-, 

Federal 

Election 

Commission ~~· 

Annual Report 1976 
COMMISSIONERS 

Vernon W. Thompson, Chairman 

Thomas E. Harris, Vice Chairman 

joan D. Aikens 

William L. Springer 

Neil Staebler 

Robert 0. Tiernan 

EX OFFICIO COMMISSIONERS 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., Clerk of the House 

Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate 

STATUTORY OFFICERS 

Orlando B. Potter, Staff Director 

john G. Murphy, Jr., General Counsel, 1975-1976 

William C. Oldaker, General Counsel, 1977-

ANNUAL REPORT EDITOR 

Ann Lang Irvine 
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NO. 179 

FEDERAl ElECTION COMMISSION 

1325 K STREET N.W. 

WASHINGTON.D.C. 20463 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: COMMISSION STAFF _1\~' 

FROM: ORLANDO B. POTTER~~· 

DATE: March 28, 1977 / 

SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT 

Attached is. your copy of the 1976 Annual Report which ... 

was released to the Congress and the· President today. I 

urge you to review it carefully as it can serve as a vatuable 

source document throughout theyear. The table of content~ 

is quite detailed and can help.you find the particular area 

you are interested in reviewing. I suggest that recent 

employees read the report thoroughly as it can give them an 

excellent overview of the entire Commission. 
Highlights 1976 

Supreme 

Court and 

Congress 

DOn january 30, the Supreme Court upheld major portions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) which created the Federal Election 

Commission (FEC), including contribution limits, public financing and 

disclosure provisions. Spending limits were struck down, except for 

Presidential candidates receiving Federal subsidies. The Court also sftuck 

down the Commission's executive powers, including the power to certify 

public financing. This created a three-month hiatus in the activity of the 

FEC at the peak of the 1976 primary campaigns. 

oon May 11, the Congress passed new amendments to the FECA and the 

FEC was restored to fulr powers on May 21, when six Presidentially 

appointed Commissioners were sworn in. 

DOn August 3 the Commission submitted a complete set of proposed 

regulations to Congress. These were not officially promulgated, however, 

because Congress adjourned prior to the expiration of the required 30-

legislative-day review period. 

Public 

Financing 

Program 

DThe Commission certified $24.3 million in matching grants to fifteen 

1976 primary candidates; $4.1 million in grants to finance the two major 

party nominating conventions; and $43.6 million to the two major candidates. 

0 Major questions which faced the Commission in implementing the 

primary matching program involved termination of eligibility of candidates and determination of repayments. Major problems relating to the 

general election concerned congressional candidates sharing campaign 

materials with publically financed Presidential candidates, and State and 

local party spending for Presidential candidates. 

Ill 
Disclosure 

Program 

0 trhe FEC received disclosure reports from more than 9,000 Federal 

candidates, political committees and individual filers; 1.1 million pages 

of disclosure reports were made available for public inspection; one half of 

these represented 1976 filings alone. 

DA computer system was designed and implemented for storing anc 

compiling data from campaign disclosure reports. Six indexes and compilations of campaign finance data were made available prior to the general 

election. 

DA "storefront" Public Records office was opened on the ground floor 

of the FEC building to facilitate public inspection and copying of disclosure reports. 

0 rrhe FEC toll free lines handled over 25,000 inquiries from candidates 

and committees seeking help in complying with the law. These calls 

peaked at 1 ,000 a week before the general election. A six-part Campaign 

Guide series was also published and distributed. 

Campaign 

Limitations 

0 '1n monitoring the various campaign limitations, the Commission placed 

major emphasis on achieving voluntary compliance. Notices were sent to 

filers indicating surface violations on their disclosure reports and in the 

overwhelming majority of cases an adequate response was received after 

one or at most two notices. 

Compliance 

and 

Enforcement DBy the end of 1976 the FEC had completed field audits on most of the 

publically financed· Presidential candidates as required by law. A general 

audit policy was developed for other filers. 

0 The FEC reviewed 319 enforcement cases during 1976. 80 percent of 

these cases resulted from complaints submitted to the Commission. By 

the end of the year, 212 cases opened in 1976 had been closed, and the 

records on 245 cases (1975/76) were made available for public review. 

In two out of three closed cases, the Commission did not find reasonable 

cause to believe a violation of the statute had occurred. 

o A special program was developed to ensure that all Federal candidates 

and their committees filed required disclosure reports. As a result of prior 

notification and a series of notices to delinquent filers, the rate of nonfiling was reduced to no more than three percent. The Commission 

proceeded to civil enforcement action in 22 cases. 

IV 
Table of Contents 

HIGHLIGHTS Ill 

INTRODUCTION 

Highlights of 1976 1 

Supreme Court Decision 

1976 Amendments to FECA 

1976 Campaign 

Outline of the Annual Report 4 

ORGANIZATION AND 

OPERATION OF THE FEC 

Organization 5 

The Commissioners 

Office of the Staff Director 

Office of the General Counsel 

Operation 8 

As a Sunshine Agency 

As an Information Agency 

Administration 

Budget 

FY 1976 $6,250,000 

FY 1977 $6,000,000 

FY 1978 $8,125,000 

PUBLIC FINANCING 

Introduction 14 

Establishment of the Program 

Receipts and Disbursements 1976 

Primary Matching Fund Program 15 

FEC Approach 

Statistics 

Impact of the 1976 Supreme Court Decision 

Policy Questions 

Ineligibility, Continuing Payments, 

Matchable Contributions, Delinquent Filers 

Procedures 

Working with Candidates; Verification; 

Rejections of Submissions 

v 
Public Financing (continued) Convention Financing 23 

Statistics 

Policy Questions 

Contributions, Payment Schedule 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund 24 

Statistics 

Policy Questions 

Buttons and Bumper Stickers 

Private Contributions 

Procedures 

Public Financing Audits 25 

Policy Questions 

Timing, Qualified Campaign Expenses 

Procedures 

Status of 1976 Audits 

DISCLOSURE 

Introduction 28 

Description of the Disclosure Program 

FEC Approach to Disclosure 

Policy Questions 29 

Independent Expenditure Reporting 

Corporate and labor Reporting 

Presidential Delegate Selection 

Particulars of Expenditures 

Procedures in Disclosure 31 

Filing of Reports 

Review of Reports 

"Threshold Review," "Substantial 

Compliance," RFAI's 

Processing Reports 

Computer Development, Computer Functions 

Making Reports Available to the Public 

Public Records, Indexes and Compilations 

CAMPAIGN LIMITATIONS 

Introduction 37 

Policy Questions 37 

Independent Expenditures 

Affiliated Committees 

·Party Spending 

Corporate and Union Solicitation 

Procedures for Monitoring limits and Restrictions 39 

FEC Approach 

Surface Violation letters 

1976 Spending limits 

Presidential Limits, State-by-State Limits, 

Party Limits 

1976 Contribution limits 

1976 Corporate and labor Restrictions 

VI 
COMPLIANCE AND 

INFORCEMENT 

Introduction 43 

Compliance 44 

Rules and Regulations 

Advisory Opinions 

Audit Policy 

Audit Procedures 

Congressional Races, Presidential Races, 

Multicandidate Committees, Party Committees 

Enforcement 48 

Policy 

Procedures 

Preliminary Review, Investigation, Conciliation, 

Civil Action, Petition, Confidentiality, and 

Publicity 

1976 Enforcement Actions 51 

Complaints 

Statistics 

Non-Filer Program 

NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR 

INFORMATION ON ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 

Introduction 55 

Clearinghouse Research Reports 56 

Clearinghouse Advisory Panel 57 

Clearinghouse Information Programs 57 

Technical Assistance 

Conferences 

Documents Center 

FEC journal on Election Information 

Survey of State Secretaries of State 

Other Support Activities 

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 

Simplification 61 

Reports 

Principal Campaign Committee Reporting, 

Reporting Dates, Candidate Support Statements, 

Secretary of State Reporting, General Waiver 

Authority 

Registration Statements 

Election Period limitations 

State Filing 

Point of Entry 

Written Pledges 

Office Vacancy 

Disclaimer 

Independent Expenditures 

Independent Contributors 

Trade Associations 

VII 
Presidential Elections 67 

Delegate Selection 

Support of Presidential Nominees 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

State Spending Limits 

Issue-Oriented Candidacies 

Fundraising Exemption 

Investment of Funds 

Treasury Accounts 

Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and the Role of 

the Political Party 71 

Party Activity 

Contribution Limitations 

Expenditure Limitations 

Contribution Limitation Anomalies 

Contribution by Minors 

Multicandidate Status 

Honorariums 

Corporate and Union Activity 73 

Reporting Communication Expenses 

Registration/Get-out-the-Vote 

Clarification 73 

legislatively Appropriated Funds 

Voluntary Services 

Miscellaneous 74 

Draft Movements 

48-Hour Reports 

Reporting Transfers 

Debts and Obligations 

Conciliation Period 

Judicial Review 

legislative Days 

Use of Reports 

Private Benefit 

Multiyear Authorization 

Criminal Code Provisions 

Technical and Conforming Amendments 77 

VIII 
APPENDIX 

A. FEC Chronology of Events, 1976 79 

B. Highlights of 1976 Amendments to Federal Election 

Campaign Act 82 

C. Highlights of 1976 Proposed Regulations and Amendments 86 

D. Selected FEC Opinions, 1976 (AO's, Re: AOR's, IC's) 94 

E. Subject Matter Index to Advisory Opinions, 1975-76 lOS 

F. FEC Federal Register Notices, 1976 127 

G. FEC Publications and Clearinghouse Studies 132 

H. Campaign Disclosure Documents in FEC Public Records 137 

I. Biographic Data on Commissioners and 

Statutory Officers 138 

J. FEC and the Privacy and Freedom of Information Acts 141 

TABLES AND CHARTS 

Figure 1 - FEC Filers, 1976 3 

Figure 2- Federal Election Commission Organization 8 

Figure 3 - Receipts and Disbursements Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund 14 

Figure 4- Distribution of Primary Matching Funds 17 

Figure S - Summary of Primary Matching Fund Activity 16-17 

Figure 6 - Enforcement Statistics 52 

Figure 7 - Non-Filers Program 54 

IX 
Introduction 

HIGHLIGHTS OF 1976 

With the end of 1976, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) 

completed its first full year of operation. Established in April 1975 

under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), as amended, the 

Commission has exclusive jurisdiction for enforcement of the FECA, 

and for administration of the disclosure, campaign limitations and 

public financing programs. The Commission began operations when the 

early campaigns for the 1976 elections were already underway. When 

the first Annual Report was presented to Congress and the President in 

March 1976, the country was in the middle of numerous Presidential 

primary campaigns, and the Commission was deeply absorbed in 

developing and implementing initial policies and procedures. 

Three events highlighted 1976, all of which affected operations at the 

Commission. First, the January 30 Supreme Court decision in Buckley 

v. Voleo declared portions of the FECA unconstitutional. After a hiatus 

of three months, during which the FEC continued operations on a 

limited basis, new amendments to the FECA were passed by Congress 

and signed into law by President Ford on May 11, 1976. This new law 

was the second major event of the year. The amendments not only 

reconstituted the Commission, but also significantly changed the law in 

the areas of enforcement, limitations and to some extent, disclosure. 

Finally, November brought to a close the first Presidential election held 

under the new ground rules and programs established by the FECA and 

administered by the Commission. With the completion of the first full 

election cycle, the Commission has concluded the initial phase of its 

responsibilities under the law, and is in a position to review and assess 

policies and procedures while preparing for new activity in the year 

ahead. 

Supreme Court 

Decision 

On january 30, 1976, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark 

decision in the case of Buckley v. Voleo. The case had substantial 

impact upon the operational responsibilities of the Commission since 

the Court ruled that the Commission, with members appointed under 

the FECA Amendments of 1974 (two members appointed by the 

President, two by the House, and two by the Senate), was unconstitutionally constituted to carry out certain executive responsibilities of the 

Act. These executive functions included the promulgation of rules and 

regulations, the issuance of binding advisory opinions, enforcement 

actions and the certification of public funds to candidates. The Court 
initially granted a 30-day stay until February 29, in the effective date 

of this suspension of executive powers. Although this stay was: 

subsequently extended until March 22 without comment from the 

Court, a request for a further stay was denied. The final stay expired on: 

March 22, and the Commission's executive powers were thus suspended' 

until the Congress and the President acted to reconstitute the 

Commission and reappoint the Commissioners on May 21. 

While it is difficult to assess precisely the impact of this suspension of 

powers on operations of the FEC and campaigns, it is clear that there 

were some adverse effects. During this hiatus, the FEC was unable to 

certify additional primary matching funds to those Presidential candidates who had received initial payment in January and who had planned 

their campaigns in expectation of receiving further funds on a regular 

basis. In addition, those candidates who were requesting initial certification for the matching fund program, could not get into the system, and 

had to conduct their campaigns without knowing when or if the 

matching program funds might be available. In order to minimize the 

impact of the delay, the Commission decided to continue processing all 

submissions for matching payment and eligibility certification, so that 

money would continue to be in the pipeline and could flow immediately upon reconstitution. 

Commission powers to issue rules and regulations and advisory opinions 

were also suspended. Without these regulations and opinions which 

interpret the law and its effect ·On certain campaign activities, candidates 

and committees were unsure how to organize and operate their 

campaigns. The Commission attempted to meet this need by issuing 

Opinions of Counsel wherever appropriate, and continuing to provide 

general and specific information to its clients through its public 

communications program. 

The Court's decision also suspended the Commission's enforcement 

powers. Although this did not immediately affect the progress of 

campaigns, it did create uncertainty about enforcement of the Act, and 

delayed the development of enforcement policies and procedures, some 

of which could not be implemented until the 1976 election was almost 

over. 

1976 Amendments 

to FECA 

In addition to the resolution of the constitutional questions of 

executive appointment and the striking of expenditure limitations, the 

major changes in the statute by the May 1976 Amendments were in the 

area of enforcement. Specifically, the FEC gained exclusive jurisdiction 

over civil enforcement of the law} Further, the law spelled out in 

much greater detail the steps which must be taken in any enforcement 

action, including attempts to achieve compliance through conciliation. 

The scope of advisory opinions was reduced, which had the effect of 

shifting Commission emphasis away from issuing advisory opinions to 

the development of rules and regulations. 

1 Under the 1974 law, the Commission had to refer those matters in Title 18 to the justice 

Department for enforcement. When these portions of the Act were transferred to Title 2 of 

the United States Code, the Commission gained exclusive civil jurisdiction. 

2 
The law did not change the disclosure program to a significant degree, 

nor did it make major changes in the public financing program. Notable 

in their absence were the now unconstitutional limitations on campaign 

spending which had appeared in the old law, except that such 

limitations were retained when Presidential candidates accepted public 

financing. While this shift in emphasis away from campaign limitations 

did not change the nature of the Commission's responsibilities, it did 

reduce the scope of its enforcement responsibilities. 2 It also created a 

demand for interpretOltion and clarification of certain policy questions. 

For example, what limitations could be applied to a candidate running 

for two offices, one of which came under the public financing program, 

the other of which did not subject him to spending limitations. Finally, 

the new amendments were much more precise about what type of 

corporate and labor organization campaign activities would be allowed. 

1976 Campaign 

With the end of the 1976 campaign it is possible to assess the scope of 

the job given to and! Federal Election Commission. During 1976, the 

FEC gave advice to the received disclosure reports from 3,022 

candidates (230 for the Presidency, 415 for the Senate, and 2,3 77 for 

the House of Representatives). In addition, 5,651 political committees 

filed reports and 376 individuals and committees reported money spent 

independently on behalf of candidates. Altogether 9,049 filers, representing 3,390 campaigns, filed a total of half a million disclosure 

documents. 3 (See Figure 1) These documents represented $300 million 

in campaign funds which the FEC was charged with monitoring. 

26% Cindida.tes 

(2377) 

Figure 1 FEC Filers 1976 

(9049) 

(4785) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Introduction 

In the area of public financing, the FEC certified $72 million to 15 

different candidates, and the two major party conventions. Finally, the 

Commission handled 319 formal enforcement cases plus numerous 

notices of incomplete disclosure reports, surface violations and nonfilings. These figures give some idea of the parameters of the 

involvement of the Commission in Federal campaigns. 

2 1nstead of monitoring spending by all congressional candidates, the FEC was now only 

responsible for Presidential candidates and some party spending. 

• See Appendix H for detailed breakdown of these figures. 

3 
OUTLINE OF THE 

ANNUAL REPORT 

This report for 1976 provides a functional analysis of the job the 

Commission has done, from the perspective of its administrative and 

enforcement responsibilities. The first chapter deals with the overall 

organization and operation of the Commission, what type of a body it 

is, how it operates as a "sunshine" agency, and what organizational 

changes have come about as a result of experience during its first full 

year of operation. 

The next three chapters focus on the Commission's programs: public 

financing, public disclosure, and campaign limitations. For each program, policies, procedures and results are reviewed. Next, the FEC role 

in enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act is reviewed, again 

looking at the policies which flow from the law, and the procedures 

developed to implement these policies. A final operational section deals 

with FEC activity in the area of el~ction administration, specifically the 

role of the Clearinghouse on Election Administration. Finally, there is a 

chapter presenting the Commission's suggestions for legislative changes 

based on experience with the law to date. Appendices are designed to 

provide more detailed data and to serve as reference documents to 

advisory opinions, proposed regulations, and FEC publications. Detailed 

statistical data on the public financing program is not included in this 

report since it will be the subject of a separate report to Congress when 

the post-election audits are completed. 

4 
Organization and Operation of the FEC 

ORGANIZATION 

The Commission, as created by the Federal Election Campaign Act 

Amendments of 1974, is composed of six Presidentially-appointed 

Commissioners, and two ex officio members, the Secretary of the 

Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The original 

Commissioners were appointed two by the President, two by the 

Speaker of the House and two by the President of the Senate. It was 

this mixture of legislative and executive appointment authority which 

caused the Supreme Court to strike down the Commission's executive 

powers in its decision on Buckley v. Vo/eo. 

In addition, the law provides for two statutory officers, the Staff 

Director and the General Counsel. The Commission staff of 197 is 

grouped in functional units under the two statutory officers. During the 

first year of the Commission, the organization of these functional units 

has been changed several times as experience has shown which groupings 

would most effectively achieve the Commission's objectives. 

The Commissioners 

The six Presidentially-appointed Commissioners serve full time, and are 

prohibited by the statute from engaging in any "other business, 

vocation, or employment"1 (2 U.S.C.I437c(a}(3)). The Secretary of 

the Senate and the Clerk of the House serve ex officio and without the 

right to vote. The Commissioners are responsible for administering, 

seeking to obtain compliance with, and formulating policy with respect 

to those provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, 

which are codified in Title 2 and those provision of Title 26 of the 

United States Code, relating to public financing. All decisions must be 

made by a majority vote of the members except that four affirmative 

votes are required in order for the Commission to render advisory 

opinions and to take certain action in connection with enforcement (2 

U.S.C. §437c(a)). The Commissioners are each served by an Executive 

Assistant and a Confidential Secretary. The Secretary to the Commission, who is responsible for Commission meetings, minutes, agendas and 

scheduling, serves in the Office of the Staff Director. 

1 Added in the 1976 Amendments. 

5 
The Commission meets regularly once a week, and during the campaign 

period was meeting at least one additional day each week. Meetings.are 

regularly scheduled and :publicly announced in accord with the Commission policy of open meetings. Agendas are available for the public in 

advance, and all meetings are open to the public except for those 

dealing with personnel or compliance matters. During 1976 the 

Commission met a total of 88 times. 

The Commissioners have played an active role in the work of the 

Commission, particularly during this first year. Because of the newness 

of the legislation, and its complexity, much time h"ad to be devoted to 

review and approval of regulations and advisory opinions, to approving 

compliance and audit policy and procedures, and to determining 

procedures for certification of public funds. Much of this time was 

duplicative, furthermore, since the extensive new amendments in May of 

1976 demanded review and redevelopment of many of the regulations 

for resubmission to Congress. As the number of compliance cases 

increased through the election period, the amount of time devoted by 

the Commissioners to review and determinations in this area also 

increased. Likewise, while a large amount of time was devoted to 

regulation review during summer months of 1976, this effort was 

drastically reduced once the proposed regulations were forwarded to 

Congress in August. A continuing responsibility throughout the year has 

been the certification of public funds under the Presidential public 

financing program. 

When the Commission was reestablished on May 21, 1976, pursuant to 

the May 1976 Amendments, the President reappointed all of the 

original Commissioners with the exception of retiring Chairman Thomas 

Curtis. William Springer, of Illinois, was appointed to fill the vacancy. 

At the first meeting of the new Commission, Vernon W. Thomson was 

elected Chairman and Thomas E. Harris Vice Chairman, each for a one 

year term. 2 

1 See Appendix I for complete biographic data on the six Presidentially-appointed Commissioners, the two ex officio members, and the statutory officers. 

6 
Office of the 

Staff Director 

Organization of the FEC 

As the chief executive officer of the agency, the Staff Director is 

responsible for the appointment of staff personnel, for the organization 

of the staff and for the translation of Commission policy into action 

programs. As the Commission evolved during 1976, the organization of 

the staff was realigned in several respects to meet developing needs. 

These realignments had the overall effect of broadening the structure of 

the organization from its initial form which channelled authority 

through a few supervisors, to a more horizontal plane, with more 

supervisors and more operating divisions. 

In 1976, the principal action programs of the Commission were: 

certification for public financing, audit and investigation, review and 

analysis of disclosure reports, processing of reports for data entry and 

public records, general information programs and administration. To 

implement these programs, the staff, exclusive of the Office of General 

Counsel, was originally divided between three offices: Disclosure and 

Compliance, Information, and Administration. In March of 1976, an 

interim reorganization took place which divided the functions of the 

Disclosure, Compliance and Information offices into two subdivisions, 

each handled by a Deputy Assistant Staff Director. In July of 1976 a 

new Office of Data Systems and Development was established to 

implement the computer program. 

As the Office of Data Systems assumed responsibility for processing and 

storing data from the disclosure reports, it became apparent that a 

different clustering of all functions relating to disclosure was necessary 

for the proper and prompt flow of records and control of data. 

Accordingly, in December 1976, a new Office of Disclosure was created, 

incorporating all functions relative to the disclosure documents, from 

receipt and review, through data entry, processing and making them 

available for public inspection. The remainder of the Office of 

Compliance retained audit and certification responsibilities, while the 

Office of Information retained Public Communications, Press and 

Publications and the Clearinghouse, with its research and publication 

functions. The new Data Development Office is no longer an operational unit, but will concentrate on developing and implementing new 

data systems to assist other units of the Commission in carrying out the 

objectives of the Act. This office will also provide continuing service 

and training assistance to the Disclosure Office. Finally, a new Planning 

and Management unit was established within the Staff Director's Office. 

(See accompanying organization chart page 8.) 

7 
00 

Figure 2 

Federal Election Commission 

(as of December 31, 1976) 

Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner "E;-offi;-o-:: -f~ offjci;-_-l 

-• 

General Counsel Staff Director 

Rules and 

Regulations J

Advisory 

Opinions I I

Enforcement IAdministration I Information & Litigation Press Library Publications 

Public Communication 

Clearinghouse 

Senate House 

Commissioner I Commissioner~ 

-----~-----

I I I 

Disclosure Compliance Systems Development 

Data Input Audit Programming & 

Public Records Certification Specifications Reports Analysis Investigations* Training 

User Coordination 

*As of October, 1976, investigators reported to the General Counsel for 

operational purposes. 
Organization of the FEC 

The staff of the Commission for 1976 was 197 (including 40 in the 

Office of General Counsel and 20 in the Commissioners' offices). This 

represented an increase of 34 over the total for 1975. The bulk of this 

increase resulted from creation of the Office of Data Systems and 

Development. 

In addition, the Commission found it necessary to augment its staff 

with temporary employees. The use of temporaries, averaging 25 

man-years during the election period, made it possible to meet the 

varying demands of the election cycle. By March of 1977 there will be 

a sharp reduction in the number of temporaries reflecting the winding 

down of post-election activity. 

The Commission 1had an authorized personnel ceiling of 197 positions at 

year's end. The distribution of these positions in the various offices was 

as follows: 

Commissioners and Immediate Staff 20 

Staff Director's Office 11 

Office of Administration 16 

Office of General Counsel 40 

Office of Information 15 

Office of Disclosure 33 

Office of Compliance 48 

Data Systems Development 14 

Total 197 

9 
Office of 

General Counsel 

The Office of General Counsel is responsible for drafting for the 

Commission's consideration the proposed legal interpretations of the law 

which eventually are embodied in rules and regulations and advisory 

opinions. The Office of General Counsel also directs the enforcement 

activities of the Commission and represents and advises the Commission 

in any legal actions brought against it. The investigations staff, originally 

located in the Office of Disclosure and Compliance, was assigned to the 

Office of the General Counsel in October 1976 for operational purposes 

on an experimental basis. 

The Office of General Counsel has traditionally had a very flexible 

organization, with lawyers expected to handle a variety of assignments. 

There are, however, three formal functional units. One concerns policy 

development, handling rules and regulations and responses to advisory 

opinion requests. A second unit handles compliance activities and a 

third is the law library, which serves the Commission as a whole. 

OPERATION 

As a 

Sunshine Agency 

From its very first days in 1975, the Federal Election Commission has 

been conducting nearly all of its meetings and proceedings open to the 

public. Therefore, the newly enacted "Sunshine Act" will have little 

effect on the FEC. 

In debating and discussing all advisory opinions, proposed regulations, 

policy statements and internal procedures in the public view, the 

Commission has discovered that a policy of openness is beneficial to the 

Commission itself, as well as to the public. On numerous occasions, 

members of the public attending an open discussion were able between 

meetings to make suggestions, comments and contributions to FEC staff 

members and Commissioners that assisted the discussion. Such public 

comment would not have been so readily available to the Commission 

had discussion been held in closed session. 

The experience of the Commission operating in the Sunshine has also 

been that a routine policy of openness helps to increase the credibility 

of the Commission as a nonpartisan agency. This is an important facet 

of an agency like the FEC where public confidence in the neutrality 

and fairness of the Commission is essential. Since everyone can hear 

first hand the policy development and debates, the public is aware of 

the reasons for FEC decisions. 

During 1976, the Commission held 88 formal meetings, and countless 

meetings of internal task forces which also were open to the public. 

The exceptions to the open meeting policy are only those portions of a 

meeting when confidential compliance, audit and personnel matters 

were discussed. These items are discussed in Executive Session at the 

end of regularly scheduled meetings. These meetings will continue to be 

closed under the provisions of the Sunshine Act. 

10 
As an 

Information Agency 

Operation of the FEC 

It has been a major tenet of the FEC from the beginning that its 

information activities should be directed to helping candidates and 

committees understand their obligations under the law, particularly their 

filing and reporting obligations under the disclosure program. To this 

end, a variety of information programs have been created to explain the 

law, answer questions and assist filers. 

The focal point for those seeking information is the Public Communications section, handling 95% of the phone and mail requests which come 

to the Commission. Throughout 1976, as the campaign progressed, the 

staff was expanded from three to six members and the number of 

toll-free lines increased from two to six. This section responded to over 

25,000 phone and letter inquiries about the FECA and the FEC during 

1976, peaking during October at over 1,000 calls per week. In addition 

the system had the capability of transferring calls to the operating units 

for specialized legal, audit or reporting questions. 3 

All contacts with the press are centralized in the Press Office. During 

the 1976 campaign, this office handled hundreds of calls each week 

from media sources in Washington, and from around the country with 

questions about the campaign finance law. Two press officers handle all 

such calls to ensure prompt, coordinated responses to media questions 

and requests, and to ensure uniformity in disseminating Commission 

policies and actions to the media. The Press Office was particularly 

charged with insuring adherence to the confidentiality required by the 

law in all pending FEC compliance actions. 

In addition to responding to inquiries, the Press Office regularly took 

the initiative to inform the press of all major Commission decisions, 

policies and activities. These press releases usually include substantive 

highlights of decisions or policies since the Commission believes the 

press and public must be well informed of Commission activities. 

The Publications program of the FEC is directed at helping candidates 

and committees understand the law and FEC policies through the 

issuance of guides and a periodic newsletter. The 1976 publication 

program was delayed due to changes in the law during the year; first, 

the January 30 Supreme Court decision and, then, the May 11 

Amendments. Immediately after the amendments went into effect, the 

Commission issued a printed text of the law showing old and new 

sections for comparison. This was followed by a complete text of the 

new amended law. Within several weeks after reconstitution in May, a 

new Campaign Guide series was issued. Based on the Act and the 

proposed regulations each guide in the series of multi-colored pamphlets 

focused on a single aspect of the law, for example, political committees, 

party committees, and contribution and expenditure limitations. 

The FEC also publishes a periodic newsletter, the RECORD, which 

capsules all FEC actions and decisions. There were eight issues in 1976. 

All publications are free to the public.4 

3 During the primary season, for example, a lead auditor was assigned to handle all questions 

from those candidates receiving public funds. 

4 See Appendix G for complete listing and synopsis of all FEC publications. 

11 
Administration 

The Office of Administration is the "housekeeping" unit of the 

Commission and is responsible for personnel and related matters, budget 

management, space, supplies, and contracting. In addition, several 

support functions of the Commission are centralized in the office, 

namely a word processing center, document reproduction, and corre· 

spondence control. During 1976 the Office of Administration was also 

concerned with implementing several activities which flowed from the 

Commission's becoming an executive agency under the 1976 FECA 

Amendments. 

The major personnel acti"vity involved a review of all FEC employee 

positions by the Civil Service Commission. This review was required by 

the provision in the 1976 Amendments which made the FEC subject to 

the classification and pay provisions of the Civil Service laws and 

regulations. Formal approval and application of the CSC recommenda· 

tions is expected early in 1977. 

The Commission has also absorbed all personnel functions, some of 

which were previously administered by the General Services Administra· 

tion as part of an administrative support contract. 

Other programs, with which Administration has been involved during 

1976, were the development of a correspondence control system, 

expendable supply system, inventory control, and a records control and 

disposition manual preparatory to the transfer of records to the Federal 

Records Center. 

Budget 

For Fiscal Year. 1976, the Commission received an appropriation of 

$5,000,000. In addition, an appropriation of $1,250,000 was granted 

for the transition quarter. Expenditure of these monies over the fifteen 

month period was as follows: 

FY 1976 

$6,250,000 

Commission and Staff Salaries, 

including benefits $3,520,000 

Consultants 56,000 

Travel 128,000 

Motor Pool 20,000 

Space Rental 282,000 

Equipment Rental 159,000 

Printing 276,000 

Contracts (including research contracts 

awarded· by the National Clearinghouse 

on Election Administration) 1,100,000 

Supplies 160,000 

Library Materials 30,000 

Telephone/Telegraph 111,000 

Postage 25,000 

Administrative Expenses 242,000 

Equipment 141,000 

Total $6,250,000 

12 
Operation of the FEC 

FY 1977 

$6,000,000 

An appropriation of $6,000,000 has been received for FY 1977. 

Expenditure of these funds is budgeted as follows: 

Commission and Staff Salaries 

including benefits $4,213,000 

Consultants 40,000 

Travel 210,000 

Motor Pool 17,000 

Space Rental· 305,000 

Equipment Rental 141,000 

Printing 200,000 

Support Contracts (including 

Clearinghouse) 450,000 

Supplies 100,000 

Library Materials 30,000 

Telephone/Telegraph 87,000 

Postage 25,000 

Administrative Expenses 125,000 

Equipment 57,000 

Total $6,000,000 

In addition, the Commission has requested a supplemental appropriation 

in the amount of $180,000 to defray the costs of the October 1976 

statutory pay increases. 

FY 1978 

$8,125,000 

An appropriation of $8,125,000 has been requested for FY 78. As a 

result of the FEC status as an executive agency, for the first time the 

Commission budget was subject to the review of the Office of 

Management and Budget. A hearing with the OMB examiner was held 

on October 13, 1976. 

13 
Public Rnandng 

Establishment of the Program 

INTRODUCTION 

With the end of 1976, the Nation completed one cycle of an entirely 

new system for financing elections: the public financing of Presidential 

candidates and nominating conventions. The program, as enacted by 

Congress in 1974, contained three major elements: a primary matching 

fund program, providing partial public financing for any candidate who 

met certain eligibility requirements indicating a broad base of public 

support; a program of direct grants to the twe major party conventions; 

and third, a program of full public financing for the major party 

candidates in the general election. 1 The administration of this program 

was assigned to the Federal Election Commission, along with the 

requirement that the Commission conduct post-election audits of all 

three elements. The Commission is required to submit to Congress a 

detailed report of its activity under the program. 

Receipts and Disbursements 1976 

Figure 3 Receipts and Disbursements Presidential Election Campaign Fund, 1976 

Deposits: 2 

Disbursements: 

Primary matching payment 

(fifteen candidates) 

Convention payments 

Democratic $3,180,869.79 

Republican $1,963,800.00 

General election payments 

(Two candidates @ $21 ,820,000) 

Total Disbursements 

Balance 

$95,838,787.00 

$24,273,401.65 

$4,144,669.79 

$43,640,000.00 

$72,058,071.44 

$23,780,715.56 

1 Under certain conditions third party candidates can qualify for public grants. No such 

candidates qualified during 1976. 

2 All figures are as of December 31, 1976. Some adjustments may be made as final matching 

payments and any repayments are made. ($48.04 has been repaid by Sanford, but is still 

included in these figures; other repayments await Commission policy decisions.) 

14 
The funding for this program comes from the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund, created by Congress in 1972, whereby taxpayers may 

designate one dollar of their taxes for the fund. Participation by 

taxpayers in this fund has grown steadily each year and now stands at 

25.8%. By December 31, 1976, the fund had collected nearly $96 

million; during 1976 a total of $72 million was disbursed from the 

fund, leaving a balance of approximately $23 million. {See Figure 3.) 

PRIMARY MATCHING 

FUND PROGRAM 

In developing policies and procedures to implement the public financing 

program, the Commission felt it imperative to maintain impartiality 

towards the candidates, to be prompt and responsive in processing 

submissions so that no candidate's campaign plans would be delayed, 

and finally to ensure public confidence in the proper distribution and 

use of public funds. The Commission is satisfied that these goals were 

met. 

The initial statutory deadline was met when, by January 1,1976, the 

Commission had certified 11 Presidential candidates eligible for the 

primary matching program, and had certified initial payments for the 

two major party conventions. To further expedite processing the 

Commission mandated a two-week turn-around time from submission to 

verification. Careful procedures for verifying contributions for matching 

were followed scrupulously throughout, and the Commission made 

special efforts to assist candidates in establishing recordkeeping practices 

which would facilitate prompt certification of their submissions. 

In assessing this program for 1976, it is also important to keep in mind 

that the candidates and the Commission were breaking entirely new 

ground. Both had to develop recordkeeping and verification procedures 

for an entirely new type of certification and payment of public funds. 

Furthermore, policies and procedures had to be developed under 

extreme time pressure since fundraising for many primary campaigns 

was already underway when the Commission came into being. This 

situation demanded patience and flexibility on the part of Commission 

staff and campaign treasurers alike. In order to help this situation, the 

Commission assigned a lead auditor for each campaign who kept in 

close touch with the campaign treasurer throughout the matching-fund 

period. 

15 
Statistics 

Fifteen Presidential candidates in the primary contests applied for and 

were certified eligible to receive a total of $24.3 million in matching 

funds. Six candidates received 84 percent of the total certified, while 

the remaining nine each received less than $.6 million. (See Figure 4.) 

The average contribution submitted for matching was $26.86, although 

the average size of contribution submitted varied greatly among the 

candidates. Some candidates concentrated on raising larger contributions 

(of the six major candidates, President Ford's average was the largest at 

$43.06). Some candidates submitted much larger numbers of smaller 

contributions (Governor Wallace's average was $14.75 and Harris' 

$11.74). (See Figure 5.) 

Figure 5 

Summary of Primary Matching Fund ActivityAs of December 31, 1976 

Number of 

Contributions 

Submitted* 

Average 

Amount 

Submitted 

Total 

Amount 

Submitted 

Percentage 

of Total 

Request Matched 

Total 

Amount 

Certified 

Number of 

Candidate Submissions 

Bayh 17 6,988 $ 68.02 $ 475,335.94(a) 98.70% $ 469,199.54 

Bentsen 3 6,767 84.98 575,052.94 88.86% 511,022.61 

Brown 9 20,089 34.55 694,174.87(a) 83.64% 580,629.65 

Carter 21 94,419 41.09 3,880,118.84(a) 89.31% 3,465,584.89 

Church 18 18,812 33.50 630,151.01 (a) 98.82% 622,747.04 

Ford 21 114,661 43.06 4,937,232.99 94.32% 4,657,007.82 

Harris 13 56,021 11.74 657,813.91 96.24% 633,099.05 

jackson 7 58,372 35.45 2,069,042.97(a) 95.72% 1 ,980,554.95 

McCormack 8 14,161 18.08 256,093.6o(a) 95.32% 244,125.40 

Reagan 19 238,266 23.11 5,507,153.24 92.40% 5,088,910.66 

Sanford 3 1,960 126.07 247,100.32 99.71% 246,388.32 

Shapp 11 4,416 69.61 307,403.71 97.28% 299,066.21 

Shriver 8 2,745 104.12 285 ,822.19(a) 99.73% 285,069.74 

Udall 22 97,764 21.84 2,135 ,263.72(a) 88.92% 1,898,686.96 

Wallace 6 240,052 14.75 3,539,579.86 92.89% 3,291,308.81 

Subtotals 186 975,493 $ 26.86 $26,197,340.11 92.65% $24,273,401.65(b) 

(a) The following candidates have submissions and resubmissions 

"in-house" which have not been certified as of Feb. 20, 1977: 

Number of Number of 

Candidate Submissions Resubmissions Amount 

Bayh 2 0 $ 81,161.75 

Brown 0 $ 31,558.50 

Carter 4 3 $597,996.93 

Church 0 $ 18,421.50 

jackson 2 1 $ 84,550.67 

McCormack 2 3 $ 10,795.03 

Shriver 1 0 $ 11,855.00 

Udall 1 $ 80,518.00 

14 8 916,857.38 

16 
Public Financing 

Figure 4 Distribution of Primary Matching Funds: 

1976 Presidential Campaign $24.3 million 

• 

6 candidates 

$20.4 million (84%) • 

9 candidates 

$3.8 million (16%) 

Reagan $5.0 million Brown $ .6 million 

Ford 4.7 million Church .6 million 

Carter 3.5 million Harris .6 million 

Wallace 3.3 million Bayh .5 million 

jackson 2.0 million Bentsen .5 million 

Udall 1.9 million Shapp .3 million 

Shriver .3 million 

McCormack .2 million 

Sanford .2 million 

Percentage of Request 

Amount Matched Prior Final 

Originally To Resubmission of Amount Amount 

Candidate Rejected Rejected Amount Resubmitted Rejected 

Bayh $ 36,134.95 92.39% $ 30,309.55 $ 6,136.40 

Bentsen 64,030.33 88.86% -0- 64,030.33 

Brown 134,177.23 80.00% 22,278.01 113,545.22 

Carter 522,827.93 86.52% 152,892.83 414,533.95 

Church 12,566.97 98.00% 5,485.50 7,403.97 

Ford 611,218.93 87.62% 330,993.76 280,225.17 

Harris 147,519.90 77.58% 122,805.04 24,714.86 

Jackson 613,002.81 70.38% 524,514.79 88,488.02 

McCormack 25,974.37 89.85% 14,151.17 11,968.20 

Reagan 436,801.80 92.06% 18,599.22 418,242.58 

Sanford 712.00 99.71% -0- 712.00 

Shapp 12,947.50 95.79% 4,610.00 8,337.50 

Shriver 14,417.45 94.95% 13,740.00 752.45 

Udall 295,910.76 86.14% 59,922.00 236,576.76 

Wallace 870,737.36 75.39% 622,466.31 248,271.05 

Subtotals $ 3,798,980.29 85.49% $ 1 ,922,728.18 $ 1 ,923,938.46 

(b) Since December 31 , the following amounts have been certified for the 

following candidates: 

Amount Certified Total Amount 

Candidate since Dec. 31 Certified to Date 

Brown $ 1,974.12 $ 582,603.77 

Carter $255,924.88 $3,721,509.77 

Harris $ 5,913,48 $ 639,012.53 

Udall $ 51,086.30 $1,949,773.26 

$314,898.78 

Total Certified, Jan. 1, 1976- Feb. 20, 1977, for all Candidates: 

$24,588,300.43 

*Estimated 

17 
Impact of the 

Supreme Court 

Decision 

The most important event affecting the public financing program in 

1976, and one which should be kept in mind in assessing and reviewing 

the 1976 program, was the January 30 Supreme Court decision, 

Buckley v. Va/eo, which, while upholding the constitutionality of the 

program, struck down the power of the Commission to certify funds. 

This left the candidates, committees and the public in a state of 

suspense until Congress acted to reconstitute the Commission as an 

Executive agency. These powers were restored on May 21 when the 

President swore in the six Commissioners. 

In reacting to the Court decision, the Commission made several policy 

decisions which affected the fortunes of many candidates. When the 

decision was handed down, the Court allowed a 30-day stay in order to 

allow time for Congress to enact remedial legislation. During this period, 

the Commission speeded up its schedule for receiving requests for 

payment from biweekly to weekly and worked its staff overtime in 

order to process the maximum possible number of submissions before 

the suspension of its powers. When it became apparent that Congress 

would not act before the expiration of the stay, the Commissioners 

decided to continue accepting and processing requests for matching 

payments, and thus keep submissions in the pipeline which could be 

immediately certified upon resumption of powers. When the new 

Commission was reconstituted, the Commissioners were able to certify a 

ba«klog of $3.2 million to nine candidates on May 21. 

It is difficult to measure precisely the impact of this delay on the 

ca'ndidates and the outcome of various primary elections. Two candidates had ceased active campaigning prior to the suspension of powers. 

An additional four left the running during the hiatus. Certainly the 

delay in receipt of funds may have influenced the fortunes of their 

campaign. However, the Commission's decision to continue processing 

requests helped to lessen the impact because it made it easier for 

candidates to seek and obtain credit against the expected public grants. 

Policy Questions 

Ineligibility 

The major policy questions which arose during 1976 concerned 

eligibility. Specifically, when does a candidate cease to be eligible for 

further public funds? While the law was quite specific on the criteria for 

determining initial eligibility, the original 1974 Amendments were silent 

on the question of when a candidate was no longer eligible. 3 

3 Before a candidate can become eligible to receive primary matching payments he must certify 

in writing to the Commission that he or she is seeking nomination by a political party for the 

office of President in more than one State, that the candidate and his or her authorized 

committees shall not incur qualified campaign expenses in excess of the limitations and that 

the candidates and his or her authorized committees have received matchable contributions in 

excess of $5,000 in at least 20 States with no amount matched in excess of $250 per 

individual. The candidates are also required to agree in writing to furnish to the Commission 

all information requested concerning qualified campaign expenses; keep and furnish any book 

or records that the Commission may request; and permit an audit and examination by the 

Commission to determine whether any pay back of public money is required. Failure to 

comply with the agreement outlined above could result in suspension of certification. 

18 
Public Financing 

This question was already on the minds of the Commission and the 

Congress when the new 1976 Amendments were drafted and two 

specific criteria were added to the law. First, a candidate would lose his 

eligibility should he fail to receive 10 percent of the vote in two 

successive primaries, and had not certified to the Commission that he 

was not actively campaigning in those States. Second, a candidate also 

would lose eligibility if he "is not actively conducting campaigns in 

more than one State in connection with seeking nomination for election 

to be President of the United States." (26 U.S.C. §9032(2)) The first 

criterion was applied to one candidate and did serve as a basis for 

disqualification. The second criterion was used more extensively. 

Although many of the other candidates had ceased active campaigning 

prior to the passage of the May 11 amendments, the Commission did 

not have any basis for formally declaring them ineligible. With the new 

amendments in effect, a letter was sent to several candidates informing 

them that slnce they had ceased active campaigning in at least two 

States, the Commission would consider them no longer eligible. 

Although not specified in the statute, the Commission also ruled that a 

candidate who released or instructed his delegates to vote for another 

candidate was also not actively campaigning in two States and thus no 

longer eligible. 

Continuing 

Payments 

There was another aspect of eligibility, however, which the law did not 

address as clearly. This was the question of how long the Commission 

should continue to certify payments for legitimate campaign debts after 

a candidate had ceased to be an active candidate. In spite of the 

availability of public funds, many candidates found themselves seriously 

in debt when they left the campaign arena and were forced to continue 

to solicit funds to cover these debts. The law allows payment to 

"defray qualified campaign expenses incurred before the date upon 

which a candidate becomes ineligible." (26 U.S.C. §9033(c)(2)) The 

Commission adopted a policy which allowed candidates to continue 

submitting contributions for matching in order to liquidate debts 

incurred prior to the date of ineligibility. In connection with this, the 

Commission also ruled that continuing operating expenses contracted 

prior to the date of ineligibility would be qualified campaign expenses. 

This had the effect of extending the payment period until early in 

1977. 

At year end the Commission was considering a further refinement of 

the regulations with regard to the question of continuing payment after 

ineligibility. As originally proposed, the regulations would allow a 

candidate to receive matching funds up to the amount of his debts on 

the date of ineligibility. The proposed amendment would take into 

consideration not only the candidate's debts, but also the amounts of 

private contributions received after the date of ineligibility. The 

question is whether a candidate who raises sufficient private money to 

erase his campaign debt should still be eligible to receive public money 

toward that debt. 

19 
Other policy questions on eligibility concerned problems with a 

candidate running for two Federal offices. A questior:t also arose 

concerning a candidate who met all the requirements of threshold and 

verification of contributions, but who in the eyes of some portions of 

the public was not a genuine candidate for the Presidency but rather a 

spokesman for a particular interest group. In spite of the threat of a 

lawsuit (which never materialized), the Commission did certify this 

candidate since the candidate met all the statutory requirements for 

eligibility. 

Matchable 

Contributions 

Aside from eligibility requirements, other policy questions which arose 

had to do with what contributions could be matched. For example, are 

monies raised from the sale of campaign materials or other items 

matchable contributions? Are the proceeds from the sale of concert 

tickets or contributions from minor children matchable? The Commission addressed these questions in the regulations proposed to Congress 

In the summer of 1976, although the answer did not in all cases apply 

to the 1976 campaigns. (See sections 130.8 [matchable contributions] 

and 130.9 [nonmatchable contributions] in the proposed regulations for 

details.) 

Delinquent Filers 

A final policy question which did affect several candidates was whether 

matching payments should be certified to candidates who had not 

submitted timely campaign disclosure reports. The Commission took the 

position that failure to file reports was sufficient cause to withhold 

payments under §9033(a)(2) which required candidates seeking public 

funds to 11agree to keep and furnish to the Commission any records, 

books, and other information it may request...." In the case of two 

candidates this decision did hold up payments for a short period until 

their complete disclosure reports were received. In order to alleviate any 

later confusion on this matter, this decision has been incorporated into 

the proposed regulations sent to Congress. 

Procedures 

The procedures for verifying submissions for matching funds were being 

developed and evaluated throughout 1976. No one had ever administered this type of program before and the Commission had very little 

time to develop procedures before submissions began to be received. 

Certification of eligibility began on December 18, 1975, when three 

Presidential candidates met the qualifications; an additional eight were 

determined eligible by December 23, one more was added during 

January, two in February, and one in June. This completed the 15 

candidates who received matching fund payments for the 1976 

campaign. 

20 
Public Financing 

Working with 

Candidates 

The Commission developed a two-stage procedure for working with 

candidates and guiding them on how to submit their contributions for 

matching. First, in an effort to assist candidates in their recordkeeping 

procedures and to determine initial eligibility, the Commission undertook a field audit with the candidates and their committees. This took 

place when a candidate first appeared to meet the eligibility requirements. In many cases the committees' particular accounting systems 

were not readily adaptable to the requirements of the standardized 

procedures. In these cases every effort was made to modify the 

procedures to a point where both the committees' needs and the 

Commission's requirements were met. One problem with standardization 

was the variety in scope and sophistication in the campaigns. Most of 

the candidates eventually used computers for compiling their submissions. Although there was little coordination between campaigns, and 

only two candidates sent representatives to the seminar which the FEC 

held in an attempt to assist in standardizing procedures, the systems 

developed by the campaigns were remarkably consistent. 

Second, as the Commission developed and refined internal procedures 

for verifying submissions, the candidates were kept informed informally 

and formally of needed changes and new requirements. Procedures were 

ultimately pulled together in a "Guideline for Presentation in Good 

Order," which was sent to the candidates on May 21. The material 

which dealt with matchable and nonmatchable items was finally 

incorporated in the regulations proposed to Congress in the summer of 

1976. 

Verification 

Procedures 

The development of procedures for the candidates went hand-in-glove 

with the development of an internal review process within the 

Commission. The Commissioners initially took the position that all 

submissions must be subject to 100 percent review for verification 

purposes. This not only ensured a maximum degree of public confidence in the system, but also allowed the Commission to become aware 

of the problems and pitfalls which would accompany the verification 

process. 100 percent review of hundreds of pages of contributions and 

double checking these against the written instrument proved to be 

extremely labor intensive, time consuming and tedious. In order to 

expedite the process, the Commission approved in early january a 

statistical sampling procedure for verifying matching contributions. This 

system was tested throughout the spring, and by july, the Commission 

was satisfied that it could safely drop the requirement for 100 percent 

review and moved to a standardized sampling procedure. The major 

outlines of this procedure were incorporated in the proposed regulations, including the proviso that "the candidate will be given the option 

of correcting and resubmitting the documentation or of accepting a 

dollar reduction in the amount requested for matching based on the 

results of the sample ..." (FEC Proposed Regulations, § 132.5(a)). 

21 
Also late in the spring, in order to expedite payment of matching funds 

to campaigns, the Commission instituted a holdback procedure, and on 

June 26, 1976, a letter was sent to all candidates still making 

submissions, outlining the new procedure. Matching funds were then 

certified less a percentage holdback which was determined by computing the average amount rejected in the candidate's last four 

submissions. Later, a detailed sample review of the submission was made 

and an adjustment was computed and applied to the candidate's next 

submission. The candidates were required to submit a form with their 

submission certifying that the request met all criteria set forth in the 

Commission's standardized procedures. The holdback procedure was 

used by the Commission for certifying funds until the volume of 

submissions slacked off enough so that the staff could review the 

submissions within a reasonable time limit. 

Several problems plagued both the Commission and the candidates in 

their efforts to review submissions for accuracy and compliance. 

Initially, there was the question of matchable and nonmatchable 

contributions and the Commission did have to reject some contributions 

for matching on that basis. As these questions were resolved and the 

Commission was able to provide guidelines to the candidates, the 

incidence of these questionable contributions lessened. 

Another early problem was to compare lists of contributions against a 

supporting instrument, such as a check. Until the candidates themselves 

organized and controlled their records, there were numerous instances 

where the lists and supporting documents did not match, and the 

Commission was obliged to reject contributions for matching. 

The final problem, and one which increased in seriousness, concerned 

aggregations of contributions from the same contributor. Since the law 

prohibits matching more than $250 from any one contributor, the 

candidates were asked to indicate any earlier contribution from the 

same person and to submit an aggregate figure. For large submissions 

based on computer runs, such aggregation was often difficult, especially 

when individuals used several different versions of their names. Most of 

the later rejections stemmed from this problem. A sample showing a 

percentage of contributions which were not correctly aggregated became 

the basis for a percentage rejection of the entire submission. 

Rejection of 

Submissions 

Figure 5 on page 17 shows that the percent of total submissions 

rejected for each candidate varied tremendously. There were many 

variables influencing the rate of rejection. These were the number of 

submissions, the number of contributors on each submission, whether 

submissions were prepared manually or by computer,4 the occurrence 

of specialized methods of fundraising, such as concert tickets, which 

4 ln some cases of small submissions, which were manually prepared, the rate of rejection was 

lower than for computerized submission. 

22 
Public Financing 

required independent identification because the identification of the 

donor was often insufficient. Finally, all candidates were allowed to 

resubmit rejected submissions. While some chose not to, in all cases 

where they did so, a substantial portion of the resubmission was 

eventually certified for payment. The b\Jik of these rejections stemmed 

from computer or recordkeeping errors and not from any evidence of 

willful violation of the submission requirements. 

The results of this first cycle of matching grants would indicate that 

most of the problems have been identified and satisfactory procedures 

worked out. Verification will always be an intense and time-consuming 

process, particularly during the peak of the primary season, but the 

experience with the 1976 program shows that it can work to the 

satisfaction of the candidates, and the public from an administrative 

point of view. The Commission hopes to solicit the advice and 

comments of those treasurers who worked closely with the submission 

process to incorporate their suggestions into a set of guidelines for 

future candidates planning to submit for matching funds. 

Statistics 

CONVENTION FINANCING 

The story on convention financing is much simpler than the Primary 

Matching Fund. Under the statute each major party was entitled to up 

to $2,000,000 for its nominating convention, with an adjustment for 

cost-of-living increases. These funds were paid in quarterly installments. 

In the final accounting, the Democratic National Committee received 

$2,180,869.79 and the Republican National Committee received 

$1 ,963,000.00. Any unexpended portion must be repaid to the U.S. 

Treasury when the final results of the field audit are available. Audits of 

the convention committees were begun on November 15, 1976, and 

November 29, 1976, respectively. The field work was completed in both 

cases by the end of 1976, and the audit reports were expected in early 

1977. 

Policy Questions 

Contributions 

Payment Schedule 

The Commission faced several policy questions in connection with this 

program. There was some question about the type of in-kind services 

the conventions could accept. This was resolved generally in the favor 

of the committee, using a criterion of whether the proferred service was 

normally provided to conventions of like nature. There was also some 

question concerning the donation of business or labor organization 

funds to the conventions. The Commission allowed for the donation of 

such funds provided they were used for certain specified purposes, such 

as promotion or welcoming activities. 

Another policy decision which faced the Commission was the question 

of whether to accelerate payments when it appeared that the Commission's payment powers would be suspended following the Supreme 

Court decision. Although both committees requested earlier payrrlents, 

the Commission decided to hold to its original schedule. 

23 
Statistics 

PRESIDENTIAL 

GENERAL ELECTION 

CAMPAIGN FUND 

Although much simpler to administer, the Presidential General Election 

public financing program had a much greater impact on the financing of 

the 1976 election. Each major party candidate received only public 

funds for his campaign, and agreed to limit his campaign expenditures 

to $21.8 million dollars. Private contributions to candidates were no 

longer permitted in Presidential campaign finance except for legal and 

accounting fees. Each candidate was entitled to spend $21,820,000, 

based on the spending limit of $20,000,000 plus adjustments for 

cost-of-living increases. Following the election, each candidate was 

subject to audit, and must repay any unused public funds. 

Policy Questions 

Buttons and 

Bumper Stickers 

The policy questions which the Commission faced all concerned the 

question of private contributions to the candidates. The question 

quickly arose whether a congressional candidate could use the Presidential candidate's name, picture or materials in conjunction with his 

campaign, or whether this should be prohibited as an illegal in-kind 

contribution to the Presidential candidate. The Commission took the 

position that buttons, bumper stickers, and/or brochures showing the 

candidates together would not have to be considered a contribution-inkind. When the involvement escalated to the level of joint billboards or 

joint media events, this would have to be prohibited unless the 

Presidential candidate made some financial contribution or reimbursement for his share of the campaign expenses.s 

Private 

Contributions 

Alongside this question of shared campaign expenditures were the many 

private citizens who simply did not realize or accept the fact that they 

could no longer contribute directly to the candidate of their.choice for 

President. Campaign disclosure reports filed by the two candidates often 

showed private contributors making donations directly to the candidate. 

The candidates dealt with this problem by refunding such contributions, 

but these refunds often did not appear on disclosure documents until 

correcting amendments were submitted. The Commission did rule that 

candidates could accept private contributions to cover legal and 

accounting expenses incurred for the purpose of complying with the 

Act. 

'AOR 1976-78. 

24 
Public Financing 

Procedures 

Policy Questions 

·riming 

The administration of the general election campaign fund was quite 

simple compared to the problems encountered with the Primary 

Matching Fund program. Payments were based on a letter certifying 

that each candidate was the candidate of a major party, would use the 

funds for only qualified campaign expenses, and would not accept 

private contributions to defray qualified campaign expenses. The only 

difference procedurally was that President Ford received his grant in 

check form while Governor Carter took a line of credit through the 

Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank. 

PUBLIC 

FINANCING AUDITS 

The Commission is requited to conduct a "thorough examination and 

audit" of all primary matching fund recipients, the party conventions, 

and general election Presidential candidates receiving public financing 

(26 U.S.C. § §9007, 9008 and 9038). The results of these audits shall 

be submitted in a report to the Senate and House of Representatives 

(26 U.S.C. § §9009 and 9039). The timing of these audits is a question 

of some Interest and importance since it brings into focus the potential 

conflict between the disclosure and compliance objectives for which the 

audit is conducted. In brief, if the audit is conducted in order to satisfy 

the public that the furids were properly used, then the audit results 

should be made public as expeditiously as possible. On the other hand, 

many factors may legitimately delay a candidate closing out his books, 

or he may be in a continuing position of making matching fund 

submissions for a period of time after ineligibility. These situations 

could delay initiating the audit. Finally, since an audit may raise 

questions which could bring the investigative and enforcement authority 

of the Commission into play, and since the statute makes it clear that 

the Commission may not disclose any information concerning a matter 

which arose from an audit and is under investigation (2 U.S.C. 

437g(a)(3)(B), the final report on a field audit could be delayed. 

The convention audits are to be scheduled not later than December 31 

of the year in which the nominating convention is held. (26 U.S.C. 

§9008(g)) The general election audit shall be done "After each 

Presidential election ..." (26 U.S.C. §9007(a)), although the Commission must notify candidates of necessary repayments no more than 

three years after the date of the election (26 U.S.C. §9007(c)). For the 

Primary Matching Fund, audits shall be conducted "After each matching 

payment period ..." (26 U.S.C. §9038(a)) which is defined as ending 

when the party's nomination takes place. However, since candidates are 

allowed to continue spending public funds for up to six months after 

the matching payment period ends, there is a built-in delay before the 

Commission may reasonably expect candidates to close their books and 

be ready for final audit. 

25 
The Commission has taken several policy positions as to when an audit 

shall begin and when reports shall be released. First, the Commission 

early decided to begin audits on candidates in the order in which they 

terminated their participation in the public financing program. Also, 

most significantly from a public point of view, the Commission decided 

not to undertake audits of the major party candidates, Ford and Carter, 

during the general election campaign since it would be impossible to 

complete the audit and make the results public prior to the election. It 

was felt that an incomplete audit might be unjustifiably damaging to 

the candidates and to the integrity of the election process. Also, the 

Commission took the position that field audits would not be initiated 

until a candidate's financial activity was substantially complete. 

Having taken these positions, and in recognition that the field audits 

would ultimately be delayed until some time after the election, the 

Commission initiated an intensive in-house review of all the available 

documents. This provided a basis from which field work would begin 

which would expedite the field audit. 

Qualified 

Campaign Expenses 

A final. policy question with which the Commission has wrestled is the 

criteria for judging what is a "qualified campaign expense." Since public 

funds could only be spent on "qualified campaign expenses," and this 

was the basis against which an audit report must be made, the 

Commission did attempt an internal examination of what more detailed 

criteria could be applied to flesh out this language of the statute. After 

some initial work in the field, this attempt was dropped in recognition 

that the variety and ingenuity of political campaigners in spending funds 

for a campaign would simply not lend itself to easy categorizing. At the 

moment the rule which is being followed is simply whether an 

expenditure is "ordinary, reasonable, and necessary." Also, expenditures 

must be documented by other related evidence such as invoices. 

Procedures 

The procedures for auditing were two-fold. First, an in-house review was 

made of reports submitted by the candidates, and secondly, a field 

audit was conducted. During the course of the field audit the 

candidate's books and records were compared to the reports and 

statement filed with the Commission to verify the accuracy of the 

reports and the records. This is the disclosure aspect of the audit. 

Simultaneously, expenditure records were reviewed. to determine if any 

public funds were used for other than qualified campaign expenses, thus 

requiring repayment to the Treasury. Finally, if the candidate was in a 

deficit position on his date of ineligibility, his net campaign debt was 

verified, or if in a surplus position, the amount of the surplus was 

verified. This procedure allowed the Commission to determine any 

further matching payment eligibility or any repayment due to the U.S. 

Treasury. It is important to note that campaign debts to be honored 

with public funds must have been incurred or obligated before the date 

the candidate became ineligible for new matching funds. The manpower 

required for field work in each case varied greatly with the size of the 

campaign and conditions of the records. In one case, three staff 

members were able to complete the work within a week while in others 

four staff members were required for four or five weeks. 

26 
Status of 

1976 Audits 

Public Financing 

It is apparent from the above that the audit process is a long and 

complex one. As of December 31, 1976, the Commission had issued a 

final report on one primary matching fund candidate and completed the 

field work on the two conventions and eight additional primary 

candidates. The one report, for Governor Terry Sanford, was released 

on October 14, 1976, and showed a slight surplus of public funds. A 

$48.04 repayment was made to the U.S. Treasury according to the 

repayment formula specified in the statute. 

Reports on the two convention audits should be issued early in 1977. 

Reports on the eight primary candidates were deferred because a 

number of policy questions still awaited resolution at the end of the 

year, among them repayment and compliance matters. Finally, the 

Commission was unable to issue several reports because candidates were 

requesting additional matching funds to erase campaign debts. 

The field audits on six candidates were scheduled later for a variety of 

reasons. These included Ford and Carter whose audits were delayed 

until after the general election, and whose books and records were not 

complete until later in the year. Three other candidates were requested 

to consolidate the records of their respective State organizations so that 

the fieid audit could be conducted more expeditiously. There was a 

delay in initiating an audit on the sixth candidate because of a 

contested ruling of ineligibility. 

27 
Disclosure 

Description of the 

Disclosure Program 

INTRODUCTION 

Disclosure of campaign financial information is one of the oldest 

approaches to campaign reform and the one with the most solid 

constitutional support, as the Supreme Court clearly indicated in 

Buckley v. Valeo. Federal disclosure laws have been on the books since 

191 0, and some form of financial disclosure is now required in nearly 

all 50 States. 

One basic purpose of disclosure is to create an informed public by 

providing information about the sources and uses of a candidate's 

finances. The publicity resulting from disclosure is itself a constraint 

against corruption. Disclosure is basic, as well, to other campaign 

reforms since the periodic reporting of financial data provides a base for 

monitoring the various limits and restrictions on campaign activity. Over 

the years, cumulative data also provides the basis for research on 

patterns of campaign financing. 

The Federal Election Commission's disclosure system is based on a 

series of reports rendered on standard forms issued by the Commission. 

The initial reports provide basic information about a candidate and his 

authorized committees. A similar basic registration report provides 

information as to when, where and by whom a political committee was 

organized. 

Following initial registration, the se.cond step in disclosure is the 

recurring report of receipts and expenditures, designed to show the 

source of funds, names and addresses of major contributors, how the 

money is spent and who receives it. These reports are required from 

canqidates, political committees, and from individuals making independent expenditures on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate. Finally, 

there are reports required from labor and corporate groups which show 

any funds they expend in excess of $2,000 for political communications 

to their permissible groups,1 advocating the election or defeat of a 

clearly identified candidate. 

1 The "permissible group," in the case of a labor organization, is its members and their families; 

in the case of a corporation, trade association, or membership organization, the permissible 

group is comprised of executive and administrative personnel and their families, and 

stockholders and their families. 

28 
Since these reports are periodic and cumulative, candidates and 

committees must be prepared to keep detailed records to enable them 

to complete quarterly or in some cases monthly reports for the FEC 

and the public. At the time of the election, report frequency is 

increased, with a ten-day pre-election report, and reporting by telegram 

of contributions or transfers of money in excess of $1,000 after the 

15th day prior to the election. 

Together these reports provide a fairly complete picture of who is 

involved in a campaign, the flow of money in and out of a campaign, 

and what groups or individuals are supporting a particular candidate. 

Because of the periodic nature of the reports, any one report only indicates the financial situation of the campaign at that time. A complete 

picture demands continuous review of the reports as they are submitted 

and a final review when the books are closed. This places an enormous 

burden on the press and public if the primary purpose of disclosure 

is to be met, namely an informed public. This has also influenced the 

way the Federal Election Commission has defined its objectives and responsibilities in administering the disclosure and reporting system. 

FEC Approach 

to Disclosure 

The FEC placed major emphasis on the disclosure program during the 

1976 election period. This emphasis was reflected in several ways. 

Information resources were directed primarily at helping FEC clients 

understand their reporting requirements and assisting them in meeting 

these requirements. It was also decided that the public must have ready 

and easy access to the reports, which was accomplished by creation of a 

.store-front Public Records Office for easy public reference to the 

reports. Finally, during 1976 the Commission embarked on a computerized storage program for the data taken from disclosure documents. 

The system provides for compilation and cross-referencing of campaign 

data for greater ease of analysis and meaningful disclosure, plus a base 

for compliance review. The computer system permits more timely and 

thorough analysis of campaign financing than ever before possible. 

Independent 

Expenditure 

Reporting 

POLICY QUESTIONS 

While the disclosure program was not greatly affected by the Supreme 

Court decision in Buckley v. Va/eo, the 1976 Amendments did contain 

significant new provisions regarding disclosure, particularly with respect 

to independent political expenditures. These are expenditures clearly 

advocating the election or defeat of a clearly defined candidate, made 

directly by individuals or committees without consultation or coordination or at the request or suggestion of the beneficiary candidate. 

Reflecting the Supreme Court's decision that limitations on such . 

independent expenditures are unconstitutional, the 1976 Amendments 

tightened the section on individuals reporting independent expenditures 

of $100 or more by adding a requirement for a notarized statement 

attesting to the "independence" of the expenditure. 

29 
Corporate and 

Labor Reporting 

Another new provision of the 1976 Amendments required corporations 

and labor organizations to report costs of communications to executive 

and administrative employees, stockholders and members, when those 

costs exceed $2,000. This provision has created a new type of reporting 

and a new group of filers. Reporting is required when a substantial 

portion of the communication advocates the election or defeat of a 

clearly identified candidate. 

Presidential 

Delegate Selection 

On February 10, 1976, the FEC issued a policy statement regarding the 

application of the Act to the process of selecting delegates to the 

national party nominating conventions. These "guidelines" reflected the 

conclusions of a Commission report which had been transmitted to 

Congress in late 1975, and also the adjustments required by the Court 

decision in Buckley v. Va/eo. While neither the 1976 FECA Amendments nor the legislative history specifically indicated how delegate 

selection was -to be treated, it was clear to the Commission and many 

inquiring delegates, candidates and party committees that questions of 

disclosure, and contribution and expenditure limits have significant 

bearing on the financing of individual Presidential campaigns. By 

drawing a distinction between those delegates who were financially 

authorized by a Presidential candidate and those who were not and by 

establishing minimum reporting standards, the FEC sought to provide 

guidance for the 1976 election, at the same time noting that further 

congressional action was needed to clarify the matter for future years. 

Particulars of 

Expenditures 

The Commission dealt with another policy question which did not flow 

from the Amendments, but which arose during the course of the 

campaign. This concerned reporting the particulars of expenditures. In a 

special Jetter, dated September 29, 1976, the FEC urged candidates and 

their principal campaign committees to describe more fully the purpose 

of their itemized expenditures and to maintain backup materials for all 

expenditures. The Jetter stated that, "as required by the statute, the 

'particulars' of each over-$1 00 expenditure must be reported. Entries 

such as 'advance to fieldman' or 'travel' are not sufficient to meet the 

statutory requirements. An advance to staff is not an expenditure.... 

The actual use to which the advance is put must be itemized." This 

position was subsequently included as an amendment to the proposed 

regulations. 

30 
Disclosure 

Filing of Reports 

PROCEDURES IN 

DISCLOSURE 

The FEC has responsibility for designing and furnishing forms, providing 

a bookkeeping manual for campaign treasurers, and providing advice and 

assistance to its clients on how to complete the forms. During 1976 the 

Commission revised its reporting forms and schedules to conform to the 

1976 Amendments, and developed three new forms to reflect new 

requirements. Over 100,000 packets of reporting forms and information 

were distributed, plus 15,000 copies of the bookkeeping manual. In 

addition, the Campaign Guide Series pamphlets offered simplified but 

comprehensive guidance on reporting requirements for candidates, 

committees and other filers. The latest in this series was a complete 

summary of the post-election reporting requirements. In all, the 

Commission mailed out 150,000 copies of the Campaign Guides during 

the 1976 campaign. The Public Communications section also responded 

to numerous phone and letter inquiries about reporting requirements 

and deadlines. 

During 1976 the FEC received disclosure reports from approximately 

9,000 filers. This represented roughly 5,600 committees, 3,000 candidates and nearly 400 miscellaneous filers. Senate and House candidates 

must file initially with the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the 

House, but copies and microfilm of the reports are forwarded 

immediately to the Commission and then made available in the Public 

Records Office. All other filers (Presidential, multicandidate-party and 

nonparty-related committees and independent expenditors) file directly 

with the Commission. 

Since the Commission's proposed regulations would allow waivers of 

personal candidate reporting responsibilities, it is assumed that most 

candidates will not be filing personal reports in future elections, though 

they would still have to file written authorizations of committees and 

bank depositories. Generally, each reporting entity is expected to 

submit between 12 and 15 documents during an election year including 

statements, reports, amendments, and miscellaneous correspondence. 

Thus, the Commission can reasonably be expected to receive from 

67,000 to 84,000 documents from committees, plus an additional 

10,000 to 15,000 documents to be filed directly by candidates. 

Review of Reports 

The primary objective of reports review and analysis for disclosure 

purposes is to secure complete information on the record so that the 

public will have the complete financing story of any one campaign. 

From its inception, the Commission has had responsibility to review 

Presidential, multicandidate and party-related committee reports. Upon 

mutual agreement, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the 

House retained review responsibility for congressional reports until July 

and September of 1976, respectively. This functional transfer which had 

been anticipated from the establishment of the FEC proved to be a very 

sensitive matter, but fared well as a result of the continued efforts on the 

part of the staff in conjunction with the ex officio Congressional Commissioners. 

31 
"Threshold Review" 

"Substantial 

Compliance" 

In developing procedures for reviewing reports, the Commission faced 

two problems. One was a recognition that the staff available simply 

could not review all disclosure documents. In response to this the 

Commission adopted a threshold concept which concentrated review on 

those campaigns which exceeded a given level of financial activity. This 

need for selective review was accentuated when the Commission 

received responsibility for monitoring Senate and House documents. 

A $10,000 threshold for review was adopted on August 12, 1976.2 This 

meant only those filers whose aggregate receipts and/or expenditures 

exceeded $10,000 would be reviewed, and eliminated from the review 

process about 43 percent -of all documents filed. Under this criterion, 

the FEC would still examine virtually all Senate candidates who were 

successful in the primary and general elections and the great majority of 

successful House candidates. The committees which were eliminated 

from the review process under the $10,000 threshold were primarily: 

1. House candidates unsuccessful in primary elections 

2. Local party-related committees 

3. Small non-party-related multicandidate committees 

4. Minor Presidential-candidate committees 

The second problem was the need to establish criteria of "substantial 

compliance" with the law. The level of experience and sophistication on 

the part of candidates and committees completing the disclosure forms 

varied so greatly that there were many incomplete forms, and other 

minor errors and omissions. Under initial strict application of the 

disclosure criteria set down in· the Act, the review process resulted in 30 

percent of reports being determined "inadequate."3 

In order to reduce this workload on staff and filers, the Commission 

adopted guidelines to accept reports as complete if 80 percent of the 

information in a given category (such as addresses of contributors) was 

present. Where large contributions or expenditures (generally in excess 

of $500) were involved, the requirement for complete descriptive 

information was maintained. By applying such criteria, the Commission 

recognized, in most cases, a "best efforts" attempt by committee 

treasurers to comply with the disclosure requirements, as specified in 

the recordkeeping section of the statute (2 U.S.C.1>434(b)(14)). Adoption 

of these guidelines has substantially reduced the number of "inadequate" 

reports. 

2 A survey of House campaigns in 1972 shows that 92 percent of House candidates who ran in 

the general election spent in excess of $5,000 while 87 percent spent an excess of $1 0,000 

during the calendar year. 

3 This does not include House and Senate reports for which the FEC did not yet have review 

responsibility. • 

32 
Disclosure 

RFAI's 

When the information on a disclosure report was determined to be 

inadequate, a Request for Additional Information (RFAI) was sent to 

the filer. The quality and completeness of the data on these reports 

varied enormously and demanded often quite experienced judgement 

and knowledge on the part of the analysts in order to determine 

whether the report was "adequate." However, if a filer ultimately failed 

to provide adequate information as required by the RF AI, this could 

become the basis for formal compliance action by the Commission. 

Following the guidelines in the statute, the FEC sent three further 

notices, each with a specified time period before taking formal action. 

During 1976, the overwhelming majority of filers did provide an 

adequate response to the RFAI 's after one or at most two notices.4 

The Commission adoption of the "threshold" and "substantial compliance" concepts eliminated a suffici.ent portion of the total review 

workload, and allowed a more in-depth analysis with respect to those 

committees which received and spent the bulk of the money directly 

affecting the political process. 

Processing ReportsThe Computer 

Computer Development 

During 1975, microfilm was selected as the processing means for 

primary viewing by the public of disclosure documents. These films are 

available in the Public Records Office, in addition to paper copies of the 

documents themselves. Early in 1976, the Commission began designing a 

computer system which could assist in the storage and retrieval of 

information on the disclosure documents, both for purposes of 

Commission review and, where appropriate, for public review. The 

development of this program continued throughout the spring and in 

August of 1976 the Office of Data Systems and Development began 

operation. 

During the last half of 1976, the Data Systems Office undertook 

primarily to gather and store the data off incoming and some 

backlogged documents. The actual preparation of data for entry into 

the computer, and the verification of the product, proved to be 

considerably more difficult than had been envisioned. The disclosure 

forms were not wholly compatible with data entry requirements, and 

there was extreme variation in the way committees and candidates 

completed the forms. Several different versions of the forms were in 

circulation because of various changes in the law, and finally, there was 

a desire to get out a product before the election. All of this, combined 

with the necessity of training new personnel and essentially de-bugging a 

new computer program, made the first months of the computer 

operation extremely difficult. 

• For a discussion of how the Commission handled non filers see the Chapter on Compliance and 

Enforcement. 

33 
Computer Functions 

One function of the computer for disclosure purposes was to assist with 

reports review. The computer made it possible to implement the 

concept of threshold review. A weekly run of all new documents 

quickly showed the Reports Analyst which campaigns were above the 

$10,000 threshold and thus subject to review. Other internal listings 

assisted in more specialized types of review. 

A second function of the computer is to meet the statutory requirements for publication of a variety of indexes. These required indexes 

included a listing of all documents filed with the Commission, of 

multicandidate committees, of nonfilers and of independent expenditures. In addition, by Commission directive, the indexes contained 

updated tabulations of receipts and expenditures for each candidate and 

committee. The computer literally made such listings possible, for they 

could not be completed manually in timely fashion given the volume of 

data to be processed. 

Following the election, the Data Systems Office concentrated on 

ensuring that the data base was reliable and accurate. When this is 

completed, further indexes and compilations can be produced which 

will provide a basis for more sophisticated analysis of the financing of 

the 1976 campaigns. It is the objective of the Commission that this 

computer system provide consolidated raw data from the disclosure 

reports in such a form that the public can have ready access to data for 

whatever analysis it desires. In this way the FEC will be an information 

service organization, while the actual research, analysis and formation of 

conclusions will be done by an independent public. 

Making Reports 

Available to 

the Public 

Public Records 

The information in the disclosure reports is made available to the public 

in several ways. First, the reports themselves can be viewed. This is the 

responsibility of the Public Records Office of the Commission and the 

statute requires reports be publicly available within 48 hours of receipt. 

During 1976, this office provided 1.1 million pages of Federal campaign 

finance data for public inspection in a "storefront" research area. This 

included Y:z million pages relating to over 9,000 filers during 1975-76. 

Visitors to this office ranged from 100 per week in early 1976 to 

several hundred per week during October 1976. 

In addition to making documents available for direct viewing on 

microfilm, this office copied and sold over 1/3 million pages of 

statements and reports on self-service microfilm reader/printers and 

photocopiers, and responded to 2,012 written orders and 1,379 phone 

orders. The office also handled more than 2,000 information calls on 

document availability. When these figures are set against the 46 contests 

represented, it is possible to gain a measure of the degree of public 

interest in these disclosure documents. 

34 
Disclosure 

Indexes and 

Compilations 

Now that the consolidation of House, Senate and Presidential documents has been largely completed, and the microfilm system is 

completely operational, the Public Records Office is looking to make 

its records even more accessible to the public. At headquarters, the 

computer operation now provides a printout machine in Public Records 

which can produce an updated computer printout of a specific category 

of data on call. 

The primary obstacle to fuller disclosure at this time, however, is the 

need to get the data out of Washington to the local level where the 

campaign is conducted. More extensive use and distribution of microfilm and development of a greater variety of published computer 

indexes could answer this need. In addition, the office is exploring the 

possibility of making microfilm available to State libraries and central 

campaign finance records offices. This would, for the first time, permit 

widespread research and study of Federal campaign finance reports 

outside of Washington, D.C. 

Aside from the reports themselves, the second major format for public 

disclosure consists of indexes and compilations of the data from 

disclosure reports filed with the Commission. Several indexes are 

required by the statute, such as the listing of independent expenditors; 

others are developed to make public understanding of the data easier. In 

spite of the difficulties in implementing the new computer system, it 

was possible to produce several indexes and tabulations for public 

review prior to the election, although some indexes had to be developed 

by hand for the 1976 campaign in order to meet the deadline in the 

statute. For some categories of reports, this public listing is the primary 

form of control which the public has to ensure compliance with the 

law. 

One such index is the one listing independent expenditures. In 

mid-September, the FEC sent a "Notice of Independent Expenditures 

Reporting" to all candidates and political committees, advising them of 

the details of the independent expenditure reporting requirement. This 

special notice was felt to be necessary not only because of the new 

requirement for notarization, but because without any limit on such 

expenditures, disclosure remained the only effective control. An 

Independent Expenditure Index was issued by the Commission on 

October 14, 1976, and updated on October 27, 1976. 

35 
A second category of filers which relies on public listing for effective 

compliance includes the new reports from corporations and labor unions 

regarding the costs of political communications with members and 

employees when those costs go over $2,000. This so-called Packwood 

Amendment is extremely difficult to monitor. While the FEC can 

inform corporations and unions of their obligation to report, there is no 

built-in control to determine when that reporting requirement is 

triggered. By publishing a list of those organizations which have 

reported, the Commission can facilitate the filing of complaints with 

regard to organizations which may have failed to file. Such a list was 

published on October 18, 1976, entitled Index of Communications by 

Corporations and Membership Organizations May 1-0ctober 1, 1976. 

Other kinds of listings which are needed for compliance are the lists of 

Multicandidate Committees who qualify for a higher contribution limit, 

published in the Federal Register October 6, 1976, and updated on 

November 9. Without such a list developed through the FEC, the 

individual candidate cannot easily know how large a contribution he can 

legitimately accept from a committee. 

i 

Through the use of the computer, the Commission· also made available a 

listing of all contributions of $500 and above to the Ford and Carter 

primary campaigns, a listing by Presidential candidate of all reports filed 

for the prenomination period, including receipts and expenditures for 

each report and aggregates therefor, and finally a listing of selected 

special interest groups showing which candidates they supported and the 

size of their contributions. 

Because of the preliminary nature of the data and because of the 

developmental stage of the computer program, these indexes were made 

available primarily for review in Public Records, and not in published 

form. It is anticipated that updated versions of these various indexes, 

including data from the year-end disclosure reports, will be published in 

the spring of 1977. These indexes will begin to provide the public with 

final data on the financing of the 1976 campaign. The Commission has 

also undertaken a review, in conjunction with several private research 

groups, to determine exactly what statistical information would be most 

useful to the public for future elections. The results of this study will 

guide the development of programs for the computer for the 1978 

elections. 

36 
Campaign Umitations 

INTRODUCTION 

Laws which impose limits on campaign spending and activity customarily fall into three categories: 1) limits on contributions, 2) limits on 

campaign expenditures, and 3) restrictions or prohibitions on the 

involvement of various groups in campaign activity, particularly corporate and labor groups. The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, under 

which the Commission started, included all three of these approaches. 

In its january 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court 

ruled that limits on campaign expenditures and candidate personal 

spending were unconstitutional, unless the candidate was receiving 

public financing for his campaign. Limitations on independent expenditures were ruled out completely. Contribution limits were upheld. 

Restrictions on corporate and union activity were not affected. 

Independent expenditures 

POLICY QUESTIONS 

By striking limits on independent expenditures and candidate personal 

spending, the Court left open several areas which were then addressed 

by the 1976 Amendments and the Commission. Acknowledging the lack 

of restrictions on independent spending, the new amendments required 

a notarized statement that these expenditures were made without prior 

consultation with or at the request or suggestion of the candidate {2 

U.S.C. §434(e)). 

The Commission later addressed the question of whether the $1,000 

contribution limit would apply in the case of contributions to 

committees making independent expenditures on behalf of candidates. 

The concern was that a contributor could give unlimited amounts to 

such a committee which was openly spending money on only a single 

candidate, thereby circumventing the $1,000 limit. In a policy statement issued September 23, 1976, the Commission took the position 

that contributions to political committees making independent expenditures would not be subject to the $1 ,000 limit as long as "the 

contributor does not give to the committee with the knowledge that a 

substantial portion of the contributor's funds will be ... expended on 

behalf of the candidate." Such contributions are restricted to the 

$5,000 limit to each committee per calendar year, and for individuals, 

to the $25,000 limit per calendar year. 

37 
Affiliated Committees 

In the area of contribution limits, Congress added the significant 

provision that multicandidate committees which are "affiliated" must 

share a single $5,000 limit (2 U.S.C. §441 (a)(5)). This provision 

resulted from experience with the 1974 Amendments which indicated 

that proliferation of committees could provide an avenue for evasion of 

the $5,000 contribution limit for multicandidate committees. 

The question which then faced the Commission was how to determine 

which committees were affiliated and thus subject to a single contribution limit. While the statute did outline certain relationships which 

would constitute affiliation, the Commission, in its proposed regulations, felt it was necessary to develop a list of additional criteria to 

determine affiliation. These were intended to cover those organizations 

which were outside the usual groups of corporations, unions, and 

membership associations, and to define "affiliation" more precisely. 

(Sec. 110.3 of Proposed Regulations.) 

Party Spending 

The major question which arose in connection with the application of 

spending limitations concerned the activity of State and local political 

party committees. For the Presidential campaign the statute established 

a spending right for only the national political parties (two cents per 

voting age population of the United States). The Commission interpreted this to mean that State and local party committees did not have 

the right to make their own independent expenditures on behalf of a 

Presidential candidate. 1 Recognizing the restriction this would place on 

their traditional party activities, the Commission then adopted language 

in the proposed regulations which would allow each local unit of the 

party (State, county, city, or congressional district), an expenditure of 

up to $1,000 to further the election of their party's candidate. In a 

letter dated September 21, 1976, the Commission advised all State and 

local party organizations of the overall policy on participation in the 

Presidential campaigns. Experience during the 1976 campaign indicates 

that there may be sentiment to amend the statute to allow a broader 

degree of involvement by local party units. 

Corporate and 

Union Solicitation 

In the area of restrictions on campaign activities, Congress provided 

more specific restraints on solicitation activities which may be undertaken by unions, corporations, and trade associations {2 U.S.C. §441 b). 

The Commission wrestled long and hard writing regulations to implement this section regulating corporation and union participation in the 

political process. The old §610 of the 1974 Amendments had beeri a 

very general section which the Commission had interpreted in an 

Advisory Opinion in 1975. In response to this Opinion, the 1976 

Amendments added far more detailed provisions on how, when, and to 

whom <;orporations and unions could make solicitations of their 

employees and members for political contributions. Trade associations 

and other membership organizations were also expressly included in the 

statute for the first time, and special consideration had to be given to 

their particular problems. 

• In addition, State and local party units are prohibited from making direct or in·kind 

contributions to Presidential candidates receiving full public financing in the general election. 

38 
Campaign Limitations 

FEC Approach 

PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING 

LIMITS AND RESTRICTIONS 

Monitoring of campaign limitations and restrictions is one of the major 

jobs of the Commission if the public is to be assured that these 

objectives in the law are indeed being met. With the fimited time and 

resources available after the 1976 Amendments were passed, the 

Commission decided that its efforts should be applied to those 

campaigns having the greatest financial impact on the election. The 

individual perspective would continue to be achieved at the local level, 

where one reporter can review a disclosure document with a thoroughness and familiarity which can never be achieved by a centralized 

agency in Washington. Therefore, the Commission concentrated review 

on those campaigns above a given threshold of financial activity and 

those contributions of $500 and above. 

Primary reliance was on manual review of these larger campaigns and 

contributions. The computer was used primarily to develop the 

"threshold" list: a daily listing of those candidates and committees 

whose financial activity exceeded the $10,000 mark. In addition, the 

computer was used to track contributions of $500 and above to the 

Ford and Carter campaigns. Additional computer capability will be 

developed during 1977 to assist in monitoring limits. 

Surface 

Violation Letters 

Beginning in July, the Commission adopted a notification program for 

apparent surface violations of the limits and restrictions on campaign 

activity which appeared on disclosure reports. This program was distinct 

from the Requests for Additional Information sent for incomplete 

reports. When review of reports showed an apparent violation, the filer 

was sent an initial letter with a specified time period for response. When 

an inadequate response or no response was received, a second and, if 

necessary, third letter were sent. If there was inadequate response after 

the specified time for response to the third letter, the matter was 

referred for formal compliance action. 

This notification program resulted in a substantial increase in compliance. Of 140 initial letters indicating apparent violations of statutory 

limitations,2 . 97 percent of the committees involved amended their 

reports adequately with no further contact necessary. It should be 

noted that the figure of 140 includes many more possible violations 

since one letter to a large committee or other filer might refer to 

numerous apparent violations in the same category. Clearly, the fact of 

disclosure and a first or second reminder from the Commission has 

caused many candidates to return or refuse illegal contributions, or to 

correct improperly reported transactions. In the case of some large 

campaigns, contributions which exceeded the limits were often routinely 

returned prior to formal disclosure. 

The distribution of notification letters among the various categories of 

candidates was fairly even. Most of the letters sent fell in the category 

of excessive contributions, both individual and committee. The second 

2 These covered the period july through December 1976. 

39 
category was apparent illegal corporate and labor contributions. Other 

surface violations were connected with disclosure requirements, such as 

contributions from nonregistered political committees, and improperly 

reported independent expenditures. 

1976 

Spending Limits 

Presidential Limits 

For the 1976 election, all Presidential candidates receiving public funds 

were subject to separate spending limits for the primary and general 

election. The primary limit was $10,910,000. During the general 

election the candidates were limited to campaign expenditures not to 

exceed $21,820,000. 3 The disclosure forms for Presidential candidates 

receiving public funds were designed to require the filer to indicate 

what portion of his or her campaign expenditures was subject to limits. 

Specific expenses exempted from the limit by law were legal and 

accounting fees, fundraising expenses up to 20 percent of the limit, loan 

repayments and contribution refunds, and transfers to other authorized 

committees of the same Presidential candidate. The amount subject to 

limitation is calculated by the candidate and subject to an initial 

in-house review by the FEC. The final monitoring relies on the field 

audits mandated by law. It is important to keep in mind that the law 

specifies that a candidate shall not be deemed to have exceeded his 

limit until his final books and records are closed. This means that an 

interim disclosure report may, because of outstanding debts or pending 

refunds, temporarily show what appears to be an expenditure in excess 

of the specified limits. 

For the 1976 campaign the in-house review indicated all candidates 

were apparently within the limits, but a final determination must await 

the field audit reports. 

State-by-State Limits 

A second element of the Presidential spending limit is the limit imposed 

on spending in each State, a designated portion of the overall limit. The 

candidate is required to submit a statement showing the expenditures 

allocated to each State. These are reviewed within the Commission for 

surface violations, and the final determination is made during the field 

audit. 

Party Limits 

The final spending limits applicable for the 1976 election were those 

imposed on the national party committees for Presidential candidates 

and on national and State party committees for other Federal 

candidates. These limits again are monitored by review of the disclosure 

documents within the Commission, and by a field audit conducted after 

the yearend reports are received. In the 30-day post-election reports, 

both the national parties indicated figures for expenditures for the 

respective Presidential candidates which were within the $3,203,787.00 

spending limit. The figures will be checked against the itemized 

expenditures when the field audit is completed. 

3 Figures include statutory limits of $10,000,000 for the primary, $20,000,000 for the general, 

plus the cost-of-living increase (2 U.S.C. §441 a(b)). The cost-of-living increase in 1976 was 9.1 

percent. 

40 
1976 

Contribution Limits 

Campaign Limitations 

Contribution limits are difficult to monitor because of the volume of 

reports. The task of aggregating multiple contributions to the same 

candidate, or total contributions from single contributors in a campaign 

year is so voluminous that it can only be undertaken through 

computerized sorting and listing of identical or similar names. After the 

names have been arrayed alphabetically in computerized listings, they 

must be reviewed visually by trained examiners to identify apparent 

violations.4 

During the 1976 campaign, most apparent violations of the contribution 

limits were corrected by refund after an initial letter was sent to the 

filer by the Commission. In some cases, where itemized listings of 

contributors indicated inconsistencies or unusual patterns of contributions, the Commission sent letters directly to the listed contributor 

asking for verification of the contribution. 

The major listing of contributors for the 1976 campaign was of all 

contributions of $500 and above to the two major Presidential 

candidates, Ford and Carter. This list was made available to the public 

on October 22, 1976. Since this listing contained apparent violations of 

the contribution limit, each candidate was sent an initial letter asking 

for clarification of those contributions apparently in excess of the 

limits. In both cases, satisfactory responses were received and the corrections were made a part of the public record. 

Finally, the Commission monitored contributions by affiliated committees, which are subject to a shared limit of $5,000. On their financial 

disclosure forms all committees were asked to provide the names of any 

connected organizations and of any affiliated committees. In a further 

effort to highlight this requirement, a special letter dated September 20, 

1976, was sent in which the FEC asked chairmen of all non-party 

political committees to report their committee affiliations. FEC Chairman Vernon Thomson said, "The Commission wants to identify which 

committees are not aware that they are collectively subject to the single 

contribution limit, in order to help these committees avoid improper 

contributions." This inquiry by the Commission brought answers on the 

part of 95 percent of the 1,188 committees involved. 

Following the criteria outlined in the proposed regulations, the 

Commission initiated a study of these responses to determine whether 

in fact all cases of affiliation were reported and whether the responses 

are adequate to meet the intent of the law. In cases where the 

committee indicated no affiliation, patterns of expenditure habits, 

contributor information, candidates supported, identification of officers, 

etc., were studied to determine the possibility of common control 

which would constitute a violation of 2 U.S.C. 1'441. From the study, 

the Commission has developed a list of affiliated committees for internal 

use, which could also provide a valuable guide to candidates for the next 

election. 

4 The, same problem arose in verifying contributions for the primary fund program. 

41 
1976 

Corporate and 

Labor Restrictions 

Procedures for monitoring the prohibition on corporate and labor 

contributions follow the same pattern as other limitations, namely 

in-house review and subsequent field audit of candidate and committee 

disclosure reports. Again using the threshold concept, not all such 

activity is monitored, and not all campaigns receive a field audit. For 

those filers where in-house review did require that a letter be sent on an 

apparent violation, substantial compliance was achieved. Many of these 

apparent violations stemmed from inadvertent use of corporate small 

business checking accounts instead of personal accounts. Or, in the case 

of labor unions, contributions were sometimes recorded in the name of 

the union rather than the appropriate political action committee. 

The Commission has less ability to monitor the solicitation activities of 

corporations and lfnions with their employees and members (2 U.S.C. 

§441 b). These activities do not have to be reported or disclosed, so 

that the Commission must rely on the normal complaint process to 

monitor these activities. · 

42 
Compliance and Enforcement 

INTRODUCTION 

In addition to administration of the various campaign finance reform 

programs, the Federal Election Commission has been assigned the 

primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with and civil enforcement of these programs. Various powers of the Commission flow from 

these responsibilities. The power to issue advisory opinions and 

interpretation rules and regulations provides a broader legal basis for 

enforcement of the law. Audit and investigatory powers assist the 

Commission in determining the degree of compliance with the law, and 

inve~tigating specific complaints or evidence of noncompliance. Finally, 

a variety of civil enforcement powers, including the power to issue 

subpoenas and secure injunctions, allows the Commission to take direct 

action to correct or prevent a violation of the law. 

Civil enforcement powers were given to the Commission when it was 

first created by the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. While the previous supervisory officers for the 1971 Act 

had compliance responsibility, specifically audit and investigatory 

powers, they were obliged to refer all cases for enforcement to the 

Justice Department. The 1974 Amendments gave the Commission 

primary civil enforcement authority. This came partly in response to a 

concern about the degree of enforcement of earlier campaign reform 

laws; it was felt that the Commission would be able to concentrate on 

review of possible violations and enforcement of the law sufficiently to 

restore public confidence, which was so eroded by the campaign 

scandals of the 1970's. 

With the 1976 Amendments to the FECA, the Commission's enforcement responsibilities were again strengthened with the granting of 

"exclusive" civil enforcement authority over all of the provisions of the 

Act. This included the disclosure and campaign-limitations programs in 

Title 2 and the public financing programs in Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 

26 of the U.S. Code. The 1976 Amendments were also much more 

precise about the steps which the Commission must take in connection 

with an enforcement action. The compliance review or audit functions 

of the Commission were not affected, but the procedures for legal 

interpretations of the Act by the use of advisory opinions were 

modified. 

43 
COMPLIANCE 

The Commission is charged with bringing about compliance with the 

Act, and with determining whether candidates and committees are 

complying with the Act. Activities in these areas include legal 

interpretation of the law through Advisory Opinions and rules and 

regulations, general informational assistance to candidates and committees, and in-house review and field audits of committees and candidates 

to determine the accuracy of records and fulfill the disclosure 

requirements of the statute. 

Rules and 

Regulations 

Rules and regulations provide interpretations and explanations which 

help committees and candidates comply with the law. They also provide 

a broader legal foundation for enforcement of the law. The Commission 

originally sent proposed regulations to Congress during December 1975 

and january 1976. These never went into effect because of the Supreme 

Court decision in january which suspended the Commission's rulemaking authority. 

In April 1976, the staff of the Office of General Counsel began 

redrafting portions of these original regulations when the shape of the 

1976 Amendments seemed fairly clear. One significant aspect of th• 

1976 Amendments was the Congress' decision to recodify in Title 2 the 

provisions on campaign limitations and restrictions which had previously 

been in Title 18, over which the Commission had no rulemaking 

authority. It was in this area that the drafting initially focused. Drafts 

for many sections were finished in late April and were circulated to the 

Commission for review pending the final passage of the Amendments by 

the Congress and the reconstitution of the Commission. Also receiving 

extensive attention were the provisions covering corporate and union 

activities, and independent expenditure activity. 

The disclosure provisions, Parts 100 through 108, were not significantly 

altered from the original version submitted to the Congress in December 

of 1975, since the 1976 Amendments did not affect them substantially. 

The staff draft also altered parts of the office accounts regulation, Part 

113, and made adjustments in the matching fund regulations, Parts 130 

through 135, in conformance with the 1976 Amendments. 

As soon as the Commission was reconstituted on May 21, it was 

presented by the legal staff with a complete set of revised regulations. 

The entire set of proposed regulations was published in the Federal 

Register on May 26, 1976, for public comment. The Commission then 

held extensive public hearings on June 7-10 and July 2, which covered 

the entire body of the regulations with an attempt to define on a given 

day particular subject matters for consideration. During the same 

period, written comments were received from the public to be made 

part of the record. By late June, the final drafts were considered by the 

Commission and amendments were made, and by the end of June, the 

Commission had given preliminary approval to the entire set of 

regulations. 

44 
After the Commission concluded preliminary approval, Commission staff 

met with staff from the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction 

over the Commission, to brief them with respect to the draft versions 

before final Commission action. The Commission then approved a 

complete set of regulations in final form and transmitted them to the 

Congress on August 3, 1976. These proposed regulations were subsequently published for public information in the Federal Register on 

August 25, 1976. 

The Commission could not officially promulgate these regulations until 

a period of 30 legislative days had elapsed from the date of receipt by 

Congress, during which time either House had the opportunity to veto 

them. The 1976 proposed regulations had been under review in 

Congress 28 legislative days when Congress adjourned on October 1, 

1976, two legislative days short of the 30-legislative-day requirement. 

This left the Commission and the public alike without formally 

approved rules and regulations for the remainder of the election period. 

On October 5, 1976, the Commission issued a policy statement on its 

position on the status of the regulations. This stated among other things 

that: 

"This announcement provides notice to all affected parties that the 

Commission intends to administer the Act in a fashion which 

implements the interpretations set forth in the proposed regulations. All persons subject to the Act should accordingly comply 

fully with the requirements of the FEC regulations during the 

1976 elections. The FEC regulations should be looked upon as 

interpretative rules under traditional concepts of administrative law 

and should be taken as an authoritative guide as to how the 

election laws apply...." 

On January 11, 1977, the Commission resubmitted this set of rules and 

regulations to Congress, plus several proposed amendments. 1 

Advisory Opinions 

Compliance 

During 1976 the Commission's authority and function with respect to 

rendering Advisory Opinions, Opinions of Counsel, and informal legal 

Informational Letters were substantially affected by both the United 

States Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Voleo and the 1976 

Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, the Commission issued binding 

Advisory Opinions under 2 U.S.C. 1437f. During that period the General 

Counsel also issued Opinions of Counsel under a procedure that the 

Commission approved and implemented in 1975 as a method to respond 

to questions which could not be treated under the Advisory Opinion 

procedure set forth in the statute, or which were otherwise inappropriate for advisory opinion treatment. With the Buckley decision, 

however, and the Supreme Court's invalidation of many of the 

Commission's powers including the power to issue Advisory Opinions, 

the Commission ceased issuing Advisory Opinions. 

1 See Appendix C for highlights of these proposed Regulations; see the Federal Register of 

August 25, 1976, for a complete text. 

45 
The Commission did continue issuing Opinions of Counsel, and used 

that format as a vehicle to respond to pending requests for Advisory 

Opinions if the requestor consented to receiving an Opinion of Counsel. 

Accordingly, between january 30 and March 23, 60 Opinions of 

Counsel were issued by the General Counsel of the Commission. When 

the Court's stay expired, Opinions of Counsel were also terminated. 

The 1976 Amendments to the Act contained substantial amendments to 

the Advisory Opinion procedure (2 U.S.C. §437f) with the result that 

the Commission was required to place principal emphasis on the 

development and submission to the Congress of proposed regulations to 

implement the Act as amended. Specifically, the Congress provided that 

no opinions "of an advisory nature" could be issued except in response 

to specific factual situations where a general rule of law stated in the 

Act or a promulgated regulation could be applied. This prohibition 

required the General Counsel to cease issuing Opinions of Counsel, and 

precluded the Commission from issuing Advisory Opinions based on 

proposed rules and regulations. The legislative history made clear, 

however, that Congress did not intend this restriction to bar the 

Commission or its staff from issuing informational material, whether 

contained in letters or general publications, pertaining to the Act. This 

informational function was discharged by the Commission through the 

Office of General Counsel as well as the Office of Information. 

The need for Advisory Opinions continued, however, as new requests 

were submitted after the enactment of the 1976 Amendments. The 

Commission responded to these requests in two ways. Formal Advisory 

Opinions were issued where applicable. In addition, the Commission 

developed a new format for those responses which were based in part 

on the Commission's proposed regulations. These responses, designated 

Re: AOR, were given in letter form and clearly stated that they did not 

constitute a formal Advisory Opinion, but rather a response based on a 

proposed regulation. 

While the formal Advisory Opinions carried with them the full 

protections and immunities granted by the statute, the Commission's 

Responses to Advisory Opinion Requests (Re: AOR's) which involved 

reliance on the proposed regulations did not afford the requesting 

person, or others similarly situated, the same protection given in 

connection with an Advisory Opinion. 

During 1976, the Commission issued 57 formal Advisory Opinions 

(AO's) and 51 Re: AOR's. In addition, the Office of General Counsel 

sent out numerous Informational Letters to persons who did not have 

proper standing for an Advisory Opinion, where the subject matter was 

overly general, or where the incoming letter did not otherwise require a 

Commission-level response. Roughly half of all opinion requests had to 

do with campaign contribution questions; the rest concerned expenditures, solicitations to separate segregated funds, excess campaign funds, 

political committees, reporting and other questions in that order of 

frequency. 2 

•see Appendix E for a Subject Matter Index of Advisory Opinions, 1975-1976. 

See Appendix D for summaries of selected Advisory Opinions and Informational Letters issued 

in 1976. 

Advisory Opinion Requests are made public at the Commission and summaries are published in 

the Federal Register as received. The opinions themselves are available from the Commission's 

Office of Public Records. 

46 
Compliance 

Audit Policy 

The Commission has a general audit authority under 2 U.S.C.j438(a)(8) 

of the statute. This authority is discretionary except in the cases of candidates accepting public financing which is mandated under another section 

of the law. The purpose of audits is to test the general level of compliance 

with the law and to selectively review particular cases where there are 

indications that practices may not be in conformance with bookkeeping 

and reporting requirements. In addition, because of the newness and 

complexity of the law, the Commission uses the field audit to assist 

candidates and committees in developing better recordkeeping systems 

so that they may more easily comply with the law. 

The Commission spent a good part of 1976 developing a general audit 

policy, and the procedures to carry out that policy. The services of a 

special consultant were used, plus extensive consultation with Internal 

Revenue Service and with personnel who had been involved in audit 

programs of the 1972 election. While this program was developed and 

approved by the Commission in 1976, implementation was delayed until 

1977 because of the prior obligation to complete audits on those 

Presidential candidates receiving public funds. 

Under the audit program adopted in November 1976, the Commission 

took 'several policy positions. First, House and Senate audits would not 

be conducted during a campaign period. Second, the Commission 

recognized it was not possible or desirable from the point of view of 

resources or results to audit all races. Rather, the Commission chose to 

rely on a series of objective standards for selecting which candidates or 

committees would be audited. These standards included the amount of 

money received or spent, statistical selection, predetermined criteria 

which indicate problems with recordkeeping, percent of the vote, and, 

for Presidential races, the number of States in which a candidate 

appeared on the ballot. A final policy approach was to audit only the 

general election races, unless there is indication that the meaningful 

campaign was in the primary. Some indicators which will be used to 

determine this are the percentage of the vote gained in the general 

election and the amount of money received or spent. 

Audit Procedures 

Congressional 

Campaigns 

Congressional candidates and their committees are the largest group to 

be audited and therefore present the most difficult problems of 

selection. The Commission adopted a two-part selection policy for this 

group, combining statistical selection of sample campaigns, and selection 

by application of specified audit criteria. The statistical sample would 

be further refined by eliminating those candidates who received less 

than a certain percentage of the vote and spent less than a given 

amount of money in their campaign. Any statistical sample would be of 

campaigns, so that all candidates in a particular district will be 

examined. 

47 
The primary purpose of the audit criteria selection process is to identify 

individual candidates or committees most needing attention from the 

Commission, through an escalating process of review and analysis of 

disclosure reports. Field audits in such cases would be designed to help 

correct the individual disclosure reports previously filed, and to address 

the needs of their recordkeeping and reporting systems, so that future 

reports could be made more satisfactorily. 

For the 1976 campaign, the Commission decided to audit 10 percent of 

the House and 10 percent of the Senate campaigns during oddnumbered years. Approximately 50 campaigns would be selected by the 

use of the audit criteria selection process. 

Presidential 

Campaigns 

Most of the major Presidential candidates are automatically subject to 

audit because they accepted public financing. For the remainder, the 

Commission decided to audit those who appeared on the ballot in at 

least 10 States. This would eliminate the de minimus candidates and 

seems more appropriate than a threshold of campaign finances or 

percent of the vote. 

M ulticandidate 

Committees 

Multicc..i1didate committees will be audited on a two-year cycle if they 

exceed .a given threshold of financial activity, presently set at $100,000. 

A five percent random sample of the remainder will also be audited 

every year. 3 

Party Committees 

National party committees and congressional campaign committees will 

be audited each year, while reporting State level party committees will 

be audited on alternate years. 

Policy 

ENFORCEMENT 

The Federal Election Commission has exclusive civil enforcement 

authority over all provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act as 

amended in 1976. Enforcement actions are triggered either by a signed, 

sworn notarized complaint (2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(1 )), or by information 

"ascertained in the normal course of ... (the Commission's) supervisory 

responsibilities" §437g(a)(2). 

The statute itself specifies the basic policies governing the use of this 

enforcement authority. 2 U.S.C. §437g prescribes several elements 

which must be part of any Commission enforcement action, including 

confidentiality of the investigation, notification to the parties involved, 

formal investigation, and a required period for attempted conciliation. 

3 Three multicandidate committee audits were conducted in .early 1976 but further activity 

was suspended with the initiation of the mandatory Presidentiaf audit program. Reports on 

these committee audits were made available in October. 

48 
Enforcement 

The statute also requires that each determination by the Commission to 

initiate successive steps in an enforcement action shall require an 

affirmative vote by four members of the Commission (2 U.S.C. 

§437(c)). The phased procedure, the prescribed conciliation period, 

notarization of the complaint and exclusive civil jurisdiction are new 

elements in the law since the 1976 Amendments. 

Procedures 

The procedures which flow from the statutory policy involve several 

stages, and the Commissioners must take a formal vote to initiate all 

but the first step. ·Briefly, these stages are: 

1. Preliminary review of a complaint or other possible violation, 

followed by a Commission determination of whether there is "reason 

to believe" that a violation has occurred. 

2. A formal investigation and notification of the person involved in the 

alleged violation, followed by a Commission determination of 

whether there is "reasonable cause to believe" a violation has 

occurred. 

3. 30-day period for voluntary compliance or conciliation. 

-4. Civil action if there is failure of conciliation or voluntary compliance 

and Commission determination that there is "probable cause to 

believe" that a violation has occurred. 

If at any stage a majority of four members of the Commission do not 

feel there is enough evidence to proceed to the next stage or if a 

satisfactory conciliation agreement is reached, then the case is closed. 

Preliminary 

Review 

When a compliance matter is opened it is assigned a Matter Under 

Review (MUR) number, and as soon as feasible, the Office of General 

Counsel develops a preliminary report on the matter. This report 

includes a summary of the complaint, a preliminary legal analysis and a 

recommendation for Commission action, including appropriate letters of 

notification. The Office of General Counsel attempts to make its 

recommendations within 48 hours of the time a complaint is received. 

However, due to the increasing complexity of complaints received and 

the frequent need to verify information in a complaint against the 

Commission's own records, the 48-hour deadline cannot always be 

maintained. 

49 
Investigation 

The Commission action on the recommendation of the Office of 

General Counsel will be to open an investigation because there is 

"reason to believe" a statute has been violated, or to close the case 

because there is no "reason to believe." 

During the stage of formal investigation, the Commission is vested with 

the full range of powers normally applicable to regulatory agencies, 

including service of subpoenas, taking of depositions, and the requiring 

by special or g~neral orders of answers to written questions (§437d). At 

the close of the investigation, having afforded all persons who received 

notice of the violation "a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that 

no action shall be taken," the Office of General Counsel submits a 

report and the Commission determines whether there is "reasonable 

cause to believe" that a violation has been committed ( §437g(a)(5)(A)). 

Conciliation 

If the Commission determines there is "reasonable cause," the Commission must endeavor for a period of "not less than 30 days to correct or 

prevent such violations by informal methods of conference, conciliation, 

and persuasion" ( §437g(a)(S)(A)). Where the. matter involves reports 

due or complaints filed close to an election the statute allows the 

conciliation period to be shortened to "not less than one half the 

number of days between the date upon which the Commission 

determines there is reasonable cause to believe such a violation has 

occurred and the date of the election involved" ( §437g(a)(5)(A)(i), (ii), 

(iii)). 

Civil Action 

When the Commission is unable to correct a matter through conciliation 

and determines there is "probable cause to believe that a violation has 

occurred or is about to occur," the Commission is empowered to 

institute a civil action for relief, including a permanent or temporary 

injunction, restraining order or civil penalty ( §437g(a)(5)(B)). The 

amount of the penalty varies in accordance with whether the violation 

was "knowing and willful" ( §441 ). Finally, knowing and willful 

violations may be referred to the Justice Department. 

Petition 

The Act also provides that any party aggrieved by the failure of the 

Commission to act on its complaint or by an order of the Commission 

dismissing a complaint may file a petition with the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia. Such petitions shall be filed 

within 90 days after the filing of the complaint, if a failure to act is 

alleged; if a dismissal is alleged, the petition must be filed in court 

within 60 days of the dismissal ( §437g(a)(9)). To date, one petition has 

been filed under this provision. 

50 
Enforcement 

Confidentiality 

and Publicity 

The statute sets forth certain requirements for confidentiality concerning enforcement cases. Under section 437(a)(3)(B), any notification or 

investigation may not be divulged by the Commission or by any person 

without the written consent of the person receiving the notification or 

the person named as a respondent in the investigation. Violators of this 

provision may incur fines up to $5,000. 

On the other hand, the Commission must make public the results of all 

conciliation attempts, including conciliation agreements entered into, 

and any determination by the Commission that no violation of the Act 

has occurred (1437g(a)(6)(C)). During 1976, the Commission developed a 

system to make such cases a matter of public record. Summaries and 

documents are available in both the Public Records Office and the Press 

Office of the Commission headquarters in Washington, D.C. These files 

will be updated on a regular basis as additional cases are closed. Indexes 

are available by number and by names of the parties involved in each 

case. During 1976 the FEC made public the documents on 245 

compliance cases. 

Complaints 

1976 ENFORCEMENT 

ACTIONS 

The Commission reviewed 319 enforcement cases during 1976 including 

34 which were initiated in 1975.4 Nearly 80 percent of these cases 

resulted from complaints received pursuant to §437g(a)(1), while 

approximately 20 percent of the matters were based on information 

ascertained through the Commission's supervisory responsibilities 

(§437g(a)(2)). In general, the average number of enforcement matters 

initiated per month increased at a constant rate in the months following 

the Commission's reconstitution on May 21, 1976, reaching a peak of 

70 in October, the month prior to the election. Although the number 

of complaints received by the Commission during 1977 will probably 

drop below the pre-election level of October, there will be a 

corresponding increase in the number of matters generated through the 

increased exercise of the Commission's auditing and reports analysis 

functions. 

The relevant statistics maintained by the Commission on its compliance 

case activity indicate that shilce May 11, 1976-the effective date of the 

1976 Amendments-there has been a steady decline in frivolous 

complaints (e.g., those matters which could be closed without an 

inquiry or investigation) and a corresponding increase in the number of 

matters which require some form of extended inquiry. 

4 The Commission reviewed 75 compliance matters during 1975. Of these, 67 have been closed 

(34 in 1976), five referred to the Department of justice, and two are still under review. 

51 
Statistics 

Figure 6 FEC Action Closed Cases 

(status when 

closed) 

Open Cases 

(status as of 

12/31/76) 

Total 

Preliminary Review 166 25 

Investigation 44 54 

Conciliation Period 

(30 days)* 

0 6 

Civil Enforcement Action 2 22 

212 107 319 

*This period is reduced in cases where probable cause is found in the 

period just prior to an election. 

Figure 6 shows the status of the 319 cases reviewed during 1976. Two 

thirds (210) were closed after preliminary review or investigation 

without the Commission finding "reasonable cause to believe" a 

violation had occurred. Furthermore, approximately 79 percent {166) of 

these closings did not proceed to an investigation, but were closed after 

only a preliminary review of the complaint and relevent documents in 

the Commission's files. 5 The remaining 21 percent (44) were closed 

after an inquiry or investigation involving the parties named by the 

complainant. These figures are somewhat misleading, however, since a 

large portion of the preliminary review closings involved cases filed prior 

to May 11, 1976, whereas virtually all of the cases which proceeded to 

inquiry or investigation were filed after May 11, 1976, when the new 

enforcement amendments went into effect. 

·of the 107 cases open as of December 31,1976, more than half (54) 

are still in investigation. On the basis of past experience, it would 

appear that a large portion of the 25 cases in the preliminary review 

process will also proceed to investigation. Six cases are currently in the 

stage of attempted conciliation, where there is a 30-day waiting period. 

Finally, there are 22 cases already in the stage of civil litigation. It 

should be noted that all of these 22 cases involve candidates or 

committees who failed to file campaign disclosure reports. (See below 

for a full description of this "nonfiler" program.) 

5 The Commission institutes an inquiry in matters where further information is required before a 

determination can be made that there is reason to believe that the Federal Election Campaign 

Laws have been violated. A finding of reason to believe automatically triggers an investigation 

( §437g(a)(2)). Few of the complaints or internally generated matters which arose in the latter 

half of 1976 required an inquiry as opposed to an investigation. 

52 
Enforcement 

Nonfiler 

Program 

The Commission initiated a separate program to monitor filing of 

disclosure reports by candidates and their principal campaign committees. The primary objectives of this program were to inform candidates 

and their committees of their filing obligations, and to implement an 

expedited compliance process in an effort to being about timely filing 

of these reports. In addition, 2 U.S.C. §437(a)(7) of the Act required 

the Commission to prepare and publish a list of those candidates who 

fail to file reports. Evidence to date also indicated that there were many 

questions regarding the registration and separate reporting requirements 

of candidates and their committees. One factor contributing to this 

confusion was the uncertainty about the applicability of the waiver 

pro_vision in the FEC proposed regulations. Since the regulations had 

not been promulgated, the waiver could not be legally granted. 

This program monitored pre- and post-primary reports in 28 States, the 

October 10 quarterly reports, the 1 0-day pre-general-election reports, 

and the 30-day post-general-election reports. All candidates appearing on 

the ballot were sent forms and campaign guides, and separate "prior 

notice" telegrams outlining specific filing requirements for the primary 

and general reporting periods. The Commission then identified those 

candidates who failed to file by the prescribed date. An effort was 

made to recognize a best effort on the part of the candidates and 

certain criteria were established for determining when miscellaneous 

documents and letters could be accepted in lieu of reports. Since the 

initial point of entry for Senate and House reports lay outside the 

Commission, determination of nonfilers involved close coordination with 

the offices of the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate. 

Once an initial list of nonfilers and nonregistered committees was 

developed, all such candidates and committees were sent a "reason to 

believe" mailgram. Subsequent filings indicated that many had sent their 

report on time but mail delivery delayed receipt. As shown on Figure 7, 

roughly half of those receiving first notices had either already filed or 

did so within the designated 48 hours. The remainder received a 

"reasonable cause to believe" mailgram. Finally, further noncompliance 

led to the publication of the names of nonfilers-and in some 

instances-to the filing of civil litigation. 

53 
Figure 7 

Non-Filers Program 

Type of 

Report 

No. of 

Candidates 

1st 

Notice

2nd 

Notice 

Publication 

of Non-Filers6 

Primary Reports 789 535 217 20 

October 10 Quarterly 1,300 407 172 37 

1 0-Day Pre-general 1,300 888 358 127 

30-Day Post-election 1,300 351 187 49 

2,181 984 233 

The accompanying chart shows that each successive notice substantially 

reduced the number of nonfilers. The greatest delinquency rate was for 

the 1 0-day pre-general-election report when nine percent (127 out of 

1 ,300) had failed to file reports when the nonfiler list was published 

just before the election. Following publication, many candidates and 

committees did submit their required reports, and as of the end of the 

year, the delinquency rate for all reporting periods was no more than 

three percent. Of the final number, 22 resulted in civil litigation. 

Separate programs involving a similar series of escalating notices but 

without publication were also instituted for partial filings, and incomplete filings containing surface violations. (These are described in 

Chapters on Disclosure and Campaign Limitations.) 

The Commission also processed and responded to a large volume of 

compliance mail that did not rise to the level of a compliance matter 

Of approximately 500 such letters, 80 percent were handled in the 

second half of 1976. 

6 Sce Appendix A, Chronology of FEC Events, 1976, for dates of publication. All but the 

post-election were published prior to the general election. 

54 
National dearinghouse For 

Information on Election Administration 

INTRODUCTION 

The Commission regards its relations with State and local election 

agencies as one of its most important responsibilities. Not only do these 

State and local administrations have the ultimate responsibility for 

conducting Federal, State and local elections, but they share with the 

FEC many other areas of common concern. In the area of campaign 

financing, for example, some 41 States have passed legislation affecting 

the campaign financing activities of various State and local candidates in 

addition to the responsibilities of each State to receive, maintain, and 

make available for public inspection Federal campaign finance statements. Similarly, many State and local election offices are making 

substantial efforts to improve access to the ballot through new voter 

registration methods, voter education and training activities and new 

voting equipment. The Commission feels it can play a positive role in 

these endeavors by actively working with and assisting these State and 

local election units. 

Election administration is a complicated, expensive governmental function. The FEC estimates, for example, that there are over 6,300 

independent election boards who directly expended $813 million for 

administering elections during Fiscal Years 1970-1973. It is conservatively 

estimated that $250 million was spent during election year 1976 by 

these same election boards. In addition, there are literally tens of 

thousands of other governmental units who spend additional sums in 

administering local elections. 

Despite the obvious and ever-growing need, there is an almost total lack 

of effective communication among State and local election jurisdictions 

in the area of election administration. Many election boards have faced 

and solved such difficult problems as approving and purchasing 

vote-counting equipment, operating mail and automated voter registration systems, establishing effective voter education programs and 

training election poll workers. Their experiences, however, have not 

been available to other election administrators facing similar problems. 

Because of this lack of communication among these thousands of 

election jurisdictions, millions of dollars have been wasted through 

duplication of effort. 

55 
Congress, recogmzmg these problems, in 1971 created a National 

Clearinghouse for Information on the Administration of Elections 

within the General Accounting Office under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971. This function was transferred to the Federal 

Election Commission by 2 U.S.C. §439(b) of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. This section of the Act calls upon 

the Commission to serve as a national clearinghouse for information 

with respect to the administration of elections and to conduct 

independent contract studies of the administration of elections. These 

studies are to include, but not be limited to: the method of selection 

of, and the type of duties assigned to, election board officials and 

personnel practices relating to the registration of voters, and voting and 

counting methods. Finally, the statute provides that the research 

products issuing from these efforts be made available to the general 

public at cost. 

CLEARINGHOUSE 

RESEARCH REPORTS 

The Clearinghouse uses a variety of methods to reach its objectives. The 

first method is the publication of a series of formal research studies in 

functional areas of election administration. 1 These reports, which are 

products of independent research contracts, are then provided, free of 

charge, to various Federal, State and local governmental officials. 

Members of Lhe general public can purchase these reports, for a nominal 

fee, through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the 

Department of Commerce. During the June 1, 1976-January 1, 1977 

time period, over 1,000 Clearinghouse reports were sold to members of 

the general public which returned over $7,000.00 to the NTIS system. 

Each Clearinghouse research contract involves the establishment of 

individual project work groups who, depending on the type of research 

project, are comprised of various levels of election officials and others 

most directly affected by each particular project. For example, a 

bilingual group, which has met in formal session twice since the 

beginning of the bilingual study, is comprised of election administrators 

and those minority language groups directly affected by the bilingual 

requirements of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975. These 

project work groups provide practical advice and assistance to assure 

that products resulting from these projects will indeed be useful for the 

audience(s) intended. 

1 SeeiAppendix,G for a complete listing of Clearinghouse studies. 

56 
Clearinghouse for Information 

CLEARINGHOUSE 

ADVISORY PANEL 

As noted earlier, the Clearinghouse serves as a central information 

exchange for the 50 States and the more than 6,000 local election 

boards. To accomplish this liaison task, the Clearinghouse has identified 

all the State and local election administrators and established contact 

with them-itself a major undertaking. Since it is hardly possible to hold 

a national discussion of problems and research priorities among six or 

seven thousand people, the Clearinghouse, with the approval and 

encouragement of the Commission, developed a channel of communications fairly unique among Federal regulatory agencies: a State and local 

government advisory panel. 

The Clearinghouse Advisory Panel is presently comprised of 20 State 

election officials, county and local election administrators and State 

legislators. The Panel serves in an advisory capacity to the Commission in 

establishing research needs and priorities and, to a great extent, in defining 

the role of the Clearinghouse. The three-tier, bipartisan character of the 

Panel provides a kind of stereoscopic view of the state of election administration and offers the first national forum for a full discussion of the 

problems in planning and managing elections. 

Technical Assistance 

CLEARINGHOUSE 

INFORMATION PROGRAMS 

During 1976, the Clearinghouse began a modest technical assistance 

program utilizing members of the Clearinghouse staff. For example, the 

District of Columbia has requested assistance in designing a management 

plan for the Board of Ethics and Elections. The Clearinghouse has also, 

at the request of the Massachusetts and Kentucky State election 

committees, aided members of their staff in developing enabling 

legislation for computerized voting. 

Conferences 

On Friday, September 10, 1976, the Clearinghouse cosponsored a 

conference with the Institute of Computer Sciences of the National 

Bureau of Standards entitled "Assuring the Consent of the Governed: 

Managing Computerized Elections." This conference drew over 165 

State and local election officials from 30 States, as well as a number of 

interested members of the press and congressional staff. Many of the 

attendees, as well as those who could not attend, have requested the 

Clearinghouse to hold an expanded version of this conference during the 

summer of 1977. 

57 
CLEARINGHOUSE 

DOCUMENTS CENTER 

During the past few years, the Clearinghouse has received hundreds of 

simple requests for copies of State mail registration forms, ballots and 

so forth. In an attempt to be of greater service to these people, the 

Commission approved the creation of a Clearinghouse Documents 

Center, a technical resource library for State and local election 

administrators and others interested in information relating to election 

administration. The center is comprised of two main sections. The first 

section is a State-by-State collection of election laws, regulations, 

ballots, mail registration forms, training manuals and so forth. The 

second section is a general collection of congressional hearings, election 

data, studies, articles and other data relating to election administration 

and elections generally. 

FEC Journal 

on Election 

Administration 

Since many election administrators and others interested in election 

administration do not have easy access to Washington to use the Center, 

the Commission has approved the quarterly publication of a bulletin, 

the FEC journal on Election Administration, to inform people about 

the contents of the Center and how to obtain access to them. 

Survey of 

State Secretaries 

of State 

During the month of October 1975, the Clearinghouse sent a questionnaire to the chief election officer in every State concerning the filing 

requirements of Section 439 of the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 

March of 1976, the Clearinghouse compiled and analyzed the responses 

in a report entitled "Survey of State Election Offices with Respect to 2 

u.s.c. 1439." 

The report recommended that multicandidate committees be required to 

file copies of their financial reports with the appropriate State office, 

only in the State where the contributing and recipient committees are 

headquartered. The Commission provided for the implementation of 

that recommendation in Section 108.4 of its proposed regulations. 

The report also recommended that the Commission give consideration 

to encouraging the provision of Federal funds to help the States fulfill 

the Federal requirements to receive, maintain and make available to the 

public financial statements of candidates for Federal office. 

The report made other recommendations, some of which may be 

enacted by the Commission while others may require amending the Act. 

58 
Clearinghouse for Information 

Those recommendations that require only Commission action include: 

1. Periodically provide an updated list of candidates and committees, 

filed with the FEC, to the States in which the candidates and 

committees should be filing. 

2. Compile and keep updated a list of State filing offices for Federal 

reports and provide them to State election officials, candidates and 

committees. 

3. Notify a State when a candidate who has been active in a State is no 

longer required to file with the FEC. 

Those recommendations appearing to require congressional action include: 

1. Reduction of record retention time for Federal reports. 

2. Amend the FECA to permit the States to select the State office 

where Federal reports should be filed. 

Other Commission 

Support Activities 

Additionally, the Clearinghouse assisted the Commission by contracting 

State officials concerning the results of Presidential primaries in order to 

comply with a new provision of the Act in the 1976 Amendments 

concerning eligibility for public funds. The Clearinghouse also had the 

responsibility of determining which candidates were on the various State 

ballots, in order that they could be notified of their filing responsibilities. 

59 
Legislative Recommendations 

In 1976 Congress enacted the fourth major overhaul of campaign 

financing laws in slightly over four years. The Federal Election 

Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, like its predecessors {the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974), 

made comprehensive changes in the system of campaign financing 

regulation. 

During implementation of the 1976 Amendments, the Commission kept 

a continually updated listing of omissions, inadequacies and other 

problems. The legislative recommendations discussed below are a 

condensation of this original listing, produced by a group of Commissioners and staff members with the final approval of the Commission. 

Not all of the Commissioners agree with each of the following 

recommendations. These suggestions merely cite areas in which the 

Congress may wish to consider amendments in order to improve the 

functioning of the Act. 

The Commission has not made specific recommendations on a number 

of the major policy issues which may be considered by the Congress, 

but rather has attempted to focus attention on mainly administrative, 

technical and less controversial policy-oriented amendments. Ambiguities 

in the statute which have been resolved by Commission regulations were 

intentionally omitted. 

As the Congress begins to deliberate over possible modifications in the 

law, the Commission wishes to offer every available assistance in order 

to make the Act simpler, more workable, and better able to instill 

public confidence in the political process. 

The Commission has categorized these recommendations into seven 

separate areas: I. Simplification, II. Presidential Elections, Ill. Limitations and the Role of the Political Party, IV. Corporate and Union 

Activity, V. Clarification, VI. Miscellaneous, and VII. Technical and 

Conforming Amendments. 

60 
SIMPLIFICATION 

A major goal of campaign financing legislation should be the facilitating 

of participation in the political process. Burdensome and cumbersome 

requirements and procedures only blunt the impact of reform legislation 

and discourage honest people from entering politics. While both the 

1974 and 1976 Amendments made sincere efforts to reduce the burden 

on candidates, committees, and volunteers, the end result often fell 

short of this goal. The Commission strongly believes that a simple, 

workable system of campaign financing regulation is achievable. Approximately half of the Commission's recommendations for 1977 seek to 

meet this goal and simplify the law. 

Reports 

The 1974 Amendments attempted to reduce the number of reports 

required to be filed, but in 1976 many candidates and committees 

actually were required to file more reports. Implementation of the 

following recommendations would drastically reduce the number of 

reports required to be filed, while actually facilitating public disclosure. 

Presently, the large number of excess reports and requirements, such as 

registration amendments disclosing candidate support, make it more 

difficult for the press and the public to effectively use campaign 

financing reports. 

Principal Campaign 

Committee Reporting 

By mandating that each candidate designate a principal campaign 

committee and requiring these committees to file reports, the 1974 

Amendments forced many candidates to file two sets of reports. 

Although the Commission was given authority to exempt candidate 

reporting by regulation, no such regulation has of yet gone into effect. 

Instead, candidates could be given two options: (a) filing all reports of 

receipts and expenditures on the candidate report and not have any 

committee receiving contributions and making expenditures; or (b) 

designating a principal campaign committee which would compile all 

reports, including the candidate's reports (which would not be filed 

directly with the Commission), and file them with the Commission. This 

change would reduce the number of reports required by one-half for 

some candidates. 

61 
Candidate 

Support Statements 

The Act imposes the burdensome requirement on multicandidate 

committees that they report on their registration statements the names 

and offices of all the candidates they support. Any change in this 

information must be reported by amendment within 10 days. Some 

multicandidate committees are required, under this provision, to file 

amendments almost every 10 days. These amendments sometimes 

exceed the length of the reports on receipts and expenditures. On 

occasion, the volume of these reports is so great that public disclosure is 

impaired. Further, the same information is contained on the reports of 

receipts and expenditures of each multicandidate committee. Except in 

the case of authorized and single-candidate committees, this provision 

should be repealed. 

Secretary of 

State Reporting 

If the recommendations mentioned below on filing with the Secretaries 

of State are adopted, candidates and committees would eventually not 

be required to file these reports, since all campaign finance reports filed 

with the Commission would be available in each State through a 

computer terminal or some other similar means. 

General Waiver 

Authority 

In the past, there have been instances when the Commission may have 

wished to suspend the reporting requirements of the law in cases where 

reports or requirements are excessive or unnecessary. To further reduce 

needlessly burdensome disclosure requirements, the Commission should 

have the authority to grant general waivers or exemptions from the 

extensive reporting, recordkeeping and organizational requirements of 

the Act. Each proposal for a general waiver would, of course, be 

submitted to the Congress in the form of a regulation for purposes of 

review. 

The cumulative effect of the above recommendations on disclosure 

would be to reduce the number of reports by 50 percent for many candidates and committees and by up to 90 percent for some candidates and 

committees, while at the same time enhancing the ability of the press and 

the public to glean from the reports important campaign finance data. 

Registration 

Statements 

The law requires political committees to supply information on their 

statements of organization which is not integral to the central goals and 

purposes of the Act. The following provisions do not add sufficient 

information to the concept of disclosure to warrant retention and 

should be repealed: 

- the requirement that "the area, scope, or jurisdiction of the 

committee" be listed. 

64 
Legislative Recommendations 

- the requirement that the statement of organization contain "a 

statement whether the committee is a continuing one." 

-the requirement that committees state "the disposition of residual 

funds which will be made in the event of dissolution." 

In addition, since State and local reports are pre-empted by Federal law, 

the provision requiring a "statement of the reports required to be filed 

by the committee with State or local officers, and, if so, the names, 

addresses, and positions of such persons" should be repealed. 

Election Period 

limitations 

The contribution limitations are structured on a "per-election" basis, 

thus necessitating dual bookkeeping or the adoption of some other 

method to distinguish between primary and general election contributions. The Act could be simplified by changing the contribution 

limitations from a "per-election" basis to an "annual" or "electioncycle" basis. If an annual limitation is chosen, contributions made to a 

candidate in a year other than the calendar year in which the election is 

held should be considered to be made during the election year. Thus, 

multicandidate committees could give up to $10,000 and all other 

persons could give up to $2,000 at any point during the election cycle. 

State Filing 

The Act presently requires all candidates and committees to file a copy 

of each statement filed with the Commission with the Secretary of 

State or other equivalent State officer. It also imposes certain 

responsibilities on the Secretaries of State or equivalent officers. The 

Commission should be granted regulatory authority to determine the 

time, place and manner in which these reports should be filed with the 

State officers. Ultimately, if it is given sufficient funds, the Commission 

may decide to suspend this filing requirement and supply the Secretaries 

with microfilm copies of reports filed with the Commission or it may 

wish to place a computer terminal in each Secretary of State's office or 

to use existing computer terminals in State capitals to make available to 

the Sta~es all reports filed with the Commission. General Commission 

regulatory authority would be needed to accomplish this goal without 

statutory amendment and to make the filing times and places more 

flexible and to grant the Secretaries more latitude in how they carry 

out their duties. 

Alternatively, the present, more restrictive statutory language could be 

kept and several less major changes made. Although State election 

commissions and other similar State agencies are frequently the most 

logical place to have Federal reports filed, the statute requires all such 

reports to be filed with the Secretary of State (or, if there is no office 

of Secretary of State, the equivalent State officer). Instead, the 

Governor of each State should be allowed to designate the appropriate 

place, subject to notification of the Commission. The appropriate State 

officials should be required to keep reports for only three years for 

House, five years for President and seven years for Senate, instead of 

the present 5- and 1 0-year requirements. The Secretaries of State have 

expressed more opposition to the report preservation feature of their 

filing responsibilities than any other. 

65 
Point of Entry 

The Commission recommends that it be the sole point of entry for all 

disclosure documents filed by Federal candidates and committees 

supporting those candidates. A single point of entry would eliminate 

any confusion about where candidates and committees are to file their 

reports. It would assist committee treasurers by having one office with 

which to file, correspond, and ask questions. At present, conflicts may 

arise when more than one office sends out materials, makes requests for 

additional information and answers questions relating to the interpretation of the law. A single point of entry should also reduce the 

governmental costs now connected with the three different offices, such 

as personnel, equipment and processing centers. 

The Commission has the authority to prepare and publish lists of 

nonfilers. It is extremely difficult to ascertain who has and who has 

not filed when reports may have been filed at or are in transit between 

two different offices. Finally, separate points of entry make it difficult 

for the Commission to track responses to compliance notices. Many 

responses and/or amendments may not be received by the Commission 

in a timely manner, even though they were sent on time by the 

candidate or committee. The delay in transmittal between two offices 

sometimes leads the Commission to believe that candidates and 

committees are not in compliance. A single point of entry would 

eliminate this confusion. 

Written Pledges 

Candidates and committees are required to report all written pledges 

even if there is no hope of collecting the money, because the definition 

of contribution includes "a written contract, promise, or agreement, 

whether or not legally enforceable, to make a contribution." Candidates 

and committees should be required to keep records of written pledge 

cards and other similar written instruments, but they should not have to 

be reported. 

Office Vacancy 

The Act prohibits the acceptance of contributions and the making of 

expenditures when there is a vacancy in either the office of chairman or 

treasurer. The main thrust of this provision is to assure that there is at 

least one person responsible for the acceptance of contributions and 

making of expenditures. Since the treasurer is responsible for signing the 

reports and keeping the books, there is little reason to also include the 

chairman within the ambit of this provision. This prohibition should 

cover only those periods when there is a vacancy in the office of the 

treasurer. 

66 
Legislative Recommendations 

Disclaimer 

The disclaimer required on all solicitations of contributions should be 

shortened to read: 

"A copy of our report is filed with and is available for purchase 

from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C." 

The present disclaimer is redundant and reduces the amount of space or 

air time a candidate can use for his own advertising. 

Independent 

Expenditures 

The threshold for the reporting of independent expenditures should be 

increased from $100 to $250. The present burden of reporting on 

persons who make relatively small amounts of independent expenditures 

is not consonant with the purposes of the Act. The higher amount of 

$250 would appear to be a more realistic figure as to when independent 

expenditures begin to have an impact on election campaigns. 

Independent 

Contributors 

Persons who make independent contributions in excess of $100 are 

requked to file reports with the Commission. An independent contribution is a contribution to a person (other than a candidate or political 

committee) who makes an independent expenditure. The Commission 

suggests that independent contributors not be required to report to the 

Commission. Instead, persons who file independent expenditure reports 

should be required to report the sources of any contributions in excess 

of $100 made with a view towards bringing about an independent 

expenditure. 

Trade Associations 

Trade association political action committees must obtain the separate 

and specific approval each year of each member corporation in order to 

be able to solicit the corporation's executive and administrative 

personnel. Some trade associations have thousands of members and it is 

a considerable administrative burden to obtain. approval to solicit every 

year. The one-year time limitation should be removed and the trade 

association should be allowed to solicit until the corporation revokes its 

approval. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 

The Federal Election Campaign Act and Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund Act made sweeping changes in the financing of Presidential 

elections. Several amendments are needed to both of these Acts. 

Delegate Selection 

Amendments are needed to delineate the status of delegates and 

delegate-candidates to Presidential nominating conventions and the 

applicability of the disclosure provisions and contribution and expenditure limitations to their activities. Further, it is noted that the general 

prohibitions on contributions by corporations, labor organizations, 

Government contractors, and the prohibitions on cash contributions 

over $1 00 and contributions by foreign nationals apply to contributions. 

to delegates. 

67 
Congress may wish to exempt from the definition of contribution and 

expenditure: (a) the payment by a delegate of all travel and subsistence 

costs incurred in attending caucuses or conventions; and, (b) the 

payment of expenditures incurred by a State or local political party in 

sponsoring party meetings, caucuses and conventions for the purpose of 

selecting delegates . 

. Additionally, since some delegates are closely connected with a 

Presidential campaign, while others run independently of any Presidential candidate, it is necessary to distinguish among the different 

relationships for the purpose of determining the reporting responsibilities and the applicable contribution and expenditure limitations. One 

suggestion would be to consider delegates who have been formally 

authorized by a Presidential candidate to raise and expend money on 

behalf of the Presidential candidate as "authorized" delegates. These 

delegates would report to the Presidential candidate. Contributions to 

the delegate would be considered contributions to the Presidential 

candidate and expenditures by the delegate would be charged against 

the Presidential candidate's limitations. 

All delegates who have not been authorized, i.e., "unauthorized 

delegates," could be required to report when they receive contributions 

or make expenditures in excess of $1 ,000. Presently, they may be 

subject to the independent-expenditure reporting provisions for which 

the reporting threshold is $1 00. 

The contribution limitations for unauthorized delegates could be set so 

that persons could give up to $1 ,000 to these delegates-excluding 

amounts donated for travel and subsistence expenses. A contributor 

could give up to $1 ,000 to a single delegate or could divide the 

contribution among any number of delegates so long as the total 

amount of contributions to all delegates does not exceed $1 ,000. 

Similarly, a qualified multicandidate committee could give up to $5,000 

to all delegates. 

Support of 

Presidential Nominees 

Congress may wish to clarify to what extent a congressional candidate 

may give occasional, isolated or incidental support to the Presidential 

nominee without that support counting as a contribution in-kind, which 

is prohibited by the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. During 

the 1976 elections, there was considerable confusion as to whether and 

in what form and manner a congressional candidate could mention and 

support his political party's Presidential nominee. 

For example, a congressional candidate could be provided with a 

separate spending limitation for the support, listing and mention of the 

Presidential candidate in campaign materials. A suggested limit would be 

$2,500 or Y2 4 times the Voting Age Population of the district or State, 

whichever is greater. Further, Congress may wish to determine that the 

brief mention or appearance of the Presidential nominee in newspaper 

ads or in television or radio ads would not be considered a contribution 

so long as the purpose is to further the election of the congressional 

candidate and the appearance is at the initiative of the congressional 

candidate. 

68 
Legislative Recommendations 

Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund 

Under the current provisions, the Secretary of the Treasury is required 

to place first priority on funds for convention financing; second priority 

on funds for general election financing; and third priority on the 

matching-payment fund. Since the primaries occur before the general 

election, the Secretary may not have a clear idea of the amount to 

reserve for the general election fund. The Secretary may determine that 

a substantial portion of the entire fund needs to be reserved for a 

number of possible qualified nominees in the general election; thus 

leaving insufficient funds to give Presidential primary candidates their 

full entitlements. On the other hand, the Secretary may make a 

determination which would not reserve sufficient monies for the general 

election fund to pay new party candidates who qualify in the general 

election. Since the amount in the fund is a fixed amount in that it is 

limited by the number of dollars received as a result of the tax 

check-off provision, the Secretary may be faced with a situation where 

he must risk depleting the general election fund to assure full 

entitlement for Presidential primary candidates. Under some circumstances, the present system could be unworkable and should be 

modified to either assure candidates full entitlement or to eliminate all 

discretion by the Secretary and the Commission in determining how to 

distribute partial entitlements. 

State Spending 

Limits 

It is recommended that consideration be given to the retroactive 

application of expenditure limitations to Presidential candidates who 

apply for public funds after they have campaigned in several primaries. 

A candidate might spend considerably more than the State-by-State 

expenditure limitation in the early primaries and then apply for 

Presidential matching funds. By making huge outlays in the early 

primaries and thus obtaining the early momentum, a candidate would 

have an unfair advantage over publicly funded candidates who would be 

subject to the State-by-State expenditure limitations. Congress may wish 

to establish that any candidate who exceeds the State-by-State ceilings 

would not be eligible to receive primary matching funds. 

Issue-Oriented 

Candidacies 

During the 1976 elections, the Commission had a great deal of 

difficulty ascertaining the intent of contributors to issue-oriented or 

cause-oriented candidacies. Determinations had to be made as to whether 

the contributor was giving to further the nomination of the candidate or 

merely to further the issue or cause. 

All written instruments representing contributions submitted to the 

Commission for matching payments should be required to include the 

name of the individual whose candidacy they are intended to support. 

If contributions can be made out to "cause" committees or other 

noncandidate related entities, the Commission cannot expeditiously and 

effectively check the contributor's intent. 

69 
Fundraising 

Exemption 

Congress may wish to consider the results of the application of the 20 percent fundraising exemption as it is presently drafted. The Act clearly 

makes the 20 percent fundraising exemption applicable to the entire $10 

million limit for Presidential primary candidates, although the legislative 

history indicates a congressional intent to apply the exemption only to 

the $5 million privately raised. Further, the 20 percent fundraising exemption applies to Presidential nominees who accept partial public funding for the general election. The application of the fund raising exemption 

in this situation has the effect of increasing the nominee's spending ceiling 

and placing nominees who have elected to accept full funding at a lower 

spending limit. The 20 percent fundraising exemption should be eliminated and the expenditure limitation raised accordingly. 

Investment of 

Funds 

Congress may wish to change the tax on income earned by Presidential 

committees OIJ the deposit of Federal funds. Under the current law, 

recipients of Federal funds are permitted to invest these funds, and the 

income generated is applied against the recipients' entitlement. However, 

the interest income of a political committee is taxed at a specified rate 

(approximately 46 percent) under the Internal Revenue Code. 

The application of these two provisions places the committee in an 

unusual predicament. If the candidate places the Federal funds in an 

interest-bearing account, the actual 'amount of money available for 

campaigning is reduced by the amount of taxes due on the interest 

income. If the candidate chooses to maximize the funds available, the 

funds will be put in a non-interest bearing account. The campaign 

depository thereby receives a windfall while the Federal Government 

loses the benefit which could be expected from the investment of these 

funds in accordance with normal business practices. This anomaly could 

be eliminated if the tax on the interest earned on Federal funds were 

repealed. 

Treasury Accounts 

Alternatively, Congress may wish to consider requiring candidates who 

receive public funds to establish an account with the Treasury. Each 

candidate would then be allowed to draw from this account as needed 

up to his or her entitlement. Such a procedure would eliminate any 

"lump sum" payments to the Presidential candidates which, when 

deposited in the campaign depository, could amount to "windfall 

profits" for the bank. 

70 
Legislative Recommendations 

CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS 

AND THE ROLE OF THE POLITICAL PARTY 

A systematic, comprehensive, enforceable system of contribution and 

expendit\Jre limitations was implemented for the first time in the 1976 

elections. The Commission recommends the following changes in the 

application of these limitations: 

Party Activity 

Political parties have a central role to play in the political system. 

Campaign finance legislation must be carefully drafted to bolster the 

role of political parties in campaign financing, while at the same time 

assuring that the parties do not become conduits for wealthy individuals 

and the special interests. The Commission believes that the role of the 

political parties, particularly in the Presidential election, can be 

substantially strengthened without imposing any significant corrupting 

influence on the political process. One of the major failures of campaign 

financing legislation in the 1976 elections was the limited role which it 

delegated to State and local party committees. Accordingly, the 

Commission recommends the following: 

State committees of a political party should be allowed to spend the 

greater of $20,000 or 24 times the Voting Age Population on behalf of 

the Presidential candidate of the national party. State committees 

should be allowed to delegate this spending right to subordinate 

committees. 

Local and subordinate committees of a State committee should be 

allowed to distribute campaign materials and paraphernalia normally 

connected with volunteer activities (such as pins,· bumper stickers, 

handbills, pamphlets, posters and yardsigns, but not including billboards, 

newspapers, mass mailings, radio, television and other similar general 

public political advertising). These activities would be exempt from the 

limitations when undertaken on behalf of the Presidential candidate; 

would be subject to the disclosure provisions; could mention as few or 

as many candidates as deemed desirable; and would be paid for only 

with funds that are not earmarked for a particular candidate. 

If the abovementioned recommendations are adopted, the political 

parties will be given a strengthened role in the political process and 

volunteer activities will be encouraged. If the proposed changes are 

incorporated into the Act, 26 U.S.C. §9012(f) should be repealed. 

Contribution 

Limitations 

In the aftermath of the 1976 elections, there has been a great deal of 

public discussion about the desirability of raising or lowering the 

contribution limitations. The Commission makes no specific reco~­

mendation on these suggestions, but urges the Congress to study the 

impact of the various ceilings carefully in order to set the limitations in 

consonance with the overall statutory scheme. Overly restrictive limitations only serve to strangle citizen participation and reduce the flow of 

information to· the voters, while excessively high limitations reduce 

public confidence and open the door to special-interest influence. 

71 
Expenditure 

Limitations 

The experience of the 1976 elections suggests that the Congress may 

wish to raise the Presidential spending limitations. The entitlement for 

Presidential candidates receiving full funding for the general election 

could be increased to $25, $30, or $35 million. The amount finally 

chosen should be set in cognizance of the fact that it will be increased 

by the Cost-of-Living Adjustment. Similarly, the $2 million entitlement 

for the national nominating conventions of the political parties should 

be examined and the $10 million limitation on candidates seeking 

nomination for President could be increased, especially if the fundraising exemption is eliminated (see recommendation under Presidential 

Elections). The Commission also makes no specific recommendation on 

the raising of the expenditure limitations, albeit these limitations should 

be set at a sufficiently high level to allow the candidates and the 

political parties to wage vigorous campaigns. 

Contribution 

Limitation Anomalies 

When structuring an equitable balance in the application ~f the 

contribution ceilings, Congress should attempt to rectify two serious 

anomalies: 

(a) A national political party committee which is not authorized by any 

candidate may accept contributions of up to $15,000 from multicandidate committees and $20,000 from any other person. However, if the 

Presidential nominee of the political party designates the national 

committee as his principal campaign committee, then the national 

committee is. prohibited from accepting contributions in excess of 

$5,000 from all persons. Thus, the national committee of a political 

party is, in effect, prevented from becoming the principal campaign 

committee of its Presidential nominee. 

{b) As was noted above, an individual can give a national political party 

committee up to $20,000 but a multicandidate committee can give only 

$15,000. 

Contributions 

by Minors 

The Act does not stipulate at what age a minor child may make 

contributions. Presently, the Commission is forced to rely on subjective 

criteria such as whether "the decision to contribute is made knowingly . 

and voluntarily by the minor child." Contributions by minor children 

under the age of 16 should be considered to have been made by the 

parent and should be subject to the parent's $1,000 contribution 

limitation-unless the minor child's contributions aggregate $100 or less 

per candidate per election or per election cycle. 

Multicandidate 

Status 

In order to attain multicandidate committee status and thus become 

eligible to give $5,000 to a candidate, a political committee need only 

give $1 to four other candidates. A threshold should be set to assure 

that small political committees do not achieve multicandidate committee status. 

72 
Legislative Recommendations 

CORPORATE AND UNION ACTIVITY 

Honorariums 

The Commission recommends that corporations and labor organizations 

be prohibited from giving honorariums to Federal candidates. Since 

honorariums have been exempted from the definition of contribution, 

corporations and labor organizations have been allowed to use general 

treasury money to give honorariums to Federal candidates. If the 

candidates are not Federal officeholders, there may be no limit on the 

amount of the honorariums. 

Reporting 

Communication 

Expenses 

Although the Act requires membership organizations-including labor 

organizations and corporations-to report the costs of certain communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

candidate if these costs exceed $2,000 per election, the Act does not 

currently provide specific procedures and dates for reporting these costs. 

Because of the numerous reports which may be required, Congress may 

wish to consider specific reporting requirements such as those recommended in the simplification section above. 

Registration/ 

Get-out-the-Vote 

Congress may wish to amend the Act to allow corporations and labor 

organizations to conduct nonpartisan registration and get-out-the-vote 

activities aimed at the general public without sponsorship of a 

nonpartisan organization so long as the activities are not targeted 

toward selected groups and so long as the activities merely urge people 

to register and to vote. Currently, corporations and labor organizations 

may only participate in such activities if they are cosponsored with and 

conducted by an organization which does not support or endorse 

candidates or political parties. The present overly restrictive provision 

effectively prevents corporations and labor organizations from engaging 

in some of the simplest and most innocuous types of political 

activity-such as putting up signs urging employees and the general 

public to register and vote and paying for public service broadcast spots 

which merely urge people to vote. 

CLARIFICATION 

Modifications are needed in the Act to clarify several ambiguities 

resulting from the comprehensive effort to regulate our diverse system 

of campaign financing. Any initial, wide-ranging effort to regulate a 

pluralistic political system may inevitably result in some arbitrary 

distinctions, but many of these disparities can be mitigated by further 

legislation. 

73 
Legislatively 

Appropriated Funds 

The Act does not set forth a statutory scheme for the treatment of the 

use of appropriated funds in connection with election campaigns. The 

Commission has been confronted with numerous questions in this area, 

most of which have eluded any coherent regulatory framework. For 

example, if a candidate uses a Government conveyance during an 

election period, is he required to reimburse the Government for the full 

cost of such use, the fair market value, or anything at all? Can 

individuals whose salaries are paid for exclusively with appropriated 

funds be used in connection with a political campaign? Must these 

persons take bona fide vacation time to work on campaigns? Can a 

candidate's campaign use materials produced by Government agencies 

such as the House and Senate recording studios with or without 

reimbursement? Can Members of Congress use Government services such 

as mobile vans during campaign periods if they are on legislative business? 

Can Members of Congress pay for the maintenance of such vehicles with 

campaign funds? 

The number of questions appears to be multiplying and there is, as of 

now, no logical, coherent mechanism for formulating an equitable, fair 

application of the law. The Commission has been unsuccessful in finding 

any definitive regulatory scheme within the present Act for treating 

these problems. 

Voluntary Services 

The Act places no limit on the services that a professional may donate 

to a candidate, including those which are provided on a commercial, 

non-campaign related basis. Thus, a professional entertainer may hold a 

concert and donate the proceeds of that concert to a candidate without 

those funds counting towards the contribution limitations. Congress 

may wish to circumscribe the use of volunteer professional services 

when they are not donated directly to the candidate or his committee 

for campaign-related purposes. 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Draft Movements 

The Congress may wish to consider amending the Act to bring draft 

movements within the reporting provisions and contribution limitations. 

Under the Act, an individual does not become a candidate until he or 

she takes the action necessary to get on the ballot, makes or raises or 

authorizes a person to make or raise contributions or expenditures on 

his or her behalf or takes other affirmative action to become a Federal 

candidate. The reporting requirement in 2 U.S.C. §434 applies to 

political committees supporting a candidate or candidates, to candidates, 

and to persons who make contributions or independent expenditures on 

behalf of clearly identified candidates. Thus, persons or committees 

supporting a draft movement on behalf of an individual who is not a 

candidate within the meaning of the Act may not have any reporting 

obligation. Section 434 should be amended to require reporting by 

political committees whose purpose is to influence a clearly identified 

individual or individuals to become a candidate and to require the 

reporting of contributions or independent expenditures expressly advo-

. eating that a clearly identified individual become or refrain from 

becoming a candidate. 

74 
Legislative Recommendations 

Consideration should also be given to the application of contribution 

limitations to draft movements. Since the $1,000 limitation on 

contributions by persons applies only to candidates, a person could now 

give up to $5,000-the limit applicable to contributions to political 

committees-to a draft committee. Congress may wish to amend the 

limitation section to make the $1 ,000 limitation applicable to contributions to political committees whose purpose is to influence a clearly 

identified individual or individuals to become a candidate. Although the 

limitation on contributions by multicandidate committees to candidates 

or to draft committees is identical, multicandidate committees, as well 

as persons, would be able to make two contributions toward the 

nomination of an individual-one contribution to a draft movement and, 

if the individual becomes a candidate, one contribution to the 

candidate. Accordingly, Congress may wish to consider amending the 

Act to provide that a person who has contributed to a draft committee 

with the knowledge that a substantial portion of his or her contribution 

will be expended on behalf of a clearly identified individual will, for the 

purposes of contribution limitations, be considered to have made a 

contribution to a "candidate." If that individual should become a 

candidate, the contributors to the draft movement would be eligible to 

give to the candidate only to the extent their earlier contributions did 

not exceed the "candidate" limits. 

48-Hour Reports 

Thought should be given to requ1nng multicandidate committees to 

submit 48-hour reports on contributions of $1 ,000 or more made by 

the committee. Presently, the recipient must report, within 48 hours, 

the receipt of contributions of $1 ,000 or more received after the 15th 

day, but more than 48 hours before any election. Requiring multicandidate committees to report their contributions would greatly facilitate 

the disclosure of large contributions prior to the election. 

Reporting Transfers 

A committee or candidate is currently required to disclose the name 

and address of each political committee or candidate to which it 

transfers funds or from which it receives funds. The requirement for the 

name and address of the candidate has not eliminated confusion as to 

the actual candidate who received the funds. To avoid such confusion, 

the Act could be amended to require the reporting of the office sought 

and the District, rather than the address, with regard to candidate 

contributions; 

Debts and 

Obligations 

Two provisions of the Act, 2 U.S.C. ,4i_t434(b)(12) and 436(c), relate to 

the reporting of debts and obligations. These sections should be 

consolidated. 

75 
Conciliation Period 

The enforcement provisions of the Act provide for a mandatory 30-day 

conciliation period. Congress has recognized that the 30-day period 

could delay enforcement actions immediately prior to an election and 

has, accordingly, provided for a shortened conciliation period when the 

Commission has reached a reasonable-cause-to-believe determination 

close to the election for certain types of enforcement actions. The 

mandatory conciliation period should be shortened to 15 days to enable 

the Commission to process complaints more expeditiously and also to 

thwart the use of the mandatory conciliation period to delay enforcement action close to the election. 

Judicial Review 

The Act contains different judicial review prov1s1ons which Congress 

might wish to consider conforming to each other. As noted by the 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, no apparent reason 

exists for different review provisions in Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26. 

Congress might wish to consider making the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 

§9011, including the provision for expedited review in §9011 (b), apply 

to Chapter 96, perhaps making §§9040 and 9041 identical to §19010 and 

9011. Additionally, Congress might wish to address what the Supreme 

Court called the "jurisdictional ambiguities" resulting from Title 2 

having a totally different expedited review provision (2 U.S.C. §437h) 

for questions of the constitutionality and construction of the statutory 

provision. 

Legislative Days 

The Congress may wish to consider reducing the requisite 30 legislative 

days for the review of regulations to 15 legislative days. 

Use of Reports 

Thought should be given to amending the Act to allow the use of the 

names and addresses of political committees obtained from reports to 

solicit political contributions from those political committees. Under the 

present law, information copied from reports and statements may not 

be sold or used by any person for the purpose of soliciting 

contributions or for any commercial purpose (2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4)). A 

distinction could be made between protecting the privacy of individuals 

and political committees which are in the business of making contributions. 

Private Benefit 

Prior to 1972, the law prohibited the purchase of goods or articles, the 

proceeds of which inured to the benefit of a Federal candidate or 

political committee. (18 U.S.C. §608(b), repealed by the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971.) 

Congress should reinstate some strict controls on campaign activities 

conducted for the private profit of the candidate or committee, 

particularly in cases involving the conversion of political funds to 

personal use. Currently, the Act provides that excess campaign funds 

may be used for any lawful purpose (2 U.S.C. § 439a). 

76 
Legislative Recommendations 

Multiyear 

Authorization 

The Commission should be given a multiyear authorization of appropriation in order to increase its ability to engage in long-range planning and 

to make long-range decisions on implementing the law. The present 

scheme drains valuable staff resources each year in attempts to justify 

an authorization and frustrates intelligent management of the agency. 

Criminal Code 

Provisions 

Certain provisions of the criminal code (18 U.S.C. 11592-607) pertain to 

elections or election-related activities. Many of these provisions are 

outmoded, vague, or overly broad. Congress should clarify these 

provisions and review the sections with a view toward resolving any 

jurisdictional conflicts. 

TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS 

The $500 exceptions to the definitions of contribution and expenditure 

occur at the end of the paragraph in 2 U.S.C. §431 (e)(5), but occur at 

the end of each exception or subparagraph in 2 U.S.C. §431 (f)(4). 

These provisions should be made parallel by adopting the method used 

in 2 U.S.C. §431 (f)(4). 

The phrase "to the extent that the cumulative value" is used in 2 

U.S.C. §431 (e)(5), but the phrase "if the cumulative value" is used in 2 

U.S.C. §431 (f)(4). Under one interpretation of the above-mentioned 

provision, if a person exceeds the $500 threshold only the amount in 

excess of $500 must be disclosed and credited to the limits. On the 

other hand, in the latter provision, the full amount-including any sums 

under $500-must be disclosed. The phrase "to the extent that" should 

be substituted for "if" in 2 U.S.C. §431 (f)(4). 

In 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(2), the term "political committee" should read 

"authorized political committee" in order to clarify any ambiguity that 

might exist about which committees file with the principal campaign 

committee. 

The last sentence in 2 U.S.C. §433(a) is no longer needed and should 

be stricken. 

A statutory prov1s1on relating to the FEC's already implicit general 

authority to procure goods and services as a Government agency would 

clarify some apparent gaps and uncertainties. 

The language relating to the procurement of temporary and intermittent 

services contained in 26 U.S.C. 11901 O(a) and 9040(a) should also be 

placed in 2 U.S.C. §437c(f)(2). 

2 U.S.C. §455 was improperly codified and "Title Ill of this Act" 

should be stricken each place it occurs and in lieu thereof should be 

inserted "chapter." 

The cross-reference in 26 U .S.C. § 527 (f)(3) should be changed from 

"section 610 of Title 18" to "section 441b of Title 2." 

77 
Appendix A 

FEC Chronology of Events, 1976 

january 1 FEC meets statutory deadline for initial certification of candi· 

dates eligible for matching primary payments, and certification of 

national parties for receipt of convention financing. Eleven candi· 

dates certified prior to deadline. 

6·7 FEC Clearinghouse Advisory Panel holds first meeting to provide 

advice on practical and applied research in election administra· 

tion. 

14 Commission opens FEC Public Records storefront location for 

easy access to disclosure and other p,ublic documents. 

29 Twelfth Presidential candidate certified eligible for matching 

primary payments. 

30 Supreme Court renders decision affirming in part and reversing in 

part the decision of the Court of Appeals on specific provisions 

of the 1974 Amendments to the FECA (Buckley v. Valeo}. 

Provides 30-day stay in judgment. 

February 2 Commission holds first of the series of regional seminars throughout the United States to provide explanations of the campaign 

laws and functions of the Commission. 

24 First 1976 Presidential primary. 

25-26 Thirteenth and Fourteenth Presidential candidates certified eligible for matching primary payments. 

'27 Supreme Court extends original 30-day stay in its judgment in 

Buckley v. Valeo until March 22. 

March 16 First congressional primary election. 

22 With end of stay in Supreme Court decision, FEC executive 

powers suspended. 

79 
March (continued) Last FEC certification of matching funds pending congressional 

action reconstituting the Commission in accordance with the U.S. 

Supreme Court opinion in Buckley v. Valeo. 

23 Hearings before House Appropriations Committee on FY 77 

budget. 

24 Senate passed legislation re-establishing the Commission and 

providing for additional amendments (S. 3065). 

Hearings before Senate Appropriations Committee on FY 77 

budget. 

31 Commission releases first Annual Report as required by statute. 

April 1 House passed HR 12406 amending the FECA. 

May 3,4 House and Senate agree to Conference Report. 

11 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976 (P. L. 

94-283) signed by President Ford. 

17 President Ford nominates and submits to Congress the names of 

the six Commissioners for appointment to the FEC; five original 

Commissioners with William Springer to replace Thomas Curtis, 

first Chairman of the Commission. 

21 Commissioners sworn into office at the White House. Vernon 

Thomson elected second Commission Chairman; Thomas Harris 

elected Vice Chairman. 

1st certification of Presidential matching funds following reconstitution of the Commission. 

26 Commission publishes proposed regulations in Federal Register for 

public comment. 

June 8 Last Presidential primary. 

17 Last of Presidential candidates certified eligible for matching 

primary payments. 

July 12-15 Democratic Party National Convention (New York, N.Y.). 

20 Democratic party nominees for President and Vice President 

certified eligible for Presidential Election Campaign Fund payments. 

80 
Appendix A 

August 3 Commission submits to Congress proposed regulations governing 

all major areas of Federal election campaign laws. 

16-19 Republican Party National Convention (Kansas City, Kansas). 

24 Republican party nominees for President and Vice President 

certified eligible for Presidential Election Campaign Fund payments. 

September 1 Commission publishes first list of nonfilers of pre-primary reports 

in accordance with statutory requirement. 

21 Commission issues first in FEC Disclosure Series: Presidential 

Pre-Nomination Receipts and Expenditures, 1976 Campaign. 

23 Commission publishes 2nd list of nonfilers of pre-primary reports. 

October 1 Congress adjourns two days before expiration of 30-legislative-day 

review period prior to promulgation of regulations. 

2 Last congressional primary elections. 

S Commission announces policy of general applicability of proposed 

regulations to candidates and committees participating in the 

November elections. 

14 FEC announces first of several civil suits filed against candidates 

for Federal office to compel compliance with statutory reporting 

requirements. 

Release of post-primary audit report of the Sanford for President 

Committee, the first statutory audit completed of Presidential 

committees receiving public matching funds. 

22 Commission makes available for public inspection computer 

printout summarizing contributions to the Ford and Carter 

primary campaigns. 

27,28 Commission publishes lists of nonfilers of quarterly reports. 

30 Commission publishes lists of nonfilers of 1 0-day, pre-general 

election reports. 

November 2 Election day. 

23 Commission selects William C. Oldaker to replace John G. 

Murphy, Jr. as General Counsel, effective January 1, 1977. 

December 8 Commission authorized in-depth study of the effect of the FECA 

on candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives. 

81 
Appendix 8 

Highlights of 1976 

Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act 

Federal Election Commission Established a six-member bipartisan Commission, to be appointed 

by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 

Allowed Commissioners one year during which to terminate 

outside employment, business, or vocation. 

Public Financing Disqualifies a Presidential candidate from public financing who has 

ceased campaigning actively in two or more States. 

Disqualifies a Presidential candidate from public financing "who 

has actively ceased to seek election to the office of President or Vice 

President." 

Disclosure Requires quarterly reports from candidates and their committees in 

a non-election year only if contributions and/or expenditures exceed 

$5,000 in a quarter. 

Raises to over $50 the threshold for required recordkeeping of 

contributions (name and address). 

Makes the "best effort" of the committee treasurer or candidate in 

trying to _obtain information for FECA reports sufficient to show 

compliance with the Act. 

Requires a disclosure report from individuals or committees making 

"independent expenditures" of $100 or more in a calendar year 

(without cooperation or consultation with or at the request or 

suggestion of any candidate) which expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified candidate. 

Requires a disclosure report within "24 hours of any independent 

expenditure in excess of $1,000 which is made between the 15th day 

before an election and 24 hours before an election. 

Requires that contributions made to a candidate through an 

intermediary be considered a contribution by the contributor to the 

candidate, and requires the intermediary to report the name of the 

source of the contribution. 

82 
Disclosure (continued) Allows a candidate who has received contributions toward his 

nomination or election or one Federal office to use those funds to run 

for another Federal office as long as the candidate has not received any 

public funding. However, the limits on contributions must not be 

breached in the transfer of funds. 

Honoraria Raises the maximum amount officeholders may receive in honoraria in a calendar year to $25,000 aggregate with a ceiling of $2,000 

on a single honorarium. Travel expenses of a spouse or aide as well as 

an agent's booking fees are not charged against the limits. 

Excludes honoraria from the definition of contribution. 

Political Advertising Requires a "clear and conspicuous" statement on political advertising as to whether the expenditure was authorized by the candidate and 

if unauthorized give the name of the person or persons who financed 

the literature. 

Campaign Limits Sets a $5,000 limit on individual contributions to a political 

committee supporting more than one candidate in a calendar year. 

Sets a $20,000 ceiling on contributions by persons in a calendar 

year to party political committees. 

Sets a $15,000 ceiling on contributions by multicandidate committees to party political committees. 

Does not apply limits to transfers among affiliated committees of a 

national, State, district, or local political party committee. 

Subjects political committees established, financed, maintained, or 

controlled by any corporation, union, or any other person to a single 

joint contribution limit. 

Allows the Republican and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committees or the national committee of a political party or any 

combination of such committees to contribute up to $17,500 to a 

Senate candidate in an election year. 

Reaffirms expenditure limits for Presidential candidates' accepting 

public financing (includes overall national spending limit, limits for each 

State, and a $50,000 limit on the amount a Presidential candidate may 

spend from his own funds or those of his immediate family on his own 

campaign). 

Excludes fundraising costs from Presidential candidates' expenditure limits when the costs do not exceed 20 percent of the expenditure 

ceiling. 

Establishes a spending limit for the national committee of a 

political party of up to 2 cents times the Nation's voting-age population 

on behalf of a Presidential candidate in the general election. 

Limits the amount national and State committees of a political 

party may spend on behalf of congressional candidates ($20,000 or 2 

cents times the State's voting-age population in a Senate race; $10,000 in 

a House race). 

83 
Restrictions on Corporations, 

Unions, and Their Political Action 

Committees (PAC's) 

Allows corporations or their PAC's to solicit their stockholders, 

executive and administrative personnel, and their families for contributions to separate, segregated funds. 

Permits corporations or their PAC's to solicit their employees who 

are not stockholders or administrative or executive personnel twice a 

year but only through mail addressed to their homes. 

Permits unions or their PAC's to solicit their members and their 

families for contributions to a separate, segregated fund. 

Permits unions· or their PAC's to solicit corporate stockholders, 

executive or administrative personnel or employees twice a year but 

only through mail addressed to their homes. 

Allows a trade association or its PAC to solicit contributions from 

the stockholders and executive or administrative personnel of the 

association's member corporations if "separately and specifically approved" by the corporation as long as the corporation has not approved 

any other such solicitation by a trade association in that calendar year. 

Requires corporations, unions, and membership organizations to 

report expenditures that are directly attributable to a communication 

expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

candidate if such costs exceed $2,000 per election. 

Requires that those soliciting employees must inform them of the 

political purpose of the separate, segregated fund as well as of their 

right to refuse to contribute without fear of reprisal. 

· FEC Advisory Opinions, 

Regulations 

Provided that opinions, rules and orders issued by the original 

Commission would remain in effect if they were consistent with the 

1976 FECA Amendments. · 

Required that rules and regulations issued by the original Commission prior to the _enactment of the 1976 Amendments must be 

resubmitted to Congress. 

Stipulates that Advisory Opinions relate only to the application of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended or to promulgated 

Commission regulations. 

Restricts the Commission to issuing general rules of law only in the 

form of a rule or regulation subject to the veto of either House. 

Prohibits opinions of counsel. 

Extends the legal protection provided by an Advisory Opinion to 

those "involved in any specific transaction or activity which is 

indistinguishable in all its material aspects from the transaction or 

activity with respect to which such ... opinion is rendered." 

Enforcement Grants the Commission "exclusive primary jurisdiction" over the 

civil enforcement of the Act. 

Transferred Title 18 Criminal Code provisions (Sections 608, 610, 

611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, and 617) into Title 2, thus bringing those 

provisions clearly under the Commission's rulemaking powers. 

84 
Enforcement (continued) 

Appendix B 

Requires that complaints be signed, sworn to, and notarized; 

prohibits the Commission from investigating or taking any action 

"solely on the basis" of an anonymous complaint. 

Allows the Commission to begin investigations on the basis of 

information obtained "in the normal course of carrying out its 

supervisory responsibilities." 

Requires the Commission to inform alleged violators of a complaint 

or a Commission investigation and allows them to have a "reasonable 

opportunity" to show that no FEC action is necessary. 

Requires a 30-day conciliation period following FEC determination 

that there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred or is 

about to occur. The mandatory 30-day conciliation period can be 

reduced if the alleged violations involve failure to file pre-election 

reports or result from complaints lodged less than 45 days but more 

than 10 days before an election. 

Bars the Commission from taking further action connected with 

that violation if a compliance agreement is complied with. 

If the FEC determines there is "probable cause" that a knowing 

and willful violation has occurred or is about to occur, and as defined 

in 2 U.S.C. 14-41 j, allows the Commission to bypass the conciliation 

period and refer the matter to the Attorney General. 

Requires the Commission to make public the results of any 

conciliation attempt or agreement, as well as instances where the 

Commission determines that no violation has occurred. 

Provides fines for Commission members and employees for improperly releasing information relating to a complaint or investigation. 

If effort to obtain conciliation agreement fails, allows the Commission to seek judicial relief through a temporary restraining order, 

injunction, etc., including penalties not to exceed $5,000 or an amount 

equal to that involved in the violation. 

Permits aggrieved parties to appeal Commission orders to the 

Federal courts. 

Grants any enforcement action instituted under the FECA priority 

on the court docket. 

Authorizes Federal courts to impose civil fines of up to $10,000 or 

200 percent of the amount involved in the violation if there is "clear 

and convincing proof" that a person has knowingly and willfully 

violated the law. 

Imposes a maximum fine of the greater of $25,000 or 300 percent 

of the amount of the contribution or expenditure involved if it is a 

knowing and willful violation concerning the making, rece1vmg, or 

reporting of any contribution or expenditure of $1,000 aggregate (in 

value). Optional maximum of one year in prison or both. 

Imposes the same general penalty for violations involving corporate 

and union contributions except that the monetary value of such 

contribution or expenditure need only be $250 (aggregate). The $250 

threshold also applies to a knowing and willful violation of the section 

prohibiting fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority. 

85 
Appendix C 

High6ghts of 1976 Proposed Regulations and Amendments 

Proposed regulations were submitted to Congress on August 3, 1976. 

They covered Title 2, U.S. Code (disclosure and reporting requirements, 

and spending and contribution limitations), and Title 26, U.S. Code 

(public financing provisions of the law). On january 11, 1977, the FEC 

resubmitted the complete set of regulations since Congress had 

adjourned when the original set had been under legislative review for 

only 28 days-two days short of the 30-day requirement for promulgation. The resubmitted set was identical to the original with the 

exception of three amendments. 

Following are highlights of selected provisions of the proposed regulations and amendments which amplify the statutory text. The complete 

text was published in the Federal Register on August 25, 1976. The 

amendments were published on September 10 and October 18. 

PART 100- General Definitions Loan - A loan is a contribution "to the extent that the obligation 

remains outstanding." 

Volunteer Activity - An individual can donate services to a campaign 

without making a contribution or expenditure. However, an employee 

volunteering services during a "regular work period" must make up or 

complete duties "within a reasonable period" to prevent that time being 

considered an in-kind contribution from the employer. 

Candidate's Personal Expenses · - A candidate's "routine living expenses," including food and residence, are not campaign expenditures if 

paid by the candidate out of personal funds. 

"Testing The Waters" - An individual is not deemed a "candidate" by 

receiving money or making payments to determine whether to become a 

"candidate," such as taking a poll. However, upon becoming a 

candidate, these preliminary transactions will be treated as reportable 

contributions and expenditures subject to any campaign limits. 

Primaries - For independent or minor party candidates, the primary 

election ends either (1) the last day under a State's law to qualify to 

appear on that State's general election ballot, or {2) the date of the last 

major party primary election, caucus or convention in that State, or (3) 

the date of nomination by the party. 

86 
PART 101 -Candidate Status Candidacy - The individual becoming a candidate must, within 30 days, 

file a Candidate Statement, or letter, designating a principal campaign 

committee and a national or State bank as a campaign depository. 

Waiver of Candidate Personal Reporting- A candidate is relieved of the 

duty to file personal campaign reports if he or she agrees to turn over 

to the principal campaign committee any contribution made personally 

to him or her and also to not make any unreimbursed campaign 

expenditures (except from personal funds). This waiver becomes 

effective when the regulations are promulgated by the FEC. 

PART 102- Committee 

Registration and Organization 

State Party Committees - A State or local political party committee 

supporting Federal and non-Federal candidates must either operate as a 

single committee and insure that all contributions received by the 

committee are lawful under Federal law or, in the alternative, set up a 

sepairate. Federal committee with a separate segregated account. 

Principal Campaign Committee - Every candidate's "principal campaign 

committee" must register regardless of how much money the committee 

has spent or received. 

Parti~ulars of Expenditures - Committee treasurers must record and 

report the "particulars" of each expenditure. "Particulars" is defined as 

a sufficiently detailed description of expenditures as to establish their 

relationship to the campaign. For example, the transfer of funds to 

committee agents (walk-around money) requires disclosure of the 

ultimate payee of the funds. Only when a receipted bill is unavailable 

may the treasurer of a committee substitute a canceled check and some 

other document as proof of a disbursement. (amendment) 

PART 103- Campaign 

Depositories 

Deposit of Contributions - A contribution must be deposited in the 

campaign depository within 10 days of its receipt by the candidate or 

the committee treasurer. (One or more accounts may be established in a 

depository.) 

PART 104- Reports by Political 

Committees and Candidates 

Waiver of Quarterly Reports - No quarterly finance report is required 

of candidates or political committees in any quarter in which they do 

not receive or spend more than $1,000 (except that during the fourth 

quarter of an election year, a report must be filed if there are debts 

outstanding), and in the case of candidates and their authorized 

87 
PART 104 (continued) committees in non-election years in any quarter in which they do not 

receive or spend a total of $5,000. However, they must "notify the 

Commission in writing" the first time this reporting exemption applies. 

Itemized Contributions - Only contributions of more than $100 must 

be itemized in campaign finance reports. If a candidate or committee 

chooses to itemize contributions of $100 or less, it must be done on a 

list separate from the required larger contributions, and the two 

categories may not be commingled in the report. 

In-Kind Contributions - Each in-kind contribution shall be identified as 

such and "shall be valued at the usual and normal charge on the date 

received." 

PART 105- Document Filing Microfilm Copies - The Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the 

Senate shall transmit to the Commission both a microfilm copy and 

photocopy of each report filed initially with them for House and Senate 

races. 

PART 106- Allocation Travel Expenses - When a candidate's trips include both campaign and 

noncampaign-related activities, the travel expenses to be reported as 

campaign expenditures must be "calculated on the actual cost-per-mile 

of the means of transportation actually used." 

Campaign-Related Stop - A stop is campaign-related if a candidate 

conducts any campaign-related activity, and the travel expenses made 

must be reported. Travel expenses of a spouse or family member are 

campaign expenditures only if the spouse or family member conducts 

campaign-related activities. 

Among Candidates - Expenditures on behalf of more than one 

candidate shall be attributed to each candidate (and reported) in 

proportion to the benefit derived by each candidate. 

PART 107- Convention Reports Reports - Each host committee, national party committee, State party 

committee or its subordinate committee which deals with a Presidential 

Nominating Convention must file a convention report of receipts and 

expenditures in connection with the Convention within 60 days 

following the Convention's last session, but not later than 20 days 

before the general election. 

PART 108- States Filing - Copies of reports required to be filed with State officers must 

be "true and legible copies," of the original report filed in Washington, 

and filed at the same time as the original report. 

Preemption - Federal law preempts State law in Federal elections in 

areas such as committee organization, registration and reporting, and 

contribution and expenditure provisions, but does not preempt State 

laws relating to the administration of elections, such as candidate 

qualifications, voter registration, conduct of elections, or election fraud. 

88 
Appendix C 

PART 109 -Independent 

Expenditures 

Definition - " 'Independent expenditure' means an expenditure by a 

person for a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat 

of a clearly identifiable candidate which is not made with the 

cooperation or with the prior consent of, or in consultation with or at 

the request or suggestion of a candidate or any agent or authorized 

committee of the candidate." 

"Cooperation and Consultation" - An expenditure is presumed not to 

be independent of a candidate's campaign when it is made "based on 

information about the candidate's plans, projects and needs," supplied 

by the campaign to the expending person "with a view towards having 

an expenditure made." 

Agents -Similarly, expenditures will not be presumed "independent" if 

made by a person who has been authorized to raise or spend money for 

the campaign, or who has been a campaign committee officer, or who 

has been paid or reimbursed by the campaign. 

Contribution In-kind - An expenditure not qualifying as an "independent expenditure" will be treated as a "contribution in-kind" to a 

candidate subject to contribution limits, and must be reported as an 

expenditure by the candidate. 

Advertising - Any independent general public political advertising must 

contain a statement that the communication is not authorized by any 

candidate, and list who is responsible for it. This statement shall be "on 

the face or front page of printed matter" and "at the beginning or end 

of broadcast or telecast matter." 

PART 110- Contribution and 

Expenditure Limitations 

Single Contribution Limit for Affiliated Committees - All political 

committees (including all affiliates, subsidiaries, locals, etc.) of a 

corporation, union, or other group of persons are subject to a single, 

combined contribution limit per candidate, per election. Indicia of 

"maintenance or control" of committees by a group which will bring 

them under this combined contribution rule include power to hire or 

fire officers and members, ownership or controlling interests, similar 

patterns of contributions, and substantial transfers of funds between the 

different committees. 

Party Committees - National and State political party committees are 

entitled to separate contribution limits. Subordinate State party committees may have a contribution limit separate from the State central 

party committee contribution limit if they do not receive funds from, 

or make contribution decisions in coordination with, any other political 

party unit. 

Spouses and Minors - Spouses are entitled to separate contribution 

limits, but minor children can be independent of their parents and make 

a separate contribution only if they own or control the money, 

knowingly and voluntarily make the contribution, and have not received 

the money for the purpose of the contribution. 

89 
PART 110 (continued) Candidate's Personal Funds - The personal funds a candidate may 

spend in unlimited amounts in his or her own campaign must be funds 

to which he or she has "legal and rightfuli title,"\or "access and control 

over" prior to candidacy, and may include money from income, 

dividends, trusts, awards and prizes or personal gifts. 

Anonymous Contributions - The amount of any anonymous contribution over $50 cannot be used in Federal elections, but may be used for 

any other lawful purpose. 

Presidential Expenditures - A State, county, city or !Congressional 

district party committee may spend up to $1,000 to further the general 

election of its Presidential candidate provided the expenditure is made 

to benefit the campaign of the party's slate of nominees. 

Advertising Disclaimers - Statements of authorization required in 

political advertisements are not required for "small items upon which 

the disclaimer cannot be conveniently printed," such as bumper strips, 

buttons and pens. 

Contributions toward Independent Expenditures - Contribution limits 

apply to contributions made to committees making independent 

expenditures. 

No Party Independent Expenditures - Political party committees may 

not make independent expenditures in connection with the general 

election campaigns of Federal candidates. 

PART 111 -Complaint Procedures Formal Complaint - In addition to being signed, sworn-to, and 

notarized, a complaint shall include the complainant's full name, 

address, telephone number and a statement of the alleged acts involved, 

and shall include any available documentation of the allegations. 

Commission Action - Action following the three stages of initial 

processing, investigation, and conciliation must be by affirmative vote of 

four of the six members of the Commission. 

Results - Public \disclosure\ will be made of any determination by the 

Commission that no violation of the Act has occurred, and also of the 

results of any conciliation attempt, including any conciliation agreement 

entered into. 

Ex Parte Communication - No interested person outside the FEC may 

make (and no FEC Commissioner or compliance staff member may 

receive) any ex parte communication relative to the factual merits of 

any enforcement action. 

PART 112- Advisory Opinions Advisory Opinion Requests - Requests must be in writing and concern 

a "specific factual situation" involving the requestor, not hypothetical 

questions. 

Public Comment Period - Advisory Opinion Requests will be made 

public at the Commission, or through publication for a 15-day written 

comment period. 

90 
Appendix C 

PART 113- Office Account 

Regulation 

Office Account - An office account is "an account established for the 

purposes of supporting the activities of a Federal or State officeholder," 

consisting of funds other than Government appropriations or the 

officeholder's personal funds. 

Reports - Reports of office accounts are due twice yearly, on April 15 

and October 15. 

Campaign Use - Any contribution to or expenditure .from an office 

account for campaign purposes is subject to all campaign law limitations 

and prohibitions. 

PART 114- Corporations and 

Unions 

Retired Employees - Former or retired employees are not included in 

the category of "administrative or executive personnel" who can be 

regularly solicited for a corporation's "political action committee." 

Partisan Activities - Partisan "internal communications" may be made 

by a union to its members, or by a corporation to its "executive and 

administrative personnel" and stockholders. This communication may 

include distribution of internally generated printed material or operation 

of phone banks. The cost of communications "expressly advocating the 

election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" must be reported 

when a corporation or labor organization spends over $2,000 in all 

primary elections and over $2,000 in the general election. 

Non,partisan Activities - Only non1partisan communications may be 

made by a corporation or union to individuals outside its own class, 

including allowing candidates or party representatives to address 

employees so long as the same opportunities are made available to all 

candidates and parties; aiding nonpartisan voter registration and voting 

drives conducted by a nonprofit organization; and providing nonpartisan voter registration information. 

Voluntary Contributions to PAC's - Contributions to separate segregated funds must be completely voluntary. A contributor cannot be 

compensated for a contribution, such as through a bonus or expense 

account. 

PAC Solicitation - The regulations include numerous technical provisions concerning solicitations to separate segregated funds by corporations and unions, by membership organizations, and by trade associations. 

Use of Facilities - Any individual using corporate or union facilities for 

volunteer political activity must reimburse the corporation for costs 

incurred (such as long-distance telephone calls). 

Airplane - If a candidate uses a corporate or union plane (except for 

corporation licensed to provide commercial air travel), the candidate 

must pay for the service "in advance" at the first class air fare rate for 

cities served by a regularly scheduled commercial service, and at the 

usual charter rate for other cities. 

91 
PART 114 (continued) Credit - Corporations may extend credit to political campaigns only in 

a commercially reasonable manner, in a way similar to extension of 

credit to nonpolitical debtors of similar risk and size of obligation. A 

corporation must pursue its remedies to collect any political debt in the 

same fashion and with the same intensity that it pursues non political 

debts. 

Corporate and Union Disbursement of Registration Information - A 

corporation or union may distribute to the general public any 

registration or voting information, including registration-by-mail forms, 

which has been produced by election officials. (amendment) 

PART 115- Government 

Contracts 

Government Contractors - Under the prohibition against contributions 

by Federal contractors, a partnership which has a Government contract 

may not contribute to Federal candidates, although individual partners 

or employees may make personal contributions. However, an individual 

or sole proprietor who has a Federal contract may not make political 

contributions from either business or personal funds under his or her 

control. 

PART 120-125- Convention 

Financing 

Expenses - Public funds for national political party conventions may 

only be spent "for the purpose of conducting" the convention or 

"convention-related activities." These include physical site expenses, 

staff salaries, printing costs, the costs of providing a transportation 

system for persons attending the convention, and entertainment activities which are part of "official convention activity sponsored by the 

national committee." 

Interest - Any interest earned ·by investment of the public subsidies 

will count against the total public fund entitlement of the party. 

Reports - Convention committees must file a financial statement with 

the FEC within 60 days of the close of the convention, but not later 

than 20 days prior to the general election. 

PART 130-134 - Primary 

Matching Funds 

Non matchable Contributions - Contributions in the form of the 

purchase price paid for an item of "significant intrinsic and enduring 

value, such as a watch" and for ·chances to raffles, lotteries or "similar 

drawings" are not matchable. 

92 
Appendix C 

ART 130-134 (continued) Entertainment - The price of admission to entertainment, such as a 

concert or motion picture, is matchable only for the amount above the 

"fair market value" of the entertainment; the total admission price to 

an "essentially political program," such as "the traditional political 

dinner or reception," however, is fully matchable. 

Disclosure Agreement - A candidate's failure to comply with the 

reporting and disclosure requirements of the FECA, and of the FEC 

proposed Disclosure Regulations, when adopted, may result in suspension of certification of matching funds for him or her. 

Continuation of Certification - After the date of candidate "ineligibility," matching payments may be made only to defray "net outstanding 

campaign obligations" as of that date. If the candidate has no 

outstanding campaign debts, he or she may receive no more matching 

money. 

Repayment of Matching Funds - All funds deposited into a candidate's 

depository are taken into account when the repayment formula of the 

Act is applied. The repayment ratio must be applied on the date of 

ineligibility. (amendment) 

ART 140-146- General Election 

inancing 

Eligibility - Upon establishing eligibility, a general election candidate 

will be certified in full for the entire amount provided by law in 

Federal subsidies. 

Reimbursement - Candidates may be reimbursed for media and Secret 

Service expenditures, such as airplane travel, initially incurred by the 

campaign. 

Winding-down Costs - Public funds only may be utilized by the 

candidate receiving Federal subsidies up to 30 days after the date of the 

general election. Private contributions may be received to pay administrative expenses terminating the campaign committee incurred after the 

Federal cut-off date (30 days after the election), but such contributions 

must be isolated from the campaign funds, reported separately, and in 

no way commingled with the campaign funds. 

* * * * 

93 
Appendix D 

Selected FEC Opinions, 1976 (AO's, Re: AOR's, IC's) 

Pending promulgation of Commission regulations, the Commission has 

issued two types of opinions: 

1. Advisory Opinions, designated as AO's, concern the 

application of the Act to specific factual situations. Any 

person requesting an Advisory Opinion who in good faith 

acts in accordance with the findings of the opinion will 

not be penalized under the Act. The opinion may also be 

relied upon by any other person involved in a specific 

transaction which is indistinguishable in all material aspects 

from the activity discussed in the Advisory Opinion. 

2. Informational Responses to Advisory Opinion Requests, 

designated as Re: AOR's, differ from AO's in that they are 

based in part on the Commission's proposed regulations 

and they offer no legal protection to recipients until the 

regulations on which they are based go into effect. 

These opinions have been selected for synopsis because they are 

representative of the most significant questions asked of the 

Commission, and they are felt to be of most interest to those persons 

concerned with the application of the Act. These selections represent 

approximately 40 percent of all opinions issued by the FEC during 

1976. For guidance to additional opinions, synopses of all opinion 

requests are published in the Federal Register when received. In 

addition, Appendix E gives a subject matter index to all 1975-76 

Advisory Opinions (AO's). 

Those seeking guidance for their own activity should consult the full 

text of an opinion and not rely on the synopsis given here. Copies of 

the full text of AO's and Re: AOR's are available from Public Records 

Office, Federal Election Commission. Please identify opinions by number 

as, for example: AO 1976-83 or Re: AOR 1976-98. 

AO 1975-132: Payment for 

Tabulating Congressmen's 

Questionnaires 

Payment by a multicandidate political committee for tabulating 

responses to a Congressman's questionnaire sent under the frank is not 

considered a contribution, as long as the tabulation is provided to aid 

the Congressman in the performance of his/her official duties- and not 

to influence an election. 

AO 1975-143: Criteria for 

Determining Common Control 

of Political Committees 

The independence of Environmental Action (a citizen's lobby) vis-a-vis 

the Dirty Dozen Campaign Committee (a political committee) was not 

established because: sensitive executive posts in both organizations are 

94 
occupied by the same individual; finances of both organizations are 

monitored by the same person; and staff of the political committee 

contribute to the magazine published by the lobbying group. 

Re: AOR 1976-10: Act 

Preempts State Law on Use 

of Excess Campaign Funds 

When a Federal candidate in Kentucky uses excess campaign funds for a 

purpose specifically stated in the statute or proposed regulations, the 

Act preempts Kentucky State law with regard to the use of excess 

campaign funds by Federal candidates or their authorized committees. 

Re: AOR 1976-14: Contributions 

by County Party Committee 

The decision of the Michigan State Republican Committee to accept 

responsibility for ensuring that the entire party organization stays within 

the expenditure limits (2 U.S.C.§441a(d)) does not, by itself affect the 

ability of an otherwise independent county committee to contribute 

up to the maximum (in this case, $5,000 per election) to each Federal 

candidate. 

Re: AOR 1976-15: Reporting 

Requirements of Subordinate 

State Party Committees 

If a congressional district club of the Washington State Republican 

Federal Campaign Committee (WSRFCC) receives and retains contributions aggregating over $1 ,000 or expends over $1,000 in connection 

with any Federal candidate's election, the club is considered a political 

committee under section 431 (d) of the Act and required to register and 

file its own reports. If, on the other hand, the club merely serves as the 

receiving agent for the State committee and transfers to it all its 

proceeds in a timely fashion, it is not required to file separate reports. 

It must, however, keep records for any contribution over $50 and turn 

such information over to the WSRFCC within five days after the receipt 

of a contribution. 

Re: AOR 1976-20: Contributions 

to an Unauthorized Single 

Candidate Committee 

Contributions to Delaware Volunteers for Reagan, an unauthorized 

single candidate committee making independent expenditures on behalf 

of Governor Reagan, are considered contributions to Governor Reagan. 

The committee could not, therefore, accept contributions from persons 

who had already contributed their maximum to Governor Reagan's 

campaign. 

Re: AOR 1976-22: Use of 

Bingo Proceeds to Influence 

Federal Elections 

The transfer of funds from the Michigan Democratic Party's "bingo 

account" to its "Federal account" is permitted only if the bingo 

account contains no corporate or union contributions and all bingo 

players are informed that a portion of the purchase price of the bingo 

card counts against the individual's contribution limits under the Act. 

Additionally, the committee must comply with recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, and all materials advertising the bingo event 

must state that party reports are filed with the FEC. 

Re: AOR 1976-23: Payroll 

Deduction Plans Preempt State 

Laws; Solicitations by 

Corporate PAC's 

The Act preempts those State laws which prohibit any use of payroll 

deduction plans. A corporation is required to give the labor organization 

representing its employees (or an independent mailing service) a list of 

the names and addresses of all its employees only if the corporation 

solicits it's lower echelon employees under the twice-yearly provisions 

(2 U.S.C.§441b(b)(4)(B)). 

AO 1976-27: Solicitations by 

Trade Association PAC 

When soliciting contributions at its annual meeting, Bread PAC, a trade 

association political action committee, must obtain prior approval from 

its member corporations before it may solicit their stockholders and 

executive or administrative personnel. "Solicitation" includes asking 

persons to purchase tickets to fundraisers (in this case, a cocktail party) 

95 
AO 1976-27 (continued) and informing persons about the fundraiser. Solicitations conducted 

prior to or at the meeting may only be aimed at persons whom Bread 

PAC may legally solicit. {See also AO 1976-96.) 

Re: AOR 1976-29: News 

Distributed by Newspaper or 

Station Owned by Federal 

Candidate 

Campaign-related news accounts distributed by a publication or station 

owned by a Federal candidate are not subject to the Act's limits, 

prohibitions or reporting requirements, as long as the news accounts 

represent bona fide news and the media give reasonably equal coverage 

to all opposing candidates. Commentaries and editorials favorable to the 

candidate or unfavorable to his/her opponent would, however, be 

considered a contribution in-kind made by the media to the candidate 

or an illegal corporate contribution if the media were incorporated. 

Re: AOR 1976-31: Donation of 

Membership List May Not Be A 

Contribution 

A list of the membership of a local congregation is not considered a 

contribution as long as it has never been sold or leased, e.g., to a mail 

order marketing company, a magazine or to another political candidate. 

Re: AOR 1976-37: Criteria for 

Determining Contribution Limits 

for State Subordinate Party 

Committees 

The fact that various subordinate groups within the Minnesota 

Democratic Farmer Labor Party {MDFLP) may engage in joint 

fundraising activity does not, in itself, prevent each committee from 

establishing its independence in order to have its own contribution 

ceiling. 

Any subordinate committee . which has demonstrated its independence 

may qualify as a "multicandidate political committee" once it has 

satisfied all three criteria under 2 U.S.C.§441a(a)(4). If, however, the 

various committees within the MDFLP structure fail to establish their 

independence and are therefore considered one committee with the 

MDFLP for purposes of making contributions, they are automatically 

considered multicandidate committees if the State committee has 

already qualified as a multicandidate committee. 

AO 1976-50: T-Shirts as a 

Corporate Contribution 

A corporation may not underwrite the production and marketing 

expenses of a T-shirt and then transmit a $1.00 contribution to a given 

Federal candidate for every T -shirt sold. 

AO 1976-51: Group of 

·Contributors Constitutes 

Political Committee 

A group of individuals bound by common concern about foreign policy, 

personal friendship and periodic communication concerning lobbying 

efforts constitutes a political committee when it collects and transmits 

to a Federal candidate or committee contributions exceeding $1,000. 

The individuals who make contributions to this committee, and the 

committee itself, are each subject to contribution limits. 

AO 1976-53: Principal Campaign 

Committee May Pay for 

Candidate's Living Expenses 

A principal campaign committee may rent office space in ·the 

candidate's home and pay for the candidate's groceries, heat, mortgage, 

etc. Such expenditures must, however, be reported by the principal 

campaign committee. 

Re: AOR 1976-56: Complimentary Hotel Accommodations 

May Not Count as Contributions 

Complimentary accommodations given to Federal candidates by Nevada 

hotels are not considered contributions as long as the accommodations 

are provided in the ordinary course of business {described specifically in 

the opinion) and are not offered in a partisan manner to select 

candidates. 

96 
Appendix D 

Re: AOR 1976-59: Honoraria 

and Related Expenses 

There is no limit on the amount of honoraria and related expenses 

received by Federal candidates who are not simultaneously Federal 

officeholders. In the case of a candidate who is a Federal officeholder, 

the payment of "related expenses" in connection with a speech or 

appearance is not limited, as long as the payment is made only to 

defray actual travel and subsistence costs. 

Re: AOR 1976-63: Fundraising 

by Trade Association and its 

PAC 

The American Hotel and Motel Association (AH&MA), a federation of 

trade associations, and its political action committee AHMPAC may 

solicit its noncorporate members (and the noncorporate members of its 

State and regional associations), but not the families, executive and 

administrative personnel or other employees of the noncorporate 

members. 

While AH&MA, as a trade association, may solicit (or have AHMPAC 

solicit) executives, administrative personnel and stockholders (and their 

families) of its member corporations, it may not solicit the other 

employees of its member corporations. It may, however, solicit all of its 

own employees: Executive and administrative personnel (and their 

families) may be solicited at any time and other employees may be 

solicited in writing twice a year. 

Corporate members of AH&MA and of its State or regional associations 

may not make any solicitations on behalf of AHMPAC. However, once 

a member corporation grants approval to AHMPAC for soliciting its 

employees or stockholders, it may give incidental aid to such 

solicitations. This restriction does not apply to sole proprietors or 

partnerships which are members of a State or regional association of 

AH&MA. They are free to solicit their employees or partners on behalf 

of AHMPAC. 

Once a member corporation grants approval to solicitation by the trade 

association, there is no limit on the number of solicitations that may be 

made (unless the corporation has specified a limit in its original 

approval). 

Re: AOR 1976-65: Corporate 

Advertising in Party Magazine 

Corporate payments for advertising, used to defray the costs of 

preparing and distributing a magazine published by the Republican 

Executive Committee of jefferson County, a registered political 

committee, are considered an illegal corporate contribution. The 

publication may, however, carry a corporate advertisement as long as 

the payments for the ad are not used to defray publication costs and 

are received by a separate committee established to raise and spend 

funds exclusively for non-Federal purposes. If the publication contains 

no specific or general reference to Federal candidates, corporate funds 

contributed to the non-Federal committee may be used to pay for the 

magazine costs. 

97 
Re: AOR 1976-72: Allocation 

of Party Overhead and Operating 

Expenditures Between Federal 

and Non-Federal Activities 

Any method which uses ballot positions to determine the allocation of 

party overhead and operating expenses between Federal and non-Federal 

activities should give proportionately more weight to Federal candidates 

than to State candidates. Thus, in Illinois where 15 percent of the 1976 

elections were for Federal offices, the Illinois Republican State Central 

Committee (I RSCC) should allocate one-third of its overhead to Federal 

activities and two-thirds to non-Federal. Additionally, unless the party 

committee establishes a separate committee for State and local 

candidates, the IRSCC may not receive corporate contributions. In any 

case, corporate and union treasury funds may not be used to fund any 

portion of a registration or get-out-the-vote drive conducted by a 

political party. 

AO 1976-73: Designation of a 

Single Separate Segregated Fund 

by Two Organizations; Corporate 

Division as Sponsor of PAC 

The Political Committee for Design Professionals may not be the 

separate segregated fund of two distinct organizations. A division of a 

corporation, not separately incorporated, may not establish and 

administer a separate segregated fund unless that fund is designated for 

the corporation. 

Re: AOR 1976-78: Candidate's 

Use of Campaign Button to 

Support Multiple Candidates 

Congressman Koch's principal campaign committee may purchase and 

distribute campaign buttons reading "Carter-Mondale-Koch" without the 

cost counting as a contribution in-kind to the Carter/Mondale 

Presidential campaign. (See also Re: AOR 1976-82 and Re: AOR 

1976-93.) 

Re: AOR 1976-80: Definition of 

Subordinate Party Committee 

Democrats United (Texas) is considered a subordinate party committee 

because even though it was not formed, directed or controlled by the 

State or local Democratic Executive Committee, it supports the entire 

Democratic ticket and provides services normally performed by party 

organizations (e.g., voter registration, precinct organization, central 

campaign headquarters, media advertising for slate ticket, get-out-thevote campaigns). 

Re: AOR 1976-82: Candidate's 

Use of Brochure Supporting 

Multiple Candidates 

Congressional candidate Walgren's principal campaign committee may 

purchase and distribute a brochure featuring a picture of Presidential 

candidate Carter and candidate Walgren without counting the cost as a 

contribution in-kind to the Presidential nominee. As a general rule, 

however, such an expenditure (unless paid out of public funds received 

by the Presidential nominee) would be illegal. (See also Re: AOR 

1976-93.) 

Re: AOR 1976-84: Family 

Payments to Candidate to 

Support Candidate's Living 

Expenses 

Payments by family members to defray living expenses of a Federal 

candidate who has depleted his personal funds because of time spent 

campaigning count as contributions. These funds must, therefore, be 

disclosed and may not exceed $1,000 per donor, per election. 

AO 1976-86: Billboard 

Advertising 

The continuation of a billboard display (supporting a Federal candidate) 

beyond the contractual period does not constitute an illegal corporate 

contribution by a billboard company if, in its ordinary course of 

business, the company continues one client's display until a new 

advertisement is contracted as a replacement. 

98 
Appendix D 

Re: AOR 1976-87: Spending by 

Subordinate Party Committee on 

Behalf of Presidential Campaign 

The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (Maryland) 

may not spend more than $1,000 for a publication identifying 

Presidential, Vice-Presidential, senatorial and congressional candidates 

unless it is reimbursed for the costs exceeding $1,000 by other 

committees or candidates benefitting from the brochure. The difference 

between $1,000 and the actual publication costs may be reimbursed by 

either (or both) the Presidential campaign or the Democratic National 

Committee. Alternatively, the Senate and House candidates could 

reimburse the county committee for the cost of the proportionate share 

of the brochure devoted to their respective candidacies. 

Re: AOR 1976-92: Corporate 

Pledge Program is a Political 

Committee 

The Civic Pledge Program (CPP) of the Boeing Company, a membership 

organization composed of Boeing's management employees and 

administered by an advisory group, is considered a political committee. 

Members,---who may receive recommendations from the advisory group, 

contribute to candidates of their choice largely through a payroll 

deduction plan. Any amount disbursed to a candidate is regarded as a 

contribution by the individual member and also by CPP. It is subject to 

reporting regulations applicable to earmarked contributions. 

Re: AOR 1976-93: Candidate's 

Use of Advertisements Supporting 

Multiple Candidates 

Congressional candidate Mitchell is not required to report the 

distribution of old campaign posters affixed with Carter/Mondale and 

Sarbanes (Senate candidate) bumper stickers, which he obtained at no 

expense. 

If candidate Mitchell pays for a newspaper advertisement picturing 

himself with Carter and Sarbanes, a portion of the expense would be 

considered a contribution in-kind to each of the other two candidates. 

Under the Act's public financing provisions, that portion attributed to 

the Presidential candidate would be illegal. The advertising costs 

allocated to the Presidential candidate could, however, be absorbed by 

the Presidential campaign or a party committee. 

AO 1976-95: Definition of 

National Party Committee 

The Liberal Party Campaign Committee for 1976 does not qualify as a 

national party committee because its operations have historically 

fQcused on the State and city and it has not demonstrated sufficient 

activity on a national level. 

AO 1976-96: Fundraising by 

Trade Association; Definition of 

Solicitation 

A "solicitation" is made when Savings Bankers, a trade association, 

announces the activities of its political action committee at its annual 

meeting or when it informs those attending the meeting about a booth 

it has set up on the premises to display fundraising materials. Such 

solicitation activities require prior approval from corporate members 

whose representatives attend the trade association meeting. 

AO 1976-100: All Principal 

Campaign Committees Must 

Register and Report 

Each candidate for Federal office must designate a principal campaign 

committee even if the candidate does not plan to use the committee to 

receive or expend funds. The principal campaign committee must 

register and report regardless of the amount of contributions received or 

expenditures made. 

Re: AOR 1976-101: Contributions Made to Retire Debts of 

1976 Campaigns; Transition 

Costs 

After the general election, a person who has not already contributed up 

to the applicable limit for the primary or for the general election may 

make a contribution to Senate candidate Moynihan to retire a debt 

incurred in either election, but only to the extent that the amount does 

not exceed net debts outstanding from the election. Any contribution 

99 
0/R 715: Rules Governing 

Expenditures by State and 

Subordinate Party Committees; 

$1,000 Presidential Expenditure 

Generally, costs for registration or get-out-the-vote drives of party 

committees need not be attributed to individual candidates, as long as 

the activity is not made on behalf of particular candidates. This remains 

true even if a party identifies its candidates by using the slate card 

exemption in conjunction with a registration or get-out-the-vote drive. 

Party committees which have established Federal campaign committees 

may allocate general operating costs between their Federal and 

non-Federal committees. 

Each State, county, city or congressional district committee may 

expend up to $1 ,000 to further the general election campaign of the 

party's Presidential nominee or a group of nominees including the 

Presidential candidate. The committee need not allocate the cost among 

candidates supported since the $1 ,000 expenditure limitation is over 

and above any other limitations. While committees may consult each 

other or the nominees concerning the expenditure, they may not pool 

their limitations. Receipts and payments for the purpose of making the 

$1 ,000 expenditure may trigger registration and reporting requirements. 

0/R 747: Receipts and 

Disbursements Related to 

Congressman's "Appreciation 

Dinners" 

Receipts and expenses related to an "appreciation dinner" given for a 

Congressman count as reportable contributions and expenditures when 

the officeholder's candidacy is expressly or implicitly advocated. 

0/R 755: Party Expenditures 

on Behalf of Candidates and 

Party Contributions to Candidates 

Payments by a State party committee for the salaries of a Senate 

candidate's campaign staff may be handled in one of two ways. They 

could be made as an expenditure on behalf of the candidate and 

charged against the party spending limits of 2 U.S.C.§441 a( d). Or they 

could be made as a contribution in-kind and charged against the State 

party's contribution limits. 

0/R 777: Permissibility of 

Independent Expenditures by 

Individual Previously Associated 

With Candidate's Campaign 

A prior association with a Presidential primary campaign would bar an 

individual from forming a political committee which would make 

independent expenditures advocating the election of the same candidate, 

particularly because the individual had "extensive involvement" with the 

campaign for more than six months and had been reimbursed for travel 

expenses. 

0/R 782: Contributions Through 

Double Envelope Plan 

The "double envelope plan," as proposed by the Central Vermont 

Public Service Corporation, would be prohibited under the proposed 

regulations because it identifies the corporation establishing the 

contribution plan. Under this scheme, employees would seal their 

personal contributions, together with a contribution card identifying the 

corporation, within an envelope marked "XYZ Company Political 

Contribution Plan." The corporation's plan coordinator would, in turn, 

receive and forward the envelope to the designated recipient. 

0/R 784: Effect of the Act on 

Purely Commercial Activity 

The Act does not apply to commercial activity involving the 

identification of a Federal candidate (e.g., advertisement for digital 

watch identifying the two Presidential candiates) as long as it is pursued 

exclusively as a business venture without any connection to or contact 

with the candidate, his committee or agent. 

102 
Appendix D 

0/R 786: Effect of Private 

Fundraising Parties on 

Contributions and Independent 

Expenditures 

When individuals defray expenses (not exceeding $500 per host or 

$1,000 per host couple) for a campaign-related party given in their 

home, the expenses are not reportable even if guests are solicited to 

make unearmarked contributions to party committees and even if 

representatives of a Presidential campaign speak on campaign operations. 

0/R 789: Registration and 

Reporting Requirements for 

Party Committees 

If a State or subordinate party committee receives contributions or 

makes contributions or expenditures to influence Federal elections in an 

amount not exceeding $1,000 per year, it need not register or report 

under the Act. When, however, an individual contributes to such a 

committee for the purpose of influencing Federal elections, the 

contribution is charged against his/her $25,000 annual limit. 

0/R 790: Use of Corporate Funds 

to Publish Voting Records 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association, may not use 

general treasury funds to distribute to nonmembers its ratings of how 

Senators and Representatives voted. The distribution could, however, be 

financed from voluntary contributions to a separate segregated fund or 

an individual or political committee could purchase and distribute the 

ratings to interested parties. (See also 0/R 840.) 

0/R 791: Honorarium; Definition 

of "Appearance" 

A Federal judge may receive no more than the maximum honorarium of 

$2,000 in consideration for a 48-hour "appearance" at a college where 

he makes several subordinate speeches or appearances, including a 

formal address, remarks at one or two receptions and participation as a 

discussant in several classes. 

0/R 802: Post-Election Contributions Made By Multicandidate 

Political Committees 

A political committee expecting soon to qualify as a multicandidate 

committee may not pledge or promise more than $1,000 to a candidate. 

If it qualifies as a multicandidate committee after the general election, 

the committee may continue to make contributions up to a total of 

$5,000 per candidate per election, provided the candidate has 

outstanding campaign debts. If the candidate has no debts, the 

post-election contribution may count as either a contribution to his/her 

next election or a donation to the office account of the officeholder. 

0/R 804: Solicitations by 

Corporations and Labor 

Organizations: Mutual Obligations 

Twice a year, a labor organization representing employees at Alabama 

Power Company or its PAC may solicit in writing the stockholders and 

executive or administrative personnel of the corporation, regardless of 

whether the corporation or its PAC has exercised its twice-yearly right 

to solicit employees generally. If the corporation makes no solicitation 

of employees generally under the twice-yearly provision, it is not 

required to give the names and addresses of its employees to the labor 

organization or an independent mailing service (in connection with the 

union's twice-yearly solicitation). The corporation or its PAC must, 

however, make available to the labor organization any method it uses to 

solicit contributions from the company's executive or administrative 

personnel and stockholders (e.g., a computerized mailing system). 

0/R 812: Use of Check-Off by 

Incorporated Membership 

Organization 

Under the Act, it would be illegal for members of the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., an incorporated membership 

organization, to earmark a portion of their annual dues to a separate 

segregated fund by marking a box on their membership dues invoice. In 

effect, this check-off procedure would merely divert corporate treasury 

funds to a political fund to be used in connection with Federal 

elections. 

103 
0/R 829: Reporting Obligations 

for Internal Communications by 

Labor Organizations 

A labor organization is not required to report the costs of preparing and 

distributing to members a 49-line letter containing a four-line ·postscript 

advocating the election of selected Federal candidates, as long as the 

letter is not primarily devoted to Federal election matters. 

0/R 838: Donations to the 1977 

Presidential Inaugural Committee 

Donations to the 1977 Presidential Inaugural Committee (the 

Committee) are not considered campaign contributions and are not 

subject to the reporting requirements or limitations of the Act. The 

Committee need not register with the Commission and may accept 

funds from the treasuries of national banks, corporations and labor 

organizations. Surplus funds, however, may not be transferred to any 

Federal candidate, political committee or party organization. 

0/R 840: Preparation and 

Distribution of Voter's Guide by 

Local Chamber of Commerce 

The Greater Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce may prepare and 

distribute a voter's guide to the general public if the guide is 

nonpartisan and the Chamber does not endorse any Federal candidate 

or political party. If the Chamber is partisan, it could still produce and 

distribute the guide to the public, but only by using voluntary 

contributions to a separate segregated fund. 

104 
Appendix E 

Subject Index Terms 

Subject Matter Index to Advisory Opinions, 1975-76 

U.S. Code Section Index 

Subject Index Terms- This list represents index terms used in the subject index to FEC opinions. When searching for 

opinions on a subject, it might be useful to glance 

through this list first. 

Accountants' Fees 

see Attorneys'IAccountants' Fees 

Accounts 

Administrative Expenses 

Advertising/Solicitation 

Allocation 

Appearances By Candidate 

Attorneys'/Accountants' Fees 

Authorized Committees/Agents 

Banks 

see Corporation/Labor Union/Bank 

Cash Contributions 

see Contributions 

Cash, Petty 

see Petty Cash Fund 

Common Control 

Communication Exception 

[2 U.S.C. s.431 (f) (4) (C)] 

Conduit 

see Intermediary 

Conferences, Educational 

see Educational Conferences 

Constituent Services Costs 

see Office Accounts 

Contribution 

Contribution- In-Kind 

Debts 

Delegate Selection 

see Nominating Conventions, 

National 

Depository 

Deposits For Services 

Dual Candidacy 

Earmarking 

Educational Conferences 

Election 

Excess Funds 

Expenditures 

Expenditures- Independent 

Family Of Candidate 

Foreign Nationals 

Filing 

see Reporting 

Franking Accounts 

Fund raising 

Get-Out-The-Vote Drives 

see Voter Registration Drives 

Gifts 

Government Contractors 

Honorarium 

105 
Immediate Family Funds 

see Family Of Candidate 

Independent Expenditures 

see Expend itures-1 ndependent 

In-Kind Contributions 

see Contribution-In-Kind 

Intermediary Or Conduit 

Intern Programs 

Labor Unions 

see Corporation/Labor Union/Bank 

Legislative Hearings 

Loan/Endorsement 

Local Party 

see National/State/Local Party 

Matching Funds 

see Public Funding 

Membership Organization 

Multicandidate Committee 

National Convention 

see Nominating Convention, 

National 

National/State/Local Party 

Newsletter Accounts 

see Franking Accounts 

Nominating 

Nominating Conventions, National 

Office Accounts 

Officers Of Political Committees 

see Political Committees 

Opinion Polls 

see Polling 

PAC's 

see Political Action Committees 

Partnerships 

Perso·nal Assets 

Personal Services (Voluntary) 

see Volunteer Services 

Petition Effort 

see Election 

Petty Cash Fund 

Political Action Committees 

Political Committees 

Polling 

Preemption Of State Law 

Primary Election 

see Election 

Public Funding 

Public Utility Holding Companies 

see Corporation/Labor Union/Bank 

Raffles 

see Corporate Facilities/Goods; 

Fund raising 

Requirements Relating To Reporting 

Campaign Advertising 

see Advertising/Solicitation 

Royalties 

Runoff Election 

see Election 

Separate, Segregated Funds 

see Accounts; Political Action 

Committees 

Sole Proprietorship 

Solicitation 

see Advertising/Solicitation; 

Political Action Committees 

Spouse 

see Family Of Candidate 

Special Election 

see Election 

State Law 

see Preemption Of State Law 

State Party 

see National/State/Local Party 

Telethon 

Television Appearances 

see Appearances By Candidate 

Transfers 

Trade Associations 

Travel Expenses 

Trustee Plan 

Volunteer Services 

Voter Registration Drives 

106 
Appendix E 

Subject Matter Index to 1975-76 

Opinions (Advisory Opinions) 

NOTE: Numbers of Opinions 

beginning with the digits "75" are 

1975 Opinions; digits "76" stand 

for 1976 Opinions. 

Accountant's Fees see Attorneys'/ 

Accountants' fees 

Accounts Explanation of depository and petty cash fund 

A075/44 

Separate State account for corporate contributions 

A075/59 

Separate State and Federal committees vs. total disclosure 

- political committee 

A075/20 

- State party committee 

A075/2,95 

See Also: Allocation; fundraising; Petty cash fund; Family of candidate; 

Transfers 

Administrative Expenses Allocation as per Federal/State support 

A075/21 

Corporation may pay administrative costs of political action committees 

A075/23,36 

See Also: Corporation/labor union/bank; Debts; Contribution - In-kind 

Advertising/Solicitation "Expenditure" if (i) appears at time of candidacy and (ii) clearly 

identifies by unambiguous reference 

A075/98 

- name of chairman, treasurer not necessary in disclaimer 

A076/35 

Name of chairman, treasurer on billboards (2 U.S.C. §441 d) 

A075/67 

107 
Advertising/Solicitation 

(continued) 

Solicitation definition 

- informing persons of a fundraising activity is a solicitation 

A076/27 

See Also: Franking accounts; Fundraising; Expenditures, Independent 

Allocation Any accounting method which yields allocations reflecting billable time 

spent by worker on two campaigns acceptable 

A075/61 

No allocation of costs of educational party conference on campaign 

techniques among participating candidates 

A075/87 (NRCC) 

Of contributions/expenditures between primary and general election 

efforts 

A075/53,120 

Post-nomination contributions related to general election 

A075/44 

See Also: Administrative expenses; Appearances by candidate; 

Educational conferences; Fundraising; Partnerships; Voter registration 

drives 

Appearances by Candidate Appearances before substantial number of people in electorate 

- costs are presumable expenditures 

A075/1 08,125 (travel from office account) 

Party building function 

A075/72,108 76/17 

Televised appearance 

- compensation· not honorarium or contribution 

A075/46 

Televised newsletter of Congressman in nonelection year not expenditure 

A075/107 

See Also: Common control; Contribution; Honorarium; Volunteer 

services 

Attorneys'IAccountants' Fees Campaign contributions/expenditures 

A075/27 

See Also: Litigation costs; Partnerships 

Authorized Committees/ Agents Duties 

A075/16,44 

Expenses incurred are authorized expenditures 

A075/22,44 

Officer of two fundraising committees 

A075/35 

Banks see Corporation/Labor 

Union/Bank 

Cash Contributions see Contributions 

108 
Appendix E 

Cash, Petty see Petty Cash Fund 

Common Control Control of ownership by political party, political committee, or 

candidate (2 U.S.C. §431 (f)(4)(A)) 

A075/143 

"Dominion and control" 

A075/32,108 

Donation to third party sponsoring candidate appearance not contribution if no common control 

A075/108 

For purposes of contribution/expenditure limits 

- political committee independence 

A075/45 

- State/local parties' independence 

A075/2,29 

Communication Exemption 

(2 u.s.c. §431 (f)(4)(C)) 

Information expenses to committee members 

A075/20 

Newsletter of State/local party 

A075/2 

Conduit see Intermediary 

Conferences, Educational see 

Educational Conferences 

Constituent Services Costs see 

Office Accounts 

Contributions Anonymous cash contributions 

- recordkeeping requirements 

A075/140 

Carry over, carry back 

A075/74 

Direct donation is not expenditure, but contribution 

A075/120 

Dominion and control 

A075/32,108 

Donation to third party sponsoring candidate appearances not contribution if no common control 

A075/108 

Escrowed contributions 

A075/129 

In-kind contribution 

- bona fide gifts 

A075/20 

- public facilities may be offered without charge 

A075/1 

See Also: Attorneys'/Accountants' fees; Advertising/Solicitation; Corporation facilities/ goods; Expenditures-Independent; Fundraising; Gifts; 

National/State/local party; Travel expenses; Volunteer services 

109 
Contributions (continued) Purpose test 

A075/1 ,81 

Refund of prohibited contribution is permissable use of campaign funds 

A076/6 

To unvictorious candidate attributable to $25,000 annual 

A075/74 

Wages for party-building activities paid to field worker who is also 

candidate are not contributions 

A076/17 

See Also: Accounts; Advertising/Solicitation; Allocation; Common control; Corporation/labor union/bank; Corporate facilities/goods; Debts; 

Dual candidacy; Earmarking; Educational conferences; Excess funds; 

Family of candidate; Franking accounts; Fundraising; Government 

contractors; Honorarium; Litigation costs; Loan/Endorsement; National/ 

State/local party; Nominating convention, National - Delegate selection; 

Office accounts; Partnerships; Political action committees; Political 

committees; Polling; Preemption of State law; Public funding; Reporting; 

Sole proprietorship; Tax; Transfers; Trustee plan; Volunteer services 

Conventions, National see 

Nominating Conventions, National 

Corporate Facilities/Goods Computer 

A075/14 

Nominating convention's use of facilities see Nominating conventions, 

National 

"Normal and usual charge" 

A075/94 

Restaurant, typewriters, airplanes 

A075/94 

Vendor of food/beverage 

A075/94 

See Also: Administrative expenses; Contribution - In-kind; Corporation/labor union/bank; Fundraising; Nominating convention, National; 

Travel expenses; Volunteer services 

Corporation/Labor Union/Bank Corporation/Labor union 

- corporation treasury money may not be used to raise funds from 

the general public 

A076/18 

- incorporation exclusively for political/liability purposes 

A075/16,37 

- leave of absence payment to candidate is prohibited contribution 

A076/70 

- nonprofit incorporated professional organization 

A075/75 

- payment for Members of Congress to attend courses not an 

unlawful contribution 

A076/98 

- payment of production costs of fundraising item is a prohibited 

contribution 

A076/18,50 

110 
Appendix E 

• 

Corporation/Labor Union/Bank 

(continued) - prohibited contribution is made if corporation deviates from 

normal course of business and deviation has effect of extending 

candidate's contract with corporation (billboards) 

A076/86 

- State election contribution allowed only 

A075/59 

- twice-yearly solicitation under 441 b(b)(4)(B) 

- corporation soliciting employees is restricted to twice-yearly 

procedure 

A076/4 

In general 

- refund of prohibited contribution is permissable use of campaign 

funds 

A076/6 

- stockholder, officer, employee in individual capacity 

A075/31 

See Also: Administrative expenses; Advertising/Solicitation; Corporate 

facilities/goods; Debts; Educational conferences; Excess funds; Franking 

accounts; Government contractors; Loan/Endorsement; Membership organization; Nominating convention, National; Political action committees; Political committees; Public funding; Trade association; Trustee 

plan; Volunteer services. 

Credit see Debts 

Debts Amounts in dispute must be reported 

A076/85 

Discharged by an adjudication of bankruptcy 

A075/102 

Incurred from january 1973 through December 1974 

A075/6,52,57 ,60,64,68,82,88, 106 

Incurred prior to january 1, 1973 

A075/5 

Pledges for contribution 

A075/44 

Reporting of short-term or long-term debts 

A075/44 

Settlement 

- with corporate creditor 

A075/39,50, 102 

Transfer of outstanding obligation {for loans made by candidate) to 

·candidate's campaign committee is allowed 

A076/60 

Treatment of outstanding obligation 

A075/18,28, 102 A076/68 

See Also: Excess funds; Family of candidate; Government contractors; 

Litigation costs; Loan/Endorsement; Personal assets; Tax Transfers 

111 
Delegate Selection see Nominating 

Conventions, National 

Depository Transfer of funds from political committee to savings account need not 

be transferred to national or State bank 

A075/25 

See Also: Accounts; Petty cash fund; Political committee; Public 

funding; Reporting; Transfers 

Dual Candidacy Any accounting method which yields allocations reflecting billable time 

spent by worker on two campaigns acceptable 

A075/61 

Congress/Senate limits 

A075/11 

Establish two separate committees 

A075/11 

Senate/Presidential lim its 

A075/11 

See also: Allocation; Family of candidate; Personal assets; Transfers 

Earmarking "Unearmarked" to committee not attributable to candidate if (i) not 

single-candidate (ii) not principal campaign committee for authorized 

(iii) no knowledge 

A075/32,48,81 ,129 

"Unearmarked" to multicandidate committee not attributable to candidate 

A075/74, 129 

See Also: Political committees; Transfers 

Educational Conferences Agricultural 

A075/14 

Independent expenditure for educational seminars for dairy farmers 

A075/20 

No allocation of costs of educational party conference on campaign 

techniques among participating candidates 

A075/87 (NRCC) 

See Also: Appearances by candidate; Corporation/labor union/bank; 

Office accounts 

Election Convention or caucus 

- party convention held to endorse candidate, under circumstances 

whereby a candidate may be considered party nominee, is a 

separate election 

A076/58 

Primary 

- party caucus or convention which does not select nominee is part 

of primary election 

A075/1 05,54 

- petition effort 

A075/53,44 

- unopposed candidate for primary election 

A075/9 

112 
Appendix E 

Election {continued) See Also: Allocation 

Excess Funds After liquidation of debt, turned over to principal campaign committee 

- reporting 

A075/60 

- authorized in writing 

A075/82,88 

Any "lawful purpose" 

- computer terminal 

A075/51 A076/57 

- employee compensation 

A076/90 

Transferred to office account 

A075/144 

See Also: Candidacy; :Nominating convention, National; Personal assets; 

Transfers 

Expenditures Any expense "made for purpose" is expenditure (especially travel, 

advertising) 

A075/30,81 ,98 

Direct donation not expenditure 

A075/120 

Disbursements made and reported by cart~paign committee as expenditures are deemed for the purpose of influencing candidate's election 

A076/17 

Gift to State candidates may be "expenditure" under certain conditions 

A075/111 

See Also: Advertising/solicitation; Appearances by candidate; Authorized committees/agents; Educational conferences; Fundraising; Voter 

registration drives 

News story, commentary, editorial exception (2 U.S.C. §431 (f){4){A)) 

A075/143 

No restrictions on use to which campaign funds may be put 

A076/53,64 

See Also: Advertising/solicitation; Allocation; Appearances by candidate; 

Attorneys'/Accountants' fees; Authorized committee/agent; Candidacy; 

Communication exemption; Dual candidacy; Educational conferences; 

Franking account; Fundraising; Litigation costs; National/State/local 

parties; Nominating conventions, National - Delegate selection; Office 

accounts; Personal assets; Political committees; Polling; Preemption of 

State law; Public funding; Reporting; Transfers; Travel expenses; Voter 

registration drives. 

Family of Candidate Immediate family funds 

- contribution to candidate 

A075/65 

- contribution to candidate made before january 30, 1976, need not 

be returned if over $1,000 limit so long as not over $25,000 

aggregate. 

A076/74 

113 
Family of Candidate (continued) -contribution to candidate made between january 30, 1976, and 

May 11, 1976, need not be returned if over $1,000 limit so long as 

not over $25,000 aggregate. 

A076/26 

- dual President/Senate candidate 

A075/11 

-limit applicable to pre-1975 campaign debts 

A075/6,106 

-loans 

A075/57 

Spouse 

- contribution limit 

A075/31 

Foreign Nationals Green card holders are not foreign nationals 

A076/4,9 

Filing see Reporting 

Franking Accounts Corporate contributions prohibited 

A075/7 

Costs of preparing frankable material not expenditure 

A075/3 

Costs of tabulating responses to questionnaires sent under the frank not 

considered a contribution if not made for primary purpose of 

influencing an election. 

A075/132 

Questionnaire mailed under frank as contribution 

A075/14 

See Also: Office accounts 

Fundraising Corporation's payment of production costs of fundraising item is a 

prohibited contribution 

A076/18, 50 

Costs as contributions/expenditures 

A075/15,22,49,62,97 76/50 

ltems included in fundraising costs 

A075/49,78,97 

Payment out of campaign funds for the printing of labels by a 

computer firm would be proper under the Act. 

AID6~2 . 

Political committee's operation of business to raise "profits"­

reporting 

A075/15 

Raffle legitimate activity 

A075/60 

20 percent exemption from expenditure limitation 

-in general 

A075/62,97 

- need not be prorated State-by-State for Presidential State-wide 

limits, except where targeted 

A075/33 

114 
Appendix E 

Fundraising (continued) Use of lists of contributions on reports filed with Secretary of State 

A075/124 

See also: Accounts; Advertising/Solicitation; Authorized committees/ 

agents; Political committees - Officers; Reporting 

Get-Out-the-Vote Drives see Voter 

Registration Drives 

Gifts "Bona fide" not in-kind contribution 

A075/20 

To charity not honorarium or contribution 

A075/55 

See Also: Expenditures; Contributions- In-kind 

Government Contractors Employee contribution in individual capacity 

A075/31 

No difference between negotiated or competitive bid 

A075/110 

Scope 

- applies to construction contracts 

A075/110 

- does not apply to person holding a Federal-aid construction 

contract with non-Federal agency 

A075/110 

- Federal elections only 

A075/99,110 

See Also: Debts 

Honorarium "Acceptance" where active or constructive receipt 

A075/8,55,89,93 

Agent's or speaking bureau's fees 

A075/84 

As contributions 

- no longer contributions under § 441 i 

A075/119 

-test and reporting under 1974 Amendments 

A075/8,20,63 

Award in recognition of public achievements 

A075/85 

Contract for televised commentary stipends 

A075/46 

Royalty for book not honorarium 

A075/77 

Travel and subsistence expenses 

A075/8,13 

See Also: Appearances by candidate; Gifts 

115 
Immediate Family Funds see 

Family of Candidate 

In-Kind Contributions see 

Contributions - In-Kind 

Intermediary or Conduit Committee serving as a conduit must register and report 

A076/51 

Intern Programs Corporation interns assigned to congressional offices, committees 

A075/100 

Interns' time not a contribution in-kind so long as they are engaged in 

pursuit of legislative business or they receive no compensation 

A075/100 

Labor Unions see Corporation/ 

Labor Union/Bank 

Legislative Hearings Reimbursed travel 

A075/20 

Loan/ Endorsement As "contribution" 

A075/4,57 

Existence of written instrument determinative of loan 

A075/69 

Promissory note is "loan" and therefore contribution 

A075/50 

Remains contribution to extent of unpaid balance 

A075/69 

See Also: Debts; Family of candidate; Personal assets; Tax; Telethon 

Local Party see National/State/ 

Local Party 

Matching Funds see Public 

Financing 

Membership Organization Unincorporated division of an incorporated membership organization is 

not an appropriate entity to establish and administer a separate 

segregated fund unless that fund is designated for the corporation. 

A076/73 

Multicandidate Committee PAC's {see '!-lso Political Action Committees) 

- Multicandidate PAC's may give $15,000 to national political party 

committee 

A076/41 

See Also: Political committees 

National Convention see Nominating Convention, National 

116 
Appendix E 

National/State/Local Party Contribution limit 

- County committee 

A075/29 

Definition of national party 

A076/95 

Direct donation of money not party expenditure under §441 a(d) 

A075/120 

Expenditure limit- §441a(d) 

A075/2,120 

See Also: Accounts; Appearances by candidate; Common control; 

Communication exemption; Debts; Election; Nominating convention, 

National - Delegate selection; Political committee; Reporting; Telethon; 

Transfers 

Newsletter Accounts see Franking 

Accounts 

Nominating Conventions, National Defraying delegate costs with public money by national parties (and 

State and local parties) 

A075/91 

Delegate selection 

- selection (in general) 

A075/12 

"Extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances" 

A075/91 

Municipal corporation contribution 

A075/1,47 

Private corporation contributions 

- to party convention committee 

A075/1,47 

Scope of "convention expense" 

A075/1,74 

See Also: Attorneys'/Accountants' fees; Excess funds; Public funding; 

Transfers 

Office Accounts Appropriated funds 

- expenses of mobile office used during but not for the campaign 

not attributable to contribution/expenditure lim its 

A076/44 

Generally 

A075/14 

Reporting obligations 

A075/7 

See Also: Account; Appearances by candidate; Franking accounts; 

Polling; Transfers; Travel expenses 

Officers of Political Committees 

see Political Committees 

Opinion Polls see Polling 

117 
PAC's see Political Action Committees 

Partnerships Counts against each independent partner's limit in proportion to share 

of profits 

A075/17,104 

Partner makes in individual capacity 

A075/31 

Partnership agreements to allocate - necessary provisions 

A075/104 

Statutory maximum limit for a partnership is $1,000 

A075/17 

See Also: Corporation/Labor union/Bank; Political action committees 

Personal Assets Advance to political campaign committee by candidate 

A075/57,111 

Applicable to dual Senate/Presidential candidate 

A075/11 

Limitations applicable to pre-1975 debts (unconstitutionality of 18 

U.S.C. §608(a)) 

A075/65 

See Also: Debts; Excess funds; Litigation costs; Loan/Endorsement; 

Preemption of State law; Transfer; Travel expenses 

Personal Services (Voluntary) see 

Volunteer Services 

Petition Effort see Election 

Petty Cash Fund No check to the order of "cash" may be made for over $100 

A075/44 

See Also: Accounts 

Political Action Committees Establishment, administration 

A075/23,36 

Multicandidate PAC's may give $15,000 to national political party 

committee 

A076/41 

One political committee may not serve as the separate, segregated fund 

of more than one sponsoring corporation or labor organization 

A076/73 

Partnership, sole proprietor may not establish PAC 

A075/31 

Unlawful to make a contribution or expenditure by money obtained in 

a commercial transaction 

A076/18 

See Also: Corporation/Labor union/Bank; Membership organization; 

Multicandidate committee; Trade association; Trustee plan 

118 
Appendix E 

Political Committees Administrative expenses see Administrative expenses 

"Affiliated committees" and "connected organizations" defined 

A075/44 

Definition 

- committee organized to assure "option of alternative independent 

slate of electors" within definition 

A075/81 

- group of individuals acting in concert who are likely to assert their 

association when contributing and who collect and distribute 

checks in a batch to candidates or committees is a political 

committee 

A076/51 

- research committees funded solely by legislatively appropriated 

funds are not political committees required to register and report 

A076/34 

Officers 

- national multicandidate committee can establish State committees 

which have the same treasurer 

A075/45 

- individuals serving as officers of more than one fundraising committee 

.A075/35 

Principal campaign committee 

- candidate must designate committee even if committee makes no 

contributions or expenditures 

A076/100 

- may give "occasional, isolated, incidental" support to other Federal 

candidates 

A076/5 

- may make unlimited contributions to non-Federal candidates 

A076/5 

- may pay for candidate's living expenses 

A076/53 

- may purchase auto for candidate 

A076/64 

- may rent office space in candidate's private home 

A076/53 

See Also: Reporting 

Termination 

A075/28,102 

See Also: Accounts; Administrative expenses; Common control; Communication exemption; Corporation/Labor union/Bank; Dual candidacy; 

Earmarking; Excess funds; Fundraising; Personal assets; Polling; Reporting; Transfers; Travel expenses 

Polling Expenditure for "attitudinal research" from office account 

A075/7 

See Also: Candidacy 

119 
Preemption of State Law Ballot access 

A076/8 

Establishment of committees 

A076/8 

Qualifying of candidate, date and place of election 

A075/124 76/8 

Primary Election see Election 

Principal Campaign Committee see 

Political Committees 

Public Funding Defraying delegate costs with public money 

A075/91 

See Also: Accountants'/Attorneys' fees; Nominating convention, National; Transfers 

Public Utility Holding Companies 

see Corporation/Labor Union/Bank 

Raffles see Corporate Facilities/ 

Goods; Fundraising 

Reporting Anonymous cash contribution 

A075/140 

Expenditures must be reported even if other than for the purpose of 

influencing an election 

A076/64 

"Less than $1,000 in quarter" notification by political committee 

A075/16 

Monthly reporting for Presidential candidates 

A075/44 

Recordkeeping of purchasers of tickets to fundraiser 

A075/60,97 

- concert fundraiser 

A075/49 . 76/62 

Use of contributor lists on reports filed with Secretary of State 

A075/124 

Waive for candidate reporting 

A075/124 

See Also: Accounts; Corporation/Labor union/Bank; Debts; Excess 

funds; Fundraising; Honorarium; Nominating convention, National; 

Office accounts; Political committees; Preemption of State law; Transfers; Travel expenses 

Requirements Relating to 

Campaign Advertising see 

Advertising/Solicitation 

120 
Appendix E 

Royalties As contributions 

-books 

A075/77 

- candidate's image 

A075/15 

Runoff Election see Election 

Separate, Segregated Funds see 

Accounts; Political Action 

Committees 

Sole Proprietorship Contributions in individual capacity 

A075/31 

Solicitation see Advertising/ 

Solicitation; Political Action 

Committees 

Spouse see Family of Candidate 

Special Election see Election 

State Law see Preemption of 

State Law 

State Party see National/State/ 

Local Party 

Telethon Guarantee/endorsement of loan to telethon 

A075/4 

Television Appearances see 

Appearances by Candidate 

Trade Association Solicitations under §441 (b)(4) 

- informing persons of a fundraising activity is a solicitation; 

permission from member corporations to solicit must be obtained 

prior to solicitation 

A076/27,96 

Transfers Between campaign committees for dual candidate 

A075/11 

From 

- political campaign committee to another account (savings account, 

office account) 

A075/10,41,144 76/25 

- previous Federal account to political can;~paign committee 

A075/10,26,40,66 

- primary to general election account 

A075/53 

- State election account to principal campaign committee 

-generally 

A075/10,66 

See Also: Accounts; Common control; Excess funds; Political committees 

121 
Travel Expenses Cost of travel (to a fundraiser) supported by individual is an in-kind 

contribution 

- not a contribution or expenditure if traveler is not a candidate 

A075/123 

"Expenditure" if candidate and campaign-related activities (speeches, 

meetings with advisors) 

A075/98 

Reimbursement by political campaign committee to volunteer 

A075/97 

Reimbursement by political committee to members for attending 

election - related activities 

A075/20 

Reimbursement to candidate by political campaign committee is 

expenditure 

A075/30 

Related to party building activities are not expenditures 

A075/72 

See Also: Appearances by candidate; Contributions- In-kind; Corporation/Labor union/Bank; Dual candidacy; Excess funds; Honorarium, 

Legislative hearings; National/State/Local party 

Trustee Plan Establishment, administration 

A075/23 

Volunteer Services Entertainment and services not contribution 

A075/97 

On employee time - in-kind? 

A075/94 

Use of workers receiving Social Security funds 

A075/124 

Volunteer intern in congressional office -:- college credit not reimbursement 

A075/100 

See Also: Contribution - In-kind; Travel expenses 

Voter Registration Drives Allocation of expenses as per State/Federal support 

A075/21 

Partisan as independent expenditure 

A075/20 

See Also: Communications exemption 

122 
Appendix E 

U.S. Code Section Index 

Code Section Advisory Opinions 

2 U.S.C. s. 431 (a) 75/12 

431 (a)(2) 76/58 

431 (c) 76/68 

431(d) 75/4,81 76/51 

431 (e) 75/15,63 

431 (e)(4) 76/70 

431 (e)(5)(1) 75/119 

431 (f) 76/17 

431 (f)(2) 76/85 

431 (f)(4)(A) 75/143 

431(k) 76/95 

431 (m) 76/95 

432(b) 75/49 

432(c) 76/62 

432(c)(2) 75/140 

432(e) Unauthorized activities; 

notice [deleted in 1976 

amendments] 75/44 

432(e)(1) 76/5,100 

432(f) 75/16 

433(d) 75/18,102,144 

434 75/4 76/64 

434(a)(1 )(C) 75/16 

434(b) 75/10,140 

434(b){l) 76/25 

434(b)(2) 75/40 

434(b)(4) 75/144 

123 
Code Section Advisory Opinions 

2 U.S.C.s. 434(b)(6) 76/62 

434(b)(12) 75/18 76/85 

434(b)(13) 75/20 

434(e) 75/12 

435(b) 76/35 

436(b) 75/18 

436(b)(1) 76/100 

436(c) 75/18 

437a Reports by certain 

persons [deleted in 

1976 amendments] 

75/2 

437b(a) 75/41 76/25 

437b(a)(2) 75/2 

437b(b) 75/44 

438(a)(4) 75/124 

439(a) 75/144 

439a 75/7,10,14,51 ,64,82, 

88 76/57,90 

441a [18U.S.C.s.608] 75/2,9, 14,106,108 

441 a(a) [18U.S.C.s.608(b)] 75/5,6,10 ,26,44,52, 

54,62,65,81 ,82,87' 

132 76/17 

441 (a)(1 )[ 18U.S.C.s.608(b )(1)] 75/11,17,48,74 

441 a(a)(1 )(A)[18U.S.C.s.608(b )(1)] 76/26,68,74 

441a(a)(2) [18U.S.C.s.608(b )(2)] 75/3,11 ,32,45,74,120, 

129 

441a(a)(2)(B) 76/41 

441a(a)(3) [18U.S.C.s.608(b )(3)] 75/48,74 76/26,68,74 

2 U.S.C. s. 441a(a)(8)[18U.S.C.s.608(b)(6)] 75/32,48,60 76/51 

441a(b) [18U.S.C.s.608(c)] 75/7 '1 0,15 ,22,27 ,28, 

30,54,78,87 ,98 

441 a(b)(l )(A)[18U.S.C.s.608(c)(1 )(A)] 75/11 ,33 

441 a(b )(2)(B)[18U.S.Cs.608(c)(2)(B)] 75/12,44 

441 a(d)(3 )[18U.S.C.s.608(t)(3)] 75/2,29 

441 b[18U.S.C.s.61 0) 75/1 ,7,13,14,16,21' 

23,27,39,47 ,50,59,75, 

86,94,123 76/98 

441 b(a) 76/50 

441b(b)(2) 76/50,70 

441 b(b)(2)(C) 76/73 

441b(b)(3)(A) 76/18 

441 b(b)(4) 76/18,73 

124 
Appendix E 

Code Section Advisory Opinions 

441 b{b )(4)(A)(i) 

441 b{b)(4)(C) 

441b{b)(4)(D) 

441 c [ 18U.S.C.s.611 ] 

441 d [ 18U.S.C.s.612] 

441e 

441 f[ 18U.S.C.s.614] 

441 i [18U.S.C.s.616) 

453 

76/73 

76/27 

76/27,73,96 

75/31,99,110 

75/67 76/35 

76/9 

75/104 

75/8,20,46,55,63,77' 

84,85,89,93,119 

75/124 76/8 

18 U.S.C. s. 591 (a) 

591 (e) 

591 (e)(1) 

591 (e)(S)(A) 

591 (e)(S)(D) 

591 (f) 

591 (f)(4) 

591 (f)(4)(B) 

591 (f)(4)(C) 

591 (f)(4)(H) 

604 

608 see 2 U.S.C. s.441a 

608(a) 

608{a)(1) 

608(a)(3) 

608{a)(4) 

608{b) see 2 U.S.C. s.4t Ja(a) 

608(b)(1) see 2 U.S.C. s.441 a(a)(l) 

608(b)(2) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(a)(2) 

608(b)(3) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(a)(3) 

608(b)(5) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(a)(6) 

608(b)(6) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(a)(8) 

608(c) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(b) 

608{c)(1 )(A) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(b)(1 )(A) 

75/1,44,54,105 

75/15,63,87,94 

75/4 

75/20,97 

75/97 

75/12,15,22,87,98,107 

75/62 

75/20 

75/2 

75/33,78 

76/53 

Personal funds of 

candidate and family 

[deleted in 1976 

amendments] 

75/30,65 76/26,74 

75/5,6,11 

75/57,111 

75/57 

608(c)(1 )(C) 75/11,53 

608(c)(1 )(E) 75/3 

608(c)(2)(B) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(b)(2)(B) 

125 
Code Section Advisory Opinions 

18 U.S.C. s. 608(e) Expenditures relative to 

clearly identified candidate ldeleted in 1976 

amendments] 75/12, 

15,20 

608(f) see 2 U.S.C. s.441 a(d) 

608(f)(3) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(d)(3) 

608(f)(3)(B) see 2 U.S.C. s.441a(d)(3)(B) 

610 see 2 U.S.C. s.441 b 

611 see 2 U .S.C. s.441 c 

612 see 2 U .S.C. s.441 d 

614 see 2 U.S.C. s.441f 

616 see 2 U.S.C. s.441 i 

26 u.s.c. s. 9008(d) 75/1,91 

9008(e) 75/1 

9008(g) 75/1 

39 U.S.C. s. 321 O(f) 75/3,7,14 

U.S. Code Section Index to 1975-76 Opinions (Advisory Opinions) Note: 

Numbers of Opinions beginning with the digits "75" are 1975 Opinions; 

digits "76" stand for 1976 Opinions. 

126 
Appendix F 

FEC Federal Register Notices, 1976 

NOTICE HEADING APPROVAL DATE PUBLICATION DATE CITATION 

1976-1 AO's '197 5-33, 

61 and 89 

Jan. 5, 1976 Jan. 12, 1976 41 FR 1862 

1976-2 AOR's 1975-125 

and 127 thru 130 

and 132 and 133 

Jan. 5, 1976 Jan. 12, 1976 41 FR 1863 

1976-3 AOR 1976-1 jan. 6, 1976 Jan. 12, 1976 41 FR 1865 

1976-4 Proposed 

Compliance Reg. 

Jan. 12, 1976 Jan. 15, 1976 41 FR 

1976-5 AO 1975-87 Jan. 13, 1976 Jan. 20, 1976 41 FR 2940 

1976-6 AOR's 1975-134 

thru 139 

Jan. 14, 1976 Jan. 20, 1976 41 FR 2941 

1976-7 AOR 1976-2 Jan. 15, 1976 Jan. 19, 1976 41 FR 2803 

1976-8 AO's 1975-44, 

100, 110 and 

111 

Jan. 16, 1976 Jan. 26, 1976 41 FR 3832 

1976-9 AOR's 1975-140 

thru 144 

Jan. 19, 1976 Jan. 22, 1976 41 FR 

1976-10 AO 1975-81 Jan. 20, 1976 Jan. 26, 1976 41 FR 3834 

1976-11 Four Calendars 

of Filing 

Deadlines 

Jan. 20, 1976 Jan. 23, 1976 41 FR 3708 

1976-12 oc 1975-14 Jan. 21, 1976 Jan. 27, 1976 41 FR 3990 

1976-13 AO's 1975-98, 

102 and 120 

Jan. 26, 1976 Jan. 29, 1976 41 FR 

1976-14 Supplement to 

AOR 1975-43 

Jan. 27, 1976 Feb. 2, 1976 41 FR 4875 

127 
NOTICE HEADING APPROVAL DATE PUBLICATION DATE CITATION 

1976-15 Cancellation 

Compliance 

Hearing 

Feb.3, 1976 Feb. 5, 1976 41 FR 

1976-16 AO's 91, 94, 

104, 108, 124, 

and 129 

Feb. 3, 1976 Feb. 9, 1976 41 FR 5752 

1976-17 Index of Notices Feb. 6, 1976 Feb. 13, 1976 41 FR 

1976-18 Proposed Forms Feb. 27, 1976 Mar. 3, 1976 41 FR 

1976-19 1975 Index 

of Notices 

Mar. 4, 1976 Mar. 16, 1976 41 FR 11132 

1976-20 1976 Index 

of Notices 

Mar. 4, 1976 Mar. 16, 1976 41 FR 11154 

1976-21 Short Forms 

for Reporting 

Mar. 8, 1976 Mar. 16, 1976 41 FR 

1976-22 1975 Index 

of Notices 

(March) 

Mar. 30, 1976 April 5, 1976 41 FR 

1976-23 1976 Index 

of Notices 

Mar. 30, 1976 April 5, 1976 41 FR 

(March) 

1976-24 1975 Index 

of Notices 

May 4, 1976 May 12, 1976 

(April) 

1976-25 1976 Index 

of Notices 

(April) 

May 4, 1976 May 12, 1976 41 FR 

1976-26 Clearinghouse 

Notice of 

Hearing 

May 17, 1976 May 20, 1976 41 FR 20803 

1976-27 Proposed Regulations May 24, 1976 May 26, 1976 41 FR 21572 

1976-28 Amendment to 

Hearings on 

Proposed 

Regulations 

May 25, 1976 May 27, 1976 41 FR 21652 

1976-29 [Correction] 

Convention 

June 1, 1976 June 7, 1976 41 FR 22911 

Financing Regs. 

1976-30 Payment of 

Delegates Travel 

and Subsistence 

June 10, 1976 june 16, 1976 41 FR 24513 

[Policy Stmt.] 

128 
Appendix F 

NOTICE HEADING APPROVAL DATE PUBLICATION DATE CITATION 

1976-31 General 

Election 

Funding Regs. 

June 22, 1976 June 25, 1976 41 FR 26397 

1976-32 AOR's 1975-144 

and 1976-3 

thru 26 

June 25, 1976 june 30, 1976 41 FR 

1976-33 Proposed Regs. 

on Polling 

Expenses 

July 2, 1976 July 9, 1976 41 FR 23413 

1976-34 Index to 

Statements & 

Reports 

July 7, 1976 July 15, 1976 41 FR 

1976-35 AOR's 1976-27 

thru 42 

July 8, 1976 July 14, 1976 41 FR 

1976-36 AOR's 1976-43 

thru 47 

July 13, 1976 July 19, 1976 41 FR 

1976-37 AOR's 1976-48 

thru 55 

July 27, 1976 August 11, 1976 41 FR 

1976-38 Proposed Regs. August 3, 1976 August 25, 1976 41 FR 35932 

1976-39 AOR's 1976-56 

thru 58 

August 4, 1976 August 10, 1976 41 FR 

1976-40 AOR's 1976-59 

thru 70 

August 17, 1976 August 24, 1976 Part 3 

1976-41 AOR's 1976-71 

thru 75 

September 2, 1976 September 10, 1976 38555 

1976-42 Prop. Rulemaking 

Amendment 

September 3, 1976 September 10, 1976 38522 

1976-43 AOR's 1976-76 

thru 78 

September 10, 1976 September 16, 1976 Part 2 

1976-44 AOR's 1976-79 

thru 82 

September 9, 1976 September 22, 1976 41 FR 

1976-45 Privacy Act September 17, 1976 September 29, 1976 41 FR 

1976-46 Policy 

Statement 

September 22, 1976 October 6, 1976 41 FR 44130 

1976-47 AOR's 1976-83 

thru 87 

September 27, 1976 September 30, 1976 41 FR 

1976-48 AOR's 1976-88 

and 89 

September 30, 1976 October 5, 1976 41 FR 

129 
NOTICE HEADING APPROVAL DATE PUBLICATION DATE CITATION 

197649 Effectiveness 

of Regs. 

[NOT PUBLISHED] 

1976-50 Policy Stmt. 

Family Members 

Contribution Limits 

October 1, 1976 October 6, 1976 41 FR 

1976-51 Index to Multicandidate Comm. 

October 1, 1976 October 6, 1976 41 FR 

1976-52 AOR's 1976-90 

and 94 

October 7, 1976 October 6, 1976 41 FR 

1976-53 Amendment to 

Matching Fund 

Regs. 

October 12, 1976 October 18, 1976 41 FR 45952 

1976-54 Amendments to 

Disclosure Regs. 

October 12, 1976 October 18, 1976 41 FR 

1976-55 Notice of 

Authorization of 

Political 

Communications 

October 12, 1976 October 18, 1976 41 FR 

1976-56 Policy Stmt. 

Application of 

Calendar Year 

Limitation Provisions 

October 12, 1976 October 18, 1976 41 FR 45954 

1976-57 Notice to Membership 

Organization Reporting Requirements 

October 1976 October 18, 1976 41 FR 45957 

1976-58 Modification of 

Adviso..Y Opinions 

October 15, 1976 October 20, 1976 41 FR 46416 

1976-59 AOR's 1976-95 

thru 97 

October 28, 1976 November 3, 1976 41 FR 48473 

1976-60 Update to Index 

of Multicandidate 

Committees 

November 2, 1976 November 9, 1976 41 FR 49619 

1976-61 AOR's 1976-98 

and 97 

November 3, 1976 November 9, 1976 41 FR 49619 

130 
Appendix F 

NOTICE HEADINGS APPROVAL DATE PUBLICATION DATE CITATION 

1976-62 AOR 1976-100 November 15, 1976 November 22, 1976 41 FR 51547 

1976-63 AOR's 1976-101 

and 102 

November 17, 1976 November 23, 1976 41 FR 51779 

1976-64 Acknowledgement 

of Receipt 

Form (20) 

November 19, 1976 November 30, 1976 41 FR 52623 

1976-65 AOR's 1976-103 

and 104 

November 24, 1976 December 3, 1976 41 FR 53223 

1976-66 AOR's 1976-105 

and 106 

December 1, 1976 December 9, 1976 41 FR 53927 

1976-67 (Privacy Act) 

System of Records 

December 3, 1976 December 14, 1976 41 FR54718 

1976-68 (Privacy Act) December 3, 1976 December 14, 1976 41 FR 54718 

1976-69 Clearinghouse 

Advisory Comm. 

Notice of Hearing 

December 9, 1976 December 16, 1976 41 FR 55077 

1976-70 AOR's 1976-107 

thru 109 

December 15, 1976 December 22, 1976 41 FR 55825 

1976-71 AOR's 1976-110 

and 111 

December 15, 1976 December 22, 1976 41 FR 55825 

1976-72 AOR's 1976-112 

thru 115 

December 30, 1976 January 12, 1977 42 FR 2624 

1976-73 Policy Statement 

Contribution Limits 

January 3, 1977 January 12, 1977 42 FR 2624 

to Contributions 

Made After General 

Election 

131 
Appendix G 

FEC Publications and Clearinghouse Studies 

Newsletter THE FEC RECORD 

Published as a four- to eight-page binder insert, the newsletter serves as 

the primary means of informing candidates, political committees, parties 

and other persons interested in Federal elections about Commission 

activity. During 1976, eight issues covered the following topics: 

o Proposed Regulations 

o Interim Guidelines 

o Advisory Opinions 

o Policy Statements and Letters 

o Compliance Matters 

o Reporting Notices 

Back issues are available from the Publjc Communications Division of 

the Offic·e of Information Services. 

Pamphlets Campaign Guide Series 

Six color-coded pamphlets comprise the Federal Election Commission 

Campaign Guide series, a reference tool prepared by the FEC to assist 

the public in complying with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended (the Act). Each guide, prepared as a binder insert, 

has a distinct focus, as described below: 

No. One Campaign Guide for Committees 

Outlined within this pamphlet are the registration and reporting requirements for a political committee supporting Federal candidates. Definitions of various types of com'mittees are provided, as well as guidelines 

for accepting, recording, and reporting campaign contributions and for 

making and disclosing expenditures. 

No. Two Campaign Guide on Contributions and Expenditures 

Designed to aid candidates and political committees, this guide explains 

distinctions between various kinds of contributions, volunteer activities, 

independent expenditures, and expenditures by candidates and committees. Limitations on contributions and expenditures are discussed. 

Examples illustrate how these requirements affect individuals, committees and candidates. 

No. Three Campaign Guide for Federal Candidates 

This brochure helps Federal candidates and their campaign committees 

comply with the Act by explaining the provisions governing the 

establishment of candidacy, the acceptance of contributions and the 

disclosure of receipts and expenditures. 

132 
Pamphlets (continued) No. Four Campaign Guide for the 1976 General Election 

Illustrating the law in action, this guide briefly explains how the Act 

and the proposed regulations applied to the 1976 general election. The 

amount of public funds available to Presidential candidates, requirements for eligibility for these funds, and guidelines for their use are 

described. Funding for House and Senate campaigns is also considered, 

with information on contribution and expenditure limits and disclosure 

requirements. 

No. Five Campaign Guide for State and Subordinate Party Committees 

This pamphlet explores the role that party committees play in the 

financing of Federal campaigns. Topics covered include: terminology, 

committee registration requirements, contributions to candidates, allocable and non-allocable expenditures for congressional and Presidential 

campaigns, and a checklist of "do's and don't's" for party committees. 

No. Six Campaign Guide on Post-Election FECA Requirements 

In the aftermath of the 1976 general election, the responsibilities of 

candidates and political committees are not yet over. This guide outlines 

post-election requirements for all Federal candidates, as well as the 

specific regulations for Presidential candidates receiving Federal funds. It 

explains the retirement of campaign debts, the use of excess campaign 

funds, reporting requirements, and procedures for terminating registration. 

Copies of the guides are available from the Public Communications 

Division of the Office of Information Services. 

Booklets Annual Report 1975 Federal Election Commission (March 1976) 

This first Annual Report to the President and Congress provides a 

comprehensive review of the establishment of the Commission, and its 

initial organization and operation during the first nine months of its 

existence. The basic text affords an analysis of Commission activities 

from three points of view: organization, policy, and program implementation. Background detail is in the Appendix. 

The Federal Election Campaign Act, Amendments of 1976 (May 1976). 

As Codified in Title 2, United States Code §431-456 

This blue booklet was a special version of the campaign finance laws 

published immediately after the passage of the 1976 Amendments to 

the FECA which included all language deleted as well as all language 

added by the 1976 Amendments. Included were the original Title 18 

provisions deleted from Title 18 by the 1976 Amendments and added 

to Title 2. This version did not include the sections of the FECA 

relating to public financing in connection with Presidential elections, 

which are codified in Title 26, United States Code. 

133 
Booklets (continued) Federal Election Campaign Laws, Compiled by the Federal Election 

Commission, including the "Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976," Public Law 94-283 {June 1976). 

This brown booklet is a complete compilation of Federal election 

campaign laws covering disclosure, campaign limitations and public 

financing, which reflects the 1976 changes in the law. There are three 

major sections: 

1. Text of "The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971" as 

amended by the FECA Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-443), and by 

the FECA Amendments of 1976 (P. L. 94-283), as codified in Titles 

2 and 26 of the United States Code; 

2. Text of additional provisions of the United States Code, not in the 

FECA or under the jurisdiction of the FEC, but which are relevant 

to persons involved with Federal elections; and 

3. Title 2 Index: A special index, prepared by the FEC, relating to the 

disclosure and limitations sections of the FECA codified in Title 2, 

but excluding the public financing provisions in Title 26. 

Bookkeeping and Reporting Manual for Candidates and Political 

Committees (2nd edition, june 1976). 

This booklet presents and explains a recommended method of bookkeeping to assist Federal candidates and politiCal committees in 

maintaining records required by the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

This edition has been updated to reflect the changes made by the FECA 

Amendments of 1974 and 1976. 

Clearinghouse Research Studies Currently Available 

Federal-State Election Law Survey: An Analysis of State Legislation, 

Federal Legislation, and Judicial Decisions: 

This quarterly report, issued under agreement with the American Law 

Division of the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service, 

compiles and summarizes all Federal and State legislation and litigation 

relating to elections. Each volume contains a State-by-State review and 

brief description of State supreme court, Federal court, and Supreme 

Court cases; and a digest of relevant Department of justice rulings, 

Internal Revenue Service rulings, and State Attorney General opinions. 

Analysis of Federal and State Campaign Finance Law; june 1975, Two 

Volumes. 

Issued under agreement with the American Law Division of the Library 

of Congress' Congressional Research Service, the first volume presents 

an overview of Federal and State campaign finance regulations followed 

by summaries of the campaign finance laws of the United States; each 

of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. 

The second volume contains five quick-reference charts highlighting 

significant provisions of Federal and State campaign finance law. The 

District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are also 

covered. 

134 
Clearinghouse Research 

Studies (continued) 

Appendix G 

Handbook of State Election Agencies and Election Officials, August 15, 

1976. 

This report, which will be updated periodically, provides a comprehensive State-by-State synopsis of which State election officials perform 

what election functions, a tabular presentation of these officials and 

functions, and a telephone and mailing address list of all key State and 

local election officials. 

An Analysis of Laws and Procedures Governing Absentee Registration 

and Absentee Voting in the United States. June 1975, Two volumes. 

Analyzes absentee registration and absentee voting in the SO States. 

Volume II provides legal memoranda of each State's absentee voting 

system and gives State code citations. · 

State and Local Government Expenditure for Election Administration: 

Fiscal Years 1970 to 1973. July 1975. A compilation of State and 

national expenditures for administration of elections. 

Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote Tallying. March 1975. 

A description of computer hardware, software, and administrative 

problems encountered in 14 electronically computed elections. The 

report suggests methods of insuring greater accuracy and security in the 

vote-tallying process. 

Studies Currently Underway 

The Qualification and Certification of Candidates for Federal Office: An 

Analysis of Laws and Procedures in the United States, August 1977. 

Each State has developed its own requirements, procedures, and time 

constraints for candidate entry into the political arena. These may vary 

even within each State by: 

o type of office being sought (Presidential, senatorial, congressional 

or delegate) 

o type of selection system (general election, primary election or 

convention) 

o status of candidate (major party, minor party, independent, or 

write-in) 

o administration or legal mechanisms for contest and appeal 

o filtering mechanisms (cash deposit, petitions, etc.) 

This study will provide a comprehensive analysis of the varying State 

Jaws and procedures relating to candidate certification. 

Voter Registration: An Analysis of the Implementation of State-Wide 

and State Mail Registration Systems, October 1977. 

A number of States have adopted State-wide registration as a means of 

standardizing procedures as well as ensuring against multiple registration 

by individuals in several jurisdictions. Other States (17) have adopted 

mail registration systems. This two-part project is designed to review the 

experiences of States which have adopted State-wide or mail systems in 

order to identify the problems which were encountered and which are 

likely to be encountered in certain legal, structural, or socio-economic 

settings. 

The products of this research will be general technical guidelines for 

implementing either State-wide or State mail registration systems with 

fairly detailed procedures for implementing State-wide systems. These 

products should, in turn, substantially reduce design costs at the State 

level and at the same time facilitate the process of transition by 

providing an analysis of pooled experience. 

135 
Clearinghouse Research 

Studies Currently Underway 

(continued) 

Voting Equipment 1976: A Guide for Administrators and Legislators, 

April 1977. 

This project, which is an update of a continuing service of reports on 

voting equipment, is a recognition of the need to provide detailed, 

unbiased information on voting systems to State and local election 

administrators and legislators. Many State and local election jurisdictions 

purchase voting systems with little or no thought given to whether these 

systems offer adequate vote security or if the voters can understand 

ballot choices presented to them. Similarly, State legislators often enact 

voting equipment legislation that is inadequate in terms of testing and 

approval procedures as well as in other areas. Often legislators and 

administrators turn to the vendors of voting equipment for information 

as there has been simply no place else to turn to for this information. 

The purpose of this project is to provide these critical data. 

The project is divided into two parts. The first, aimed at State 

legislative needs, is a State-by-State synopsis of voting equipment laws 

accompanied by suggested elements for inclusion in model State 

voting equipment legislation. The second part contains information on 

voting system procurement and contract procedures, vendors of voting 

equipment as well as detailed comparisons of the 14 voting systems 

currently being marketed in the United States. 

Contested Elections and Recounts: An Analysis of Laws and Procedures 

in the United States, October 1977. 

This project examines State legislation, regulations, standards, procedures and guidelines as they relate to election recounts. There is an 

enormous variation in standards, procedures and guidelines for recounting elections at the State level. Yet because the rapid and certain 

outcome of an election is essential to public confidence in the 

democratic process, State jidministrators and legislators are eager to 

establish laws and procedures which will provide the basis for an honest 

and expeditious resolution of challenged election outcomes. This study 

will compile the information needed for this effort. 

An Analysis of the Administration of Federal Bilingual Requirements by 

State and Local Elections Offices, March 1978. 

Many State and local election administrators have requested information 

on successful administrative procedures as they relate to implementation 

of bilingual amendments. Yet there is not, at present, any one source 

thes.e administrators can turn to for information nor is there much data 

on what State and local election jurisdictions have done in the way of 

implementing these requirements. The purpose of this study is to pull 

together the shared experiences of the affected State and local 

jurisdictions into a comprehensive report supplemented by an analysis 

of Federal financial and informational resources for use by State and 

local election administrators. 

Election Management: Budget Planning and Management Procedures for 

Local Election Offices, March 1978. 

Many election administrators have noted that new Federal legislation, 

regulation, and procedures as well as increased demands for voter 

services have put additional pressure on already limited election office 

budgets and staff. Yet, for a number of reasons, many of these same 

administrators have not adequately planned for these new contingencies. 

The purpose of this project is to provide management guidelines for 

State and local election administration to use in planning, budgeting and 

accounting for their election systems. 

136 
Appendix H 

Campaign Disclosure Documents in FEC Public Records 

1975-76: 459,916 pages of documents from: 

Candidates Political Committees Other Campaigns 

House 2,377 2,408 2,671 

Senate 415 460 

Pres. 230 234 (authorized) 

1 66 (unauthorized) 

246 

Party-Related 73 (National level) 

285 (State level) 

730 (Local level) 

Non-Party 

Related 1,295 

Independent 

Expenditures 139 

Delegate 199 

Communication 

Costs 38 

Totals 3,022 5,651 376 3,390 

Total Filers 9049 

1972-74: 806,381 pages of documents previously filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the 

Secretary of the Senate, or the General Accounting Office. 

137 

473 
Appendix I 

Biographic Data on Commissioners and Statutory Officers 

Vernon W. Thomson, Chairman Mr. Thomson, 70, the Commission's second chairman, was a Republican 

Member of Congress from Wisconsin from 1961-75. Before that, he was 

his State's Governor (1957-59), Attorney General (1951-57) and a 

member of the State legislature (1935-49). He holds a B.A. from the 

University of Wisconsin and is a graduate of its law school. He was 

originally appointed for five years and for three years when the 

Commission was reconstituted. 

Thomas E. Harris, Vice Chairman Presently Vice Chairman, Mr. Harris, 64, was associate general counsel 

to the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C., from 1955-75. He had held the 

same position with the CJO from 1948 until it merged with the AFL in 

1955. Prior to that he was an attorney in private practice and with 

various Government agencies. A native of Little Rock and a 1932 

graduate of the University of Arkansas, Mr. Harris is a 1935 graduate of 

Columbia University Law School, where he was on the Law Review and 

was a Kent Scholar. After graduation, he clerked one year for Supreme 

Court Justice Harlan F. Stone. He was originally appointed for four 

years and upon reconstitution received a three-year appointment. 

Joan D. Aikens At the time of her initial appointment, Joan Aikens was a vice president 

and account executive for LH/C (Lew Hodges/Communications) in 

Valley Forge, Pa. Aikens, 47, was president of the Pennsylvania Council 

of Republican Women while also a member of the board of directors of 

the National Federation of Republican Women from 1972-74. She was 

graduated from Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa., in 1950. She was 

originally appointed for one year and later for five years. 

William L. Springer Mr. Springer, an attorney by profession, served as State's Attorney of 

Champaign County, Illinois, 1940 to 1942. After military service in the 

Navy, he returned to Champaign, Illinois, and served as County Judge 

from 1946 to 1950. In 1950 he was elected to the 82nd Congress and 

reelected to each succeeding Congress from the 22nd Congressional 

District of Illinois until his retirement at the close of the 92nd 

Congress. President Nixon appointed him a Commissioner of the Federal 

Power Commission in 1973. He resigned in December 1975 and was 

appointed to the Federal Election Commission by President Ford in 

1976. Mr. Springer is a graduate of DePauw University and the 

University of Illinois Law School. He has received LL.D. degrees from 

Millikin University in 1953, Lincoln College in 1966, and DePauw 

University in 1972. 

138 
Neil 0. Staebler The Commission's first vice chairman, Mr. Staebler, 72, has been 

chairman of the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 

{1950-61 ), a member of the National Democratic Committee (1965-68 

and 1972-75), a one-term Member of the House (1963-65) and a 

gubernatorial candidate in 1964 against former Gov. {1963-69) George 

W. Romney, the incumbent. He served on President Kennedy's 

Commission on Campaign Financing in 1961 and was vice chairman of 

the 1970 Twentieth Century Task Force on Financing Congressional 

Campaigns. Currently the owner of a land development company, 

Staebler was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1926. 

Originally appointed for three years in 1975, he was reappointed upon 

reconstitution for a one-year term. 

Robert 0. Tiernan Mr. Tiernan served as a Democratic Member of Congress from Rhode 

Island for eight years, and prior to that as a State legislator for seven 

years. An attorney, he was born in Providence, Rhode Island, and is a 

graduate of Providence College and Catholic University Law School. Mr. 

Tiernan has been admitted to practice in all Federal courts, the State of 

Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. He has held various 

national and State party positions. Originally appointed for two years, 

he later received a five-year term. 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr. 

Ex Officio Members of 

the Commission 

Mr. Henshaw, an Ex Officio Member of the Commission, is currently 

serving as Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was elected 

Clerk on December 17, 1975, after serving as appointed Acting Clerk as 

of November 17, 1975. Prior to that he served as Director of the 

Democratic National Congressional Committee, from 1972-1975, and 

Research Director of the Democratic National Congressional Committee 

from 1955-72. He received a B.S. degree from the University of 

Maryland in 1954, attended George Washington University Law School 

from 1955-56. 

Francis R. Valeo Mr. Valeo, an Ex Officio Member of the Commission, was elected 

Secretary of the Senate in October 1966, and previously served as 

Secretary of the Senate Majority. In the 1950's, he was both Chief of 

the Foreign Affairs Division of the Library of Congress, and the Senior 

Specialist for the Library of Congress on International Relations, on 

loan to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is a native of 

Brooklyn, New York, and holds A.B. and M.A. degrees in Political 

Science from New York University. He is a co-author, with Ernest S. 

Griffith, of the 5th Edition of CONGRESS: Its Contemporary Role 

{1975). Secretary Valeo was one of the three Supervisory Officers under 

the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 

139 
Statutory Officers 

Orlando B. Potter - Staff Director Before joining the Commission, Mr. Potter was consultant to the 

Secretary of the U.S. Senate in the administration of campaign 

disclosure laws. Prior to that he was legislative assistant to U.S. Senator 

Claiborne Pell, and in 1968 was a candidate for the U.S. House of 

Representatives from New York. Mr. Potter previously was a Washington correspondent and editorial writer for the Providence (R.I.) Journal 

Bulletin. A 1950 graduate of Hamilton College, Mr. Potter also holds a 

Masters Degree -from Yale University. He received a Congressional Staff 

Fellowship from the American Political Science Association in 1970, 

and did graduate work in computer science at American University. 

John G. Murphy, Jr. - General 

Counsel, 1975-1976 

Mr. Murphy came to the Commission from the Georgetown University 

Law Center where he is a tenured Professor specializing in constitutional 

law. While on leave from Georgetown, Mr. Murphy advised the Faculty 

of Law of the Lebanese National University in Beirut for the Ford 

Foundation. Earlier he served as a consultant to OEO and HEW on 

developing legal services programs. The General Counsel graduated from 

Harvard in 1958 and from the Georgetown University Law Center in 

1961. He served as editor of the Georgetown Law Journal and, later, as 

law clerk to the then U.S. District Court of Appeals jadge Warren E. 

Burger. 

William C. Oldaker - General 

Counsel, 1977-

Mr. Oldaker began serving as General Counsel January 1, 1977, after 

being Assistant General Counsel for Compliance and Litigation since 

1975. A holder of B.A. and J.D. degrees from the University of Iowa, 

he also attended the Graduate School of Business at the University of 

Chicago. Prior to coming to the Commission, Mr. Oldaker served with 

the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. 

140 
Appendix J 

FEC and the Privacy and Freedom of Information Acts 

The Privacy Act The stated purposes of the Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) is to 

safeguard individuals against an invasion of privacy by Federal 

Government agencies. Under the provisions of this Act, the Commission 

is required to develop and publish its Systems of Records, and to 

publish regulations which outline procedures whereby an individual can 

determine whether a system of records contains information about that 

individual and how that individual may procure this information. 

Further, agencies are required to set out procedures for review of the 

record where an amendment or correction is sought by the individual. 

The Commission initially published its Systems of Records in the 

Federal Register on August 22, 1975 (40 F.R. 36875). The 

Commission, upon further review, revised and updated its systems, in 

order to incorporate larger categories of individuals, changes in 

equipment and information collected, as well as amendments to the 

FECA which occurred in May 1976. On December 14, 1976, the 

following systems were published in the Federal Register (41 F.R. 

45718): 

1. Requests for opinions and responses; 

2. Audits and investigations; 

3. Compliance actions; 

4. Public information mailing list; 

5. Personnel and travel; 

6. Candidate reports and designations; 

7. Certification for primary matching funds and general election 

campaign funds; 

8. Payroll records. 

Systems 2 and 7 were published in final. The other systems identified 

above were published for comment. System 4 is a new system which 

evolved as a result of the numerous requests we receive for information 

about the Commission's activities. System 8 has been in existence since 

the inception of the FEC but was inadvertently omitted from the initial 

publication. 

The Commission's regulations were published initially on August 22, 

1975, for comment (40 F.R. 36872). They were published in final on 

September 29, 1976 (41 F. R. 43064), and became effective on October 

29, 1976. 

Most of the information in the FEC record systems is regularly open for 

public review and examination, the exceptions being information 

contained in compliance and 3.udit and investigation files, personnel and 

payroll records. There is therefore, little need for the public to invoke 

the formal Privacy Act procedures to review records. 

141 
Freedom of Information Act The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, requires that 

Federal executive agencies make available for public review and 

dissemination certain information about the agencies' operations and its 

decision unless the information falls within nine specified categories. 

Much of the information maintained by the Commission is already 

subject to public review by statute or policy: the Commission must 

make available campaign financial disclosure reports filed by candidates 

and committees and other persons; advisory opinion requests and 

responses thereto; the result of any conciliation attempts in compliance 

actions, including any conciliation agreement entered into, and any 

determination by the Commission that no violation of the Act has 

occurred. As a matter of policy, the Commission also makes available 

minutes of its meetings, information requests for opinions and responses 

thereto; proposed regulations and comments thereto; and reports 

prepared by the General Counsel in compliance matters at the 

conclusion of a case. 

Because of the openness of this agency, requests under the Freedom of 

Information Act have been minimal. During 1976, there were only three 

or four requests which asked for information not already available, 

either by statute or policy decision. The Commission has appointed a 

Freedom of Information Act officer to coordinate all requests. 

<> U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 724-479/622 

142