compliance commissioners court cases

January 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 1

Table of Contents

Court Case1 McConnell v. FEC

Commissioners1 Message from the Chairman2 Chairman and Vice Chair Elected

Compliance6 Enforcement Disclosure Initiatives7 MUR 5229: Collecting Agent’s

Failure to Transfer Contributions

Reports9 Reports Due in 20049 Kentucky Special Election

Regulations18 Final Rules on Leadership PACs18 Federal Register Notices19 Final Rules on Public Financing of

Presidential Candidates andNominating Conventions

19 Final Rules on Travel on Behalf ofCandidates, Political Committees

20 Advisory Opinions

Public Funding22 Primary Matching Certifications23 Shortfall Not Expected

Election Administration23 Voting Systems Brochures

24 Administrative Fines

25 Alternative Dispute Resolution

Outreach26 Roundtables26 Conferences27 Public Appearances

Compliance Commissioners

Message from the ChairmanOn December 10, 2003, the

Supreme Court, with only minorexceptions, upheld the constitution-ality of the provisions of the Biparti-san Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), thus opening a new era infederal campaign finance law. Asthis era begins, the Commissionremains dedicated to providingcitizens with the information neededto comply with the law, and toeffective and understandableregulation and enforcement.

The Commission has long prideditself on its outreach efforts. In2003, the Commission introduced aweb searchable database of pastenforcement matters, and thatdatabase will be expanded through-out 2004. The Commission willalso update our web site(www.fec.gov) to be easier to use,and to include an easy reference forfrequently asked questions from thepublic. We have scheduled ourusual array of workshops andseminars in locations across thecountry. We will continue toexplain the law through this andother publications (many of whichare available on our web site orthrough Faxline, our automated fax-on-demand system at 202-501-

Court Cases

McConnell v. FECOn December 10, 2003, the

Supreme Court issued a rulingupholding the two principal featuresof the Bipartisan Campaign ReformAct of 2002 (BCRA): the control ofsoft money and the regulation ofelectioneering communications. TheCourt found unconstitutional theBCRA’s ban on contributions fromminors and the so-called “choiceprovision,” which provides that aparty committee cannot make bothcoordinated and independentexpenditures on behalf of a candi-date after that candidate’s generalelection nomination.1 The SupremeCourt’s decision affirmed in partand reversed in part the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia’sdecision in this matter. See the June2003 Record page 1.

BackgroundCongress passed the BCRA in

order to eliminate soft moneydonations to national parties and toensure that electioneering communi-

1 The Court additionally ruled on anumber of other challenges from theplaintiffs, including finding theirchallenge to the so-called Millionaire’sAmendment to be nonjusticiable.

(continued on page 2)


http://www.fec.gov

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2003/jun03.pdf

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

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)

Bradley A. Smith, ChairmanEllen L. Weintraub, Vice ChairDavid M. Mason, CommissionerDanny L. McDonald, CommissionerScott E. Thomas, CommissionerMichael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff DirectorLawrence H. Norton, General Counsel

Published by the Information DivisionGreg J. Scott, Assistant Staff DirectorAmy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

3413), and to answer questionsthrough our toll-free number, 800-424-9530.

In addition to its successful courtdefense of BCRA’s substantiveprovisions, the Commission waspleased that the Supreme Courtrepeatedly cited with approval theCommission’s regulations imple-menting BCRA. Already, theCommission has dealt with numer-ous Requests for Advisory Opinionsinterpreting BCRA, and we willcontinue to provide guidancethrough the advisory opinionprocess in 2004.

The Commission has, in recentyears, undertaken a number ofinitiatives to improve the enforce-ment process. Programs such asAdministrative Fines and Alterna-tive Dispute Resolution have helpedthe Commission handle far morecases than in the past. The Commis-sion enters 2004 in the midst of an

ongoing review of our traditionalenforcement practices. This reviewhas already led to several significantchanges that have been well re-ceived in the community. At thesame time, the Commission hasreduced the average processing timefor Matters Under Review (MURs)by over 25 percent. Total penaltiesassessed and collected, and the totalnumber of large fines, have in-creased dramatically.

The Commission enters the post-BCRA era strong, effective, andwith renewed respect. BCRAprovides a new legal framework forthe Commission, but our goalsremain the same: to provide fair,effective enforcement of the newlaw, and to see that the public hasavailable the information it needs tocomply with that law.

—Bradley A. SmithFEC Chairman

Commissioners(continued from page 1)

New Chairman and ViceChair Elected

On December 18, 2003, theCommission elected Bradley Smithas its Chairman and EllenWeintraub as Vice Chair for 2004.

Before joining the Commission in2000, Chairman Smith was Profes-sor of Law at Capital UniversityLaw School in Columbus, Ohio,where he taught Election Law,Comparative Election Law, Juris-prudence, Law & Economics andCivil Procedure. Prior to joining thefaculty at Capital in 1993, he hadpracticed with the Columbus lawfirm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour &Pease, served as United States ViceConsul in Guayaquil, Ecuador,worked as a consultant in the healthcare field and served as GeneralManager of the Small BusinessAssociation of Michigan—a posi-tion in which his responsibilitiesincluded management of theorganization’s political actioncommittee. Commissioner Smithreceived his B.A. cum laude fromKalamazoo College in Kalamazoo,

Michigan, and his J.D. cum laudefrom Harvard Law School.

Vice Chair Weintraub joined theCommission in 2002 and served asits Chair in 2003. Before joining theCommission, she was Of Counsel atPerkins Coie, LLP, in Washington,DC. There, she counseled clients onfederal and state campaign financelaws, political ethics, nonprofit lawand lobbying regulation. Prior toher work at Perkins Coie, she wasCounsel to the House Committee onStandards of Official Conduct (theEthics Committee). In that capacity,she served as editor-in-chief of theHouse Ethics Manual and as aprincipal contributor to the SenateEthics Manual. CommissionerWeintraub received her B.A. cumlaude from Yale College and herJ.D. from Harvard Law School.✦

—Amy Kort

cations immediately before electionday are financed with regulatedmoney and properly disclosed to thepublic. The BCRA, among otherthings:

• Bans national party committeesfrom raising or spending moneyoutside the limits and prohibitionsof the Federal Election CampaignAct (FECA);

• Limits state and local partycommittees’ use of such funds foractivities affecting federal elec-tions;

• Prohibits solicitations and dona-tions by national, state and localparty committees for §501(c) taxexempt organizations that makeexpenditures in connection withfederal elections and §527 organi-zations that are not federal politicalcommittees or state or local partyor candidates’ committees;

• Prohibits federal candidates andofficeholders from soliciting,receiving, directing, transferring orspending soft money in connection

Court Cases(continued from page 1)

http://www.fec.gov

January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

with federal elections and limitstheir ability to do so in connectionwith state elections;

• Bans state and local candidates andofficers from raising and spendingnonfederal funds for publiccommunications that promote,attack, support or oppose a federalcandidate;

• Defines and regulates “electioneer-ing communications;”

• Implements the party “choiceprovision;”

• Increases the hard money contribu-tion limits;

• Permits even higher contributionlimits for candidates opposed by“millionaires” who use their ownfunds for campaign expenditures;

• Defines coordination with acandidate or party committee; and

• Bans minors from making contri-butions to federal candidates andpolitical party committees.

Most provisions of the BCRAtook effect on November 6, 2002.As soon as the BCRA was enactedin March 2002, however, a numberof parties filed challenges to theconstitutionality of several BCRAprovisions, including those listedabove. These cases were consoli-dated around McConnell v. FEC andheard by a three-judge panel of theU.S. District Court for the Districtof Columbia. On May 2, 2003, theDistrict Court determined thatcertain provisions were constitu-tional, while a number of otherswere unconstitutional ornonjusticiable. The District Courtissued a stay of its ruling on May19, 2003, while the case received anexpedited appellate review by theSupreme Court.

Supreme Court DecisionNational party committees’ use of

soft money. The BCRA bans na-tional party committees and theiragents from soliciting, receiving,directing or spending any funds thatare not subject to the FECA’s limits,prohibitions and reporting require-ments. 2 U.S.C. §§441(a)(1) and (2).

The Court found that this provisiondid not violate the Constitutionbecause the governmental interest in“preventing the actual or apparentcorruption of federal candidates andofficeholders” was sufficientlyimportant to justify contributionlimits. The Court noted that the“record is replete with examples ofnational party committees’ peddlingaccess to federal candidates andofficeholders in exchange for largesoft-money donations.” The Courtwas also not persuaded by theplaintiffs’ argument that thisprovision unconstitutionally inter-feres with national party commit-tees’ ability to associate with stateand local committees. The Courtfound that nothing on the face of theprovision “prohibits national partyofficers from sitting down with stateand local party committees orcandidates to plan and advise how toraise and spend soft money, so longas the national officers do notpersonally spend, receive, direct, orsolicit soft money.”

State and local party committees’use of soft money. The Court alsoupheld the BCRA’s limits on stateand local party committees’ use ofsoft money for activities affectingfederal elections, finding that thisprovision was closely drawn tomatch the governmental interest ofpreventing corruption and theappearance of corruption. 2 U.S.C.§441i(b). This provision of theBCRA provides that state and localparty committees cannot usenonfederal funds to finance “federalelection activity” (FEA), which isdefined as:1. Voter registration activity during

the 120 days before an election;2. Voter identification, get-out-the-

vote and generic campaignactivity “conducted in connec-tion with an election in which a[federal] candidate. . . appears onthe ballot;”

3. A public communication thatrefers to a clearly identifiedfederal candidate and promotes,

attacks, supports or opposes thatcandidate; and

4. The services of a state committeeemployee who spends more than25 percent of his or her compen-sated time on activities inconnection with a federal elec-tion.

Instead, party committees mustfinance these activities with federalfunds or, in some cases, they mayfinance them with a combination offederal and Levin funds, which are anew category of funds defined in theBCRA.2 The Court found thatCongress had “concluded from therecord that soft money’s corruptinginfluence insinuates itself into thepolitical process not only throughnational party committees, but alsothrough state committees, whichfunction as an alternate avenue forprecisely the same corruptingforces.” The Court concluded thatpreventing “corrupting activity fromshifting wholesale to state commit-tees and thereby eviscerating theFECA clearly qualifies as animportant governmental interest.”

2 The limitations, restrictions andreporting requirements for raisingLevin funds differ from those for raisingfederal funds. See 11 CFR 300.31 and300.32(a)(4). Each state, district andlocal party committee has a separateLevin fund donation limit, and suchcommittees are not considered to beaffiliated for the purposes of determin-ing Levin fund donation limits. Levinfunds spent by a given state or localparty committee must be raised solelyby that particular committee, and thesecommittees cannot raise Levin fundsthrough joint fundraising efforts oraccept transfers of Levin funds fromother committees. Additionally, thesecommittees cannot accept or use asLevin funds any funds that come from,or in the name of, a national partycommittee, federal candidate or federalofficeholder. 11 CFR 300.31 and300.34(b). For more information, seethe April 2003 Record page 5, and theSeptember 2003 Record, page 1.


http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2003/apr03.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2003/sep03.pdf


4

The Court further determined thatthe fact that FEA captures someactivities that affect campaigns fornonfederal office is not sufficient torender the provision unconstitution-ally overbroad. Activities that areconsidered FEA under the BCRAwere also covered by the pre-BCRAallocation rules, and the Courtconcluded that “[a]s a practicalmatter, BCRA merely codifies theFEC’s allocation regime principleswhile justifiably adjusting theapplicable formulas in order torestore the efficacy of FECA’slongstanding restriction on contribu-tions to state and local committeesfor the purpose of influencingfederal elections.” The Courtdetermined that the first two typesof FEA listed above substantiallybenefit federal candidates byencouraging like-minded voters togo to the polls. The third type ofFEA, involving public communica-tions that support or oppose afederal candidate, directly affectsthe election in which the candidateis running, and the regulation offunds used for these communica-tions is “closely drawn to theanticorruption interest it is intendedto address.” Similarly, the finalFEA, regarding the payment ofparty committee staff, is justified byCongress’ interest in preventingcircumvention of the law.

Moreover, the Court found theLevin amendment to be constitu-tional insofar as the associationalburdens created by its restrictions ontransfers of Levin funds betweenparty committees are far outweighedby the need to prevent the circum-vention of the overall scheme.Additionally, the Court determinedthat evidence suggesting that theLevin fund restrictions mightprevent parties from amassing thefunds needed to make themselvesheard was merely speculative.

Party solicitations for anddonations to §501(c) and §527

organizations. The BCRA bansnational, state and local partycommittees and their agents fromsoliciting funds for or making ordirecting donations to:

• §501(c) tax-exempt organizationsthat make expenditures in connec-tion with federal elections; and

• §527 organizations, unless they arefederal political committees orstate or local party or candidatecommittees. 2 U.S.C. §441i(d).

The Court found the restrictionon solicitations to be a validanticircumvention measure: “Absentthis provision, national, state, andlocal party committees would havesignificant incentives to mobilizetheir formidable fundraising appara-tuses, including the peddling ofaccess to federal officeholders, intothe service of like-minded tax-exempt organizations that conductactivities benefiting their candi-dates.” The Court also found thatthe restrictions on donations werenot unconstitutionally overbroad solong as the prohibition was notconstrued to prevent party commit-tees from donating funds alreadyraised in compliance with theFECA.

Federal candidates and office-holders. The BCRA additionallybars federal candidates and office-holders from soliciting, receiving,directing, transferring or spendingsoft money in connection withfederal elections, and it limits theirability to do so for state and localelections. 2 U.S.C. §§441i(e)(1)(A)and (B). The Court found that theserestrictions were closely drawn toprevent the corruption or theappearance of corruption of federalcandidates and officeholders whileat the same time accommodatingthese individuals’ speech andassociational rights.

State and local candidates andofficeholders. The BCRA bars stateand local candidates and officehold-ers from raising or spendingnonfederal funds to pay for public

communications that promote orattack federal candidates. 2 U.S.C.§442i(f). The Court found this to bea valid anticircumvention measurebecause, rather than limiting theamounts the state candidate/office-holder can spend, it merely placesrestrictions on the contributions thatthey can draw on to fund communi-cations that directly affect federalelections. Moreover, by regulatingonly public communications, theprovision “focuses narrowly onthose soft-money donations with thegreatest potential to corrupt or giverise to the appearance of corruptionof federal candidates and officehold-ers.”

Electioneering communications.In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1(1976), the Supreme Court con-strued the FECA’s disclosurerequirements for certain entities’independent expenditures as limitedto communications expresslyadvocating the election or defeat ofa clearly identified federal candi-date. However, the BCRA defines anew category of communication—“electioneering communications”—that encompasses any broadcast,cable or satellite communicationthat clearly identifies a federalcandidate, airs within 30 days of afederal primary or 60 days of afederal general election and istargeted to the relevant electorate. 2U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i). The BCRArequires persons who fund election-eering communications to disclosethe source of the funds in certaincircumstances and bars the use ofcorporate and union moneys to fundthe communications.

The plaintiffs argued that Buckleyv. Valeo drew a constitutionallymandated line between expressadvocacy, which contains “magicwords” such as “vote for” or “voteagainst,” and issue advocacy. TheCourt, however, found that theexpress advocacy restriction is not aconstitutional command: “Both theconcept of express advocacy and theclass of magic words were born of



5

an effort to avoid constitutionalproblems of vagueness and over-breadth in the statute before theBuckley Court.” The Court foundthat the components of the defini-tion of electioneering communica-tion are objective and easilyunderstood and, thus, “the vague-ness objection that persuaded theBuckley Court to limit FECA’sreach to express advocacy is inappo-site here.”

The Court upheld the restrictionson the use of corporate or uniontreasury funds to finance election-eering communications. Corpora-tions and unions may still financesuch communications through theirseparate segregated funds, and thusthe provision does not result in anoutright ban on expression. TheCourt rejected the plaintiffs’ claimsthat arguments in support of thelongstanding ban on express advo-cacy communications financed bycorporations and unions cannot beapplied to the larger quantity ofspeech captured in the definition ofelectioneering communication. TheCourt found instead that “issue adsbroadcast during the 30- and 60-dayperiods preceding federal primaryand general elections are the func-tional equivalent of express advo-cacy.” The Court further explainedthat the “justifications for regulatingexpress advocacy apply equally tothose ads if they have an election-eering purpose, which the vastmajority do.”

The Court also upheld theBCRA’s requirement for the disclo-sure of the names of persons whocontributed $1,000 or more to theindividual or group paying for thecommunication, finding that “theevidence here did not establish therequisite reasonable probability ofharm to any plaintiff group or itsmembers resulting from compelleddisclosure.” The Court was also notpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ argu-ments against the requirement todisclose executory contracts forcommunications that have not yet

aired.3 The Court determined that theprobability that harm might resultfrom requiring such disclosure wasoutweighed by the public’s interestin obtaining full disclosure prior tothe election.

“Choice provision.” The Courtfound that the BCRA’s provisionrequiring political parties to choosebetween coordinated and indepen-dent expenditures on behalf of acandidate once he or she receivesthe party’s nomination places anunconstitutional burden on theparties’ right to make unlimitedindependent expenditures. 2 U.S.C.§441a(d)(4). The Court explainedthat “[a]lthough the category ofburdened speech is limited toindependent expenditures forexpress advocacy—and therefore isrelatively small—it plainly isentitled to First Amendment protec-tion. . . . The fact that the provisionis cast as a choice rather than anoutright prohibition on independentexpenditures does not make itconstitutional.”4

3 The Court made a similar determina-tion in response to the plaintiffs’challenge of the BCRA’s requirementfor the disclosure of certain executorycontracts for independent expenditures.2 U.S.C. §434.

4 The Court also voiced concerns aboutthe fact that for the purposes of thechoice provision all political commit-tees established and maintained by anational party and all committeesestablished and maintained by a stateparty are considered a single commit-tee. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d)(4)(B). The Courtdetermined that as a result “it simply isnot the case that each party committeecan make a voluntary and independentchoice between exercising its right toengage in independent advocacy andtaking advantage of the increased limitson coordinated spending under§§315(d)(1)-(3). Instead, the decisionresides solely in the hands of the firstmover, such that a local party commit-tee can bind both state and nationalparties to its chosen spending option.”

BCRA on the FEC’sWeb Site The Commission has a sectionon its web site (www.fec.gov)devoted to the BipartisanCampaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA).The page provides links to:• The Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended by the BCRA;• Summaries of major BCRA- related changes to the federal campaign finance law;• Summaries of litigation involving challenges to the new law;• Federal Register notices announcing new and revised Commission regulations that implement the BCRA;• BCRA-related advisory opinions; and• Information on educational outreach offered by the Commission, including upcoming Roundtable sessions and the Commission’s 2004 conference schedule. The section also allowsindividuals to view theCommission’s calendar forrulemakings, including dates forthe Notices of ProposedRulemaking, public hearings,final rules and effective dates forregulations concerning:• Soft money;• Electioneering Communications;• Contribution Limitations and Prohibitions;• Coordinated and Independent Expenditures;• The Millionaires’ Amendment;• Consolidated Reporting rules; and• Other provisions of the BCRA. The BCRA section of the website will be continuously updated.Visit www.fec.gov and click onthe BCRA icon.


http://www.fec.gov

http://www.fec.gov


6

Compliance

Enforcement DisclosureInitiatives

As part of a continuing effort toimprove the public’s access to andunderstanding of FEC complianceactions, the Commission recentlyimplemented several disclosureinitiatives, including the launch of anew searchable database and theapproval of an interim policyregarding the placement of docu-ments from closed enforcementcases on the public record. Togetherthese initiatives represent an effortto improve the transparency of

Coordination. The BCRAextended the FECA’s coordinationrules governing expenditurescoordinated with a candidate tothose coordinated with a partycommittee and directed the Com-mission to promulgate rules that didnot require “agreement or formalcollaboration” in order to establishcoordination. 2 U.S.C.§441a(a)(7)(B)(ii). The Court foundthis provision to be constitutional,noting that the absence of anagreement requirement does notrender the provision unconstitution-ally vague and that the plaintiffs hadprovided no evidence to suggest thatthis definition of coordination haschilled political speech.

Contributions from minors. TheCourt found the BCRA’s ban onpolitical contributions from indi-viduals under 18 years old unconsti-tutional because it violates the FirstAmendment rights of minors.

Additional InformationThe complete text of the Supreme

Court’s ruling in this case is avail-able on the FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/litigation.htm.✦

—Amy Kort


Commission actions by raisingenforcement disclosure to the samehigh level the Commission hassought for campaign finance reportsand other public information.

Enforcement Query SystemOn December 11, 2003, FEC

Staff Director James Pehrkonunveiled the agency’s new Enforce-ment Query System (EQS), a web-based search tool that allows usersto find and examine public docu-ments regarding closed Commissionenforcement matters. Using currentscanning, optical character recogni-tion and text search technologies,the system permits intuitive andflexible searches of case documentsand other materials. Previously,these documents were available onlyat the Commission’s offices inWashington, and only on paper ormicrofilm. Users of the system cansearch for specific words or phrasesfrom the text of all public casedocuments. They can also identifysingle matters under review (MURs)or groups of cases by searchingadditional identifying informationabout cases prepared as part of theCase Management System. Includedamong these criteria are case namesand numbers, complainants andrespondents, timeframes, disposi-tions, legal issues and penaltyamounts. The Enforcement QuerySystem may be accessed on theCommission’s web site atwww.fec.gov.

Currently the EQS containscomplete public case files for allMURs closed since January 1, 2002.In addition to adding all casesclosed subsequently, staff is work-ing to add cases closed prior to2002. All MURs closed in 2001will be included in the system byJuly 2004, and cases closed in 2000will be available by the end of 2004.Other FEC compliance actions(Alternative Dispute Resolutioncases and Administrative Fines) willalso be included in the system at alater date.

Press Release PolicyIn addition, the Commission has

approved an expanded structure fornews releases regarding completedenforcement actions. The newstructure adds explanatory materialto provide a more complete descrip-tion of the statutory framework ofthe allegations and the resolution ofthe matter.

Disclosure PolicyOn December 11, the Commis-

sion also approved a Statement ofPolicy Regarding Disclosure ofClosed Enforcement and RelatedFiles that identifies the categories ofrecords that will be released to thepublic once enforcement cases areclosed. Until 2001, the FEC con-strued the “confidentiality provi-sion” of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act (2 U.S.C.437g(a)(12)(A)) regarding enforce-ment matters as ending with thetermination of a case. In AFL-CIOv. FEC, 177 F. Supp. 2d. 48 (D.D.C.2001), however, the district courtdisagreed with this interpretationand, as a result, the Commissionplaced on the public record onlythose documents that reflected theagency’s “final determination” withrespect to enforcement matters. TheCourt of Appeals for the D.C.Circuit affirmed the judgment of thedistrict court but suggested thatsome flexibility in release ofdocuments would be permissible.On December 4, 2003, the Depart-ment of Justice decided not to askthe U.S. Supreme Court to hear thecase.

Consistent with the appeals courtruling, the new FEC policy providesfor the release of additional docu-ments when enforcement cases areclosed. These will include originalcomplaints or internal FEC referralsthat initiate enforcement actions,along with reports and briefs fromthe Office of General Counsel(OGC) and responses to thosereports and briefs by respondents.The Policy Statement is an interim

http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/litigation.htm



http://www.fec.gov


7

MUR 5229: CollectingAgent’s Failure to TransferContributions

The Commission recently enteredinto conciliation agreements withNew York’s Health and HumanService Union 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO1 (1199), two of its separatesegregated funds and ServiceEmployees International UnionPolitical Campaign Committee(SEIU COPE), resulting in $262,500in civil penalties. The conciliationagreements primarily resolveviolations of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act (the Act) stemmingfrom 1199’s failure to transfertimely to its separate segregatedfunds and its international union’sseparate segregated fund politicalcontributions collected from 1199’smembers. This cumulative civilpenalty is the largest ever assessedin an enforcement matter arisingfrom the review of political commit-tee disclosure reports by theCommission’s Reports AnalysisDivision.

1 1199 is also known as Local 1199NY,Service Employees International Unionand frequently known as 1199, theNational Health and Human ServiceEmployees Union.

measure, and the Commissionintends to conduct a rulemaking in2004 to address materials to beplaced on the public record. ThePolicy Statement is available on theCommission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov/agenda/agenda20031211.html#03-100.

Enforcement ProfileIn addition to enhancing its

disclosure programs, the Commis-sioners also recently examined theagency’s “Enforcement Profile,”which reviews the impact of mea-sures taken by the FEC to improvethe focus and speed of processingenforcement actions, including:

• The Enforcement Priority System,implemented in 1993, whichclassifies and prioritizes casesbased on complexity and impor-tance;

• The Administrative Fine programthat removes routine late and non-filing matters from the full en-forcement process; and

• The Alternative Dispute Resolu-tion program that manages mattersthat are “less serious breeches oflaw” but that are not “simple” lateand nonfiler issues.

The Enforcement Profile found,among other things, that:

• The total number of cases closedhas increased substantially since2000;

• The total amounts of fines andpenalties assessed have increasedsteadily and substantially since1999;

• The percentage of cases closedwith substantive action increasedby more than 20 percent during2001-2003 when compared withthe period 1995-2000;

• OGC has reduced the average andmedian number of days required toclose a substantive case by 18percent and 28 percent, respec-tively, even though a greaterproportion of cases have dealt withmore complex issues; and

• A greater number of reportingviolations have been resolved as aresult of the Administrative Fineand ADR programs.

These changes, coupled with newprograms and internal managementcontrols, allow the Commission tofocus its legal resources on morecomplex enforcement matters whileusing administrative processes tohandle less complex matters, which,in turn, speeds the disposition ofcases and the public’s access toinformation about Commissioncompliance matters.✦

—Amy Pike

PACronyms, OtherPAC PublicationsAvailable

The Commission annuallypublishes PACronyms, analphabetical listing of acronyms,abbreviations and common namesof political action committees(PACs). For each PAC listed, the indexprovides the full name of thePAC, its city, state, FECidentification number and, if notidentifiable from the full name,its connected, sponsoring oraffiliated 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’sDisclosure Division at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.PACronyms also is available ondiskette for $1 and can beaccessed free at www.fec.gov/pages/pacronym.htm.Other PAC indexes, describedbelow, may be ordered from theDisclosure Division. Prepaymentis required.• An alphabetical list of all registered PACs showing each PAC’s identification number, address, treasurer and connected organization ($13.25).• A list of registered PACs arranged by state providing the same information as above ($13.25).• An alphabetical list of organizations sponsoring PACs showing the PAC’s name and identification number ($7.50). The Disclosure Division 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., NW.


http://www.fec.gov/agenda/agenda20031211.html#03-100



www.fec.gov/pages/pacronym.htm

www.fec.gov/pages/pacronym.htm


8

BackgroundUnder the Act, a labor organiza-

tion may not make contributions orexpenditures in connection withfederal elections. However, it mayestablish and administer an SSF andsolicit contributions to the SSF fromthe union’s members and theirfamilies. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)(c).The SSF may only accept funds thatare within the Act’s limit andprohibitions, and these funds maynot be commingled with union duesand assessments. 11 CFR 102.5(a).

The union may also support itsSSF by acting as a “collectingagent.” Under Commission regula-tions, a collecting agent is anorganization or committee thatcollects and transmits contributionsto an SSF to which the collectingagent is related. See 11 CFR102.6(b)(1). Contributions of lessthan $50 must be forwarded to theSSF’s treasurer within 30 days, andcontributions over this amount mustbe forwarded within 10 days alongwith the name and address of thecontributor and the date the contri-bution was received. 11 CFR102.8(b)(1) and (b)(2).

The SSF is responsible forensuring that its collecting agentcomplies with Commission regula-tions and must disclose contribu-tions it receives through a collectingagent, along with its other financialactivity, in its regularly scheduledreports. See 11 CFR 102.6(c)(1).The SSF must also report theidentification of any person whomakes a contribution aggregatingmore than $200 during the calendaryear, together with the date andamount of the contribution. 2 U.S.C.§434(b)(3).2

Conciliation AgreementsOn October 17, 2003, the Com-

mission entered into a conciliationagreement with 1199, two of itsSSFs, Local 1199 Federal PoliticalAction Fund and 1199 ServiceEmployees International UnionFederal Political Action Fund, andthe committees’ treasurers. Accord-ing to the conciliation agreements,between at least January 1997 andSeptember 1999, 1199 collectedapproximately $3.9 million in ageneral bank account and kept largeamounts of unreported contributionsin this account for many months.When 1199’s leadership decided tospend money on a federal activity,the necessary funds were transferredto Local 1199 PAC and usedimmediately to make a contribution.After spending the funds, Local1199 PAC would report a zero cash-on-hand balance. 1199 also trans-ferred contributions from thegeneral fund to other politicalcommittees, including SEIU COPE,after the 30-day transfer windowhad closed. As a result, over $1.9million in contributions were notreported in a timely fashion, and theseparate segregated funds consis-tently understated their availablecash-on-hand in reports filed withthe Commission.

On December 9, 2002, theCommission entered into a concilia-tion agreement—prior to findingprobable cause to believe that theAct had been violated—with SEIUCOPE and its treasurer. Thisagreement settled violations of Actresulting from SEIU COPE’s role inthe transmittal violations by 1199and its separate segregated funds.This agreement remained confiden-tial until the resolution of the relatedaction against 1199 and its separatesegregated funds.

The agreements also settledviolations resulting from 1199’scommingling of union treasuryfunds with the political contribu-tions of its members, 1199’s failureto forward contributor information

to the separate segregated funds forcontributions exceeding $50, theseparate segregated funds’ failure toitemize contributions exceeding the$200 threshold for itemization andother reporting violations made by1199 Service Employees Interna-tional Union Federal PoliticalAction Fund.

Pursuant to these conciliationagreements, SEIU COPE paid$75,000 in civil penalties, and 1199and its SSFs paid $187,500 in civilpenalties. In addition, the respon-dents agreed, among other things, tocease and desist from similarviolations of the Act and to haverepresentatives attend an appropriateFEC training conference.✦

—Amy Kort

2 For a “person” other than a naturalperson, identification means theperson’s full name and address. 2U.S.C.§431(13)(B).

Compliance(continued from page 7)

Campaign GuidesAvailable For each type of committee, aCampaign Guide explains, inclear English, the complexregulations regarding the activityof political committees. It showsreaders, for example, how to fillout FEC reports and illustrateshow the law applies to practicalsituations. The FEC publishes fourCampaign Guides, each for adifferent type of committee, andwe are happy to mail yourcommittee as many copies as youneed, free of charge. Weencourage you to view them onour web site (go to www.fec.gov,then click on “Campaign FinanceLaw Resources” and then scrolldown to “Publications”). If you would like to place anorder for paper copies of theCampaign Guides, please call800-424-9530, press 1, then 3.

http://www.fec.gov


9

Reports Due in 2004This article on filing require-

ments for 2004 is supplemented bythe reporting tables on the followingpages.

It is the responsibility of thecommittee treasurer to file requiredreports on time. To assist treasurers,the Commission sends committeesnotices of upcoming reportingdeadlines. Please note that filingdeadlines are not extended in caseswhere the filing date falls on aweekend or federal holiday. In suchcases, reports filed by first-classmail, overnight delivery or couriermust be received by the Commis-sion on the business day precedingthe filing date. Reports filed elec-tronically must be received by theCommission and pass the validationtest by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time onthe filing date.

Under the Commission’s manda-tory electronic filing regulations,individuals and organizations1 thatreceive contributions or makeexpenditures in excess of $50,000 ina calendar year—or expect to doso—must file all reports and state-ments with the FEC electronically.Electronic filers who instead file onpaper or submit an electronic reportthat does not pass the validation testwill be considered nonfilers andmay be subject to enforcementactions (including administrativefines).

Committees that file with theSecretary of the Senate2 are not

Reports

1 The regulation covers individuals andorganizations required to file reportswith the Commission, including anyperson making an independent expendi-ture. However, these rules do not applyto persons reporting electioneeringcommunications.2 See “Where to File” on page 11.

Kentucky Special Election Reporting The Special General Election to fill the U.S. House seat vacated byRepresentative Ernie Fletcher in the Sixth Congressional District will be heldon February 17, 2004. Committees involved in this election must follow thereporting schedule below, unless they file on a monthly schedule.1 PACs andparty committees that file monthly should continue to file according to theirregular filing schedule. Note that 48-hour notices are required of authorizedcommittees that receive contributions of $1,000 or more between January 29and February 14, 2004. The 60-day electioneering communications period inconnection with this election runs from December 19, 2003, through February17, 2004.2

Committees Involved in the Special General Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. FilingBooks Mail Date Date

Year-End —waived—Pre-General January 28 February 2 February 53

Post-General March 8 March 18 March 184

April Quarterly March 31 April 15 April 15

1 Reports filed electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filingdate. A committee required to file electronically that instead files on paperreporting forms will be considered a nonfiler. Reports filed on paper andsent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date;reports sent by any other means (including reports sent via first class mailand overnight delivery) must be received by the Commission’s close ofbusiness on the filing date.2 Individuals and other groups not registered with the FEC who makeelectioneering communications costing more than $10,000 in the aggregatein the calendar year must disclose this activity to the Commission within 24hours of the distribution of the communication. See 11 CFR 100.29 and104.20. For more information, see the December 2003 Record, page 5.3 Because disclosing financial activity from two different calendar yearswould conflict with the calendar-year aggregation requirements forunauthorized committees, PACs and party committees filing the Pre-General report must file this report on two separate forms. One form shouldcover only 2003 activity and should be labeled as the “Year-End Report.”The other form should cover only 2004 activity and should be labeled as the“Pre-General Report.” Both forms must be filed by February 5, 2004.4 The reporting period for the Post-General election report spans twoelection cycles. For this report only, principal campaign committees shoulduse the Post-Election Detailed Summary Page (FEC Form 3, Pages 5-8)rather than the normal Detailed Summary Page.


http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2003/dec03.pdf


10

subject to the mandatory electronicfiling rules, but are encouraged tofile an unofficial electronic copy oftheir reports with the FEC in orderto speed disclosure. 11 CFR 104.18.

The Commission’s electronicfiling software, FECFile 5, can bedownloaded from the FEC’s website at www.fec.gov (click on theElectronic Filing icon). Filers mayalso use commercial or privately-developed software as long as thesoftware meets the Commission’sformat specifications, which areavailable on the Commission’s website.

Paper forms are available on theFEC’s web site (http://www.fec.gov/reporting.html) andfrom FEC Faxline, the agency’sautomated fax system (202/501-3413). The 2004 Reporting Sched-ule is also available on the FEC’sweb site (http://www.fec.gov/pages/report.htm) and from Faxline(request document 586). For moreinformation on reporting, call theFEC at 800/424-9530 (press 1, then3) or 202/694-1100.

Year-End Reports Covering 2003Activity

All committees must file a 2003year-end report due January 31, 2004.The coverage and reporting dates arefound on page 13.

Reports Covering 2004 ActivityTo find out which reports your

committee must file in 2004, checkthe Guide to 2004 Reporting onpage 12. Then check the tables onpage 13 for reporting dates. Pleasenote that committees active inspecial elections in 2004 may haveto file additional special electionreports, as explained on page 13.

Authorized Committeesof Candidates

House and Senate Candidates.All campaigns that raise or spendmore than $5,000 (and thus trigger

registration and reporting require-ments) must file quarterly reports in2004. Under the Bipartisan Cam-paign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),principal campaign committees mayno longer file on a semiannual basisin non-election years. 2 U.S.C.§434(a)(2)(B). The authorizedcommittees of House and Senatecandidates must also file pre-primary election and pre-generalelection reports before any electionin which the candidate runs in 2004.These committees must also file apost-general election report if thecandidate runs in the generalelection. 11 CFR 104.5(a)(2).

Committees that wish to termi-nate must continue filing reportsuntil notified in writing that theirtermination report has been acceptedby the Commission.

Presidential Candidates. Presi-dential committees active in the2004 race that have receivedcontributions or made expendituresaggregating $100,000 or thatanticipate this level of activity fileon a monthly basis. 11 CFR104.5(b)(1)(i) and (iii). If thecandidate runs in the generalelection, the campaign must file pre-and post-general election reports inlieu of the November and Decembermonthly reports. 11 CFR104.5(b)(1)(i)(C).

Presidential committees active inthe 2004 race with financial activityunder $100,000 file on a quarterlybasis. They must also file pre-primary reports for the primaries inwhich they appear on the ballot andpre- and post-general electionreports if they are candidates in thegeneral election. 11 CFR104.5(b)(1)(ii).

Presidential committees that arenot active in 2004 but are retiringdebts from previous campaigns mayfile on either a monthly or a quar-terly schedule. A Presidentialcommittee wishing to change itsfiling schedule should notify theCommission in writing. 11 CFR104.5(b)(2).

State, District and Local PartyCommittees

State, district and local partycommittees that engage in report-able “federal election activity” mustfile on a monthly schedule. 11 CFR300.36(c)(1). Committees that donot engage in reportable “federalelection activity” may file on aquarterly basis in 2004. 11 CFR104.5(c)(1)(i).

National Party CommitteesUnder the BCRA, national

committees of political parties mustfile on a monthly schedule in allyears. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(4)(B).

Political Action CommitteesPACs (separate segregated funds

and nonconnected committees) thatfiled on a semiannual basis during2003 file on a quarterly basis in2004. Monthly filers continue on themonthly schedule. PACs may changetheir filing schedule, but must firstnotify the Commission in writing.Electronic filers must file thisrequest electronically. A committeemay change its filing frequency onlyonce a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

Pre- and Post-Election ReportsPlease note that in 2004, party

committees and PACs that generallyfile monthly reports file a pre-general election report and a post-general election report in lieu of thereports otherwise due in Novemberand December. Party committeesand PACs that generally file quar-terly reports file:

• A pre-primary election report anda pre-general election report beforeany election in which the commit-tee makes a contribution to or anexpenditure on behalf of a candi-date in that election; and

• A post-general election report.

Waiver of State FilingUnder the Commission’s State

Filing Waiver program, qualifiedstates are relieved of the require-ment to make paper copies of FECreports available to the public. As a

Reports(continued from page 9)

http://www.fec.gov

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

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

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

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


11


result, political committees nolonger have to file copies of theirfederal reports at the state level inmost states.3 Committees in statesnot certified for the waiver mustcontinue to file copies of theirreports with the appropriate stateelection office. The addresses forthe federal offices (FEC and Secre-tary of the Senate) appear in theinstructions for the Summary Pageof FEC Forms 3 and 3X. A list ofstate filing offices is available fromthe Commission. Please note thatthis exemption does not apply tostate filing requirements for thedisclosure of state or local campaignfinances.

Where to FileCommittee treasurers must file

FEC reports with the appropriatefederal office. State filing require-ments also apply to reports filed bythe principal campaign committeesof candidates seeking office inGuam, Montana and Puerto Rico4

and to reports filed by PACs and

3 The Commission has certified that thefollowing states and territories qualifyfor filing waivers: Alabama, Alaska,American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas,California, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,New Mexico, New York, North Caro-lina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennes-see, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington, WestVirginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.Guam, Montana and Puerto Rico arenot currently in the State Filing WaiverProgram.

party committees who support thesecandidates. 2 U.S.C. §439(a)(2)(B).

House Candidate Committees.Principal campaign committees ofHouse candidates file with the FEC.11 CFR 105.1.

Senate Candidate Committees.Principal campaign committees ofSenate candidates file with theSecretary of the Senate. 11 CFR105.2.

Presidential Committees. Princi-pal campaign committees of Presi-dential candidates file with the FEC.11 CFR 105.3.

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). 11 CFR 104.3(f).

PACs and Party Committees.Generally, PACs and party commit-tees file with the FEC. 11 CFR105.4. However, committeessupporting only Senate candidates,and the national Democratic andRepublican Senatorial committees,file with the Secretary of the Senate.11 CFR 105.

Late FilingThe Federal Election Campaign

Act does not permit the Commissionto grant extensions of filing dead-lines under any circumstances.Filing late reports can result inenforcement action by the Commis-sion.

The agency pursues complianceactions against late-filers andnonfilers under the AdministrativeFine program and on a case-by-casebasis. For more information on theAdministrative Fine program, visitthe FEC web site at www.fec.gov/adminfines1.html.

Independent ExpendituresThe BCRA requires political

committees and other persons whomake independent expenditures atany time during the calendar year—

up to and including the 20th daybefore an election—to disclose thisactivity within 48 hours each timethat the expenditures aggregate$10,000 or more. This reportingrequirement is in addition to therequirement to file 24-hour noticesof independent expenditures eachtime that disbursements for indepen-dent expenditures aggregate at orabove $1,000 during the last 20days—up to 24 hours—before anelection. 2 U.S.C. §§434(b), (d) and(g). Political committees must reportindependent expenditures that donot trigger the 48- or 24-hourreporting thresholds on their regu-larly scheduled disclosure reports.Other persons report these expendi-tures once they exceed $250. 11CFR 104.4(b)(1) and 109.10(b).

All individuals, persons andcommittees, including Senate

FEC Accepts CreditCards The Federal ElectionCommission now acceptsAmerican Express, Diners Cluband Discover Cards in addition toVisa and MasterCard. While mostFEC materials are available freeof charge, some campaign financereports and statements, statisticalcompilations, indexes anddirectories require payment.Walk-in visitors and thoseplacing requests by telephonemay use any of the above-listedcredit cards, cash or checks.Individuals and organizationsmay also place funds on depositwith the office to purchase theseitems. Since pre-payment isrequired, using credit cards orfunds placed on deposit can speedthe processing and delivery oforders. For further information,contact the Public Records Officeat 800/424-9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.

4 These requirements also apply to theprincipal campaign committees ofPresidential candidates who makecampaign-related expenditures inGuam, Montana or Puerto Rico. See 11CFR 108.3.

www.fec.gov/adminfines1.html

www.fec.gov/adminfines1.html


12

Guide to 2004 ReportingAll committees must also file a 2003 Year-End Report, due January 31, 2004.

Required Reports

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

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

Presidential Campaigns 2 ✓ ✓ ✓Anticipating Activity required only if candidateof at Least $100,000 runs in election

Presidential Campaigns 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓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 Quarterly 3 required only if committee required makes contributions or regardless

expenditures in connection of activity with election during the reporting period 4

1 Category also includes pre-convention and pre-runoff reports.2 Presidential committees that wish to change their filing frequency during 2004 should notify the Commission in writing.3 PACs and party committees that filed on a semiannual basis in 2003 file on a quarterly basis in 2004. 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). National party committees and state and local partycommittees with reportable receipts or disbursements for federal election activity must file on a monthly schedule. 11 CFR300.36(c)(1).4 A reporting period begins with the close of books for the last report filed and ends with the closing date for the applicablereport.


13

2003 Year-End ReportNote: All committees file this report.

Report Period Covered Filing Date 1

Year-End Closing date January 31, 20042

of last reportthrough 12/31/03

2004 Monthly ReportsReport Period Covered Filing Date 1

February January 1-31 February 20March February 1-29 March 202

April March 1-31 April 20May April 1-30 May 20June May 1-31 June 202

July June 1-30 July 20August July 1-31 August 20September August 1-31 September 20October September 1-30 October 20Pre-General 3 October 1-13 October 21Post-General Oct. 14-Nov. 22 December 2Year-End Nov. 23-Dec. 31 January 31, 2005

2004 Quarterly Reports3

Report Close of Books Filing Date 1

1st Quarter March 31 April 152nd Quarter June 30 July 153rd Quarter September 30 October 15Year-End December 31 January 31, 2005

Pre- and Post-Election Reportsfor November 2 General ElectionReport Close of Books Filing Date 1

Pre-General 4 October 13 October 21Post-General November 22 December 2

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 3). 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 weekends or federal holidays.3 Principal campaign committees must also file a pre-primary report if the candidateis running in a primary, and all quarterly filers must file pre-primary reports beforeany primary in which they make a contribution or expenditure on behalf of acandidate in that primary. Primary reporting dates are listed on pages 14-17.4 If sent by registered or certified mail, the pre-general must be postmarked byOctober 18.


committees, must file 24- and 48-hour notices of independent expen-ditures with the Commission. 11CFR 104.4, 109.10, 105.1 and105.2.

Committees Active in SpecialElections

Committees authorized bycandidates running in any 2004special election must file pre- andpost-election reports in addition toregularly scheduled reports. 11 CFR104.5(h). They are also required tocomply with the 48-hour noticerequirement for contributions of$1,000 or more (including loans)received shortly before an election.See 11 CFR 104.5(f).

PACs and party committeessupporting candidates running inspecial elections may also have tofile pre- and post-election reports—unless they file on a monthly basis.11 CFR 104.5(c)(3) and 104.5(h).All PACs are subject to 24-hourreporting of independent expendi-tures made shortly before an elec-tion. See 11 CFR 104.4(b) and (c)and 104.5(g).

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

Electioneering CommunicationsAdditionally, individuals and

other persons who make “election-eering communications”5 thataggregate in excess of $10,000 mustfile disclosure statements with theCommission within 24 hours of

5“Electioneering communications” area new category of communicationunder the BCRA, defined at 11 CFR100.29. For more information, see theNovember 2002 Record, page 3, or visitthe FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/rulemakings/electioneering_communications.htm.


http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2002/nov02.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/rulemakings/electioneering_communications.htm




14

Pre-Election Reporting Dates:2004 Primary and Runoff Elections

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

*Alabama June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20Runoff: June 29 June 9 June 14 June 17

*Alaska August 24 August 4 August 9 August 12

American Samoa November 2 October 13 October 18 October 21Runoff: November 16 October 27 November 41 November 4

*Arizona September 7 August 18 August 23 August 26

*Arkansas May 18 April 28 May 3 May 6Runoff: June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*California March 2 February 11 February 16 2 February 19

*Colorado August 10 July 21 July 26 July 29

*Connecticut August 10 July 21 July 26 July 29

Delaware September 11 August 22 August 27 August 30

District of Columbia September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

*Florida August 31 August 11 August 16 August 19

* States holding 2004 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 mail date would fall one day before the primary is held.2 Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.


15


*Georgia July 20 June 30 July 52 July 8Runoff: August 10 July 21 July 26 July 29

%Guam September 4 August 15 August 20 August 23

*Hawaii September 18 August 29 September 3 September 63

*Idaho May 25 May 5 May 10 May 13

*Illinois March 16 February 25 March 1 March 4

*Indiana May 4 April 14 April 19 April 22

*Iowa June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*Kansas August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22

*Kentucky May 18 April 28 May 3 May 6

*Louisiana August 64 July 17 July 22 July 253

Runoff: December 4 November 14 November 19 November 22

Maine June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*Maryland March 2 February 11 February 16 2 February 19

Massachusetts September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

Michigan August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22

Minnesota September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

* States holding 2004 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.

% This state or territory is not yet part of the State Filing Waiver program.2 Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.3 Notice that this filing deadline falls on a federal holiday. Filing dates are not extended for holidays.4 In AO 2000-29, the Commission determined that the last day to qualify for a position on the general election ballot in Louisi-ana—in this case August 6, 2004—must be considered the primary election date for Louisiana candidates. See 11 CFR100.2(c)(4)(i). Additionally, under state law if no candidate in the November 2 general election receives over 50 percent of thevote, a runoff election will be held on December 4, 2004. If the runoff is held, a pre-runoff report will be due on November 22,2004. The close of books for this report will be November 14, and the mailing date for reports sent by registered or certified mailwill be November 19.


16


Mississippi March 9 February 18 February 23 February 26Runoff: March 30 March 10 March 15 March 18

*Missouri August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22

%Montana June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

Nebraska May 11 April 21 April 26 April 29

*Nevada September 7 August 18 August 23 August 26

*New Hampshire September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

New Jersey June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

New Mexico June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20

*New York September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

*North Carolina May 4 April 14 April 19 April 22Runoff: June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20

*North Dakota June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*Ohio March 2 February 11 February 162 February 19

*Oklahoma July 27 July 7 July 12 July 15Runoff: August 24 August 4 August 9 August 12

*Oregon May 18 April 28 May 3 May 6

*Pennsylvania April 27 April 7 April 12 April 15

%Puerto Rico November 9, 2003 October 20, 2003 October 25, 2003 October 28,2003

Rhode Island September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

*South Carolina June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27Runoff: June 22 June 2 June 10 1 June 10

* States holding 2004 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.

% This state or territory is not yet part of the State Filing Waiver program.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 Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.


17


*South Dakota June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20Runoff: June 15 May 26 May 312 June 3

Tennessee August 5 July 16 July 21 July 244

Texas March 9 February 18 February 23 February 26Runoff: April 13 March 24 March 29 April 1

*Utah June 22 June 2 June 7 June 10

*Vermont September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

Virginia June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

Virgin Islands September 11 August 22 August 27 August 30Runoff: September 25 September 5 September 131 September 13

*Washington September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

West Virginia May 11 April 21 April 26 April 29

*Wisconsin September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

Wyoming August 17 July 28 August 2 August 5

* States holding 2004 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 Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.4 Notice that this filing deadline falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended for weekends.


18

Federal Register

Federal Register notices areavailable from the FEC’s PublicRecords Office, on the FEC website at http://www.fec.gov/register.htm and from the FECfaxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2003-22Final Rules and Explanation andJustification on Leadership PACs(68 FR 67013, December 1,2003).

Notice 2003-23Announcement of Effective Dateand Corrections to PublicFinancing of PresidentialCandidates and NominatingConventions (68 FR 66699,November 28, 2003)

Notice 2003-24Final Rules and Explanation andJustification on Travel on Behalfof Candidates and PoliticalCommittees (68 FR 69583,December 15, 2003)

Regulations

Final Rules on LeadershipPACs

On November 20, 2003, theCommission approved final rules toaddress the relationship between afederal candidate’s authorizedcommittee and entities that areassociated with the federal candidateor officeholder but are not autho-rized committees, often known asleadership PACs. The final rulesstate that authorized committees andleadership PACs will not be consid-ered affiliated. As a result, certaindisbursements by a leadership PACwill be treated as in-kind contribu-tions to the candidate associatedwith it.

BackgroundIn previous advisory opinions and

compliance matters, the Commis-sion examined leadership PACswhose activities were significantlyintertwined with the activities of afederal candidate’s authorizedcommittee. In these circumstances,the Commission could eitherconsider whether the leadershipPAC’s actions made it affiliatedwith the authorized committee, orthe Commission could consider thecommittees unaffiliated and deter-mine whether the leadership PACmade in-kind contributions to theauthorized committee. The Commis-sion declined in many of theseinstances to find that a leadershipPAC was affiliated with a

candidate’s authorized committee,even when it was apparent that thecommittees were controlled by thesame person. See AOs 2003-12,1984-46 and 1978-12 and MURs3740, 2897 and 1870. See also 11CFR 100.5(g).

New RulesNew 11 CFR 100.5(g)(5) clarifies

the relationship between an autho-rized committee and a leadershipPAC by removing the possibilitythat a candidate’s authorizedcommittee can be affiliated with anentity that is not another authorizedcommittee, even if the candidateestablished, financed, maintained orcontrolled that entity.1 Thus, aleadership PAC that provides funds,goods or services to any authorizedcommittee will make a contributionto that committee subject to theFederal Election Campaign Act’s(the Act) contribution limits.2

The new regulation also appliesto entities that are not politicalcommittees. Thus, for example, if afederal officeholder or candidateestablished an entity that was not apolitical committee under the Act,such as a state ballot initiative

committee, the Commission wouldnot examine the transactions be-tween the federal candidate/office-holder and the ballot initiativecommittee to determine whether thatcommittee was affiliated with thecandidate/officeholder’s authorizedcampaign committee. See AO 2003-12. Instead, the Commission wouldconsider whether the ballot initiativecommittee made in-kind contribu-tions to the federal candidate/officeholder.

Statement of OrganizationUnder the Commission’s previ-

ous reporting regulation at 11 CFR102.2(B)(1)(i), a principal campaigncommittee was required to disclosethe names and addresses of any

1 This decision does not affect affiliationbetween an authorized committee and ajoint fundraising committee under 2U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(ii) and 11 CFR102.13(c), nor does it affect the abilityof a national party committee to bedesignated as the principal campaigncommittee for the party’s Presidentialnominee under 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(i)and 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2).

2 The Commission additionally notedthat one complication in any scheme tomake authorized committees andleadership PACs affiliated is that thesetypes of committees are subject todifferent contribution limits and, thus,requiring them to abide by a singecontribution limit would mean choosinga limitation that was is not intended forone of the committees. Consequently, itis logical to view an authorizedcommittee and a leadership PAC asseparate committees.

distribution to the public. Chartsdetailing the electioneering commu-nication periods for Presidentialprimary elections and caucuses andCongressional primary and runoffelections are available on the FECweb site at www. fec.gov/pages/refer.htm. ✦

—Amy Kort


http://www.fec.gov/register.htm


http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/leadership_pacs/fr68n230p67013.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/public_financing/fr68n229p66699.pdf

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/cand_travel/fr68n240p69583.pdf


19

unauthorized committees withwhich it was affiliated. Because thenew rule eliminates the possibilityof such a relationship, the Commis-sion has revised this regulation torequire only that the names andaddresses of affiliated authorizedcommittees be disclosed.

Additional InformationThe full text of the final rules and

their Explanation and Justificationwere published in the December 1,2003, Federal Register (68 FR67013) and are available on the FECweb site at http://www.fec.gov/register.htm, along with the Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking and publiccomments on this rulemaking. Seethe February 2003, Record, page 4.The final rules will take effect onDecember 31, 2003.✦

—Amy Kort

Final Rules on the PublicFinancing of PresidentialCandidates and NominatingConventions Take Effect

The Commission’s new rulesgoverning the public funding ofPresidential campaigns and nomi-nating conventions took effect onNovember 28, 2003. 11 CFR parts9001-9039. See the Federal Regis-ter Announcement of Effective Date(68 FR 66699, November 28, 2003).The revised rules, which the Com-mission approved on July 24, makea number of changes to the treat-ment of publicly funded Presidentialcampaigns and nominating conven-tions, including:

• Applying certain parts of theBipartisan Campaign Reform Actof 2002 (BCRA) to Presidentialnominating conventions;

• Harmonizing the rules governingmunicipal funds and host commit-tees;

• Subjecting municipal funds to thesame disclosure rules as hostcommittees;

• Deleting the requirement that only“local” individuals and “local”

entities may donate to host com-mittees and municipal funds;

• Modifying several provisionsgoverning the General ElectionLegal and Accounting ComplianceFunds (GELAC);

• Limiting the use of public fundsfor winding down costs for pri-mary and general election Presi-dential candidates; and

• Creating a new “shortfall bridgeloan exemption” from a primarycandidate’s overall expenditurelimit.

The full text of the final ruleswere published in the August 8,2003, Federal Register (68 FR47386) and are available on the FECweb site at http://www.fec.gov/register.htm. See the September2003 Record, page 1, for moreinformation.✦

—Amy Kort

Final Rules on Travel onBehalf of Candidates andPolitical Committees

On December 4, 2003, theCommission approved new andrevised rules governing the rates andtiming for payment for travel vianon-commercial means of transpor-tation, such as a corporate jet, onbehalf political committees andcandidates. The new rules establisha uniform valuation scheme forcampaign travel that does notdepend on whether the serviceprovider is a corporation, labororganization, individual, partner-ship, limited liability company orother entity. The final rules apply tofederal candidates, includingpublicly funded Presidential candi-dates, and other individuals travel-ing on behalf of candidates, partycommittees and other politicalcommittees where the travel is inconnection with a federal election.

General RuleNew 11 CFR 100.93(b) sets forth

the general rule for how a person,including a corporation, partnership,

individual or other entity, mayprovide a candidate or politicalcommittee travel on a conveyancethat is not offered for commercialpassenger service.1 Generally, toavoid receiving a contribution, thecandidate’s authorized committeemust pay the service provider2 forall campaign travelers3 traveling onbehalf of that candidate. Likewise,other political committees must paythe service provider for any cam-paign travelers who are traveling ontheir behalf. In the alternative, underthe new rules a candidate or politicalcommittee may choose to receive anin-kind contribution from theservice provider rather than makinga reimbursement, so long as theservice provider may make an in-kind contribution and the amount ofthe contribution does not exceed thelimitations of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act.

1 Campaign travel on airplanes andother conveyances where commercialservice is offered, such as a commercialairline or taxi, must be reimbursed atthe “usual and normal charge” toavoid receiving a contribution. 11 CFR100.52(d).

2 The final rules at 11 CFR100.93(a)(3)(ii) clarify that the “serviceprovider” is the person making theairplane or other conveyance availableto the campaign traveler or otherwiseproviding the transportation to thecampaign traveler. Thus, a serviceprovider may be the owner, a personleasing the airplane or other convey-ance from the owner or another personwith a legal right to offer the use of theairplane or other conveyance to thecampaign traveler.

3 The final rules at 11 CFR100.93(a)(3)(i)(A) define “campaigntraveler” to include any individualtraveling in connection with a federalelection on behalf of a candidate, apolitical party committee or any otherpolitical committee. Members of thenews media are included in the defini-tion of “campaign traveler” when theytravel with a candidate.






http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2003/feb03.pdf










20

Regulations(continued from page 19)

Air TravelThe new rules apply to all

airplanes not licensed by the FAA tooperate for compensation or hire.4

The regulations provide threevaluation methods that apply indifferent situations, requiring:

• The lowest unrestricted and non-discounted first-class airfareavailable for the dates traveled, orwithin seven calendar days, fortravel between two cities withregularly scheduled first-classairline service;5

• The lowest unrestricted and non-discounted coach airfare availablefor the dates traveled, or withinseven calendar days, for travelbetween cities served by regularlyscheduled coach airline service butnot regularly scheduled first-classairline service; and

5 See Advisory Opinion 1999-13 for adiscussion of travel to a city served byfirst-class airline service. In addition,a special provision in 11 CFR100.93(e) permits the use of a first-class airfare rate for travel on agovernment airplane to or from amilitary base.

4 See 14 CFR parts 121, 129, or 135.11 CFR 100.93(a)(1).

• The charter rate for a comparablecommercial airplane of sufficientsize to accommodate all of thecampaign travelers, includingmembers of the news media, andsecurity personnel for travelbetween two cities not served byregularly scheduled first-class orcoach airline service, or betweensuch a city and a different city withregularly scheduled first-class orcoach commercial airline service.

The new rules do not require acampaign traveler to pay in advanceof travel, but they establish a strictdeadline of payment within sevencalendar days of the departure of theflight. For multi-stop travel over aperiod of more than one day, acampaign traveler may elect to payfor separate flights at different timesby calculating the separate seven-day periods for each flight departingon a different day. See new 11 CFR100.93(c).

Other Means of TransportationFor other means of travel not

operated for commercial passengerservice, such as limousines, otherautomobiles, trains, helicopters andbuses, a political committee mustpay the service provider an amountequal to the normal and usual fare orrental charge for a comparablecommercial conveyance that iscapable of accommodating the samenumber of campaign travelers,including any members of the newsmedia, and security personnel.Payment for travel must be madethirty calendar days from the receiptof the invoice, but no more thansixty calendar days following thedate the travel commenced.

Other IssuesIn addition, the new rules specify

the reporting and recordkeepingrequirements for candidates andpolitical committees traveling by airor by other means. The rules alsospecifically address travel ongovernment conveyances and travel

by publicly funded Presidentialcandidates.

Additional InformationThe full text of the final rules and

their Explanation and Justificationwere published in the December 15,2003, Federal Register (68 FR69583) and are available on the FECweb site at http://www.fec.gov/register.htm. Revisions to 11 CFRparts 100, 106, 114 and 9034 takeeffect on January 14, 2004. Theeffective date for revisions to 11CFR 9004 will be published in theFederal Register after the newregulations have been beforeCongress for 30-legislative days.✦

—Amy Kort

Need FEC Materialin a Hurry?

Use FEC Faxline to obtain FECmaterial fast. It operates 24 hoursa day, 7 days a week. Hundredsof FEC documents—reportingforms, brochures, FEC regula-tions—can be faxed almost im-mediately.

Use a touch tone phone to dial202/501-3413 and follow the in-structions. To order a completemenu of Faxline documents, enterdocument number 411 at theprompt.

AdvisoryOpinions

AO 2003-28LLC’s Nonconnected PACMay Become SSF

Horizon Lines Associates GoodGovernment Fund (HLAGGF), anonconnected committee establishedby an LLC owned entirely bycorporations, may name its corpo-rate parent as its connected organi-zation and become a separatesegregated fund (SSF). Alterna-tively, HLAGGF may opt to termi-nate as a nonconnected committeeand be re-established by the corpo-rate parent of the LLC as a new SSFwith the same name. In either case,the LLC may pay the administrativeand solicitation expenses ofHLAGGF and may solicit contribu-tions from the restricted class of itsaffiliates.

BackgroundHorizon Lines is an LLC treated

as a partnership for federal taxpurposes. Through a holdingcompany (Delian Holdings LLC),84.5 percent of the voting interestsof Horizon Lines are owned byCarlyle-Horizon Holdings Corpora-





http://saos.fec.gov/aodocs/2003-28.pdf


21

tion (Carlyle-Horizon). The remain-ing voting interests are owned,through holding companies, by theCSX Corporation. Carlyle-Horizonalso wholly owns a subsidiary,Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico(HLPR). Horizon Lines is thesponsoring organization for afederal nonconnected politicalcommittee, Horizon Lines Associ-ates Good Government Fund(HLAGGF).

Horizon Lines wishes to establishan SSF for which it may pay theadministrative and solicitationexpenses, and for which it maysolicit members of its restrictedclass and its affiliates, includingCarlyle-Horizon and HLPR.

Converting to SSFThe Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commissionregulations provide that politicalcommittees that are established,financed, maintained or controlledby the same corporation, person orgroup of persons are affiliated. 2U.S.C. §441a(a)(5); 11 CFR100.5(g)(2) and 110.3(a)(1)(ii). TheCommission has held that affiliatesmay include partnerships and LLCs.AO 2001-18. Also, the Commissionconsiders organizations with amajority of ownership held by acorporation to be affiliated per sewith the corporation. BecauseCarlyle-Horizon owns, throughDelian Holdings, 84.5 percent of thevoting interests of Horizon Lines,Carlyle-Horizon and Horizon Linesare considered per se affiliated.

In the past, the Commission haspermitted a partnership or LLCowned entirely by corporations andaffiliated with one of the corpora-tions to pay the administrative andsolicitation costs of the partnership’sSSF. In such cases, the Commissionrequired the SSF to list the affiliatedcorporate owners as the connectedorganizations. AO 2001-18. There-fore, HLAGGF may amend itsStatement of Organization toidentify Carlyle-Horizon as its

connected organization. As anaffiliate of Carlyle-Horizon, Hori-zon Lines may pay HLAGGF’sadministrative and solicitationexpenses and may solicit therestricted class of its affiliatedcorporations, including HLPR, forcontributions to HLAGGF.

Alternatively, HLAGGF mayterminate and Carlyle-Horizon (orHorizon Lines) may establish a newSSF. For purposes of the Act andCommission regulations, such anSSF would be indistinguishablefrom the SSF discussed above.Whether the new SSF is establishedby Carlyle-Horizon or by HorizonLines, it must name Carlyle-Horizonas its connected organization, but itmay retain Horizon Lines GoodGovernment Fund as its name.

Date Issued: November 24, 2003;Length: 6 pages.✦

—Gary Mullen

AO 2003-29Transfer of Funds from aNonfederal PAC to a FederalPAC of an IncorporatedMembership Organization

National Fraternal Order ofPolice (NFOP) PAC may receive atransfer of $5,000 from the OhioFOP PAC, an affiliated nonfederalPAC established by one of NFOP’sstate lodges. The Ohio FOP PACmust take steps to ensure that thetransferred funds comply withfederal contribution limits andsolicitation restrictions, and, as aresult of the transfer, it must registerwith the FEC as a federal committeeaffiliated with NFOP PAC.

BackgroundThe National Fraternal Order of

Police (NFOP) is an incorporatedtax-exempt organization undersection 501(c)(8) of the InternalRevenue Code. NFOP has a numberof affiliated state organizations or“lodges.” The Ohio FOP lodge hasa nonfederal political committee(Ohio FOP PAC) from which it

intends to transfer $5,000 to thefederal political committee ofNFOP. The money comprising thetransfer was solicited for the OhioFOP PAC and was not solicited inaccord with federal law.

AffiliationUnder federal law, political

committees that are established,financed, maintained or controlledby the same person or organizationare affiliated. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(5)and 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2). Ohio FOPis a state chapter of NFOP, and thetwo organizations share overlappingmembership, as members of OhioFOP are automatically members ofNFOP. The organizational andmembership overlap of the twoorganizations is sufficient for OhioFOP to be considered a “subsidiary,branch, division, department, orlocal unit” of NFOP. 2 U.S.C.§441a(a)(5) and 11 CFR100.5(g)(2). Since both committeeshave been established by the samemembership organization (NFOP),

Back Issues of theRecord Available onthe Internet

This issue of the Record and allother issues of the Record startingwith January 1996 are availablethrough the Internet as PDF files.Visit the FEC’s World Wide Website at http://www.fec.gov andclick on “What’s New” for thisissue. Click “Campaign FinanceLaw Resources” to see back is-sues. Future Record issues will beposted on the web as well. Youwill need Adobe® Acrobat®Reader software to view the pub-lication. The FEC’s web site hasa link that will take you to Adobe’sweb site, where you can downloadthe latest version of the softwarefor free.


http://www.fec.gov

http://saos.fec.gov/aodocs/2003-29.pdf


22

they are considered affiliated and, assuch, may make unlimited transfersto each other. 11 CFR100.5(g)(3)(iv) and 102.6(a).Accordingly, the Ohio FOP PACmay make unlimited transfers to theNFOP PAC, provided the trans-ferred funds comply with federalcontribution limits and solicitationrestrictions.

Additionally, since a politicalcommittee established by an incor-porated membership organizationqualifies as a separate segregatedfund as soon as it engages in anyfederal activity, the Ohio FOP PACmust register with the FEC within10 days of its transfer to the NFOPPAC.

Upon becoming a politicalcommittee, the Ohio FOP PAC mustexclude any contributions notpermissible under the Act from itscash on hand, which is assumed tobe composed of those contributionsmost recently received. 11 CFR104.12. Any contributions that arenot within the limits and fromsources permitted by federal lawmay not be included in the cash onhand.

Because the Ohio FOP PAC andNFOP PAC would become twoaffiliated federal PACs, they wouldshare the same contribution limitsfor both contributions made andreceived. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(5) and11 CFR 110.3(a)(1). Accordingly,the contributions of any person

included in the $5,000 transfer mustbe aggregated with any contribu-tions previously made to NFOPPAC in the same year.

Notification of ContributorsThe solicitations made by Ohio

FOP PAC were not in accord withfederal law, because contributorswere not informed:

• That their contributions might goto support NFOP PAC;

• Of the political purpose of NFOPPAC; and,

• Of their right to refuse to contrib-ute without reprisal.11 CFR 114.5.

Therefore, prior to transferringfunds to NFOP PAC, the Ohio FOPPAC must send written notificationto the original contributors inform-ing them that the transferred fundswill be used in connection withfederal elections and will be subjectto the limits and prohibitions offederal law. The original contribu-tors must also be informed of thepolitical purpose of NFOP PAC,their right to object to the transfer oftheir contributions without reprisaland the proper method for submit-ting any objections.

After sending the notification,Ohio FOP PAC may either:

• Provide contributors a 30-day timeperiod to submit any objectionsand then transfer the remainingfunds when that period has ex-pired; or

• Make the transfer at any time aftersending the written notificationand then honor any subsequentobjections by having NFOP PACreturn the funds of any objectingcontributors to Ohio FOP PAC.

Date Issued: November 25, 2003;Length: 13 Pages.✦

—Gary Mullen

Advisory Opinions(continued from page 21)

Public Funding

Commission Certifies Clark,Edwards, Gephardt andKucinich for PrimaryMatching Payments

The Commission has certifiedthat Wesley K. Clark, John R.Edwards, Richard A. Gephardt and

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2003-34Permissibility of televised reality

program depicting individualsparticipating in simulated Presiden-tial campaign (Viacom, Inc.,November 6, 2003)

AOR 2003-35Permissibility of a Presidential

candidate, who applied for primarymatching funds and was certifiedeligible, refusing public funds priorto payment date; candidate’sadherence to conditions of publicfunding program; treatment ofcontributions received by such acandidate (Gephardt for President,Inc., November 5, 2003)

AOR 2003-36Federal candidate/officeholders’

participation in fundraising activi-ties for nonfederal committeesupporting gubernatorial candidates(Republican Governors Association,November 24, 2003)

AOR 2003-37Permissibility of fundraising and

political activities by organizationestablished to support the election ofa particular named federal candidate(Americans for a Better Country,December 2, 2003)

AOR 2003-38Federal candidate/officeholder

raising and spending funds inconnection with redistricting andreapportionment activities (Engelfor Congress, December 15, 2003)✦

FECFile Help on Web The manual for the Commis-sion’s FECFile 5 electronic filingsoftware is available on theFEC’s web site. You can down-load a PDF version of the manualat http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/electron.html.

http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/electron.html

http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/electron.html

http://saos.fec.gov/saos/searchao






23

Shortfall Not Expected forJanuary Primary MatchingPayments

Based on the current balance inthe Presidential Election CampaignFund (the Fund), FEC Staff expectthat candidates participating in thepublic funding program will be paidtheir full entitlement on January 2,2004. Under the PresidentialPrimary Matching Payment AccountAct, the federal government willmatch up to $250 of an individual’stotal contributions to an eligible

1 A candidate must establish eligibilityto receive matching payments byraising in excess of $5,000 in each of atleast 20 states (i.e., over $100,000).Only a maximum of $250 per individualapplies toward the $5,000 threshold ineach state.

2 This amount includes deposits made tothe Fund through October 2003.

Presidential primary candidate.1

Presidential candidates may makesubmissions for primary matchingpayments on the first business dayof the month, but no payments maybe made before January 1 of thePresidential election year. TheCommission reviews submissionsand forwards a certification forpayment to the Treasury Depart-ment. Barring a shortfall in theFund, a payment is wired to thecommittee on the first business dayof the next month.

On December 1, 2003, sixPresidential candidates submittedmatching fund requests, whichtotaled over $15 million. Theserequests were the first received fromany candidates for the 2004 electioncycle. The Fund reports a balance of$16.7 million, after setting asidefunds for general election andnational convention payments.2

Thus, all candidates will be paidtheir full entitlement on January 2,2004.

However, a shortfall in the Fundis possible for the February 2004payments. The amount available inFebruary will consist of the balanceremaining after the January pay-ments and deposits made to theFund in November and December2003. If the payment amounts thatthe Commission certifies to theTreasury for the February payoutsexceeds the balance in the Fund, theTreasury will make pro rata pay-ments to the committees on Febru-ary 2. Additional pro rata paymentswill be made in mid-February whenthe January deposits are posted to

Web Access toSenate Candidates’Campaign FinanceReports Senate campaign finance reportsare available to the public on theFEC web site. All Senate reportsreceived after May 15, 2000, arecurrently accessible on the site,and the FEC will make futurereports available within 48 hoursof receiving them.To view these reports, go towww.fec.gov, click on“Campaign Finance Reports andData,” and then select “ViewFinancial Reports.”

Voting System BrochuresThe Commission’s Office of

Election Administration has pro-duced three new brochures onvoting system usability. They aredesigned to meet the needs ofvendors, buyers and electionofficials.

“Developing a User-CenteredVoting System” is written for votingsystem developers and helps themdesign systems that are easier forvoters to use.

“Procuring a User-CenteredVoting System” is for state and localofficials who need a system bestsuited for their constituents’ needs.It helps them to identify thosecharacteristics which make a votingsystem easier to use.

“Usability Testing of VotingSystems” assists both developers

ElectionAdministration

Dennis J. Kucinich are eligible toreceive Presidential primary match-ing payments for their Presidentialprimary committees. 26 U.S.C.§9033(a) and (b); 11 CFR 9033.1and 9033.3.

Under the Presidential PrimaryMatching Payment Account Act, thefederal government will match up to$250 of an individual’s total contri-butions to an eligible Presidentialprimary candidate. A candidatemust establish eligibility to receivematching payments by raising inexcess of $5,000 in each of at least20 states (i.e., over $100,000).Although an individual may contrib-ute up to $2,000 to a primarycandidate, only a maximum of $250per individual applies toward the$5,000 threshold in each state.Candidates who receive matchingpayments must agree to limit theirspending and submit to an audit bythe Commission.

No payments may be made fromthe Matching Payment Accountbefore January 1 of the Presidentialelection year. In December 2003,the Secretary of the Treasurycertified eligible candidates’ fullentitlements based on a review ofthe matching payment submissionsthrough December 1, 2003.✦

—Amy Kort

the Fund. FEC Staff do not antici-pate that any shortfall in the Fundwill last beyond April 2004.✦

—Amy Kort


http://www.fec.gov


24

Committees Fined forNonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recentlypublicized its final action on 64 newAdministrative Fine cases, bringingthe total number of cases released tothe public to 833, with $1,145,184in fines collected by the Commis-sion.

Civil money penalties for latereports are determined by thenumber of days the report was late,the amount of financial activityinvolved and any prior penalties forviolations under the administrativefines regulations. Penalties for latereports—and for reports filed so lateas to be considered nonfiled—arealso determined by the financialactivity for the reporting period andany prior violations. Electionsensitive reports, which includereports and notices filed prior to anelection (i.e., 12 day pre-election,October quarterly and Octobermonthly reports), receive higherpenalties. Penalties for 48-hournotices that are filed late or not at allare determined by the amount of thecontribution(s) not timely reportedand any prior violations.

The committees and the treasur-ers are assessed civil money penal-

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1This civil money penalty has not been collected.2 This penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the report.3The Commission took no further action in this case.

1. Akram for Congress, Inc. $6501

2. American Furniture Manufacturers Association PAC $900 3. Bank of New York Company PAC (BNY PAC)

30 Day Post-General 2002 $1,800 4. Bank of New York Company PAC (BNY PAC)

Year-End 2002 $550 5. Barve for Congress Committee $2,700 6. Bi-County PAC (formerly Suffolk PAC) $1,250 7. Bill Martin Congressional Committee $1,125 8. Bob Herriott for U.S. Congress $5,500 9. Colonial Bancgroup Inc. Federal PAC

(Colonial Fed PAC) $1,00010. Committee to Elect Frank W. Ballance, Jr. $50011. Committee to Elect Ross Moen $1,8001

12. Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBC-PAC) $1,31213. Cozen O’Connor PAC $70014. Cynthia McKinney for Congress $7,05015. Dan Blue Senate Committee $3,50016. Delay for Congress $27517. Dick Armey Campaign Committee $1,75018. Diedrich for Congress $9002

19. Dornan for Congress $82520. Elect Life October Quarterly 2002 ____3

21. Elect Life 30 Day Post-General 2002 ____3

22. Enz for Congress $16123. Florida Rock Industries Inc. Good

Government Committee $90024. Friends of Frank Thomas $32525. Friends of George E. Irvin $31626. Georgia Medical PAC $1,20027. Giordano for United States Senate ____3

28. Heartland PAC (FKA Youngstown) $1,00029. Herseth for Congress $2,90030. International Federation of Professional and

Technical Engineers Legislative EducationAction Program-PAC $1,000

31. Iowans for Jim Leach $27532. IUOE Local 542 Operating Engineers

Political Action Fund $1,12533. Irma Muse Dixon Congressional

Campaign Committee, Inc. $55034. Jay Blossman for U.S. Senate $3,5001,2

35. Jim Tso for Congress $24036. KPMG Partners/Principals & Employees PAC $3,000

AdministrativeFines

Election Administration(continued from page 23)

and election officials in theirevaluation of voting system usabil-ity. It provides guidance on how totest varied systems for ease of use.

Brochures are available throughthe Office of Election Administra-tion, the Information Division or inPDF form on the Commission’s website at http://www.fec.gov/elections.html#usability.✦

—Phillip Deen

http://www.fec.gov/elections.html#usability

http://www.fec.gov/elections.html#usability


25

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed, cont.

1This civil money penalty has not been collected.

37. Libertarian Party of Illinois $7,8751

38. Local 617 COPE Committee $1,80039. Maryland Association for Concerned

Citizens PAC $90040. Max Burns for Congress $5,35041. Mid Manhattan PAC (Mid PAC) $2,00042. National Italian American PAC $3,6001

43. Oz Bengur for Congress $4,20044. Pearce for Congress $3,34845. Philip Lowe for Congress $11,8751

46. Political Action Committee of FocalCommunications Corporation $1,800

47. The Rally for Leadership Fund $1,90048. Republicans for Choice $2,70049. Rhode Island Republican State Central Committee $74350. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., for Congress $2,02551. S C Johnson & Son PAC (SCJPAC) $57552. Sean Mahoney for Congress $53153. St. Louisians for Better Government $1,0001

54. Strickland for Colorado, Inc. $8,65055. Summit PAC $4,10056. Supporters of Engineers Local 3 Endorsed

Candidates (SELEC) $93757. Syed Mahmood for Congress $1,8001

58. TECO Energy Inc. Employees’ PAC $93759. Thelen Reid & Priest PAC $9001

60. United Association of Journeymen &Apprentices/Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry $1,000

61. U.S. Bancorp Political Participation Program $65062. Watts for Congress $4,22563. White & Case PAC $1,0001

64. 15th District Democratic Party $1,8001

AlternativeDisputeResolution

ADR Program UpdateThe Commission recently

resolved four additional cases underthe Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) program. The respondents,the alleged violations of the FederalElection Campaign Act (the Act)and the penalties assessed are listedbelow.

1. The Commission reachedagreement with Friends of DaveRogers, its treasurer ChristianWinthrop and David Rogers con-cerning the committee’s failure tofile 48 hour notices. The respon-dents agreed to pay a $250 civilpenalty and to take steps to termi-nate the committee. (MUR 5326/ADR 120)

2. The Commission closed thecase involving Friends of JoeMarine and its treasurer John Carlinconcerning the committee’s allegedfailure to include required disclaim-ers. The ADR Office recommendedthe case be closed and the Commis-sion agreed to close the file. (MUR5332/ADR 142)

3. The Commission reachedagreement with One HundredWomen Committee and MaryOhsam, its treasurer, regarding thecommittee’s failure to register andreport. The respondents acknowl-edged that they unknowinglyviolated the Act by failing toregister with the Commission aftercontributing more than $1,000 tofederal election campaigns, and theyagreed to pay a $750 civil penaltyand to establish and maintain in thecommittee’s offices a file on FECregulations. (MUR 5310/ADR 129)

4. The Commission closed thecase involving Central MinnesotaAFL-CIO Trades Labor Assembly,

ties when the Commission makes itsfinal determination. Unpaid civilmoney penalties are referred to theDepartment of the Treasury forcollection.

The committees listed in the chartat right, along with their treasurers,were assessed civil money penaltiesunder the administrative finesregulations.

Closed Administrative Fine casefiles are available through the FECPress Office, at 800/424-9530 (press2), and the Public Records Office, at800/424-9530 (press 3).✦

—Amy Kort



26

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

January 14 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon-9:30 - 11 a.m. PACs and Party Committees, sible for filing FECReception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for PACs and11-11:30 a.m. reception Parties (Up to 30 may

(Session number 0401A) attend)

January 14 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon-1:30 - 3 p.m. Candidates and their Committees, sible for filing FECReception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for Candidate3-3:30 p.m. reception Committees (Up to 30

(Session number 0401B) may attend)

Reporting RoundtablesOn January 14, 2004, the Com-

mission will host two roundtablesessions on election year reporting,including new disclosure require-ments under the Bipartisan Cam-paign Reform Act of 2002. The firstsession, for PACs and party com-mittees, will begin at 9:30 a.m. andwill last until 11:00. The secondsession, for candidates and theircommittees, will begin at 1:30 p.m.and last until 3:00. Both sessionswill be followed by a half-hourreception at which each attendeewill have an opportunity to meet thecampaign finance analyst whoreviews his/her committee’s reports.

Conference Schedulefor 2004

Conference for House andSenate Campaigns, PoliticalParty Committees andCorporate/Labor/Trade PACsFebruary 11-12, 2004Tampa, FL

Conference for House andSenate Campaigns and PoliticalParty CommitteesMarch 16-17, 2004Washington, DC

Conference for Corporationsand their PACsApril 22-23, 2004Washington, DC

Conference for TradeAssociations, MembershipOrganizations and their PACsMay 25-26, 2004Boston, MA

Outreach

Granite City Machinists’ andMechanics’ Union Local Lodge 623and Granite City Machinists’ andMechanics’ Union District Lodge165 concerning alleged unioncontributions. The ADR Officerecommended the case be closedand the Commission agreed to closethe file. (MUR 5370/ADR 143)✦

—Amy Kort

Attendance is limited to 30people per session, and registration($25) will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Please callthe FEC before registering orsending money to ensure thatopenings remain. Prepayment isrequired. The registration form isavailable on the FEC’s web site athttp://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm and from Faxline, theFEC’s automated fax system (202/501-3413, request document 590). For moreinformation, call 800/424-9530 (press 1,then 3) or 202/694-1100.✦

—Jim Wilson

Campaign Finance LawTraining Conference inTampa, Florida

The FEC will hold a conferenceFebruary 11-12, 2004, for Houseand Senate campaigns, politicalparty committees and corporations,labor organizations, trade associa-tions, membership organizations andtheir respective PACs. The confer-ence will consist of a series ofworkshops conducted by Commis-sioners and experienced FEC staffwho will explain how the federalcampaign finance law, as amendedby the Bipartisan Campaign ReformAct of 2002 (BCRA), applies toeach of these groups. Workshops

will specifically address rules forfundraising and reporting, and willexplain the new provisions of theBCRA. A representative from theIRS will also be available to answerelection-related tax questions.

The conference will be held at theWyndham Harbour Island Hotel inTampa, Florida. The registration feeis $385, which covers the cost of theconference, materials and meals. A$10 late fee will be assessed forregistration forms received afterJanuary 19.

The Wyndham Harbour Island islocated at 725 South Harbour IslandBoulevard. A room rate of $159 pernight is available for conferenceattendees who make reservations onor before January 19. To makereservations call 813/229-5000 andstate that you are attending the FECconference, or access the Wyndham

Alternative DisputeResolution(continued from page 25)

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


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

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


27

Harbour Island’s reservations webpage via the FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm#Conferences.

RegistrationComplete conference registration

information for this conference isavailable online. Conferenceregistrations will be accepted on afirst-come, first-served basis. FECconferences are selling out quickly,so please register early. For registra-tion information concerning anyFEC conference:

Index

The first number in each citationrefers to the “number” (month) ofthe 2004 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 Opinions2003-28: Nonconnected PAC

established by LLC composedentirely of corporations maybecome an SSF with LLC as itsconnected organization, 1:20

2003-29: Transfer of funds from anonfederal PAC to a federal PACof an incorporated membershiporganization, 1:21

ComplianceADR program cases, 1:25Administrative Fine program cases,

1:24Enforcement Query System, disclo-

sure policy for closed enforce-ment matters and press releasepolicy for closed MURs; “en-forcement profile” examined, 1:6

MUR 5229: Collecting agent’sfailure to transfer contributions,1:7

Court Cases_____ v. FECMcConnell v. FEC, 1:1

RegulationsLeadership PACs, final rules, 1: 18Public financing of Presidential

candidates and nominatingconventions, correction and

Public Appearances

January 7-10, 2004Southern Political ScienceAssociationNew Orleans, LACommissioner Toner

January 12, 2004National PAC ConferenceTampa, FLDorothy Yeager

January 20-21, 2004National Conference for PoliticalInvolvement of ProfessionalsCaptiva Island, FLChairman Smith

January 26, 2004American UniversityWashington, DCChairman Smith

January 29-30, 2004American Conference InstituteWashington, DCChairman SmithCommissioner Toner

January 29-31, 2004Campaign Disclosure ProjectSan Diego, CARobert Biersack

• Call Sylvester ManagementCorporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail [email protected].✦

—Amy Kort

effective date, 1:19Travel on behalf of candidates and

political committees, final rules,1:19

ReportsDue in 2004, 1:9Kentucky special election reporting,

1:9







FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use, $300


PRESORTEDFIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGE PAIDFEC

compliance commissioners court cases

Documents