Federal 

Election 

Commission 

Annual Report 1987 

Federal Election Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20463 
Commissioners 

Thomas J. Josefiak, Chairman 

Danny L. McDonald, Vice Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner 

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner 

John Warren McGarry, Commissioner 

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Walter J. Stewart, Secretary of the Senate 

Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House 

Statutory Officers 

John C. Surina, Staff Director 

Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel 

The Annual Report 1987 was written and published by the 

Commission's Information Services Division. 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

June 1, 1988 

The President of the United States 

The u.s. Senate 

The u.s. House of Representatives 

Dear Sirs: 

We submit for your consideration the 13th annual report 

of the Federal Election Commission, as required by the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. The 

Annual Report 1987 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 February 1988. 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Introduction 1 

Chapter 1 

Presidential Public Funding 3 

Overview of the Public Funding Program 3 

Preparing for 1988 3 

Certification of Matching Funds 5 

Convention Funding 5 

Legal Issues 6 

Chapter 2 

Administration of the Law 11 

Disclosure 11 

Assistance to Committees and the Public 12 

Review of Reports 12 

Enforcement 13 

Legal Issues 15 

Regulations 19 

Clearinghouse 21 

Chapter 3 

Campaign Finance Statistics 23 

Chapter 4 

The Commission 27 

Commissioners 27 

Statutory Officers 27 

Administrative Activities 27 

Personnel and Labor Relations 27 

FEC Budget 27 

Chapter 5 

Legislative Recommendations 29 

Appendices 

1 . Biographies of Commissioners and Staff 43 

2. Chronology of Events, 1987 47 

3. FEC Organization Chart 51 

4. FEC Offices 53 

5. Statistics on Commission Operations 57 

6. The FEC's Budget 61 

7. Revised Delegate Regulations 63 

8. Computer Indexes 67 

9. Clearinghouse Studies 71 

10. FEC Federal Register Notices, 1987 73 
Introduction 

The Commission spent much of 1987 preparing for 

the 1988 elections. This report examines these 

preparations and describes the Commission's ongoing work as the administrator of the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

In the area of Presidential elections, the Commission revised both its delegate and public funding 

regulations, certified thirteen 1988 Presidential candidates eligible for primary matching funds and resolved a number of legal issues pertaining to public 

funding. These and other developments associated 

with Presidential elections are reported in Chapter 

1. Chapter 2 examines the Commission's administration of the election law. Enhancement of computer services are discussed, as well as regulatory 

changes and Commission efforts to assist committees and the general public in understanding and 

complying with the law. The chapter ends with a 

discussion of the major legal issues that stemmed 

from advisory opinions, litigation and compliance 

actions. Campaign finance statistics are contained 

in Chapter 3. The agency's internal operations are 

summarized in Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 lists the 

Commission's recommendations for legislative 

change. The report concludes with several appendices that supplement material contained in the various chapters. 
3 

Chapter 1 

Presidential Public Funding 

During 1987, Commission efforts focused heavily on 

the upcoming 1988 Presidential elections. This 

chapter begins with an overview of the public funding program followed by a discussion of the 

Commission's preparations for the 1988 elections. 

The chapter concludes with a summary of several 

legal issues concerning Presidential elections. 

Overview of the Public 

Funding Program 

Public funding of Presidential elections encompasses three phases: 

• Matching funds for Presidential primary candidates who have met qualification requirements; 

• Grants to political parties to finance their 

Presidential nominating conventions; and 

• Full grants for the general election campaigns 

of major party nominees and partial grants for 

qualified minor and new party nominees. 

Financing for the public funding program comes 

from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This 

fund consists of dollars voluntarily checked off by 

taxpayers on their Federal income tax returns. During the year before Presidential elections, the Commission begins to determine whether those requesting Federal funds meet the law's eligibility requirements. For those candidates who meet the qualifications, the agency then certifies payment of the 

funds. Actual payments are made by the U.S. 

Treasury in the year of the election. Under the law, 

the Commission also audits public funding recipients to ensure that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the law's requirements. 

Preparing for 1988 

Although the major elements of the public financing 

program have remained largely the same since the 

first publicly financed Presidential election in 1976, 

the agency continues to undertake activities that refine the public funding program. In preparing for 

1988, the Commission's goal was to ease the burdens on Presidential campaigns requesting public 

funds and to streamline internal agency procedures 

for more efficient operation of the public funding 

program. As a result of its preparations, the Commission anticipated that its administration of the 

1988 program would be the smoothest thus far. 

Revised Regulations 

Presidential Primary and General. On May 26, 

1987, the Commission transmitted to Congress revised regulations governing publicly financed Presidential candidates. Revising the regulations was 

part of the Commission's effort to clarify and simplify the program for candidates. The new regulations address such issues as extensions of credit, 

debt settlement, sources of funds for making repayments as well as the definition of what constitutes a 

qualified campaign expense. Highlights from the 

regulations follow: 

• Funds raised to make repayments are subject 

to the limitations and prohibitions of the Act 

and must be aggregated with any contributions 

previously received from a contributor. 

• The new rules require publicly funded candidates to follow the regulations (at sections 

11 0.1 and 11 0.2) for the redesignation and 

reattribution of contributions. 

• A candidate may not reduce the amount of 

disbursements counted against the expenditure 

limit by settling debts. The full amount of 

debts incurred by a candidate count against 

the expenditure limit regardless of the amount 

for which the debts have been settled. 

• No payments may be made to candidates 

from accounts containing public funds except 

to reimburse them for legitimate campaign expenses, such as travel and subsistence. The 

new rules make explicit that candidates may 

not receive a salary for services performed for 

the campaign; nor may they receive compensation for lost income while campaigning. 

• The new rules establish procedures under 

which candidates may request reconsideration 

of Commission determinations. Also, for the 
4 

first time, the regulations set forth Commission 

procedures for considering stays of repayment 

determinations pending a candidate's appeal. 

• When determining a primary candidates's eligibility for matching funds, the Commission considers relevant information in its possession, 

including the candidate's past actions in a previous publicly funded campaign. 

• Payment of Federal income taxes is considered a qualified campaign expense but does 

not count against either the state-by-state limits or the overall national limit. 

• Under the new rules, outstanding obligations 

included on the NOCO statement may not include debts for nonqualified campaign expenses, repayment obligations or amounts 

paid to secure a surety bond pending an appeal of a Commission repayment determination. 

• Charges made on a credit card for which the 

candidate is liable count against the 

candidate's personal expenditure limit unless 

they are paid in full, including any finance 

charges, by the campaign committee no later 

than 60 days after the closing date in the billing statement. 

The revised regulations became effective on August 

18, 1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 30904). 

Delegate Selection. On November 20, 1987, the 

Commission prescribed its revised regulations, at 11 

CFR 11 0.14, setting forth the Act's prohibitions, 

limitations and reporting requirements as they apply 

to the process of selecting delegates to the Presidential nominating conventions. The revisions were 

designed to clarify which provisions apply to individual delegates and which apply to delegate committees. The revised rules also provide criteria for determining affiliation between delegate committees 

and Presidential campaign committees. The final 

rules, along with an explanation and justification, 

were published in the September 22, 1987, issue of 

the Federal Register (52 Fed. Reg. 35530). A summary of the new regulations is contained in Appendix 7. 

Outreach 

During 1987, the Commission continued to help 

Presidential candidates comply with the election 

law. The outreach effort relied on two publications 

developed and revised by the Commission's audit 

staff. The Guideline for Presentation in Good Order, 

approved by the Commission in 1987, explained the 

entire matching fund process for primary candidates, providing step-by-step instructions for preparing matching fund submissions. The Financial Control and Compliance Manual for Presidential Primary 

Candidates Receiving Public Financing, also approved by the Commission in 1987, offered comprehensive guidelines for accounting, budgetary and 

reporting systems. The manual also incorporated 

revisions to the FEC's primary matching fund regulations. 

FEC auditors, one assigned to work with each 

publicly funded campaign, answered telephone inquiries and met with campaign representatives to 

help them comply with the public financing statutes 

and regulations. By assisting candidate committees 

in the early stages of the campaign, the Commission hoped to minimize the number of errors made 

by committees and to simplify preparations for 

Commission audits. Field audits are required by 

statute of all publicly funded campaigns. 

Staff 

In order to handle the increased workload of the 

Presidential election cycle and to ensure the 

smooth operation of the public funding program, the 

agency supplemented permanent staff with temporary clerks. The Commission also arranged with the 

General Accounting Office (GAO) to have auditors 

detailed to the FEC on a nonreimbursable basis, 

beginning in the spring of 1988. A similar arrangement with GAO during the 1984 Presidential cycle 

proved very effective. 
5 

Certification of Matching Funds 

On ·April 24, 1987, Richard Gephardt became the 

first Presidential candidate to qualify for Federal 

matching funds for the 1988 primary elections. The 

Commission approved his eligibility after auditors 

had thoroughly reviewed his "threshold submissions." Under the Primary Matching Fund Act, candidates may submit documentation to establish their 

eligibility for matching funds the year before the primaries are held. To be eligible to receive matching 

funds, a candidate must first raise in excess of 

$5,000 in each of 20 States (i.e., over $100,000 in 

contributions). Only contributions from individuals 

apply toward this threshold. Although an individual 

may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only a 

maximum of $250 counts as a matchable contribution, applicable to the $5,000 threshold. To be eligible for matching funds, the candidate must also 

submit a letter of agreements and certifications in 

which the candidate agrees to comply with the provisions of the Primary Matching Fund Act including 

the limits set on campaign spending. 

Once their eligibility was established, the candidates continued throughout 1987 to make matching 

fund submissions for Commission review. Audit staff 

evaluated the submissions, using statistical sampling techniques to see if the requests contained 

proper documentation. Candidates used computer 

tape for their submission information to the Commission. This contributed significantly to the 

Commission's ability to review and certify requests 

as quickly as possible. 

By year's end, Bruce Babbitt, George Bush, 

Robert Dole, Michael Dukakis, Pete du Pont, Albert 

Gore, Alexander Haig, Gary Hart, Jack Kemp, M.G. 

"Pat" Robertson and Paul Simon had also become 

eligible for matching funds. 1 The Commission certified a total of $28,748,261 to these 12 eligible candidates. 

1ln the early months of 1988, two additional candidates 

qualified for matching funds: Jesse Jackson and Lenora B. Fulani. 

Because, under the election law, candidates may 

not receive actual payment from the U.S. Treasury 

until after the election year begins, the candidates 

received their initial payments on January 4, the 

first working day of 1988. By way of comparison, in 

1984, the first matching fund payments totaled 

$6,776,289 and went to six candidates. 

The table below lists the eligible candidates and 

the total amount of matching funds certified to each 

one during 1987. 

Amount 

Candidate Certified in 

1987 

Bruce Babbitt $ 719,235.39 

George Bush $5,761,540.76 

Robert Dole $4,338,141.43 

Michael Dukakis $3,493,418.61 

Pete duPont $1,868,762.25 

Richard Gephardt $1,737,216.22 

Albert Gore $1 ,556,401.22 

Alexander Haig $ 274,850.61 

Gary Hart $ 100,000.00 

Jack Kemp $3,012,949.43 

M.G. "Pat" Robertson $4,495,607.72 

Paul Simon $1,390,137.41 

Convention Funding 

During 1987, the Commission certified public funds 

for the 1988 Presidential nominating conventions of 

the major parties. Each of the two major political 

parties received $8,892,000 from the U.S. Treasury, 

but only after the Commission determined that the 

parties had satisfied all the eligibility requirements 

for public funds. 

Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

Act, the national committees of major and minor 

parties may receive public funds to defray the expenses of their nominating conventions any time af-
6 

ter July 1 of the year preceding the convention. 

Each convention committee was entitled to receive 

$4 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). 

As of December 31, the figure stood at $8,892,000, 

based on the 1986 cost-of-living adjustment. The 

Commission planned to certify additional funds in 

1988, once figures became available for the 1987 

cost-of-living adjustment.2 

Legal Issues 

During 1987, the Commission dealt with several legal issues related to the upcoming 1988 Presidential elections, including eligibility for matching funds, 

the attachment of matching funds by creditors, and 

the relationship between campaign committees and 

delegate committees. Additionally, the Commission 

resolved three issues stemming from the 1984 elections - repayment determinations, bank loans and 

election activity conducted by corporate executives. 

Eligibility for Matching Funds 

On September 24, 1987, the Commission made a 

final determination that Gary Hart failed to establish 

eligibility to receive primary matching funds for his 

1988 Presidential primary campaign. At issue was 

whether an individual was eligible for matching fund 

payments when, by his own declaration, he was not 

a candidate on the day he submitted his request for 

a determination of eligibility. 

On May 18, 1987, Gary Hart had submitted a 

letter of candidate and committee agreements along 

with certifications dated May 4, 1987, and had requested that the Commission determine that he 

was eligible to receive Presidential primary matching funds. Prior to this submission, however, on 

May 8, 1987, Mr. Hart had held a news conference 

in which he stated that he would no longer be a 

candidate for the nomination of the Democratic 

Party for President of the United States. 

The statutory provisions governing the establishment of eligibility for entitlement to matching funds 

presuppose that an applicant for such funds is a 

candidate within the meaning of the Presidential 

Primary Matching Payment Account Act. Under this 

law, the term "candidate" is defined as "an individual who seeks nomination for election to be President of the United States." 26 U.S.C. §9032(2). 

Moreover, the law requires the candidate to certify 

that he or she is seeking nomination by a political 

party for election to the Office of President of the 

United States. 26 U.S.C. §9033(b)(2). The Commission concluded, therefore, that only a candidate as 

defined under Title 26 was eligible for matching 

funds. Since Mr. Hart had ceased being a candidate before submitting his application for consideration by the Commission, the agency ruled that he 

was unable to establish eligibility under 26 U.S.C. 

§9033. 

Creditors' Attachment of Matching Funds 

On December 15, 1987, Gary Hart re-entered the 

1988 campaign for President. Once again the Commission was asked to consider his eligibility and to 

respond to several legal attempts by 1984 creditors 

to attach his 1988 matching funds. The Commission 

declared him eligible to receive matching funds on 

December 28, 1987. 

On December 30, 1987, and again on January 

12, 1988, the Commission was served with writs of 

attachment for the assets belonging to Americans 

With Hart, Inc., Senator Hart's principal campaign 

committee for his 1984 campaign. Because the 

creditors who served the writs were in litigation with 

the 1984 Hart committee, the Commission authorized the General Counsel to send letters advising 

the creditors that no Federal statute authorized diversion of matching funds by the government to 

any other party.3 Moreover, the letter said that any 

attempt to execute a creditor's judgment against 

20n March 2, 1988, the FEC voted to certify an additional 

$328,000 in federal funds to each of the two major political parties. 

3The General Counsel was also authorized to seek to have the 

writs vacated. 
7 

funds of the United States government would be 

barred by sovereign immunity. 

In addition, the letters noted that the Commission 

did not possess any assets which belonged to 

Americans With Hart, Inc., Hart's 1984 principal 

campaign committee. The Commission had certified 

that Hart was eligible to receive matching funds for 

his 1988 Presidential nomination campaign. The 

1988 committee was called Friends of Gary Hart1988, Inc., not Americans With Hart. 

In conclusion, the letters explained that the Commission did not maintain any matching payments 

that the candidate might be entitled to; nor did it 

make the actual payment of primary matching 

funds. Under the Primary Matching Payment Act, 

the Commission determines the eligibility of candidates to receive matching funds and certifies the 

amount the candidate is to receive to the Secretary 

of the Treasury. The Secretary- not the Commission - is responsible for making the actual payment.4 

Nonmatchable Contributions 

On August 18, 1987, the Commission made an initial determination that the Jack Kemp for President 

Committee (the Committee) was not entitled to primary matching funds for certain contributions made 

payable to the "Kemp Forum."5 

The regulations specify that matchable contributions must be written instruments made "to the order of, or specifically endorsed without qualifications 

to, the presidential candidate, or his or her authorized committee." 11 CFR 9034.2(c). Moreover, the 

Commission's Guideline tor Presentation in Good 

Order provides: "A written instrument made payable 

to an entity other than the candidate or an authorized committee...is nonmatchable unless the payee 

name represents the name of a function sponsored 

and authorized by the candidate/committee and a 

copy of the solicitation material to the event is included with the submission." In its review, the Commission found no .evidence indicating that the Kemp 

Forum was a function sponsored and authorized by 

the committee or by the candidate himself as a 

Presidential candidate. 

Relationship between Campaign and 

Delegate Committees 

In AO 1987-15, the Commission addressed two issues concerning the relationship between the Presidential committee of Representative Jack Kemp and 

delegate committees comprising individuals seeking 

selection as delegates to the 1988 Republican national nominating convention. 

Regarding the first issue - use of the candidate's name by the delegate committee - the 

Commission concluded that Mr. Kemp had no legal 

authority for refusing an "unauthorized" delegate 

committee the "right" to use his name or for requiring any delegate committee to state that it is "unauthorized," except to the extent the disclaimer provisions may require such statements when public 

political advertising is used. Under the Commission's regulations, a delegate committee is required 

to use the word "delegate" in its name and may, 

whether or not it is authorized to do so, include the 

name of the Presidential candidate it supports in its 

committee name. 11 CFR 102.14(b)(1). 

Responding to the second issue, which concerned mailing lists, the Commission ruled that, if 

Jack Kemp's Presidential committee were to provide 

the delegate committees with mailing lists, those 

delegate committees would be precluded from making independent expenditures on behalf of Mr. 

Kemp's Presidential candidacy. In providing such 

lists, the committee would be coordinating with the 

delegate committees and assisting their fundraising 

efforts on Mr. Kemp's behalf. 

The Commission was unable to reach a decision, 

by the requisite four-vote majority, concerning: 1) 

whether a delegate committee that requests and 

receives Mr. Kemp's authorization to use his name 

4As of late March 1988, two court decisions had granted the 

Commission's motions to vacate the creditors' writ of attachment. 

50n February 11, 1988, the Commission made a final determination that contributions made payable to the "Kemp Forum" were 

nonmatchable. The determination was made in accordance with 

the Commission's regulations at 11 CFR 9036.5(e). 
8 

in its committee title could make independent expenditures on Mr. Kemp's behalf or 2) whether Mr. 

Kemp's approval or certification of favored delegates, in states which require the candidate to approve a list of delegates, would preclude those 

delegates from forming a delegate committee and 

making independent expenditures on Mr. Kemp's 

behalf. 

Final Repayment Determination: 

1984 Campaign 

On June 23, 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the FEC's final repayment determination with 

respect to the John Glenn Presidential Committee, 

Inc., the principal campaign committee for Senator 

Glenn's publicly funded 1984 Presidential primary 

campaign. The Committee had made nonqualified 

campaign expenses as a result of exceeding its 

spending limits for the Iowa and New Hampshire 

primaries and was therefore required by the FEC to 

repay $74,956 to the U.S Treasury. 

The Committee had asserted that the state expenditure limits were unconstitutional. In Glenn 

Committee v. FEC, however, the court found no 

constitutional infirmity in the FEC's actions taken 

under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment 

Account Act, which authorizes the recoupment of 

Federal funds. The court also found that the FEC 

had applied its regulations rationally and had not 

abused its authority. 

Bank Loans: 1984 Campaign 

On May 20, 1987, the United States District Court 

of Ohio, Eastern Division, approved a consent order 

between the Commission and defendants, the John 

Glenn Presidential Committee, Inc. and four national banks. The consent order resolved the case, 

FEC v. Bank One, in which the FEC had claimed 

that campaign loans made by four banks to the 

Glenn Committee were not made in the ordinary 

course of business and represented, therefore, a 

corporate contribution in violation of 2 U.S.C. 

§441b(a). 

According to the consent order, "2 U.S.C. 

§441 b(b)(2) defines the term 'contribution' to include 

any loan by a national bank that is not made in the 

ordinary course of business to any candidate or 

campaign committee in connection with any federal 

election." The order goes on to say that "Section 

431 (8)(B)(vii)(ll) of Title 2 of the United States Code 

states, among other requirements, that a loan by a 

national bank is in the ordinary course of business, 

and not a contribution, if the loan is made on a basis which assures repayment." 

According to the order, the "Commission found 

that the loan...was not made on a basis that assured repayment because...the sources of repayment for the loan were not adequate to assure repayment..." 

The consent order stipulated that, for purposes 

of settlement of this litigation, defendants agreed 

that, although they did not concede the violations 

could be proven, they would not contest further the 

Commission's allegations that the making and acceptance of the loan was in violation of 2 U.S.C. 

§441 b(a). The Glenn Committee agreed to pay a 

civil penalty of $4,000 and bear its own costs and 

fees. 

Election Activity by Corporate Executives 

In a compliance case closed during 1987, MUR 

1690, the Commission determined that three corporations had violated the law's prohibition on corporate contributions in connection with Federal elections. Commission review of a 1984 Presidential 

committee's threshold submission for matching 

funds disclosed that many contributors had the 

same employer and had made their contributions 

on the same date. 

The ensuing Commission investigation revealed 

that corporate executives had utilized their employees, corporate facilities and resources on behalf of 

the Presidential candidate. Top executives had solicited contributions by interoffice mail from numerous corporate executives and/or employees, and 

had sent solicitations on their corporate letterhead 

to suppliers and customers of their firm. They had 

collected the contributions and forwarded them to 

the candidate or presented them to the candidate 

at fundraising events, two of which were held in a 
9 

corporate dining room and in a corporate 

boardroom. In addition, one corporation had provided transportation without reimbursement. 

The corporations had claimed that the executives 

had acted as individual volunteers, within the exemption for individual volunteer activity at section 

114.9 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission found that the activities of the top corporate 

executives fell beyond the scope of the individual 

volunteer exemption, and that the corporations had 

facilitated the making of contributions to the candidate and so provided something of value in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441 b. 
11 

Chapter 2 

Administration of the Law 

Disclosure 

Responding to over 27,000 information requests 

through its Public Records Office and Press Office, 

the Commission continued to facilitate public access 

to campaign data. By providing computer indexes, 

copies of reports, press releases and other FEC 

documents, the Commission educated the public 

and the press about the campaign practices of 

campaigns, parties and PACs. 

Disclosure activity also included the updating of 

the Commission's disclosure directory and the publishing of 1986 Federal election results. The Combined Federal/State Disclosure Directory 1987 lists 

individuals and organizations on the state and national level who have responsibility for campaign 

finance disclosure. Federal Elections 86 summarizes, by state, office and candidate, the results of 

the 1986 elections for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. 

House of Representatives. 

Finally, the Commission was able to restore 

many of the disclosure programs that had been cut 

the previous year as a result of the GrammRudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act. 

Computerized Disclosure Program 

With the increasing number of campaign finance 

reports flowing into the FEC, the agency relies on 

the computer to store and organize data taken from 

the reports. The reports themselves are made available to the public within 48 hours of receipt. During 

the same period, the Commission codes summary 

data from the reports and enters it into the FEC's 

computer system. 

In a second step, many of the detailed transactions disclosed on reports are coded and entered 

into the computerized data base. However, 

prompted by the mandatory cuts resulting from the 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, the Commission was 

forced in 1986 to cut, among other programs, the 

computerized disclosure program. 

Committed to restoring the program, the Commission specifically allocated fiscal year 1987 funds 

to recapture much of the itemized information from 

the 1986 campaign reports and to resume complete 

data entry with respect to the 1987-88 election 

cycle. By the end of 1987, the Commission had 

succeeded in capturing the itemized information 

from the 1986 House and Senate campaign reports. 

From July through December of 1987, over 150,000 

transactions were coded and entered from that 

election. In 1988, the Commission plans to begin 

recapturing information on individual contributions to 

PACs from the 1986 campaign reports. 

State Access to Computerized Data 

During 1987, the Commission reactivated its program to provide states with direct computer access 

to federal campaign finance information. The program had been curtailed in 1986, again in response 

to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings spending reductions. 

The primary objective of the program, begun in 

1984, was to give those located outside Washington, D.C. immediate access to several standard 

FEC computer indexes. A computer terminal located in the state election office was linked, 

through a national telecommunications system, to a 

computer storing FEC data. 

Nine states had been "on-line" in the State Access Program before the program's curtailment in 

1986. By December 31, 1987, the number had 

grown to 13 states. Participating states with operational terminals are: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, 

Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, 

Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. The following types of data are available 

under the revived program: 

• Indexes providing descriptive information on all 

registered political committees, such as their 

sponsoring organization, frequency of filing 

reports and multicandidate committee status; 

• Indexes showing the total receipts and disbursements of committees; and 

• A listing of all PAC contributions to federal 

candidates. 

The Commission anticipated that before the 1988 

election some 25 states would be taking part in the 

FEC State Access Program. 
12 

Direct Access to Computerized Data 

The Commission's Direct Access Program continued to grow during 1987. A total of 84 individuals 

and organizations were accessing FEC data directly 

from various locations, around the country. The 

Commission's new computer contract permitted 

substantial cost savings for subscribers, whose 

hourly rate dropped from $50 to $25. 

Assistance to Committees 

and the Public 

Telephone Assistance 

Information about the law may be obtained by using either the toll-free number, 800/424-9530, or the 

local lines. The public affairs specialists, who staff 

the phones, answer questions about the law and 

provide research assistance. The analysts who review reports are also available to assist committee 

staff with reporting questions. (See "Review of Reports," below.) In 1987, the Commission received 

over 52,000 calls requesting information. 

Advisory Opinions 

For more formal, legal guidance, any person may 

request an advisory opinion by writing a letter asking the Commission's advice on how the law applies to a specific, factual situation. 

FEC attorneys draft the opinions, which are then 

discussed and voted on by the Commissioners in 

public meetings. In addition to providing advice to 

requesters, advisory opinions serve as a source of 

guidance for other persons who encounter similar 

factual situations. During 1987, the Commission 

issued 27 advisory opinions, some of which are 

discussed under "Legal Issues" in Chapters 1 

and2. 

Conferences in 1987 

In anticipation of the upcoming Presidential election, 

the Commission held four conferences around the 

country during 1987. These conferences were cosponsored with state agencies. One-day conferences were held in St. Louis, Missouri, and Madison, Wisconsin; two-day conferences were held in 

Burlington, Vermont, and Austin, Texas. Participants 

selected workshops targeted to their area of interest 

-candidate campaigns, PACs or party committees. Also, for the first time, the IRS participated in 

two of the conferences, presenting a workshop on 

tax issues relevant to political committees. 

Publications 

FEC publications, reviewed by attorneys and other 

agency staff, educate political committees and the 

public on the requirements of the law. For the first 

time, the Commission published a brochure designed specifically for the general public. Supporting 

Federal Candidates: A Guide for Citizens explains 

how citizens can take an active part in the federal 

election process. Some 40,000 copies were distributed primarily through candidate and party committees, PACs and public interest groups. 

Review of Reports 

The Commission reviews all campaign finance reports to ensure accurate and complete disclosure of 

campaign activity and to encourage compliance with 

the law's reporting provisions. 

When the reports analyst finds errors, the Commission sends the committee an RFAI, a letter requesting additional information. The committee then 

has an opportunity to amend the report voluntarily. 

The agency encourages committees who receive 

RFAis to respond promptly in writing or, if further 

information is needed, to call the analyst who 

signed the letter. Cooperation between a committee 

and the Commission often results in the settlement 

of a potential compliance matter without further 

action. During its deliberations on compliance matters, the Commission considers as a mitigating factor the steps a committee has taken to correct a 

mistake. 
13 

Reports Review Activity 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 

Number of committees reviewed 5,510 3,906 6,454 5,062 6,158 

Number of reports reviewed 39,837 30,154 46,905 34,055 39,312 

Number of reports receiving RFAis 5,319 6,292 7,414 6,554 4,314 

Presidential 78 246 117 53 57 

Senate 392 496 276 528 208 

House 1,403 2,302 1,374 2,414 848 

Party 413 714 858 702 430 

Nonparty (PACs) 2,989 2,494 4,729 2,841 2,754 

Other 44 40 60 16 17 

Enforcement 

The Enforcement Process 

Possible violations of the federal campaign finance 

law are brought to the Commission's attention either internally - through its own monitoring procedures (and referrals from other government agencies) - or externally- through formal complaints 

originating outside the agency. Potential violations 

become MURs, Matters Under Review, and receive 

MUR numbers. For a discussion of legal issues 

concerning the Commission's enforcement process, 

see "Legal Issues" on page 15. 

All phases of the MUR process must remain 

confidential according to the law until a case is 

closed and put on the public record. Respondents 

(those alleged to have violated the law) are given a 

reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that no action should be taken against them. The Commission 

must first decide whether there is "reason to believe" a violation of the law has occurred. A "reason 

to believe" finding means that the agency will investigate the matter. If, after investigation, the Commissian believes there is sufficient evidence to show 

that there is "probable cause to believe" a violation 

has occurred, the agency must try to resolve the 

matter informally through a conciliation agreement 

with the respondent. (Conciliation may also be initiated by the respondent before this stage of the 

enforcement process.) In the event that conciliation 

fails, the agency may try to enforce the matter 

through litigation. 

The table on the next page compares the MUR 

caseload over the past several calendar years. 
14 

Caseload of MURs 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 

Cases pending at beginning of year 93 78 172 137 143 

Cases opened during year 

External 

Internal 

103 

42 

61 

283 

163 

120 

257 

51 

206 

191 

120 

71 

261 

37 

224 

Cases closed during year 

External 

Internal 

118 

58 

60 

189 

103 

86 

292 

97 

195 

185 

80 

105 

233 

66 

167 

Cases pending at end of year 78 172 137 143 171 

Statement of Reasons 

On October 23, 1986, the Commission decided to 

begin issuing a statement of reasons whenever a 

majority of the Commissioners, in dismissing a 

complaint-generated matter, rejected the recommendations of the General Counsel's Office. The Commission agreed that it would place a statement of 

reasons on the public record within 30 days after 

the. corresponding enforcement matter was closed. 

On February 5, 1987, the Commission adopted 

internal guidelines for the preparation of such statements. 

Extensions of Time in Enforcement Matters 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, respondents have an opportunity, at several stages during 

the enforcement process, to submit responses to 

allegations made against them. Not infrequently, 

respondents have asked for extensions of time to 

submit aresponse, which has often delayed the 

MUR process. 

In order to expedite the processing of MURs, the 

Commission adopted several new procedures concerning the granting of extensions of time in enforcement matters. In general, the new procedures 

gave the Office of General Counsel (OGC) greater 

latitude to grant extensions without first obtaining 

Commission approval. Specific procedures approved 

by the Commission included the following: 

• The Commission authorized OGC to grant 

extensions of time of up to 30 days for responses to complaint notifications. Because 

this is a critical stage in the enforcement process, OGC will limit extensions to no more 

than 20 days and will grant 30 days only 

where exceptional good cause is demonstrated. 

• OGC was given discretion to grant or deny 

extension requests of up to 45 days for "reason to believe" and "probable cause" briefs. 

Extensions beyond 30 days, however, will be 

granted only in exceptional circumstances. 
15 

• Commission approval will no longer be required for additional requests or requests for 

extensions of time that are submitted later 

than 5 days prior to the original due date, as 

long as the requested extension does not exceed 30 days from the original due date for 

responses to complaints or 45 days from the 

original due date for responses to "reason to 

believe" findings and "probable cause" briefs. 

Legal Issues 

During 1987, a number of legal issues pertaining to 

the enforcement process and to contributions and 

expenditures were clarified through litigation and 

advisory opinions. This section summarizes these 

legal decisions. 

Enforcement Process 

Under the Act, a complainant may challenge the 

Commission's dismissal of a complaint or its failure 

to act on a complaint within 120 days by filing a 

petition with the United States District Court. During 

1987, the Commission was involved in several suits 

where challenges were brought under this provision 

of the law. 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 

(DCCC) v. FEC. This case arose in July 1986, 

when the DCCC, a national committee of the 

Democratic Party, filed suit with the district court. 

The suit challenged the FEC's dismissal of an administrative complaint that DCCC had filed against 

the National Republican Congressional Committee 

(NRCC) in December 1985. The General Counsel 

had recommended the Commission find "reason to 

believe" that NRCC had violated the law. The Commission, however, deadlocked in its vote on "reason 

to believe." Subsequently, by a unanimous vote, the 

Commission closed the file on the complaint. 

Initially, the district court concluded that, even 

though the Commission's dismissal had resulted 

from its deadlock on the merits of the complaint, 

DCCC still had "the right (under 2 U.S.C. 

§437g(a)(8)) to seek review of an adverse outcome." The district court then went on to consider 

the merits of DCCC's complaint and concluded that 

the FEC's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint was 

contrary to law. The Commission appealed this 

decision. On October 23, 1987, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an opinion which partially affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court upheld the district court's 

ruling that the dismissal of a complaint based on a 

deadlock vote was subject to judicial review. However, since the court lacked a Commission explanation for the dismissal, the appeals court rejected the 

district court's finding that the dismissal was contrary to law. Instead, the court remanded the suit to 

the district court with instructions that the district 

court, in turn, remand the case to the Commissioners for an explanation of why they voted to dismiss 

the complaint. The court concluded that "the Commission or the individual Commissioners should first 

be afforded an opportunity to say why DCCC's 

complaint was dismissed in spite of the FEC's General Counsel's recommendation." 

FEC v. Congressman Charles E. Rose. On December 2, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier decision by the 

district court that had held the FEC liable for litigation costs and attorney's fees incurred by Congressman ·Rose in a suit he had brought against 

the FEC. In reversing the district court decision, the 

appeals court concluded that, under the statute 

governing such fee awards, the Equal Access to 

Justice Act (EAJA), "the district court (had) erred in 

holding that the FEC's position in the case was not 

'substantially justified."' 

Under the 1985 amendments to EAJA, a government agency is not liable for a prevailing party's 

litigation costs and attorney's fees if the agency can 

show "that both its position in the litigation and its 

conduct that led to the litigation were substantially 

justified." To determine whether a government 

agency's actions were substantially justified, the 

court may not use the standard used to challenge 

an agency's action on an administrative complaint 

(i.e., whether the action was "arbitrary and capri-
16 

cious"). Rather, in applying the EAJA standard, the 

court "is obliged to reexamine the facts under a 

different legal standard to determine whether the 

conduct is slightly more than reasonable." 

The appeals court concluded that both the FEC's 

handling of Congressman Rose's administrative 

complaint and its litigation position were "substantially justified." In fact, the court found that the 

FEC's position in the case "was not only substantially justified, it was entirely correct" and that Congressman Rose's arguments, which had been 

adopted by the district court, "were dead wrong." 

The appeals court therefore remanded the case to 

the district court, with orders to dismiss Congressman Rose's application to have the FEC bear his 

court costs. 

Spannaus v. FEC. This suit concerned alleged discriminatory enforcement of the election law by the 

Commission. The plaintiffs in this suit asked the 

court to declare the following: 

• FEC investigations of the LaRouche 

Campaign's 1984 campaign activities were 

"motivated solely by bad faith" and were "an 

abuse of process," in violation of Federal laws 

and the U.S. Constitution. 

o The FEC was "selectively and discriminatorily 

enforcing the election laws resulting in violation of the plaintiffs' rights of equal protection." 

o The FEC had abridged First Amendment rights 

by creating a chilling effect on contributors and 

volunteers to the campaign. 

On August 26, 1986, the district court affirmed 

the FEC's claim that, in initiating investigation 

against the LaRouche Campaign, the agency had 

followed procedures established by the Federal 

Election Campaign Act and FEC Regulations and 

had undertaken an investigation for legitimate purposes. 

With regard to alleged discriminatory enforcement 

of the election law, the court held that the plaintiffs 

had not demonstrated unequal treatment under the 

Act. Similarly, the court found no merit to plaintiffs' 

claim that their First Amendment rights had been 

abridged. On March 3, 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district 

court's judgment. 

Express Advocacy 

FEC v. Furgatch. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a district court ruling concerning express 

advocacy. The case involved two political ads which 

Mr. Furgatch placed in the New York Times and 

the Boston Globe shortly before the 1980 election. 

The ads were directed against President Carter. 

The FEC claimed that Mr. Furgatch had violated 

the election law by failing to report his spending on 

the political ads as independent expenditures. 

The district court ruled in December 1984 that 

the political ads sponsored by Mr. Furgatch did not 

expressly advocate President Carter's defeat and 

therefore did not constitute independent expenditures. In reaching this decision, the district court 

applied a narrow interpretation of the standard contained in the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo 

opinion. In that opinion, the Supreme Court had 

defined express advocacy as "communications containing express words of advocacy of election or 

defeat, such as 'vote for,' 'elect,' 'vote against,' 'defeat."' 

Applying this interpretation of the express advocacy standard to Mr. Furgatch's ads, the district 

court found that the pivotal question was ''whether 

the phrase 'Don't let him do it' was the equivalent 

of the expression 'vote against Carter."' The district 

court concluded that the phrase "Don't let him do it" 

did not constitute express advocacy. 

In reversing the district court's ruling in the case, 

the appeals court rejected the "strictly limited" definition of express advocacy relied upon by the district court. Rather, the appeals court found that 

"context is relevant to a determination of express 

advocacy." The court concluded that "(political) 

speech need not include any of the words listed in 

Buckley to be express advocacy under the Act, but 

must, when read as a whole, and with limited reference to external events, be susceptible of no other 

reasonable interpretation but as an exhortation to 

vote for or against a specific candidate." The ap-
peals court stated that this standard for determining 

when political speech constitutes express advocacy 

would "preserve the efficacy of the Act without 

treading upon the freedom of political expression." 

Elaborating on this standard, the appeals court 

held that a political communication constituted express advocacy if: 

1. The communication is "unmistakable and unambiguous, suggestive of only one plausible meaning," even if "not presented in the clearest most 

explicit language"; 

2. The communication "presents a clear plea for 

action"; and 

3. There can be no reasonable doubt about "what 

action is advocated." 

In applying this express advocacy standard to 

Mr. Furgatch's ads, the appeals court held that, 

given the context of the message, it had "no doubt 

that the ads ask the public to vote against Carter." 

Finally, the court held that Mr. Furgatch's ads were 

not the kind of "issue-oriented speech" excepted 

from the election law. "The ads directly attack a 

candidate, not because of any stand on the issues 

of the election, but for his personal qualities and 

alleged improprieties in the handling of his campaign. It is the type of advertising that the Act was 

enacted to cover." 

On October 5, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court 

denied Mr. Furgatch's petition for a Writ of Certiorari. For a discussion of regulatory activity concerning express advocacy, see "Regulations" on page 

19. 

PAC Affiliation 

In FEC v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific Political 

Fund, the Commission claimed that the Sailors' 

Union of the Pacific Political Fund, the Marine 

Firemen's Union Political Action Fund and the 

Seafarer's Political Activity Donation had made excessive contributions by together contributing an 

aggregate of over $5,000 to a 1982 Senate primary 

campaign. The Commission argued that the committees' respective connected organizations were all 

part of the Seafarers' International Union (Seafarers) and that their contributions were therefore subject to a single shared limit. Under the campaign 

finance law, all separate segregated funds established, financed, maintained or controlled by different parts of one organization are affiliated. 

The district court disagreed, ruling that the Seafarers' International Union was an association of 

independent unions rather than an international 

union comprising subordinate units. Accordingly, the 

court concluded, the unions' separate segregated 

funds were not affiliated. 

On September 15, 1987, the court of appeals 

affirmed the district court ruling that the separate 

segregated funds of the three maritime unions were 

not affiliated and therefore had not exceeded the 

Act's contribution limits. In making its determination, 

the court cited legislative history for guidance: "Various comments in the records of both the House 

and Senate suggest that...Congress intended to 

aggregate campaign contributions of locals of international unions but did not intend to aggregate contributions of member unions of labor federations." 

The court then examined the degree of control 

the Seafarers exercised over their member unions. 

It concluded that, although there were some indications of centralized control, on balance Seafarers 

operated more as a federation with limited power to 

direct member unions. The separate segregated 

funds of their members were not, therefore, subject 

to a common contribution limit. 

In another action, AO 1987-21, the Commission 

concluded that the PAC of a spin-off corporation, 

Diamond Shamrock R&M, Inc. (R&M), was affiliated 

with the PAC of its former parent corporation, Diamond Shamrock Corporation (DSC). By examining 

the indicia for affiliation contained in the FEC regulations, the Commission concluded that both PACs 

were essentially established, financed, maintained 

or controlled by DSC. The Commission noted that 

the factors which established affiliation could diminish over time but, at the time the request was 

made, there was no indication that enough separation had taken place between the corporations. As 

affiliated committees, the two PACs were, therefore, 

subject to a single contribution limit. 
18 

PAC Established by National Bank 

While a national bank is prohibited from making a 

contribution or expenditure in connection with an 

election to any political office - local, state or Federal - a national bank may, nevertheless, establish 

a separate segregated fund to engage in political 

activity on a local, state or Federal level. Commission regulations, however, specifically exempt a 

separate segregated fund from the registration requirements if it is established solely to finance state 

and local election activity. 

In AO 1987-14, the Commission ruled that because the separate segregated fund of the First 

National Bank of Shrevesport was organized solely 

for financing state and local political activity, the 

fund would not be subject to the rules concerning 

registration, recordkeeping, reporting and contribution limits. It was, however, a "separate segregated 

fund" under the Act, and therefore subject to the 

solicitable class restrictions, the voluntary contribution requirements and the solicitation notice provisions of the Act. 

PAC Contributions Matched with Corporate 

Charitable Donations 

In two advisory opinions, the Commission permitted 

corporations to match voluntary contributions to 

their PACs with charitable donations to qualified 

charitable organizations. In AO 1986-44, issued in 

1987, the Commission said the Detroit Edison Company could encourage contributions from their executive and administrative personnel and stockholders to its separate segregated fund, the Detroit 

Edison Political Action Committee, by matching 

each individual's contribution with a corporate donation to a charitable organization designated by the 

individual. Federal election law permits a corporation to pay for the solicitation costs of its PAC, provided the corporation does not use the solicitation 

process as a means of exchanging treasury funds 

for voluntary contributions. The Commission concluded that the plan to encourage employee contributions was not such an attempt because the contributors to the PAC would not receive any financial 

benefit from the corporation in return for their contribution. 

The Commission addressed a very similar issue 

in AO 1987-18, which permitted Texas Industries, 

Inc. (TXI) to encourage contributions to its PAC by 

matching individual contributions with donations of 

money and/or commodities to a charity of the 

contributor's choice. Here again the Commission 

stated that TXI's donations to charities represented 

a solicitation expense and not a prohibited exchange of treasury monies. 

Voting Guides by Nonprofit Corporation 

In AO 1987-7, the Commission addressed the issue 

of corporate expenditures for nonpartisan communications. The United States Defense Committee 

(USDC}, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to use 

general treasury funds, which included payments 

from its corporate members, to finance voter guides 

that described the views of Congressional candidates on defense issues. The guides were to be 

distributed to the general public. 

The Commission said that the voter guides 

would be governed by FEC rules pertaining to expenditures for such communications by nonprofit, 

nonpartisan organizations, rather than by the limited 

exception for such expenditures carved out by the 

Supreme Court in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens 

for Life (MCFL). 1 

Under FEC rules, a nonpartisan, nonprofit corporation may spend treasury funds to prepare and 

distribute voter guides to the general public, provided the guides do not favor one candidate or 

political party over another. The Commission held 

that USDC could sponsor a voter guide mailing to 

the general public because it constituted a "grass 

roots" lobbying effort to obtain support for its positions on defense-related legislation before Con-

. gress. However, the Commission concluded that the 

'To be eligible for the MCFL exception, among other things, a 

nonprofit corporation must have a policy of not accepting contributions from business corporations or labor organizations. USDC had 

accepted money from corporations and, therefore, was not eligible 

for the MCFL exception. 
19 

Act prohibited USDC from sponsoring two other 

mailings, which were to be distributed just prior to 

the primary elections, because these mailings contained material favoring the election of specific candidates. Such communications would constitute partisan communications. Under 2 U.S.C. §441 b, an 

incorporated organization may direct partisan communications only to individuals associated with the 

organization (i.e., the organization's restricted 

class). Partisan communications distributed to the 

general public, however, result in prohibited corporate expenditures. 

With regard to the separate issue of publishing 

Congressional voting records, the Commission was 

unable to reach a decision by the requisite fourvote majority. 

Transfers from State to Federal Committee 

Under the statute and FEC regulations, transfers of 

funds between committees authorized by the same 

candidate do not count as contributions and are not 

limited. During 1987, the Commission addressed 

the issue of transfers in two advisory opinions. 

In AO 1987-12 the Commission allowed the 

Committee to Elect Jerry Costello (the state committee) to transfer $155,194 to the Costello for Congress Committee (the Federal committee) for the 

1988 election cycle. Because the two committees 

were controlled by Mr. Costello for campaign-related 

purposes, they were regarded as being affiliated for 

purposes of making the proposed transfer. Therefore, the transfer of funds from the state committee 

to the Federal committee was not subject to the 

Act's contribution limits. However, the funds transferred had to be permissible under the Act. Also, 

the Commission noted that, because the funds included in the transfer were contributed to the state 

committee before the 1986 general election, in 

which Mr. Costello ran tor local office, and before 

he became a candidate for Federal office in the 

1988 election cycle, they would not have to be aggregated with later contributions for the 1988 election cycle from the same donors. 

Similarly, in AO 1987-16, the Commission permitted the Dukakis Gubernatorial Committee to transfer, without limit, computer equipment and contributor lists to the Dukakis for President Committee, 

Inc. Because the computer and contributor lists 

were things of value, they were considered contributions in kind (or transfers) from the state committee. 

The Commission's approval of the asset transfers 

was conditioned on the understanding that the state 

committee accepted only funds that were lawful 

under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Therefore, the transfer of assets was not an indirect corporate or labor contribution, which is prohibited under the Act. 

Regulations 

During 1987, the Commission continued to clarity 

the campaign finance law through revised regulations, focusing on public financing and convention 

delegates, both discussed in Chapter 1 ; contributions by individuals and multicandidate political 

committees; and the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986. Also, in 1987, the Commission 

considered rulemaking petitions on "soft money" 

and "express advocacy." 

Contribution Limits 

11 CFR 110.1 and 110.2 

On April 8, 1987, the Commission prescribed 

amended regulations which govern the election 

law's contribution limits. These final rules clarified 

the scope of the contribution limits and resolved 

several issues that had arisen since the regulations 

were first prescribed in 1977. For example, new 

rules provided ways contributors could "cure" excessive contributions by redesignating or reattributing 

them or by requesting a refund. The new rules 

were summarized in the 1986 Annual Report. 

Freedom of Information Act Rules 

11 CFR Part 4 

Final revisions to regulations implementing the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were approved 

on October 1, 1987. The regulations were revised 

to conform with the Freedom of Information Reform 
20 

Act of 1986, which expanded the law enforcement 

exemptions of the FOIA, modified the fees charged 

for material requested under the FOIA and 

amended the standards for waiving fees. The Commission also updated certain fees charged for public disclosure documents obtained through the FEC 

Public Records Office. The final rules became effective on November 21, 1987. 

Rulemaking Petition on "Soft Money" 

In April 1986, the Commission denied a petition for 

rulemaking filed by Common Cause. The petition 

had requested that the Commission amend its regulations to address the alleged improper use of "soft 

money" in Federal elections. "Soft money" was defined in the petition as funds that are ostensibly 

raised and spent for state and local elections and 

are therefore not reportable under the Federal campaign finance law. After reviewing the public comments and testimony and evaluating the implications of the proposed revisions, the Commission 

concluded that· evidence of improper use of "soft 

money" in Federal elections was insufficient to justify the stringent rules suggested in the Common 

Cause petition. 

In response to the FEC's denial, on June 30, 

1986, Common Cause filed suit against the agency. 

Common Cause asked the court to 1) declare that 

the Commission's denial of its rulemaking petition 

was contrary to law and 2) order the Commission 

to reconsider the petition. 

On August 3, 1987, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia issued an order which 

granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment 

affirming its decision to deny the rulemaking petition. However, the court did direct the agency to 

pursue one issue: the allocation, between the Federal and non-Federal accounts of state party committees, of certain specified activities (e.g., voter 

registration, "get out the vote" efforts and campaign 

materials used in connection with volunteer activities). The court maintained that the Commission's 

regulations provide "no guidance whatsoever on 

what allocation methods a state or local party committee may use," and thus found that a revision of 

the Commission's regulations in this one area was 

warranted. The court remanded this one matter to 

the Commission. 

On October 29, 1987, the Commission directed 

the General Counsel to prepare a draft Notice of 

Inquiry to seek comments on methods of allocation 

between Federal and non-Federal accounts.2 

Proposed Rulemaklng on MCFL Decision and 

Spending by Nonprofit Corporations 

On December 17, 1987, the Commission voted to 

publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

examining what regulatory changes might be appropriate in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in 

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

The notice was published in the Federal Register 

on January 7, 1988. 

Among several topics, the notice sought further 

comment on an issue raised earlier in a petition for 

rulemaking by the National Right to Work Committee (NRWC). The issue was whether the Commission should adopt an "express advocacy" standard 

for determining whether corporate or union communications are permissible under sections 114.3 and 

114.4 of the regulations. In May 1987, the Commission had published a notice of availability inviting 

comment on NRWC's petition. At that time, one 

comment was received. 

The MCFL ruling exempted from the 441 b ban 

on corporate activity, expenditures by certain nonprofit corporations that are similar to MCFL. In this 

regard, the Commission also solicited comments on 

the possible ramifications of the exemption. The 

Court had identified several criteria that a corporation had to meet to qualify for the exemption. The 

Court had focused, for example, on MCFL's small 

size and lack of formal organization. Further, the 

Court had delineated three factors for determining 

which nonprofit corporations would be exempt from 

20n February 11, 1988, the Commission voted to publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of inquiry on allocations between Federal 

and non-Federal accounts. See 53 Fed. Reg. 5277 (February 23, 

1988). 
21 

the 441 b restriction on corporate spending. As 

stated by the Court, the organization must: 

1. Be formed for the express purpose of promoting 

political ideas, and cannot engage in business 

activities; 

2. Have no shareholders or other persons affiliated 

who would have a claim on its assets or earnings; and 

3. Not be established by a business corporation (or 

labor organization), or accept contributions from 

such entities. 

The Commission sought comments on how this 

ruling should impact on Commission regulations. 

(For a summary of the case and the Court's opinion, see the Annual Report 1986, p.18.) 

Clearinghouse on 

Election Administration 

Congress charged the Commission with the responsibility to conduct research on the administration of 

Federal elections. The FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration has assumed this 

duty, serving as a central exchange point for research and information. The following sections report on work efforts completed by the Clearinghouse during 1987. Several Clearinghouse studies 

released in 1987 are briefly described in Appendix 

9, which includes the status of other publications 

and several compendia produced by the office. 

Voting Accessibility Act 

Congress granted the Commission new responsibilities under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly 

and Handicapped Act (Public Law 98-435), signed 

by President Reagan on September 28, 1984. The 

Act stipulates that polling places and voter registration sites be accessible to handicapped and elderly 

individuals. 

Under this Act, the Commission must gather in~ 

formation on the accessibility of polling places from 

each state and consolidate the information in periodic reports to Congress. The reports are filed after 

each two year election cycle from 1986 through 

1994. To this end, the Clearinghouse, the FEC office assigned responsibility for this project, surveyed 

the states and, in April 1987, submitted a report to 

Congress. The report contained state-by-state statistics on inaccessible polling places and discussed 

the reasons for the inaccessibility, i.e., physical 

barriers, inadequate parking, stairs without ramps, 

and other architectural barriers. 

Computerizing Election Administration 

Because the vast majority of state election offices 

either use computers or are considering their use, 

the Clearinghouse embarked on a three-phase 

study to guide election officials in applying computer technology to election management and administrative functions. 

The third volume, Implementation Strategies, was 

published in 1987. It explains how the general computerized election model can be implemented in a 

variety of different environments such as shared vs. 

solely owned data base, shared vs. solely owned 

equipment and statewide vs. local computerized 

registry. It also provides a system implementation 

plan and some guidelines on computer security. 

The Clearinghouse published the core volume of 

the study in 1986: Volume II, A General Model. 

Representing the culmination of 1 0 years of research, the publication contains a model system for 

computerizing every phase of election administration. 

Volume I, Current Applications, was published in 

1985. It provides a brief introduction to using computers-the benefits of automation, some pitfalls to 

avoid and a guide to help define information needs. 

Election Directory 87 

An update of the Election Directory 85, this volume 

provides names, titles, addresses and telephone 

numbers of state chief election officials and other 

state officials involved in elections. It also contains 

a directory of Federal officials involved with elections and a listing of state and local offices to forward voter registrations. 
22 

Absentee Voting 

Analysis of Laws and Procedures Governing Absentee Voting in the United States was issued in November 1987. It explores the history and recent 

developments in absentee voting, describes the 

requirements and impact of Federal statutory law 

on the absentee voting process, and focuses on a 

series of related policy and procedural issues. 

Clearinghouse Advisory Panel Meeting 

On December 7-10, 1987, the Advisory Panel met 

in Washington, D.C. along with the Voting System 

Standards Committee. Composed of state and local 

election officials, the Advisory Panel and the Voting 

System Standards Committee met to discuss Clearinghouse projects, recent court cases on Federal 

and state elections, new election-related legislation 

and the Voting Systems Standards Project. 

FEC Journal of Election Administration 

The spring 1987 Journal offered articles on canceling previous voter registration; all-mail ballot elections; expediting election mailings; and the Federal 

voting assistance program. In addition to reporting 

on current developments in the field of election 

administration, the periodical, free to the public, 

also keeps readers abreast of Clearinghouse activities and provides convenient order forms for the 

Clearinghouse studies summarized in Appendix 9. 

Voting System Standard Project 

The Clearinghouse continued to develop voluntary 

performance and design standards for punchcard 

and marksense computerized voting systems in 

terms of their reliability, security and accuracy. The 

Commission plans to formally issue the standards 

and associated documents in the summer of 1988. 

1. Voting System Standards tor Punchcard and 

Marksense Systems (Hardware and Software). 

The development of punchcard and marksense 

equipment is part of the research stemming from 

a 1982 study mandated by Congress. (See, 

below, Voting System Standards for Direct Recording Electronic Systems.) This publication will 

present hardware and software specifications, a 

description of the quality assurance and documentation required, software and system security, 

qualification testing and measurement procedures, and acceptance testing. 

2. Voting System Standards for Direct Recording 

Electronic Systems (Hardware and Software). 

The development of voluntary voting system 

standards for direct recording electronic systems 

is the final stage of the Voting System Standards 

Project. (See Voting System Standards tor 

Punchcard and Marksense Systems, above.) This 

segment of the project will emphasize the development of hardware and software standards and 

appropriate testing procedures for this generic 

type of system. 

3. Implementation Plan, Software Escrow Plan, and 

Election Management Guidelines. This project will 

complement the hardware and software standards. The implementation plan will explain how 

the voluntary standards can be best implemented, what systems would be grandfathered, 

and the use of escrow agreements to safeguard 

proprietary software and documentation. In separate publications, guidelines relevant to the Voting System Standards will be presented. The 

management guidelines will summarize accepted 

practice on pre-election testing, procurement and 

contracting, and equipment maintenance and 

storage as they relate to punchcard, marksense, 

and direct recording electronic voting systems. 
23 

Chapter 3 

Campaign Finance 

Statistics 

This chapter presents selected graphs that depict 

different aspects of Federal campaign finance 

activity. 

Political Action Committees 

Chart 1 

Number of PACs 0 Corporate

e Nonconnected 

.6. Trade/Membership/Health1 

f:l. Labor 

• Other Number 2 

of PACs 

2000~--------------------------------------------------------

Year 

'For the years 1974 through 1976, the FEC did not identify subcategories of PACs other than corporate and labor PACs. Therefore, for 

these years, the category "trade/membership/health" represents all other PACs. 

2The "other" category includes PACs formed by corporations without capital stock and cooperatives. 
Republican Candidates 

$12,000,000 $12,000,000 Bush Dole 

$10,000,000 

$8,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$8,000,000 

$6,000,000 $6,000,000 

$4,000,000 $4,000,000 

$2,000,000 $2,000,000 

$0 $0 

pre4/1 4/1 -6/30 7/1 -9/30 10/1 -12131 pre 4/1 4/1 -6/30 7/1-9/30 10/1 -12131 

$12,000,000 

$10,000,000 

DuPont $12,000,000 

$10,000,000 

Halg 

$8,000,000 $8,000,000 

$6,000,000 $6,000,000 

$4,000,000 $4,000,000 

$2,000,000 $2,000,000 

$0 

pre 4/1 4/1-6/30 7/1-9/30 10/1 -12/31 

$0 

4/1 -6/30 7/1-9/30 10/1 -12131 

$12,000,000 $12,000,000 Kemp Robertson

$1 0,000,000 $1 0,000,000

$8,000,000 $8,000,000

$6,000,000 $6,000,000

$4,000,000 $4,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,000,000

$0 $0

pre 6/30 7/1 -9/30 10/1 -12131 pre9/30 10/1 -12/31 

KEY 

II Contributions from 

Committees 

Loans 

II Contributions from 

Individuals 

24 

Presidential Candidates 

Chart 2 

Receipts of Presidential Campaigns 

Through 12/31/873 

3Note that the figures for the Republican Candidates are plotted on a scale of $12 million, and the figures for the Democratic Candidates are plotted on a scale of $5 million. The chart includes only active candidates as of 12/31/87 with receipts over $1,250,000. 
25 

Democratic Candidates 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

$5,000,000 Babbitt 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

Dukakls 

pre 6/30 7/1-9130 10/1-12131 

Gore 

4/1 -6/30 7/1-9/30 10/1 -12/31 

Jackson 

pre 9/30 10/1 -12/31 

Simon 

pre 4/1 4/1-6/30 7/1-9/30 10/1 -12131 

$5,000,000 

Gephardt 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 $4,000,000 

$3,000,000 $3,000,000 

$2,000,000 $2,000,000 

$1,000,000 $1,000,000 

$0 $0 

pre 4/1 4/1-6/30 7/1-9/30 10/1 -12/31 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$5,000,000 

Hart 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

pre 6/30 7/1 -9/30 10/1-12131 

LaRouche 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

pre 4/1 4/1 - 6/30 7/1 - 9/30 10/1-12/31 $0 ------· 4/1 -6/30 711-9/30 10/1 -12131 
26 

Chart 3 

Receipts of 

Presidential Primary Candidates4 

Through 12/31/87 

Republican Candidates 

Bush 

Dole 

DuPont 

Haig 

Kemp 

Laxalt 

Robertson 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

Millions of Dollars 

Democratic Candidates 

Babbitt 

Biden 

Dukakis 

Gephardt 

Gore 

Hart 

Jackson 

LaRouche 

Simon 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

Millions of Dollars 

4 lncludes all candidates with receipts over $1,250,000. 
27 

Chapter 4 

The Commission 

Commissioners 

On July 24, 1987, the Senate confirmed Lee Ann 

Elliott and Danny Lee McDonald to serve their second six-year terms (through April 30, 1993) as FEC 

Commissioners. Both Mrs. Elliott and Mr. McDonald 

were first appointed to the Commission by President Reagan in December 1981. 

Commission Chairman Scott E. Thomas and Vice 

Chairman Thomas J. Josefiak served as officers 

during 1987. On December 17, 1987, Commissioner Josefiak was elected 1988 Chairman and 

Commissioner McDonald, 1988 Vice Chairman. 

Biographies of all the Commissioners appear in Appendix 1. 

Statutory Officers 

On October 6, 1987, the Federal Election Commission appointed Lawrence M. Noble as the agency's 

General Counsel. Mr. Noble had been Acting General Counsel since the March 1987 resignation of 

Charles N. Steele. He has been with the Commission since 1977, serving first as a litigation attorney 

and later, as Assistant General Counsel for Litigation and then as Depty General Counsel since 

1983. 

Administrative Activities 

Reorganization of the 

Office of General Counsel 

In December, the Commission voted to reorganize 

the Office of General Counsel (OGC) by restructuring its top management and creating new positions 

to centralize and coordinate operations. 

Under the new plan, OGC was divided into three 

functional areas: enforcement, litigation and policy, 

with each area headed by an Associate General 

Counsel. Two new associate general counsels were 

created under the plan - one for litigation, the 

other for policy. In addition, three new administrative staff positions were created to strengthen and 

centralize the management of the office. 

Computer Services 

A new computer system, inaugurated in 1986, became fully operational in 1987 with the conversion 

from the old system to the new configuration. This 

new computer generation enabled the Commission 

to greatly enhance its data processing capabilities 

by taking advantage of numerous advances in technology that had occurred over the last several 

years. Specifically, the new computer service provided the Commission with needed storage for its 

growing data bases. Under the new system, the 

Commission has 3.7 billion characters of storage at 

the main computer site with an additional 445 million characters of storage located at the Commission. In addition, the new system reduces the time 

required to process indexes and other tasks. These 

increased capabilities were made available to the 

Commission at significant cost savings compared 

with the previous contract. 

Personnel and Labor Relations 

During 1987, the Commission filled many of the 

positions left vacant as a result of the FY 1986 

Gramm/Rudman/Hollings budget reductions. The 

Commission resumed on-campus recruitment of law 

clerks and hired auditors and other personnel 

needed for the 1988 Presidential election cycle. At 

year's end, the Commission was developing plans 

for the 1988 Intern Program. 

FEC Budget 

Fiscal Year 1987 

The Commission received an FY 1987 appropriation 

of $12.8 million. This allowed the Commission to 

begin recovering from the FY 1986 Gramm/ 

Rudman/Hollings reductions. In addition, the Commission received $83,000 in supplemental funding 

to cover a portion of the 1987 pay increase of 3 

percent and to offset the expenses of the new government retirement program. 

The Office of Management and Budget had approved an original request of $290,000 in supplemental funds, but, after a careful and extensive 
28 

review of projected personnel costs, the Commission reduced the request by $207,000. Although the 

Commission had increased personnel costs for 

1987, the agency had not reached its authorized 

employee level as quickly as expected. Uncertainty 

over FY 1987 funding for two months into the fiscal 

year had prevented the Commission from beginning 

the process of hiring new personnel. See Appendix 6. 

Fiscal Year 1988 

In hearings conducted by Congressional appropriation and oversight committees between February 

and April 1987, FEC Vice Chairman Thomas J. 

Josefiak requested a $14.174 million budget for 

fiscal year (FY) 1988. Mr. Josefiak noted that this 

budget reflected the Commission's effort to "carefully balance the interests of responsible budget restraint and the mandate of the FECA." Although the 

FY 1988 budget request represented a 10.7 percent 

increase over the Commission's FY 1987 budget, 

Mr. Josefiak said that 76 percent of the budget 

increase was necessary "just to maintain current 

levels of agency activity." According to his testimony, only 24 percent of the budget increase 

($329,000) represented an expansion in Commission activity. The increase was in part based on the 

need for 13 positions above the Commission's normal base of 245 full-time employees. The additional 

staff was necessary because of the open races in 

both parties' Presidential primaries. By contrast, in 

each of the three previous, publicly financed Presidential elections, 1976, 1980 and 1984, only one 

party had an open primary. Mr. Josefiak explained 

that, during 1988, Commission staff would have to 

process a much larger volume of campaign finance 

data as well as handle an increased workload associated with the 1988 Presidential election. The remainder of the budget increase was needed to 

complete the computer entry of detailed information 

on the 1986 Congressional elections. The Commission had not been able to enter this data previously 

because of the 1986 budget cuts mandated by the 

Gramm/Rudman/Hollings Act. According to Mr. Josefiak, the completion of this project, begun in 

1987, would allow the Commission to restore "computerized research services to their full and complete level of usefulness as we enter the new political season." 
29 

Chapter 5 

Legislative 

Recommendations 

Definitions 

Draft Committees 

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

441 a(a)(1) and 441 b(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 and Spent tor Undeclared 

but Clearly Identified Candidates Within the Act's 

Purview. Section 431 (8)(A)(i) should be 

amended to include in the definition of "contribu· 

tion" funds contributed by persons "for the purpose of influencing a clearly identified Individual 

to seek nomination for election or election 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 Support tor Undeclared but Clearly Identified Candidates. Section 441 b(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 individ· 

ual to seek nomination for election or election..." 

to Federal office. 

3. Limit Contributions to Draft Committees. The law 

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 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in FEC 

v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League and 

FEC v. Citizens tor Democratic Alternatives in 1980 

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

Circuit in FEC v. Florida tor 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 committees" 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 a nonauthorized group organized to support someone who has not yet become 

a candidate may operate completely outside the 

strictures of the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

However, any group organized to support someone 

who has in fact become a 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 electoral process through unlimited contributions made 

to nonauthorized draft committees that support a 

person who has not yet become a candidate. 

These recommendations seek to avert that possibility. 

Registration and Reporting 

Commission as Sole Point of Entry for Disclo· 

sure 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 
30 

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 clarify 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 

clarify 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 

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 1 02.4 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 
31 

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, the 

Commission has 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, 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 
32 

option of filing 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 committees. 

Reporting Payments to Persons Providing 

Goods and Services 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(5)(A), (6)(A) and (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 candidate'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 Receiving Public Financing, Federal Election 

Commission, pp. IV 39-44 (1984)(Distinguishing 

committee 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 

the 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. 
33 

§§9004(c) and 9038(b)(2)), guidance would be particularly useful. 

Verifying Multicandidate Committee Status 

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

(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 committees. 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 office. 

Explanation: Under the current statute, political 

committees may not contribute more than $1,000 to 

each candidate, per election, until they qualify as a 

multicandidate 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 maintaining 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 committee 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. 

Public Disclosure at State Level 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §439 

Recommendation: Congress should consider relieving both political committees (other than candidate 

committees) and State election offices of the burdens inherent in the current requirement that political committees file copies of their reports with the 

Secretaries of State. One way this could be accomplished is by providing a system whereby the 

Secretary of State (or equivalent State officer) 

would tie into the Federal Election Commission's 

computerized disclosure data base. 

Explanation: At the present time, multicandidate 

political committees are required to file copies of 
34 

their reports (or portions thereof) with the Secretary 

of State in each of the States in which they support 

a candidate. State election offices carry a burden 

for storing and maintaining files of these reports. 

At the same time, political committees are burdened 

with the responsibility of making multiple copies of 

their reports and mailing them to the Secretaries of 

State. 

With advances in computer technology, it is now 

possible to facilitate disclosure at the State level 

without requiring duplicate filing. Instead, State 

election offices would tie into the FEC's computer 

data base. The local press and public could access reports of local political committees through a 

computer hookup housed in their State election 

offices. All parties would benefit: political committees would no longer have to file duplicate reports 

with State offices; State offices would no longer 

have to provide storage and maintain files; and the 

FEC could maximize the cost effectiveness of its 

existing data base and computer system. 

Such a system has already been tested in a pilot 

program and proven inexpensive and effective. Initially, we would propose that candidate committees 

and in-State party committees continue to file their 

reports both in Washington, D.C. and in their home 

States, in reponse to the high local demand for this 

information. Later, perhaps with improvements in 

information technology, the computerized system 

could embrace these committees as well. 

State Filing for Presidential 

Candidate Committees 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §439 

Recommendation: Congress should consider clarifying the State filing provisions for Presidential candidate committees to specify which particular parts 

of the reports filed by such committees with the 

FEC should also be filed with States in which the 

committees make expenditures. Consideration 

should be given to both the benefits and the costs 

of State disclosure. 

Explanation: Both States and committees have 

inquired about the specific requirements for Presidential candidate committees when filing reports 

with the States. The statute requires that a copy of 

the FEC reports shall be filed with all States in 

which a Presidential candidate committee makes 

expenditures. The question has arisen as to 

whether the full report should be filed with the 

State, or only those portions that disclose financial 

transactions in the State where the report is filed. 

The Commission has considered two alternative 

solutions. The first alternative is to have Presidential candidate committees file, with each State in 

which they have made expenditures, a copy of the 

entire report filed with the FEC. This alternative 

enables local citizens to examine complete reports 

filed by candidates campaigning in a State. It also 

avoids reporting dilemmas for candidates whose 

expenditures in one State might influence a primary 

election in another. 

The second alternative is to require that reports 

filed with the States contain all Summary pages 

and only those Receipts and Disbursements schedules that show transactions pertaining to the State 

in which a report is filed. This alternative would 

reduce filing and storage burdens on Presidential 

candidate committees and States. It would also 

make State filing requirements for Presidential candidate committees similar to those for unauthorized 

political committees. Under this approach, any person still interested in obtaining copies of a full report could do so by contacting the Public Disclosure Division of the FEC. 

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 respondents, 

the press and the public. One possible approach 

would be to change the statutory language from 
35 

'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 every time it finds "reason to 

believe," the statute should be amended. 

Seeking Injunctions in Enforcement Cases 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(1) 

Recommendation:1 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 

1Commissioner Elliott 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).) 

I am 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. 
36 

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 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-Mandale 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 tor 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 

Adjustment of Presidential Primary Threshold 

Submission 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §9033(b) 

Recommendation: Congress should consider raising 

the threshold amount of matchable contributions 

required to qualify for Presidential primary matching 

funds. To reach this higher threshold, Congress 

could increase the number of States in which the 

candidate must raise the qualifying amount of 

matchable contributions; and/or increase the total 

amount of qualifying matchable contributions that 

must be raised in each of the States. 

Explanation: We are in the midst of the fourth publicly financed Presidential election under the Federal 

Election Commission's authority. The statute provides for a COLA adjustment on the overall primary 

spending limitation, which has more than doubled 

since 1976. There is not, however, a corresponding adjustment made to the threshold requirements. 

Such an adjustment would ensure that funds continue to be given only to candidates who demonstrate broad national support. 

Fundraising Limitation for Publicly Financed 

Presidential Primary Campaigns 

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

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 COLA2) 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. 

2 Spending limits are increased by the cost-of-living adjustment 

(COLA), which the Department of Labor calculates annually. 
37 

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 limit 

and 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. 

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. 

Deposit of Repayments 

Section: 26 U.S.C. §9007(d) 

Recommendation: Congress should revise the law 

to state that: All payments received by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (b) shall be 

deposited by him or her in the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund established by section 9006(a). 

Explanation: This change would allow the Fund to 

recapture monies repaid by convention-related committees of national major and minor parties, as well 

as by general election grant recipients. Currently 

the Fund recaptures only repayments made by primary matching fund recipients. 
38 

Expenditure Limits 

Certification of Voting Age Population Figures 

and Cost-of-Living Adjustment 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§441a(c) and (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 State-by-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. §441a(e). The certification 

for each Congressional district, also required under 

this provision, is not needed. 

In addition, under 2 U.S.C. §441 a(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 

per-election 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 

"election-cycle" 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. 

Application of Contribution Limitations 

to Family Members 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441a 

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. (SeeS. 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.3 

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. 

3While the Commission has attempted through regulations to 

present an equitable solution to some of these problems (see 48 

Fed. Reg. 19019 (April27, 1983) as prescribed by the Commission 

on July 1, 1983), statutory resolution is required in this area. 
39 

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. §441 e 

Recommendation: Congress should examine the 

§441 e 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 441 e bars contributions by 

a foreign national that are "in connection with" 

(rather than "for the purpose of influencing") 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. 

Acceptance of Cash Contributions 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 g 

Recommendation: Congress may wish to modify the 

statute to make the treatment of 2 U.S.C. §441 g, 

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 with respect to the committee 

in such cases. This can be a problem, particularly 
40 

where primary matching funds are received on the 

basis of such contributions. 

While the Commission, in its regulations at 11 

CFR 110.4(c)(2), 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 441 b on corporate and labor union contributions, 441 c on contributions by government contractors, 441 e on contributions by foreign nationals, and 

441 f 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 §441 g 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) 

Recommendation.4 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 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. §441 d) 

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. 

4Commissioner 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 inflexible 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 joint fundraising regulations. 
41 

Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441h 

Recommendation: The current §441 h 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 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 l1ad 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)(8)(xiv) and 441 i 

Recommendation: The Commission offers two suggestions concerning honoraria. 

1. Section 441 i 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 Section 

441 i, 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. 

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 pub-
42 

lie 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 FY 

1987, in return for services and materials it offered 

the public, the FEC collected and transferred 

$97,754 in miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury. 

During the first three months of FY 1988, $26,455 

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. 

There should be no restriction on the use of reimbursed funds in a particular year to avoid the 

possibility of having funds lapse. 
43 

Appendix 1 

Biographies of 

Commissioners and 

Officers 

Commissioners 

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman ·" 

April 30, 19911 '' 

Mr. Thomas, who began serving as Commissionffi;. 

in October 1986, had been executive assistant to 

former Commissioner Thomas E. Harris and succeeded him as Commissioner. Commissioner 

Thomas had also served the agency as Assistant 

General Counsel for Enforcement after joining the 

FEC as a legal intern in 1975. A native of 

Wyoming, Commissioner Thomas holds a B.A. 

degree from Stanford University and a J.D. degree 

from Georgetown University Law Center. He is a 

member of the bars for the District of Columbia, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the 

U.S. Supreme Court. He was elected 1987 

Chairman. 

Thomas J. Josefiak, Vice Chairman 

April 30, 1991 

Until his appointment as Commissioner in August 

1985, Mr. Josefiak served with the Commission as 

Special Deputy to the Secretary of the Senate. Before assuming that post in 1981, he was legal 

counsel to the National Republican Congressional 

Committee. His past experience also includes positions held at the U.S. House of Representatives. 

He was minority special counsel for Federal election law to the Committee on House Administration 

and, before that, served as legislative assistant to 

Congressman Silvio 0. Conte. A native of Massachusetts, Commissioner Josefiak holds a B.A. degree from Fairfield University, Connecticut, and a 

J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center. He was elected 1987 Vice Chairman. 

Joan D. Aikens 

April 30, 1989 

Mrs. Aikens was one of the original members of the 

Federal Election Commission appointed in 1975. 

Following the Buckley v. Valeo decision of the Su-

'Term expiration date. 

preme Court and the subsequent reconstitution of 

the FEC, President Ford reappointed her to a fiveyear term. In 1981, Mrs. Aikens continued to serve 

until President Reagan named her to complete an 

unexpired term due to a resignation. In 1983, President Reagan again reappointed Mrs. Aikens, this 

time for a six-year term. She served as Chairman 

between May 1978 and May 1979 and during 1986. 

Prior to her appointment to the Commission, Mrs. 

Aikens was an executive for a Pennsylvania public 

relations firm. From 1972 to 197 4, she was president of the Pennsylvania Council of Republican 

Women and served on the board of the National 

Federation of Republican Women. A native of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Mrs. Aikens has been 

active in a variety of volunteer organizations and is 

currently a member of the Commonwealth Board of 

the Medical College of Pennsylvania. She is also a 

member of the board of directors of Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pennsylvania, where she received 

her B.A. and an honorary Doctor of Laws degree. 

Lee Ann Elliott 

Apr,~l 30, 1993 . 

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. She also completed the Medical Association Management Executives Program at 

Northwestern University and is a Certified Association Executive. Mrs. Elliott served as Commission 

Chairman during 1984. 
44 

Danny L. McDonald 

April 30, 1993 

Mr. McDonald, as general administrator of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, was responsible for 

the management of 1 0 regulatory divisions from 

1979 until his appointment to the Commission in 

December 1981. He was secretary of the Tulsa 

County Election Board from 197 4 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. 

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 J.D. degree from the Georgetown University 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 elections to the Committee on House Ad· 

ministration 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 1985. 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Donnald K. Anderson 

Mr. Anderson was appointed Clerk of the House of 

Representatives on January 6, 1987. Prior to his 

appointment, he served as Majority Floor Manager 

under Speakers Carl Albert and Thomas P. O'Neill, 

Jr. A native of California, he began his career as a 

page in the 86th Congress. Later, he was appointed assistant enrolling clerk and clerk in the 

Finance Office by Representative Hale Boggs. 

Speaker John W. McCormack later appointed him 

assistant manager of the Democratic Cloakroom. 

Douglas Patton, attorney, continues to serve at 

the Commission as Special Deputy to the Clerk of 

the House. 

Walter J. Stewart 

Mr. Stewart was appointed Secretary of the Senate 

on January 6, 1987. Prior to assuming his position 

as Secretary of the Senate, Mr. Stewart was Vice 

President of Government Affairs for Sonat, Inc. Before that, he served as Secretary for the Minority of 

the U.S. Senate and as Executive Director of the 

Senate Steering Committee. Other Senate offices 

held by Mr. Stewart between 1963 and 1979 included: Counsel to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Majority 

Whip, Administrative Assistant to the Majority 

Leader for Senate Operations and Chief of Staff for 

Senatorial and Presidential delegations traveling to 

China, Russia and the Middle East. 

A Georgia native, Mr. Stewart received his 

undergraduate degree from George Washington 

University and an LL.B. from American University. 

He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar. 

David G. Gartner, attorney, serves at the Commission as Special Deputy to the Secretary of the 

Senate. 
45 

Statutory Officers 

John C. Surlna, 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 B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University. He also attended East Carolina University in 

Greenville, North Carolina, and American University 

in Washington, D.C. 

Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel 

Mr. Noble was named General Counsel on October 

6, 1987, after serving as Acting General Counsel 

since March 1987. He has been with the agency 

since 1977, serving as FEC Deputy General Counsel from November 1983 until his appointment as 

Acting General Counsel. Prior to that, he was Assistant General Counsel for Litigation and, earlier, a 

litigation attorney. Before joining the FEC, he was 

an attorney with the Aviation Consumers Action 

Project. 

A native of New York, Mr. Noble holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Syracuse University and a Juris Doctor from the National Law 

Center at George Washington University. He is a 

member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals Bar for the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. 

District Court Bar for the District of Columbia and 

the District of Columbia Bar. Mr. Noble is also a 

member of the American and District of Columbia 

Bar Associations. 
47 

Appendix 2 

Chronology of 

Events, 1987 

January 

1 - Chairman Scott E. Thomas and Vice 

Chairman Thomas J. Josefiak begin oneyear terms as Commission officers. 

6 - Commission transmits to Congress the 

final rules on contribution limits at 11 

CFR 110.1 and 110.2. 

- Donnald K. Anderson, appointed Clerk of 

the House of Representatives, becomes 

Ex-Officio Commissioner. 

-Walter J. Stewart, appointed Secretary of 

the Senate, becomes Ex-Officio Commissioner. 

9 -In FEC v. Furgatch, U.S. Court of Appeals rules that defendant's ads contained "express advocacy" and therefore 

constituted independent expenditures for 

which reporting was required. 

12 - Commission releases statistics on number of PACs. 

31 - 1986 year-end report due. 

February 

5 - Commission adopts internal guidelines for 

preparation of Commission statements of 

reasons. 

19 - Commission testifies before the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on 

House Administration on the agency's FY 

1 988 budget. 

- Commission calculates spending limits for 

1987 special elections. 

24 -In FEC v. Ted Haley Congressional 

Committee, U.S. district court rules that 

loan guarantees to former candidate to 

pay campaign debts were not contributions since guarantees were not intended 

to influence elections. 

March 

4 - Commission seeks comments on proposed revisions to regulations on contributions and expenditures made in connection with Presidential delegate selection process. 

- Commission transmits legislative recommendations to Congress and President. 

10- Commission designates Lawrence M. 

Noble as Acting General Counsel following resignation of Charles N. Steele as 

General Counsel. 

12 - Commission testifies before Subcommittee of House Ways Means Committee on 

agency's role in regulating activities of 

tax-exempt groups. 

17 - Commission testifies before House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee 

on Treasury, Postal Service and General 

Government on FEC budget for FY 88. 

31 -Commission publishes Supporting Federal 

Candidates: A Guide for Citizens. 

April 

1 - Commission testifies before Senate Appropriations Committee on agency's FY 

88 budget. 

3 - David G. Gartner designated as the Secretary of the Senate's special deputy to 

FEC. 

7 - California Special Election (fifth Congressional district). 

8 - Commission promulgates revised rules on 

contribution limits at 11 CFR 110.1 and 

110.2. 

22 - Commission holds hearings on regulations on contributions and expenditures 

made in connection with Presidential 

delegate selection process. 

23 - Commission approves revised edition of 

its Financial Control and Compliance 

Manual tor Presidential Primary Candidates Receiving Public Financing. 
48 

24 - Representative Richard Gephardt becomes first Presidential candidate to 

qualify for 1988 matching funds. 

29 - In FEC v. NCPAC, U.S. District Court 

rules that defendants violated law by 

failing to include disclaimer on solicitation 

material identifying person who paid for 

communication. 

30 - Commission submits report to Congress: 

Polling Place Accessibility in the 1986 

General Election. 

May 

1 - Commission cosponsors election law 

conference in St. Louis, Missouri. 

4 - Commission publishes NRWC's petition 

for rulemaking. 

6 - Bruce Babbitt certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 

1 0 - Commission releases figures on 1986 

Congressional spending. 

21 - Commission releases report on 1985-86 

financial activity of PACs. 

- Jack Kemp certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 

26 - Commission sends revised public financing regulations to Congress. 

June 

1 - Commission publishes Annual Report 

1986. 

4 - Commission makes initial determination 

that Gary Hart is not eligible for matching 

funds. 

- Commission adopts new procedures concerning extensions of time in enforcement 

matters. 

- Commission approves renewal of Clearinghouse Advisory Panel charter. 

6 - George Bush certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 

15 - Robert Dole certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 

18 - Commission approves interim rules revising FOIA and Public Disclosure Regulations. 

July 

6 - Commission asks Secretary of Treasury 

to pay $8,892,000 to each major party to 

finance 1988 Presidential nominating 

conventions. 

1 0 - Commission releases statistics on number of PACs. 

14 - Commission reactivates State Access 

Program. 

- FEC Chairman Thomas urges elimination 

of state spending limits for Presidential 

campaigns in testimony before the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee 

on House Administration. 

- Albert Gore certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 

24 - Senate confirms Lee Ann Elliott and 

Danny Lee McDonald to serve second 

terms as FEC Commissioners. 

31 - 1987 semiannual report due. 

August 

3 -In Common Cause v. FEC (Suit Six), 

U.S. District Court rules on need for 

Commission regulations on allocation of 

expenditures between the Federal and 

non-Federal accounts of state party committees. 

18 - Connecticut Special Election (fourth Congressional district). 

- Commission promulgates revised public 

financing regulations. 

24 ...... Pete du Pont certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 
September 

9 - Michael Dukakis certified to receive primary matching funds. 

15 - In FEC v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific 

Political Fund, U.S. court of appeals affirms lower court ruling that separate 

segregated funds of three maritime unions are not affiliated. 

16-18 - Commission cosponsors election law conference in Burlington, Vermont. 

17 - Commission sends Congress revised 

regulations on contributions and expenditures made in connection with the Presidential delegate selection process. 

22 - Joseph Biden certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 

24 - Commission makes final determination 

that Gary Hart failed to establish eligibility 

for matching funds. 

October 

1 - Commission approves final revisions to 

FOIA rules. 

6 - Commission appoints Lawrence M. Noble 

FEC General Counsel. 

- Clearinghouse on Election Administration 

testifies before Congress on accessibility 

of polling places to the elderly and handicapped. 

15-16 - Commission cosponsors election law 

conference in Madison, Wisconsin. 

23 -In DCCC v. FEC, the U.S. court of appeals asks Commissioners for explanation of their reasons for dismissing 

DCCC's complaint. 

- Commission releases report on contributions and expenditures of 1988 Presidential candidates. 

28 - Paul Simon certified to receive primary 

matching funds. 

29 -M.G. "Pat" Robertson certified to receive 

primary matching funds. 

November 

16-17- Commission cosponsors election law 

conference in Austin, Texas. 

20 - Revised regulations promulgated on contributions and expenditures made in connection with Presidential delegate selection process. 

- Effective date for rules governing FOIA 

and Access to Public Records. 

December 

3 -Tennessee special election (fifth Congressional district). 

9-10 - FEC Clearinghouse Advisory Panel 

meets in Washington, D.C. 

16 - Alexander Haig certified to receive primary matching funds. 

17 - FEC elects Thomas J. Josefiak as Chairman and Danny L. McDonald as Vice 

Chairman for 1988. 

28 - Gary Hart certified to receive matching 

funds. 

30- Commission certifies $12,748,261 to 12 

Presidential primary candidates. 
51 

Appendix 3 

FEC Organization Chart 

The Commissioners 

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman1 

Thomas J. Josefiak, Vice Chairman2 

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner 

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner 

Danny L. McDonald, Commissioner 

John Warren McGarry, Commissioner 

Walter J. Stewart, Ex Officio/Senate 

Donnald K. Anderson, Ex Officio/House 

General Counsel 

Enforcement -

Litigation - Policy: Regulations 

and Advisory - Opinions 

Deputy Staff 

Director for 

Management 

Administration 

Data Systems 

Development 

Planning and 

Management 

Staff Director 

I 

- """" 

- """" 

- """" 

1-

~,.. 

Audit 

Clearinghouse 

Information 

Public Disclosure 

Reports Analysis 

Commission 

Secretary """" 

Congressional 

and lntergovernmental Affairs 

1-

Personnel Policy 

and Labor/Management Relations 

1-

1... Press Office 

'Commissioner Josefiak was elected 1988 Chairman. 

2 Commissioner McDonald was elected 1988 Vice Chairman. 
53 

Appendix 4 

FEC Offices 

This appendix briefly describes the offices that 

make up the Commission. They are listed in alpha~ 

betical order. Local telephone numbers are given 

for offices that have extensive contact with the public. Commission offices can also be reached on the 

toll~free number, 800/424-9530. 

Administration 

The Administration Division is the Commission's 

"housekeeping" unit and is responsible for accounting, procurement and contracting, space management, payroll, travel and supplies. In addition, several support functions are centralized in the office, 

such as word processing, printing, document reproduction and mail services. The division also handles 

records management, inventory control and building 

security and maintenance. 

Audit 

Many of the Audit Division's responsibilities concern 

the public funding program. The division evaluates 

the matching fund submissions of Presidential primary candidates and determines the amount of 

contributions that may be matched with Federal 

funds. The division conducts the statutorily mandated audits of all publicly funded candidates and 

committees. 

In addition, the division audits those committees 

which, according to FEC determinations, have not 

met the threshold requirements for substantial compliance with the law. Audit Division resources are 

also used in the Commission's investigations of 

complaints. Finally, the division conducts internal 

audits of Commission activities. 

Clearinghouse 

The National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, located on the seventh floor, assists State and 

local election officials by responding to inquiries, 

publishing research and conducting workshops on 

all matters related to Federal election administration. (For a list of Clearinghouse studies, see Appendix 9.) Additionally, the Clearinghouse answers 

questions from the public on the electoral process. 

Local phone: 376-5670. 

Commission Secretary 

The Secretary to the Commission handles all administrative matters relating to Commission meetings, including agendas, documents, Sunshine Act 

notices, minutes and certification of Commission 

votes. The office also circulates and tracks numerous materials not related to meetings, and records 

the Commissioners' tally votes on these matters. 

Commissioners 

The six Commissioners - three Democrats and 

three Republicans - are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Two ex officio 

Commissioners, the Secretary of the Senate and 

the Clerk of the House of Represenatives, are nonvoting members. They appoint special deputies to 

represent them at the Commission. 

The six voting Commissioners serve full time and 

are responsible for overseeing administration of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act. They generally 

meet twice a week, once in closed session to discuss matters that, by law, must remain confidential, 

and once in a meeting open to the public. At these 

meetings, they formulate policy and vote on significant legal and administrative matters. 

Congressional, Legislative and 

Intergovernmental Affairs 

This office serves as primary liaison with Congress 

and Executive Branch agencies. The office is responsible for keeping Members of Congress informed about Commission decisions and, in turn, 

for informing the agency on legislative developments. 

Data Systems Development 

This division provides computer support for the entire Commission. Its responsibilities are divided into 

two general areas. 

In the area of campaign finance disclosure, the 

Data Systems Development Division (DSDD) enters 

into the computer data base information from all 

reports filed by political committees and other entities. DSDD is also responsible for the computer 

programs that sort and organize campaign finance 
54 

data into indexes (described in Appendix 8). The 

indexes permit a detailed analysis of campaign finance activity and, additionally, provide a tool for 

monitoring contribution limitations. DSDD publishes 

the Reports on Financial Activity series of periodic 

studies on campaign finance and generates statistics for other publications. 

The division also provides computer support for 

the agency's administrative functions. These include 

management information and document tracking 

systems, along with personnel and payroll support. 

General Counsel 

The General Counsel directs the agency's enforcement activities and represents and advises the 

Commission in any legal actions brought against it. 

The Office of General Counsel handles all civil litigation, including several cases which have come 

before the Supreme Court. The office also drafts, 

for Commission consideration, regulations and advisory opinions, as well as other legal memoranda 

interpreting the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

Information Services 

In an effort to promote voluntary compliance with 

the law, the Information Services Division provides 

technical assistance to candidates and committees 

and others involved in elections. Staff research and 

answer questions on the Federal Election Campaign Act and FEC regulations, procedures and 

advisory opinions; direct workshops on the law; and 

publish a wide range of materials. Located on the 

second floor, the division is open to the public. Local phone: 376-3120. 

Law Library 

The Commission law library, part of the Office of 

General Counsel, is located on the eighth floor and 

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. The Library staff prepares indices to Advisory Opinions 

and Matters Under Review (MURs) as well as a 

Campaign Finance and Federal Election Law Bibliography, all available for purchase from the Public 

Records Office. Local phone: 376-5312. 

Personnel and Labor/Management Relations 

This office handles employment, position classification, training and employee benefits. It also provides policy guidance on awards and discipline matters and administers a comprehensive labor relations program including contract negotiations and 

resolution of disputes before third parties. 

Planning and Management 

This office develops the Commission's budget and, 

each fiscal year, prepares a management plan determining the allocation and use of resources 

throughout the agency. Planning and Management 

monitors adherence to the plan, providing monthly 

reports measuring the progress of each division in 

achieving the plan's objectives. 

Press Office 

Staff of the Press Office are the Commission's official media spokespersons. In addition to publicizing 

Commission actions and releasing statistics on 

campaign finance, they respond to all questions 

from representatives of the print and broadcast media. Located on the first floor, the office also 

handles requests under the Freedom of Information 

Act. Local phone: 376-3155. 

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. Located on the 

first floor, 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 

committee reports, computer indexes (see Appendix 

8), closed compliance cases and advisory opinions. 

Local phone: 376-3140. 
55 

Reports Analysis 

Reports analysts assist committee officials in complying with reporting requirements and conduct detailed examinations of the campaign finance reports 

filed by political committees. If an error, omission or 

prohibited activity (e.g., an excessive contribution) is 

discovered in the course of reviewing a report, the 

analyst sends the committee a letter that explains 

the mistake and asks for clarification. By sending 

these letters, the Commission seeks to ensure full 

disclosure and to encourage the committee's voluntary compliance with the law. Analysts also provide 

frequent telephone assistance to committee officials 

and encourage them to call the division with reporting questions or compliance problems. Local number: 376-2480. 

Staff Director and Deputy Staff Director 

The Staff Director carries the responsibilities of appointing staff, with the approval of the Commission, 

and implementing Commission policy. The Staff 

Director oversees the Commission's public disclosure activities, outreach efforts, review of reports 

and the audit program, as well as the administration of the agency. 

The Deputy Staff Director has broad responsibility for assisting in this supervision, particularly in 

the areas of budget, administration and computer 

systems. 
57 

Appendix 5 

Statistics on Commission 

Operations 

Summary of Disclosure Files 

Total 

Filers 

Existing 

In 1987 

Fliers 

Terminated 

as of 

12/31/87 

Continuing 

Fliers as of 

12/31/87 

Number of 

Reports 

and State· 

ments in 

1987 

Gross 

Receipts 

In 1987 

Gross 

Expenditures 

in 1987 

Presidential 

Candidates 

Committees 

589 

314 

275 

43 

35 

8 

546 

279 

267 

1,412 $121 ,244,398 $112,515,526 

Senate 

Candidates 

Committees 

861 

414 

447 

126 

97 

29 

735 

317 

418 

1,146 $74,449,864 39,958,402 

House 

Candidates 

Committees 

3,804 

1,846 

1,958 

559 

430 

129 

3,245 

1,416 

1,829 

4,823 $75,549,829 55,095,162 

Party 462 25 437 1,135 $204,645,231 $179,535,563 

Delegates 64 0 NA 64 0 0 

Nonparty 

Labor committees 

Corporate committees 

Membership, trade and 

other committees 

4,320 

382 

1,835 

2,103 

155 

18 

60 

77 

4,165 

364 

1,775 

2,026 

15,288 $165,405,911 $121 ,972,404 

Communication cost filers 170 NA NA 181 NA $20,939 

Independent expenditures by persons 

other than political committees 78 NA NA 112 NA $983,641 
58 

Divisional Statistics for Calendar Year 1987 

Total 

Reports Analysis Division 

Documents processed 32,064 

Reports reviewed 39,312 

Telephone assistance and meetings 6,294 

Requests for additional information (RFAis) 4,754 

Second RFAis 1,654 

Names of candidate committees published 

for failure to file reports 

Compliance matters referred to the Office 

of General Counsel or Audit Division 218 

Data Systems Development Division 

Documents receiving Pass 1 coding' 46,463 

Documents receiving Pass Ill coding' 32,449 

Documents receiving Pass 1 entry 51,349 

Documents receiving Pass Ill entry 35,433 

Transactions receiving Pass Ill entry 

• In-house 169,619 

• Contract 17,657 

Public Records Office 

Campaign finance material processed 

(total pages) 1,009,246 

Requests for campaign finance reports 6,257 

Visitors 9,308 

Total people served 15,565 

Information phone calls 15,402 

Computer printouts provided 101,001 

Total income (transmitted to U.S. Treasury) $96,057 

Cumulative total pages of documents 

available for review 7,302,168 

Contacts with state election offices 3,360 

Notices of failure to file with state 

election offices 822 

'Computer coding and entry of campaign finance information 

occur in two phases. In the first phase, Pass 1, 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. 

Total 

Information Services Division 

Telephone inquiries 52,827 

Information letters 102 

Distribution of FEC materials 

Prior notices (sent to inform filers 

11,489 

of reporting deadlines) 15,525 

Other mailings 25,170 

Visitors 

Public appearances by Commissioners 

171 

and staff 94 

State workshops 4 

Publications 24 

Video 1 

Press Office 

Press releases 139 

Telephone inquiries from press 10,120 

Visitors to press office 

Freedom of Information Act 

2,169 

(FOIA) requests 

Fees for materials requested under FOIA 

80 

(transmitted to U.S. Treasury) 

Clearinghouse on Election Administration 

$5,498 

Telephone inquiries 2,228 

Information letters 177 

Visitors 86 

State workshops 4 

Publications 5 

Project conferences 6 
59 

Total 

Office of General Counsel 

Advisory opinions 

Requests pending at beginning of 1987 4 

Requests received 36 

Issued, closed or withdrawn2 33 

Pending at end of year 7 

Compliance cases (MURs) 

Cases pending at beginning of 1987 143 

Cases opened 261 

Cases closed 233 

Cases pending at end of year 171 

Litigation 

Cases pending at beginning of 1987 54 

Cases opened 18 

Cases closed 26 

Cases pending at end of year 46 

Cases won 22 

Cases lost 3 

Cases voluntarily dismissed 1 

Cases dismissed as moot 0 

Law Library 

Telephone inquiries 2008 

Visitors served 917 

2Twenty-seven opinions were issued; six opinion requests 

were withdrawn or closed without issuance of an opinion. 

Audits Completed by Audit Division 

1975-1987 

Presidential 57 

Presidential joint fundraising3 8 

Senate 12 

House 118 

Party (national) 42 

Party (other) 106 

Nonparty (PACs) 65 

Total 408 

3 Presidential joint fundraising committees are those 

established by two or more political committees, including at 

least one Presidential committee, for the purpose of raising 

funds jointly. 
61 

Appendix 6 

The FEC's Budget 

The table below compares functional alloctions of 

budget resources for fiscal years 1986 and 1987. 

The two graphs that follow compare allocations of 

budget and staff by division for the fiscal years. 

FEC Budget Functional Allocation 

1986 1987 

Personnel compensation, 

including benefits $8,326,544 $8,775,500 

Travel 83,604 101,500 

Transportation/motor pool 12,062 8,600 

Commercial space 16,558 16,200 

Equipment rental 226,774 244,900 

Printing 267,055 272,200 

Contracts 822,482 1,100,800 

Administrative expenses 98,547 83,900 

Supplies 157,885 168,800 

Library materials 78,609 102,900 

Telephone, telegraph 315,110 269,600 

Postage 99,998 92,900 

Space rental 1,269,500 1,375,200 

Equipment purchases 41,881 163,400 

Training 12,911 28,500 

GSA, services, other 45,221 59,700 

Total' $11,874,741 $12,864,600 

'Totals do not include unexpended funds which were returned to the U.S. Treasury. 
62 

Commissioners 

Staff Director 

Office of General Counsel 

Administration2 

Audit 

Clearinghouse 

Data Systems Development 

Information 

Public Disclosure 

Reports Analysis 

Divisional Allocation of Budget 

Percent of Budget 

2Administration budget includes rent, supplies, services, etc. for the entire Commission. 

lilli'IIIIFY1986 

-FY1987 

Commissioners 

Staff Director 

Office of General Counsel 

Administration 

Audit 

Clearinghouse 

Data Systems Development 

Information 

Public Disclosure 

Reports Analysis 

Divisional Allocation of Staff3 

Percent of Staff 

3 The Commission averaged 229.4 full-time equivalent positions (FTE) in FY 1986 and 235.2 in 

FY 1987. 

30 
63 

Appendix 7 

Revised Regulations on 

Delegate Selection 

Definition 

Under 11 CFR 110.14(b)(1), "delegate" means an 

individual who becomes or seeks to become a 

delegate to a national nominating convention or to 

a state, district or local convention, caucus or primary held to select delegates to a national nominating convention. This definition is unchanged in 

the revised regulations. The definition of "delegate 

committee" in 11 0.14(b)(2), however, has been revised to clarify that a delegate committee may not 

necessarily be a political committee under the Act 

(see 11 CFR 1 00.5). Only delegate committees 

which qualify as political committees under 11 CFR 

100.5 are required to register with the Commission 

and file reports of receipts and disbursements. 

Funds Received and Expended 

All funds received or spent for the purpose of furthering the selection of a delegate to a national 

nominating convention are contributions or expenditures made for the purpose of influencing a Federal 

election (see 11 CFR 100.2(c)(3) and (e)) with 

these two exceptions: 

• Ballot access fees paid by a delegate to a 

state or subordinate party committee are not 

contributions or expenditures; and 

• Any administrative expenses incurred by a 

state or subordinate party committee in connection with its sponsorship of a convention or 

caucus to select delegates to a national nominating convention are also exempt from the 

definitions of contribution and expenditure. 

Note, however, that all funds received or spent for 

any type of delegate selection activity, including 

ballot access fees and administrative expenses, 

must be from sources which are permissible under 

the Act. 

Contributions to and Expenditures by Delegates 

Delegates are not considered "candidates" under 

the election law because they are not seeking 

nomination or election to federal office. (See 2 

U.S.C. §431 (2) and 11 CFR 1 00.3(a).) Thus, section 11 0.14(d) of the revised rules retains the current provision (11 0.14(c)) under which the contribution limits which apply to candidates and political 

committees do not apply to contributions to delegates. However, contributions which an individual 

makes to a delegate are subject to that individual's 

$25,000 annual limit on contributions. 

Similarly, section 11 0.14(e) of the revised rules 

retains the current provision (110.14(d)) under 

which expenditures by a delegate to promote his or 

her selection only are neither limited nor reportable. 

Moreover, such disbursements are not considered 

expenditures by Presidential candidates and do not 

count against the spending limits of publicly funded 

candidates, regardless of whether the delegate is a 

committee or pledged to a particular candidate. · 

Dual-Purpose Expenditures by Delegates 

No Public Political Advertising. Under a reorganization of the delegate regulations, section 11 0.14(f) 

now governs "dual purpose" expenditures by a 

delegate-expenditures which advocate the 

delegate's .selection and which also refer to a candidate for public office (such as a Presidential candidate). 

These disbursements are not subject to contribution limits (11 0.1) or spending limits for Presidential 

candidates (11 0.8) provided that: 

• The materials are used in connection with volunteer activity; and 

• The expenditures are not made for general 

public communications or political advertising. 

This provision is based on the "coattail" exemption 

from the definition of contribution in 2 U.S.C. 

§431 (8)(B)(xi). 

Public Political Advertising. Section 11 0.14(f)(2) 

concerns "dual purpose" expenditures by delegates 

for general public political advertising (e.g., broadcasting, newspapers, magazines, billboards and 

direct mail). Only slightly revised (see former regulation at 11 0.14(d)(2)(ii)), the regulation applies the 

standards under 2 U.S.C. §431 (8) and (17) to determine whether such expenditures by individual 
64 

delegates are in-kind contributions or independent 

expenditures on behalf of the Presidential or other 

candidates mentioned in the communications. As inkind contributions, the expenditures would be subject to the contribution limits of 110.1 and the Presidential candidate's spending limits under 11 0.8. 

Such in-kind contributions would be reported by the 

recipient candidate's committee. On the other hand, 

those expenditures which qualified as independent 

expenditures would not be subject to limitations but 

would be reported by the delegate under 11 CFR 

Part 109. Note that, in either case, only the portion 

of the expenditure allocable to the candidate would 

be treated as an in-kind contribution or an independent expenditure. 

Candidate Materials. Section 11 0.14(f)(3), concerning delegate expenditures for disseminating, distributing and republishing a candidate's campaign materials, clarifies that such expenditures are in-kind 

contributions subject to the contribution limits and 

reportable by the Federal candidate whose material 

is used. The expenditures would count against a 

Presidential candidate's spending limits only if the 

expenditures were made with the cooperation or 

prior consent of, or in consultation with or at the 

request or suggestion of, the candidate or the 

candidate's campaign committee. 

Contributions to Delegate Committee 

Under 11 0.14(g), contributions received by a delegate committee from a Presidential candidate's 

campaign committee would count against the 

candidate's spending limits under 11 CFR 11 0.8. 

The contribution limits apply to all contributions 

made to and received by delegate committees. 

Registered delegate committees must report such 

transactions. 

Expenditures by Delegate Committee 

Under the revised section 11 0.14(h), delegate committee expenditures which advocate only the selection of one or more delegates are not contributions 

to any candidate, and are not subject to the 110.1 

contribution limits. Similarly, they are not chargeable 

to the expenditure limitations of any Presidential 

candidate under 11 0.8(a). Delegate committees that 

have qualified as political committees must, however, report these expenditures in accordance with 

11 CFR Part 1 04. 

A new section, 11 0.14(i}, has been added to the 

regulations concerning "dual purpose" expenditures 

made by delegate committees. The provision parallels 11 0.14(f}, concerning "dual purpose" expenditures by individual delegates (see above}. Under 

these revised rules, "dual purpose" expenditures by 

delegate committees are not treated as contributions to Federal candidates when certain types of 

campaign materials are used in connection with 

volunteer activity and public political advertising is 

not used.11 CFR 11 0.14(i}(1 }. Note, however, that 

registered delegate committees must report 

such expenditures (although individual delegates need not do so). 

By contrast, under 11 0.14(i)(2}, "dual purpose" 

expenditures by delegate committees for general 

public communications and political advertising are 

considered either independent expenditures; or contributions in kind, which may count against Presidential spending limits. The provision follows 

11 0.14(f)(2), summarized above. In allocating "dual 

purpose" expenditures under this section, delegate 

committees should follow the general principles in 

11 CFR Part 1 06; attributing to each delegate or 

candidate an amount reflecting the benefit reasonably expected to be derived from the expenditure. 11 

CFR 106.1 (a}. 

Under 11 0.14(i)(3}, a delegate committee's expenditure to disseminate, distribute or republish a 

candidate's campaign materials constitutes an inkind contribution to the candidate. 

Affiliation of Delegate Committee with Presidential Candidate's Authorized Committee 

The Commission added a new section, 11 0.14(j}, to 

provide guidance concerning when a delegate committee is considered affiliated with an authorized 

committee of a Presidential candidate. Under 

11 0.14(j}(1 }, the two committees would be affiliated 
65 

if they were established, maintained, financed or 

controlled by the same person (e.g., the Presidential candidate) or the same group of persons. 

Section 11 0.14U)(2) states that the Commission 

may consider a number of factors in determining 

whether a delegate committee is affiliated with an 

authorized Presidential committee under 

11 0.14(J)(1 ). The Commission will consider, among 

other factors, whether or not: 

• The Presidential candidate or another person 

associated with the authorized Presidential 

committee played a significant role in the delegate committee's formation; 

• Any delegate associated with a delegate committee has been or is a staff member of the 

authorized Presidential committee; 

• The committees have common or overlapping 

officers or employees; 

• The authorized Presidential committee provides goods or funds in a significant amount 

or on an ongoing basis to the delegate committee, other than through the transfer to a 

committee of its allocated share of joint fundraising proceeds (pursuant to 11 CFR 1 02.17 

or 9034.8); 

• The Presidential candidate or any person associated with the authorized Presidential committee suggests, recommends or arranges for 

contributions to be made to the delegate committee; 

• The committees receive contributions from the 

same sources; 

• One committee provides a mailing list to the 

other committee; 

• The authorized Presidential committee or a 

person associated with it provides ongoing administrative support to the delegate committee; 

• The authorized Presidential committee or a 

person associated with it directs or organizes 

the campaign activities of the delegate committee; and 

• The authorized Presidential committee or a 

person associated with it files statements or 

reports on behalf of the delegate committee. 

Affiliation Between Delegate Committees 

Under a new provision, 11 0.14(k), delegate committees will be considered affiliated with each other if 

they meet the criteria for affiliation set forth in section 1OO.S(g) of the regulations. 
67 

Appendix 8 

Computer Indexes 

The Public Records Office, using the FEC's computer system, produces printouts of the major disclosure indexes described below. Note that headings followed by an asterisk (*) indicate that the 

index is also available through the Commission's 

Direct Access Program. 

Committee Names and Addresses 

The B Index includes the name and address of 

each committee, the treasurer's name, the committee ID 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 all candidates, including those 

not currently seeking election, whose committees 

have filed documents in the current election cycle. 

The printout lists, in addition to the candidate's 

name, his or her ID number, 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 ID number, address and party designation. Also listed are the name, address, ID 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 ID numbers. 

Multicandidate Committee Index 

This index lists political committees that have qualified as multicandidate committees and are thus 

permitted to contribute larger amounts to candidates 

than are other committees. Arranged in alphabetical 

order by name of committee, the list includes each 

committee's ID number, the date it qualified 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, ID number, address 

and connected organization, if any. 

Recently Registered Committees 

The NUL/ST, printed weekly, lists the name, ID 

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 ID 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 ID numbers of their PACs. 

Categories of PACs 

The Report 140 lists PACs by the category they 
68 

selected on their registration statements. 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 Documents* 

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 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 Documents* 

The E Index provides the following information on 

each candidate: 1 

1. Candidate name, State/district, party affiliation 

and candidate 10 number, along with a list of all 

documents filed by the candidate (statement of candidacy, etc.). 

2. List of all documents filed by the principal 

campaign committee (report type, coverage dates, 

period receipts and disbursements, number of 

pages and microfilm locations). 

3. List of all documents filed by other authorized 

committees of the same candidate (if any). 

4. List of joint fundraising committees authorized 

by the campaign. 

5. List of all PACs and other nonparty committees (e.g., other candidate 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 and individuals making expenditures for or against the candidate (including independent expenditures) and 

aggregate totals spent to date. 

6. List of all party committee contributions to the 

candidate along with coordinated party expenditures 

made on the candidate's behalf (2 U.S.C. 

§441a(d)). 

7. List 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 the 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. 

Summary Date on Noncandidate Committees* 

The K Index permits the user to select a group of 

noncandidate committees using several criteria, 

such as type of committee (party, nonparty) and 

type of sponsoring organization (e.g., corporation, 

labor organization, trade association). For each 

committee in the group selected, the index lists 

election cycle totals to date from the summary 

pages of the committee's reports. The index also 

includes the closing date and microfilm location of 

the lastest report filed. 

Summary Data on Selected Candidates* 

The L Index, similar to the K Index (above), allows 

the user to select a group of candidates based on 

several criteria (e.g., type of election; incumbenV 

challenger status; party affiliation; State/district). For 

each candidate in the group selected, the index 

'Information in items 1 through 4 comes from reports and 

statements filed by the candidate and his or her authorized committees, including joint fundraising committees. Items 5 through 9 

are based on data from reports filed by noncandidate committees 

and persons. 
69 

lists the election cycle totals to date for selected 

categories of receipts and disbursements taken 

from the detailed summary pages of reports filed by 

all committees authorized by the campaign (with the 

exception of joint fundraising committees). The index also lists the names of these authorized committees and the closing dates of their last reports. 

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 to 

request 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. 

Committee Contributions to Candidates* 

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 441 a(d)) are listed in place of independent 

expenditures. 

Dates of Specific Contributions/Expenditures 

The Detailed D Index itemizes the information on 

the D 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. 
71 

Appendix 9 

Clearinghouse Studies 

The National Clearinghouse on Election Administration released several new research projects in 1987 

and continued work on a number of other studies. 

These projects are described below along with previously released publications still available for purchase. The Clearinghouse also continued publishing 

its free periodical, The FEC Journal of Election Administration, which contains forms for ordering 

Clearinghouse studies. 

Reports Completed in 1987 

Voting System Standards for Software and Hardware Elements of Punchcard and Marksense Voting 

Systems, Final Draft is the second of a multiphase 

project to develop voluntary standards for computerized voting equipment. States and localities may 

adopt these standards in certifying the use of voting 

equipment within their jurisdictions. The standards 

are intended to ensure the proper performance of 

generic types of voting systems on the market. 

Computerizing Election Administration 3: Implementation Strategies summarizes criteria, policy-making decisions and strategies for systematic implementation of a computerized election management 

system. 

Absentee Voting: Issues and Options contains 

information on Federal absentee laws; explores the 

history of, and recent developments in, absentee 

voting; and focuses on a series of related policy 

and procedural issues concerning the application, 

receipt, issuance and tabulation of absentee votes. 

Election Directory 87 contains a listing of Secretaries of State, chief election officials, Federal officials and local addresses for forwarding canceled 

voter registrations. 

Projects Under Way 

Voting System Standards for Direct Recording Electronic Systems is a successive phase of the project 

to provide voluntary standards for voting equipment. 

This volume will provide performance standards and 

test plans that can be adopted by States and local 

jurisdictions. 

Ballot Access will be a five-volume publication 

which summarizes State access requirements for 

Presidential and Congressional contests in primary 

and general elections. It will also document filing 

procedures for major, minor and independent candidates. Publication is scheduled for fall 1988. 

Election Case Law, Phase I will trace trends and 

developments over the last 20 years in Federal and 

State Supreme Courts decisions on absentee balloting and voter registration. Publication is expected in 

summer 1989. 

Election Contests and Recounts will be an update of a 1977 study which examined State procedures for conducting recounts and for resolving 

litigation, and the interaction of States with the Congress in disputed contests. 

Previously Completed Reports 

The publications below remain available. 

Computerizing Election Administration 1: Current 

Applications is the first of a three-volume series to 

assist local election officials in automating their dayto-day activities. The first volume offers initial guidance by helping readers define their needs and 

also reports the results of a survey on computer 

applications conducted in 50 election jurisdictions. 

Computerizing Election Administration 2: A General Model is the second volume in the computer 

application series. It defines various modules, their 

data elements and file interrelationships to better 

enable election officials to design a modular election management system. 

Statewide Registration Systems 1 and 2 is a 

report on computerized voter registration systems. 

Volume 1 examines problems involved in implementing a statewide system and offers suggestions 

for overcoming them. Volume 2 describes in detail 

the forms, procedures, outputs and variations of a 

basic computerized system. 

Mail Registration Systems discusses problems 

involved in implementing a mail registration system, 

describing how such systems operate and offering 

practical suggestions for overcoming difficulties. 

Contested Elections and Recounts, published in 

1978, is a three-volume analysis of the laws and 

procedures governing contested elections and recounts for Federal offices. Volume I examines is-
72 

sues 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. 

Bilingual Election Services is a three-volume report on providing election services in languages 

other than English. Volume I summarizes such 

services 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. 

Federal Elections 82 and Federal Elections 84 

summarize, by State, office and candidate, the results of the elections for U.S. President (1984 edition), U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. 

The following publications also remain available: 

• Campaign Finance Law (1984, 1979 and 

1978) 

• Election Case Law (1981, 1979 and 1978) 

• Voting System Vendors and Voting System 

Users (1981) 

• Reducing· Voter Waiting Time (1976) 

• Analysis of Laws and Procedures Governing 

Absentee Registration and Absentee Voting in 

the United States, Volumes I and II (1975). 
73 

Appendix 10 

FEC Federal Register 

Notices, 1987 

Federal 

Register 

Publica· 

tlon 

Date 

Notice' Title Citation 

1987·1 11 CFR Parts1 00, 

102, 103 104 and 

11 0: Contribution and 

Expenditure Limita· 

tions and Prohibitions; 

Final Rules 

1/9/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

760 

1987-2 11 CFR Part 100: 

Bank Loans to Candi· 

dates and Political 

Committees; Notice of 

Public Hearing 

1/22/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

2416 

1987-3 Filing Dates for California Special 

Elections 

2/19/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

5189 

1987·4 11 CFR Part 110: 

Contributions to and 

Expenditures by Delegates to National 

Nominating Conventions; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

3/4/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

6580 

1987-5 11 CFR Parts 100, 

102, 103, 104 and 

11 0: Contribution and 

Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions; 

Final Rules: Announcement of Effective Date 

4/8/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

11187 

1987-6 Rulemaking Petition: 

Regulations on Partisan and Nonpartisan 

Communications; 

Notice of Availability 

5/4/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

16275 

1987-7 Public Financing of 

Presidential Primary 

and General Election 

Candidates; Final 

Rules to Congress 

6/3/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

20864 

1987-8 Filing Dates for Connecticut Special 

Election 

6/4/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

21118 

Notice' Title 

Federal 

Register 

Publica· 

tion 

Date 

Citation 

1987·9 Public Records and 6/24/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

the Freedom of lnformation Act: Interim 

Rules and Request 

for Comments 

23636 

1987-10 11 CFR Parts 106, 8/18/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

9001 through 9007, 

9012 & 9031 through 

9039: Public Finaneing of Presidential 

Primary and General 

Election Candidates; 

Final Rule: Announcement of Effective Date 

30904 

1987·11 11 CFR Parts 1 00 9/22/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

and 110: Contributions to and Expenditures by Delegatesto 

Nominating Conventions; Final Rules to 

Congress 

35530 

1987-12 Public Records and 10/21/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

Freedom of lnformation Act; Final Rules 

39210 

1987-13 Filing Dates for Ten- 10/19/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

nessee Special Elections 

38814 

1987-14 11 CFR Parts 100 11/20/87 52 Fed. Reg. 

and 11 0: Contributions and Expenditures by Delegates to 

National Nominating 

Conventions; Effective Date 

44594 

'This appendix does not include Federal Register notices of 

Commission meetings published under the Government in the 

Sunshine Act. 

W U.B. GOVE:BNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 - 212-860 - 814/80417