FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Volume 14, Number 1120463

16 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

15 INDEX

COMPLIANCE13 Summary of MUR 1689

PUBLIC FUNDING16 Matching Funds Approved

COURT CASES12 Common Cause v, FEC (Suit Seven)12 New Litigation

3 ADVISORY OPINIONS

800 LINE7 Election Information from Other Agencies

REGULATIONS1 Hearing on MCFL Rulemaking2 Haley Rulemaking Petition Denied3 Allocation Rules: Hearing Date Changed

continued on p, 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ited corporate or union expenditure is madeunder section 441b of the election law?

The Commission received over 17,000 com­ments in response to its Advance Notice of Pro­posed Rulemaking. Of these, almost all exclu­sively addressed the express advocacy issue whichhad been raised by the National Right to WorkCommittee (NRWC) in a petition for rulernaking,The agency decided to hold a public hearingbecause: (1) the issues raised by the notice aredifficult and complex, warranting thoroughconsideration before the agency drafts proposedrules and (2) the agency would like to receivemore comments on the issues concerning MCFL­type entities.

999 EStreet NW Washington DCNovember 1988

lFor a summary of the Court's decision, seep.4 of the Februnry 1987 Record.

2ln its MCFL decision, the Court said that,wtder a narrow exception to the ban on corporateexpenditures, an incorporated membershiporganization could make independent expendituresif, among other things, the organization: (l) wasformed for the express purpose of promotingpolitical ideas and did not engage in businessactivities, (2) had no shareholders and (3) was notestablished by a corporation or labor organizationand had a policy of not accepting corporate orunion donations.

FEC HOLDS PUBLIC HEARINGON MCFL RULEMAKlNG

On November 16, 1988, the Commission willhold a public hearing on issues outlined in anAdvance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concern­ing possible changes to Parts 109 and 114 of itsregulations. See 53 Fed. Reg. 416. These issuesfocus on what regulatory changes might be appro­priate in light of the Supreme Court's opinion inFEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL),107 S.Ct. 616(1986).1

Persons or organizations wishing to testify atthe hearing should submit such requests in writingto Ms. Susan E. Propper, Assistant GeneralCounsel, by November 2. All witnesses who havenot previously submitted written comments on theproposed rules must also do so by November 2.Ms. Propper may be contacted at: FEC, 999 EStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 or bycalling 376-5690 or, toll free, 800/424-9530.

Issues Raised by MCFL RulemakingThe hearing will focus on several issues:

o How should the Commission determine when anonprofit organization is an MCFL-type enti­ty?2

o What are the appropriate reporting and disclo­sure requirements for an MCFL-type organiza­tion?

o When does an MCFL-type organization becomea political committee?

o Should the Commission adopt an "express advo­cacy" standard for determining when a prohib-

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COIVII\IlISSIOI\J Volume 14, Number 11

continued from p. 1

FEe DENIES HALEY COMMITTEE'SRULEMAKING PETITION

On September 8, 1988, the Commission de­nied a petition for rulemaking submitted by theTed Haley Congressional Committee in November1987. See 53 Fed. Reg. 35829. The Commissionmade its decision on the disposition of thepetition after:o The agency had reviewed and considered public

comments solicited on the petitiom! ando The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

had upheld the Commission's long-standingpolicy that donations made to a candidate toretire the candidate's debts from a previouselection are contributions for that election and,as such, are subject to the election law's limitsand prohibitions on contributions.2 See 11CFR 1l0.I.

The Haley Committee's Rulemaking PetitionIn its rule making petition, the Haley Com­

mittee suggested that the FEC add a subsectionto 11 CFR 110.1, which governs limits on contri­butions to federal candidates and committees.Under the Committee's proposal, a new subsectionwould create a rebuttable presumption that post­election contributions are made for the purpose ofinfluencing a federal election. Under thisproposal, a contributor could demonstrate that apost-election contribution to a candidate was notfor the purpose of influencing that election and,thus, should not be SUbject to the $lJOOO perelection limit.

As a basis for the rulemaking petition, theHaley Committee cited the U.S. District Court'sFebruary 1987 decision in FEC v. Ted Haley,3which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit subsequently reversed.

FEe Action on the PetitionIn January 1988, the FEC published a Notice

of Availability in the Federal Register whichsought comments in support of, or in oppositionto, the rulemaking petition. See 53 Fed. Reg.2500. The agency received three comments onthe petition.

In a memorandum to the Commission recom­mending that it deny the Haley Committee's rule­making petition, the General Counsel noted that a"neither the petitioner nor any of the comments- ..tors in this proceeding have presented evidencesufficient to persuade the Commission to alter itspolicy [that the election law's contribution limitsapply fully to post-election contributions]."4 Inthe Federal < Register statement explaining itsreasons for denying the petition, the Commissionsaid that, if post-election contributions were notsubject to the law's limits, candidates andcontributors could easily circumvent the law'slimits and restrictions. A candidate's campaigncould overspend up to the date of the electionand, after the election, collect donations (notsubject to the law) to retire those debts.

In its Federal Register statement, the Com­mission noted that the appeals court had affirmedthe agency's consistent interpretation of its policyon post-election contributions in FEC advisoryopinions and regulations. In its JUly 1988 decisionin FEC v. Ted Haley, the appeals court concludedthat the policy was "entitled to due deference and[was] to be accepted by the court•••" as a reason­able interpretation of the election law's contribu­tion limits.

IThe FEe published a notice in the FederalRegister annolUlcing the availabili ty of the peti­tion in January 1988. 53 Fed. Reg. 2500.

2The appeals court's decision was summar­ized on p. 7 of the September 1988 Record.

3The district court's decision was summar­ized on p. 6 of the May 1987 Record.

4The Commission noted that one orthe com­mentors had offered an alternate proposal con­cerning post-election contributions to an inactivePresidential candidate who did not plan to cam­paign for the Presidency in the next electioncycle. The agency concluded that this proposaldid not present any more compelling rationale forchanging the FECls policy than did the HaleyCommittee proposal.

The Record is pubhshed by the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N. W., Washington,D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Thomas J. Josefiak, Chairman; Danny L. McDonald, ViceChairman; Joan Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; John Warren McGarry; Scott E. Thomas; Walter ,1.Stewart, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House ofRepresentatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.(TDD For Hearing Impaired 202/376-3136)

2

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMtVlISSION Volume 14, Number 11

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTSThe following chart lists recent advisory

opinion requests (AORs). The full text of eachAOR is available to the public in the Com­mission's Office of Public Records.

ALLOCATION REGULATIONS:HEARING DATE CHANGED

The Commission has changed the date ofhearings on allocation of committee expensesfrom December 14 to December 15, 1988. Writ­ten comments and requests to appear at thehearing must be submitted by November 30, 1988.The hearing will focus on proposed revisions toFEC rules on the allocation of spending between apolitical committee's federal and nonfederal ac­counts.I

Written comments on the proposed revisionsshould be submitted to Ms. Susan E. Propper,Assistant General CounseL For more informa­tion, Ms. Propper may be contacted by writing theFEC, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463or by calling 202/376-5690 or toll-free 800/424­9530.

Copies of the Federal Register notice con­cerning proposed revisions to these regulationsare available from the FEC's Public Records Of­fice. To obtain copies, call 202/376-3140 or to11­free 800/424-9530. (See 53 Fed. Reg. 38012.)

AOR1988-43

1988-44

1988-45

SubjectAffiliation between PACs establishedby state "components" of nationalmembership organization with noPAC. (Date made public: September15, 1988; Length: 4 pages)

Termination of 1982 candidate com­mittee with unpaid debts; applicationof state statute of limitations govern­ing creditors' claims. (Date made pUb­lic: September 16, 1988; Length: 2pages, plus 7-page supplement)

Status of political committee as par­ty's national committee. (Date madepublic: October 3, 1988; Length: 2pages, plus 67-page supplement)

ALTERNATE DISPOSITIONOF ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

AOR 1988-30: Company's Publication of PACInformation Article inEmployee Newsletter

In a letter of August 12, 1988, the GeneralCounsel notified the requester that theCom missioners failed to approve an advisoryopinion by the required four-vote majority.

AOR 1988-34: Solicitability of MembershipOrganization's Individual Members

The requester withdrew the request in a letter ofSeptember 21, 1988.

AOR 1988-35: Presidential Candidates' ViewsPresented in Corporation'sNewsletter

The requester withdrew the request in a letter ofSeptember 14, 1988.

e IThe FEe's proposed revisions to Part 106 ofits regulations were summarized in the October1988 RecQry.4 p.l ;

3

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

AO 1988-22: Political Activities Sponsored byIncorporated Political Organization

The San Joaquin Valley Republican Associates(Republican Associates) is a nonprofit, nonmem­ber corporation organized lito help elect moreRepubficans to office by enhancing significantlythe visibility of the Republican Party, Republicanideas, Republlean thought and Republican per­sonalities within the San Joaquin Valley of Cali­fornia." Republican Associates is a tax-exemptincorporated political organization under the In­ternal Revenue Code (S527). While theorganization engages in tax-exempt political ac­tivities, its charter does not permit RepublicanAssociates to expressly endorse or solicit contri­butions to candidates,

If Bepublican Associates sponsored the threetypes of political activities described below (l.e.,a periodicial newsletter, luncheons featuring can­didates and candidate debates), the organizationwould be making expenditures to influencefederal elections. Consequently, RepublicanAssociates would have to register and report as apolitical committee when it spent more than atotal of $1,000 for these activities, or any otherfederal political activities, during the year. 2U.S.C. S43l(4)(a); II CFR 100.5(a). However,Republican Associates' spending for a fourth typeof activity, a campaign library, would not counttoward its registration threshold because thisspending would constitute general administrativeexpenses.

continued on p. 4

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOI\l Volume 14, Number 11November 1988

In reaching this conclusion, the Commissionnoted that, although the Supreme Court's ruling inFEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL)1drew a narrow exception which permits certaintypes of nonprofit incorporated organizations tomake independent expenditures on behalf of or inopposition to federal candidates, Republican As­sociates' proposed spending program would notmeet these requirements because: (I) some ofRepublican Associates' proposed activities wouldbe considered in-kind contributions to federalcandidates rather than independent expenditureson their behalf and (2) the MCFL exception ap­plies to political organizations "that only oceas­sionally engage in independent spending on behalfof.candidates"-not to organizations, like Republi­can Associates, whose major purpose is politicalspending.

Republican Associates' NewsletterRepublican Associates plans to publish and

distribute a periodical newsletter that discussespolitical events and activities, including federalcandidates and campaigns. The newsletter mayoccasionally endorse federal candidates. Repub­lican Associates will distribute the newsletter,free of charge, to contributors who have attend­ed its events and who may be active with theorganization in the future.

Expenses for the newsletter would not fallunder the "press exemption"Z for two reasons.The newsletter is not a regular periodical fi­nanced by subscription or advertising. Further,the statute excludes from the exemption publica­tions of political committees. This would applyshould the activities of Republican Associatestrigger political committee status.

Candidate- or election-related paymentsshould be considered either independent expendi­tures, in-kind contributions or operating expendi­tures related to federal elections depending on:(I) whether Republican Associates coordinatescommunications with the candidates' campaignsand (2) whether the communications expressly

1The Court said that, to qualify for thisnarrow exception, an incorporated political organ­iZ<ltion: (1) must be formed for the express pur­pose of promoting political ideas and not engagedin business activities, (2) may not haveshareholders and (3) may not be established by oraccept donations from corporations or labororganizations. For a summary of the Court'sdecision, see p. 4 of the February 1987 Record.

2Under this exception, spending for newsstories, commentaries or editorials distributedthrough broadcast media, newspapers ormagazines are not considered expenditures toinfluence federal elections provided the media isnot owned or controlled by a political committee,party or candidate. 2 U.S.C. section 431(9)(B)(i).

4

advocate the election or defeat of candidates orsolicit contributions to their campaigns. .

Such payments must be allocated to a federalaccount. In some cases (discussed below) thepayments must also be allocated to specificcandidates, as contributions or expenditures.Allocation should be based on column inchespertaining to federal candidates or elections or onsome other reasonable basis that reflects thebenefit the candidates receive.

Independent Expenditures. If Republican As­sociates publishes communications in its newslet­ter that expressly advocate the election or defeatof clearly 'identified federal candidates or solicitcontributions to their campaigns, the communica­tions will be considered "independent expendi­tures," provided they are not coordinated with thecandidate's campaign. See 2 U.S.C. S431(l7)j 11CFR 109.1. Such expenditures would countagainst the $1,000 registration threshold. See 11CFR 105.4 and 109.2. Although RepublicanAssociates may make unlimited independentexpenditures, it must allocate the expendituresamong the candidates supported and report theexpenditures according to the procedures spelledout in FEe rules for persons or for politicalcommittees (if the organization achieves politicalcommittee status).

In-kind Contributions. RepUblican Associ- ~ates' expenditures for newsletter communications .­that discuss or mention a clearly identified candi-date in an election-related context and that arecoordinated with candidates or their campaignswill constitute reportable in-kind contributions tothe candidates. (Even if the communications donot contain "express advocacy" statements orsolicit -contributions, they will be conSJ]lered in-kind contrtbutlons.) The payments would countagainst the $ltOOO threshold for registration andreporting. If such communications are made formore than one candidate, Republican Associatesmust allocate the expenses among the candidates.

Expenditures that Generally Influence Feder­al Elections. Expenditures for newsletter com­munications that refer to clearly identified fed­eral candidates will be considered operating ex­penditures allocated to a federal account if:o The communications neither contain "express

advocacy" statements nor solicit contributionsto candidates; and

o The communications are not coordinated withany candidate or campaign.

Although not allocable to specific candldates,these expenditures would nevertheless be made toinfluence federal elections. ThUS, the spendingwould count toward Republican Associates' thres- _hold for political committee status. ..

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

•

November 1988

Federal Funds. In all three cases, funds usedto pay for communications related to federalcandidates or elections must be made from fundsthat are permissible under the election law. 11CFR 102.5(a). Such payments count against the$1,000 threshold for registration and reporting. IfRepublican Associates crosses this treshold, thusqualifying as 8. political committee, payments forthese communications must be made from anaccount that contains only permissible funds. 11CFR 102.5(a)(1). If Republican Associates doesnot qualify as a political committee and does notmaintain a federal account, it must be able todemonstrate through a reasonable accounting me­thod that it had sufficient permissible funds topay for these communications. 11 CFR102.5(b)(I)(ii).

LuncheonsRepublican Associates plans to sponsor

monthly luncheons for persons who receive itsnewsletter. Some of the featured speakers at theluncheon will be federal candidates. Under rulesset up by Republican Associates, these candidateswill make their literature available, but campaignposters and other political paraphernalia will notbe displayed. Candidates will not solicit contribu­tions, but they may request campaign volunteers.

In previous advisory opinions, the Commissionstated that a federal officeholder's appearance atan event would be considered campaign relatedand, thus, payments for the event would consti­tute contributions to the candidate's campaign if:(1) the candidate was expressly endorsed or (2)contributions were solicited to his or her cam­paign. However, the absence of express advocacyor solicitations at an event would not preclude anFEC determination that a candidate's appearancewas campaign related. See AOs 1981-37, 1981-26,1980-89 and 1978-4.

Since Republican Associates' main purpose isto promote Republican candidates and ideology,the Commission concluded that it was unlikelythat Republican Associates could rebut a pre­sumption that its luncheons promoted the electionof those candidates it invited. BecauseRepublican Associates' payments for theluncheons will be coordinated with the candidates,they would constitute contributions to thecandidates invited to appear at the luncheons.See AOs 1986-37~ 1984-13~ 1982-76 and 1982-50.Again, these payments would count against theregistration threshold and would have to be madefrom federal funds (see above).

Candidate DebatesRepublican Associates proposes to sponsor

debates between candidates for federal office.The organization will not allow candidates tosolicit contributions at the debate, but it willpermit candidates to make requests for campaignvolunteers.

5

Under FEC regulations, payments made by aqualified nonprofit corporation to finance a non­partisan candidate debate are exempted from thelaw's definitions of "contrlbution" and "expendi­ture," 11 CFR 100.7(b)(2l) and 100.8(b)(23),110.13 and 114.4(e).

However, since Republican Associates doesnot currently qualify as a nonpartisan, nonprofit(section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4» corporation, itspayments for the debates would be treated thesame way as its payments for candidateappearances, that is, as in-kind contributions tothe candidates.

Campaign LibraryRepublican Associates plans to maintain a

library consisting of material on campaign man­agement and politics, The library will also makeavailable listings of campaign contributors andregistered voters. Although registered Republi­cans may use the library's resources free ofcharge, users must pay for any requested copies.Moreover, Republican Associates will not use. thelibrary's resources to do research for candidates.

Under these circumstances, Republican As­sociates' funding of the library would constitutegeneral administrative expenses, rather than"contributions" or "expenditures" made to influ­ence federal elections. 11 CFR l06.1(c). IfRepublican Associates qualified for political com­mittee status, it would have to allocate theseexpenditures between federal and nonfederalelection activities. See 11 CFR l06.l(e). Pay­ments for activities allocated to the federal ac­count would have to be made from permissiblefunds and would be reportable.

Finally, if Republican Associates providedadditional library services to a federal candidatewho requested them, any additional expenses forthese services would constitute in-kind contribu­tions from Republlean Associates to the candi­da teo As such, they would count against theorganization's registration threshold. 11 CFR106.1(a) and (c). (Date issued: July 5, 1988;Length: 11 pages)

AO 1988-24: Joint Fundraising CommitteeEstablished by Federal/Nonfederal Candidates

Two federal campaigns (the Jesse Jackson forPresident '88 Committee and the Committee forCongressman Ronald V. Dellums) and two nonfed­eral campaigns (the Tom Bates Campaign [for astate assembly seat] and the Committee to Re­elect John George to the Alameda County Boardof Supervisors) established a joint fundraisingcommittee, the June '88 Campaign, to:o Raise funds for the four campaigns' 1988 pri­

mary efforts in California; and

continued

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11November 1988

o Produce and distribute joint campaign li tera­ture.

The establishment and operation of the June'88 Campaign, as described to the FEC, met thebasic requirements of the FEC's joint fundraisingregulations for candidate committees.! See IICFR 102.17. In addition to complying with theserules, the joint fundraising committee had toaddress two unique situations requiring appli­cation of other FEC rules:o The joint fundraiser included a publicly funded

Presidential primary campaign; ando The joint fundraiser included federal and non­

federal candidates.

FEC Regulations Governing Joint FundraisersFEC regulations provide guidelines for such

joint fundraising projects. See II CFR 102.17 and9034.8. The June '88 Campaign appeared tosatisfy the guidelines, as discussed below.o Joint fundraising participants must enter into a

written agreement that identifies a fundraisingrepresentative and includes a formula for theallocation of fundraising proceeds. This formu­la must be used to: (I) allocate fundraisingexpenses and (2) determine the amount of fundsto be advanced for joint fundraisers by eachparticipant. II CFR 102.17(c)(I) and9034.8(c)(I) and (c)(2). In this instance, the fourcommittees drafted an agreement that estab­lished a formula for allocating each candidate'sshare of receipts and project expenses, based onthe prominence and space given to each candi­date in the campaign literature produced by thejoint fundraising committee.

o The participants or a fundraising representativemust establish a separate bank account for thedeposit anddisbursement of the joint fundrais­ing receipts. Moreover, all contributions depos­ited in this account must be permissible underthe election law. II CFR 100.5, 102.17(c)(3)(I)and 9034.8(c)(4)(i). (These requirements applyeven if some of the joint fundraising partici­pants do not qualify as political committeesunder the regulations.) The June '88 Campaignsatisfied this requirement.

o The participants in a joint fundraising projectmay either establish a separate committee orselect a participating committee to act as afundraising representative for all the partici­pants. The representative must be a reportingpolitical committee and must be designated asan affiliated committee by each of the partici­pating federal committees. II CFR

1These rules govern joint [urulraisere by partycommittees, nonconnected committees and candi­date committees. A separate set of rules governsjoint [undraisinq by the separate segregated [unasof labor organizations and corporations. See 11CFR l02.6(b) and (c).

6

102.17(a)(I)(i) and (b)(2l; 9034.8(b). In this case,Ron Dellums' principal campaign committeeacted as the fundraising committee's represen­tative. As the representative, the Dellumscommittee maintained a separate bank accountfor the joint fundraising committee's receipts,reimbursements and expenditures.

Other FEC RegulationsTo be fully in compliance with the rules, the

committee also had to: (I) take steps to ensurethat no impermissible funds (e.g., corporate orlabor contributions) were placed in its account; (2)be aware that prohibited contributions to the jointfundraiser could affect the application of theallocation formula (I I CFR 102.17(c)(6)(iii) and(c)(7)(i)(A»; (3) be careful to include on jointsolicitation notices and literature the disclaimernotices required under federal law (I I CFR102.17(c)(2)-(4) and 9034.8(c)(4)-(5»j and (4)refrain from distributing or reallocating funds inorder to maximize the matchability ofcontributions to Jesse Jackson's Presidentialprimary campaign (II CFR 9034.8). (Date issued:June 10, 1988; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1988-36: PAC's Solicitation of Company'sEmployee Stockholders

The Detroit Edison Political Action Committee(EdPAC), the separate segregated fund of theDetroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison), maysolicit contributions from Detroit Edison employ­ees who qualify as stockholders in the company byvirtue of their participation in the company'ssavings plan, the Detroit Edison's Employees'Savings Plan ("ESP"). Under FEC regulations,these employees qualify as solicitable stock­holders once they earn the right to withdraw theirshares. See II CFR 114.I(h).

EdPAC's or Detroit Edison's solicitations ofthe stockholder employees must comply with thesolicitation requirements of the election law andFEC regulations. 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(3)(A)-(C); IICFR 114.5(a).

Detroit Edison's Employee Stockholder PIanDetroit Edison employees who have been with

the company for at least six months are eligibleto participate in the company's employee savingsprogram by contributing from one to six percentof their salary to a savings plan. The companymatches every $\ salary deduction that anemployee designates for the savings plan with a50 cent contribution to the employee for purchaseof Detroit Edison common stock.

An employee may withdraw shares from theplan once the employee's investment has"matured." An employee's investment in the planmatures on the date the employee contributes toit. By contrast, Detroit Edison's matching

•

•

•

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number11

contribution to the employee's plan matures atthe beginning of the fourth year after thecompany has made the matching contribution forthe employee.

Once interest on the employee's plan hasmatured, the employee may withdraw thisaccrued interest once a year without penalty.More frequent withdrawals during the same yearresult in a three- to six-month suspension of thecompany's contributions to the employee's plan,depending on the type of withdrawal

Under the plan, employee stockholders havethe right to vote on their stock. This right isexercised through trustees to whom the employ­ees have given written instructions on how to votetheir stock.

The election law and FEC regulations permita corporation or its separate segregated fund tosolicit the corporation's individual stockholders. 2U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(2)(A). FEC regulations definesolicitable stockholders as persons who:o Have a vested beneficial interest in the corpo­

ration's stock;o Have the power to direct how their stock is

voted; ando Have the right to receive dividends. 11 CFR

114.l(h).Detroit Edison's employee savings plan meets therequirements of this definition. With regard tothe first requirement, all the participants in thesavings plan have a vested interest in thecompany's stock once their shares have matured.

With regard to the second requirement,through their trustees, employees have the rightto vote on stock they have purchased as well as onstock donated to them by the company under thernatehing plan.

With regard to the third requirement, partici­pants in the plan have the right to receive divi­dends because they may withdraw matured stockonce a year without penalty. Moreover, partici­pants are not limited in their withdrawal rights toa once-a-year or a one-time basis. (Date issued:September 26, 1988; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1988-40: Post Card Distributed Under"Coattail" Exception

The Doug Walgren for Congress Committee (theCommittee), the principal campaign committeefor Congressman Walgren's reelection campaign,plans to independently prepare a post card thatwill: (1) feature a photograph of the Congressmanwith Governor Michael Dukakis, the DemocraticPresidential nominee, and (2) include on the re­verse side "information on or references toll Gov­ernor Dukakis, The post cards will be distributedby volunteers to individuals selected by the Wal­gren campaign. The Committee's disbursementsfor the post card will qualify for the electionlaw's "coattail exception, II rather than as an in-

7

kind contribution to the Dukakis campaign. Ac­cordingly, the Committee must report these dis­bursements as operating expenditures. 11 CFR104.3(b)(2) and (b)(4)(i).

Since the post cards will be mailed out byvolunteers using lists developed by the Commit­tee, the Committee will not have to include onthe post cards the disclaimer notice required fordirect mail pieces. See 2 U.S.C. §441dj 11 CFR110.11.

Under the "coattail" exception in the electionlaw and FEC regulations, a federal candidate maybe mentioned in campaign materials produced byanother federal candidate's campaign. 2 U.S.C.§43l(8)(B)(xi); 11 CFR 100.7(b)(16) andlOO.8(b)(l7). Payments for these materials arenot contributions to the referenced candidateprovided that the materials are used in connectionwith volunteer activity and not distributedthrough direct mail (e.g., a mailing by acommercial vendor or by a campaign using com­mercial lists) or other forms of general publiepolitical advertising.

In this case, the Committee plans to developa mailing list by obtaining an official listing ofeligible voters from the county department ofelections. The Committee will edit the list toobtain a "desirable group" of post card recipientsin the Congressman's Congressional district.Using this edited list, volunteers will hand addressthe post cards and mail them out. Under thesecircumstances, the Committee's plan to prepareand distribute the post cards meets the require­ments of the "coattail" exception. (Date issued:September 30, 1988; Length: 4 pages)

ELECTION INFORMATION AVAILABLEPROM OTHER AGENCIES

Sometimes callers ask election-related ques­tions over which the FEC has little or no jurisdic­tion. This article refers callers to the agenciesthat deal with these commonly asked questions.A referral table on page 9 lists the appropriateoffices to contact for more information.

State Election Activity

How can an individual get on the ballot for anelection? Ballot access is handled by each state'selection office (in most states, under the Secre­tary of State). Consult Table II on page 10 foryour state election official.

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

May our political committee contribute to astate candidate? Are there state requirements?Federal law does not prohibit political commit­tees that are registered with the FEC from mak­ing contributions to state campaigns, but moststates have laws governing the committees' con­tribution limits and reporting requirements. Forinformation on a particular state's laws, consultthe new Clearinghouse publication Campaign Fi­nance Law 188 1 or contact your state electionsoffice. (For a listing of state election offices, seeTable II on page 10.)

Voting Rights

On our state's primary election day, I washarassed as I went into the polling place to castmy vote. With whom should I file a complaint?The Department of Justice administers investiga­tions of alleged voting fraud and violations ofvoting rights. If you suspect abuse, contact thelocal U.S. Attorney for your jurisdiction. Forgeneral information, contact the Department ofJustice at the address and phone number listed onTable I.

IRS and Tax-related Issues

Can we use our FEe ID number as thetaxpayer ID number when we open the bankaccount for our committee? No. You will needto contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) andapply for a taxpayer ID number. See Table Ibelow for the address and phone number of theIRS.

Are contributions to my candidate's campaignor to a PAC tax deductible? No. Contact the IRSfor more details.

Does my political committee have tax­exempt status? The IRS has jurisdiction over tax­exempt organizations. Contact the IRS at thenumber listed on the table.

Do we have to use a disclaimer on oursolicitations saying that contributions are not taxdeductible? Yes. The Internal Revenue Coderequires all tax-exempt groups (including politicalcommittees) that exceed $100,000 in gross re­ceipts to carry such a disclaimer on certaincommunications. This requirement does not apply

lCampaign Finance Law ($19 per copy) maybe ordered from the Superintendent ofDocuments, Govemment Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402. Checks should be madepayable to the Superintendent of Documents. Theorder should refer to the publication's title andorder number (#052-006-00041-41).

8

to charitable organizations. Contact the IRS formore details.

Communications

The TV station I own receives requests fromcandidates to air TV advertisements. Exactly howmuch air time must I give to each candidate? TheFEC has no jurisdiction in this area. Rather, theFederal Communications Commission (FCC) is theagency responsible for administering the lawsregarding broadcasting. Its address and phonenumber are contained on Table I.

I manage a radio station. Do I have to airpolitical ads of candidates and parties that theowner opposes? The FCC administers all electionlaws dealing with the obligations of broadcastersin presenting such advertisements. For moreinformation, contact that agency.

Hatch Act

As a federal employee, may I participate inpolitical campaigns? The Hatch Act prohibitsfederal employees from engaging in certain kindsof political activity. For more details and an­swers to specific questions, contact the Office ofSpecial Counsel of the U.S. Merit Systems Protec­tion Board at the address listed on Table I.

Personal Financial Disclosure

Where can I review the personal financialdisclosure reports of candidates? Presidentialcandidates file these statements with the FEC,and you can review them in our Public RecordsOffice. For more information, call 202/376-3140or 800/424-9530. House and Senate candidatesfile with the Clerk of the House and the Secretaryof the Senate, respectively. House reports areavailable from the House Records and Registra­tion Office. Call 202/225-1300. Senate reportsare available for review at the Senate Office ofPublic Records. Contact that office at 202/224­0322.

Where can I get more information about whatis required on candidates' personal f"mancial dis­closure statements? Several different officesadminister the law on personal financial disclo­sure. Regarding Presidential candidates, contactthe Office of Government Ethics. For moreinformation on disclosures made by Senate candi­dates, contact the Senate Select Committee onEthics. If interested in House candidates, theappropriate office to contact is the House Com­mittee on Standards of Official Conduct.Addresses and phone numbers for these officesare listed on Table I.

9

*Each state IRS office has a toll-free number. Consult your telephone directory.uTo review and copy reports, consult offices listed in the article above under "Personal

Financial Disclosure."

Office of Government EthicsP.O. Box 14108Washington, D.C. 20044202/632-7642

Senate Select Committee on Ethics220 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510202/224-2981

Federal Communications CommissionPolitical Programming Branch2025 M Street, N. W., Room 8202Washington, D.C. 20554202/632-7586

House Committee on Standardsof Official Conduct

Capitol Building, Room HT-2Washington, D.C. 20515202/225-7103

Office of Special CounselU.S. Merit Systems Protection Board1120 Vermont Avenue, N. W.Washington, D.C. 20005202/653-7143 or 800/872-9855

Voting SectionCivil Rights Divisionu. S. Department of JusticeP.O. Box 66128Washington, D.C. 20035202/724-3266

Internal Revenue Service*Organization Products BranchIII I Constitution Avenue, N. W.Washington, D. C. 20224202/566-4332 or 202/566-4050

Contact for More Information

See Table n on page 10.

Local U.S. AttorneyU.S. Department of Justice

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

Senate

Voter Fraud; Voting RightsSuspected Abuse

Personal Financial Disclosure **(Information on what must be reported)

Presidential

House

General Information

Broadcasting and Communications

Hatch Act(F ederal employee poli tical involvement)

Tax-related Questions

State Election ActivityPopular Vote; State Disclosure

Subject

TABLE IREFERRAL OFFICES FOR ELECTION QUESTIONS

November 1988

November 1988

TABLE IISTATE ELECTION OFFICES

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

•AlabamaMr. Jerry HendersonAdministrator of Elections205/261-7210

AlaskaMs. Sandra J. StoutDirector of Elections Division907/465-4611

American SamoaMoega LutuAdministrator of Elections684/633-4163

ArizonaMs. Margaret StearsState Election Officer602/267-8683

ArkansasMs. Janet ReddinSupervisor of Elections501/682-5070

CaliforniaMs. Deborah SeilerChief of Elections and Political

Reform916/445-0820

ColoradoMs. Donetta DavidsonElections Officer303/894-2211

ConnecticutMr. Albert LengeAttorney of Elections203/566-3106Mr. Jeffrey B. GarfieldState Campaign Finance203/566-7106

DelawareMr. John Davis, Jr.State Election Commissioner302/736-4277

District of ColumbiaMr. Emmett H. Fremaux, Jr.Executive DirectorBoard of Elections and Ethics202/727-2525

FloridaMs. Dorothy W. JoyceDirector, Division of Elections904/488-7690Dr. Anne KelleyState Campaign Finance904/488-7690

GeorgiaMrs. Frances S. DuncanDirectorElections Division404/656-2871

HawaiiMr. Morris TakushiDirector of Elections808/548-2544Jack M. K. GonzalesState Campaign Finance808/548-5411

IdahoMr. Ben YsursaChief Deputy Secretary of State

for Elections208/334-2852

IllinoisMr. Kel HudsonDirector of Election Information217/782-4141Dan WhiteState Campaign Finance312/917-6440

IndianaMr. John DeLapDeputy for Lobbyistsand Elections

317/232-6531Laurie Potter ChristieState Campaign Finance317/232-3939

IowaMs. Sandy SteinbachDirector of Elections515/281-5865Kay WilliamsState Campaign Finance515/281-4411

10

KansasMr. Ron E. ThornburghDeputy Assistant for Elections

and Legislative Matters913/296-2236Carol E. WilliamsState Campaign Finance913/296-4219

KentuckyMs. Charlotte MullinsExecutive DirectorState Board of Elections502/564-7100Raymond E. WallaceState Campaign Finance502/564-2226

LouisianaMr. Darrell L. CobbAdministrator of Elections504/342-4970Mr. Gray SextonState Campaign Finance504/765-2308

MaineMr. Peter W. DantonDirector of Elections207/289-4189Ms. Marilyn CanavanState Campaign Finance207/289-4178

MarylandMs. Rebecca BabinecDirector, Division of Candidacy

and Campaign Finance301/974-3711

MassachusettsMr. John CloonanDirector of Elections617/727-2828Mr. Dennis J. DuffinState Campaign Finance617/727-8352

MichiganMr. Christopher M. ThomasDirector of Elections517/373-2540

•

•

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

Minnesota New York South CarolinaMr. Joseph Mansky Mr. Thomas R. Wilkey Mr. James Ellisor• Acting Director Director of Election Executive DirectorElections Division Operations State Election Commission612/296-2805 518/473-5086 803/734-9060Ms. Mary Ann McCoy Mr. Gary R. BakerState Campaign Finance North Carolina State Campaign Finance612/296-5148 Mr. Alex K. Brock 803/734-1227

Executive Secretary/DirectorMississippi State Board of Elections South DakotaMr. Phil Carter 919/733-7218 or 733-7173 Ms. Darlene GageDirector of Elections Yvonne L. Southerland Supervisor of Elections601/359-1350 State Campaign Finance 605/773-3537

919/733-2186Missouri TennesseeMr. Paul D. Bloch North Dakota Mr. David Haines, Jr.Deputy Secretary of State Mr. Ben Meier Coordinator of Electionsfor Election Services Secretary of State 615/741-7956

314/751-3295 701/224-2900Gayla Thomas TexasSteve Byers Ohio Ms. Donnette SmithState Campaign Finance Ms. Dorothy Woldorf Director314/751-3077 Elections Administrator Elections Administration

614/466-2585 512/463-5650Montana Donald J. McTigue Ms. Patricia HayesMrs. Marian Campbell State Campaign Finance State Campaign FinanceChief of Elections and 614/466-2585 512/463-5704Legislative Service Bureau406/444-4732 OklahomaDolores Colburg Mr. Lance D. Ward Utah

• State Campaign Finance Secretary Mr. W. Val Oveson406/444-2942 State Election Board Lieutenant Governor

405/521-2391 Chief Elections OfficerNebraska Ms. Marilyn Hughes 801/538-1040Mr. Ralph Englert State Campaign FinanceDirector of Elections 405/521-3451 Vermont402/471-2554 Ms. Catherine Simpson

Oregon Director of ElectionsNevada Mr. William E. Flynn 802/828-2304Ms. Susan Merriwether Director of ElectionsElections Coordinator 503/378-4144 Virgin Islands702/885-3176 Ms. Henrita Tedman

Pennsylvania Supervisor of ElectionsNew Hampshire Mr. William P. Boehm 809/774-2575Mr. Robert Ambrose Commissioner of Elections 809/774-3107Deputy Secretary of State 717/787-5280603/271-3242 Virginia

Puerto Rico Ms. Susan Fitz-HughNew Jersey Marcos Rodriquez Estrada SecretaryMs. Christine St. John President of State State Board of ElectionsDirector of Elections Elections Commission 804/786-6551609/292-3760 809/724-2085Frederick M. Herrmann 809/723-9946 WashingtonState Campaign Finance

Rhode IslandMr. Donald F. Whiting

609/292-8700 Deputy Secretary of StateMs. Marjorie P. Mazika 206/753-2336

New Mexico Director of Elections Mr. Graham E. JohnsonMr. Hoyt Clifton 401/277-2340 State Campaign FinanceDirector of Elections Mr. Joseph DiStefano 206/753-1111• 505/827-3621 State Campaign Finance

continued401/277-2345

II

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

West VirginiaMs. Mary P. RatliffDeputy Secretary of State304/345-4000

WisconsinMr. Kevin KennedyExecutive DirectorState Elections Board608/266-8005

WyomingMs. Margy WhiteDeputy Secretary of State307/777-7378

COMMON CAUSE v. FEC (Suit Seven)On September 27, 1988, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia issued a jointstipulation of dismissal in which Common Causeand the FEC agreed to the dismissal, withprejudice, of a suit that Common Cause had filedagainst the FEC in December 1986. (Civil ActionNo. 86-3465)

In the suit, Common Cause had challengedthe FEC's decision to dismiss an administrativecomplaint that the organization had filed againstPresident Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign.

The parties agreed to the dismissal of thesuit after three FEe Commissioners submitted toCommon Cause and the the court statements thatexplained their reasons for dismissing theadministrative complaint. I In agreeing to thedismissal of its suit, Common Cause did notabandon its position that the FEC's action on theadministrative complaint was contrary to law.Nor did the FEC abandon its position that itsdismissal of the complaint was reasonable.

1The fourth Commissioner who voted todismiss the complaint subsequently retired fromthe Commission. The statements of reasonsubmitted by the three Commissioners who votedto dismiss the complaint are summarized on p, 7of the October 1988 Record.

12

NEW LITIGATION

FEe v. Bob Richards (or PresidentThe FEC asks the district court to declare

that the Bob Richards for President Committee,Washington, D.C. (the Committee), anonconnected committee, and the Committee'streasurer Blayne F. Hutzel violated the electionlaw by:o Including a candidate's name in the Commit­

tee's name (2 U.S.C. S432(e)(4»);o Failing to amend the Committee's Statement of

Organization to accurately reflect: (1) thename of the Committee's treasurer and (2) theaffiliation of the Committee with the Bob Ri­chards for President Committee, Waco, Texas(2 U.S.C. §433(c»);

o Knowingly accepting an excessive contributionin the form of a loan from the Populist Party (2U.S.C. §441a(f});

o Making expenditures to finance a direct mailcommunication that expressly advocated theelection of a clearly identified candidate andsolicited contributions to the candidate, butfailing to identify who paid for and authorizedthe communication (2 U.S.C. S44Id(a»; and

o Transferring $5,000 to an affiliated committeefrom funds that included proceeds of an exces­sive contribution knowingly received by defen­dants (2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(l)(C»).

The FEC further asks the court to:o Assess appropriate civil penalties against de­

fendants; ando Permanently enjoin defendants from similar fu­

ture violations of the election law.U.S. District Court for the District of Co­

lumbia, Civil Action No. 88-2832, October 3,1988.

FEe v. Ron Bookman &: Associates, Inc.The FEC asks the district court to declare

that Ron Bookman & Associates, Inc. (Bookman),a corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia, and thecorporation's president Ronald Gary Bookmanviolated section 441b of the election law bymaking a $150 corporate contribution to a Geor­gia House candidate's campaign (i.e., the Swindallfor Congress Committee). Specifically, defen­dants allegedly authorized a lawyer to issue acontribution check from a trust accountconsisting of a $10,000 payment Bookman hadreceived from the Transportation Group, Inc.

The FEC further asks the court to:a Assess an appropriate civil penalty against both

Mr. Bookman and his company; ando Enjoin each defendant from future, similar

violations of the election law.U.S. District Court for the Northern District

of Georgia, CV-No. 1:88-CV-1807-JTC, August19, 1988. •

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSIOI\J Volume 14, Number 11

FEe v. Friends of Isaiah FletcherThe FEC asks the district court to declare

that the Friends of Isaiah Fletcher, the principalcampaign committee for Mr. Fletcher's 1986. Con­gressional campaign, and M~. Fletcher, actmg. ashis campaign's treasurer, Violated the reporttngrequirements of the election law by failing to filean October quarterly report in 1984.

The agency further asks the court to:o Assess an appropriate civil penalty against

defendants; ando Permanently enjoin each defendant from

similar, future violations of the election law.U.S. District Court for the District of Mary­

land, Civil Action No. PN88-2323, August 9, 1988.

FEC v, Taylor Congressional CommitteeThe FEC asks the district court to declare

that the Taylor Congressional Committee (theCommittee), the principal campaign committeefor Clarence Taylor's 1984 South Carolina Housecampaign, and the Committee's treasurer Rich~rd

L. Smith violated the election law's reportingrequirements by:o Failing to file 1986 and 1987 mid-year reports

(2 U.S.C. S434(a)(2)(B)(i»j ando Failing to file 1985 and 1986 year-end reports

(2 U.S.C. S434(a)(2)(B)(ii».The FEC further asks the court to declare

that defendants violated 2 U.S.C. S434(b)(8) byfailing to:o Continuously report the Committee's outstand­

ing debts until they were extinguished; ando Failing to file a statement of debt settlement

concerning a debt forgiven by a creditor.Finally, the FEC asks the court to:

o Assess an appropriate civil penalty against de­fendants; and

o Permanently enjoin defendants from future vio­lations of the election law,

U.S. District Court for the District of SouthCarolina, Anderson Division, Civil Action No.8:88-1950-3, July 27, 1988.

13

MUR 1689: Bank Loans to 1984 PresidentialCandidate

This MUR resolved through a civil suit, involved$2 million 'in loans from banks to a publicly fundedPresidential candidate's campaign.

ComplaintThe MUR was internally generated by the

Commission (under the procedures of Directive61) based upon evidence that a $2 million loan toa 1984 Presidential campaign was not within the"ordinary course of business" exception of 2U.S.C. S431(8}(B)(vii). (This exception per mitsbanks to make loans in the ordinary course ofbusiness to candidates and political eomrnittees.)

General Counsel's ReportThe Commission found "reason to believe"

that four banks, a Presidential candidate and ,hiScommittee had violated 2 U.S.C. §441b by makingand accepting prohibited contributions. Subse­quently, the Commission conducted an investiga­tion which indicated that a variety of factorsother than sound banking judgment had promptedthe banks to approve a loan to the Presidentialcommittee.

The Federal Election Campaign Act expresslyprohibits national banks from making any contri­bution or expenditure in connection with anyelection to any political office. 2 U.S.C. S441b­(a). The term contribution includes a loan. How­ever a loan is not a contribution if it is made by afede~ally chartered depository institution i~ ac­cordance with applicable law and in the ordinarycourse of business. 2 U.S.C. S43l(8)(B)(vii). Aloan is considered made "in the ordinary course ofbusiness" if it is made on a basis Which assuresrepayment, is evidenced by a written instrument,is subject to a due date and bears the usual andcustomary interest rate of the lending institution.2 U.S.C. S43l(8)(B)(vii)(II) arid (Ill); 11 CFR 100.7exII).

The General Counsel focused the investiga­tion on whether the loans were made on a basiswhich assured repayment. In his view, evidenceindicated that they were not.

First, the General Counsel observed that lithecommittee's financial condition at the time theloan was granted made the committee a bad risk,"The General Counsel pointed out that, had the

continued

lFEC Directive 6 outlines the Commission'sprocedures for handling enforcement matters thatare generated internally pursuant to 2 U.S,C.section 437g(a)(2).

November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

banks looked at the committee's reports, theywould have realized that, at the time of the loanrequest, "the committee's financial condition wasbecoming increasingly precarious."

Second, the General Counsel noted that thecommittee did not submit, nor did any of thebanks require, relevant cash flow projections des­pite testimony from bank officials that cash flowprojections were necessary in evaluating loan pro­posals.

Third, the General Counsel observed that therepayment sources listed in the committee's loanproposal had little or no value. Sources of repay­ment included accounts receivable, deposits, li­quidations of fixed assets, future contributionsand matching funds. Bank officials testified,however, that the fixed assets were not sufficientto pay the interest on the loan. The Commissionconcluded that the expectation of future contri­butions and matching payments could have consti­tuted a basis of assuring repayment if the loanhad provided a sufficient alternate source ofrepayment. But it did not. The Commissionrejected the Committee's assertion that "comfortletters" provided an alternative-or secondary­source of payment. These letters-pledges bywealthy supporters to help raise funds to retirethe loan-were not binding on the authors andfailed to provide a suffielent basis for repayment.

Fourth, the General Counsel said that "politi­cal pressures may have been applied to thoseindividuals reviewing the loan request." In severalinstances, the loan was not processed throughnormal channels but was handled instead by in­dividuals with political or executive responsibili­ties. Further, the banks granted this loan eventhough the lead bank had previously rejected arequest from the same committee for a less"speculative" loan.

Fifth, the General Counsel argued, repay­ment was not expected until a time when thecampaign's funds might be entirely dissipated,thus making the loan completely speculative,

The respondents argued that only banks, notthe Commission, had to be satisfied that a loanwas made on a basis that assured repayment andthat the Commission used hindsight in second­guessing the banks. Further, the General Coun­sel's description of how the loan was arranged, therespondents contended, unfairly suggested thatthe loan was politically inspired.

The General Counsel responded that, withinthe Commission'S authority to enforce the Act, isthe power to explore whether a loan has been"made in the ordinary course of business. n 2U.S.C. SS43l(8)(B)(vii) and 437g. In determiningwhether a loan has been made in the ordinarycourse of business, the Commission must be satis­fied that the loan has been made on a basis whichassures repayment. 2 U.S.C. §S43l(8)(B)(vii)(II)and (III). Finally, the General Counsel stated thatthe statute clearly envisions that the Commission

14

investigate and make its own separate determina­tion as to whether a loan has been made on a basiswhich assures repayment, and the Commission Ahas, on other occasions, investigated this issue. •

The General Counsel also argued that thearrangements surrounding the granting of theloan, including the involvement of lobbyists andtop bank officials outside the normal review pro­cess, were relevant considerations in evaluatingthe loan's legali ty under the Act.

In sum, the General Counsel recommendedthat the Commission find probable cause tobelieve that the banks and Presidential campaignviolated the Act because the banks' loans"appeared not to have been made on a basis whichassured repayment." The General Counsel statedthat the investigation indicated the loanapplieation may have been treated differentlybecause the borrower was a well known localf;gure running for President, and that the creditdecision may have been affected by the banks' andsome of the bank officers' support for the candi­date's campaign.

Commission DeterminationThe Commission voted. 5-1 to accept the

reeom menda tions of the Office of General Coun­sel to find "probable cause to believe" the banksand the Presidential campaign had violated 2U.S.C. §441b. Because the Commission wasunable to conclude a conciliation agreement with _the respondents, the Commission filed a civil suit ..against them. See the 1987 July Record for asummary of the suit and the consent order issuedby the court.

CHANGE OF ADDRESSRegistered political committees are

automatically sent the Record. Any changeof address by a registered committee must,by law, be made in writing as an amend­ment to FEC Form 1 (Statement of Organi­zation) and filed with the Clerk of theHouse, the Secretary of the Senate, or theFEC, as appropriate.

Record SUbscribers (who are not politi­cal committees), when calling or mailing ina change of address, are asked to providethe following information:1. Name of person to whom the Record is

sent.2. Old address.3. New address.4. Subscription number. The SUbscription

number is located in the upper lefthand corner of the mailing label Itconsists of three letters and five num­bers. Without this number, there is noguarantee that your SUbscription canbe located on the computer.

FEDERAL ELECTION C0IV1IV1ISSI01\J Volume 14, Number 11November 1988

This cumulative index lists ad­visory opinions, court cases and 800Line articles published in the Recordduring 1988. The first number in thecitation refers to the "number"(month) of the Record issue; thesecond number, following the colon,indicates the page number in thatissue.

OPINIONS1987-29: Partisan communicaticns by. incorporated membership organiza-tion,4:6

1987-30: Assets of candidate's wifeused to payoff bank loan to candi­date, 2:3

1987-31: Eligibility of security ex­change's eight membership classesfor PAC solicitations, 3:5

1987-32: Campaign contributions inthe form of silver dollars, 3:7

1987-33: Law firm and partner arenot government contractors, 3:7

1987-34: Solicitations by subsldiaryof joint venture partnership, 6:5

1988-1: Activity to influence dele­gate selection, 5:3

1988-2: FEC reports posted on secu­rity exchange's bulletin boards, 4:7

1988-3: Trade association solicita­tions, 7:3

1988-4: Affiliation of PACs throughcorporate merger, 5:4

1988-5: Presidential matching pay­ments used for '84 debts, 5:5

1988-6: Allocation of media expensesto fundraising exemption, 4:7

1988-7: Candidate's use of personalgifts for campaign, 5:6

1988-8: PAC contributions by estatetrust, 5:6

1988-10: Activities for post-primarydelegate selection, 6:5

1988-11: Solicitation of teachers bytrade association of schools, 6:7

1988-12: Promotion of credit cardprogram by party committee/bank,7:3

1988-13: Campaign funds used to paycandidate's rent, 7:4

1988-14: Joint PAC sponsored by af­filiated corporations, 6:7

1988-17: Corporation's sale of medal­lions depicting candidates and na­tional nominating conventions, 8:3

1988-18: Liability of union for dona-

tions from its funds by nonfederalentities, 7:9

1988-19: Solicitability of employeeshareholders, '[:5

1988-21: Act's preemption of Califor­nia ordinance governing contribu­tions, 7:5

1988-22: Political activities spon­sored by incorporated political or­ganization, 11:3

1988-23: Air travel coupons sold tocampaign, 8:4

1988-24: Joint fundraising committeeestablished by federal/non federalcandidates, 11:5

1988-25: Cars provided by corpora­tion to national Presidential nomi­nating conventions, 8:4

1988-26: Hourly wage earners not so­Iieltable, 8:5

1988-27: Corporate expenditures forPAC fundraiser and honorarium, 9:6

1988-28: Corporation's 900 line tele­phone service for political commit­tees, 10:5

1988-32: Reporting last-minute con­tributions, 9:7

1988-36: PAC's solicitation of com­pany's employee stockholders, 11:6

1988-40: Post card distributed under"coattail" exception, 11:7

COURT CASESRalph J. Galliano v, U.S. Postal Ser­

vice, 1:7j 3:9Harry Kroll v, Americans with Hart,

Ine., 5:6Xerox Corp. v, Americans with Hart,

Inc•• 5:6FEC v,

-Augustine for Congress, 1:8-Beatty for Congress Commit-

tee, 6:9-Bookman & Associates, Ine.,

11:12-Californians for a Strong

America, 8:7-Citizens for the President '84,

3:10-Citizens to Elect Jerald Wilson

for Congress, 1:9-Dietl for Congress, 6:9-Dominelli (second suit), 5:8-Friends of Isaiah Fletcher,

11:13-Ted Haley Congressional Com­

mittee,9:7

15

-Holrn es Committee, 7:7-Lee, 7:7-New York State Conservative

Party State Committee/1984Victory Fund, et al., 2:4

-Bob Richards for President,11:2

-Rodriguez, 8:6-Taylor Congressional Commit-

tee, 11:13-Thornton Township Regular

Democratic Organization, 9:8-Working Names, Ine., 7:6

v, FEC----Antosh, 1:8j second suit, 3:10;

6:8-Boulter and National Republi­

can Senatorial Committee, 9:7-Common Cause (Third Suit),

5:7, 10:7j Seventh Suit, 10:6,11:12

-NRA,IO:9-Stark (Second Suit), 4:8-USDC, 7:6

800 LINEElection information available from

other agencies, 11:7Last-Minute Contributions and Inde­

pendent Expenditures, 2:4Partnership contributions, 8:6

$1,078,9398,393,0997,618,1169,040,0282,550,954

863,6172,831,7323,801,427

538,5391,122,2827,037,5465,764,616

825,5779,346,1123,470,648

Total AmountCertified

Through 10/13/88

Bulk Rate MailPostage and Fees Paid

Federal Election CommissionPermit Number G-31

Candidate

Babbitt (0)Bush (R)Dole (R)Dukakis (0)DuPont (R)Fulani (NA)Gephardt (D)Gore (D)Haig (R)Hart (D)Jackson (D)Kemp (R)LaRouche (D)Robertson (R)Simon (D)

FEC APPROVES MATCHING FUNDSBy mid-October 1988 the Com mission had

certified a total of $64,283,232 in federal match­ing funds to the U.S. Treasury for 15 eligiblePresidential primary candidates. (See cumulativechart below.)

During 1988 an eligible Presidential candi­date may periodically submit requests for primarymatching funds. The federal government willmatch up to $250 of an individual's total contribu­tions to an eligible candidate. Contributions frompolitical committees are not matchable. (See 26U~S.C. §§9034 and 9036 and 11 CFR 9034 and9036.1(b) and 9036.2(a).)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number11

11 CFR Parts 109 and 114: Corpo­rate and Labor Expenditures; An­nouncement of Public Hearing andComment Period Extension (53 Fed.Reg. 40070; October 13, 1988) -

11 CPR Part 106: Methods of Allo­cation Between Federal and Nonfed­eral Accounts; Payments; Report­ing; Change of Public Hearing Date(53 Fed. Reg. 40070, October 13,1988)

Contributions and Expenditures;Communications, Advertising; TradeAssociations; Notice of ProposedRulemaking (53 Fed. Reg. 35827,September 15, 1988)

11 CFR Part 106: Methods of Allo­cation Between Federal and Nonfed­eral Accounts; Payments; Report­ing; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(53 Fed. Reg. 38012, September 29,1988)

TitleTed Haley Congressional CommitteeRulemaking Petition; Notice of Dis­position (53 Fed. Reg. 35829, Sep­tember 15, 1988)

Official Business

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

November 1988

1988-13

1988-12

1988-10

1988-11

Notice1988-9

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICESCopies of notices are available in the Public

Records Office.