Federal 

Election 

Commission 

Annual Report 1984 

Federal Election Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20463 
Commissioners 

John Warren McGarry, Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman 

Lee Ann Elliott 

Thomas E. Harris 

Danny L. McDonald 

Frank P. Reiche 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Jo-Anne L. Coe, Secretary of the Senate 

Benjamin J. Guthrie, Clerk of the House 

Statutory Officers 

John C. Surina, Staff Director 

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel 

The Annual Report 1984 was written and published by the 

Commission's Office of Publications. 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20463 

June 1, 1985 

The President of the United States 

The u.s. Senate 

The u.s. House of Representatives 

Dear Sirs: 

We submit for your consideration the tenth annual report 

of the Federal Election Commission, as required by the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. The 

Annual Report 1984 describes the activities performed by 

the Commission in carrying out its duties under the Act. 

It also includes a number of legislative recommendations 

adopted by the Commission in March 1985. 

McGarry 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Introduction 1 

Chapter 1 

The 1984 Presidential Elections 3 

Overview of the Public Funding Program 4 

Primary Matching Funds 5 

Convention Funding 7 

General Election Funding 7 

Audits 8 

Legallssues 9 

Chapter 2 

Administration of the Law 15 

Disclosing Campaign Finance Information 15 

Assisting Committees 17 

Clarifying the Law 19 

Monitoring the Law 20 

Enforcing the Law 21 

Legallssues 23 

Election Administration 29 

Chapter 3 

The Commission 31 

Commissioners 31 

Administrative Activities 31 

The Commission's Budget 32 

Personnel and Labor Relations 34 

Chapter 4 

Legislative Recommendations 35 

Appendices 

1. Biographies of Commissioners and 

Officers 49 

2. FEC Organization Chart 53 

3. Chronology of Events, 1984 55 

4. The FEC's Budget 59 

5. Statistics on Commission Operations 61 

6. Computer Indexes 65 

7. FEC Information Services 69 

8. Clearinghouse Studies 71 

9. FEC Federal Register Notices, 1984 73 
Introduction 

Predominant among the Federal Election Commission's activities in 1984, its tenth year of 

operation, was the administration of the Presidential public funding program, the third in the Nation's history. The agency's supervision of the 

1984 public financing program is described in 

Chapter 1, along with the legal issues that developed in this area. 

In response to the growing interest in campaign 

finance information, the Commission launched a 

new program for sharing its computerized data 

base with several State election offices throughout the country. For the first time, researchers 

outside Washington, D.C. had direct access to a 

wealth of information on Federal campaign 

finance by means of computer terminals located 

in State election offices. This project is described 

in Chapter 2, which reports on 1984 activities 

related to the Commission's administration of the 

campaign finance law. The chapter also examines 

the non-Presidential legal issues that were resolved during the year. 

In 1984, the Commission, the General Services 

Administration and the Congress all agreed that 

the agency should seek new quarters to resolve 

safety and operational problems experienced in 

its current building. Additional funds were appropriated to relocate the agency during fiscal 

year 1985. Total funding for the fiscal year was 

established at $12,900,000, of which $1,155,000 

was earmarked for the move (both one-time costs 

and the estimated rent increase). Both the 

agency's budget and relocation are discussed in 

Chapter 3. The Commission's recommendations 

for legislative change are listed in Chapter 4. 

Several appendices supplement material in the 

first three chapters. 
3 

Chapter 1 

The 1984 

Presidential Elections 

The 1984 matching fund program was noteworthy 

in several respects. President Reagan, the first 

publicly funded candidate to run unopposed in 

the Presidential primaries, was also the first 

primary candidate who raised enough matchable 

contributions to qualify for the maximum amount 

of matching funds- $10.1 million. (The maximum 

entitlement is half of the national spending limit 

for the primary campaign - $10 million adjusted 

by a cost-of-living increase. In 1984, the cost-ofliving adjustment brought the spending limit to 

$20.2 million; the maximum entitlement was 

therefore $10.1 million.)1 

Sonia Johnson became the first third party candidate to qualify for primary matching funds.2 

Although in 1980 John Anderson received public 

funds as a third party candidate, the funding was 

for his general election campaign. He received 

primary matching funds as a Republican Party 

candidate in the 1980 Presidential primaries. 

Another "first" in the 1984 matching fund program was the Commission's initial refusal to 

qualify a candidate for matching funds because 

he had failed to uphold an agreement signed with 

respect to a previous election. On January 26, 

1984, the agency rejected Lyndon LaRouche's 

eligibility for primary matching funds because of 

his failure to honor an agreement he had signed to 

qualify for 1980 matching funds. To become eligible for public funds, a candidate must agree to 

repay public funds to the U.S. Treasury, if 

necessary,3 and to pay any civil penalties included in a conciliation agreement entered into with 

the Commission because of legal violations. 

When the Commission first considered Mr. 

LaRouche's 1984 eligibility, he had failed to 

uphold the 1980 agreement on both accounts. 4 In 

response to the Commission's initial determination, Mr. LaRouche repaid 1980 public funds and 

1See the table on spending limits, page 8. 

2See "Third Party Candidates," page 10. 

3See "Audits," page 8, for an explanation of when 

repayments are required. 

4Utigation concerning the payment of the civil penalty is 

discussed on page 22. 
4 

also paid the outstanding civil penalty incurred by 

his 1980 campaign. The Commission then certified his eligibility for 1984 matching funds in 

April. 

This chapter opens with an overview of how 

public funding works and describes operational 

improvements to the program. The chapter goes 

on to discuss the public funding programs for the 

primaries, conventions and general election, and 

concludes with a discussion of current legal 

issues related to Presidential elections. 

Overview of the Public Funding 

Program 

The major elements of the public financing program have remained largely the same since the 

first publicly financed Presidential elections in 

1976. Basically, public funding encompasses: 

• Primary matching funds for Presidential primary candidates who have broad-based 

public support; 

• Federal grants to sponsor Presidential 

nominating conventions of political parties; 

and 

• Full public funding for the general election 

campaigns of major party nominees and partial financing of qualified minor and new party nominees. 

The financing for the public funding program 

comes from the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund. This Fund consists of dollars checked off 

by taxpayers on their Federal income tax returns. 

The checkoff neither increases the amount of 

taxes owed nor decreases anv refund due. 

As the agency assigned to administer the 

public funding program, the Commission first 

determines whether those requesting Federal 

funds qualify to receive them by meeting the law's 

eligibility requirements. The agency then certifies 

the funds to the candidate or nominating convention committee. The U.S. Treasury makes the actual payments from the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund. Under the law, the Commission 

also audits public funding recipients to ensure 

that Federal funds are spent in accordance with 

the law's requirements. 

Revised Regulations 

To provide fuller guidance to public funding recipients, the Commission revised its regulations on 

public financing. The revised rules, prescribed in 

1983, clarify provisions that had caused uncertainty in the past and incorporate procedures and 

policies that the Commission had developed in 

previous elections. (For a summary of the revised 

rules, see the Annual Report 1983, pages 59-62.) 

Assistance to Campaigns 

Like the regulatory revisions, the Commission's 

outreach program for 1984 campaigns broadened 

the scope of available information. Three FEC publications were revised and expanded: the Guideline for Presentation in Good Order, a guide for 

Presidential primary candidates seeking public 

funds, and the Financial Control and Compliance 

Manuals for publicly funded candidates, one 

directed to primary campaigns and another addressed to general election campaigns. Updated 

Presidential reporting forms also aided the 1984 

campaigns. Finally, the agency continued to provide personal assistance by designating an 

auditor for each campaign. From the earliest 

stages of the campaign, the auditors were available to answer questions and offer guidance. 

GAO Staff Assistance 

Because auditors participate in every phase of the 

public funding program - reviewing matching 

fund submissions and conducting mandated audits - the audit workload increases dramatically 

during a Presidential election year. To meet this 

need for more personnel, without significantly increasing permanent audit staff, the Commission 

hired temporary part-time clerks to help auditors 

in the matching fund process and, for the first 

time, turned to the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) for assistance. GAO support allowed the 
5 

Commission to shoulder public funding responsibilities in the most cost-efficient way possible. 

GAO provided ten auditors temporarily assigned to the Commission on a nonreimbursable 

basis - five, from April through December 1984, 

a,nd five more, from December 1984 through June 

1985. GAO personnel performed well, and their 

contribution was critical to the successful execution of the public funding program for the 1984 

elections. Further, the interagency detail precluded the need for additional funding to cover increased staff costs and administrative expenses 

associated with expanding staff and then cutting 

back after the public funding program winds 

down. 

Primary Matching Funds 

Partial public financing is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of Federal 

matching payments. Candidates seeking nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive 

matching funds by showing broa~-based public 

support: A candidate must raise over $5,000 in 

each of 20 States (i.e., over $100,000). Although an 

individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a 

primary candidate, only a maximum of $250 per 

contributor applies toward the $5,000 threshold in 

a State. 

Primary candidates seeking matching funds 

must also agree to limit national spending for all 

primary elections to $10 million (increased each 

election cycle by a cost-of-living adjustment).5 

Moreover, candidates must limit spending in each 

State to a specified amount. 

Once they have qualified for matching funds, 

candidates may receive public funds to match contributions from individual contributors, up to $250 

per individual. The individual contributions must be 

in the form of a check or other negotiable written instrument. Even if candidates are no longer actively 

campaigning in primary elections, they may continue to request matching funds to pay off campaign debts until early in the year following the election. The maximum amount of matching funds a 

candidate may receive is limited to half of the 

overall spending ceiling. 

Certification of Matching Funds 

By March 29, 1985, the Commission had certified 

$36,513,809 to the eleven Presidential primary 

candidates who qualified for Federal matching 

funds. Once eligible, candidates could request 

funds twice a month in one of two ways: Either 

through a matching fund submission6 or, during 

the election year, by letter request - an innovation to streamline the matching fund process in 

1984. 

A letter request merely specifies the amount of 

matchable contributions a campaign raised since 

its last submission and includes bank documentation, such as validated deposit slips, to show 

that the campaign actually received and 

deposited the contributions. The campaign's next 

matching fund request must be a fully documented submission covering contributions in the 

letter request and those received afterwards. Only 

eligible candidates may submit letter requests; 

once ineligible/ candidates may nevertheless 

continue to make full matching fund submissions 

to retire campaign debts incurred before becoming ineligible and to defray certain winding down 

expenses of the campaign. 

As the Commission had anticipated, letter requests greatly reduced the number of full matching fund submissions (which require substantial 

5See the table on spending limits, page 8. 

6A full matchinq fund submission contains: 1) a list of 

matchable contributions, including the amount of each contribution and each contributor's name and address; 2) a 

photocopy of each check (or other written instrument); 3) supporting bank documentation showing that the funds were 

deposited; and 4) a list of non payable contributions (e.Q.• insufficient funds in the donor's account). Matchable contnbutions 

must be submitted in accordance with the Commission's 

Guideline far Presentation in Good Order. 

7A candidate becomes ineligible if he or she ceases to 

campaign actively in more than one State or if the candidate 

receives less than 10 percent of the popular votes cast for all 

the Presidential candidates of the same party in two consecutive primary elections. 
6 

processing time) while ensuring matching fund 

payments twice a month. 

At the request of several campaigns, the Commission extended the cutoff date for matching 

fund submissions from January 28 to February 28, 

1985. Campaign staff explained that they had 

engaged in significant fundraising activity during 

December 1984 to retire campaign debts. (Contributions submitted for matching funds must be 

deposited by December 31 of the election year.) 

They anticipated, based on past experience, that 

preparation of matching fund submissions for 

December contributions would require two 

months' processing time. For this reason, the 

Commission granted the extension to the original 

requesters and made the extension available to 

other campaigns, upon written request. 

As in the 1980 matching fund program, the 

Commission used· a statistical sampling technique to see if the matching fund submissions 

contained proper documentation verifying that 

the contributions were matchable. To conduct 

statistical sampling, the Commission first 

entered into the computer information taken from 

matching fund submissions. This process was 

considerably facilitated by the committees 

themselves, which provided the Commission with 

magnetic tapes containing data on their submissions. 

The Commission found that submissions from 

1984 campaigns had a very small percentage of 

errors, with the result that campaigns received, on 

the average, 97.3 percent of the matching funds 

they requested, while 1980 campaigns received, 

on the average, 90 percent. The agency attributed 

the significant improvement over 1980 submissions to the greatly expanded Guideline for 

Presentation in Good Order, which addressed difficulties encountered by previous campaigns. The 

table below presents information on the matching 

fund activity of 1984 Presidential candidates (as 

of March 29, 1985). 

Table I 

Matching Fund Activity of 1984 Primary 

Candidates 

Candidate 

Matching 

Funds 

Requested 

Donors of 

Matchable 

Contributions 

Matching 

Funds 

Certified 

Reubin Askew $ 986,655 6,013 $ 975,901 

Alan Cranston 2,157,879 40,647 2,113,736 

John Glenn 3,347,866 34,987 3,325,383 

Gary Hart 5,546,708 123,380 5,328,467 

Ernest Hollings 833,735 6,486 821,600 

Jesse Jackson 3,128,176 87,144 3,053,185 

Sonia Johnson 197,022 5,672 193,735 

Lyndon LaRouche 501,215 5,297 494,146 

George McGovern 634,829 17,314 612,735 

Walter Mondale 9,819,910 203,772 9,494,921 

Ronald Reagan 10,421,010 255,465 10,100,000 

Totals $37,575,006 786,177 $36,513,809 

Campaign Finance Information on Primary 

Candidates 

Responsive to the public's need for immediate 

and accurate information, the Commission 

released financial data on 1984 Presidential 

primary candidates through a two-step process. 

Presidential Campaign Summary Reports, issued 

within 10 days after the Presidential monthly 

reports were filed, were designed to give an 

overall picture of Presidential primary activity as 

quickly as possible. The Reports listed amounts 

raised and spent by each Presidential campaign 

with financial activity exceeding $100,000. Included in the Reports were total receipts for a campaign and the sources of those receipts (e.g., 

matching funds, loans, contributions). The 

Reports also listed a campaign's expenditures 

subject to the overall spending limit and 

disbursements for legal and accounting services. 

(Legal and accounting expenses incurred solely 
7 

to ensure compliance with the law are exempt 

from expenditure limits.) All information was adjusted for repayments of loans and offsets to 

operating expenditures, giving the press and the 

public the most accurate representation of campaign activity possible. 

As a second step, the Commission published 

the Interim Reports on Financial Activity for 

Presidential primary campaigns. While not as 

timely as the Summary Reports, the Interim 

Reports contained more detailed and refined information. The Commission released them only 

after verifying the data. The 1984 series included, 

for the first time, tables showing various 

categories of campaign receipts for each reporting period. Researchers could analyze how the 

sources of campaign money varied as the campaign progressed. The financial tables showed, 

besides the sources of funds, the distribution of 

large and small contributions; the amount of 

money received from political action committees 

(PACs); expenditures allocated to the spending 

limits for particular States; independent expenditures made by individuals and committees for 

and against the candidates; and expenditures for 

internal communications made by corporations 

and unions in support of and against the candidates. 

Convention Funding 

Each major political party may request public 

funds to finance the national convention held to 

nominate its Presidential candidate. However, the 

party may not spend more than the public funding 

grants A qualified minor party may become eligible for partial convention funding based on its 

Presidential candidate's share of the popular vote 

in the preceding general election. No minor party 

has yet sought to qualify for convention funding. 

Since a major party may receive a public funding grant in the year preceding the convention, the 

Commission, in June 1983, certified Federal funds 

to the Democratic and Republican Parties. Each 

party received $5.871 million for its convention 

committee, representing the statutorily prescrib· 

ed grant of $3 million increased by the 1982 costof-living adjustment. In February 1984, when 

figures became available for the 1983 cost-ofliving adjustment, the Commiss-ion certified 

$189,000 more to each party. 

On July 11,1984, President Reagan signed a bill 

(Pub. L. 98-335) that increased the public funding 

grant for the Presidential conventions from $3 

million to $4 million (26 U.S.C. Section 9008). 

Members supporting the measure in the House 

and Senate floor debates pointed out that the extra funding would replace discontinued Federal 

grants from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which had subsidized police and 

security services for host cities of past conventions. The day after the bill was signed, the Commission certified an additional $2.020 million to 

each party, bringing total funding for each convention to $8.080 million ($4 million plus the costof-living adjustment). The Commission also 

amended its regulations to conform with the 

statutory increase in convention funding (11 CFR 

9008.1(a) and 9008.3(a)). The technical amendments became effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register in July 1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 30461). 

The 1984 Democratic nominating convention 

was held in San Francisco, California, July 16-20, 

and the Republican convention took place in 

Dallas, Texas, August 20-24. 

General Election Funding 

Of the 17 Presidential candidates representing 

numerous political parties on the 1984 general 

election ballot in several States throughout the 

country, only the two major party nominees 

received Federal financing. Under the law, the 

Presidential nominee of each major party is entitled to full public financing for the general election campaign. Nominees accepting public funds 

must limit spending to the amount of the grant 8See the table on spending limits, page 8. 
8 

(see the table on spending limits, below). 

However, private funds, subject to contribution 

limits, may be raised for legal and accounting 

costs incurred to comply with the campaign 

finance law. 

The Commission approved funding for Walter 

Mondale, the Democratic nominee, on July 26, 

1984, and for President Ronald Reagan, the 

Republican nominee, on August 27. Unlike the 

public grant for party nominating conventions, the 

statutory entitlement for major party nominees 

has remained at $20 million (adjusted for inflation) 

since the law was enacted. 

Table II 

Presidential Spending Limits as Increased by 

Cost-of-Living Adjustments 

Audits 

The campaign finance law requires the Commission to audit all public funding recipients to ensure that Federal funds are spent in compliance 

with the law. Commission staff conduct on-site 

audits at the campaign headquarters of the 

Presidential candidates and at the location of the 

party convention committees. The auditors write 

reports on their findings, which are reviewed by 

legal staff and then considered for approval by the 

Commissioners. Once approved, the final audit 

report is released to the public. 

COLA* 

Unadjusted 

Limit 

- 9.1% 

1976 

47.2% 

1980 

102% 

1984 

Primary Election 

Limit** $10 million $10.9 million $14.7 million $20.2 million 

General Election 

Limit $20 million $21.8 million $29.4 million $40.4 million 

Party Convention 

Limit 

1976 

1980 

1984 

$2 million 

$3 million 

$4 million 

$2.2 million 

$4.4 million 

$8.1 million 

*COLA means the cost-of-living adjustment, which the Department of Labor annually calculates using 1974 as the base year. 

**Primary candidates receiving matching funds must comply with two types of spending limits: A national limit (listed in the 

above table) and a separate limit for each State. The State llmit is $200,000 or 16 cents multiplied by the State's voting age popula· 

tion, whichever is greater. (Both amounts are adjusted for increases in the cost of living.) The maximum amount of primary matching 

funds a candidate may receive is half of the national spending limit. 
9 

Table Ill 

Party Spending Limit for 

Presidential Nominee 

Formula 1976 1980 1984 

VAP* - 146.8 million 157.5 million 171.4 million 

COLA** - 9.1% 47.2% 102% 

General Election 

Limit*** 

2 cents x VAP, 

adjusted by 

COLA 

$3.2 million $4.6 million $6.9 million 

*Voting age population of United States. 

• • Cost-of-living adjustment. 

* • • Limit applies to expenditures made by the national committee of a political party on behalf of its nominee in the general elec· 

tion, regardless of whether the nominee receives public funding. The expenditures are sometimes called "coordinated party expenditures" or "441a(d) expenditures." They are not considered contributions and ~o not count against a publicly funded candidate's 

expenditure limit. 

The law requires that a campaign or convention 

committee repay public funds to the U.S. Treasury 

if audit findings show, for example, that: 

• The amount of public funds exceeded the 

amount to which the recipient was entitled; 

• Spending limits were exceeded; 

• Public funds were used for nonqualified campaign expenses; 

• Surplus funds remained after debts and obligations had been paid; 

• Interest was €1arned on invested funds; or 

• Spending of public funds was not sufficiently 

documented. 

Presidential candidates and convention committees may appeal a repayment determination 

and, under a 1983 revision to FEC regulations, candidates may also be granted an oral hearing by 

the Commission. In 1984, the Commission revised 

its formula for determining repayments.9 

As prescribed by law, the agency audited publicly funded campaigns in 1984 and will complete 

the audit reports in 1985. As circumstances warrant, the Commission will issue addenda to 

reports based on follow-up audit fieldwork or 

repayment determinations. 

Legal Issues 

During 1984, several legal issues related to the 

Presidential elections were the subject of court 

cases, FEC advisory opinions (AOs)10 and, in one 

instance, a closed compliance case. 11 This sec10Advisory opinions are issued to persons who raise ques· 

tions about the application of the law or Commission regula· 

tions to a specific activity that the requesting person proposes 

to undertake. Any person who requests an advisory opinion 

and acts in accordance with the opinion is not subject to any 

sanctions under the law. The opinion may also be relied upon 

by another person involved in an activity "indistinguishable in 

all its material aspects" from the activity discussed in the ad· 

visory opinion. 2 U.S.C. Section 437f(c). See also page 19. 11 Compliance cases, referred to as Matters Under Review 

or MURs, stem from possible violations of the campaign 

finance law that come to the Commission's attention through formal complaints filed with the Commission, through referrals from other government agencies or as a result of the Com· 

mission's own monitoring procedures. The campaign finance 

law requires that investigations remain confidential until the 

Commission makes a final determination and the case is 

closed. At that point, the case file is made available to the 

9see "Rep~yment of Public Funds," page 13. public. See also page 21. 
10 

tion discusses these issues - first, those dealing 

with primary candidates, then questions pertaining to general election activity and, finally, the 

repayment of public funds. 

Third Party Candidates 

Two Presidential primary candidates seeking 

nomination by non-major political parties asked 

the Commission's advice concerning matching 

funds. 

Eligibility Requirements. In AO 1983-47 (issued in 

1984), the Commission said that Sonia Johnson, 

as a candidate of the Citizens Party, satisfied the 

requirement that a candidate seek nomination by 

a "political party." The principal question addressed in the opinion was whether the Citizens 

Party qualified as a political party, as defined 

under FEC regulations. The Commission decided 

that the Citizens Party met the definition of 

political party because it was planning to hold a 

nominating convention in 1984 and had a record 

of political activity. Since 1980, Citizens Party 

candidates had entered 169 races in 24 States. 

Dennis Serrette also asked whether he would 

meet the eligibility requirement discussed in the 

above opinion. In AO 1984-11, the Commission 

said that, in seeking nomination as the 1984 

Presidential candidate of several independent 

parties organized in different States, Mr. Serrette 

satisfied the requirement that a candidate seek 

nomination by a political party "in more than one 

State." 

Matching Payment Period. In that same opinion 

and in another opinion requested by Sonia 

Johnson (AO 1984-25), the Commission clarified 

when the matching payment period ended in the 

case of third party candidates. Under the campaign finance law, qualified campaign expenses 

for the primary - payable with matching funds -

may be incurred during the matching payment 

period, that is, the period during which the candidate retains his or her eligibility status. Once a 

candidate becomes ineligible, 12 the matching payment period ends and the candidate may receive 

matching funds only for outstanding primary 

debts incurred before the ineligibility date and for 

certain expenses associated with winding down 

the campaign. In the case of a major party candidate who remains eligible throughout the 

primaries, the matching payment period ends on 

the last day of the national nominating convention held by the candidate's party. 

In the opinion requested by Mr. Serrette, AO 

1984-11, the Commission said that, assuming he 

qualified for matching funds and remained an 

eligible candidate, his matching payment period 

would end on the earlier of two dates: the date of 

his last nomination for the Presidency by a State 

political party or on the last day of the later major 

party convention (i.e., the Republican convention, 

which ended August 24). 

The request concerning Ms. Johnson explained 

that she was seeking not only the nomination of 

the Citizens Party, but also the nomination of two 

State political parties, all holding separate conventions. In its response, AO 1984-25, the Commission stated that Ms. Johnson's matching payment period would end on the date of the last convention held by the political parties, provided this 

convention was held no later than the last day of 

the Republican convention. 

Ballot Access Costs. In both opinions (AOs 

1984-11 and 1984-25), the Commission also concluded that expenses associated with gaining access to the general election ballot would be 

qualified campaign expenses of a primary campaign if incurred within the matching payment 

period. As qualified campaign expenses, they 

would be payable with matching funds. The Commission recognized that, in the case of third party 

candidates, efforts to qualify for a position on the 

general election ballot are similar in purpose to 

12See footnote 7, page 5, for an explanation of when a 

candidate becomes ineligible. 
11 

seeking nomination in a primary election or other 

nominating process. 

Delegate Committees 

On November 29, the Commission closed the file 

on MUR 1704, a compliance case that received national attention.13 Two separate complaints, later 

consolidated, alleged that the committee of a 

1984 Presidential primary candidate receiving 

matching funds (the Presidential Committee) and 

well over 100 delegate committees were affiliated 

under the campaign finance law. The delegate 

committees supported individuals who favored 

the Presidential candidate and who were seeking 

selection as delegates to the Democratic national 

convention. The complaints stated that the 

Pr~sidential Committee encouraged and advised 

the individuals to form committees and coordinated their operations. 

Under the law, expenditures made by committees affiliated with a Presidential committee 

count against the spending limit imposed on the 

candidate, as a recipient of matching funds. The 

complainants alleged that aggregate expenditures by the delegate committees and the 

Presidential Committee caused the candidate to 

exceed public funding spending limits. Moreover, 

because affiliated committees share a collective 

contribution limit, the complainants further contended that combined contributions to the 

Presidential Committee and the delegate con:Jmittees from the same donors exceeded the law's 

limits. 

The Commission, finding reason to believe the 

Presidential Committee had exceeded the contribution and expenditure limits by virtue of its affiliation with the delegate committees, began a 

preliminary investigation. In the interest of resolving the matter, the Presidential Committee sought 

to enter into a conciliation agreement. For purposes of the agreement, the Presidential Committee agreed to treat the delegate committees as its 

affiliates. 

By the terms of the agreement, effective 

November 29, 1984, the Presidential Committee 

had to pay $350,000 to the U.S. Treasury, an 

amount representing an estimate of the excessive 

contributions received by the Committee and the 

delegate committees. Because aggregate spending by the Committee and its affiliates exceeded 

the spending limit in New Hampshire, the Committee also agreed to repay to the Treasury 

$29,640 in matching funds. Finally, the agreement 

included an $18,500 civil penalty for the Committee's violations of the law. Total payments 

stipulated in the agreement amounted to 

$398,140. 

Commissioners Frank P. Reiche and Joan D. 

Aikens voted against the conciliation agreement. 

Restrictions on Expenditures (26 U.S.C. §9012(f)) 

Section 9012(f) of the Presidentral Election Campaign Fund Act (26 U.S.C.) places a limit on campaign expenditures by political committees to further the election of a publicly financed candidate 

during the Presidential general election. Several 

political action committees (PACs) have challenged the provision, arguing that Section 9012(f) is 

an unconstitutional violation of their free speech 

rights under the First Amendment. In defense of 

the statute, the Commission has stated that Section 9012(f) is an integral part of the public financing scheme and serves compelling governmental 

interests. 

In September 1980, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia ruled that Section 9012(f) 

was unconstitutional, as applied to the expenditures of three PACs that had planned on independently spending millions of dollars on 

behalf of 1980 Presidential nominee Ronald 

Reagan. The Commission appealed this decision 

to the Supreme Court.14 1n January 1982, the Court 

13A court case arising from this MUR, Hettinga v. FEC, is 

summarized on page 22. 

14Under 26 U.S.C. Section 9011(b), three-judge court actions brought pursuant to that provision may be directly appealed to the Supreme Court. 
12 

voted 4 to 4 on the issue, thus affirming the lower 

court decision, with Justice Sandra O'Connor not 

participating. However, because a matter decided 

by an equally divided Court has no precedential 

value, the constitutionality of Section 9012(f) remained unresolved. 

The debate over Section 9012(f) resumed in May 

1983, when the Democratic Party filed suit in the 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of Pennsylvania claiming that two PACs were planning 

to make expenditures, again on behalf of 

Presidential nominee Ronald Reagan, in violation 

of the provision. The Commission intervened, 

seeking dismissal of the suit. One of the agency's 

arguments was that it had exclusive primary 

jurisdiction over civil enforcement. At the same 

time, the Commission filed its own suit against 

the same PACs, the National Conservative 

Political Action Committee (NCPAC) and the Fund 

for a Conservative Majority (FCM). The agency 

asked a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania 

district court to declare that Section 9012(f) prohibited the two PACs from making expenditures 

in excess of $1,000 on behalf of the Republican 

nominee. The Commission also asked the court to 

rule that Section 9012(f) was constitutional. 

On December 12, 1983, the Pennsylvania 

district court issued a decision in the consolidated cases filed by the FEC and the 

Democratic Party (FEC v. NCPAC and Democratic 

Party of the U.S. v. NCPAC). The court ruled that 

Section 9012(f) does prohibit such expenditures, 

but that it is unconstitutional. The court based its 

decision on the Supreme Court's 1976 opinion in 

Buckley v. Valeo (which dealt with various constitutional challenges to key provisions of the 

campaign finance law). 

The Commission and the Democratic Party appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which 

accepted the case but declined to rule on it before 

the November election. The Court heard oral argumenton November 28, 1984, but had not handed 

down a decision by the end of 1984.15 

Payment of Disputed Claim 

The city of Cupertino, California paid $16,812 in 

security and protection services for a Reagan-Bush 

'84 campaign rally held in the city. When billed for 

these services, the Presidential committee contended that it had not authorized the· expense and, 

for that reason, was precluded from paying it under 

the campaign finance law. (An unauthorized ex- · 

pense is not considered a "qualified campaign expense," payable with public funds.) The mayor of 

Cupertino asked the Commission if this was, in 

fact, the case. 

In AO 1984-58, the agency said that whether the 

city had a valid legal claim for payment of the 

disputed debt was a factual and legal question 

outside the Commission's jurisdiction. Because, 

however, the services were provided in connection with a campaign event, and because both the 

event and the billing date were within the expenditure report period (during which a qualified campaign expense may be incurred), the Commission 

said that the committee could pay the debt as a 

qualified campaign expense but was not required 

to pay it under the campaign finance Jaw. 

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens dissented from 

AO 1984-58 because she believed the Presidential 

committee could pay the debt only if the committee had authorized the expense during the expenditure report period. Otherwise, the statute would 

preclude payment. 

Party's Presidential Advertisements 

AO 1984-15 concerned the timing of coordinated 

party expenditures - those expenditures that a 

party's national committee may make on behalf of 

the party's Presidential nominee in the general 

election. Coordinated party expenditures are not 

considered contributions to the candidate (Which, 

150n March 18, 1985, shortly before this Report went to 

press, the Supreme Court issued its decision, finding Section 

9012(f) unconstitutional. 
13 

in the case of a publicly funded nominee, would 

be prohibited); nor are they considered expenditures by the Presidential campaign (i.e., they do 

not count against the campaign's expenditure 

limit). Instead, coordinated party expenditures are 

subject to a separate limit applicable to the 

political party that makes them. 16 

The Commission said that expenditures by the 

Republican National Committee (RNC) for television ads aired before the major parties selected 

their nominees would be coordinated party expenditures on behalf of the Republican Party's eventual Presidential nominee. The Commission explained that the RNC's national television ads -

which challenged the positions and record of a 

Democratic Presidential contender and concluded with the statement "Vote Republican" - clearly advocated the election of the yet-to-be-determined Republican candidate and thus sought to 

influence the outcome of the general election. 

Because of this, the expenditures would have to 

be characterized as either in-kind contributions to 

the eventual Republican nominee - not permissible if he accepted public funds - or coordinated 

party expenditures on his behalf, which the Act 

refers to as expenditures made "in connection 

with the general election campaign." 

Repayment of Public Funds 

A 1984 appeals court ruling on the repayment of 

matching funds by two 1980 Presidential campaigns caused the Commission to revise its 

regulations governing the repayment of public 

funds. 

On May 15, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit, in Kennedy for 

President Committee v. FEC, reversed the Commission's determination concerning repayment of 

1980 matching funds by the Kennedy Committee. 

The same day, in a separate suit, the court also 

vacated an FEC repayment determination made 

with regard to the 1980 matching funds certified 

to the Reagan campaign (Reagan for President 

Committee v. FEC). 

In their suits, the 1980 Kennedy and Reagan 

campaigns had challenged the repayment formula contained in Commission regulations, 

which required repayment of the entire amount of 

nonqualified campaign expenses17 incurred by a 

campaign, including those paid with private contributions. The campaigns argued that the campaign finance law required the repayment of only 

the portion of nonqualified campaign expenses 

paid with matching funds. 

Finding in favor of the Presidential committees, 

the appeals court held that the Commission's 

statutory authority limited the agency's repayment determinations to a reasonable estimate of 

the amount of Federal funds used for nonqualified campaign expenses. However, the court 

did not dictate the repayment formula to be used. 

To make its regulations I consistent with the 

court's ruling, the Commission drafted revised 

regulations governing repayment of public funds 

(11 CFR Parts 9007 and 9038). The scope of these 

proposed regulations is broader than that of the 

court's decision. The draft rules apply, not only to 

primary campaign repayments, but also to minor 

and new party candidates receiving partial public 

funding in their general election campaigns and 

to major party nominees who accept private contributions because there is a deficiency in the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The revised 

repayment formula is based on the ratio of 

Federal funds certified to the candidate to total 

funds (both contributions and Federal funds) 

deposited by the candidate's committee. The proposed rules were published in the Federal 

Register in August 1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 33225) and 

were submitted to Congress later that month. 

However, because 30 legislative days had not accrued before the 98th Congress adjourned, the 

46See the table on party spending limits, page 9. 

17Nonqualified campaign expenses include expenses 

unrelated to the campaign, certain expenditures made before 

or after candidacy and expenditures exceeding the limits for 

publicly funded campaigns. 
14 

Commission did not prescribe the rules but will 

resubmit them in 1985. 

Even though the amended regulations were not 

prescribed, the Commission recalculated the 

Reagan and Kennedy repayments based on the 

new formula. As a result, the Commission refunded part of the 1980 Reagan campaign's repayment 

and reduced the amount owed by the Kennedy 

campaign. 

The Commission decided not to reconsider 

repayment determinations it had made with 

regard to five other 1980 primary campaigns that 

had incurred nonqualified campaign expenses. In 

support of the finality of those determinations, 

the agency's General Counsel cited the legal principle of claim preclusion: "It is a long-standing 

legal principle that a party who has had a chance 

to litigate a claim before a proper tribunal ought 

not to have another chance to do so." Moreover, 

in the case of two campaigns which had, like the 

Kennedy and Reagan campaigns, challenged the 

Commission's repayment determinations in 

court, but lost, the General Counsel noted that 

"there is a substantial question as to whether the 

Commission is free to alter the decision[s] reached by the Court of Appeals." Finally, the General 

Counsel pointed out the impracticality of altering 

the FEC's decision since several campaign committees had terminated. One of the committees 

affected, the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee, filed an appeal that had not been decided 

by the end of 1984. 
15 

Chapter 2 

Administration of the Law 

Two developments stand out in the Commission's 

overall administration of the campaign finance 

law. First, the agency began a pilot project in 

seven cities giving residents direct access to FEC 

data through local computer terminals. Second, 

1984 court decisions and Commission advisory 

opinions clarified the law, particularly the provisions affecting the activities of corporations and 

labor organizations and candidates' receipt and 

use of campaign funds. 

Disclosing Campaign Finance 

Information 

Each major reporting period, thousands of campaign finance reports flow into the Commission. 1 

As required by law, the Commission makes 

copies of reports available to the public within 48 

hours, frequently within 24 hours, and promptly indexes these documents in its data base. In carrying out this mandate, the agency issues press 

releases on the campaign finance activities of 

candidates and committees and provides detailed 

listings of data in a variety of computerized formats (see Appendix 6). Further, the Commission 

publishes comprehensive studies on each election cycle in its Reports on Financial Activity 

series. 

All this is possible through the use of computer 

programs that organize data, which are taken 

directly from reports and then entered into the 

Commission's data base. The Commission emphasizes the importance of maintaining a data 

base that is accurate, complete and current. 

The agency preserves the accuracy of the data 

base through a series of internal controls. Trained 

coders highlight information on reports that will 

be entered into the data base, clarifying any ambiguities or illegible entries. The coded reports 

are then turned over to contracted keypunchers. 

Each item is separately entered by two individuals 

as a way of catching errors. Finally, senior computer staff examine the entire data base searching for and correcting inconsistencies between 

files. 

As to the completeness of the data base, the 

Commission captures, in addition to summary 

data, many of the detailed transactions reported. 

Moreover, the data base cross references the 

sources and beneficiaries of funds. In this way, 

for example, an independent expenditure, which 

is reported only by the committee or individual expending the funds, will appear in a computer in· 

dex giving information on the candidate named in 

the communication. 

Finally, the Commission enters the data as 

quickly as it can without jeopardizing accuracy. 

While summary information is entered within 48 

hours or sooner, data entry of itemized information requires more time. Over the past fiscal year, 

the median time frame was 24 days from receipt 

of the report, despite increases in both the 

number of reports and the number of transactions 

on each report. 

During fiscal year 1984, the agency invested 

over $700,000 and some 33 staff years in maintaining the FEC data base. The Commission also took 

steps to make information from this data base 

more accessible to people throughout the country. 

State Access to Data 

Six States joined the Commission in a 1984 pilot 

project to broaden the accessibility of computerized campaign finance information. The primary 

objective was to give those located outside of 

Washington, D.C. immediate access to several 

FEC computer indexes. 

The pilot project was conducted in seven cities: 

Los Angeles and Sacramento, California; Denver, 

Colorado; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Boston, Massachusetts; and Olympia, Washington. 

At each State election office, a computer terminal 

was linked to an FEC computer through a national 

1 Each State maintains and discloses copies of reports 

filed by committees that support Federal candidates seeking 

election in that State. 
16 

telecommunications system. The Commission 

handled technical requirements and paid for computer time and telecommunications expenses, 

while each participating State provided the local 

computer hardware. Since the specifications for a 

usable terminal were not rigid, States were free to 

select whatever type of equipment they preferred 

or, in some cases, to use existing terminals or per~ 

sonal computers. 

To evaluate public use of the new service and 

its cost-effectiveness, the Commission asked 

State personnel to complete a questionnaire by 

the end of December 1984. Using survey results, 

the Commission will assess the project in a formal report slated for completion in early 1985. 

Preliminary, informal reactions were positive. The 

additional staff costs of running printouts of requested information seemed to be offset by a savings in staff time previously spent locating paper 

copies of reports for the public. Moreover, the project enabled State offices to provide better service. local access to data reduced researchers' 

time and money spent in obtaining campaign finance information. The State terminals also expanded the scope of available information. Researchers could have access to financial information on all Federal candidates and political committees throughout the country; normally State offices maintain only those reports filed by candidates seeking election within that State and the 

political committees that support them. 

Growing interest in the program prompted the 

Commission to expand the project. During 1985, 

Montgomery, Alabama; lansing, Michigan; Trenton, New Jersey; and Providence, Rhode Island 

will join the project. In its initial budget request, 

the agency requested funds for fiscal year 1986 to 

extend the service nationwide. 

Campaign Finance Studies 

October 1984 saw the release of three studies on 

campaign finance. One of these was a new publication, PAC Money Contributed to U.S.. House and 

Senate Candidates, based on the FEC's Reports 

on Financial Activity series for 1977-78, 1979-80 

and 1981-82. For each two-year cycle, the publication lists total PAC contributions to each Senate 

and House candidate actively seeking election. 

The Commission also issued two interim 

studies in its Reports on Financial Activity series 

for the 1983-84 election cycle, one on House and 

Senate candidates and the other on PAC and party activity. Both reports covered financial activity 

during the first 18 months of the election cycle. 

The interim report on Congressional candidates 

gave more information on sources of campaign 

funding than previous FEC reports. The 1984 

report identified the total contributions from individuals, candidates' contributions and loans to 

their own campaigns and other loan activity. 

The interim report on PACs and party committees also included new information on contributions to candidates and was supplemented with a 

November press release on spending by the major 

parties' national committees, covering the 1984 

cycle through October 17, 1984. 

Facilitating Disclosure 

The Public Records Office and the Press Office 

respond to the needs of the public and the press 

for information on Federal campaign finance. 

Both offices experienced significant growth in activity during 1984. 

located on the street floor, the Public Records 

Office maintains paper and microfilmed copies of 

campaign finance reports and other research 

documents. In addition, the office handles orders 

for computer indexes, copies of reports and other 

materials. Professional office staff, either in person or on the toll-free telephone line, assist 

researchers in locating the information they need 

and provide computer printouts of requested 

data. As a longstanding practice, the office extends its weekday hours and remains open on 

weekends during heavy reporting periods. The 

number of computer printouts provided by the of-
17 

fice in response to specific requests increased 

substantially between 1982 and 1984: 

• In 1982, 65,343 printouts were provided; 

• In 1983, 60,922; and 

• In 1984, 95,372. 

The Press Office, also on the Commission's 

street floor, responds to requests from callers and 

visitors representing the media. Office staff issue 

releases on Commission activities, campaign 

finance statistics and public funding decisions; 

prepare press packets; schedule interviews; and 

make arrangements for television crews covering 

Commission activities. The office also handles requests made under the Freedom of Information 

Act. 

Visitors to the Press Office in 1984 included a 

significant number of foreign reporters, representing approximately 10 countries. They were interested in public funding, the cost of Congressional races, the increase and influence of PACs 

and other aspects of Federal campaign finance. 

During the 1984 Presidential election year, the total 

number of phone calls and visitors to the Press Office nearly doubled over 1980, the previous 

Presidential election year. 

Regulations on Access to Information 

During 1984, the Commission revised regulations 

that affect the activities of the Press Office, which 

handles requests made under the Freedom of InTable IV 

Press Office Activity 

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 

Telephone Inquiries 

Visitors 

8,403 

849 

6,161 

858 

9,843 

813 

8,664 

1,073 

15,317 

1,922 

Total 9,252 7,019 10,656 9,737 17,239 

formation Act (FOIA), and the Public Records Office (11 CFR Parts 4 and 5). Published in the Federal Register in July 1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 30458) and 

prescribed in October, the new rules updated fees 

to reflect actual costs of providing documents. 

The regulations also changed billing procedures 

for the sale of FEC microfilm and computer tapes. 

The amended rules provide that individuals who 

purchase these materials pay the firm that reproduces them, rather than the FEC. Finally, the 

revised regulations make clear that the FEC does 

not charge for staff time devoted to duplicating information to fill FOIA requests. 

The agency also prescribed new regulations 

that provide for programs and auxiliary aids to ensure handicapped persons' access to Commission information and facilities.2 

Assisting Committees 

Materials and Services 

Promoting voluntary compliance with the law, the 

Commission's information program encompasses a wide range of activities. The toll-free 

"800" line offers the most immediate assistance 

to those who have questions or who need in forma2For a summary of these rules, made final in November 

1984, see page 31. 
18 

Table V 

Information Activity 

tion on the law. Like the disclosure activities 

described above, the number of telephone cal·ls 

received on the toll-free and local lines during 

1984 reached a new high, as did mail and phone 

orders for materials. 

Central to the Commission's outreach effort 

have been "how to" publications targeted for particular audiences. In 1984, the Commission updated two brochures and two Campaign Guides to 

conform with recently revised regulations. A new 

brochure explained rules that are unique to trade 

associations and another defined the boundaries 

between State and local campaign laws and the 

Federal campaign finance law. 

The Commission was especially pleased that 

its Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Commit· 

tees took first place in the Blue Pencil Awards 

sponsored by the National Association of Government Communicators. The Guide was chosen as 

the best two-color technical publication produced 

by a government agency in 1983. 

In 1984, the Commission launched a new outreach service, a campaign finance clinic held on 

Monday afternoons at the agency. FEC auditors, 

reports analysts and public affairs specialists provided personal assistance and guidance to staff 

members of political committees and others interested in the law. Commissioners and staff also 

addressed meetings around the country and offered workshops at three conferences cosponsored by the Commission and State election of1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 

Telephone Inquiries 

Requests for Materials 

53,738 

14,154 

36,556 

8,052 

53,298 

10,321 

49,394 

9,770 

84,665 

16,669 

ficials. The 1984 conferences were held in 

Princeton, New Jersey; Richmond, Virginia; and 

Seattle, Washington. 

Survey on 1983 Conferences 

In 1984, the Commission conducted a survey to 

evaluate the five regional conferences cosponsored with State and local election agencies during 1983. The agency mailed questionnaires to the 

1,800 conference participants. Of the 467 who responded, 82 percent rated the conferences as excellent or very good; 95 percent indicated they 

would attend another, if offered; and 72 percent 

were favorable to the idea of the Commission's 

holding conferences every two years instead of 

every four years, the current cycle. 

Generally, most participants were pleased with 

the workshop panelists, the format and the materials. An average of 79 percent of participants 

found the workshop materials useful in performing their jobs. Half of the participants (51 percent) 

reported making changes in their procedures as a 

result of attending the conference and an overwhelming percentage - an average of 93 percent 

- affirmed that they better understood the campaign finance law as a result of attending a conference. 

The administrative expertise of the cosponsoring State and local offices, and their willingness 

to provide financial support, contributed to the 

success of the 1983 conferences. Another factor was 
19 

the refinement in Commission materials and services since the 1979 round of FEC conferences. 

Improved publications and more experienced 

staff enabled the agency to conduct a professional and highly effective series of conferences. 

Clarifying the Law 

In addition to providing assistance to committees, the Commission encourages compliance 

with the law through regulations, which clarify the 

law, and through advisory opinions,3 which 

answer specific questions on the law. Of the 59 

advisory opinions issued in 1984, those that addressed significant questions or that covered new 

ground are discussed later in this chapter under 

"Legal lssues."4 

With regard to regulations, in 1984 the Commission prescribed rules affecting corporations and 

labor organizations and began work on other rules 

the agency wished to clarify.5 The agency also 

considered rulemaking petitions submitted by 

outside organizations. 

Rules on Corporations and Labor Organizations 

Two sets of revised regulations concerning the 

activities of corporations and labor organizations 

were prescribed in 1984. Final rules on partisan 

and nonpartisan communications by corporations 

and unions were published in the Federal Register in November 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 50502) and 

prescribed in March 1984.6 The Commission also 

prescribed final rules modifying procedures for 

corporate authorization of trade association 

solicitations. These rules appeared in the Federal 

Register in October 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 48650) and 

were prescribed in February 1984. Summaries of 

the communications rules (11 CFR 114.3 and 

114.4) and the trade association rules (11 CFR 

114.8) appear on pages 66-68 of the Annual Report 

1983. 

Testing the Waters 

In preparation for future elections, the Commission drafted modifications to rules governing 

"testing the waters," that is, activities undertaken 

by an individual to test the feasibility of a potential candidacy. The Commission, in January 1984, 

first published an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, seeking comments on the scope of permissible testing-thewaters activities and the application of contribution limits and prohibitions to testing the waters 

(49 Fed. Reg. 1995). 

In July, the agency published a second notice 

specifically requesting comments on proposed 

revisions that would clarify the difference between testing the waters and active campaigning 

(49 Fed. Reg. 30509). Additionally, the suggested 

rules would apply the .law's contribution limits 

and prohibitions to funds raised to test the 

waters. 

The agency also asked for comments on: 

• Whether the testing-the-waters concept 

should be addressed in the regulations; 

• Whether funds raised and spent to test the 

waters should apply to the law's $5,000 

threshold on campaign activity, which, once 

·exceeded, triggers "candidate" status under 

the law; and 

• Whether funds raised and spent for testing 

the waters should be exempt from reporting 

unless the individual becomes a candidate, 

even if the funds are otherwise considered 

"contributions" and "expenditures" subject 

to the law. 

3The term advisory opinion is defined in footnote 10, page 

9. 

4See also Chapter 1 for a discussion of legal issues perti· 

nent to the public funding of Presidential elections. 

5Revised regulations on the repayment of public funds, 

another 1984 project, are summarized in Chapter 1, page 13. 

The Commission also wrote new rules related to other statutes 

under which the agency has responsibilities. New regulations 

under the Freedom of Information Act are summarized on 

page 17; those under the Sunshine Act and Rehabilitation Act 

are described on pages 31 and 32. 

&see also page 26 for a discussion of advisory opinions 

and court cases on corporate communications. 
20 

The Commission plans to complete work on 

testing-the-waters regulations in 1985. 

Rulemaking Petitions 

On June 21: 1984, the Commission held a public 

hearing on a petition by the National Council of 

Farmer Cooperatives to amend the definition of 

"member" in the current regulations (11 CFR 

114.1(e)). The National Council, in a 1983 rulemaking petition, had proposed changing the 

definition of member to permit a federated 

regional or national cooperative to solicit donations for its PAC from indirect members, i.e., 

members of State and local cooperatives affiliated with the federation (48 Fed. Reg. 13265). 

Under current rules, federated regional and national cooperatives may solicit only their direct 

members. The Commission also reviewed written 

comments on an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking published in May 1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 

20831). . 

At a November 1984 meeting, the Commission, 

voting 3 to 3, could not reach agreement on 

whether to broaden the definition of member. 

Consequently, in December, the agency published 

a Federal Register notice that it would take no 

action on the petition (49 Fed. Reg. 48201). 

In another rulemaking petition the National 

Taxpayers Legal Fund recommended narrowing 

the term "political party" in a public funding provision (11 CFR 9002.15). The change would have 

made it more difficult for third party Presidential 

candidates to qualify for public funding in the 

general election. The Commission considered 

comments received in response to a 1983 Federal 

Register notice qn the petition (48 Fed. Reg. 

39295). However, in light of legislative history and 

past Commission policy on the issue, the agency 

decided to deny the petition and published a 

notice to this effect in the Federal Register in 

February 1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 4846). 

Monitoring the Law 

Commission analysts review the reports filed by 

political committees to ensure accurate and complete disclosure of financial activity and to encourage compliance with the law's reporting requirements. When a reporting problem is 

discovered, the committee is notified in a Request 

for Additional Information (RFAI), a letter that explains the mistake and asks for clarification or 

correction. The Commission may audit or take enforcement action against those committees that 

do not adequately respond to the letters. The 

table below summarizes the review process over 

the past three years. 

Table VI 

Reports Review Activity 

1982 1983 1984

Number of Committees 

Reviewed 

2,807 5,510 3,906

Number of Reports 

Reviewed 

20,598 39,837 30,154

Number of RFAis Sent 4,633 5,319 6,292 

Presidential 5 78 246 

Senate 444 392 496 

House 2,106 1,403 2,302

Party 399 413 714

Nonparty (PACs) 1,658 2,989 2,494

Other 21 44 40 
21 

Enforcing the Law 

Matters Under Review 

Possible violations of the law come to the Commission's attention either through the agency's 

own monitoring procedures or through formal 

complaints originating outside the agency. Potential violations receive case numbers and become 

MURs, "Matters Under Review." 

The law requires that all phases of the MUR process remain confidential until a case is closed 

and put on the public record. The respondents 

(those alleged to have violated the law) are afforded a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that 

no action should be taken against them. If the 

Commission, after investigation, believes there is 

sufficient evidence to show that a violation has 

occurred, the agency must try to reach a conciliation agreement with the respondent before 

authorizing suit. (Conciliation may also be initiated by the respondent.) If unable to reach 

agreement with the respondent, the agency may 

seek enforcement through litigation. 

During 1984, the Commission experienced nearly a three-fold growth in its case load of MURs. The 

growth was . particularly pronounced in the 

number of cases originating through complaints 

as opposed to internally generated matters. The 

increased number of external MURs reflected the 

heightened activity of an election year and a growing public awareness of the MUR process as an 

avenue for p'ursuing possible violations. The table 

below compares the MUR caseload over the last 

five years. 

Table VII 

Caseload of MURs 

Cases Pending at 

Beginning of Year 

Cases Opened 

During Year 

External Cases 

Internal Cases 

Cases Closed 

During Year 

External Cases 

Internal Cases 

Cases Pending 

at End of Year 

1980 

152 

255 

133 

122 

193 

91 

102 

214 

1981 

214 

66 

24 

42 

167 

64 

103 

113 

1982 

113 

113 

78 

35 

133 

67 

66 

93 

1983 

93 

103 

42 

61 

118 

58 

60 

78 

1984 

78 

283 

163 

120 

189 

103 

86 

172 
22 

Processing MURs 

While the Commission takes action on the majority of MURs within 120 days, action on some cases 

takes longer due to various factors. Under a provision of the law, 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(8), a 

complainant may seek court intervention if the 

Commission fails to act on a complaint within 120 

days from its filing. During 1984, several complainants, invoking this provision, brought suit 

against the agency. 

In Hettinga v. FEC, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia ruled that the Commission had not acted contrary to law in its handling 

of a complainFin its opinion of October 31, 1984, 

the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that Section 437g(a)(8) requires the agency to resolve a 

complaint within 120 days. Rather, the court held 

that the time period "is jurisdictional in nature, 

marking the time at which judicial intervention is 

permissible if appropriate." The court further 

remarked that, after the 120-day period, "a court 

may declare agency inaction to be contrary to 

law ... but has discretion to conclude otherwise." 

Although plaintiffs wanted the court to order 

the FEC to resolve the complaint before the 

November 6 election day, the court denied the request, finding that the law "does not provide for 

pre-election resolution of every complaint ... implicating the campaign of a candidate for office. 

Especially in an election year, the FEC workload 

exceeds its resources, and a decision to expedite 

the consideration of plaintiffs' complaint would 

necessarily delay resolution of other pending matters. The Commission's judgment as to the priority each case deserves ... should not be ignored." 

However, in two suits, Citizens for Percy '84 v. 

FEC and Congressman Charles E. Rose v. FEC, 

the court concluded that the Commission's delay 

in acting on a complaint was contrary to law, and 

ordered the agency to take action within 30 days. 

As a matter of record, the Commission is infrequently challenged for alleged failure to act 

within 120 days. By the end of 1984, only 10 such 

cases reached the courts out of 440 external complaints filed with the agency since 1980. 

Conciliation Agreements 

The exclusive binding nature of the conciliation 

agreement, as a compliance mechanism, was affirmed by court action during 1984. In FEC v. 

Citizens for LaRouche, the LaRouche campaign 

claimed that the terms of a conciliation agreement included oral promises allegedly made by 

FEC staff with the approval of the Commission 

and that these promises had been breached. 

On September 17, 1984, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia ruled that the written 

conciliation agreement represented the only 

agreement the court would consider because the 

alleged oral agreement had not been voted on by 

the Commissioners, as had the written agreement; nor had the written agreement made any 

reference to a supplemental oral agreement. Ruling in the Commission's favor, the court held that 

Lyndon LaRouche, as well as his campaign, was 

liable for payment of the $15,000 civil penalty included in the conciliation agreement for legal 

violations related to his 1980 Presidential campaign. 

Late Filers 

In the interest of maintaining a complete and upto-date public record of political campaign 

finance, the Commission adopted a 1984 policy of 

rigid enforcement of the law with regard to late 

filers. During the year, the agency initiated 53 enforcement cases against political committees 

that were late in filing their reports. Civil penalties 

attached to these cases reflected the agency's 

view that the late filing of reports thwarts the purpose of disclosure. 

Legislation Affecting Enforcement Cases 

The Federal District Court Reorganization Act 

(Pub. L. 98-620), which President Reagan signed 

into law on November 8, 1984, repealed provisions 7The complaint in question, MUR 1704, is discussed on 

page 11. 
23 

of the campaign finance law that called for expedited handling of FEC-related suits in the 

Federal district and appellate courts and in the 

Supreme Court.8 Designed to improve the Federal 

court system, the new law also abolished similar 

provisions in about 80 other civil statutes. The 

Court Reorganization Act was supported by the 

present Administration upon recommendation by 

the Department of Justice and the Supreme 

Court. 

Legal Issues 

During 1984, a substantial number of legal issues 

were clarified through litigation and advisory 

opinions. This section summarizes legal decisions affecting corporate involvement in Federal 

elections and other areas of the law. 

Prohibited Corporate Contributions 

In a direct challenge to the prohibition on corporate contributions and expenditures, Athens 

Lumber Company filed suit in 1981 (Athens 

Lumber Company v. FEC), claiming that 2 U.S.C. 

Section 441 b abridged rights protected under the 

First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 

On March 19, 1984, the Supreme Court, in dismissing Athens' appeal, left standing the en bane opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit. The appeals court upheld the constitutionality of Section 441b restrictions, stating that 

the constitutional issues had already been resolved by the Supreme Court in another case, FEC 

v. National Right to Work Committee (discussed 

below). 

In Advisory Opinion (AO) 1984-52, the Commission affirmed the prohibition on corporate giving. 

The agency said that, although Representative 

Marty Russo (O-IL) had unknowingly accepted corporate funds disguised as personal contributions 

from corporate employees, his committee was not 

excused from returning the funds once their prohibited nature was established through criminal 

prosecution of the corporation. Because the corporation, rather than the employees, was the actual source of the contributions, the Commission 

concluded that the committee should refund the 

contributions to the corporation. 

In her dissent to AO 1984-52, Commissioner 

Joan D. Aikens argued that the Russo committee 

should refund the contributions to the individual 

donors because, otherwise, the committee's 

forthcoming report would show an unexplained 

refund to the corporation, obscuring the public 

record. Commissioner Aikens further stated: "To 

reimburse the corporation would be to unjustly 

enrich the entity which instigated the illegal 

ruse ...." 

Definition of Member 

During 1984, the definition of "member" - relevant to PAC solicitations by incorporated 

membership organizations - was the subject of 

litigation and several advisory opinions. 

In FEC v. National Right to Work Committee 

(NRWC), the Commission claimed that NRWC had 

violated the law by soliciting contributions for its 

PAC from individuals who were not bona fide 

members of the organization. (Under 2 U.S.C. Section 441b(b)(4)(A), a nonstock corporation like 

NRWC, in addition to soliciting its executives and 

their families, may request PAC contributions 

only from its members and their families.) 

The Supreme Court, in its ruling of December 

13, 1982, unanimously overturned a previous appeals court decision. The high Court stated that 

the lower court's "determination that NRWC's 

'members' include anyone who has responded to 

one of the corporation's essentially random mass 

mailings would ... open the door to all but 

unlimited solicitations and thereby render meaningless the statutory limitation to members." The 

srhe 1984 law repealed two provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. Sections 437g(a)(10) and 437h(c)) 

and deleted the last sentence of two provisions in the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (26 U.S.C. Sections 

9010(c) and 9011(b)(2)). 
24 

Court found that "some relatively enduring and independently significant financial or organizational attachment is required to be a member 

under §441b(b)(4)(C)." Rejecting NRWC's claim 

that the law's restriction violated its constitutional rights, the Court said such associational 

rights were overborne by the important purpose 

Section 441 b was designed to serve, i.e., to prevent corporate money from corrupting Federal 

elections. 

The Court remanded the case to the U.S: Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia to consider, among other things, the imposition of a 

$10,000 civil penalty on NRWC. The court of appeals found a $10,000 penalty unwarranted 

because, in its view, NRWC's violation had not 

been knowing and willful.. The court remanded the 

case to the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia, which, on October 4, 1984, approved a 

consent order entered into by the parties. The 

order directed NRWC to refund PAC contributions 

to nonmembers who had received and responded 

to unlawful solicitations. The order also required 

NRWC to pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the U.S. 

Treasury and $4,484 in court costs to the FEC. The 

order further provided for NRWC to donate to the 

Salvation Army any uncashed refund checks and 

$15,000, representing interest accrued since April 

1980 on the illegal contributions, the civil penalty 

and the court costs. 

The Commission had to consider the unique 

facts and circumstances presented in several advisory opinion requests from organizations that 

asked whether certain categories of their membership qualified as solicitable "members" under 

the law. For example, relying on the Supreme 

Court decision in National Right to Work Committee, the Commission advised the American Stock 

Exchange that one of its four classes of membership was not eligible for solicitations. In reaching 

this decision in AO 1984-22, the Commission considered two factors it had applied in previous 

opinions: 

• Whether the members had the right to participate in the governance of the organization, such as the right to vote for officers; and 

• Whether the members had an obligation to 

sustain the organization through regular 

payments of a predetermined minimum 

amount. 

The Exchange's allied members did not qualify 

as "members" because they were not obligated to 

pay any dues and, furthermore, lacked privileges 

enjoyed by two other membership categories. By 

a tie vote, the Commission was unable to agree 

whether the Exchange's associate members, a 

fourth class, were solicitable. This group could, to 

a limited extent, participate in the governance of 

the Exchange and was obliged to pay annual fixed 

dues, but associate members had no trading 

privileges on the Exchange and could execute 

transactions only through a regular member. 

The Commission was also unable to decide 

whether associate members of the Wisconsin 

Citizens Concerned for Life (WCCL) and its affiliate organization, the Education Fund, could be 

solicited for contributions to WCCL's PAC. The 

advisory opinion request, AOR 1984-4, explained 

that an associate member had to donate at least 

$3 every 22 months either to WCCL or to the 

Education Fund. Associate members had the 

right to vote for an at-large member of WCCL's 

Board of Governors, attend Board meetings (with 

advance notice) and receive WCCL's publications. 

By a 3-to-3 vote, the Commission was unable to 

issue an opinion on the solicitable status of 

WCCL's associate members. 

The situation presented in AO 1984-33, 

although different from the two described above, 

again entailed the issue of membership. The Commission concluded that allied members of the National Restaurant Association lacked sufficient 

attachment to the Association to be considered 

"members" and, for that reason, could not underwrite the costs of a PAC fundraising event. Allied 

members were required to pay regular membership dues but could neither vote for Association 

officers nor be elected as officers. 
25 

Nonconnected Committees vs. Separate 

Segregated Funds 

While nonconnected committees and separate 

segregated funds are commonly called PACs 

(political action committees), the two types of 

committees differ substantially with respect to 

how they are financed. 

A separate segregated fund (SSF) is financed 

by a connected organization, either a corporation 

or a labor organization, which may absorb the 

costs of the SSF's operation, including expenses 

related to soliciting contributions to the SSF. By 

contrast, a nonconnected committee is financial· 

ly independent and uses the contributions it 

raises both for its administrative costs and for its 

support of candidates. However, this disparity is 

balanced by the fundraising restrictions that ap· 

ply to SSFs. SSFs may solicit only certain groups 

of individuals specifically identified in the law and 

must, additionally, adhere to special solicitation 

procedures spelled out in the law. Nonconnected 

PACs, on the other hand, are free to solicit the 

general public and, furthermore, are bound by no 

specific solicitation procedures beyond those 

generally applicable to all regulated political committees. 

The Commission considered the differences 

between nonconnected PACs and SSFs in AO 

1984-12, which addressed the question: May 

members of an incorporated membership"group 

establish a nonconnected committee rather than 

an SSF? 

Acting unofficially, members of the Board of 

Regents of the American College of Allergists, 

Inc., a tax-exempt Section 501(c)(3) organization, 

wanted to set up a nonconnected PAC. As a nonconnected committee, the Independent Allergists 

PAC could solicit anyone but would have to 

finance its operations through the contributions it 

received, accepting no administrative support 

from the College, since this support would 

translate into prohibited corporate contributions. 

The Commission approved this proposal, since 

nothing in the law bars individuals associated with 

an incorporated group from establishing a nonconnected committee. The opinion emphasized 

the independent nature of the PAC, noting that 

an accountant would review the financial records 

of both the College and the PAC to ensure that the 

PAC was self-supporting; the PAC would pay a 

management firm the usual charge for services, 

without receiving preferential treatment even 

though the College employed the same firm; and 

the PAC's governing board, composed of contributors, would include individuals who were not 

members of the College. 

Connected Organization as Vendor to PAC 

In two advisory opinions, the Commission considered whether a separate segregated fund (corporate PAC) could make in-kind contributions to 

candidates by providing them with services purchased from the PAC's connected organization. In 

these opinions, the PACs planned to purchase the 

services of their corporations' employees, and, in 

one case, to make use of corporate facilities incidental to the services. In each opinion, the Commission based its decision on the proposed 

methods of paying the corporate sponsor. 

In AO 1984-37, the Commission approved two 

payment plans proposed by the American Medical 

Association (AMA) and its separate segregated 

fund, AMPAC. The plans were permissible 

because neither involved advances or initial 

payments made with AMA corporate funds -

transactions that would have resulted in prohibited corporate contributions. Instead, AMPAC 

would pay for the services before they were provided to the candidates. 

On the other hand, in AO 1984-24, the Commission rejected the payment plans proposed by the 

Sierra Club and its separate segregated fund, the 

Sierra Club Committee on Political Education 

(SCCOPE). Although, under the plans, .SCCOPE 

ultimately would reimburse the Club for the services and incidental use of corporate facilities, 

the Sierra Club's initial financing of the goods and 

services would constitute prohibited corporate 
26 

contributions to the candidates. The Commission 

also rejected the Club's claim that Sections 114.9 

and 114.10 of the regulations permitted the proposed reimbursement plans. 

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott dissented from 

AO 1984·24.1n her view, Sections 114.9 and 114.10 

specifically permit PACs to reimburse their connected organizations for the use of facilities and 

for employees' time. 

After AO 1984-24 was issued on July 13, 1984, 

the Sierra Club and SCCOPE challenged the opinion by filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia (The Sierra Club v. FEC). In its 

November 5 decision, the court upheld AO 

1984-24 as a reasonable interpretation of the law's 

prohibition on corporate contributions, noting 

that "the Federal Election Commission is the type 

of agency to which considerable weight and 

deference should presumptively be accorded ...." The court also rejected the Club's 

claim that the opinion violated its First Amendment rights, which, the court stated, were "overborne by the interests Congress has sought to protect in enacting Section 441b [the provision prohibiting corporate contributions]." The Sierra 

Club appealed this decision, but the appellate 

court had not ruled by the end of 1984. 

Voting Records and Voter Guides 

Prepared by Corporations 

A corporation (and labor organization) may participate in the Federal election process by using 

treasury funds to make partisan communications 

directed to its restricted class and specific types 

of nonpartisan communications addressed to the 

general public. New regulations on corporate communications prescribed in March 1984 prompted 

several requests for advisory opinions. 

In 1984-17, the Commission approved the nonpartisan communications proposed by two nonprofit, tax-exempt corporations, the National 

Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and the Right to 

Life of Greater Cincinnati. 

NRLC planned to distribute to the general 

public voting records that tabulated how each 

Member of Congress voted on abortion-related 

legislation, noting whether the vote was 

"pro-life," "pro-abortion" or for or against a 

measure. The Commission approved the distribution of the proposed voting records because they 

met the nonpartisan standard in the revised 

regulations, i.e., they did not serve an election· 

influencing purpose. 

The Commission also approved the public 

distribution of a voter guide the Cincinnati group 

proposed to publish in its newsletter. The guide 

contained issue-related questions and candidates' responses. The opinion noted that the 

criteria for determining whether a voter guide is 

nonpartisan are not applicable to voter guides 

prepared by nonprofit, tax-exempt corporations, 

such as the Cincinnati group, that do not support, 

endorse or oppose candidates. Under the new 

regulations, voter guides prepared and distributed 

to the general public by these tax-exempt corporations must comply with only one standard: The 

guides must not favor one candidate over another. 

The Cincinnati group's voter guide satisfied this 

requirement. The opinion cautioned, however, 

that if the Cincinnati corporation established a 

PAC, the corporation, by virtue of its control over 

the PAC, would become an organization that supports, endorses or opposes candidates or parties. 

The corporation's voter guides would then be subject to the same criteria as guides prepared by 

partisan corporations. 

Shortly after the revised regulations on corporate communications became effective (March 

1984), the United States Defense Committee 

(USDC), another nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation, asked the Commission to reconsider USDC's 

proposed public distribution of voter guides and 

voting records which had been rejected in an 

earlier opinion (AO 1983-43). The new opinion, AO 

1984-14, affirmed the Commission's previous conclusions. USDC's materials could not be 
27 

distributed to the general public because, under 

the revised rules, they were partisan: The voter 

guides favored particular candidates, and the 

voting records served an election-influencing purpose. 

In her concurring opinion, Commissioner Joan 

D. Aikens said that she voted to approve AO 

1984-14 with some reluctance since she did not 

agree with the six restrictive provisions contained 

in the FEC's regulations. But, because those 

regulations were in effect and the opinion was 

based on them, she voted to approve the opinion. 

USDC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of New York in March 1984. In 

United States Defense Committee v. FEC, USDC 

asked the court to certify certain constitutional 

questions to an en bane court of appeals. USDC 

claimed that its First Amendment rights were 

violated by provisions of the law and regulations 

that prohibit USDC from distributing to the 

general public materials addressing public 

issues. Furthermore, USDC argued that the law 

abridged constitutional rights by discriminating 

between incorporated nonprofit organizations, 

like USDC, and news media corporations, whose 

expenditures for coverage of political events 

(news stories and editorials) are exempt from the 

law's broad prohibition on corporate expenditures 

(provided the news corporation is not owned or 

controlled by any political party, committee or 

candidate). This case was still pending at the end 

of 1984. 

In other litigation involving similar issues, FEC 

v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. (MCFL), 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts handed down its decision on June 

19, 1984. It ruled that public distribution of 

MCFL's newsletter, which contained partisan 

voting records and voter guides, did not violate 

the law. The court concluded that MCFL's 

publication costs were not prohibited corporate 

expenditures, as the Commission had contended, 

because, among other things, they were not coordinated with any candidate and because the 

newsletter contained news and editorial comments. 

Alternatively, the court ruled that if MCFL's 

publication costs were not exempt from the 

statutory prohibition on corporate expenditures (2 

U.S.C. Section 441b), then the provision was unconstitutional as applied to MCFL's expenditures. 

The prohibition abridged MCFL's free speech, 

press and association rights because, the court 

maintained, the expenditures were "(a) independent of any candidate or party, (b) [made] by a nonprofitmaking corporation formed to advance an 

ideological cause and (c) for the purpose of 

publishing direct political speech." The court held 

that, under these circumstances, the compelling 

governmental interest served by banning the 

distribution of newsletters to the general public 

as prohibited corporate expenditures was not 

justified. The Commission's appeal before the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was still 

pending at the end of 1984. 

Candidate Appearances and 

Endorsements of Candidates 

In AO 1984-13, the Commission said that a public 

affairs conference to be sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), an incorporated trade association, would be a partisan 

activity and could therefore be attended only by 

NAM's restricted class, not the general public. 

The opinion determined that the conference 

would be a partisan event because NAM, with the 

help of Republican Party committees, planned to 

ask several Republican candidates to speak at the 

function and because it was scheduled to take 

place simultaneously with the Republican Party's 

national convention in August - shortly before 

several Congressional primaries and about two 

months before the 1984 general election. 

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott filed a concurring opinion stating that she agreed with the conclusion reached in AO 1984-13 but not for the 

reasons given in the opinion. In her view, the NAM 

conference should have been considered a non-
28 

partisan event, which still would have closed it to 

the general public. The regulations governing 

nonpartisan candidate appearances limit the audience to the sponsoring corporation's restricted 

class and corporate employees outside that 

class. 

Two opinions dealt with endorsements of candidates, one by a corporate executive and the 

other by a corporation itself. In AO 1984-43, the 

Commission said an executive of the Brunswick 

Corporation could make a statement favorable to 

the work of Representative Jim Jones (0-0K) in a 

television advertisement paid by the Jones reelection committee, assuming the executive would be 

volunteering his time in making the endorsement. 

Although the speaker would be identified as a 

company official in the ad, his statement by itself 

would not result in a prohibited corporate contribution or expenditure. 

In AO 1984-23, the Commission said that the 

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), an in· 

corporated trade association, could endorse a 

Presidential candidate and publicly announce the 

endorsement through press releases if distributed 

on the same basis as other ABC releases. The 

Commission said, however, that ABC could not 

publicize the endorsement in its monthly 

magazine because a significant portion of its 

subscribers (13.7 percent) were outside of ABC's 

restricted class. As such, they could not receive 

partisan communications such as endorsements. 

ABC could, nevertheless, publish the endorsement in its newsletter because its circulation was 

almost entirely limited to ABC members. 

Federal Contractors 

In addition to prohibiting contributions by corporations and labor unions, the law prohibits contributions from the funds of businesses with 

Federal government contracts. The Commission 

applied this prohibition in AO 1984·10, requested 

by Arnold & Porter, a law partnership under 

Federal contract. The firm wanted to set up a plan 

to facilitate partnership contributions to candidates. Although the Commission had approved 

similar plans in past advisory opinions, it did not 

approve Arnold & Porter's proposal because, as a 

Federal contractor, it was prohibited from making 

contributions from a business account. The opinion stated that individual partners of firms with 

Federal contracts could make contributions by 

check, only if written on their personal accounts. 

In another opinion, AO 1984-53, the Commission said that members of the National Associa· 

tion of Realtors who, as individuals, leased real 

property to Federal agencies were considered 

Federal contractors. As such they were prohibited 

from making contributions, including those to the 

Association's PAC. 

Designated Contributions 

In AO 1984-32, issued to the Pease for Congress 

Committee, the Commission considered the 

handling of contributions designated for a can· 

didate's primary campaign and dated before the 

primary election, but received by the committee 

after the election. The Commission said that, 

because the check had been designated for the 

primary election, it had to be attributed to the 

primary, but only to the extent that the campaign 

had net outstanding debts on the date the contribution was made. The Commission specified 

that, in this case, the "date the contribution was 

made" could not have been any earlier than the 

date it left control of the contributor and was 

received by the committee. 

If the primary campaign had no outstanding 

debts, the Commission determined that the contribution would have to be returned to the donor. 

Alternatively, the donor could redesignate· the 

contribution in writing for the general election 

campaign provided he or she had not already exceeded the contribution limit for that election. 

Use of Excess Campaign Funds 

Although the law, under 2 U.S.C. Section 439a, 

prohibits candidates from using their excess cam· 

paign funds for personal use, the provision makes 
29 

an exception for Members of Congress who held 

office on January 8, 1980. In AO 1984-47, the Commission permitted Peter Peyser, who had been a 

Member of Congress before the cut-off date, to 

convert to personal use the excess campaign 

funds remaining from his unsuccessful primary 

campaigns of 1982 and 1984. The opinion noted 

that because Section 439a does not require continuous membership in Congress as a condition 

for the exemption, Mr. Peyser's current status as a 

non-Member was not relevant. 

Election Administration 

Clearinghouse Activities 

The Commission's National Clearinghouse on 

Election Administration continued research on 

the Congressionally mandated project to develop 

voluntary standards for voting equipment used in 

the United States. In 1984, the Clearinghouse sent 

to Congress a preliminary report on the feasibility 

of developing standards and began work on the 

first phase of the project: developing hardware 

standards and management guidelines for punchcard and marksense voting systems. The Clearinghouse enlisted the support of 30 leading State 

and local officials with experience in the voting 

systems under study. With the cooperation of 

various vendors, this voluntary standards panel 

will advise and assist the Clearinghouse and its 

contractor on the entire project. 

The Clearinghouse also initiated a three-phase 

study on the applications of computer technology 

to the administration of elections. This project, 

also being conducted under contract, will survey 

election officials on their experience in using 

computers and will eventually yield a general 

model of a totally automated system incorporating the most effective and efficient application of computer technology. 

Both the standards project and the computer 

applications project were among the topics 

discussed at the tenth Clearinghouse Advisory 

Panel meeting held in March 1984. The 17-member 

panel, composed of State and local election officials, also discussed Federal legislation on handicapped access to polling places (see below) as 

well as Clearinghouse assistance to a number of 

foreign nations, including, during 1984, the Philippines, Venezuela and Chile. 

Finally, the Clearinghouse conducted 

workshops at several conferences held 

throughout the country and answered hundreds of 

inquiries from Members of Congress, election officials and the general public. 

Voting Access 

The Commission received new responsibilities 

under a new law, approved on September 28, 1984. 

The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (Pub. L. 98-435) stipulates that 

registration and polling places for Federal elections must be accessible to handicapped and 

elderly individuals. For the next five election 

cycles, the States will report to the Commission 

on difficulties faced and actions taken to enhance 

accessibility. The Commission will compile the 

State information and forward its first summary to 

Congress in 1987. 
31 

Chapter 3 

The Commission 

Commissioners 

Commisson officers during 1984 were Chairman 

Lee Ann Elliott and Vice Chairman Thomas E. Harris. On December 18, 1984, the Commission 

elected its officers for 1985: John Warren McGarry 

as Chairman and Joan D. Aikens as Vice Chairman. Mr. McGarry, who served as Chairman in 

1981, is the only Commissioner to have been 

elected Chairman twice. Biographies of the Commissioners appear in Appendix 1. 

Administrative Activities 

Relocation 

On March 1, 1984, the Commission voted to move 

to new facilities, basing its decision on a report 

by The Cooper-Lecky Partnership, an architectural firm retained by the General Services Administration (GSA). Faced with the decision of 

either renovating current FEC headquarters at 

1325 K Street or moving to a new site, the Commission chose the less expensive option-to 

move. 

The Cooper-Lecky report, completed after a 

survey of the present facility, pointed out multiple 

deficiencies in the building. According to the 

report, the building lacks several fire and safety 

features required under GSA standards. Installation of protective devices to meet these standards 

would cost about $700,000, a cost that could be 

saved by moving to new GSA-approved quarters. 

Apart from safety hazards, the report cited 

three problems in the present allocation of space. 

First, the limited space set aside for public 

use-the Commission hearing room, the public 

records area and the library- is no longer adequate due to the growth of public and media interest in the Commission. Second, the office 

layout is not functional. The current arrangement 

separates staff with related functions, on the one 

hand, while intermingling public areas with offices that should be secure, on the other. Third, 

the ratio of private office space to staff exceeds 

GSA directives. The building's structure, however, 

does not permit a satisfactory resolution of these 

problems, even with expensive renovations. 

The report also pointed out several maintenance 

problems, including voltage fluctuations affecting the computer system, which jeopardize 

critical agency activities. 

The study's estimated cost of renovation, 

$5,891,204, was more than double that of relocation, $2,858,557. Relocation would require structural work to tailor the new space to Commission 

needs. Because GSA and the lessor of the new 

building would bear some of these costs, the 

Commission estimated it would need about $1.2 

million for the relocation. To cover most of this 

one-time cost, the agency requested an additional 

$850,000 in fiscal year 1985 funds. Congress approved this amount as part of its appropriation for 

the agency.1 The Commission hopes to move to a 

new site in the fall of 1985. 

Sunshine Act Regulations 

The Commission sought public comment on proposed revisions to regulations implementing the 

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. Section 

522b) in a December 1984 Federal Register notice 

(49 Fed. Reg. 49306). Generally, the draft rules 

clarify current regulations, with revisions based 

on legislative history and recent court decisions. 

The agency will continue working on these regulations in 1985. 

Assisting the Handicapped 

The Commission prescribed new regulations to 

implement and enforce Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The new rules, adapted 

from prototypes developed by the Department of 

Justice, prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

handicap in Commission programs and activities. 

Under the regulations (11 CFR Part 6), the agency 

will conduct an evaluation of its compliance with 

Section 504 within one year of the effective date 

of the regulations (November 2, 1984). 

The rules provide that the FEC's new headquarters will comply with the provisions of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (as adopted in the 

1See page 34. 
32 

Rehabilitation Act). The rules stipulate, however, 

that the Commission's existing space does not 

have to meet these standards. 

The 1984 installation of a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), which allows hearing 

impaired individuals to telephone the FEC, partly 

fulfilled another requirement in the rules: The 

agency's obligation to provide services and 

devices that enable handicapped individuals to 

take part in FEC activities. The Commission also 

publicized the availability of the TDD. 

To ensure that handicapped job applicants and 

employees are not discriminated against, the 

Commission will use existing Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) procedures to 

resolve grievances. The rules also establish compliance procedures for processing grievances. 

Published in the Federal Register in August 

1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 33206), the rules were prescribed in November. 

Report on Financial Controls 

In December 1984, the Commission issued Its first 

report under the Federal Managers' Financ.ial Integrity Act. The 1982 Act requires Federal agencies to submit yearly statements on the status of 

internal financial controls. 

In preparing its report, the Commission first 

asked the managers of divisions involved in the 

exchange of money to submit an evaluation of administrative controls. Using a self-scoring 

checklist, the managers assessed their operation's vulnerability to fraud, waste and abuse. 

These self-assessments were then reviewed by 

Commission staff with expertise in financial 

matters to ensure uniform scoring throughout the 

agency. The reviewers also analyzed the 

assessments, recommending remedial action 

where needed. This documentation formed the 

basis of the Commission's 1984 financial report, 

submitted to the President and Congress in 

December 1984. Similar methods of examining internal controls will be used for the 1985 report. 

The Commission's Budget 

Fiscal Year 1984 

The Commission submitted a budget request of 

$10,343,139 for fiscal year 1984. Although 

$446,179 more than the agency's funding for the 

1983 fiscal year, the requested amount was needed to finance the stepped-up activities of a 

Pres~dential election year. During Congressional 

heanngs on the budget held in the spring of 1983 

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott, then Vic~ Chairman, described the request as a "barebones, no-frills budget." 

The Committee on House Administration 

unanimously endorsed a fiscal year 1984 authorization of $10,849,139, over $500,000 more than the 

c.ommission had requested. In recommending the 

higher amount, the Committee recognized that 

the Commission's request was austere and also 

considered the additional personnel costs imposed by new legislation (e.g., Social Security 

Medicare) as weli as the agency's need for ne~ equipment. 

While the House Committee's recommended 

funding level was not adopted, the final Congressional appropriation of $10,649,000 still exceeded 

the Commission's request by $300,000. In August 

1984, the agency received supplemental funding 

of $95,000 to cover part of the 1984 pay increase 

bringing the agency's total funding for the fiscai 

year to $10,744,000. 

In budgeting for fiscal year 1984,2 the Commission shifted· resources to carry out activities 

related to the Presidential elections, particularly 

within the Audit Division, which plays a major role 

in the pu~lic fu~ding program. Although the agency margmally mcreased staffing to handle the 

election workload, the staff level did not reach the 

peak of 1980, the preceding Presidential year. The 

Commission was able to keep personnel costs 

down by using auditors detailed from the General 

Accounting Office on a nonreimbursable basis 

temporary part-time clerks to assist with match: 

2See also Appendix 4. 
33 

ing fund submissions and a contractor to handle almost all computer entry of data from reports. 

Generally, the Commission's management projections for fiscal year 1984 matched actual costs 

and workload levels for agency programs. Where 

workload exceeded projections, productivity increased as well. 

The Commission's management plan for the 

fiscal year included funding for computer linkups 

giving seven cities direct access to FEC campaign finance data.3 The initial success of the project prompted the Commission to request fiscal 

year 1986 funding to extend computer access to 

more States. 

The Commission also set aside funds for new 

equipment. To enhance disclosure, the Commission purchased a second Dybell machine, which 

produces paper copies from the microfilmed 

reports received from the House and Senate offices where Congressional committees file their 

original reports. The new machine reduces processing time and saves money by eliminating the 

need to use a contractor for work overloads. With 

the introduction of low-cost microcomputers, 

another new purchase, the Commission gained 

the capacity to graphically illustrate campaign 

finance information disclosed in press releases 

and publications. The microcomputers also 

helped the agency plan and manage its budget. 

Fiscal Year 1985 

Commissioner John Warren McGarry, chairman of 

the agency's finance committee, testified on the 

FEC's fiscal year 1985 budget at four Congressional hearings held in March and April1984. Accompanied by Chairman Lee Ann Elliott and Commissioner Joan D. Aikens, Mr. McGarry addressed 

the difference between the agency's $13,648,000 

request for fiscal year 1985 and the Administration's corresponding proposal of $10,230,000, 

which he said was "inconsistent with the Federal 

Election Commission's compelling need for alter3See page 15. 

native quarters, as well as our unique responsibilities in 1984 and 1985 [resulting from the 

Presidential elections]. We assume that, in making the proposal, the Administration actually intended to defer to Congress as to our justifiable 

needs." 

Describing the components of the budget request, Commissioner McGarry testified that the 

agency needed $850,000 for its relocation to new 

quarters, although "the additional cost in 1985 

will actually be closer to $1,200,000." He also said 

that, in light of the GSA facilities study, "the Commission has no choice or control over this 

matter." 

The budget request included additional funds 

to administer the Presidential public funding program, which Commissioner McGarry described as 

"a major undertaking, beginning in 1984 and continuing well into 1985." The Commission's request also included funding to hire additional 

staff for audit and enforcement functions. In the 

area of computer services, the agency asked for 

funds to renew its data processing contract, 

which expires in April 1985. Commissioner 

McGarry testified that, in renewing the contract, 

the agency must "obtain the most current and efficient technology available" to handle "the 

explosive growth in campaign spending." The 

Commission identified some supplemental needs 

as well: Funds to restore computer functions 

previously reduced because of budget cuts and 

funding for completion of the Congressionally 

mandated study on voting system standards and 

for other research programs under the Clearinghouse on Election Administration. Commissioner 

McGarry underlined the direct benefit of Clearinghouse research to "those state and local election 

officials who are essential to proper administration of federal elections." 

In their deliberations over the Commission's 

fiscal year 1985 authorization bill, the Committee 

on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration both agreed that 

the Commission required operational funding suf-
34 

ficient to support 245 full-time equivalent positions and recommended an additional $1,155,000 

to cover the costs attendant to relocating the 

agency to new quarters. The House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees concurred, and the 

final funding included in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 1985 was $12,900,000, of which 

$1,155,000 was earmarked for the move. This latter sum comprised $850,000 for the one-time 

costs predicted for the move and $305,000 

estimated as the increased rent charge for part of 

the year. The Commission is separately accounting for this $1,155,000, and any funds unused for 

the move will be returned to the Treasury. 

Fiscal Year 1986 Budget Request 

In August 1984, the Commission submitted· its 

budget request for fiscal year 1986 to the Office of 

Management and Budget and to Congress. The 

agency requested $13,080,000 but explained that, 

if the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act was passed, the Commission would 

need an additional $50,000 to carry out its responsibilities under the Act during the fiscal year. The 

legislation was adopted in September 19844; the 

Commission accordingly increased its request to 

$13,130,000. 

The request pointed out that, in developing its 

budget for fiscal year 1986, the Commission 

"carefully reviewed a long list of proposed enhancements ....The benefit of each proposal 

was carefully weighed against the projected cost. 

Only five items, totaling roughly a half million dollars, passed muster as providing maximum improvement to the program at minimum cost. Many 

other worthwhile projects and activities were deferred pending a less constrictive fiscal environment." 

Of the total amount specifically requested for 

the enhancement of Commission programs, 

about half the funds were earmarked for the expansion of the service providing State offices with 

computerized access to the Commission's data 

base of campaign finance information.s The Commission asked for funds to extend this service nationwide, projecting that about half of the States 

would request to participate. 

The President's budget, released February 

1985, recommended a fiscal year 1986 funding 

level of $12,433,000 for the Commission. The 

budget also recommended $116,000 in additional 

funding for the previous fiscal year, 1985, to cover 

part of the salary increase for that year. 

Personnel and Labor Relations 

The Commission's 1984 campus recruitment efforts culminated in the selection of nine law-clerk/ 

attorney appointees. To attract capable candidates, the Commission interviewed students at 

law schools throughout the Nation and offered 

nine students the opportunity to be hired as law 

clerks soon after graduation. They may retain that 

status for 14 months; after passing the Bar exam, 

they may be promoted to attorneys. Because of 

the success of this program, the Commission is 

considering an agency-wide recruitment program, 

based on staffing needs, in conjunction with an 

Equal Employment Opportunity career development plan. 

The agency's training program for employees 

was somewhat broader than in past years and emphasized managerial training and courses in selfdevelopment and communications skills. 

During the latter part of 1984, the Commission 

began to prepare for the rene.gotiation of the existing labor contract with the National Treasury 

Employees Union, which expires in June 1985. 

4See page 29. 

5See page 15. 
35 Chapter 4 

Legislative Recommendations 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires the Commission to transmit each year to the President and Con· 

gress "any recommendations for any legislative or other 

action the Commission considers appropriate ...."2 

U.S.C. Section 438(a)(9). The 24 recommendations in 

this chapter were approved by the Commission in 

1985. Of these, 19 reiterate the recommendations 

submitted in March 1984. Five new recommendations concern campaign-cycle reporting, monthly 

reporting, reporting payments for goods and services, seeking inunctions in enforcement cases 

and election period limitations. 

Definitions 

Draft Committees 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§431 (8){A)(i), 431(9)(A)(i), 

441a(a)(1) and 441b(b) 

Recommendation: Congress should consider the 

following amendments to the Act in order to prevent a 

proliferation of "draft" committees and to reaffirm Congressional intent that draft committees are "political 

committees" subject to the Act's provisions. 

1. Bring Funds Raised andSpent for Undeclared but 

Clearly Identified Candidates Within the Act's Purview. 

Section 431(8)(A)(i) should be amended to include in 

the definition of "contribution" funds contributed by 

persons "for the purpose of influencing a clearly identified individual to seek nomination for election or elec· 

tion to Federal office ...." Section 431(9)(A)(i) should 

be similarly amended to Include within the definition of 

"expenditure" funds expended by persons on behalf of 

such "a clearly identified individual." 

2. Restrict Corporate and Labor Organization Sup· 

port for Undeclared but Clearly Identified Candidates. 

Section 441b(b) should be revised to expressly state 

that corporations, labor organizations and national 

banks are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures "for the purpose of influencing a clearly 

identified individual to seek nomination for election or 

election ..." to Federal office. 

3. Umit Contributions to Draft Committees. The Jaw 

should include explicit language stating that no person 

shall make contributions to any committee (including a 

draft committee) established to influence the nomination or election of a clearly identified individual for any 

Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed that person's contribution limit, per candidate, per election. 

Explanation: These proposed amendments were 

prompted by the decisions of the U.S. Court of Ap· 

peals for the District of Columbia Circuit in FEC v. 

Machinists Non-Partisan Political League and 

FEC v. Citizens for Democratic Alternatives in 

1980 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit in FEC v. Florida for Kennedy 

Committee. The District of Columbia Circuit held 

that the Act, as amended in 1979, regulated only 

the reporting requirements of draft committees. 

The Commission sought review of this decision 

by the Supreme Court, but the Court declined to 

hear the case. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit 

found that "committees organized to 'draft' a person for federal office" are not "political commit· 

tees" within the Commission's investigative 

authority. The Commission believes that the appeals court rulings create a serious imbalance in 

the election law and the political process because 

any group organized to gain grass roots support 

for an undeclared candidate can operate completely outside the strictures of the Federal Election Campaign Act. However, any group organized 

to support a declared candidate is subject to the 

Act's registration and reporting requirements and 

contribution limitations. Therefore, the potential 

exists for funneling large aggregations of money, 

both corporate and private, into the Federal elec· 

toral process through unlimited contributions 

made to draft committees that support 

undeclared candidates. These recommendations 

seek to avert that possibility. 

Volunteer Activity 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(8) 

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider 

whether the exemption for volunteer activity, contained 

in 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(8)(i), was meant to include profes· 

sional services donated primarily for fund raising purposes rather than for actual campaigning. 
36 

Explanation: The Act places no limit on the services that 

a professional may donate to a candidate. For example, 

a professional entertainer may participate in a concert 

for the benefit of a candidate without the proceeds of 

that concert counting toward the entertainer's contribution limitations. Similarly, an artist may create artwork 

for a campaign to be used for fundraising or to be 

disposed of as an asset of the campaign. In both cases, 

the ''volunteer'' has thereby donated goods or services 

the value of which greatly exceeds the amount of the 

contributions which that individual or any other individual 

could otherwise make under the law. 

Registration and Reporting 

Commission as Sole Point of Entry for Disclosure 

Documents 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §432(g) 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that it 

be the sole point of entry for all disclosure documents 

filed by Federal candidates and political committees. 

Explanation: A single point of entry for all disclosure 

documents filed by political committees would eliminate 

any confusion about where candidates and committees 

are to file their reports. It would assist committee 

treasurers by having one office where they would file 

reports, address correspondence 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 would also 

reduce the costs to the Federal government of maintaining three different offices, especially in the areas of 

personnel, equipment and data processing. 

The Commission has 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. 

Separate points of entry also 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. If the 

Commission received all documents, it would transmit 

on a daily basis file copies to the Secretary of the 

Senate and the Clerk of the House, as appropriate. The 

Commission notes that the report of the Institute of 

Politics of the John F. Kennedy School of Government 

at Harvard University, An Analysis of the Impact of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act, 1972-78, prepared for 

the House Administration Committee, recommends that 

all reports be filed directly with the Commission (Committee Print, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., at 122 (1979)). 

Insolvency of Political Committees 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §433(d) · 

Recommendation: The Commission requests that Congress clarity its intention as to whether the Commission 

has a role in the determination of insolvency and liquidation of insolvent political committees. 2 U.S.C. §433(d) 

was amended in 1980 to read: "Nothing in this subsection may be construed to eliminate or limit the authority 

of the Commission to establish procedures for-(A) the 

determination of insolvency with respect to any political 

committee; (B) the orderly liquidation of an insolvent 

political committee, and the orderly application of its 

assets for the reduction of outstanding debts; and (C) 

the termination of an insolvent political committee after 

such liquidation and application of assets." The phrasing of this provision ("Nothing ... may be construed 

to... limit') suggests that the Commission has such 

authority in some other provision of the Act, but the Act 

contains no such provision. If Congress intended the 

Commission to have a role in determining the insolvency 

of political committees and the liquidation of their 

assets, Congress should clarity the nature and scope of 

this authority. 

Explanation: Under 2 U.S.C. §433(d)(1), a political 

committee may terminate only when it certifies in 
37 

writing that it will no longer receive any contributions or make any disbursements and that the 

committee has no outstanding debts or obligations. The Act's 1979 Amendments added a provision to the law (2 U.S.C. §433(d)(2)) possibly permitting the Commission to establish procedures 

for determining insolvency with respect to 

political committees, as well as the orderly liquidation and termination of insolvent committees. 

In 1980, the Commission promulgated the "administrative termination" regulations at 11 CFR 

102.4 after enactment of the 1979 Amendments, in 

response to 2 U.S.C. §433(d)(2). However, these 

procedures do not concern liquidation or application of assets of insolvent political committees. 

Prior to 1980, the Commission adopted "Debt 

Settlement Procedures" under which the Commission reviews proposed debt settlements in order 

to determine whether the settlement will result in 

a potential violation of the Act. If it does not appear that such a violation will occur, the Commission permits the committee to cease reporting 

that debt once the settlement and payment are 

reported. The Commission believes this authority 

derives from 2 U.S.C. §434 and from its authority 

to correct and prevent violations of the Act, but it 

does not appear as a grant of authority beyond a 

review of the specific debt settlement request, to 

order application of committee assets. 

It has been suggested that approval by the 

Commission of the settlement of debts owed by 

political committees at less than face value may 

lead to the circumvention of the limitations on 

contributions specified by 2 U.S.C. §§441a and 

441b. The amounts involved are frequently 

substantial, and the creditors are often corporate 

entities. Concern has also been expressed regarding the possibility that committees could incur 

further debts after settling some, or that a committee could pay off one creditor at less than the 

dollar value owed and subsequently raise additional funds to pay off a "friendly" creditor at full 

value. 

When clarifying the nature and scope of the 

Commission's authority to determine the insolvency of political committees, Congress 

should consider the impact on the Commission's 

operations. An expanded role in this area might 

increase the Commission's workload, thus requiring additional staff and funds. 

Waiver Authority 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434 

Recommendation: Congress should give the Commission authority to grant general waivers or exemptions from the reporting requirements of the 

Act for classifications and categories of political 

committees. 

Explanation: In cases where reporting requirements are excessive or unnecessary, it 

would be helpful if the Commission had authority 

to suspend the reporting requirements of the Act. 

For example, during the past election cycle, the 

Commission encountered several problems 

relating to the reporting requirements of authorized committees whose respective candidates were 

not on the election ballot. The Commission had to 

consider whether the election-year reporting requirements were fully applicable to candidate 

committees operating under one of the following 

circumstances: 

• The candidate withdraws from nomination prior to 

having his or her name placed on the ballot. 

• The candidate loses the primary and therefore is 

not on the general election ballot. 

• The candidate is unchallenged and his or her name 

. does not appear on the election ballot. 

Moreover, a Presidential primary candidate who has 

triggered the $100,000 threshold but who is no longer 

actively seeking nomination should be able to reduce 

reporting from a monthly to a quarterly schedule. 

In some instances, the reporting problems reflect the 

unique features of certain State election procedures. A 

waiver authority would enable the Commission to 

respond flexibly and fairly in these situations. 

In the 1979 Amendments to the Act, Congress 

repealed 2 U.S.C. §436, which had provided the Commission with a limited waiver authority. There remains, 
38 

however, a need for a waiver authority. It would enable 

the Commission to reduce needlessly burdensome 

disclosure requirements. 

Campaign-Cycle Reporting 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434 

Recommendation: Congress should revise the law to 

require authorized candidate committees to report on a 

campaign-to-date basis, rather than a calendar year cycle, as is now required. 

Explanation: Under the current law, a reporter or 

researcher must compile the total figures from several 

year-end reports in order to determine the true costs of 

a committee. In the case of Senate campaigns, which 

may extend over a six-year period, this change would 

be particularly helpful. 

Monthly Reporting for Congressional Candidates 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(2) 

Recommendation: The principal campaign committee of 

a Congressional candidate should have the option of fil· 

ing monthly reports in lieu of quarterly reports. 

Explanation: Political committees, other than principal 

campaign committees, may choose under the Act to file 

either monthly or quarterly reports during an election 

year. Committees choose this option when they have a 

high volume of activity. Under those circumstances·, accounting and reporting are easier on a monthly basis 

because fewer transactions have taken place during 

that time. Consequently, the committee's reports will be 

more accurate. 

Principal campaign committees can also have a large 

volume of receipts and expenditures. This is particularly 

true with Senatorial campaigns. These committees 

should be able to choose a more frequent filing 

schedule so that their reporting covers less activity and 

is easier to do. 

Monthly Reports 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4)(B) 

Recommendation: Congress should consider 

changing the reporting deadline for monthly filers 

to some earlier date in the month. 

Explanation: Throughout the years, reporters and 

the public have indicated they would like to see 

financial data earlier than 20 days after the close 

of books. In the fast-paced Presidential primary 

period, in particular, by the time the 20-day report 

is filed, it is already out of date. In some cases, 

several primary elections have even passed during 

this interim. An earlier report would give the 

public more timely information without unnecessarily burdening the staff of political commtttees. 

Reporting Payments to Persons Providing 

Goods and Services 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(5)(A), (6)(A), (6)(8) 

Recommendation: The current statute requires 

reporting "the name and address of each ... person to whom an expenditure in an aggregate 

amount or value in excess of $200 within the 

calendar year is made by the reporting committee 

to meet a candidate or committee operating expense·, together with the date, amount, and purpose of such operating expenditure." Congress 

should clarify whether this is meant, in all instances, to require reporting committees to 

disclose only the payments made by the committee or whether, in some instances, 1) the reporting 

committees must require initial payees to report, 

to the committees, their payments to secondary 

payees, and 2) the reporting committees, in turn, 

must maintain this information and disclose it to 

the public by amending their reports through 

memo entries. 

Explanation: The Commission has encountered 

on several occasions the question of just how 

detailed a committee's reporting of 

disbursements must be. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1983-25, 1 Fed. Election Camp. Fin. Guide 

(CCH), para. 5742 (Dec. 22, 1983) (Presidential can-
39 

didate's committee not required to disclose the 

names, addresses, dates or amounts of payments 

made by a general media consultant retained by 

the committee); Advisory Opinion 1984-8, 1 Fed. 

Election Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH), para. 5756 (Apr. 

20, 1984) (House candidate's committee only required to itemize payments made to the candidate 

for travel and subsistence, not the payments 

made by the candidate to the actual providers of 

services); Financial Control and Compliance 

Manual for General Election Candidates Receiv· 

ing Public Financing, Federal Election Commission, pp. IV 39-44 (1984) (Distinguishing commit· 

tee advances or reimbursements to campaign 

staff for travel and subsistence from other advances or reimbursements to such staff and requiring itemization of payments made by campaign staff only as to the latter). Congressional intent in this area is not expressly stated, and the 

Commission believes that statutory clarification 

would be beneficial. In the area of Presidential 

public financing, where the Commission is 

responsible for monitoring whether candidate 

disbursements are for qualified campaign expenses (see 26 U.S.C. §§9004(c) and 9038(b)(2)), 

guidance would be particularly useful. 

Verifying Multlcandldate Committee Status 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§438(a)(6)(C), 441 a(a)(2) and 

441a(a)(4) 

Recommendation: Congress should consider modifying 

those provisions of the Act relating to multicandidate 

committees in order to reduce the problems encountered by contributor committees in reporting their 

multicandidate committee status, and by candidate 

committees and the Commission in verifying the 

multicandidate committee status of contributor commit· 

tees. In this regard, Congress might consider requiring 

political committees to notify the Commission once they 

have satisfied the three criteria for becoming a multicandidate committee, namely, once a political committee 

has been registered for not less than 6 months, has 

received contributions from more than 50 persons and 

has contributed to at least 5 candidates for Federal of· 

fice. 

Explanation: Under the current statute, political commit· 

tees may not contribute more than $1,000 to each candidate, per election, until they qualify as a multi can· 

didate committee, at which point they may contribute up 

to $5,000 per candidate, per election. To qualify for 

this special status, a committee must meet three standards: 

• Support 5 or more Federal candidates; 

• Receive contributions from more than 50 contributors; and 

• Have been registered as a political committee for 

at least 6 months. 

The Commission is statutorily responsible for main· 

taining an index of committees that have qualified as 

multicandidate committees. The index enables recipient 

candidate committees to determine whether a given 

contributor has in fact qualified as a multicandidate committee and therefore is entitled to contribute up to the 

higher limit. The Commission's Multicandidate Index, 

however, is not current because It depends upon information filed periodically by political committees. Committees inform the Commission that they have qualified 

as multicandidate committees by checking the appropriate box on their regularly scheduled report. If, 

however, they qualify shortly after they have filed their 

report, several months may elapse before they disclose 

their new status on the next report. With semiannual 

reporting in a nonelection year, for example, a commit· 

tee may become a multicandidate committee in August, 

but the Commission's Index will not reveal this until after 

the January 31 report has been filed, coded and 

entered into the Commission's computer. 

Because candidate committees cannot totally rely on 

the Commission's Multicandidate Index for current information, they sometimes ask the contributing committee 

directly whether the committee is a multicandidate committee. Contributing committees, however, are not 

always clear as to what it means to be a multicandidate 

committee. Some committees erroneously believe that 

they qualify as a multicandidate committee merely 

because they have contributed to more than one 

Federal candidate. They are not aware that they must 

have contributed to 5 or more Federal candidates and 

also have more than 50 contributors and have been 

registered for at least 6 months. 
40 

Local Party Activity 

Separate §441a(d) Limit for Local Party CommiHees 

in Presidential Elections 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 a( d) 

Recommendation:1 Congress should amend the statute 

to provide a separate limit, under §441a(d), on expenditures made by local party committees in the Presidential elections. 

1Commissioners McDonald and Harris filed the following 

dissent: The Commission's legislative recommendation of a 

separate §441a(d) limit for a local party committee to the Congress would further expand "party building" loopholes already 

carved by Congress and certain rulings of the Commission. 

The Commission's recommendation would provide a local party with a small limit of its own in Presidential elections. 

This recommendation has nothing to do with the real activities of local parties. We strongly support local parties and 

will work for any proposal that enhances their efforts to increase participation. This recommendation will only provide a 

means of circumventing the Presidential expenditure limits. 

Presently a local party may make expenditures for getout-the-vote activities involving volunteers in a Presidential 

campaign. The recommendation our colleagues have made 

would in no way build up these local parties and would quite 

likely make these committees merely another paper entity, existing only in a bank account, for their national party and its 

Presidential nominee. Section 441a(a)(4) of the FECA allows 

unlimited transfers between national, State and local committees of a political party. No definition of local party exists in 

the statute. Each precinct could form as many paper committees to receive national money as the national party desires. If 

the Commission's recommendation is enacted, an unlimited 

number of local committees could be formed and the national 

party could transfer the local limit to each local entity. This 

process could provide unlimited funds to a Presidential candidate in whatever locale desired, completely undermining the 

delicate balance constructed by Congress to provide each major party candidate for President with an equal amount of 

public funds. Under the present system, each party has ample 

ability to participate in the Presidential campaign through getout-the-vote activities and the national party §441a(d) limit 

(which is spent in local communities around the country 

selected by the national party). Local party headquarters are 

run on a ticket-wide basis and include the Presidential 

nominee in their efforts. Already corporate and labor funds are 

contributed to State and local parties to be used in a ratio of 

soft and hard money in the get-out-the-vote efforts in areas 

which are critical to the Federal candidates. Why do we need 

yet another loophole to give the Presidential campaigns 

unlimited spending power? 

If the Congress enacts this proposal, it will not increase 

activity at the local level, it will only increase the ability to circumvent the process at the national level. This result will limit 

participation in Presidential campaigns rather than broaden it. 

Explanation: Local party committees share the State 

party's §441 a(d) limit for Congressional elections but 

have no statutory role under that section for Presidential 

elections. The 1979 Amendments to the Act did 

establish certain exemptions for State and local party 

committees, including a provision for get-out-the-vote 

activity during the Presidential election. The exemptions, however, are limited to activities involving 

volunteers. Payments for general public political advertising do not qualify under these provisions. Therefore, 

under the present statute, a local party which wants to 

purchase a newspaper ad on behalf of the party's 

Presidential nominee may make such an expenditure 

only when authorized to do so under the national party's 

§441a(d) limit. 

Many local committees are unaware of this restriction 

and make minor expenditures on behalf of the party's 

Presidential nominee, which are difficult for the national 

committee to track. It would be preferable for the local 

committees to have a small Presidential spending limit 

of their own (in addition to the Presidential spending 

limit given to the national party committees). This would 

aid national committees in administering their own 

441a(d) limit for Presidential electionsand avoid unnecessary compliance actions, while still ensuring that 

local parties do not introduce significant amounts of 

unreported (and possibly prohibited) funds into the 

Presidential election process. (It is assumed that the national committee would delegate its authority with 

respect to spending by State party committees in 

Presidential elections.) 

If Congress were to consider this recommendation, it 

would be necessary for Congress to define, with some 

degree of precision, "local party committee." 

Enforcement 

Modifying "Reason to Believe" Finding 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §437g 

Recommendation: Congress should consider 

modifying the language pertaining to "reason to 

believe," contained in 2 U.S.C. §437g, in order to 

reduce the confusion sometimes experienced by 
41 

respondents, the press and the public. One possible approach would be to change the statutory 

language from "the Commission finds reason to 

believe a violation of the Act has occurred" to "the 

Commission finds reason to believe a violation of 

the Act may have occurred." Or Congress may 

wish to use some other less invidious language. 

Explanation: Under the present statute, the Commission is required to make a finding that there is "reason 

to believe a violation has occurred" before it may investigate. Only then may the Commission request 

specific information from a respondent to determine 

whether, in fact, a violation has occurred. The statutory 

phrase "reason to believe" is misleading and does a 

disservice to both the Commission and the respondent. 

It implies that the Commission has evaluated the 

evidence and concluded that the respondent has 

violated the Act. In fact, however, a "reason to believe" 

finding simply means that the Commission believes a 

violation may have occurred if the facts as described in 

the complaint are true. An investigation permits the 

Commission to evaluate the validity of the facts as 

alleged. 

If the problem is, in part, one of semantics, it would be 

helpful to substitute words that sound less accusatory 

and that more accurately reflect what, in fact, the Commission is doing at this early phase of enforcement. 

In order to avoid perpetuating the erroneous conclusion that the Commission believes a respondent has 

violated the law everytime it finds "reason to believe," 

the statute should be amended. 

Seeking Injunctions in Enforcement Cases 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(1) 

Recommendation:2 Congress should amend the enforcement procedures set forth in the statute so as to 

empower the Commission to promptly initiate a civil suit 

for injunctive relief in order to preserve the status quo 

when there is clear and convincing evidence that a 

substantial violation of the Act is about to occur. Under 

criteria expressly stated, the Commission should be 

authorized to initiate such civil action in a United States 

district court without awaiting expiration of the 15 day 

period for responding to a complaint or the other administrative steps enumerated in the statute. The person against whom the Commission brought the action 

would enjoy the procedural protections afforded by the 

courts. 

Explanation: On certain occasions in the heat of 

the campaign period, the Commission has been 

provided with information indicating that a violation of the Act is about to occur (or be repeated) 

and yet, because of the administrative steps set 

forth in the statute, has been unable to act swiftly 

and effectively in order to prevent the violation 

from occurring. In some instances the evidence of 

a violation has been clearcut and the potential for 

an impact on a campaign or campaigns has been 

substantial. The Commission has felt constrained 

from seeking immediate judicial action by the requirements of the statute which mandate that a 

2Commissioner Elliot filed the following dissent: The Act 

presently enables the Commission to seek injunctive relief 

after the administrative process has been completed and this 

is more than sufficient. (See 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(6)(A)). 

1am unaware of any complaint filed with the Commission 

during the last three years which, in my opinion, would meet 

the four standards set forth in the legislative recommendation. 

Assuming a case was submitted which met these standards, I 

believe it would be inappropriate for the Commission to seek 

injunctive relief prior to a probable cause finding. 

First, the very ability of the Commission to seek an injunction, 

especially during the "heat of the campaign," opens the door to 

allegations of an arbitrary and politically motivated enforcement action 

by the Commission. The Commission's decision to seek an injunction 

in one case while refusing to do so in another could easily be seen by 

candidates and respondents as politicizing the enforcement process. 

Second, the Commission might easily be flooded with requests 

for injunctive relief for issues such as failure to file an October 

quarterly or a 12-day pre-general report. Although the Commission 

would have the discretion to deny all these requests for injunctive 

relief, In making that decision the Commission would bear the administrative burden of an immediate review of the factual issues. 

Third, although the courts would be the final arbiter as to whether 

or not to grant an injunction, the mere decision by the Commission to 

proceed to seek an injunction during the final weeks of a campaign 

would cause a diversion of time and money and adverse publicity for a 

candidate during the most important period of the campaign. 

For these reasons, I disagree with the recommendation to expand the power of the Commission to seek injunctive relief except as 

presently provided for in the Act. 
42 

person be given 15 days to respond to a complaint, that a General Counsel's brief be issued, 

that there be an opportunity to respond to such 

brief, and that conciliation be attempted before 

court action may be initiated. The courts have indicated that the Commission has little if any 

discretion to deviate from the administrative procedures of the statute. In re Carter-Mondale 

Reelection Committee, Inc., 642 F.2d 538 (D.C. Cir. 

1980); Common Cause v. Schmitt, 512 F. Supp. 489 

(D.D.C. 1980), aff'd by an equally divided court, 455 

U.S. 129 (1982); Durkin for U.S. Senate v. FEC, 2 

Fed. Elec. Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH) para. 9147 

(D.N.H. 1980). The Commission suggests that the 

standards that should govern whether it may seek 

prompt injunctive relief (which could be set forth 

in the statute itself) are: 

1. There is a substantial likelihood that the 

facts set forth a potential violation of the Act; 

2. Failure of the Commission to act expeditiously will result in irreparable harm to a party affected by the potential violation; 

3. Expeditious action will not result in undue 

harm or prejudice to the interests of other persons; and 

4. The public interest would be served by expeditious handling of the matter. 

Public Financing 

Fundraising Limitation for Publicly Financed 

Presidential Primary Campaigns 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§431(9)(A)(vi) and 441a 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that 

the separate fundraising limitation provided to publicly 

financed Presidential primary campaigns be combined 

with the overall limit. Thus, instead of a candidate's having a $10 million (plus COLA3) limit for campaign expenditures and a $2 million (plus COLA) limit for fundraising 

(20 percent of overall limit), each candidate would have 

one $12 million (plus COLA) limit for all campaign expenditures. 

Explanation: Campaigns that have sufficient funds to 

spend up to the overall limit usually allocate some of 

their expenditures to the fundraising category. These 

campaigns come close to spending the maximum permitted under both their overall limitand their special fundraising limit. Hence, by combining the two limits, Congress would not substantially alter spending amounts or 

patterns. For those campaigns which do not spend up 

to the overall expenditure limit, the separate fundraising 

limit is meaningless. Many smaller campaigns do not 

even bother to use it, except in one or two States 

where the expenditure limit is low, e.g., Iowa and New 

Hampshire. Assuming that the State limitations are 

eliminated or appropriately adjusted, this recommendation would have little impact on the election process. 

The advantages of the recommendation, however, 

are substantial. They include a reduction in accounting 

burdens and a simplification in reporting requirements 

for campaigns, and a reduction in the Commission's 

auditing task. 

State Expenditure Limits for Publicly Financed 

Presidential Primary Campaigns 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 a 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that 

the State-by-State limitations on expenditures for 

publicly financed Presidential primary candidates be 

eliminated. 

Explanation: The Commission has now seen three 

Presidential elections under the State expenditure limitations. Based on our experience, we 

believe that the limitations could be removed with 

no material impact on the process. 

Our experience has shown that the limitations have little impact on campaign spending in a given State, with 

the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire. In most 

other States, campaigns are unable or do not wish to 

expend an amount equal to the limitation. In effect, 

then, the administration of the entire program results in 

limiting disbursements in these two primaries alone. 

3spending limits are im(reased by the cost-of-living adjustment 

(COLA), which the Department of Labor calculates annually. 
43 

If the limitations were removed, the level of 

disbursements in these States would obviously increase. With an increasing number of primaries vying 

for a campaign's limited resources, however, it would 

not be possible to spend very large amounts in these 

early primaries and still have adequate funds available 

for the later primaries. Thus, the overall national limit 

would serve as a constraint on State spending, even in 

the early primaries. At the same time, candidates would 

have broader discretion in the running of their campaigns. 

Our experience has also shown that the limitations 

have been only partially successful in limiting expenditures in the early primary States. The use of the fundraising limitation, the compliance cost exemption, the 

volunteer service provisions, the unreimbursed personnel travel expense provisions, the use of a personal 

residence in volunteer activity exemption, and a complex series of allocation schemes have developed into 

an art which when skillfully practiced can partially circumvent the State limitations. 

Finally, the allocation of expenditures to the States 

has proven a significant accounting burden for campaigns and an equally difficult audit and enforcement 

task for the Commission. 

Given our experience to date, we believe that this 

change to the Act would be of substantial benefit to all 

parties concerned. 

Expenditure Limits 

Certification of Voting Age Population Figures 

and Cost-of-Living Adjustment 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§441 a( c) and 441 a( e) 

Recommendation: Congress should consider removing 

the requirement that the Secretary of Commerce certify 

to the Commission the voting age population of each 

Congressional district. At the same time, Congress 

should establish a deadline of February 15 for supplying the Commission with the remaining information concerning the voting age population for the nation as a 

whole and for each state. In addition, the same deadline 

should apply to the Secretary of Labor, who is required 

under the Act to provide the Commission with figures on 

the annual adjustment to the cost-of-living index. 

Explanation: In order for the Commission to compute 

the coordinated party expenditure limits and the Stateby-State expenditure limits for Presidential candidates, 

the Secretary of Commerce certifies the voting age 

population of the United States and of each State. 2 

U.S.C. §441 a(e). The certification for each Congressional district, also required under this provision, is not 

needed. 

In addition, under 2 U.S.C. §441a(c), the Secretary of 

Labor is required to certify the annual adjustment in the 

cost-of-living index. In both instances, the timely receipt 

of these figures would enable the Commission to inform 

political committees of their spending limits early in the 

campaign cycle. Under present circumstances, where 

no deadline exists, the Commission has sometimes 

been unable to release the spending limit figures before 

June. 

Contributions 

Election Period Limitations 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 a 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that 

limits on contributions to candidates be placed on an 

election-cycle basis, rather than the current perelection basis. 

Explanation: The contribution limitations affecting contributions to candidates are structured on a "perelection" 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 "electioncycle" basis. Thus, multicandidate committees could 

give up to $10,000 and all other persons could give up 

to $2,000 to an authorized committee at any point during the election cycle. 
44 

Application of Contribution Limitations 

to Family Members 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 a 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that 

Congress examine the application of the contribution 

limitations to immediate family members. 

Explanation: Under the current posture of the law, a 

family member is limited to contributing $1,000 per 

election to a candidate. This limitation applies to 

spouses and parents, as well as other immediate family 

members. (See S. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1237, 93rd 

Cong., 2nd Sess., 58 (1974) and Buckley v. Valeo, 

424 U.S. 1, 51 (footnote 57) (1976).) This limitation 

has caused the Commission substantial problems in attempting to implement and enforce the contribution 

limitations.4 

Problems have arisen in enforcing the limitations 

where a candidate uses assets belonging to a parent. In 

some cases, a parent has made a substantial gift to his 

or her candidate-child while cautioning the candidate 

that this may well decrease the amount which the candidate would otherwise inherit upon the death of the 

parent. 

The Commission recommends that Congress consider the difficulties arising from application of the contribution limitations to immediate family members. 

Foreign Nationals 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441e 

Recommendation: Congress should examine the §441e 

prohibition on contributions by foreign nationals in connection with United States elections - Federal, State 

and local. In particular, Congress should consider three 

issues: 

1. Whether or not an American subsidiary of a 

foreign corporation should be allowed to make contributions directly (to State and local candidates) or to 

establish a separate segregated fund (SSF); and, if it 

does form an SSF, whether the activities of the SSF 

should be subject to special restrictions; 

2. Whether or not the statutory prohibition on contributions by foreign nationals is meant to cover 

volunteer activity by foreign nationals as well; and 

3. Whether or not the Act should continue to prohibit 

contributions by foreign nationals in connection with 

State and local elections. 

Explanation: These questions have presented problems 

for the Commission and candidates, particularly since 

the legislative history is unclear in this area. 

Several issues have arisen during the Commission's 

administration of this provision. First, the law, as interpreted by Commission advisory opinions, permits an 

American subsidiary of a foreign registered corporation 

to influence elections either through direct contributions 

to State and local elections or by forming a separate 

segregated fund that supports Federal candidates. With 

regard to SSFs established by American subsidiaries, 

Commission advisory opinions have stipulated that the 

foreign corporate parent may not be the direct or indirect source of contributions; nor may it influence the 

SSF's decisions or exercise any control over the SSF. 

Further, the opinions have reiterated the law's requirement that only U.S. citizens (and individuals holding 

green cards) may contribute to the SSF. 

In another advisory opinion, the Commission has interpreted the Act to mean that a foreign national may 

not volunteer his services to a campaign. The standard 

under Section 441e bars contributions by a foreign national that are "in connection with" (rather than "for the 

purpose of influencingj a Federal election. It is unclear 

whether this distinction is intended to create a broader 

prohibition in the case of foreign nationals than for other 

activities under the Act. 

Finally, the Commission has recognized that it is difficult to enforce this provision with respect to State and 

local elections. Since only Federal candidates and committees report to the Commission, it is difficult for a 

Federal agency to monitor campaign financial activity affecting State and local elections. 

'While the Commission has attempted through regulations to present an equitable solution to some of these problems (see 48 Fed. 

Reg. 19019 (April 27, 1983) as prescribed by the Commission on 

July 1, 1983), statutory resolution is required in this area. 
45 

Acceptance of Cash Contributions 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441g 

Recommendation: Congress may wish to modify the 

statute to make the treatment of 2 U.S.C. §441g, concerning cash contributions, consistent with other provisions of the Act. As currently drafted, 2 U.S.C. §441 g 

prohibits only the making of cash contributions which, 

in the aggregate, exceed $100 per candidate, per 

election. It does not address the issue of accepting 

cash contributions. Moreover, the current statutory 

language does not plainly prohibit cash contributions in 

excess of $100 to political committees other than 

authorized committees of a candidate. 

Explanation: Currently this provision focuses only on 

persons making the cash contributions. However, 

these cases generally come to light when a committee 

has accepted these funds. Yet the Commission has no 

recourse to the committee in such cases. This can be a 

problem, particularly where primary matching funds are 

received on the basis of such contributions. 

While the Commission, in its regulations at 11 CFR 

110.4(cX2), has included a provision requiring a committee receiving such a cash contribution to promptly 

return the excess over $100, the statute does not explicitly make acceptance of these cash contributions a 

violation. The other sections of the Act dealing with prohibited contributions (i.e., Sections 441b on corporate 

and labor union contributions, 441c on contributions by 

government contractors, 441e on contributions by 

foreign nationals, and 4411 on contributions in the name 

of another) all prohibit both the making and accepting of 

such contributions. 

Secondly, the statutory text seems to suggest that 

the prohibition contained in §441g applies only to those 

contributions given to candidate committees. This 

language is at apparent odds with the Commission's 

understanding of the Congressional purpose to prohibit 

any cash contributions which exceed $100 in Federal 

elections. 

Fraudulent Misrepresentation 

Fundraising Projects Operated by Unauthorized 

Committees 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(4) 

Recommendations: 5 Congress may wish to consider 

amending the statute, at 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(4), to clarify 

that a political committee that is not an authorized committee of any candidate may not use the name of a candidate in the name of any "project" or other fundraising 

activity of such committee. 

Explanation: The statute now reads that a political committee that is not an authorized committee "shall not include the name of any candidate in its name [emphasis 

added]." In certain situations presented to the Commission the political committee in question has not included the name of any candidate in its official name as 

registered with the Commission, but has nonetheless 

carried out "projects" in support of a particular candidate using the name of the candidate in the letterhead 

5Commissioner Elliott filed the following dissent: I support the 

policy underlying this legislative recommendation and recognize the 

seriousness of the problem necessitating such a recommendation. 

However, the scope of the recommendation is far too broad and in· 

flexible given the traditional fundraising events, especially those held 

by political parties and some unauthorized political committees. Party 

committees are not authorized committees and therefore would come 

under the general prohibitions included in the recommendation, 

precluding the use of a candidate's name for any activity of a party 

committee. Oftentimes, however, fundraising events conducted by a 

party committee incorporate the name of a well-known Member of 

Congress as a fundraising tool. Typically, the fundraising contributions are made in the form of checks made payable to the name of the 

event, e.g., "Happy Birthday, Senator Smith"; "Mike's Annual 

Barbecue"; "Sail With Senator Sanford"; "Roast Roberts." I do not 

believe Congress intends to preclude the use of the candidates' 

names in such activities, especially when the candidate is not only 

aware that his/her name is being used but approves and is actively 

participating in the event. 

I would propose that the candidate be entitled to authorize the 

use of his or her name for such an event or activity provided the 

authorization is written. Again, I recognize the seriousness and the 

need to address this issue; however, Congress should not exclude 

fundraising tools which have been traditionally used by political committees. 

Further, the impact of this recommendation has not been 

evaluated in the context of our brand-new joint fund raising regulations. 
46 

and text of its materials. The likely result has been that 

recipients of communications from such political committees were led to believe that the committees were in 

fact authorized by the candidate whose name was 

used. The requirement that committees include a 

disclaimer regarding nonauthorization (2 U.S.C. §441d) 

has not proven adequate under these circumstances. 

The Commission believes that the intent behind the 

current provision is circumvented by the foregoing 

practice. Accordingly, the statute should be revised to 

clarify that the use of the name of a candidate in the 

name of any "project" is also prohibited. 

Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 h 

Recommendation: The current §441h prohibits 

fraudulent misrepresentation such as speaking, 

writing or acting on behalf of a candidate or committee on a matter which is damaging to such candidate 

or committee. It does not, however, prohibit persons 

from fraudulently soliciting contributions. A provision 

should be added to this section prohibiting persons. 

from fraudulently misrepresenting themselves as 

representatives of candidates or political parties for 

the purpose of soliciting contributions which are not 

forwarded to or used by or on behalf of the candidate 

or party. 

Explanation: The Commission has received a number of 

complaints charging that substantial amounts of money 

were raised fraudulently by persons or committees purporting to act on behalf of candidates. Candidates have 

complained that contributions which people believed 

were going for the benefit of the candidate were 

diverted for other purposes. Both the candidates and 

the contributors were harmed by such diversion. The 

candidates received less money because people 

desirous of contributing believed they had already done 

so and the contributors' funds had been misused in a

manner ' in which they did not intend. The Commission 

has been unable to take any action on these matters 

because the statute gives it no authority in this area. 

Honoraria 

Technical Amendments 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§431(8)(B)(xiv) and 441 i 

Recommendation: The Commission offers two suggestions concerning honoraria. 

1. Section 441i should be placed under the Ethics in 

Government Act. 

2. As technical amendments, Sections 441 i(c) and 

(d), which pertain to the annual limit on receiving 

honoraria (now repealed), should be repealed. Additionally, 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(xiv), which refers to the 

definition of honorarium in Section441i, should be 

modified to contain the definition itself. 

Explanation: Congress eliminated the $25,000 annual 

limit on the amount of honoraria that could be accepted, 

but it did not take out these two sections, which only 

apply to the $25,000 limit. This clarification would 

eliminate confusion for officeholders and thereby help 

the Commission in its administration of the Act. 

Commission Information Services 

Budget Reimbursement Fund 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §438 

Recommendation: 

1. The Commission recommends that Congress establish a reimbursement account for the 

Commission so that expenses incurred in preparing copies of documents, publications and computer tapes sold to the public are recovered by the 

Commission. Similarly, costs awarded to the 

Commission in litigation (e.g., printing, but not 

civil penalties) and payments for Commission expenses incurred in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests should be payable to the 

reimbursement fund. The Commission should be 

able to use such reimbursements to cover its 

costs for these services, without fiscal year 

limitation, and without a reduction in the Commission's appropriation. 
47 

2. The Commission recommends that costs be 

recovered for FEC Clearinghouse seminars, 

workshops, research materials and other services, and 

that reimbursements be used to cover some of the 

costs of these activities, including costs of development, production, overhead and other related expenses. 

Explanation: At the present time, copies of reports, 

microfilm, and computer tapes are sold to the public at 

the Commission's cost. However, instead of the funds 

being used to reimburse the Commission for its expenses in producing the materials, they are credited to 

the U.S. Treasury. The effect on the Commission of 

selling materials is thus the same as if the materials had 

been given away. The Commission absorbs the entire 

cost. In FY1983, in return for services and materials it 

offered the public, the FEC collected and transferred 

$91,969 in miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury. In 

FY 1984, the amount was $86,984 and during the first 

three months of FY 1985, $22,111 was transferred to 

the Treasury. Establishment of a reimbursement fund, 

into which fees for such materials would be paid, would 

permit this money to be applied to further dissemination 

of information. Note, however, that a reimbursement 

fund would not be applied to the distribution of FEC informational materials to candidates and registered 

political committees. They would continue to receive 

free publications that help them comply with the Federal 

election laws. 

There is also the possibility that the Commission could recover costs of FEC Clearinghouse 

workshops and seminars, research materials, and 

reports that are now sold by the Government Printing Office and the National Technical Information Service. Approximately $15,000 was collected 

in FY 1981 by GPO and NTIS on account of sales 

of Clearinghouse documents. 

There should be no restriction on the use of 

reimbursed funds in a particular year to avoid the 

possibility of having funds lapse. 
49 

Appendix 1 

Biographies of 

Commissioners and 

Officers 

Commissioners 

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman 

April 30, 19871 

Before her appointment to the Commission in 

December 1981, Mrs. Elliott served as vice president 

of the Washington firm Bishop, Bryant & Associates, 

Inc. From 1970 to 1979, she was associate executive 

director of the American Medical Political Action Committee, having served as assistant director from 1961 

to 1970. Mrs. Elliott was on the board of directors of 

the American Association of Political Consultants and of 

the Chicago Area Public Affairs Group, of which she is a 

past president. She was also a member of the Public Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the 

United States. In 1979, she received the Award for Excellence in Serving Corporate Public Affairs from the 

National Association of Manufacturers. Mrs. Elliott, a 

native of St. Louis, Missouri, holds a B.A. from the 

University of Illinois and completed the Medical 

Association Management Executives Program at Northwestern University. 

Thomas E. Harris, Vice Chairman 

April 30, 1985 

Before serving on the Commission, Mr. Harris was 

associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO in 

Washington from 1955 to 1975. He had held the same 

position with the CIO from 1948 until it merged with the 

AFL in 1955. Before that, he was an attorney in private 

practice and with various government agencies. A 

native of Little Rock, Arkansas, Mr. Harris is a 1935 

graduate of Columbia University Law School. After 

graduation, he clerked one year for Supreme Court 

Justice Harlan F. Stone. 

Mr. Harris was originally appointed to the Commission 

for a four-year term and, when the agency was 

reconstituted in 1976, received a three-year appointment. In 1979, President Carter reappointed Mr. Harris 

for a six-year term. He was Commission Chairman from 

May 1977 to May 1978. 

1Term expiration date. 

Joan D. Aikens 

April 30, 1989 

Mrs. Aikens was formerly vice president of Lew 

Hodges/Communications, a public relations firm in 

Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. From 1972 until1974, 

she was president of the Pennsylvania Council of 

Republican Women and served on the board of directors of the National Federation of Republican Women. A 

native of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Mrs. Aikens 

has been active in a variety of volunteer organizations. 

She received her B.A. and honorary Doctor of Laws 

degree from Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pennsylvania. 

Mrs. Aikens was first appointed to the Commission in 

1975 and, upon the FEC's reconstitution in 1976, was 

reappointed for five years. When that term expired in 

April 1981, she continued to serve until President 

Reagan named her to complete the term of former Commissioner Max Friedersdorf, who had resigned in 

December 1980. In 1983, President Reagan again 

reappointed Mrs. Aikens, this time for a six-year term. 

She was elected as 1985 Commission Vice Chairman. 

Danny L. McDonald 

April 30, 1987 

Mr. McDonald, as general administrator of the 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission, was responsible for the management of ten regulatory divisions 

from 1979 until his appointment to the Commission 

in December 1981. He was secretary of the Tulsa 

County Election Board from 1974 to 1979 and served 

as chief clerk of the board in 1973. He also served as 

a member of the Advisory Panel to the FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. Mr. 

McDonald, a native of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, 

holds a B.A. from Oklahoma State University and attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government 

at Harvard University. He served as Commission 

Chairman during 1983. 
50 

John Warren McGarry 

April 30, 1989 

Mr. McGarry, a native of Massachusetts, graduated 

cum laude from Holy Cross College in 1952 and attended graduate school at Boston University. In 1956, 

he obtained a Juris Doctor degree from the 

Georgetown Law Center. Mr. McGarry was assistant 

attorney general of Massachusetts, serving as both 

trial counsel and appellate advocate, from 1959 to 

1962. Following his tenure in office, he combined 

private law practice with service as chief counsel for 

the Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

This committee was created by special resolution 

every election year through 1972 in order to oversee 

House elections. From 1973 until President Carter 

appointed him to the Commission in October 1978 

Mr. McGarry served as special counsel on election~ to the Commission on House Administration of the 

U.S. Congress. He was reappointed as Commissioner for a six-year term in 1983. Mr. McGarry served 

as Chairman of the Commission in 1981 and was 

elected to serve again in 1985. 

Frank P. Reiche 

April 30, 1985 

Before his appointment to the Commission in July 

1979, Mr. Reiche served as Chairman of the first New 

Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission for 

six years. He had previously served in a variety of 

Republican Party positions, including eight years as 

a Republican County Committeeman. An attorney 

specializing in tax law, Mr. Reiche graduated from 

Columbia University Law School in 1959 and received a Master of Laws Degree in Taxation from 

New York University in 1966. He also holds an A.B. 

Degree from Williams College and a Masters Degree 

in Foreign Affairs from George Washington University. From 1970 to 1972, Mr. Reiche served as a 

member of New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill's 

blue ribbon Tax Policy Committee. He was a partner 

in the Princeton law firm of Smith, Stratton, Wise and 

Heher from 1964 until his 1979 appointment to the 

Commission. He served as Commission Chairman in 

1982. 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Benjamin J. Guthrie 

Mr. Guthrie became Clerk of the House of Representatives in January 1983, after having served as 

Sergeant at Arms of the House from 1980 to 1982 and 

as printing clerk and director of the House 

Legislative Processes Office from 1957 to 1980. He 

joined the House staff after 11 years with the U.S. 

Government Printing Office. A World War II veteran, 

Mr. Guthrie was with the U.S. Signal Corps from 1942 

to 1946, after graduating from the Maryland State 

Teachers College in Salisbury. 

Douglas Patton, attorney, continued to serve at the 

Commission as Special Deputy to the Clerk of the 

House. 

William F. Hildenbrand2 

Mr. Hildenbrand was elected Secretary of the Senate in 

January 1981, after serving as Secretary for the Minority since 1974. A native of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Hildenbrand began his government service in 1957 

as assistant to Representative Harry G. Haskell, Jr. 

From 1959 to 1960, he served as Congressional 

liaison officer for the former Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare. He then became legislative 

assistant to Senator J. Caleb Boggs of Delaware. From 

1969 to 1974, he served as administrative assistant to 

Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, the former Senate 

Republican Minority Leader. 

Thomas J. Josefiak, attorney, continued to serve at 

the Commission as Special Deputy to the Secretary of 

the Senate. 

2Jo-Anne L. Coe became the new Secretary of the Senate on 

January 3, 1985. 
51 

Statutory Officers 

John C. Surina, Staff Director 

Before joining the Commission in July 1983, Mr. Surina 

was assistant managing director of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), where he was detailed to the 

"Reform 88" program at the Office of Management and 

Budget. In that role, he worked on projects to reform 

administrative management within the Federal government. From 1973 to 1980, Mr. Surina served the ICC 

in other capacities. Between 1972 and 1973, he was 

an expert-consultant to the Office of Control and Operations, EOP-Cost of Living Council-Pay Board. He was 

previously on the technical staff of the Computer 

Sciences Corporation. Mr. Surina joined the U.S. Army 

in 1966, completing his service in 1970 as executive 

officer of the Special Security Office. In that position, he 

supported senior U.S. delegates to NATO's civil headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. 

A native of Alexandria, Virginia, Mr. Surina holds a 

Bachelor of Science Degree in Foreign Service from 

Georgetown University. He also attended East Carolina 

University in Greenville, North Carolina, and American 

University in Washington, D.C. 

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel 

Mr. Steele became General Counsel in December 

1979, after serving as acting General Counsel during 

November of that year and as Associate General 

Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation between April 

1977 and October 1979. He received an A.B. from 

Harvard College in 1960 and an LL.B. from Harvard 

Law School in 1965. Before joining the Commission in 

1976, Mr. Steele was a staff attorney with the appellate 

court branch of the National Labor Relations Board. 
The Commissioners 

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman 

Thomas E. Harris, Vice Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner* 

Danny L. McDonald, Commissioner 

John Warren McGarry, Commissioner** 

Frank P. Reiche, Commissioner 

Bt;mjamin J. Guthrie, Ex Officio/House 

William F. Hildenbrand, Ex Officio/Senate*** 

l l 

General Counsel Staff Director 

I 

Deputy Staff 

Director for 

Management 

Administration -

Data Systems f-- Development 

Planning and 

Management ~ 

-

Audit 

Information 

Public Disclosure 

I.... 

Advisory ~ Opinions 

Enforcement ~ 

Litigation 

Reports Regulations '- Analysis 

Commission 

Secretary 

Congressional 

and lntergovemmental Affairs 

Personnel and 

Labor/Management Relations 

53 

Appendix 2 

FEC Organization Chart 

*Commissioner Aikens was elected as 1985 Vice Chairman. 

**Commissioner McGarry was elected as 1985 Chairman. 

***Jo-Anne L. Coe became the new Secretary of the Senate on January 3, 1985. 
55 

Appendix 3 

Chronology of Events, 1984 

January 

1 - Commissioners Lee Ann Elliott and 

Thomas E. Harris begin one-year terms 

as respective FEC Chairman and Vice 

Chairman. 

20 - Commission releases statistics on 

growth of PACs. 

26- Commission initially determines 

Democratic candidate Lyndon 

LaRouche ineligible for 1984 primary 

matching funds (see April 12). 

31 - 1983 year-end report due. 

February 

8 - Commission publishes Federal Register 

notice denying National Taxpayers 

Legal Funds' petition to narrow definition of political party in public funding 

regulations. 

9 - Commission prescribes revised regulations on trade association solicitations. 

- Commission determines Democratic 

candidate Jesse Jackson eligible for 

primary matching funds. 

21 - Wisconsin holds special primary election in 4th Congressional District. 

23 - Commission determines Democratic 

candidate George McGovern eligible to 

receive primary matching funds. 

29- Commission certifies additional 

$189,000 to both Republican and 

Democratic Parties for their Presidential 

nominating conventions, bringing each 

party's total Federal entitlement to 

$6.060 million (see July 11). 

-Commission publishes updated edition 

of Federal Election Campaign Laws. 

March 

1 - Democratic candidates Reubin Askew, 

Alan Cranston and Ernest Hollings 

become ineligible for primary matching 

funds. 

5 - Commission prescribes revised regulations on partisan and nonpartisan communications by corporations and labor 

organizations. 

- Commission testifies on fiscal year 1985 

budget request before Senate Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee 

on Treasury, Postal Service and General 

Government. 

- Commission begins holding Monday 

afternoon clinics to assist committees. 

6-7 - Clearinghouse on Election Administration holds Advisory Panel meeting in 

Washington, D.C. and announces FEC 

pilot program to provide State election 

offices with direct computer access to 

FEC campaign finance data. 

13- Commission publishes Voting System 

Standards, a Clearinghouse report to 

Congress on the feasibility of developing voluntary standards for voting equipment. 

14 - Commission testifies on fiscal year 1985 

budget request before House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee 

on Treasury, Postal Service and General 

Government. 

15- Commission submits 1984 legislative 

recommendations to the President and 

Congress. 

- Democratic candidate George 

McGovern becomes ineligible for 

primary matching funds. 

16 - Democratic candidate John Glenn 

becomes ineligible for primary matching 

funds. 
56 

19 - Supreme Court, in Athens Lumber Company v. FEC, leaves standing appeals 

court ruling upholding constitutionality 

of law's prohibition on corporate contributions. 

23 - Commission determines President 

Ronald Reagan eligible to receive 

primary matching funds. 

29 - Commission testifies on fiscal year 1985 

budget request before Committee on 

House Administration's Task Force on 

Elections. 

April 

3 - Wisconsin holds special general election in 4th Congressional District. 

6 - Commission publishes updated edition 

of Campaign Guide for Party Commit· 

tees. 

12 ~ Commission determines Democratic 

candidate Lyndon LaRouche eligible to 

receive primary matching funds. 

15 - First quarter report due. 

18 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-84, Interim Report No. 1: Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns, covering activity through December 1983. 

26 - Commission testifies on fiscal year 1985 

budget request before Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 

May 

3 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-84, Interim Report No.2: Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns, covering activity through January 1984. 

15 - In Kennedy for President v. FEC and 

Reagan for President v. FEC, U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit reverses FEC determinations 

concerning repayment of 1980 primary 

matching funds and orders FEC to 

revise repayment formula (see July 12 

and August 22). 

29 - Commission publishes Annual Report 

1983. 

June 

5 - New Jersey holds special primary election in 13th Congressional District. 

19 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-84, Interim Report No. 3: Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns, covering activity through February 1984. 

- Commission publishes Campaign 

Finance Law 84, a summary of State 

campaign finance laws prepared by the 

Clearinghouse. 

22 - Commission cosponsors election law 

conference in Richmond, Virginia. 

27 - Commission holds public hearing on 

National Council of Farmers 

Cooperatives' rulemaking petition to 

permit solicitation of indirect members 

of federated cooperatives (see 

December 11). 

29 - In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for 

Life, U.S. District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts rules that defendant's 

expenses for public partisan materials 

are not prohibited corporate expenditures. 

July 

7- Democratic candidate Lyndon 

LaRouche becomes ineligible for matching funds. 

9-10- Commission cosponsors election law 

conference in Seattle, Washington. 

11 - President Reagan signs Pub. L. 98-355, 

which increases public funding grant for 
57 

major parties' Presidential nominating 

conventions from $3 million to $4 

million, as adjusted by cost-of-living increase (see below and July 31). 

12 - Commission certifies additional $2.020 

million in public funds to both the 

Democratic and Republican Parties' 

nominating conventions, bringing each 

party's grant to $8.080 million. 

- Commission revises determinations 

concerning repayments of public funds 

by 1980 primary campaigns of Edward 

Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. 

15 - Second quarter report due. 

16 - Commission publishes Election Directory 84, a list of information on key election officials prepared by the Clearinghouse. 

16-20 - Democratic Party holds Presidential 

nominating convention in San Francisco, California. 

18 - Democratic candidates Gary Hart, 

Jesse Jackson and Walter Mondale 

become ineligible for primary matching 

funds. 

20 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-84, Interim Report No. 4: Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns, covering activity through March 1984. 

26 - Commission certifies $40.4 million in 

public funds to Democratic Presidential 

nominee Walter Mondale and runningmate Geraldine Ferraro. 

- Citizens Party candidate Sonia Johnson 

becomes first third party candidate 

eligible for primary matching funds. 

31 - Commission prescribes technical 

amendments to public funding regulations, increasing amount of public funding grant for nominating convention 

committees of major parties to $4 

million. 

- Commission publishes Federal Register 

notice of proposed rulemaking on revisions to testing-the-waters regulations. 

August 

20-24 - Republican Party holds Presidential 

nominating convention in Dallas, Texas. 

22 - Republican candidate Ronald Reagan 

becomes ineligible for primary matching 

funds. 

- Commission publishes Federal Register 

notice on final proposed rules governing 

repayment of public funds. 

23 - Citizens Party candidate Sonia Johnson 

becomes ineligible for primary matching 

funds. 

24 - Commission releases statistics on 

growth of PACs. 

27 - Commission certifies $40.4 million to 

Republican Presidential nominee 

Ronald Reagan and runningmate 

George Bush. 

September 

4 - Commission publishes new brochure, 

Trade Associations, and updated editions of Corporate/Labor Communications and Corporate/Labor Facilities. 

5 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-84, Interim Report No. 5: Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns, covering activity through April 1984. 

10- Commission cosponsors election law 

conference in Princeton, New Jersey. 

13- Commission publishes updated edition 

of Campaign Guide for Corporations 

and Labor Organizations. 

20-21 - Voting Systems Standards Advisory 

Committee holds first meeting in 

Washington, D.C. 
58 

28 - President Reagan signs Voting Accessability for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (Pub. L. 98-435), under which 

FEC will periodically report to Congress 

on accessability of polling places. 

October 

4 - In FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia orders defendants to repay 

illegally solicited contributions and 

assesses civil penalty. 

15 - Commission releases PAC Money Contributed to U.S. Senate and House Candidates: 1977-1982. 

- Third quarter report due. 

19 - Commission prescribes revised regulations on public access to FEC information. 

21 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-84, Interim Report No. 7: U.S. 

Senate and House Campaigns, covering 

activity through June 1984. 

25 - Pre-general election report due. 

26 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-1984, Interim Report No. 8: Party 

and Non-Party Political Committees, 

covering activity through June 1984. 

November 

2 - Commission prescribes new regulations 

implementing Rehabilitation Act to ensure equal access of the handicapped to 

FEC programs. 

4 - Commission releases statistics on 

1983-84 financial activity of national party committees through October 17, 1984. 

6 - Election Day. 

8 - President Reagan signs Federal District 

Court Reorganization Act (Pub. L. 

98-260), which repeals provisions in 

campaign finance law and other 

statutes that call for expedited consideration of cases in Federal court 

system. 

9 - Commission publishes new brochure, 

State and Local Elections and the 

Federal Campaign Law. 

20 - In FEC v. Furgatch and FEC v. Dominelli, 

U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of California rules that plaintiffs' 

newspaper ads were not independent 

expenditures. 

28 - Supreme Court hears oral argument in 

FEC v. NCPAC and Democratic Partyof 

U.S. v. NCPAC, consolidated cases con­

. cerning enforcement of 26 U.S.C. 

§9012(f). 

29 - Commission releases statistics based 

on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1983-84, Interim Report No.6: Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns, covering activity through June 1984. 

December 

6 - Post-general election report due. 

11 - Commission publishes Federal Register 

notice to take no action on National 

Council of Farmer Cooperatives' petition to permit solicitation of indirect 

members of federated cooperatives. 

- Commission publishes Legislative 

History of Federal Election Campaign 

Act Amendments of 1979, prepared by 

FEC law library. 

12 - President Reagan signs Pub. L. 98-473, 

which appropriates $12.9 million in 

fiscal year 1985 funds for Commission. 

18 - Commission elects John Warren 

McGarry and Joan D. Aikens respectively as Chairman and Vice Chairman for 

1985. 
59 

Appendix 4 

The FEC's Budget 

The Commission received $9.987 million in funding 

for fiscal year 1983. Congress appropriated $9.790 

million through two continuing resolutions and an 

additional $197,000 to cover part of the October 

1982 pay raise. 

In fiscal year 1984, the Commission's authorization of $10.649 million, plus a supplemental appropriation of $95,000 to cover part of the 1984 pay 

raise, brought total funding to $10.744 million. 

The table below compares functional allocations of budget resources for fiscal years 1983 and 

1984. The two charts that follow compare allocations of budget and staff by division for the fiscal 

years. 

FEC Budget 

Functional Allocation 

FY83 FY84 

Personnel Compensation, 

Including Benefits $7,194,703 $ 7,585,752 

Travel 112,770 212,960 

Transportation and 

Motor Pool 7,329 6,599 

Commercial Space 13,179 14,674 

Equipment Rental 179,639 194,649 

Printing 260,231 281,900 

Contracts 727,101 799,085 

Administrative Expenses 56,912 66,437 

Supplies 86,954 147,631 

Library Materials 41,494 60,234 

Telephone, Telegraph 232,440 307,221 

Postage 54,933 125,000 

Space Rental 574,961 586,627 

Equipment Purchases 220,456 205,178 

Training 27,349 27,330 

GSA, Services, Other 61,031 95,435 

Total $9,851,482. $10,716,712. 

•unexpended funds were returned to the U.S. Treasury. 
Divisional Allocation of Budget 

Commissioners 

Staff Director 

Office of General Counsel 

Administration• 

Audit 

Clearinghouse 

Data Systems Development 

Information 

Public Disclosure 

Reports Analysis 

D FY 1983 

• FY1984 

I 

I 

I I I I 

0 5 10 15 

Percent of Budget 

• Administration includes rent, supplies, services, etc., for 

the entire Commission. 

T 

20 

I 

25 

I 

30 

Divisional Allocation of Staff 

Commissioners 

Staff Director 

Office of General Counsel 

Administration 

Audit 

Clearinghouse 

Data Systems Development 

Information 

Public Disclosure 

Reports Analysis 

I 

. l 

.. I 

0 

I 

5 

I 

10 

I 

15 

Percent of Staff* 

I 

20 

I 

25 

I 

30 

D FY1983 

• FV1984 *Full·time equivalent positions (FTE). 

60 
61 

Appendix 5 

Statistics on Commission 

Operations 

Summary of Disclosure Files 

Total 

Filers 

Existing In 

1984 

Filers 

Terminated 

as of 

12/31184 

Continuing 

Filers 

as of 

12131/84 

Number of 

Reports and 

Statements 

In 1984 

Gross Receipts 

In 1984 

Gross 

Expenditures 

In 1984 

Presidential 504 48 456 1,654 $198,606,285 $196,402,032 

Candidates 

Committees 

269 

235 

21 

27 

248 

208 

Senate 1,118 185 933 3,809 $148,503,199 $158,933,596 

Candidates 

Committees 

695 

423 

126 

59 

569 

364 

House 5,406 1,123 4,283 22,266 $184,036,633 $178,406,592 

Candidates 

Committees 

3,410 

1,996 

826 

297 

2,584 

1,699 

Party 588 48 540 4,306 $407,661,880 $433,178,329 

National Level Committees 

State Level Committees 

Local Level Committees 

Convention Committees 

37 

154 

387 

10 

3 

7 

38 

0 

34 

147 

349 

10 

Delegates 158 1 157 504 $ 825,637 $ 800,657 

Nonparty 4,182 . 173 4,009 32,953 $184,890,817 $197,318,628 

Labor Committees 

Corporate Committees 

Membership, Trade & Other 

Committees 

416 

1,741 

2,025 

22 

59 

92 

394 

1,682 

1,933 

Communication Cost Filers 120 N/A N/A 227 N/A $ 6,134,103 

Independent Expenditures 

By Persons Other Than 

Politicai.Commlttees 163 N/A N/A 291 N/A $ 1,355,824 
62 

Divisional Statistics'* 

Calendar 

Year 1984 

Reports Analysis Division 

Documents processed 56,521 

Reports reviewed 30,091 

Telephone assistance and meetings 6,825 

Requests for additional information (RFAis) 5,763 

Second RFAis 1,652 

Names of candidate committees published 

for failure to file reports 76 

Compliance matters referred to the Office 

of General Counsel or Audit Division 118 

Data Systems Development Division 

Documents receiving Pass I** coding 64,538 

Documents receiving Pass Ill** coding 32,499 

Documents receiving Pass I entry 60,240 

Documents receiving Pass Ill entry 18,529 

Transactions receiving Pass Ill entry * * * 287,501 

*In contrast to previous reports, figures represent calendar 

year, rather than fiscal year, totals. 

• *Computer coding and entry of campaign finance information occurs in two phases. In the first phase, Pass I, summary 

Information is coded and entered into the computer within 48 

hours of the Commission's receipt of the report. During the second phase, Pass Ill, itemized information is coded and entered. 

• **Pass Ill transactions are itemized transactions including contributions of $500 or more by individuals, as well as 

contributions, transfers and expenditures of any amount by 

various committees and other filers. 

Calendar 

Year 1984 

Audits Completed by Audit Division, 

1975-1984 

Presidential 46 

Presidential Joint Fundraising* 6 

Senate 12 

House 108 

Party (National) 38 

Party (Other) 97 

Nonparty (PACs) 59 

Total 366 

Public Records Office 

Campaign finance material processed 

(total pages) 1,392,292 

Requests for campaign finance reports 7,641 

Visitors 9,599 

Total people served 17,240 

Information phone calls 13,183 

Computer printouts provided 95,372 

·Total income (transmittea to U.S. Treasury) 

Cumulative total pages of documents 

$80,203 

available for review 5,598,262 

*Presidential joint fund raising committees are those 

established by two or more political committees, including at 

least one Presidential committee, for the purpose of raising 

funds jointly. 
63 

Information Services Division 

Telephone Inquiries 

Information letters 

Orders for FEC materials 

Prior notices (sent to Inform filers 

of reporting deadlines) 

Other mailings 

Visitors 

Public appearances by Commissioners 

and staff 

State workshops 

Press releases 

Telephone inquiries from press 

Visitors to press office 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

requests 

Fees for materials requested under 

the FOIA (transmitted to U.S. Treasury) 

Number of publications 

Assistance to Secretaries of State 

(State election offices) 

Notices of failure to file with State 

election offices 

Calendar 

Year 1984 

84,665 

202 

16,669 

42,388 

16,497 

146 

163 

3 

215 

15,317 

1,922 

100 

$13,953 

28 

3,096 

814 

Clearinghouse on Election 

Administration 

Telephone inquiries 

Information letters 

Visitors 

State workshops 

3,299 

583 

90 

9 

Office of General Counsel 

Calendar 

Year 1984 

Advisory Opinions 

Requests pending at beginning of 1984 10 

Requests received 63 

Issued, closed or withdrawn* 68 

Pending at end of year 5 

Compliance Cases (MURs)* • 

Cases pending at beginning of 1984 78 

Cases opened 283 

Cases closed 189 

Cases pending at end of year 172 

Litigation 

Cases pending at beginning of 1984 24 

Cases opened 35 

Cases closed 27 

Cases pending at end of year 32 

Cases won 19 

Cases lost 3 

Cases voluntarily dismissed 3 

Cases dismissed as moot 2 

Law Library 

Telephone inquiries 1,863 

Visitors served 732 

*Fifty-nine opinions were issued; nine op1mon requests 

were withdrawn or closed without issuance of an opinion. 

**Compliance cases, referred to as MURs (Matters Under 

Review), stem from possible violations of the election law which 

come to the Commission's attention either through formal complaints filed with the Commission or as a result of the Commission's own internal monitoring procedures. The campaign 

finance law requires that investigations remain confidential until the Commission makes a final determination and the case is 

closed. At that point, the case file is made available to the 

public. 
65 

Appendix 6 

Computer Indexes 

The Public Records Office, using the FEC s computer system, produces printouts of the major 

disclosure indexes described below. 

Committee Names and Addresses 

The B Index includes the name and address of 

each committee, the treasurer's name, the committee 10 number, the name of the connected 

organization (if any) and a notation if the committee is a "qualified" multicandidate committee, permitted to give larger contributions to candidates 

than other committees. There is a separate list for 

political action committees (PACs) and party committees. Another list arranges these committees 

by State. 

Candidate Names and Addresses 

The A Index is sorted by type of office sought 

(President, U.S. Senator; U.S. Representative) and 

alphabetically lists each candidate with documents on file relating to him or her in the current 

election cycle. The printout includes the candidate 

10 number, candidate name and address, year of 

election and party affiliation. 

Current Election Candidate Names and Addresses 

The 415 Index is similar to the A Index (above) but 

lists only those candidates who have filed statements of candidacy for the current election cycle. 

Candidate Committees 

The Report 93 alphabetically lists Presidential, 

Senate and House candidates and includes, for 

each candidate, the 10 number, address and party 

designation. Also listed are the name, address, 10 

number and treasurer's name of the principal campaign committee and of any other committees 

authorized by the candidate. 

Key Word in Committee Name 

The TEXT capability permits the computer to 

search and list all committee titles that include a 

word or phrase designated by the user. 

Treasurer's Name 

The computer searches and lists all committee 

treasurers with the same last name (designated by 

the user), the names of their committees and the 

committee 10 numbers. 

Multlcandidate Committee Index 

This index lists political committees that have 

qualified as multicandidate committees and are 

thus permitted to contribute larger amounts to candidates than other committees. Arranged in 

alphabetical order by name of committee, the list 

includes each committee's 10 number, the date it 

quatified as a multicandidate committee and the 

name of its connected organization, if any. 

Chronology of New Committee Registrations 

The 3Y Index lists in chronological order the names 

of committees that have registered in the current 

election cycle. The list includes the date of 

registration and the committee's name, 10 number, 

address and connected organization, if any. 

Recently Registered Committees 

The NULIST, printed weekly, lists the name, 10 

number, address and connected organization (if 

any) of committees that have registered during the 

previous week. 

Names of PACs and Their Sponsors 

The 35c Committee/Sponsor Index alphabetically 

lists the names of PACs along with their 10 

numbers and the names of their sponsoring or connected organizations. 

Names of Organizations and Their PACs 

The 35o Sponsor/Committee Index alphabetically 

lists the names of organizations along with the 

names and 10 numbers of their PACs. 

Categories of PACs 

The Report 140 lists PACs by the category they 

selected on their registration statements. 
66 

Categories include: corporation, labor organization, membership organization, trade association, 

cooperative and corporation without capital stock. 

The list Includes the PAC's name, 10 number and 

connected organization. 

Committee Disclosure Documents1 

The C Index includes, for each committee, its 

name and 10 number; a list of each document filed 

(name of report, period receipts, period 

disbursements, coverage dates, number of pages 

and microfilm location); and total gross receipts 

and disbursements. 

Committee Ranking by Gross Receipts or 

Expenditures 

The Report 933 provides a list of the names of committees ranked in order of the highest total gross 

receipts. Because committees' reporting 

schedules differ, however, totals may represent different time periods. 

Candidate Campaign Documents1 

The E Index provides the following information on 

each candidate:2 

1. Candidate name, State/district, party affiliation and candidate 10 number. 

2. List of all documents filed by the candidate 

(statement of candidacy, etc.). 

3. List of all documents filed by the principal 

campaign committee (report type, coverage dates, 

period receipts and disbursements, number of 

pages and microfilm locations). 

4. List of all documents filed by other authorized 

committees of the same candidate (if any). 

5. List of all PACs and party committees contributing to the candidate's campaign and the aggregate total of all such contributions to date. The 

list includes the name of the connected organization of a contributing PAC. Also listed are committees making expenditures for or against the candidate, party committees making coordinated party expenditures (Section 441a(d)) and aggregate 

totals spent to date. 

6. List of all persons and unauthorized single 

candidate committees reporting independent expenditures for or against the candidate. 

7. Li~t of all persons and committees filing 

unauthorized delegate reports. 

8. List of all corporations and labor organizations reporting communication costs for or against 

the candidate. 

9. List of all unauthorized single candidate committees supporting or opposing a candidate and 

each committee's receipts and disbursements for 

the reporting period. 

Presidential Candidates 

The H Index on Presidential campaigns is similar 

to the E Index (above) but lists party and PAC contributions as reported by the Presidential candidates' authorized committees. 

Itemized Contributions 

The G Index identifies contributions of $500 or 

more received by a committee from individuals, the 

reports on which the transactions were disclosed 

and the microfilm locations of the reported entries. 

Individual Contributors 

The Name Search capability permits a person torequest a computer search for a specific last name in 

the national alphabetical list of contributors. The 

printout lists all persons with that last name and 

includes: the person's full name, address and occupation; the date, amount and recipient of the 

contribution; and the microfilm location of the 

reported entry. There is a substantial charge for 

this index, but the national list of contributors, 

periodically microfilmed, is available for review in 

the Public Records Office at no charge. 

. 'This index is available in State election offices with com· 

puterized access to FEC data; see page 15. 

zInformation in sections 1 through 4 comes from reports 

and statements filed by the candidate and his or her authorized 

committees. Sections 5 through 9 are based on data from 

reports filed by noncandidate committees and persons. 
67 

Committee Contributions to Candidates3 

The D Index includes, for each committee, its 

name, 10 number, name of connected organization 

and notation if it is "qualified" as a multicandidate 

committee. The index also lists all candidates supported or opposed by a committee, together with 

total aggregate contributions to, or expenditures 

on behalf of or against, each candidate. In the case 

of party committees, coordinated party expenditures (Section 441a(d)) are listed in place of independent expenditures. 

Dates of Specific Contributions/Expenditures 

The Detailed D Index itemizes the information on 

the 0 Index (above). It lists in chronological order 

each contribution and expenditure made on behalf 

of a candidate, along with the date, amount and 

microfilm location of the reported entry. The index 

can also search for specific candidates. 

Total Contributions to Candidates by Selected 

Committees 

The Combined D Index permits a person to select a 

group of committees for research. The computer 

will add together all of their contributions to candidates and print them in one list identifying the 

total amount contributed to each candidate by the 

group of committees. 

Other Indexes 

In addition to the above indexes, the Commission 

produces other types of computer indexes on a 

periodic basis (e.g., an index of corporate/labor 

communication costs). These periodic indexes are 

available in the Public Records Office for inspection and copying. 

3 This index is available in State election offices with com· 

puterized access to FEC data; see page 15. 
69 

Appendix 7 

FEC Information Services 

Public Records 

Staff from the Public Records Office answer questions and provide information on the campaign 

finance activities of political committees and candidates involved in Federal elections. Open weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and evenings and 

weekends during heavy reporting periods, the office is a library facility with ample work space and 

a knowledgeable staff to help locate documents. 

The FEC encourages the public to review the many 

documents available, including: 

• Reports and statements filed by Federal candidates and committees (1972-present)1 

• FEC Reports on Financial Activity and 

Disclosure Series (published indexes that consolidate and summarize data taken from 

financial disclosure reports) 

• Daily updated computer printouts of various 

FEC indexes (see Appendix 6) 

• Advisory opinion requests and advisory 

opinions 

• MURs (closed compliance cases) and a MUR 

index 

Those outside Washington may request 

documents by phone or mail.2 

Public Communications 

The public affairs staff respond to the many questions on the campaign finance law received daily 

on the FEC's toll-free phone lines. While Public 

Communications staff are not attorneys and do not 

give opinions of an advisory nature,3 they do help 

the public understand and voluntarily comply with 

the law by: 

• Explaining FEC regulations, procedures and 

advisory opinions on the phone or in writing; 

• Researching advisory opinions and legal provisions on specific questions; 

• Conducting workshops on the law; 

• Speaking informally with groups visiting the 

FEC; and 

• Recommending and taking orders for publications and reporting forms. 

The Public Communications Office is open to 

the public weekdays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

Publications 

The FEC's Publications Office produces materials 

to help candidates, political committees and interested individuals understand and comply with 

the campaign finance law. Free copies of the 

publications may be ordered from the Public Communications Office (see above). One brochure, 

Free Publications, lists current offerings and has a 

convenient mail-in order form. 

Press Office 

Staff of the Press Office are the Commission's official media spokespersons. In addition to publicizing Commission decisions and action~, they respond to all questions from representatives of the 

print and broadcast media. The office also handles 

requests under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Advisory Opinions 

For questions relating to the application of the law 

to a specific factual situation, anyone may request 

1 Anyone using such documents is reminded, however, of 

the law's requirement that information copied from reports and 

statements may not be sold or used for soliciting contributions 

or for any commercial purpose, although the n_ar:ne and ~dd~ess 

of a political committee may be used to solicit contnbut1ons 

from the committee. 2 U.S.C. Section 438(a)(4). 

zoutside Washington, the public has access to the Commission's computer indexes through terminals located in 

se..eral State election offices. See page 15. 

3 Commission staff may not grant approval or disapproval 

of a specific activity. Individuals seeking FEC sanction for a 

specific activity should request an advisory opinion. 
70 

an advisory opinion. The Commission issues an 

advisory opinion once it has been approved by at 

least four Commissioners. Each opinion is summarized in the FEC newsletter, the Record, and 

copies of opinions are available from the Public 

Records Office. If a person who requests an opinion acts in accordance with its advice, the person 

is not subject to any penalties with regard to the 

activity in question. 2 U.S.C. Section 437f(c)(2). 

Reports Analysis Division 

The Reports Analysis Division (RAD) reviews the 

campaign finance reports filed by political committees and assists filers in complying with the law's 

disclosure requirements. Each political committee 

registered with the FEC is assigned to one of approximately 30 reports analysts, who review com­

. mittee reports and statements to detect reporting 

problems, monitor individual contribution limits 

and track committees that fail to file reports. In 

reviewing a committee's reports, the analyst 

becomes familiar with reporting problems the committee may have. An analyst notifies a committee 

of a reporting error or omission (or an apparent 

violation of the law detected in the report) by sending the committee a request for additional information (RFAI). 

Clearinghouse 

The National Clearinghouse on Election Administration provides information to the public on 

the electoral process. The Clearinghouse also con· 

ducts regional workshops and publishes studies 

on election administration, available at cost (see 

Appendix 8). 

Commission Library 

The Commission law library, part of the Office of 

General Counsel, is open to the public. The collection includes basic legal research tools and 

materials dealing with political campaign finance, 

corporate and labor political activity and campaign 

finance reform. Library staff prepare an Index to 

Advisory Opinions and a Campaign Finance and 

Federal Elections Bibliography, both available for 

purchase from the Public Records Office. 
71 

Appendix 8 

Clearinghouse Studies 

Listed below are research projects prepared by the 

National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. The publications, available at cost, include 

both recent studies and past reports. 

Reports Completed In 1984 

Campaign Finance Law 84 summarizes each 

State's campaign finance provisions and provides 

a convenient chart on State requirements. 

Election Directory 841ists names, addresses and 

telephone numbers of Federal and State election 

officials. 

Reports Underway in 1984 

Computerizing Election Administration, Volume I, 

Current Applications is the first of a three-volume 

series to assist local election officials in the 

technical and practical aspects of applying computer technology to the election system. This first 

volume offers initial guidance and describes the 

extent of computerization in 78 local election offices. 

Voting System Standards, Phase I, Standards for 

the Hardware Elements of Punchcard and 

Marksense Voting Systems is the first of a 

multi phase project to develop voluntary standards 

for voting equipment. States or localities may 

employ these standards in approving the use of 

voting equipment within their jurisdictions. The 

standards are intended to ensure the proper performance of the various voting devices on the market. 

Designing Effective Voter Information Programs, 

the first volume of the Voter Information and 

Education Programs series, suggests inexpensive 

but effective ways for election officials to convey 

essential registration and election information to 

the public. 

Maintaining Registration Files suggests techniques and procedures for maintaining a clean and 

accurate registration file of voters. 

Training Election Officials discusses 

economical and effective methods of training election workers and temporary office staff. 

Previously Completed Reports 

The publications described below remain 

available. 

Education Programs in the Schools, the second 

volume in the series Voter Information and Education Programs, suggests various ways election officials can develop, in cooperation with educators, 

good voter education programs in the schools. 

Statewide Registration Systems I and II is a 

report on computerized voter registration systems. 

Volume I examines problems involved in implementing a statewide system and offers suggestions for overcoming them. Volume II describes in 

detail the forms, procedures, outputs and variations of a basic computerized system. 

Contested Elections and Recounts is a threevolume analysis of the laws and procedures governing contested elections and recounts for Federal 

offices. Volume I examines issues and functions 

within the Federal government's purview and 

makes recommendations for improving the handling of contested elections at the Federal level. 

Volume II presents similar material at the State 

level, and Volume Ill summarizes State and Federal 

laws related to contested elections. 

Ballot Access is a four-volume report on how 

candidates gain access to the ballot for Federal office in each State. Volume I identifies central administrative problems and recommends solutions. 

Volume II describes the administrative process in 

each State, while Volume Ill details State legal 

memoranda and suggests ways of improving the 

legal process. Volume IV briefly summarizes ballot 

access requirements for Federal office in each 

State. 

Mail Registration Systems discusses problems 

involved in implementing a mail registration 

system, describing how such systems operate and 

offering practical suggestions for overcoming difficulties. 

Bilingual Election Services is a three-volume 

report on providing election services in languages 

other than English. Volume I summarizes such ser-
72 

vices since 1975. Volume II is a glossary of common election terms in English along with their 

. Spanish and dialectal equivalents, and Volume Ill 

is a manual for local election officials that gives 

practical advice on identifying language problems 

and providing bilingual registration and balloting 

services. 

Election Administration, a four-volume set, 

covers planning, management and financial control concepts in local election administration. 

Volume I provides an overview of election functions and tasks and introduces the notion of a 

management cycle. Volume II focuses on planning, 

provides task/activity checklists and flow 

diagrams and discusses how tasks can be assigned. Volume Ill offers an accounting chart and 

shows how budgets can be prepared and costs 

monitored by applying the chart to each election 

function. Finally, Volume IV summarizes State 

code provisions on administrative and budgeting 

responsibilities. 
73 

Appendix 9 

FEC Federal Register 

Notices, 1984 

Notice* Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation

1984-1 Filing D~tes for 

Wisconsin Special 

Elections 

1/10/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

1284 

1984·2 11 CFR Parts 100 and 

101: Payments Received for Testingthe-Waters Activities; 

Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

1/17/84 49 Fed. Reg.

1995 

1984-3 11 CFR 9002.15: 

Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund; 

Denial of Rulemaking 

Petition 

2/8/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

4846 

1984-4 11 CFR 114.8: Trade 

Association Solicitation Authorization; 

Final Rule; Notice of 

Effective Date 

2/9/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

4932 

1984-5 11 CFR Part 114: 

Communications by 

Corporations and 

Labor Organizations; 

Final Rule; Notice of 

Effective Date 

3/5/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

7981 

1984-6 Filing Dates for New 

Jersey Special 

Elections 

5/1/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

18621 

1984-7 11 CFR Part 114: 

Solicitation of Indirect Members by 

Federated Cooperatives; Advance Notice 

of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

5117/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

20831 

Notice Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1984-8 11 CFR Parts 4 and 5: 

Public Records and 

the Freedom of lnformation Act; Access 

to Public Disclosure 

Division Documents; 

Amendment of Fee 

Provisions; Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

5/29/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

22335 

1984-9 11 CFR Part 6: 

Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Handicap in 

FEC Programs; 

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

6/27/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

26244 

1984-10 11 CFR Parts 9007 

and 9038: Repayments by Publicly 

Financed Presidential 

Candidates; Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

6/28/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

26596 

1984-11 11 CFR Parts 4 and 

5: Public Records and 

the Freedom of lnformation Act; Access 

to Public Disclosure 

Documents; Amendment to Fee Provisions; Final Rule; 

Transmittal to 

Congress 

7/31/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

30458 

*This appendix does not include Federal Register notices 

of Commission meetings published under the Government in 

the Sunshine Act. 
74 

Notice Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1984-12 11 CFR Parts 100 and 7/31/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

101: Payments Received for Testingthe-Waters Activities; 

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

30509 

1984-13 11 CFR Part 9008: 7/31/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

Federal Financing 

of Presidential Nominating Conventions; 

Final Rule; Technical 

Amendments 

30461 

1984-14 11 CFR Parts 9007 8/22184 49 Fed. Reg. 

and 9038: Repayments by Publicly 

Financed Presidential 

Candidates; Final 

Rule; Transmittal to 

Congress 

33225 

1984-15 11 CFR Part 6: 8/22184 49 Fed. Reg. 

Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Handicap in 

FEC Programs; Final 

Rule; Transmittal to 

Congress 

33206 

Notice Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1984-16 Filing Dates for 8/23/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

Kentucky Special 

Election 

33491 

1984-17 11 CFR Parts 4 and 10/19/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

5: Public Records and 

the Freedom of lnformation Act; Access 

to Public Disclosure 

Division Documents; 

Amendment of Fee 

Provisions; Final 

Rule; Notice of 

Effective Date 

41016 

1984-18 11 CFR Part 6: 11/2184 49 Fed. Reg. 

Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Handicap in 

FEC Programs; Final 

Rule; Notice of 

Effective Date 

44091 

1984-19 Notice of Disposition 12111184 49 Fed. Reg. 

of Rulemaking 

Petition; National 

Council of Farmer 

Cooperatives 

48201 

1984-20 11 CFR Parts 2 and 12119/84 49 Fed. Reg. 

3: Sunshine Act 

Regulations; Notice 

of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

49306