 1999 November 2,1999

*Rhode Island September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

South Carolina June 13 May 24 May 292 June 1Runoff: June 27 June 7 June 151 June 15

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the lastreport filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurredbefore the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mail date would fall one day before the primary is held.2 Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.


12


South Dakota June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25Runoff: June 20 May 31 June 81 June 8

*Tennessee August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22 4

*Texas March 14 February 23 February 28 March 2Runoff: April 11 March 22 March 27 March 30

*Utah June 27 June 7 June 12 June 15

*Vermont September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*Virginia June 13 May 24 May 292 June 1

Virgin Islands September 9 August 20 August 25 August 28

*Washington September 19 August 30 September 42 September 7

*West Virginia May 9 April 19 April 24 April 27

*Wisconsin September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*Wyoming August 22 August 2 August 7 August 10

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the lastreport filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurredbefore the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mailing date would fall one day before the primary was held.2 Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.4 Note that the filing date falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended when they fall on nonworking days.


13

A Great Idea in 2000...becomes a requirement in 2001! In the months to come, electronic filing thresholds will be announced.Any committee that exceeds or expects to exceed these thresholds in 2001will be required to file its 2001 reports electronically. While theCommission has not yet determined the thresholds, it is expected thatapproximately two thousand committees will be required to fileelectronically. What does electronic filing mean for your committee? It means startelectronic filing now! Changing or upgrading your software systems andbecoming comfortable with them are easily done over the course of ayear, but not so easily done just a few days or weeks before a filingdeadline. Starting early has the added benefit of minimizing data entry,which saves time and decreases the possibility for errors. If you have questions concerning electronic filing, call 800/424-9530(press 5) or 202/694-1100. To order the FEC’s electronic filing software,go to page 22.

Simon C. Fireman, et al. v.USA

In October 1999, the parties in thiscase signed a settlement agreement,which did not constitute an admissionof liability on the part of either party.

The plaintiffs, Simon C. Firemanand Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc.(Aqua-Leisure), brought this action torecover from the government illegalcampaign contributions they hadmade to the Dole for PresidentCommittee, which had disgorged theillegal contributions to the U.S.Treasury.

In 1996, Mr. Fireman pleadedguilty to making contributions in thenames of others and making excessivecontributions to two 1996 Presidentialcampaign committees of formerSenator Bob Dole. The U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Massachu-setts ordered him to pay a $1 millionfine and sentenced him to one year ofprobation. Upon learning that thecontributions were likely impermis-

sible, Mr. Dole’s primary and compli-ance committees disgorged $69,000 tothe U.S. Treasury.

Mr. Fireman alleged that FECregulations mandate that a contribu-tion that does not appear impermis-sible at the time it is made, but later isfound to be from a prohibited source,be refunded to the contributor within30 days. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(2). Healso alleged that Commission advi-sory opinions concluding that acampaign committee could alsorefund impermissible contributions tothe U.S. Treasury are beyond theCommission’s authority and contraryto its regulations.

On October 26, the USA agreedto settle the matter in full by payingMr. Fireman $69,000. The paymentfully discharges the USA of allclaims and demands made by Mr.Fireman. The parties entered intothe agreement solely for the purposeof settling this action and all dis-putes between the parties involved.The agreement should not be citedor otherwise referred to, in anyproceeding, whether judicial oradministrative.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 99-17C, October 26, 1999.✦

Court Cases(continued from page 4)

• Committees making contributionsor expenditures in connection withPresidential candidates also file inthe states in which the Presidentialcommittee and the donor commit-tee have their headquarters.11 CFR 108.4.

• Committees making independentexpenditures on behalf of Presi-dential candidates (including thosedisclosed in 24-hour notices) filein the state in which the expendi-ture is made. 11 CFR 104.4(c)(1),104.5(g) and 108.2.

Late FilingThe Act does not permit the

Commission to grant extensions offiling deadlines under any circum-stances. Filing late reports couldresult in enforcement action by theCommission.✦

On Appeal?

FEC v. Public Citizen, Inc., et. al.On November 10, 1999, the FEC

appealed this case to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Eleventh Circuit. TheU.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia, Atlanta Division,had ruled in favor of the defendantsagainst the FEC’s claims that PublicCitizen, Inc., and its separate segre-gated fund had violated the Act byfailing to indicate whether a televisionadvertisement and a set of flyers wereauthorized by a candidate or candidatecommittee. See page 2 of the Novem-ber 1999 Record.✦

Federal RegisterFederal Register notices areavailable from the FEC’s PublicRecords Office.

Notice 1999-27General Public PoliticalCommunications Coordinatedwith Candidates;Supplemental Notice of ProposedRulemaking (64 FR 68951,December 9, 1999)

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nov99.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nov99.pdf


14

Commission SeeksComments on General PublicPolitical CommunicationsCoordinated withCandidates

On December 2, the Commissionapproved a Notice of ProposedRulemaking (NPRM) on coordi-nated communications made insupport of or in opposition to clearlyidentified candidates that are paidfor by persons other than candidates,candidates’ authorized committeesand party committees. The Com-mission is also seeking comment onwhether these same rules, or adifferent standard, should apply toexpenditures made by party commit-tees that are coordinated with theparties’ candidates. The last day tosubmit comments on this NPRM isJanuary 24, 2000. The Commissionwill hold a hearing on these pro-posed rules on February 16, 2000, ifsufficient requests to testify arereceived.

The proposed rules, which definethe term “coordinated general publicpolitical communications,” wouldbe located in a new section of theCommission’s rules, 11 CFR100.23. The proposed sectionlargely follows the language of theChristian Coalition decision.1 SeeSeptember 1999 Record, page 4.

DefinitionsThe Commission is proposing to

define the term “general publicpolitical communications”2 toinclude those communications thatare made through a broadcastingstation, including cable television,

newspaper, magazine, outdooradvertising facility, mailing or anyelectronic medium, including theInternet and the World Wide Web.The term would be limited to thosecommunications with an intendedaudience of over one hundredpeople, which would be consistentwith the disclaimer rules at 11 CFR110.11(a)(3). Those rules exemptdirect mailings of one hundredpieces or less from the disclaimerrequirements.

The proposed rules would also belimited to communications thatinclude a “clearly identified candi-date,” as defined in 11 CFR 100.17and 2 U.S.C. §431(17). Thus, theywould include instances where thecandidate’s name, nickname,photograph or drawing appears, orwhere the identity of the candidateis otherwise apparent through anunambiguous reference such as “thePresident,” “your Congressman,” or“the incumbent,” or through anunambiguous reference to his or herstatus as a candidate such as “theDemocratic Presidential nominee”or “the Republican candidate forSenate in the State of Georgia.”

Coordination StandardProposed paragraph 11 CFR

100.23(c) contains the text of thecoordination standard. The Com-mission is seeking comments onalternative language at two places inthis paragraph.

Introduction: Alternatives 1-Aand 1-B. Under Alternative 1-A, acommunication would be consideredto be coordinated if the communica-tion was paid for by persons otherthan the candidate, the candidate’sauthorized committee, or a partycommittee, and was created, pro-duced or distributed in accordancewith the provisions discussed below.

Alternative 1-B would includethe additional qualification that, tobe considered coordinated with acandidate or party committee, thecommunication would have to bedistributed primarily in the geo-

graphic area in which the candidatewas running. Alternative 1-B wouldalso ensure that, when the costs ofnational legislative campaigns thatrefer to clearly identified candidatesare endorsed by or designed by oneor more of the named candidates,the communication would not beconsidered expenditures on behalfof those candidates’ campaigns. Forexample, under Alternative 1-B,expenditures made in connectionwith a national campaign to supportthe so-called “Shays-Meehan”campaign finance legislation wouldnot be considered contributions toRepresentatives Shays or Meehan,even if the group distributing theadvertisement had consulted withthem to design the campaign andhad referred to it as the “Shays-Meehan bill” in the advertising.

One potential concern with thegeographic limitation languageproposed in Alternative 1-B is thatin many parts of the country themedia market may cover severaladjacent states. Thus, politicaladvertisements broadcast from astation in these areas may not be“distributed primarily in the geo-graphic area in which [a] candidate[is] running.” For example, televi-sion and radio advertisements madein connection with New Hampshireelections are aired over Bostonbroadcast media because there is noother major city from which to airthese broadcasts. Such broadcastswould not be considered coordi-nated under Alternative 1-B.

The net effect of Alternative 1-Bwould also be to exclude from thedefinition communications in whicha candidate in one state solicitsfunds on behalf of a candidate inanother, as long as contributors wereasked to send their contributionsdirectly to the candidate on whosebehalf the solicitations were made.Similarly, Alternative 1-B wouldnot cover an outside organization’ssolicitations on behalf of a candidateif these were made primarily outsidethe geographic area in which the

Regulations

1 FEC v. The Christian Coalition, 52F.Supp.2d 45, 85 (D.D.C. 1999)2 The Commission proposes using thisphrase in place of the term “expressiveexpenditure,” which the court used inthe Christian Coalition decision.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/sept99.pdf


15

candidate was running, and if theoutside organization did not collectand forward the contributions to thecandidate.

Communications Suggested orRequested by Campaign or Party:Alternatives 2-A and 2-B. TheCommission is also seeking com-ment on two alternatives of aprovision to be located in 11 CFR100.23(c)(1), which addressescommunications made at the requestor suggestion of a candidate orcampaign. Alternative 2-A wouldstate that coordination occurredwhen a communication was cre-ated, produced or distributed at therequest or suggestion of, or whenauthorized by, a candidate, acandidate’s authorized committee, aparty committee or the agent of anyof the foregoing. Alternative 2-Bwould limit such coordination toonly those instances where, inaddition to the foregoing, the partiesdiscussed the content, timing,location, mode, intended audience,volume of distribution or frequencyof placement of that communica-tion, the result of which was col-laboration or agreement between thecampaign and the person paying forthe communication.

Communications Controlled bythe Campaign or Party. Proposed11 CFR 100.23(c)(2) would treatcommunications as coordinatedafter the candidate or thecandidate’s agent, or a party com-mittee or its agent, exercised controlor decision-making authority overthe content, timing, location, mode,intended audience, volume ofdistribution or frequency of place-ment of the communication.

Substantial Discussion or Nego-tiation. Under proposed 11 CFR100.23(c)(3), a communicationwould be considered coordinated ifit was made after substantial discus-sion or negotiation between thecreator, producer or distributor ofthe communication, or personpaying for the communication, and acandidate, a candidate’s authorized

committee or a party committee,regarding the content, timing,location, mode, intended audience,volume of distribution or frequencyof placement of that communica-tion, the result of which was col-laboration or agreement. It wouldfurther provide that substantialdiscussion or negotiation could beevidenced by one or more meetings,conversations or conferencesregarding the value or importance ofthat communication for a particularelection.

Exception. The proposed rules at11 CFR 100.23(d) would providethat a candidate’s or political party’sresponse to an inquiry regarding itsposition on legislative or publicpolicy issues would not alone makethe communication coordinated.

The proposed rules state at 11CFR 100.23(b) that any generalpublic political communication thatincludes a clearly identified candi-date and is coordinated with thatcandidate, an opposing candidate ora party committee supporting oropposing that candidate is both anexpenditure under 11 CFR 100.8(a)and an in-kind contribution under100.7(a)(1)(iii). As such, it issubject to the contribution limits of2 U.S.C. §441a, and it must bereported as a contribution and anexpenditure, as required at 2 U.S.C.§434.

The NPRM also seeks commentson the application of the proposedrules to two hypothetical situations.

Coordinated Party ExpendituresThe Commission has an ongoing

rulemaking addressing coordinatedparty expenditures, i.e., politicalparty expenditures that are coordi-nated with particular candidates andsubject to the limits set out at 2U.S.C. §441a(d). The details ofthose proposals, which includeseveral alternatives, can be found inthe NPRM published on May 5,1997. 62 Federal Register 24367(May 5, 1997); see page 1 of theJune 1997 Record. That rulemaking

has been on hold because the issuesare involved in ongoing litigation.However, the Commission wel-comes comments on whether thestandard for coordination proposedin this supplemental NPRM shouldbe applied to party expenditures forgeneral public political communica-tions that are coordinated withparticular candidates. If not, whyshould a different standard beapplied to coordinated party expen-ditures, and what should thatdifferent standard be?

The NPRM is available from thePublic Records Office at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120;through the FEC’s Faxline at 202/501-3413 (document 246); and atthe FEC’s Web site—http://www.fec.gov. The notice waspublished in the December 9, 1999,Federal Register (64 FR 68951,December 9, 1999).

All comments should be ad-dressed to Rosemary C. Smith,Assistant General Counsel, andmust be submitted in either writtenor electronic form. Persons wishingto testify at the February 16, 2000,hearing should so indicate in theirwritten or electronic comments.Written comments should be sent tothe Federal Election Commission,999 E Street, N.W., Washington,D.C. 20463. Faxed commentsshould be sent to 202/219-3923,with a printed copy follow-up toinsure legibility. Electronic mailcomments should be sent [email protected]. Commenterssending comments by electronicmail should include their full nameand postal service address within thetext of their comments. Commentsthat do not contain the full name,electronic mail address and postalservice address of the commenterwill not be considered. No oralcomments can be accepted. Thedeadline for comments is January24, 2000.✦

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/%21june97.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/coord99.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/coord99.pdf

mailto: [email protected]


16

Updated List of Federal PACsThe Commission has published

the 1999 edition of PACronyms, alist of the acronyms, abbreviationsand common names of federalpolitical action committees (PACs).

For each PAC listed, the indexprovides the full name of the PAC,its city, state, FEC identificationnumber and, if not identifiable fromthe full name, its connected, spon-soring or affiliated organization.

The index is helpful in identify-ing PACs that are not readilyidentified in their reports andstatements on file with the FEC.

To order a free copy ofPACronyms, call the FEC’s PublicRecords Office at 800/424-9530(press 3) or 202/694-1120.PACronyms is also available ondiskette for $1 and can be accessedfor free under the “Using FECServices” icon at the FEC’s Website—http: www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, describedbelow, may be ordered from thePublic Records Office. Prepaymentis required.

• An alphabetical list of all regis-tered PACs showing each PAC’sidentification number, address,treasurer and connected organiza-tion ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs arrangedby state providing the sameinformation as above ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of organiza-tions that sponsor PACs, showingthe PAC’s name and identificationnumber ($7.50).

The Public Records Office canalso conduct database research tolocate federal political committeeswhen only part of the committeename is known. Call the telephonenumbers above for assistance orvisit the Public Records Office inWashington at 999 E St., N.W.✦

PublicationsCorrections Advisory Opinion 1999-23.The December 1999 Recordincorrectly identified therequester as the AmericanBankers, Inc., PAC. The correctname of the requester was theArkansas Bankers, Inc., PAC.

USA v. Kanchanalak, et al. TheDecember 1999 Record containedan incorrect citation to theFederal Election Campaign Acton page 4, which read 2U.S.C.41e. The cite should haveread 2 U.S.C. §441e.

Waiver of State Office Filings.The December 1999 Recordstated that, “the waiver would notapply to reports filed by thecampaigns for U.S. Senatecandidates and other politicalcommittees that support only U.S.Senate candidates.” Thisstatement requires the followingqualification: The DemocraticSenatorial Campaign Committee(DSCC) and the NationalRepublican Senatorial Committee(NRSC) are exceptions to thisrule. Although they file with theSecretary of the Senate, the FECreceives paper copies of theirreports and subsequently placesthem on its Web site where thepublic can access and duplicatethem. Consequently, the DSCCand the NRSC do not have to filecopies of their reports with the 12states that have qualified for thewaiver.

Public AppearancesJanuary 12, 2000Public Affairs CouncilFort Lauderdale, FloridaGeorge SmaragdisPublic Affairs SpecialistInformation Division

Public Funding for ReformParty Convention

On November 22, the FECcertified the Reform Party 2000Convention Committee as eligible toreceive $2,468,921 in public funds.

Federal election law permits alleligible national committees ofmajor and minor parties to receivepublic funds to pay the official costsof their Presidential nominatingconventions. The National Commit-tee of the Reform Party, USA, andits convention committee qualify asa minor party under the PresidentialElection Campaign Fund Act forpurposes of convention financingand eligibility. A minor party isdefined as a political party whosecandidate for the Presidency in thepreceding Presidential electionreceived more than 5 percent, butless than 25 percent, of the totalpopular votes cast. In the 1996general election, the Reform Partycandidate, Ross Perot, received 8.4percent of the popular vote. Ac-cordingly, the Reform Party isentitled to partial conventionfunding for 2000.

In exchange for public funding ofthe conventions, committees mustagree to certain requirements,including spending limits, the filingof periodic disclosure reports anddetailed audits by the FEC.

The public funding portions ofPresidential elections are financedby the Presidential Election Cam-paign Fund, which receives fundsthrough dollars voluntarily “checkedoff” by taxpayers on federal incometax forms.✦

Public FundingPublic FundingPublic FundingPublic Funding

http://www.fec.gov/pages/pacronym.htm




17

Candidate ConferenceDate: February 10-11, 2000Location: Washington, DC(Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill)Registration: $265

Regional Conference (includescandidate, corporate/labor andparty workshops)Date: March 8-10, 2000Location: Miami, FL(Sheraton Biscayne Bay)Registration: $240

Corporate and LaborConferenceDate: April 6-7, 2000Location: Washington, DC(Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill)Registration: To be determined

Membership and TradeAssociation ConferenceDate: May 16-17, 2000Location: Washington, DC(Hilton Crystal City)Registration: To be determined

FEC Conference Schedule The FEC continues its series of conferences on campaign finance. Seebelow for details. To register for any conference, call Sylvester Managementat 800/246-7277 or send an e-mail to [email protected]. For programinformation, call the FEC’s Information Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1100. A regularly updated schedule for the conferences and a downloadableinvitation/registration form appear at the FEC’s Web site. Go tohttp://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm for the latest information.

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

February 2 Soliciting Funds For • Corporate/Labor/9:30 - 11 a.m. Corporate/Labor/Trade Trade Association

PACs Using Newsletters PAC staffand Web Sites • Lawyers and(Code #200) Consultants to Above

March 1 Reporting Basics for • Corporate/Labor/9:30 - 11 a.m. Corporate/Labor/Trade Trade Association

Association PACs PAC staff(Code #300) • Lawyers and

Consultants to Above

AO 1999-24Web Site Sponsored by LLCFeaturing Information onCandidates

Election Zone LLC (EZone) mayoperate a Web site providing a meansof communication between candidatesand voters on a nonpartisan basis,without making an expenditure.

EZone is a limited liability com-pany (LLC) organized under Colo-rado law and treated as a partnershipfor tax purposes.1 It is “a nonpartisancompany, not affiliated with anypolitical candidate, political party,political action committee or advo-cacy group.” EZone seeks to “expanddemocracy” through the Internet byoperating its Web site,“ElectionZone.com,” which will serveas a channel for communicationbetween voters and candidates.

The ProposalThe key feature of the Web site

will be the “Q & A Zone,” whereviewers submit questions to thecandidates in a selected politicalrace. EZone will transmit thequestions to each of the race’sparticipating candidates for his orher response. Once the question isanswered, EZone will post thequestion and answers on the Website. EZone will screen incomingquestions from voters based on thefollowing criteria:

• Questions must rationally relate tothe selected race;

• Questions may not repeat previ-ously posed questions;

AdvisoryOpinions

1 As an LLC with partnership status forincome tax purposes, EZone may notmake contributions in excess of $1,000per election to a federal candidate. 2U.S.C. §§431(11) and 441a(1)(1)(A);11 CFR 110.1(g)(2) and 110.1(e).


Outreach

FEC Conducts MonthlyRoundtable Sessions

FEC roundtable sessions, limitedto 12 participants per session, focuson a range of topics. See the tablebelow for dates and topics.

Registration is $25 and will beaccepted on a first-come, first-

served basis. Please call the FECbefore registering or sending moneyto be sure that openings remain inthe session of your choice. Prepay-ment is required. The registrationform is available at the FEC’s Website—http://www.fec.gov—andfrom Faxline, the FEC’s automatedfax system (202/501-3413, requestdocument 590). For more informa-tion, call 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1100.✦

mailto: [email protected]

http://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm#Conferences

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/rndtabl.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/rndtabl.pdf


18

• Questions must be addressed to allparticipating candidates in a race;

• Questions may not request thatcandidates offer opinions about theother candidates; and

• Questions must be limited to aspecified length.

If a question does not abide bythese restrictions, the questioner willbe encouraged to resubmit thequestion in accordance with thesecriteria.

With regard to the candidates’responses, they will be limited to aspecified length, and they mustanswer the question that was posed.If a response does not comply withthe restrictions, the candidate will beallowed to re-issue the response, butEZone will not edit a candidate’sresponse on its own.

Candidates will be able to availthemselves of two other features aswell. The first is a “Candidate ChatZone,” where each candidate willhave an equal opportunity to have alive, on-line discussion with his orher voting constituency. The secondfeature is the “On-Line DebateZone,” available for each racecovered by EZone. All participatingcandidates in a race will be invitedto debate, but a debate will beconducted only if two or morecandidates in the particular raceagree to debate.

EZone is considering hyperlinks tocandidate sites through the Q & AZone. If it includes hyperlinks topolitical parties, it will offer the sameopportunity to every political party.

EZone will not charge viewers foruse of the site, nor will it chargecandidates for participation in the site.It will seek and accept sponsorship oradvertising revenues from commercialentities only. The Web site maycontain hyperlinks to the Web sites ofthe sponsors or advertisers.

Legal AnalysisThe Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commissionregulations define expenditures andcontributions to include, in part, anygift or payment of money or any-thing of value “made by any personfor the purpose of influencing anyelection for Federal office.” 2U.S.C. §431(8)(A)(i) and (9)(A)(i);11 CFR 100.7(a)(1) and 100.8(a)(1).In past advisory opinions, theCommission has concluded that thecosts associated with creating andmaintaining a Web site could beconsidered an expenditure or in-kindcontribution, depending upon thecontent of the site and whethercertain exceptions are applicable.Advisory Opinions 1999-25, 1999-7, 1998-22 and 1997-16. At thesame time, however, the Actprovides that the term “expenditure”does not apply to “nonpartisanactivity designed to encourageindividuals to vote or register tovote.” 2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii).

In a recent advisory opinion, theCommission examined an onlineproject known as DemocracyNetwork (DNet), which was createdand sponsored by two 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporations that operated aWeb site containing certain featuresthat were similar to EZone’s pro-posed Web site. AO 1999-25.

In that opinion, the Commissiondetermined, based upon an analysisof the nature of DNet and itssponsors and upon the purposes andfunctions of the Web site, that theactivity was permissible under thenonpartisan activities exceptioncited above.

In this case, although EZone is afor-profit company, not tax exemptunder 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3), itsexpenditures for the proposed Website would similarly be exempt fromthe definition of expenditure, under2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii), based onthe facts and the assumptions madeby the Commission, as discussedbelow. Moreover, the activity

would not be considered a contribu-tion in-kind to any candidate.

Composition and Purpose ofEZone. EZone is not affiliated withany candidate, political party, PACor advocacy group. It has beencreated for the purpose of “expand-ing democracy” by serving as achannel between candidates andvoters on a nonpartisan basis.

Standards for Inviting Candi-dates and Degree of CandidateParticipation. With regard to theproposed Q&A activity between thepublic and candidates, EZone willinvite each ballot-qualified candi-date, other than a Presidentialgeneral election candidate, toparticipate.2 (The limitation withrespect to Presidential candidates inthe general election conforms to thevoter guide regulations at 11 CFR114.4(c)(5)(ii)). EZone will pose thesame questions to all participatingcandidates, and candidate responseswill be subject to the same wordlimits and the same criteria.

With respect to the Chat Zone,the Commission assumes that timewill be apportioned equally tocandidates and that time slots forcandidates’ use of the Chat Zonewill be allotted on a basis thatensures that no candidate is pur-posely given a more active or morepopular time slot than another.

As to the On-line Debate Zone, theCommission assumes that these samecharacteristics will apply to the timeperiod allotted, the scheduled order ofresponse and the time limits onresponses during the candidateexchanges.3 Moreover, if hyperlinks

2 This is the same standard approved inAdvisory Opinion 1999-7, which wasissued to the State of Minnesota.3 Although this exchange is character-ized as a candidate “debate,” thedebate-staging regulations at 11 CFR110.13(a) and 114.4(f) are not appli-cable because the Debate Zone is partof a multifaceted program to presentcandidate views in several differentways.

Advisory Opinions(continued from page 17)


19

to candidates’ Web sites are posted,they will be created for all participat-ing candidates with a Web site.

Audience. The EZone Web sitewill be available for viewing andinteraction by the general public. Noeffort will be made to determine thepolitical party or candidate preferenceof the viewers. See 11 CFR110.8(b)(3). As such, the Web sitewill not encourage participation orvoting by any selected group ofpersons of a particular party or othergroup. Moreover, EZone is applyingobjective standards for participation(e.g., posing questions) by viewers.

Hyperlinks. Each political partywill have an opportunity to post itsWeb site. Moreover, EZone will notseek advertising revenue or otherpayments from political parties,PACs, interest group advocates orother social, political or ideologicalsources. By contrast, it will solicitand accept advertising from com-mercial entities alone.

The EZone site will have commer-cial advertisements and, possibly,hyperlinks to the advertisers’ Websites. If EZone’s Web site activityconforms to the cited nonpartisanexception, the payments for the ads orsponsorship references will not becontributions for the purpose ofinfluencing a federal election.

Coordination Between EZone andCampaigns. EZone will communi-cate with the candidates (or theircampaigns) in order to invite andarrange their participation in thevarious features of the Web site; topose viewers’ or the moderator’squestions to all the candidates; andto inform them when a responsedoes not meet EZone’s criteria andafford them a chance to reformulatetheir responses. The Commissionassumes that those communicationswith the candidates that pertain tothe substance of the candidates’statements (e.g., issue positions)will be made only to ensure that thecandidates “strictly answer thequestion posed.” The Commissionalso assumes that, in engaging in the

proposed communications, EZonewill not discuss the candidate’splans, projects or needs. Underthese facts and assumptions, EZone’scommunications with the candidateswill be limited to those necessary forthe effective operation of the Website. Consequently, EZone’s commu-nication with a campaign will notconstitute acting in cooperation orwith the prior consent of, or inconsultation with, or at the request orsuggestion of, a candidate, his or hercommittee, or his or her agent. See 2U.S.C. §§431(17) and441a(1)(7)(B)(i); 11 CFR 100.16,109.1(a) and (b)(4)(i)(A). As such,EZone’s efforts to provide candidateswith an opportunity to participate inthe Web site would not constitute anin-kind contribution by EZone tothose candidates.

EZone’s Views. EZone itself willnot score or rate the candidates ormake any statements expresslyadvocating the election or defeat of aclearly identified candidate or of thecandidates of a political party.Moreover, EZone will function insuch a way that none of the statementsmade by candidates can be attributedto EZone.

Based on the above discussion ofthe nature of EZone and the Web siteitself, EZone’s proposed activity isexempt from the definition of “expen-diture” at 2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii) andis therefore permissible under theAct.4

Date Issued: November 15, 1999;Length: 8 pages. ✦

4 A Web site does not need to beidentical to the EZone site, either as tothe kinds of information presented or asto the technology used on the Web site,in order to fall within the exception tothe definition of “expenditure” at 2U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii). Although allfactors considered by the Commissionin reaching its decision were relevant,different facts with respect to particularfactors may or may not lead to aconclusion that a Web site’s activitiesare permissible.


AO 1999-29Fundraising Exemption fromState Limits for DirectMailing by PresidentialCommittee

Bill Bradley for President, Inc.(the Committee) must count thecosts incurred for its mass mailingsto addresses in a given state againstthe overall national spending limit,as increased by 20 percent forexempt fundraising expenses.Expenses for a mass mailing sent toaddresses in a given state and mademore than 28 days before a primaryor caucus in that state do not,however, count against the statelimit. Moreover, the 50 percentexemption for fundraising expensesapplies to the actual amount ofexpenditures that are made by theCommittee and allocable to therelevant state’s limit.

Mr. Bradley, a Democraticcandidate for the Presidency, hasagreed to comply with the spendinglimits of the Matching Act and has,accordingly, qualified to receivepublic funds. The Committee plansto send mass mailings to addressesin the state that is scheduled to holdthe first presidential primary orcaucus in January 2000. The mail-ings would be made more than 28days before the date of the primaryor caucus.

Both the Federal Election Cam-paign Act (the Act) and the Match-ing Fund Act place limits on theamount of campaign expendituresthat may be made by publiclyfinanced Presidential candidates. 2U.S.C. §441a(b)(1)(A) and 26U.S.C. §9035(a). The cited provi-sions include both a national (oroverall) expenditure limit, as well aslimits for expenditures “in any onestate.” 2 U.S.C. §441a(b)(1)(A).The Act further provides, however,that costs incurred by a publicly


20

AO 1999-30Application of AllocationRatio in State with SingleHouse Legislature

When using the ballot composi-tion method to calculate the appro-priate allocation of expensesbetween its federal and nonfederalaccount, the Nebraska State Demo-cratic Party (NDP) may take onlyone nonfederal point with respect tothe state legislative office.

The NDP, as a state party com-mittee with separate federal andnonfederal accounts, must allocateits administrative and generic voterdrive costs between those accountsusing the “ballot compositionmethod.” 11 CFR 106.5 and104.10(b)(1). Normally, state partycommittees can avail themselves oftwo nonfederal points, one for eachhouse in a bicameral legislature.See 11 CFR 106.5(d). Unlike everyother state legislature, the Nebraskalegislature consists of only onehouse. The individual members ofthe legislature each hold the officeof State Senator, and one-half of theseats are up for election every twoyears. The NDP has therefore beenusing only one nonfederal pointwith respect to the legislative officerepresented.

The ballot composition methoduses a ratio of federal officesexpected on the ballot to totalfederal and nonfederal officesexpected on the ballot in the nextgeneral election to be held in thestate. This ratio is determined bythe number of categories of federaland nonfederal offices on the ballot.11 CFR 106.5(d)(1)(i). The officesof President, U.S. Senator and U.S.Representative each count as onefederal point, and the offices ofGovernor, State Senator and StateRepresentative each count as onenonfederal point, if these offices areexpected on the ballot in the nextgeneral election. 11 CFR106.5(d)(1)(ii).

funded candidate “in connectionwith the solicitation of contributionson behalf of” that candidate areexcluded from the expenditure limit,but only in an amount equal to 20percent of the expenditure limit. 2U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(vi). Commissionregulations refer to these costs as“exempt fundraising expenses.”

The regulations clarify andinterpret this fundraising exclusion,both generally and in the specificcontext of the state expenditurelimits. 11 CFR 100.8(b)(21)(iii),110.8(c)(2); see 11 CFR106.2(b)(1), 9035(c) and 9035(c)(2).Basically, the regulations providethat a covered Presidential candidateneed not count exempt fundraisingcosts against any state limit, butmust count them against the national(overall) expenditure limit. Thislimit is, however, adjusted upwardsby 20 percent. With respect to thestate limits, the regulations requirethat certain specified categories ofexpenditures be allocated to eachrelevant state limit (e.g., print andbroadcast media expenses, massmailings and other campaignmaterials, overhead expenses forstate and regional campaign offices,special telephone programs, publicopinion polls). 11 CFR 106.2(b)(1),(b)(2)(i)—(v), (b)(3). Exemptfundraising expenses are, however,excepted from all these categories.11 CFR 106.2(b)(1) and 11 CFR110.8(c)(2). Furthermore, as long asa mass mailing is mailed more than28 days before a state’s primaryelection (or convention or caucus),the associated costs qualify asfundraising expenses that are 100percent exempt from the stateexpenditure limit. The costs,however, are still subject to theoverall (or national) expenditurelimit.

Accordingly, the BradleyCommittee’s expenses for massmailings sent to addresses in a given

state more than 28 days prior to aprimary or caucus in that statewould be counted against theaggregate or overall national limit,as increased by 20 percent forexempt fundraising expenses.These expenses would, however, notcount against any state limit.

Similarly, the 50 percent exemp-tion for fundraising expenses appliesto the actual amount of expendituresthat are made by the Committee andare allocable to the relevant state’slimit, as opposed to 50 percent ofthat state’s limit. The followingexample may illustrate the operationof the exemption.

Assume a state has a limit of $1million and that the Committeeproposed to spend $2 million onbroadcast media expenditures thatare required to be allocated to thatstate’s limit. See 11 CFR106.2(b)(2)(i)(B). Assume furtherthat the Committee proposed tospend an additional $3 million for amass mailing that would be sent toaddresses in that state more than 28days before its Presidential primary.Only 50 percent (or $1 million) ofthe allocable broadcast mediaexpenditures would have to beattributed to the state limit. Thiswould also be the result whether thestate limit were greater or less than$1 million. By contrast, the full $3million for the described massmailing would be exemptfundraising expenses and would notneed to be attributed to the statelimit. This $3 million plus the $2million on broadcast media expendi-tures would be attributed to theoverall expenditure limit.

Issued: November 15, 1999;Length: 5 pages.✦



21

1 Methods of Allocation BetweenFederal and Nonfederal Accounts;Payments; Reporting, 55 FederalRegister 26058, 26064 (June 26, 1990).

1 The described payroll deductionprogram may only be utilized bypersonnel who qualify as members ofthe “restricted class” of Oshkosh. 11CFR 114.1(c), (h) and (j). In addition,all contributions made through thepayroll deduction must be voluntary.See 11 CFR 114.1(i), 114.5(a).

Based on the reasons givenbelow, the NDP can count only onepoint for the office of state legisla-tor. First, the concept of using an“average ballot” approach—mentioned in the Explanation andJustification (E & J) for the alloca-tion regulations1—does not providea basis for allowing the NDP to usetwo nonfederal points. In its discus-sion of the addition of a nonfederalpoint for every state and local partycommittee, the E & J notes that theratio “was never anticipated toprecisely reflect all state and localparty activity in all states in allelection cycles.”

Second, Commission regulationsare explicit, allocating one point perstate legislative office on the ballot.

Date Issued: December 2, 1999;Length: 4 pages.✦

AO 1999-31Application of One-ThirdRule to Prizes and PremiumsUsed in Connection withPayroll Deduction

The Oshkosh Truck Corporation(Oshkosh) and its separate segre-gated fund (SSF), the OshkoshTruck Corporation Employees’Political Acton Committee(OTCEPAC), may utilize the one-third rule for the purchase of prizesand premium gifts used in connec-tion with payroll deduction.

Description of PlanPrior to its annual PAC luncheon,

OTCEPAC will announce that itwill give door prizes to employeeswho participate in the payrolldeduction plan during the periodbetween the announcement of the1999 luncheon and the date of the

event .1 The aggregate value of thedoor prizes will be approximately$400. The amount of PAC contri-butions linked to the door prizesawarded at the 1999 luncheon willbe based upon the total payroll-deducted contributions received byOTCEPAC between the date thePAC luncheon is announced and thedate it is held.

OTCEPAC will announce at the1999 luncheon that those whocontribute to the PAC throughpayroll deduction during the 12months between the 1999 and 2000luncheons will be eligible for agrand door prize valued at approxi-mately $2,500. The aggregate valueof door prizes for the 2000 luncheonwill thus be approximately $2,900.

In addition, OTCEPAC willcreate a premium gift program toencourage employees to sign uptheir fellow eligible employees forthe payroll deduction plan. Thevalue of the gift premium will varyaccording to the number of eligibleemployees that the employeesuccessfully encourages to enlist.

Legal AnalysisUnder 2 U.S.C. §441b, corpora-

tions are expressly prohibited frommaking contributions or expendi-tures in connection with any federalelection. However, 2 U.S.C.§441b(b)(2)(C) provides an excep-tion to this prohibition by permittingcorporations to pay for the costsincurred in the establishment,administration and solicitation ofcontributions to a separate segre-gated fund (SSF or PAC). See also11 CFR 114.1(a)(2)(iii). Commis-sion regulations at 114.5(b)(2) (continued on page 22)

2 The Commission developed this ruleto avoid a situation where prizes maybe so numerous or disproportionatelyvaluable in relation to the cost of theraffle tickets that the raffle becomes, ineffect, a money trading situation. SeeFederal Election Commission Regula-tions, Explanation and Justification,House Document No. 95-44, at 107(1977).

permit corporations to utilize a raffleor a prize, so long as state law permitsit and the prize is not disproportion-ately valuable compared to the fundsraised. The regulation further pro-vides that, when using raffles to raisefunds, a reasonable practice to followis for the SSF to reimburse thecorporation for costs that exceed one-third of the money it raises. This isreferred to as the “one-third rule.” Inthis case, door prizes are indistin-guishable from a raffle, and the one-third rule can be utilized as a guide toavoid a money trading situation,2 forboth the small prizes and the grandprize. The length of time in which theindividuals can earn chances to winthe prizes is immaterial.

OTCEPAC should compare thecost of all the prizes to be awardedat the 2000 luncheon with the totalamount of all the contributionsreceived through payroll deductionduring the 12-month period preced-ing it.

OTCEPAC may also use the one-third rule when determining thereimbursement for costs of thepremium gift program. Because thisprogram is linked to Oshkosh’sother efforts to boost participation inits payroll deduction program duringthe period between the 1999 and2000 events, OTCEPAC mayaggregate the costs and resultingcontributions from the premium giftprogram with those of the 2000luncheon, when applying the one-third rule.

Issued: December 2, 1999;Length: 8 pages.✦


22

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1999-38Amending FEC report to elimi-

nate disputed debt amounts errone-ously disclosed on previous reports(Ken Calvert for Congress, Novem-ber 22, 1999)

Alternative Disposition ofAdvisory Opinion RequestAOR 1999-21

The requester withdrew thisrequest for an advisory opinion.Submitted on July 7, the AORsought the Commission’s opinion onthe qualification of an incorporatedmembership organization as afederation of trade associations andwhether its membership categoriesdescribed members for purposes ofthe Federal Election CampaignAct.✦


Do you want to file your FEC reports electronically? The FEC willmail you a copy of the latest version of its free electronic filing soft-ware—FECFile. Mail or fax this form to the address/number below. Or,download the software from the FEC’s web site at http://www.fec.gov.FECFile requires a PC with Windows 95, 98 or NT, and approximately8 MB of free disk space.

FEC Identification Number

Committee Name

Electronic Filing Contact Name

Address: Street 1

Address: Street 2

City

State

Zip Code

Phone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address

Federal Election CommissionData Division—Room 431999 E Street, NWWashington, DC 20463Fax: 202/219-0674

✃FECFile Order Form


23

The first number in each citationrefers to the “number” (month) ofthe 2000 Record issue in which thearticle appeared. The secondnumber, following the colon,indicates the page number in thatissue. For example, “1:4” meansthat the article is in the Januaryissue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions1999-24: Web Site Sponsored by

LLC Featuring Information onCandidates, 1:17

1999-29: Fundraising Exemptionfrom State Limits for DirectMailing by Presidential Commit-tee, 1:19

1999-30: Application of AllocationRatio in State with Single HouseLegislature, 1:20

1999-31: Application of One-ThirdRule to Prizes and PremiumsUsed in Connection with PayrollDeduction, 1:21

Court Cases_____ v. FEC– DSCC, 1:2Other– Fireman v. USA, 1:13– Mariani v. USA, 1:3

RegulationsCoordination, 1:14

ReportsReports due in 2000, 1:5State Filing Waiver, 1:2

Index

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecfile

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate MailPostage and Fees Paid

Federal Election CommissionPermit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper


Documents

Table of Contents A Message from the ChairmanRenato P. Mariani v. USA, et al. On December 15, 1998, Renato P. Mariani filed a civil action under 2 U.S.C. §437h, challenging the constitutionality