Table Of ContentDecember 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 12
Table of Contents
Regulations Court Cases
Regulations
Final Rules on Political Shays and Meehan v. FEC
1 Final Rules on Political Committee
Committee Status
Status On October 28, 2004, the Federal
3 Final Rules on Party Committees’ On October 28, 2004, the Com- Election Commission voted to ask
Coordinated and Independent mission concluded its political the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Expenditures committee status rulemaking by D.C. Circuit to overturn a U.S. Dis-
approving the explanation and trict Court’s conclusions regarding
Court Cases
justification (E&J) to accompany several Commission regulations that
1 Shays and Meehan v. FEC
the final rules. The rules expand the implemented the Bipartisan Cam-
definition of contribution in a way paign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).
3 Advisory Opinions
that may require additional organiza- (See the November 2004 Record,
Compliance tions to register and file reports with page 1, for more information regard-
5 MUR 5268 the FEC, beginning in 2005. The ing Shays and Meehan v. FEC.)
regulations also change the methods The Commission voted to pursue
6 Nonfilers PACs (i.e., separate segregated funds on appeal the District Court deci-
and nonconnected committees) use sions regarding:
Statistics to allocate expenses between their
• Coordinated communications
7 Independent Expenditures
federal and nonfederal accounts.
7 Fundraising Through Pre-Election content standards at 11 CFR
The final rules and their E&J will
Period 109.21(c)(4)(i)-(iii);
be published in a future Federal Reg-
• The definition of “solicit” at 11
ister, and are available on the FEC
Public Funding CFR 300.2(m) and “direct” at 11
web site at www.fec.gov/law/law_
9 Commission Certifies Matching CFR 300.2(n);
Funds for Presidential Candidates rulemakings.shtml#political_com- • The regulation governing payment
mittee_status. The effective date for
of state, district or local party em-
Outreach these rules is January 1, 2005.
ployee wages or salaries at 11 CFR
10 FEC Roundtables
300.33(c)(2);
10 Get Conference Info via E-Mail Funds Treated as Contributions
• The de minimis exemption for
Under new regulations at 11 CFR
Levin funds that allows state and
10 Index 100.57, funds received in response
local party committees to use
to a communication that indicates
federal funds, Levin funds or a
any portion of the funds will be used
combination of both for certain
to support or oppose the election of
federal election activities aggregat-
a clearly identified federal candidate,
ing up to $5,000 in a calendar year
will be considered contributions to
at 11 CFR 300.32(c)(4); and
the person making the communica-
tion. 11 CFR 100.57(a).
(continued on page 2) (continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004
Court Cases Regulations mention a specific federal or nonfed-
(continued from page 1) (continued from page 1) eral candidate. 11 CFR 106.6(b)(4)
and (5). In addition, the new rules
• The requirement that a commu- Many solicitations financed us-
classify public communications by
nication be publicly distributed ing a combination of federal and
PACs that refer to a political party,
“for a fee” to be an “electioneer- nonfederal funds will be subject to
and may or may not refer to clearly
ing communication” at 11 CFR this rule. For example, if a solicita-
identified federal and/or nonfederal
100.29(b)(3)(i). tion refers to a political party and a
candidate, as allocable expenses. 11
clearly identified federal candidate,
In addition, the Commission will CFR 106.6(b)(6), (7) and (8).
but not a nonfederal candidate, all
ask the Court of Appeals to review Allocation Methods. Revised 11
of the funds received in response are
findings about the plaintiffs’ stand- CFR 106.6(c) replaces the former
considered contributions. 11 CFR
ing and the ripeness of the issues “funds expended” allocation method
100.57(b)(1).
in this litigation. While the appeal with a new flat minimum federal
However, if an allocable solicita-
is pending, the FEC will undertake percentage. PACs must now use
tion refers to both a clearly identi-
rulemaking proceedings in response at least 50% federal funds to pay
fied federal candidate and a clearly
to the District Court’s decision. administrative expenses and costs of
identified nonfederal candidate, the
—Meredith Trimble recipient need only treat 50% of generic voter drives that encourage
support of candidates of a particular
the total funds received as contribu-
party or associated with a particular
tions. This federal minimum applies
issue, without mentioning a specific
regardless of whether the solicitation
candidate. Additionally, public com-
also refers to a political party. 11
munications that refer to a political
CFR 100.57(b)(2).
party, but not to specific candidates,
A second exception to the gen-
must be financed using the 50% fed-
eral rule applies to solicitations for
eral funds flat minimum percentage.
joint fundraisers conducted between
The rules also specify that PACs
or among campaign committees of
must pay the following expenses
a federal candidate and campaign
with 100% federal funds:
organizations of nonfederal can-
Federal Election Commission didates. 11 CFR 100.57(c). These 1. Public communications that refer
999 E Street, NW fundraisers continue to be governed to one or more clearly identified
Washington, DC 20463 by regulations at 11 CFR 102.17. federal candidates, regardless of
800/424-9530 However, the new rules would any reference to a political party,
202/694-1100 apply to solicitations for all other but do not refer to any clearly
202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline) joint fundraisers. For example, the identified nonfederal candidates;
202/219-3336 (TDD for the new rules would apply to a solicita- and
hearing impaired) tion for a joint fundraiser between 2. Voter drives, including voter
political committees and/or other identification, voter registration,
Bradley A. Smith, Chairman
organizations that indicated that any GOTV drives, or any other activi-
Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair
portion of the funds received will be ties that through public communi-
David M. Mason, Commissioner
used to support or oppose the elec- cations or other printed materials
Danny L. McDonald,
Commissioner tion of a clearly identified federal urge the public to:
Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner candidate.
• Register, vote or support one or
Michael E. Toner, Commissioner
Allocation more clearly identified federal
James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director Allocable Expenses. The current candidates, but do not refer to
Lawrence H. Norton, General rules at 11 CFR 106.6 outline the ac- any clearly identified nonfederal
Counsel tivities PACs may allocate between candidates; or
Published by the Information their federal and nonfederal ac- • Register, vote or support one or
Division counts. These rules speak to generic more clearly identified federal
Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff voter drives, voter identification, candidates and also urge sup-
Director and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives port for candidates of a par-
Amy Kort, Editor conducted without mentioning a spe- ticular party or associated with
Meredith Trimble, Associate
cific candidate as allocable expenses. a particular issue, but do not
Editor
The new rules provide guidance on
http://www.fec.gov how PACs allocate voter drives that
2
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD
refer to any clearly identified Additional Information
nonfederal candidates. 11 CFR On January 19, 2005, the FEC Advisory
106.6(f)(1). will conduct a roundtable workshop Opinions
with the IRS regarding these new
By contrast, the following
regulations and IRS 527 rules. See
expenses may be paid with 100%
the roundtable chart on page 10 for AO 2004-34
nonfederal funds:
more details. State Party Status
1. Public communications that refer —Elizabeth Kurland The Libertarian Party of Virginia
to political party and one or more
(the Party) satisfies the requirements
clearly identified nonfederal
for state committee status.
candidate, but do not refer to any
The Federal Election Campaign
clearly identified federal candi- Final Rules on Party
Act (the Act) defines a state com-
dates; and Committees’ Coordinated
mittee as “the organization which,
2. Voter drives, including voter and Independent
by virtue of the bylaws of a political
identification, voter registration, Expenditures
party, is responsible for the day-to-
GOTV drives, or any other activi-
On October 28, 2004, the Com- day operation of such political party
ties that through public communi-
mission approved final rules that re- at the State level, as determined
cations or other printed materials
move restrictions placed on political by the Commission.” 2 U.S.C.
urge the public to:
party committees’ ability to make §431(15). In order to achieve state
• Register, vote or support one or both independent expenditures and committee status under Commission
more clearly identified nonfed- coordinated party expenditures with regulations, an organization must
eral candidates, but not refer to respect to the same candidate in con- meet three requirements. 11 CFR
any clearly identified federal nection with a general election. The 100.14 and 100.15. It must:
candidates; or final rules also delete regulations
• Be a political party that gained
• Register, vote or support one or prohibiting a political party commit-
ballot access for at least one federal
more clearly identified nonfed- tee that makes coordinated expen-
candidate who has qualified as a
eral candidates and also urge ditures with respect to a candidate
candidate under the Act;1
support for candidates of a par- from transferring funds to, assigning
• Have bylaws or a similar docu-
ticular party or associated with a coordinated expenditures authority
ment that “delineates activities
particular issue, but do not refer to or receiving a transfer from a po-
commensurate with the day-to-day
to any clearly identified federal litical party that has made or intends
operation” of a party at a state
candidates. 11 CFR 106.6(f)(2). to make an independent expenditure
level; and
with respect to that candidate.
PACs must pay for the following • Be part of the official party struc-
The rules restricting party com-
expenses by using the “time/space” ture.
mittee independent and coordinated
allocation method similar to 11
expenditures were promulgated in The Libertarian Party of Virginia
CFR 106.1 and detailed in 11 CFR
January 2003 in order to implement meets all three requirements. It
106.6(f)(3):
section 213 of the Bipartisan Cam- satisfies the first requirement—bal-
• Public communications that refer paign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). lot access for at least one federal
to one or more clearly identified However, in McConnell v. FEC, the candidate. Harry Browne appeared
federal candidates, and also refer Supreme Court found that section as the Party’s candidate on the Vir-
to any clearly identified nonfederal of the BCRA to be unconstitutional. ginia ballot in 2000, and he met the
candidates, regardless of whether Therefore, the Commission has
there is a reference to a political removed the rules that implemented
party; and section 213.
• Voter drives that urge the public The final rules and their Explana-
to register, vote or support one or tion and Justification were published
more clearly identified nonfederal in the November 3, 2004, Federal
candidates and one or more clearly Register (69 FR 63919), and they
identified nonfederal candidates. are available on the FEC web site at 1 Gaining ballot access for a federal
11 CFR 106.6(f)(3). http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rule- candidate is an essential element for
makings.shtml. These rules will take qualifying as a political party. See 11
effect on December 3, 2004. CFR 100.15.
—Amy Kort
(continued on page 4)
3
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004
Advisory Opinions that expressly advocates for various Analysis
(continued from page 3) federal and nonfederal candidates. No in-kind contribution to federal
The proposed brochure would candidates listed. Under Commis-
requirements for becoming a federal
not constitute support of, or be an sion regulations at 11 CFR 109.21,
candidate under 2 U.S.C. §431(2).2
in-kind contribution to, the federal a coordinated communication is
The Party satisfies the second
candidates listed, provided that the considered an in-kind contribution
requirement because its bylaws de-
federal candidates or their autho- to the candidate or party with whom
lineate activity commensurate with
rized committees reimburse the PCC it is coordinated. The first factor to
the day-to-day functions of a politi-
or leadership PAC in the appropri- consider in determining whether a
cal party on the state level and are
ate amounts and in a timely man- communication is coordinated is
consistent with the state party rules
ner. Those reimbursements would whether someone other than the
of other political organizations that
likewise not constitute support of, or referenced candidate or party paid
the Commission has found to satisfy
be contributions to, the sponsoring for the ad. In this case, because each
this requirement for state committee
committee. The requestors did not federal candidate will be included
status. See AOs 2003-27, 2002-10,
request the Commission’s opinion in the brochure only if he or she
2002-6 and 2002-3. It is also an
regarding arrangements with or pay- reimburses the Waters Committee
affiliate of the national Libertarian
ments by nonfederal candidates or or PHP for the attributable costs,
Party, which qualified for national
their committees. the brochure would not satisfy the
committee status in 1975. See AO
payment prong of the coordinated
1975-129.
Background communication test. Therefore,
Finally, as the Libertarian Party’s
Representative Maxine Wa- payments by either the Waters
state party organization in Virginia,
ters is a U.S. Representative from Committee or PHP for the brochure
the Party is part of the official party
California who ran for re-election would not constitute support of, or
structure and, thus, meets the third
on November 2, 2004. She would in-kind contributions to, any federal
requirement as well. See AOs 2004-
like to produce a brochure, either candidate appearing in the brochure,
9, 2003-27, 2002-6, 1997-7 and
through the Citizens for Waters so long as reimbursement is made
1996-27. See also AOs 2002-10,
principal campaign committee (the within a reasonable period of time.1
2002-6 and 2002-3.
Waters Committee) or People Help-
Because the brochure would not be
Date Issued: October 21, 2004;
ing People leadership PAC (PHP),
an in-kind contribution to the federal
Length: 4 pages.
that will expressly advocate the elec- candidates listed within, the produc-
—Amy Kort
tion of clearly identified federal and tion and distribution costs would
nonfederal candidates in the general not be subject to the limits of either
AO 2004-37 election. The brochure, promoted 2 U.S.C. 432(e)(3) (support of a
Brochure Advocating as Representative Waters’ “offi- federal candidate from a principal
Candidates Not a cial sample ballot,” will feature a or authorized campaign commit-
Contribution prominent picture of Representative tee of another federal candidate) or
Waters and convey her opinions and 441a(a)(2)(A) (contribution from a
Representative Maxine Waters endorsements of federal and non- PAC to a federal candidate).2
intends, through her principal cam- federal candidates who will be given
paign committee (PCC) or leader- space and prominence in proportion 1 See Advisory Opinion 2004-1,
ship PAC, to produce a brochure to their prominence on the Demo- which concludes that communica-
cratic ticket. Federal candidates will tions produced and distributed by one
be included in the brochure only if candidate’s authorized committee and
their principal campaign committees coordinated with a second candidate’s
2 An individual becomes a candidate for
reimburse for the full production authorized committee would not result
the purposes of the Act once he or she
and distribution costs attributable in an in-kind contribution to the second
receives contributions aggregating in
authorized committee so long as the
excess of $5,000 or makes expenditures to them. Approximately 200,000
second committee reimbursed the first
in excess of $5,000. 2 U.S.C. §431(2) brochures will be distributed via
for the attributed portion of the commu-
and 11 CFR 100.3. The Commission has U.S. Mail; different versions, each
nication costs.
granted state committee status to a state more than 500 pieces, will be cre-
2 The Commission assumes that if PHP
affiliate of a qualified national party ated to accurately reflect the actual
produces and distributes the sample
committee where its only federal can- ballot within the recipient’s voting
ballot, the Waters Committee, like the
didates, as defined under the Act, were precinct. The initial request and
authorized committees of all the other
the Presidential and Vice Presidential
subsequent opinion speak only to the
federal candidates listed, will reimburse
candidates of the national party. AOs
federal candidates involved. PHP for the full costs attributable to
2004-9, 2002-3 and 1999-26.
Representative Waters.
4
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD
No support of or contributions to Accordingly, the brochure must tion by the IRS to pay administra-
Waters Committee or PHP by listed include a disclaimer stating that tive and solicitation costs of SSF;
candidates. Reimbursements by the it was paid for by the authorized whether SSF may be named after
authorized committees of the federal committees of each federal candi- LLC rather than its corporate con-
candidates listed in the brochure in date appearing in it. As the Com- nected organization (Pharmavite
amounts equal to the attributable mission has previously allowed for LLC, October 22, 2004)
costs associated with each candi- some flexibility in listing candidate
AOR 2004-43
date’s listing would not constitute names in a disclaimer notice, in this
Whether a broadcaster makes
support of the Waters Committee instance the Waters Committee or
an in-kind contribution by charg-
or contributions to PHP because, in PHP may mark each paying candi-
ing a candidate the “lowest unit
this situation, mere reimbursement date with an asterisk and include a
charge” for advertising time when
within a reasonable period of time statement on the mailing declaring
the candidate might not be “en-
would not constitute “anything of that the brochure was “paid for by
titled” under the Communications
value” to the Waters Committee or the authorized committees of the
Act because one of the candidate’s
PHP. Note that excess reimburse- candidates marked with an asterisk.”
advertisements has not contained
ments would constitute contributions Date Issued: October, 21, 2004;
the disclaimers required by BCRA
and be subject to the appropriate Length: 6 Pages
(Missouri Broadcasters Association,
limits of the Act. —Meredith Trimble
November 1, 2004)
Attribution of costs to listed can-
didates. Attribution to each federal
Alternative Disposition of
candidate shall be determined by
Advisory Opinion Requests
the proportion of space devoted to Compliance
each candidate as compared to the On October 28, 2004, the request-
total space devoted to all candidates, ors withdrew Advisory Opinion
whether federal or nonfederal. 11 Request 2004-38, regarding a federal MUR 5268: Labor
CFR 106.1(a) and 106.1(a)(1). candidate’s raising and spending of Organization’s Use of
Reporting of initial payments funds for recount expenses. Employee Time in Federal
and reimbursements. The Waters —Amy Kort Campaign Activity and
Committee (on FEC Form 3) or PHP Coerced Contributions to
(on FEC Form 3X) must report the On November 2, 2004, the re- Federal Candidates
brochure production and distribu- questors withdrew Advisory Opinion
The Commission recently entered
tion costs as operating expenditures. Request 2004-39, regarding a state
into a conciliation agreement with
Likewise, reimbursements by each party committee’s ability to raise
the Indiana-Kentucky Regional
authorized committee of the indi- and spend donations in unlimited
Council of Carpenters (the succes-
vidual candidates listed in the bro- amounts for recount expenses.
sor to the Kentucky State District
chure must be reported as offsets to —Meredith Trimble
Council of Carpenters, or KSDCC)
operating expenditures. Assuming
resulting in a $297,000 civil pen-
the costs attributable to each candi-
Advisory Opinion Requests
alty. Three of KSDCC’s former
date will exceed $500, the Waters
officers, J. Stephen Barger, Donald
Committee or PHP must disclose the
AOR 2004-40 Mitchell and Thomas Schulz, were
costs attributable to each candidate
Determination of political also named in the agreement. The
as a debt owed to it on Schedule D
committee’s status as a state party conciliation agreement resolves
of the 30-Day Post-General Election
committee (Libertarian Party of violations of the Federal Election
Report and future reports, unless a
Maryland, October 19, 2004) Campaign Act (the Act) stemming
candidate’s complete reimbursement
from the organization’s use of union
occurs on or before November 22, AOR 2004-41
employees for federal campaign
2004, the closing date of the Post Affiliation of membership organi-
activity and requiring employees
General Election Report. The Waters zation SSFs (CUNA Mutual Insur-
to make contributions to federal
Committee or PHP should include ance Society, October 25, 2004)
candidates.
notations with the above entries cit-
AOR 2004-42
ing this advisory opinion.
Background
Disclaimer Requirements. Be- Ability of LLC wholly owned by
The Act prohibits labor organiza-
cause the brochure will be dis- single corporate member and not
tions from making contributions,
tributed by a mass mailing, it will electing to be treated as a corpora-
constitute a public communication.
(continued on page 6)
5
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004
Compliance The agreement requires KSDCC • Morse for Congress (MA/04);*
(continued from page 5) to pay the aforementioned civil • Jane Brooks for Congress
penalty to the FEC and to cease (MD/02);
in-kind or otherwise, to federal
and desist from violating the Act. • Lott for Congress Committee
candidates. The Act also prohibits
KSDCC will send at least three (MS/04);
labor organizations from coercing
representatives to an FEC training • Ada M. Fisher for Congress
employees to make contributions,
conference for labor organizations (NC/12);
and from facilitating and serving as
and will inform all employees what • Friends of Rich Hoffman (NY/02);
conduits for earmarked contributions
activities are permissible and prohib- • Laba for Congress (NY/28);
to federal candidates. In addition,
ited under the Act through internal • Jeff Hardenbrook for Congress
while a labor organization may
training seminars. (OH/08);
expressly advocate a candidate’s
For additional information on this • Friends of Jeff Seemann for Con-
election or defeat in communications
case, please visit the Commission’s gress (OH/16);
to its members, it must report com-
Public Records Office or consult • Fjetland for Fair Elections
munication costs that exceed $2,000
the Enforcement Query System on (TX/22);
with respect to primary or general
the FEC’s web site and enter case • Gary R. Page for Congress
elections.
number 5268. (TX/24);
Conciliation —Meredith Trimble • Paul J. Lord for Congress
On September 27, 2004, the Com- (WA/09); and
mission entered into a conciliation • Thomas for Congress (WI/01).
agreement with the Indiana-Ken-
The following principal cam-
tucky Regional Council of Carpen- Nonfilers
paign committees failed to file
ters. According to the agreement,
required October Quarterly reports:
KSDCC assigned union employees
Congressional Committees
known as “field representatives” to • Honest Abe Hirschfeld for United
Fail to File Reports
work directly for the campaigns of States Senate (NY/00);
federal, state and local candidates on The following principal campaign • O’Grady for Senate (NY/00)
union time during at least the 1998, committees failed to file required • David R. Hernandez Jr. for Con-
2000 and 2002 election cycles. As a Pre-General Election reports: gress (CA/28);
result, KSDCC provided as much as • Byron for Congress (CA/49);
• Committee to Elect Daniel James
$141,000 in salaries for union staff • Murray for Congress (FL/08);
Barnett Senator for the Christian
working for candidates, constituting • Morse for Congress 2004
Party 2004 (CO/00);
prohibited in-kind contributions for (MA/04);*
• Buckley for Senate (GA/11);
the value of time spent working for • Ada M. Fisher for Congress
• O’Grady for Senate (NY/00);
federal candidates. (NC/12);*
• Honest Abe Hirschfeld for United
In addition, during at least the • Laba for Congress (NY/28); and
States Senate (NY/00);
2000 and 2002 election cycles, • Gary R. Page for Congress
• Paul Van Dam for US Senate
KSDCC solicited and monitored (TX/24).
(UT/00);
contributions from its employees to
• Randy Camacho for Congress Prior to the reporting deadlines,
federal candidates. The evidence
2004 (AZ/02); the Commission notified committees
showed that these contributions
• Lawrence R. Wiesner for Congress of their filing obligations. Commit-
were a required part of the job for
Committee (CA/01); tees that failed to file the required
some employees, and that employ-
• David R. Hernandez Jr. for Con- reports were subsequently noti-
ees feared reprisals, including being
gress (CA/28); fied that their reports had not been
fired, if they failed to contribute.
• Byron for Congress (CA/49); received and that their names would
The union further acted as a conduit
• Murray for Congress (FL/08); be published if they did not respond
for these contributions by collecting,
• Robert Johnson for Congress within four business days.
bundling and forwarding them to the
Committee (FL/11); The Federal Election Campaign
candidate committees.
• Simon Pristoop for Congress Act requires the Commission to
In addition, KSDCC made
Committee (FL/15); publish the names of principal
partisan communications expressly
• Committee to Elect Leyva for US campaign committees if they fail to
advocating the election or defeat of
Congress (IN/01); file Pre-General Election reports or
a federal candidate to its members
that exceeded the $2,000 reporting
*The committee is required to file elec-
threshold, but failed to disclose those
tronically, but filed only on paper.
communication costs to the FEC.
6
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD
the quarterly report due before independently of any candidate’s Independent expenditures are
the candidate’s election. 2 U.S.C. campaign or any political party com- distinct from “electioneering com-
§437g(b). The agency may also mittee. Political committees, using munications” which must also be
pursue enforcement actions funds within the limits and prohi- disclosed. Electioneering com-
against nonfilers and late filers on bitions of federal law, may make munications are broadcast ads that
a case-by-case basis. unlimited independent expenditures. make reference to a clearly identified
The next regularly scheduled Individuals may also make unlimited federal candidate without expressly
disclosure reports for candidate independent expenditures. Individu- advocating his or her election or de-
committees will be the 30-Day als, political committees and other feat. Reported spending on these ads
Post-General Election report due groups making independent expen- totaled $27.3 million during the first
December 2, 2004. ditures must file additional reports 18 days of October and $12.3 mil-
—Meredith Trimble to disclose their activity within 48 lion during the month of September.
hours each time spending exceeds FEC press releases dated October
$10,000 for a given election during 5 and October 20, 2004, offer addi-
a calendar year. During the final 20 tional information, including lists of
Statistics
days of the campaign, up to 24 hours all groups reporting independent ex-
before the election, independent penditures and the totals spent for or
Independent Expenditures expenditures aggregating $1,000 or against each candidate. The releases
more must be reported within 24 are available on the FEC web site at
for September and October
hours. (Last-minute independent http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004.
During the first 18 days of Oc-
expenditures are not included in the —Amy Kort
tober, party committees, PACs and
figures provided in this article).
others reported making nearly $87.2
The Democratic National Com-
million in independent expendi- Fundraising High Through
mittee reported the largest indepen-
tures on behalf of or against federal dent expenditure totals in September Pre-Election Period
candidates.1 Most of this spending
and October, spending a two-month Fundraising by national party
was reported by the two major par-
total of nearly $52.1 million mostly committees and Congressional
ties, whose national, senatorial and
in opposition to President Bush’s candidates increased substantially in
congressional campaign committees
reelection. the 2004 election cycle over fund-
reported $73.2 million in indepen-
Groups reporting more than $1 raising from prior cycles. Financial
dent spending. This spending is
million in independent spending in activity for national party commit-
in addition to nearly $45.5 million
October included the Republican tees and Congressional campaigns,
reported for the month of Septem-
National Committee ($5 million), from January 1, 2003, to October 13,
ber. Between January 1, 2003, and
the National Republican Senato- 2004, is detailed below.
August 31, 2004, a further $65.8
rial Committee ($4.6 million), the
million in independent expenditures
Democratic Senatorial Campaign National Party Committees
was reported by individuals, political
Committee ($2.5 million), the The national committees of the
committees and other organizations.2
United Auto Workers PAC ($2.3 mil- two major parties raised just over $1
Independent expenditures ex-
lion), the National Rifle Association billion between January 1, 2003, and
pressly advocate the election or
Political Victory Fund ($2.1 mil- October 13, 2004. Republican party
defeat of a clearly identified federal
lion), Moveon PAC ($1.3 million), committees raised $554.7 million in
candidate by using messages such as
the Service Employees International federally permissible “hard money,”
“vote for” or “defeat” and are made
Union PAC ($1.1 million) and the while the Democratic committees
League of Conservation Voters Inc. raised $451.8 million. During this
($1 million). period, the parties reported spending
1 Independent expenditures disclosed
Groups reporting more than $1 $875.3 million.
between October 19, 2004 and
million in independent spending in The 2004 election cycle is the
October 28, 2004 totaled $98.9 mil-
lion. For more information, please September included the National Re- first in which national parties have
refer to the independent expenditure publican Congressional Committee been prohibited from receiving
update press releases dated October ($7.1 million), Moveon PAC ($5.7 “soft money” under the Bipartisan
25 and October 29 at http://www.fec. million), the Democratic Congres- Campaign Reform Act of 2002
gov/press/press2004. sional Campaign Committee ($2.2 (BCRA). The Democratic National
million) and the National Repub- Committee (DNC) and Republican
2 Some activity during that time lican Senatorial Committee ($1.6 National Committee (RNC) raised
period has yet to be tabulated from
million).
quarterly reports filed on October 15. (continued on page 8)
7
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004
Statistics Congressional Campaigns fundraising increased by 28 percent
(continued from page 7) From January 1, 2003, through since 2002, with spending up by
October 13, 2004, Congressional 21 percent. Fundraising by Demo-
substantially more during this cycle
campaigns raised a total of $872.5 cratic House candidates, by contrast,
than in any prior campaign, even
million and spent $711.6 million, increased by 4 percent, while their
when money raised in prior cycles
an increase of 20 percent in receipts spending rose only 1 percent. Both
is included. However, both par-
and 15 percent in spending over the the number of open seat candidates
ties’ Senatorial committees and the
comparable period in 2002. and their financial activity declined
DCCC raised less in 2004 than in
Senate candidates raised $327.7 for both parties in 2004, with the
previous cycles.
million and spent $278 million, smallest number of open seat cam-
Spending directly in support of
representing increases of 27 percent paigns since 1990.
federal candidates increased substan-
and 22 percent, respectively. Note, Contributions from individuals
tially in 2004, with the Democratic
however, that comparisons across continue to be the largest source of
national party committees reporting
election cycles are difficult for Sen- receipts for Congressional candi-
$105 million in independent expen-
ate races as the states involved vary dates, totaling $553.2 million and
ditures. Independent expenditures
and a few campaigns, particularly in representing 63.4 percent of all
advocate the election of specific can-
large states, can significantly affect fundraising as of October 13. PAC
didates but are not coordinated with
the totals. House candidate fundrais- contributions totaled $250.9 million
campaigns. In addition, Democratic
ing increased 16 percent over 2002 or 28.8 percent, while candidates
committees spent a total of $19
levels to reach a total of $544.8 themselves contributed or loaned a
million in expenditures on behalf of
million. The chart below details total of $31.7 million, representing
general election candidates that were
the sources of funding for House 3.6 percent of all receipts. When
coordinated with the campaigns.
candidates over the past decade. compared to the same time period in
Republican national party com-
Spending by House candidates 2002, contributions by individuals
mittees reported $43.6 million in
totaled $433.6 million, up 11 per- increased 34 percent, PAC contribu-
independent expenditures and $11.9
cent. This growth is found mainly tions increased 12 percent and con-
million in coordinated expenditures.
Candidate CandidateLoans/Contributions
Dems among Republican candidateRse wph.ose tributions and loans from candidates
OtherCommitttheeemsselves decreased by 43 percent. OtherCommittees
CandidateLoans/Contributions
Rep. Individuals Individuals
Sources of Funds for House Candidates—1994-2004 OtherCommittees
ICnadnivdiidduaatelsLoans/Contributions
Rep.
OtherCommittees
CInadnivdiidduaatelsLoans/Contributions
Rep.
OtherCommittees
Individuals
MillionsofDollars MillionsofDollars
200 200
MillionsofDollars
200
150 150
MillionsofDollars
200
150
100 100
MillionsofDollars
200
150
100
50 50
150
100
50
0 0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
100 Democrats Republicans
50
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
8 50
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD
Additional Information • By fax (call the FEC Faxline at election. The U.S. Treasury Depart-
More information on campaign 202/501-3413 and request docu- ment made the payment on Novem-
finance statistics for the 2003-2004 ment numbers 618 and 619). ber 1, 2004. This certification raises
election cycle is available in press —Meredith Trimble to $28,126,711.37 the total amount
releases dated October 25, 2004, of federal funds certified thus far to
(party committees) and October 28, eight Presidential candidates under
2004 (Congressional). The releases the Matching Payment Account Act.
Public Funding
are available:
Presidential Matching Payment
• On the FEC web site at http://www.
Account
Commission Certifies
fec.gov/press/press2004/summa-
Under the Presidential Primary
Matching Funds for
ries2004.shtml;
Matching Payment Account Act, the
• From the Public Disclosure office Presidential Candidates
federal government will match up to
(800/424-9530, press 2) and the On October 29, 2004, the Com- $250 of an individual’s total contri-
Press Office (800/424-9530, press mission certified $203,484.83 in butions to an eligible Presidential
1); and federal matching funds to three primary candidate. A candidate must
Presidential candidates for the 2004 establish eligibility to receive match-
ing payments by raising in excess of
$5,000 in each of at least 20 states
(i.e., over $100,000). Although an
Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Primary Candidates: individual may contribute up to
October Certification $2,000 to a primary candidate, only
a maximum of $250 per individual
Candidate Certification Cumulative applies toward the $5,000 thresh-
October 2004 Certifications old in each state. Candidates who
receive matching payments must
Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $0 $7,615,360.39
agree to limit their committee’s
spending, limit their personal spend-
John R. Edwards (D)2 $15,378.00 $6,640,318.44
ing for the campaign to $50,000 and
submit to an audit by the Commis-
Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $0 $4,104,319.82
sion. 26 U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b)
Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $128,000.00 $3,083,962.59 and 9035; 11 CFR 9033.1, 9033.2,
9035.1(a)(2) and 9035.2(a)(1).
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)5 $0 $1,456,019.13 Candidates may submit requests
for matching funds once each
Joseph Lieberman (D)6 $0 $4,267,796.85 month. The Commission will certify
an amount to be paid by the U.S.
Ralph Nader (I)7 $60,106.83 $858,934.15
Treasury the following month. 26
CFR 702.9037-2. Only contributions
Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $0 $100,000.008
from individuals in amounts of $250
or less are matchable.
1 General Clark publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 11, 2004.
The chart at left lists the amount
2 Senator Edwards publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on March 3, 2004. most recently certified to each
3 Congressman Gephardt publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on January 2, eligible candidate who elected to
2004. participate in the matching fund
program, along with the cumulative
4 Congressman Kucinich became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4,
amount that each candidate has been
2004.
certified to date.
5 Mr. LaRouche became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2004.
—Amy Kort
6 Senator Lieberman publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 3,
2004.
7 Ralph Nader became ineligible to receive matching funds on September 2, 2004.
8 On May 10, 2004, the Commission determined that Reverend Sharpton must repay
this amount to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds he received in excess of his en-
titlement. See the July 2004 Record, page 8.
9
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004
served basis. Please call the FEC available on the FEC’s web site at
Outreach before registering or sending money http://www.fec.gov/info/outreach.
to ensure that openings remain. The shtml#conferences.
Upcoming Roundtables registration form is available on the —Meredith Trimble
FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov
In January 2005, the Commission and from Faxline, the FEC’s auto-
will host three roundtable sessions. mated fax system (202/501-3413,
The first session will be a joint FEC- request document 590). For more Index
IRS workshop regarding the new information, call the Information
FEC rules on political committee Division at 800/424-9530, or locally
The first number in each citation
status and the IRS rules pertaining at 202/694-1100.
refers to the “number” (month) of
to 527 organizations. The remaining
—Amy Kort the 2004 Record issue in which the
two sessions will focus on election
article appeared. The second num-
year reporting, including new disclo-
ber, following the colon, indicates
sure requirements under the Biparti- Get Conference Info via
the page number in that issue. For
san Campaign Reform Act of 2002 E-Mail
example, “1:4” means that the article
(BCRA). See the chart below for
Be the first to know about upcom- is in the January issue on page 4.
details. Both reporting sessions will
ing FEC conferences by signing up
be followed by a half-hour reception Advisory Opinions
to receive advance notice e-mails.
at which each attendee will have an 2003-28: Nonconnected PAC
Simply send your contact informa-
opportunity to meet the campaign
established by limited liability
tion (e-mail address, name, organiza-
finance analyst who reviews his/her
company composed entirely of
tion, mailing address, fax and phone
committee’s reports. Representatives
corporations may become an SSF
numbers) to [email protected]
from the FEC’s Electronic Filing
with the limited liability company
and you will periodically receive
Office will also be available to meet as its connected organization, 1:20
updated information regarding
with attendees. 2003-29: Transfer of funds from a
FEC conferences of interest to your
Attendance is limited to 30 nonfederal PAC to a federal PAC
organization. The complete con-
people per session, and registration of an incorporated membership
ference schedule for 2005 is also
is accepted on a first-come, first- organization, 1:21
2003-30: Retiring campaign debt
and repaying candidate loans, 2:1
2003-31: Candidate’s loans to
Roundtable Schedule campaign apply to Millionaires’
Amendment threshold, 2:2
Date Subject Intended Audience
2003-32: Federal candidate’s use
of surplus funds from nonfederal
January 19 FEC-IRS Workshop • Political Action
campaign account, 2:4
9:30-11:00 Committees;
• New FEC rules on politi- 2003-33: Charitable matching plan
• 527 Organizations; and
cal committee status; with prizes for donors, 2:5
• Campaign Finance
• Overview of IRS 527 2003-34: Reality television show to
Attorneys.
rules. simulate Presidential campaign,
2:6
January 26 • Year-End Reporting for • Individuals responsible 2003-35: Presidential candidate may
9:30-11:30 PACs and Party for filing FEC reports withdraw from matching payment
Committees; for PACs and Party program, 2:7
• Meet your analyst and Committees. 2003-36: Fundraising by federal
electronic filing staff at candidate/officeholder for section
reception. 527 organization, 2:8
2003-37: Nonconnected PAC’s use
January 26 • Year-End Reporting for • Individuals responsible
of nonfederal funds for campaign
1:30-3:30 Candidates and their for filing FEC reports
activities, 4;4
Committees; for Candidate
2003-38: Funds raised and spent
• Meet your analyst and Committees.
by federal candidate on behalf of
electronic filing staff at
redistricting committee to defray
reception.
legal expenses incurred in redis-
tricting litigation, 3:14
10
