November 1993

Table 0 Conte

BudgetElectronic Filing and EnhancedEnforcement for 1995

ourt CasesFEC v, Colorado RepublicanFederal Campaign Committee

3 FE v. Maggin for CongressCommittee

onferences2 PAC onferenee in Washington,

DC, December 13 and 14

omputer Resources2 New Brochure on FEC's Direct

Access Program (DAP)

4 Federal Register

Motor Voter4 Comments Sought on Mail-In Voter

Registration Form and BiennialReports to Congress

Public Funding5 Robertson Campaign Required to

Repay $300,000

6 dvisory Opinions

Regulation6 Comment Period Extended for

Personal Use Rulemaking

pccial Elections6 Michigan Special Election

ompliancc7 IURs Released to the Public

7 Indcx

Federal Election Commission

Budget

Electronic Filing andEnhanced EnforcementProposed in 1995 Budget

On October I, 1993, the Commis­'ion "em OMB and Congre a bud­get request for $29.8 million and 347full time equivalent staff (FfE) forfiscal year 1995. The document asksfor $6.3 million more than the antici­pated FY 1994 appropriation. The

, increase would be used primarily topay for the following programs:

• Electronic filing of campaignfinance reports submitted to theFederal Election Commission andenhancement of the FEC's computerequipment. The program would costnearly $4 million and require 7 addi­tional staff for FY 1995.

• The 1996 Presidential funding pro­gram. Additional auditors wouldreplace GAO auditors who, duringprevious Presidential cycles, hadbeen detailed to the FEC on a non­reimbursable basis.

• Audits of20 to 25 political commit­tees (out of a total of more than8,000). This program, which wouldbe carried Ollt under 2 U.S.c.§438(b), would assure that commit­tees with the most egregious report­ing problems would be audited,even in Presidential election years.

(contin ued on page 2)

Volume 19, Number 11

Court Cases

FE v, olorado RepublicanFederal Campaign Committee

A Colorado district court recentlyruled that a communication by a partycommittee is subject to the coordi­nated party expenditure limits under2 .S.c. §441a(d) only if it "ex­pressly advocates" the election ordefeat of a candidate. The courtdefined "express advocacy" as adirect plea for specific action, usingwords such as "elect," "support,""defeat" or "reject."

Based on these conclusions, onAugust 31, 1993, the LJ .S. DistrictCourt for the District of Coloradogranted summary judgment to the

I defendant Committee.The court heldI that the Commirtee 's$1 5,OOO expen­

diture for a radio ad, because it didnot contain "express advocacy," wasnot subject to the coordinated partyexpenditure limit. The FEC hadclaimed that the advertisement hadcaused the Committee to exceed itsparty expenditure limit in a Senaterace.

The Adverti erncntIn April 1986-four months before

the Democratic primary and sevenmonths before the November generalelection- the Committee ran a radioad in response to a series of television

(continued on page 3)

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Budget[continued from page J)

• Enforcement of the $25,CXJO annuallimit on contributions from individu­als. At a cost of $238,600, the pre­gram would need 4 additional staff.

If the electronic fil ing programwere fully funded, the Commissionwould begin to implement it in timefor (he 1996 elections. It would beavailable for the national party com­mittees and large PACs, which filereports with the FEe. (House andSenate committees. which file withthe Clerk of the House and the Secre­tary of the Senate, respectively, wouldnot be included in this program.)Under th is proposal, the Commissionwould begin to develop a programwhereby smaller PACs and partycommittees could file data by

Federal Election Commission999 E Street. NWWashington, DC 20463

800/424-95302021219-.14202021219-3.136 (TOO)

Scott E. Thomas, ChairmanTrevor Pott er, Vice Chairman.Joan D. Aikens, CommissionerLee Ann Elliot!. CommissionerDannv L. McDonald.Co~missioncr

.John Warren McGarry.Commissioner

watterJ. Stewart. Secretaryof the Senate. Ex OfficioCommissioner

Donnald K. Anderson. Clerkof the House of Representatives,Ex Officio Commissioner

John C. Surma, Staff DirectorLawrence M. Nob le. General

Counsel

Published by the lnformanonDivision

Louise D. Wides, DirectorStephanie Fitzgerald. Eduor" lake Lange. Graphics Adv isor

2

magnetic disk. In addition, the FECwould develop software specificat ionsfor those committees that wanted tofile computer-generated paper copiesof FEC reports.

The request for funds to implementelectronic filing came in response tosuggestions from Congressional over­sight committees. While acknowledg­ing that the system should increasethe breadth and scope of data col­lected (e.g., more detailed disburse­ment da ta) and reduce (he timerequired to capture the data. the Com­mission made clear that the programwould be expensive. particularly dur­ing development and installation.Furthermore. if the agency chose tomaintain a consistent data base (i.e.•posting itemized expenditures onhardcopy filers), FEC staff wouldhave to manually capture more datafrom reports filed on paper.

Commenting on the budget sub­mission. the Commission's requeststated that "with the fate of proposedcampaign finance reform legislationin doubt. it is even more imperativethat the Commission receive adequatefunds to vigorously enforce the exist­ing laws and promote the widest pos­sible disclosure of campaign financedata." •

November 1993

Conferences

FEC to Hold December PACConference in Washington, DC

On December 13and 14, the FECwill hold a I Y.! day conference inWashington, DC. for corporations,trade associations, labor organizationsand their PACs. FEC Commissionersand staff will conduct workshops foreach type of organization.

The $ 125 registration fee coversconference materials and three meals(two continental breakfasts and onelunch).

The conference will be held at theWashington Hilton and Towers Con­ference Center. 191 9 ConnecticutAvenue, NW, Washington. DC 20009(202/483-3CXJO) . To receive the grouprate of $120 per night for a singleroom. make your reservation by No­vember 2 1 and notify the hotel thatyou will be at tending the FEC confer­ence.

For more information. or to placeyour name on the mailing list forregistration materials,call the FEC:800/424-9530 DC 202/219-3420. •

ComputerResources

OAP Brochure PoblishedThe FEC recently published a

brochure to explain the agency'sDirect Access Program (DAP). Thisprogram provides on-line computeraccess to campaign finance infonna­lion, advisory opinions and COUl1 caseabstracts. (For a full description of theprogram, see the January Record.s

To order a copy of this brochure.or to receive additional informationabout DAP, contact the Data SystemsDivision at 800/424-9530 or 202/219­3730. •

•

•

•

•

•

•

November /993

Court Cases{continued from ptlge I)

ads sponsored by the campaigncommittee of then-CongressmanWirth. a Democrat.

The Cornrnitree's ad contrastedMr. Wirth's statements in his TV adswith his Congressional voting record.and concluded with the words: "Ti mWirth has a right to run for the Senate.but he doesn't have a right to changethe facts."

"The Committee reponed the$15.(0) payment as an operatingexpense for "voter information toColorado vorers-c-advenis ing."

Under the Federal ElectionCampaign Act, the Committee wasauthorized to spend up 10 a certainlimit on coordinated partyexpendi­tures made " in connection with thegeneral election campaign" of theRepublican Party candidate running inthe U.S. Senate race in Colorado.2 U.S.c. §441a(d)() )' The Commit­tee, however, had assigned its entire1986 spending authority to theNational Republican SenatorialCommittee.

The Commission argued that theradio ad constituted a coordinatedparty expenditure and that the Com­minee. no longer having any spendingauthority, had violated the §44l a(d)limit.

T he Court's DecisionCoordinated \'s. ind epend ent

Expenditures. The court rejected theCommittee 's argument that the adwas an " independent expenditure"(rather than a coordinated expendi­turej-c-a nd thus not subject to spend­ing limits-because it was airedbefore the Republican candidate hadbeen nominated. The COUrl noted thaithe FEC and the courts have said thatparty committeesare incapable ofmaking independent expenditures.The court concluded that the Commit­tee's expenditure "was made onbehalf of the Republican candidate.whomever that might be: and it isirrelevant that no particular personhad been designated: '

"In Connection With," Pursuant to§44 la(d), Ihe Commit tee 's expendi­ture would be subject to the §44 la(d)limits only if it were made"inconnection with" the general electioncampaign of the Senate nominee.

TIle court looked to the SupremeCourt ' s interpretation of '' in connec­tion with" in Federal ElectionCommission v. Massachus ettsCitizens for Life, Inc. (MCFL),whichinvolved the prohibition on corporateand labor contributions and expendi­lures under 2 U.s.c. §441 b. InMCFL, the Supreme Court held that"an expenditure must consnrute'express advocacy' in order 10 besubject to the prohibition of §44 I b."MCFL.479 U.S. 238. 249 (1986).The district coun found that the ruleof starurory construcnon-c-i.e ..identical words used in different partsof the same statue have the samemeaning-applied 10 sections 44 1band 441a(d) because they had asimilar purpose, to regulate expendi­lures by multiperson organizations.The court therefore concluded:" ' [E]xpress advocacy' is required inorder for a coordinated expenditure tobe 'in connection with' the generalelection campaign of a candidate forfederal office under section 441a(d)() .' ·

Relying on its interpretation inAdvisory Opinion 1985-14, the FECargued that "in connection with," asused in §441a(d), meant that acommunication was subject to theexpenditure limit if it contained anelectioneering message and a refer­ence to a clearly identified candidate(as opposed to express advocacy of aclearly identified candidate). Thecourt. however, found that. becausecoordinated party expendituresimplicate free speech concerns, the"express advocacy" standard wasnecessary to prevent undue regulationof political speech.

"Express Advocacy," Afterconcluding thai "express advocacy"was necessary for coordinatedexpenditures 10 be subject to §441a(d)limits. the coun considered whether

Federal EleClion Commission RECORD-~

the comminee's radio ad constiruted"express advocacy." "When deter­mining whether speech consurutes"express advocacy,'" the COull said," the focus is on the actual wordingused." The coun pointed out that theSupreme Court. in Buckley v, Valeo,defined "express advocacy" as"express words of advocacy ofelection or defeat, such as 'vo te for:' elect.' ' support.' ' cast your ballotfor,' 'Smith for Congress: 'vo leagainst: 'defeat: or ' reject.:" Ruck­ley. 424 U.S. I. 46 n.52 (1976).

Using this language as a "bright­line" (est for express advocacy, thecoun said that vltjbe Advertisementdoes not contain any w ords whichexpressly advocateaction. At best, asplaintiff suggests, the Advertisementcontains an indirect plea for action."

While the FEC never reached theissue of whether (he ad constituted"express advocacy:' (he agency didargue that the ad urged the public tovote against Mr. Wirth in favor of (heeventual Republican nominee basedon (he surrounding circumstances:The ad responded to Mr. Wirth ' s TVads; he was identified as a Senatecandidate; and the disclaimer identi­fied the Republican Committee as thead's sponsor. The coun, however,declined to consider the surroundingcircumstances, holding that theBuckley Coun created a bright-linetest for express advocacy. +

FEe v, Maggio for CongressCommittee

On June 29,1993, the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of New Hamp­shire held defendants Elliott S.Maggin for Congress Committee andits treasurer. Andi T. Johnson, in civilcontempt of coun for failing to paycivil penalties and the FEC's costsand anomeys fees (No. C86-4o-L).The assessments have remained upaidsince they were imposed under anAugust 1986 court order.

[connnued 011 pagt' -I)

3

FederalElection Commission RECORD

Court Cases(conlinued f rom page 3)

The court further ordered Ms.Johnson to provide the FEC withfinancial records on her resources andliabilities within 20 days and toappear before the coun 30 days aftersubmitting the records. A 510,000civil penalty and interest on the earlierpenalties will be assessed against herif she fails to provide the information.

Under the 1986judgment, thecourt found that the defendants hadviolated the Federal Election Cam­paign ACI by failing to file a 1984quarterly report. The court orderedeach defendant 10 pay a $5,000 civilpenalty and permanently enjoinedthem from further violations of theAct. Defendants were also ordered topay $2,569 to cover the FEC's costsand attorneys fees. •

Federal Register

Copies of Federal Register noticesare availahle from the PublicRecords Office.

1993-2211 CFR Part R: National VoterRegistration Act; Advance Noticeof Proposed Ru lemaking (58 FR51132. September 30. 1993)

1993-23[ I CFR Parts 100 and 113:Personal Use of Campaign Funds;Extension of Comment Period andNotice of Hearing Request (58 FR52040.October 6. 19( 3)

1993-24I I CFR Parts 107, 11 4: and 9008:Presidennal Election CampaignFund and Federal FinancingofPresidential NominatingConventions; Announcement ofHearing (58 FR 52700, October J2,1993)

4

Motor Voter

Commission Seeks Comments0 11 Mail-in Registration Formand Biennial Reporting

The FEC recently asked electionofficials and other interested partiesfor their help in creating a nationalmail-in voter registration form, one ofthe Commission's new responsibili­ties under the National Voter Regis­tration Act (the motor voter law). Thefonn must be ready by January 1995.

The agency also asked for guid­ance on what voting information theFEC should request from the statesfor compilation in biennial reports toCongress. Beginning in June 1995and every two years thereafter, theagency will be required to report toCongress on the impact of the motorvoter law and on ways to improvestate and federal procedures.

The Commission requested thecomments in an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking published in theFederal Register on September 30;comments were due November I (58FR 51132). The notice is summarizedbelow. Eventually, the FEC willprescribe regulations on the specificsof the form and the information to beprovided by the states to the FEe.(Under the motor voter law. theCommission has a limited authority tocreate rules in these areas only; it hasno enforcement powers.)

In drafting final rules, the agencywill also consider the resuIts ofsurveys conducted by the FEe'sClearinghouse on Election Adminis­tration. The surveys will provideinformation on state laws and registra­tion procedures.

The Clearinghouse has taken anumber of steps to provide informa­tion to the states on their responsibili­ties Li nder the motor voter law,another of the FEC's responsibilities.In its most recent effort, this fall theClearinghouse met with key stateofficials at regional conferences in

Novemner 1993

Seattle, Dallas, Chicago, Boston andAtlanta.

Nationa l Ma il-inVoter Registr at ion Form

Content. The motor voter lawrequires the form to include severalitems, Stich as voter eligibilityrequirements.

As to information to be filled in bythe applicant. the form may requireonly that information which is"necessary" to process the applicationand administer the election process.The Commission asked for commentson what information would be"necessary" but pointed out that therecould be conflicts betwee n curren tpractice and what is "necessary"under the law.

Formal. The Commission raised anumber of issues on the format of thevoter registration form. One concernwas how to accommodate the dif­ferent state voter-eligibility require­ments and the different informationon where to mail the form.

Placing a top priority on creating a"user friendly" form. the agency alsoasked to what extent the fonn couldbe designed for special populations:foreign language versions for thosejurisdictions covered by the languageminority requirements of the VotingRights Act; the use of large type forthe visually impaired. as recom­mended by the Americans withDisabilities Act: and the use ofsimplified language and format tomeet the needs of the marginallyliterate.

The Commission suggested thatone practical way to meet theseseveral needs would be to develop abooklet with tear-out applicationforms .

Report to CongressThe FEC also asked for sugges­

tions on what information it shouldreport 10 Congress and how theinformation could be obtained withoutunduly burdening state officials.

While the reports will cover somebasic statistics on registration and

•

•

•

•

•

•

N(lI'emMI' /993 _

voting. the FEe observed that otherdata might also be helpful: statisticson registration at public assistance orpublic services offices. and thepercentage of registrants who voted,broken down by type and/or locationof registration. The agency soughtcomment on how this informationcould be gathered without violatingprivacy rights. +

Public Funding

Robert son 's 1988 CampaigoRequired to Repay $290,79~

in Public FundsPat Robertson's 1988 President ial

campaign. Americans for Robertson.must repay $290.794 in public funds10 the U.S. Treasury. The campaignhad received over $10.4 million inprimary matching funds.

The final repayment amount.approved by the Commission onSeptember 23. represents the pro rataportion of over $950,000 in nonquali­lied campaign expenses incurred bythe campa ign.(Only the portion ofnonqualified campaign expenses thatwere defrayed with public funds arcsubject to repayment. A ratio formulais used 10 determine that amount.)The campaign was also ordered torefund $105,635 to news mediaorganizarlons for travel overcharges.

In the final audit report. theCommission had initially asked for a5388544 repayment but, based on thecampaign's response to that report,reduced the amount by $97,750.

The final audit report (containingthe initial repayment determination)and the Commission's statement ofreasons supporting the final repay­ment dererminauon are available forreview in the FEe's Public RecordsOffice. A summary of the repaymentfindings appears below.

Break Down of RepaymentThe 5290.794 final repayment

consists of several components:

• For exceeding the Iowa and NewHampshire expenditure limits by5789,409, the campaign must repay$240.882. the pro rata portion. (Theagency also determined that thecampaign had exceeded the overallspending limit by $648,525 butbased the repayment on the largeramount. the excessive state spend­ing.)

• The campaign must repay $22.728for nonqualitied campaign expensesassociated with the RepublicanNational Convention. The expenseswere incurred after the candidate'sdate of ineligibility. when thecampaign was required to limit itsactivities to winding down thecampaign. The convention expenses.however. did not appear to belegitimate wind-down costs.

• The campaign failed to document$17,008 in transfers and must paythe pro rata portion, $5,190.

• Finally, the campaign must make a$21.994 repayment representing thepro rata portion of other nonquali­fled campaign expenses, including$71,761 in tax penalties.

Press Travel RefundThe campaign must refund

S105,635 to news media flrrns thatwere overcharged for travel oncampaign aircraft. The campaignfailed to use the prescribed methodfor determining how much to chargethe media for travel{i.e., dividing theactual transportation costs among theindividuals on a campaign night).Instead, it charged passengers the firstclass airfare.

Challenge to RepaymentIn its December 1992 oral presen­

tenon, the Robertson campaigndisputed the FEe's iniliaI repaymentdetermination. claiming thai theagency had failed 10 notify thecampaign of the final repaymentamount within the three-year dead­line. (See 26 V.S.c. §9038(c).) The

Fdefat Elee/ion Commission RECORD

Commission, however, said that thecampaign had raised the issue too latefor agency consideration.

As explained in the FEe'sstatement of reasons, an oral preserua­lion must be based on the writtenmaterials subrnnred in response to theinitial repayment determination.I I CFR 9038.2(cX2) and (3). Theagency said that the Robertsoncampaign. by failing to include thethree-year notification argument in itswritten response. waived its right toraise the argument during the oralpresentation or at any future stage ofthe repayment proceedings. includinga COUlt challenge to the final repay­rnent.' II CFR 9038.5(b). Conse­quently, the agency did not considerthe argument in reaching the finalrepayment determination for theRobenson campaign. +

I By contrast, the Dllkal..is and Simont'residemiat campaigns raised a similarnotiftcalion argument in a lime/y fashion.Afttr considering their argunlettls, hOI\"­ever, I IU! Commission concluded that thethree-yearrequirement had teen satisfied....hrn tbe campaigns were notified ofrheprellmiflary repavmentcalculation ill 'eluded in the interim audit repoa. (Seelire April / 993 issue. page lJ .) The twocampaigns again raisedme notificationissue in w ur! suits challenging tneof?,ency's final repayment determinations.(See the A u~us' issue,page 7.)

5

•

•

•

November / 993

Party committees and PACs mayhave 10 file pre- and post-generalelection reports if they made (orintend 10 make)contributionsorexpenditures in connection with theDecember 7 specia l genera l elec­tion in Michigan's 3rd Congres­sional District. Forfunherinformation, see the October 1993Record, page 6, or call the Com­mission.

Michigan SpecialElection

Persona l Use Comment PeriodExtended

The Commission has extended, by45 days, the comment period for itsproposed regulations on personal useof campaign funds. (For a summaryof the proposed rules. see the OctoberRecord.t Comments must be receivedby November 13. See 58 FR 52()40.

Additionally, anyone interested intestifying at a public hearing on theproposed rules should notify theCommission before the end of thecomment period.

Comments and requests to testifymust be in writing, and should be sentto Ms. Susan E. Propper, AssistantGeneral Counsel, 999 E Street, NW.Washington, DC 20463. The com­ments will be made available forpublic review in the FEC's PublicRecords Office. •

Regulations

work, plan sales strategies and handleother "supervisory, administrative andprofessional responsibilities." Bycontrast. the two classes of telemar­keting representatives focus primarilyon sales.

Date issued: September 30, 1993;Length: 5 pages. •

Moreover. the Act and Commissionregulations do not perrnit federalcontractors to segregate the proceedsof their contracts from other funds asa means of avoiding the prohibitionsof section 441c. The Commissionnoted. however, thai individualmembers of the tribe could makepersonal contributions or form anonconnecred political committee.II CFR I 15.6 and AOs 1985-23.1984-10 and 1984-12.

Date Issued; September 17, 1993;Length: 7 pages. •

AO 1993-1 6Solicitab le Classlor Corporate SSF

Blue Cross of California (BCC)proposed to solicit contributions to itsseparate segregated fund (SSF) fromthree classes of employees. Only oneof those classes-regional sales man­agers-ccan be solicited as "executiveor administrative personnel" underI I CFR 114.5.

Under that regulation, an SSF maysolicit contributions. at any time, fromits executive or administrative person­nel. stockholders and the families ofboth groups . I 11 CFR 114.5(g)."Executive or administrative person­nel" is defined as corporate employ­ees who are paid on a salary basis and"have policymaking, managerial.professional, or supervisory responsi­bilities: ' 11 CFR 114.1(c).

All three classes of employees thatBCC planned 10 solicit-c-telemar­keting representatives. lead telemar­keting representatives and regionalsales managers-are paid. in part. ona salary basis. but only the sales man­agers have sufficient supervisoryresponsibilities to qualify as "execu­tive or administrative personnel."Unlike the other classes, the managersroutinely monitor the quality of sales

I Twice a year, a corporation may solicitcontributions from the rest ofits employ­ees. I I eFR 114.6(a).

Federal EleetiollCQmmi~~ iOIl RE~C~O~R~D,--- --,-~~:':..~,,-

AdvisoryOpinions

AO 1993-1 2IndianTribe as a FederalContrac tor

The Mississippi Band of theChoctaw Indians qualifies as a"federal contractor" because the tribehas entered into procurement con­tracts with agencies of the federalgovernment. As a result, the tribe maynot make contributions in connectionwith federal elections during the terrnof these agreements. 2 U.S.c. §44l c.

The Choctaw Tribe entered intothree types of agreements with thegovernment: self-determinationcontracts, grant agreements andprocurement contracts. Self-determi­nation contracts with the U.S. Depart­ment of the Interior provide funds tothe tribe to run programs otherwiseprovided by Interior for the benefit ofthe tribe.I Grant agreements providefederal funds (e.g., for vocationaltraining) [0 the tribe because of itsstatus as a government entity. Theprocurement contracts involve thesale of tribe-produced items to thefederal government (e.g., Bureau ofIndian Affairs).

Under Commission regulations.the ban on contributions by federalcontractors applies to a person whoenters into a contract with the govern­ment to provide property or services.I I CFR 115.1.The tribe's se l f~

determination contracts and grantagreements do not involve (heprovision of property or services tothe government, but its procurementcontracts do-making the tribe afederal contractor.

As a federal contractor, the tribemay not make contributions inconnection with federal elections.

I Indian Self-Determination and Educe ­tiona!AssistaJlce Act, 25 USc. §450.

6

•

•

•

November 1993

Compliance

MlJRs Released to the PublicListed below are FEeenforcement

cases (Mane rs Under Review orMUR s) recently released for publicreview. The list is based on the FEepress releases of September 27 andOctober4, 1993. Files on closedMURs are available for review in thePublic Records Office.

M t:R 3524Respondents: (a) Oregon Republ icanPatt y, Craig C. Brenton, treasurer; (b )Re-Elect Packwood Committee,Geoffrey Brown, treasurer (OR)Com pla ina nt: Democrat ic SenatorialCampai gn Committee (DC)Subject: Failure to report properlycosts associated with advertisements:failure to report in-kind contributionDisposition: (a) 510,000 civ ilpenalty; (b) no reason to believe

Mt:IU534Respondent s: (a) Clinton for Presi­dent Committee, Robert Fanne r,treasurer (AR); (b) Andrew Jac kson(SC); (c) Darrell Jackson (SC);(d) Heyward Bannister (SC); (e) Sun­rise Enterprise of Columbi a, Inc.(SC ); (f) Bible Church of Atlas Road,Inc. (SC)Compla inant: Robert l .ee Will iams(SC)Subject: Distribution of campaignliteratureDisposition: (aj-tf) Rejected GeneralCoun sel ' s recommendat ions andinstead found no reason to believe

Mt:R 3536Respondents: (a) William J. McCuen(AR); (b) persons unknownCom plainant: Beryl Anthony, Jr.(DC)Subject : Fraudule nt misrepresenta­tionDisposition : (a) and (b) Reason tobelieve but took no further action

M UR 3714/3612Respondent s (all in PAl: (a) Pennsyl­vania Association of Broadcasters,Richard Wyckoff, president ;(b) Richard Thornburgh; (c) SenatorHarris Wofford ; (d) Fred Friendly;(e) WPX I Television; (f) SenatorArlen Specter; (g) Citizens for ArlenSpecter. Stephen Harmelin, treasurer;(h) Lynn Yeakel; (i) I.ynn Yeakel forU.S. Senate, Sidney Rosenblatt ,treasurer; U) KSKA-TV; (k) Leagueof Women Voters of Pennsylvania,Diane Edm undson , chairComplainant : William D. White (PA)Subject: Debate; corporate contribu­tionsDisp osition : (a) Reason to believe buttook no further action; (b)-(k) took noaction

M UR 3785Responden ts: (a) MIG PoliticalAct ion Committee, Kathleen I..Gutin, treasurer (FL); (b) Robert D.Barwick (FL)Compla ina nt: FEC initiatedSubject: Excessive contributions;failure to ident ify source of conrribu­lionDisposit ion : (a) $4,000 civ il penalty;(b)$ 1,500civi l penalty

M UR 3792Respondents: Your Ballot Guide, JillBarad. treasurer (CA)Compla ina nt: FEC initiatedSubject: Failure to report on timeDisposition : SI ,OOOcivil penalty

M UR 3799Resp ond en ts: Barnett People forBetter Government, Inc.- Federal,Brian Babcock, treasurer (FL)Compla ina nt: FEC initiatedSubject : Excessive contributionsDisposition : SI,9OO civil penalty .

Index

The first number in each citat ionrefe rs to the "number" (month) of the1993 Record issue in which the articleappeared. The second number, follow­ing the colon, indicates the page num­ber in that issue.

Advis ory Opinions1992-38: Loan from Presidential

campaign's legal and co mpliancefund to public funding account, 1:6

1992-40: Commissions earned bystate party committees. 2:5

1992-4 1; Solicitation of mem bers, 3:31992-42: Bank depos it lost in mail,

3:31992-43: Preempt ion of state law's

fundraising restrictions, 3:41992-44: Qualifying as national party

committee, 6:51993-1; Campaign ' s rental of storage

unit from candidate, 4:81993-2: Application of party spending

limits to Tex as specia l runoff 4:91993-3: Retroactive reallocation of

1991-92 activity, 5: I1993-4: Electronic payment of bills

through computer. 6:51993-5: 1992 contributions misplaced

at post office, 6:61993-6: Use of excess funds by

former House member, 7:61993-7: Name of corporate PAC, 9:61993-8: Preempti on of state law

prohibitin g contributions fromincorporated com mittees, 9:6

1993-9: Preemption of state lawprohibiting corporate donations toparty building fund, 10:8

1993- 10: Use of excess cam paignfunds, 9:7

1993- 11: Transfer from nonfederalcampaign to 1988 Presidentialcompliance fund, 10:8

1993-12: Indian tribe as fede ralcontractor, 11:6

1993-13: Excess campaign fundsdonated for scho larships, 10;9

1993- 14: Preemption of state law 'sregistration, reporting and contribu­tion requirements. 10:9

(continued on page 8)

7

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index(continued/rom page 7)

1993-15: Funds raised for legalexpenses related to DOJ investiga­tion of campaign con ultant, 10:I0

1993-16: Solicitable class for corpo­rate SSF, 11:6

Court CasesFECv . _ _- America's PAC, 4:10- Californians for a Strong America,

to:3- Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 11:1- International Funding Institute, 1:2;

5:2- Maggin for CongressCommittee,

11:3- Miller, 6:8

ational Republican SenatorialCommittee (93-0365), 6:8

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business*Printed on recycled paper

- People & Politics, Inc., 3:3- Political Contributions Data, lnc.,

8:6v. FEC

- Common Cause (92-0249 (JHG)),4: to

- Common Cause (92-2538), 1:8; 8:5- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (93-132 1), 8:7- Dukakis, 8:7- Khachaturian, 8:5- LaRouche (92-1100), 9:3- LaRouche (92-1555), 1:8; 6:8- 1 ational Rifle Association (92-

5078),4:10- Simon, 8:7- Spannaus (9 1-0681), 6:7- White (93-771),6:8U.S. Senator John Seymour Commit­

tee v. Dianne Feinstein, 1:8Weber, et al. v. Heaney, et al., 8:I

November /993

ReportsLast-minutecontribut ions: 48-hour

reporting.4:7Reporting problems, letter to new

candidates, 4:8Schedule for 1993, 1:3; 6:ISpecial elections- California, Mississippi, Ohio,

Texas and Wisconsin, 3: I; 4:7; 6:4- Michigan, 9:10: 10: 6: 11 :6Slate fil ing, 9:6

800 Line ArticlesCredit card contributions, 5:5Party committee allocation: carrying

debts from previous election cycle.2:7

$25,000 annual limit, 4:2

Bulk Rate MailPostage and Fees Paid

Federal Election CommissionPermit Number G-31