Federal 

Election 

Commission 

Annual Report 1982 

Federal Election Commission 

1325 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463
Commissioners 

Danny Lee McDonald, Chairman 

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens 

Thomas E. Harris 

John Warren McGarry 

Frank P. Reiche 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Benjamin J. Guthrie, Clerk of the House 

William F. Hildenbrand, Secretary of the Senate 

Statutory Officers 

B. Allen Clutter, Ill, Staff Director 

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel 

The Annual Report 1982 was written and published by the 

Commission's Office of Publications. 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Introduction 1 

Chapter 1 

Administering the Law 3 

Disclosing Information 3 

Clarifying the Law 7 

Monitoring the Law 13 

Enforcing the Law 13 

Outreach Programs 17 

Clearinghouse Activities 19 

Chapter 2 

Preparing for the 1984 Presidential 

Elections 21 

Primary Matching Fund Regulations 21 

Other Preparations Under Way 23 

Chapter 3 

Legislative Recommendations 25 

Chapter 4 

The Commission 39 

Commissioners 39 

Budget 39 

Personnel and Labor Relations 41 

Appendices 

1 . Biographical Data on Commissioners and 

Statutory Officers 43 

2. FEC Organization Chart 47 

3. Chronology of Events 49 

4. The FEC's Budget 53 

5. Statistics on Commission Operations 55 

6. Computer Indexes 59 

7. FEC Information Services 63 

8. Clearinghouse Studies 67 

9. FEC Federal Register Notices, 1982 69 
Introduction 

During 1982, the Federal Election Commission continued to fulfill its role as administrator of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act. The agency released campaign finance information on the 1982 Congressional 

elections, monitored committees' compliance with 

the law and clarified and enforced the law. Heightened media coverage of FEC statistics helped inform 

the nation of political committee activity in 1982. 

Reassessing its role in previous Presidential elections, the Commission looked ahead to the 1984 

Presidential elections. It clarified regulations for primary candidates, redesigned reporting forms and 

prepared campaign aids for public funding participants. 

Chapter 1 of this Report examines innovations in 

the Commission's non-Presidential programs, presents campaign finance statistics for the 1982 elections and summarizes significant issues addressed 

in advisory opinions and litigation. Chapter 2 describes the agency's work in preparing for the 1984 

Presidential elections, and Chapter 3 covers the 

Commission's legislative recommendations, based 

on the agency's experience in administering four 

Congressional and two Presidential elections. The final chapter discusses the election of Commission officers, budget activity and other aspects of internal 

administration. 
Chapter 3 1 

Administering the Law 

Nineteen eighty-two marked the fourth time the Commission administered the Federal campaign finance 

law during Congressional elections. Experience 

gained in past elections and refinements in Commission operations helped the agency perform its duties 

smoothly and efficiently. This chapter opens with financial statistics on the elections and proceeds to 

report on new developments that improved the Commission's 1982 administration of the law. 

Disclosing Information 

Campaign Finance Statistics 

During 1982, the Commission began releasing and 

continually updating statistical information on the 

campaign finance activity of Congressional campaigns, party committees and political action committees (PACs)1 active in the 1981-82 election cycle. 

The agency's statistical press releases, more numerous than in past years, periodically summarized 

computerized data taken from campaign and committee financial reports and compared 1982 election 

activity with that of the past two election cycles. In 

October, the Commission published interim Reports 

on Financial Activity covering the first 18 months of 

the cycle (January 1981 through June 1982). By the 

end of 1982, the Commission had compiled data 

covering the cycle through mid-October 1982 and, 

early in 1983, issued press releases on the statistics. 

Late in January 1983, the agency released data on 

PACs and national party committees covering the 

period January 1 , 1981 , through November 22, 1982. 

The Commission anticipated publishing the final 

Reports on Financial Activity in the fall of 1983, 

once committees had completed filing amendments 

to their reports. Recognizing, however, that the public wanted more complete figures long before that 

time, the Commission planned to release a second 

set of interim Reports in spring 1983. While not re1PAC is a popular term used to define any political committee that has not been authorized by a candidate or political 

party. The term includes a separate segregated fund connected 

to a corporation or labor organization as well as a political committee without any connected organization (i.e., without a corporate or labor sponsor). 
4 

fleeting final figures, the spring interim Reports 

would give the first comprehensive view of the 1982 

elections. 

Much of the information below is based on statistics released in January 1983, covering Congressional committee activity through mid-October 1982 

and PAC and party activity through late November 

1982. 

Congressional Campaigns. 2 U.S. House and Senate 

campaigns spent a record $264 million from January 

1981 through mid-October 1982. At the end of 1982, 

the Commission estimated that campaigns spent an 

additional $50 million between mid-October and late 

November, bringing total spending to over $300 million for the 23-month period. Spending in past election cycles for the same period reached $229 million 

in 1979-80 and $192 million in 1977-78. 

From January 1981 through mid-October, Congressional candidates raised a total of $292.5 million. Of that amount, $70.4 million (or 24 percent) 

was contributed by PACs. 

National Party Committees. 3 Reports filed with the 

Commission indicated that, during the first 23 

months of the 1981-82 election cycle, Republican 

party committees at the national level raised and 

spent4 more than six times as much as their Democratic counterparts. From January 1, 1981, through 

November 22, 1982, the national Republican organizations raised $183.3 million and spent $179.1 million, while national Democratic organizations raised 

$27.4 million and spent $27 million. Republican national committees spent three times as much on 

coordinated party expenditures5 as they gave in contributions ($13.8 million in coordinated expenditures 

and $4.6 million in contributions to primary and general election campaigns). On the other hand, Democratic national committees spent $2.1 million in 

coordinated party expenditures and contributed $1.2 

million to primary and general election races. 

PACs. 6 PAC contributions to U.S. House and Senate 

candidates ($70.4 million) represented 43 percent of 

the $163.3 million spent by PACs7 between January 

1981 through mid-October 1982. PAC contributions 

to Congressional races increased 39 percent over 

contributions made by PACs during the same period 

in the 1979-80 election cycle. Statistics through midOctober showed that incumbents received 69 percent of all PAC contributions-four times the amount 

given to challengers. The Commission's preliminary 

figures for PAC activity through late November 1982 

indicated that PACs raised $192.9 million and spent 

$187.7 million. 

The number of PACs continued to increase during 

1982, and by the year's end there were 3,371 PACs, 

an increase of 16.2 percent over the 2,901 PACs in 

1981. Commission figures showed that yearly increases in PAC growth since 1976 averaged 20 percent, with the exception of 1980, when PACs increased by 28 percent. However, between 1974 and 

1976, the number of PACs grew by 88 percent. 

PACs formed by corporations without capital stock 

showed the greatest growth percentage in 1982-up 

by 51.5 percent over 1981 to a total of 103 PACs. 

The graph below plots the growth of PACs between 1975 and 1982. Figures show that 608 PACs 

existed at the beginning of 1975. By the end of 1976, 

that number rose to 1,146 and by December 31, 

1982, reached 3,371. The graph does not reflect the 

financial activity of PACs. 

2Source: FEC press release of January 7, 1983. 

3Source: FEC press release of January 28, 1983. 

4Total spending for party committees includes coordinated 

party expenditures (see below footnote), party-building expenses and administrative expenses (e.g., fundraising costs). 

5 Coordinated party expenditures are special, limited expenditures party committees may make on behalf of their candidates in the general election. (See 2 U.S.C. Section 441 a( d).) 

Coordinated expenditures are not considered contributions. 

6 Sources: FEC press releases of January 6, 14 and 28, 

1983. 

7Total spending for PACs includes contributions to Federal 

candidates, contributions to party committees, independent expenditures, support of State and local candidates, miscellaneous expenses and, in the case of nonconnected PACs, administrative expenses (e.g., fundraising costs). 
5 

Number of PACs 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

Corporate~ 

Nonconnected ** 

Trade/Membership/Health** 

Labor 

Year 

PAC Growth* 

*The term PAC (political action committee) includes all political committees not authorized by a Federal candidate and not established by a political party. 

**For the years 1974 through 1976, the FEC did not identify subcategories of PACs other than corporate and labor PACs. Therefore, numbers are not available for Trade/Membership/Health PACs or Nonconnected PACs. 

***Includes PACs formed by corporations without capital stock and cooperatives. Numbers are not available for these categories 

of PACs from 1974 through 1976. 
6 

Other Statistical Studies 

In early 1982, the Commission published the final 

study in the Reports on Financial Activity series covering 1979-80 campaign finance statistics. The Commission had issued statistical press releases in 

mid-1981 summarizing activity for the entire cycle 

but had to wait until it received all amendments to reports before publishing final figures. The Commission also made available for purchase computer 

tapes containing the 1979-80 Reports on Financial 

Activity information. 

Facilitating Disclosure 

Press Activity. National and local media interest in 

the FEC showed a marked increase in 1982. During 

October alone, one month before the election, the 

Commission received 1 ,573 phone inquiries from reporters, surpassing any previous month. Also during 

1982, there were 9,843 media telephone inquiries, 

well above the previous record of 8,403 calls, set in 

1980. 

As another example of the heightened interest in 

the Commission, C-SPAN, a national cable network, 

televised several Commission meetings. Later, during a live program, Chairman Frank P. Reiche appeared as a guest, answering questions about the 

Commission from viewers across the country. 

C-SPAN cited the Commission's openness as an example to other government agencies. 

Two major factors help explain the increased media interest in campaign finance. First, the Commission worked with more national news services-network, wire and print-which were intent on building 

into their election news reporting comprehensive 

coverage of campaign finance activity. This broadened news coverage spurred local and regional media interest in campaign finance information. Second, late in 1981, the Commission expanded its 

press mailing list to include some 150 newspapers 

throughout the country-at least one in each 

State-and began to regularly send press releases 

on campaign finance activity to reporters outside of 

Washington. Wider distribution of these releases 

stimulated nationwide press calls for more information. 

To better accommodate reporters, in December 

the Press Office relocated to facilities on the street 

floor, across from the Public Records Office. The 

agency hoped that the move would help reporters 

coordinate their research in the two offices and provide easier access to FEC press spokespersons. 

Public Availability of Reports. The Commission began full operation in 1982 of new equipment designed to expedite the release of campaign finance 

reports to the public. Using in-house microfilm equipment, the agency was able to quickly produce paper 

copies from the microfilmed reports it received from 

the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. (Federal law requires that Congressional committees file their reports with the Clerk's and Secretary's offices which, in turn, forward microfilmed 

copies of the reports to the Commission.) During October, a heavy reporting month, the Commission 

supplemented its machine with additional rented machines in order to make paper copies of reports 

available within one day of receipt. 

Reflecting the intensified activity of an election 

year, the agency processed 861,120 pages of disclosure documents and filled 34,994 requests for campaign finance information. 

Microfilmed Material. In 1982, the Commission microfilmed all advisory opinion requests received from 

1975 through 1981 and advisory opinions issued 

during that period. To provide easier public acces to 

the material, the two microfilmed reels were made 

available for review and purchase iri August. 

The Commission also used a new technology for 

microfilming computer indexes of campaign finance 

data. In the fall of 1982, the agency contracted for a 

system that could microfilm material directly from a 

computer tape, eliminating several steps in the microfilming process. Using the new system, the Commission replaced worn-out reels of indexes on the 

1977-80 election cycles and produced new reels for 

the 1981-82 cycle. With the new system in place, the 

Commission hoped to realize large savings in staff 

time, computer time and paper costs. 
7 

Clarifying the Law 

Work in Progress on Regulations 

In 1981, the Commission began to redraft its regulations, attempting to make them clearer, more workable and less burdensome. Continuing this effort in 

1982, the agency approved proposed regulations in 

four areas but decided not to forward them to Congress until after the 98th Congress convened in 

1983.8 These proposed rules and other work on regulations during 1982 are described below. (However, 

the Commission's work on Presidential primary 

matching fund regulations is described in Chapter 2.) 

Corporate/Labor Communications. On December 9, 

1982, the Commission approved final revisions to 

proposed rules concerning partisan and nonpartisan 

communications made by corporations and labor organizations (Sections 114.3 and 114.4 of the regulations). (In 1981, the Commission had published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and held a public hearing on the proposed 

revisions.) The proposed rules relaxed existing regulations by allowing corporations and labor organizations to make nonpartisan communications to the 

general public, such as advertisements urging the 

public to register and vote, and to publish and publicly distribute voting records of Members of Congress 

and voter guides setting forth candidates' positions 

on campaign issues. 

In the area of partisan communications, the proposed revisions expanded the categories of individuals to whom a labor organization could direct partisan communications (i.e., its restricted class). While 

existing regulations permitted labor organizations to 

make partisan communications only to their members (and members' families), the proposed rules 

allowed labor organizations to direct partisan communications to their executive and administrative 

personnel (and families) as well. The proposed rules 

also clarified the meaning of restricted class as applied to incorporated membership organizations, 

trade associations, cooperatives and nonstock corporations. 

Political Advertising Notices. On l\lovember 10, 

1982, the Commission approved proposed revisions 

governing notices required for publicly advertised political communications (Section 110.11 of the regulations). (Under the law, if public advertising is used to 

expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for Federal office, the communication must include a notice naming the committee or individual 

who paid for the ad. The notice must also state 

whether the ad has been authorized by any candidate, although if an ad has been paid for by a candidate's campaign, the candidate's authorization is assumed and is not required in the notice. A similar 

notice is required on all solicitations to the general 

public for funds to influence Federal elections.) 

The proposed changes in this area clarified existing regulations and added new language reflecting 

Commission interpretations of the law set out in advisory opinions. For example, the proposed rules 

added language that exempted advertising displays 

from the notice requirements when the use of a notice would be impractical (e.g., skywriting and ads on 

watertowers). The proposed rules also included a 

specific requirement that posters display a notice. 

Because separate segregated funds (i.e., political 

action committees established by corporations and 

unions) are not permitted to solicit the general public 

for contributions (but must restrict solicitations only 

to certain individuals within the sponsoring organization), the Commission incorporated a new provision 

that specifically exempted separate segregated fund 

solicitations from the notice requirements, which apply only to general public communications. With regard to these proposed regulations, the Commission 

had published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

the Federal Register (47 Fed. Reg. 3796, January 

7, 1982). 

8 Under the campaign finance law, the Commission must 

submit proposed rules to Congress. Unless the House or Senate 

disapproves them within 30 legislative days, the Commission 

may prescribe the regulations. 

Jointly Owned Property. On July 20, 1982, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(47 Fed. Reg. 31390) governing a candidate's use 
8 

of property jointly owned with a spouse or in which 

the spouse has an interest; on November 18, the 

Commission voted to approve the proposed 

changes. The suggested rules relaxed current regulations which, although allowing a candidate to make 

unlimited expenditures from personal funds, created 

barriers against using assets jointly held with a 

spouse as security for a campaign loan. For example, current regulations stated that an individual 

makes a contribution when he/she endorses or guarantees a loan. The proposed revision allowed a candidate's spouse, under certain circumstances, to 

cosign a bank loan without being a contributor. 

Trade Association Solicitations. Must a trade association receive corporate approval to solicit contributions (for its separate segregated fund) from a member corporation's stockholders and executives in the 

same calendar year in which the solicitations are actually made? The Commission dealt with this issue in 

a 1\Jotice of Proposed Rulemaking published on November 26, 1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 53396). In the Notice, the Commission invited comments on a proposed rule permitting a trade association to request 

and receive corporate approval prior to the calendar 

year in which the solicitation is made (Section 114.8 

of the regulations). The proposed change stemmed 

from an advisory opinion on this subject, AO 1982-54 

(see page 9), and Commission discussions on proposed revisions to regulations on communications by 

corporations and labor organizations. 

Technical Amendments 

to Honoraria Limit 

On April 1, 1982, the Commission approved technical amendments to its regulations, reflecting Congressional repeal of Section 441i(a)(2) of the campaign finance law, a provision that had placed an 

overall $25,000 annual limit on honoraria that a Federal officeholder or employee could accept for 

speeches, appearances and articles.9 The technical 

amendments deleted the annual honoraria limit from 

the regulations (Section 110.12(a)(2)). The amendments also deleted Sections 110.12(a)(3) and (4) of 

the regulations, which had included guidelines for 

determining the calendar year in which honoraria 

were considered to have been accepted for purposes of the annual limit. 

Since the technical amendments were not a substantive rule representing an FEC policy decision, 

they were not submitted for Congressional review 

but became effective upon publication in the Federal 

Register on AprilS, 1982 (47Fed. Reg. 15098). 

Advisory Opinions 

In addition to its work on regulations, the Commission issued 65 advisory opinions (A0s)10 in 1982 advising individuals on how the Commission interprets 

the campaign finance law. Some of the salient issues 

raised in these opinions are summarized below. 

Corporate Solicitations. During 1982, a large number of advisory opinions dealt with different facets of 

corporate involvement in Federal elections; many of 

those opinions concerned the law's solicitation provisions for separate segregated funds (commonly 

called political action committees or PACs) established by corporations or incorporated membership 

organizations, such as trade associations. Because 

the campaign finance law permits corporate (and union) PACs to solicit contributions only from certain 

classes of individuals, many of the advisory opinions 

answered the question: Who may be solicited? 

In AO 1982-18, the Commission permitted a corporate PAC to solicit contributions from its parent 

corporation's stockholders and executive personnel 

as well as the executives of the parent's other subsidiaries and their respective subsidiaries. Commis9 Congress repealed the annual honoraria limit on October 

1, 1981, as an amendment to a continuing resolution for Federal 

agency appropriations (Pub. L. 97-51 ). 

10Advisory opinions are issued to persons who raise questions about the application of the law or Commission regulations 

to a specific transaction that the requesting person proposes to 

undertake or continue. Any person who requests an advisory 

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

any sanctions under the law. An advisory opinion may also be 

relied upon by any person involved in a specific transaction "indistinguishable in all its material aspects ... from the activity or 

transaction discussed in the advisory opinion." 2 U.S.C. Section 

437f(c). 
9 

sioner Thomas E. Harris dissented from this opinion 

because, in his view, neither the statute nor the regulations allow a subsidiary corporation to solicit its 

parent's stockholders. 

The Commission decided in AO 1982-45 that the 

PAC of an incorporated organization representing 

landowners for whom the Federal government sponsored an irrigation project could solicit the executive 

personnel of another organization created to provide 

bond financing for the irrigation project since the two 

organizations were affiliated. Similarly, in AO 

1981-55 (issued in 1982), the Commission allowed a 

trade association and it~ PAC to solicit members of 

an auxiliary organization since the two groups were 

affiliated. 

In AO 1981-52 (also issued in 1982), the Commission said that an incorporated trade association 

could solicit contributions to its PAC from members 

that were unincorporated business trusts or associations under State laws. In another opinion issued to a 

trade association, AO 1982-12, the Commission 

ruled that the association could solicit PAC contributions from individual members of its member nonstock corporations. The Commission, in AO 1982-26, 

reaffirmed a 1977 opinion (AO 1977-32), holding that 

a member municipal corporation could not contribute 

to its trade association's PAC since municipal corporations are considered corporations subject to the 

same solicitation rules as are other kinds of corporate members of trade associations. In the opinion, 

the Commission said that the trade association could 

solicit the executive personnel of member municipal 

corporations but that the association had to first obtain the required written solicitation approval from the 

member. 

Another 1982 opinion concerned the written approval which a trade association must obtain from a 

corporate member before soliciting PAC contributions from the corporation's executives and stockholders. In AO 1982-54, the Commission said that a 

trade association's PAC could request approval for 

such solicitations during the last three months of 

1982, but the PAC had to receive the approval in 

1983 in order to conduct the solicitations in 1983. 

The Commission, citing both the statute and Commission regulations, decided that a corporate member's solicitation approval is valid only for the calendar year in which the approval is obtained. 

Commissioners Joan D. Aikens and Lee Ann 

Elliott filed dissents, stating that the Commission's 

regulation on corporate approval of trade association 

solicitations misinterpreted Congressional intent and 

the relevant provision of the statute which, they argued, were less restrictive than the regulation. Shortly after the opinion was issued, the Commission invited comments on a draft regulation permitting trade 

associations to seek and receive corporate approval 

prior to the calendar year in which the solicitation is 

made (see page 8). 

A few of the Commission's opinions on corporate 

solicitations concerned methods for collecting PAC 

contributions. In two opinions, AOs 1982-11 and 

1982-55, the Commission said that a trade association could solicit contributions for its PAC through a 

combined dues payment/contribution plan. In AO 

1982-29, the Commission allowed a corporation with 

subsidiaries in several States to solicit PAC contributions by offering a payroll deduction plan to subsidiaries willing to use it. The Commission noted that the 

Federal campaign finance law preempted and superseded any State law prohibiting the proposed payroll 

deduction plan. 

AO 1982-8 concerned a unique situation. A trade 

association representing commercial barter firms 

asked if it could solicit contributions to its PAC in the 

form of credit units from the solicitable personnel of 

its members. The Commission said it could, and that 

its PAC could then contribute credit units directly to 

candidates or use the units to purchase goods and 

services for them. 

Earmarking. One opinion issued in 1982 made clear 

that contributions may be earmarked for a political 

committee other than a candidate's authorized 

commmittee. In AO 1981-57, the Commission decided that a union PAC could implement a payroll deduction plan that allowed union members to earmark 

contributions through the PAC for candidates and 

political committees. 
10 

Partnerships with Corporate Members. In two opinions issued in 1982, AOs 1981-54 and 1981-56, the 

Commission decided that a partnership composed 

entirely of corporate members could not sponsor a 

separate segregated fund because, under the campaign finance law, only incorporated organizations 

and labor organizations may defray the administrative costs of a separate segregated fund without 

making a contribution. Furthermore, because a partnership's contributions are attributable to its partners, the Commission said a partnership whose 

members are all corporations could not make contributions in connection with a Federal election and 

was therefore prohibited from financially supporting 

any political committee. 

Satellite Business Systems, which had requested 

AO 1981-56, filed suit against the Commission asking the court to rule that the agency's decision in the 

opinion was incorrect (see page 15 for a discussion 

of this case). 

Foreign Nationals. May a foreign national donate 

volunteer services to a candidate's committee? This 

question was raised in AO 1981-51 (issued in 1982), 

in which a committee asked if an artist, who was a 

foreign national, could provide volunteer services by 

creating artwork that the committee planned to reproduce and sell as fundraising items. The Commission said that the foreign national could not volunteer 

his services in this case because, although volunteer 

services are exempt from the definition of contribution, the law explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from 

making "any contribution of money or anything of 

value" in connection with an election to any political 

office. 

Commissioner Harris dissented, stating that volunteer services by a foreign national would not be a 

prohibited contribution because the activity in question "falls squarely" within the law's contribution exemption. Although he pointed out that this would allow foreign nationals limited participation in 

American elections, Commissioner Harris contended 

only Congress, not the Commission, had authority to 

remedy the "loophole." 

Foreign Corporations. AOs 1982-10 and 1982-34 

applied the campaign finance law to activities of foreign corporations. In AO 1982-34, a domestic corporation asked whether its foreign subsidiaries could 

sponsor a payroll deduction plan for their American 

solicitable personnel. Contributions collected from 

the plan would be forwarded to the PAC sponsored 

by the corporation's parent, another domestic corporation. The Commission approved the proposed system because 1) a parent corporation's right to solicit 

the eligible personnel of its subsidiaries is not affected by the status of its subsidiaries as foreign nationals, provided the personnel solicited are not foreign 

nationals; and 2) costs incurred by the foreign subsidiaries in administering the payroll deduction plan 

are not considered "contributions" under the law and 

are not, therefore, prohibited. 

Commissioner Harris's dissent to this opinion referred to his dissent to the opinion on artwork by a 

foreign national (AO 1981-51). He argued that the 

two opinions contradicted each other. In AO 

1981-51, he said, the Commission would not apply 

the law's Section 431 (8)(8) (which lists volunteer 

services as one of several activities exempted from 

the definition of contribution) to the voluntary services of a foreign artist. However, in AO 1982-34, he 

argued, the Commission relied on Section 431 (8)(8) 

(its provision exempting certain corporate expenses-such as payment for a payroll deduction 

plan-from the definition of contribution),"with the 

strange result that foreign corporations may now carry on election-related activities exempted under 

431 (8)(8), but foreign individuals are not permitted 

to do so." Vice Chairman Danny lee McDonald also 

dissented to AO 1982-34 for the reasons stated in 

Commissioner Harris's dissent. 

In AO 1982-10, the Commission decided that a 

wholly owned domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation could contribute to non-Federal elections provided that the subsidiary's contributions complied 

with applicable State and local laws and that no corporate director or officer who is a foreign national 

participated in decisions regarding contributions. 

Commissioner Harris also dissented to AO 1982-10. 

He said that, according to the definition of foreign na-
11 

tional in 22 U.S.C. Section 611 b, the parent foreign 

corporation was a foreign national. Because all of 

the domestic subsidiary's assets were under the control of the parent, Commissioner Harris contended 

that the opinion permitted a foreign national to make 

indirect contributions in connection with American 

elections. 

Use of Non-Federal Funds. A number of 1982 advisory opinions discussed whether contributions permissible for use in State or local elections could be 

used in Federal elections. (Some State laws allow 

contributions that would be prohibited under the Federal election campaign law.) In AO 1982-40, the 

Commission said that a non-Federal corporate PAC, 

which had supported State candidates, could be converted into a Federal PAC. It could use funds collected for State elections because: 1) they contained no 

corporate contributions; and 2) the PAC's solicitations for the funds were in substantial compliance 

with Commission regulations. Commissioner Harris 

dissented from this opinion because the non-Federal 

PAC's solicitations did not fully comply with one 

Commission regulation. 

On the other hand, in AO 1982-38, the Commission did not allow the reelection campaign of Senator 

Daniel P. Moynihan (D-New York) to accept contributions from county party organizations (not registered as "political committees" under the Federal 

campaign finance law) because the funds might 

have contained prohibited corporate contributions, 

permissible under New York State law. 

Commission regulations stipulate that an 

unregistered organization must demonstrate through 

a reasonable accounting method that it has sufficient 

funds to make a permissible contribution to a Federal 

candidate at the time the contribution is made. The 

county party organizations used unacceptable accounting methods because the organizations could 

only ensure that they would have sufficient lawful 

funds to cover Federal contributions at the close of 

the reporting period, not at the time the contribution 

was made. 

In another opinion on this subject, AO 1982-52, 

the Commission allowed a State senator to transfer 

funds from his State campaign committee to his Congressional campaign committee in order to retire 

debts for an unsuccessful House campaign. Because the committees were affiliated, having been 

established by the same candidate, unlimited funds 

could be transferred between them. However, the 

Commission stated that the Federal campaign could 

not accept any prohibited funds from the State campaign, and it advised the State campaign that it 

would have to register as a "political committee" under Federal law if it transferred over $1 ,000 to the 

Federal campaign. 

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) requested the Commission's guidance concerning the 

use of Federally impermissible funds for a national 

party conference (held in Philadelphia in June 1982). 

The DNC and the 1982 Democratic Conference Arrangements Committee (the Conference Committee) 

asked the Commission whether the Conference 

Committee could accept donations from corporations 

and labor organizations to defray conference expenses related to non-Federal conference activity. 

The two committees also asked the Commission to 

review their proposed methods for determining which 

conference expenses would be allocable as nonFederal expenses. In the opinion, AO 1982-5, the 

Commission approved several allocation methods. 

However, it was unable to reach a four-vote majority 

decision on the issue of whether any allocation was 

required since the Commission did not agree on 

whether the conference would be held in connection 

with, or to influence, Federal elections. The Committees had stated that the two-day conference would 

provide "a forum for discussion of public policy 

issues...and a mechanism for party-building and 

training of candidates and political workers," and 

would be supporting both Federal and non-Federal 

campaigns and party committees. 

Commissioner Harris filed a dissent to this opinion. 

He took the position that no contribution of corporate 

or labor funds whatever is "legally justifiable in the 

case of a national party whose primary concern is 

the election of Federal candidates." 
12 

News Story Exemption. In a second advisory opinion 

request, the Democratic National Codmmittee (DNC) 

along with the Republican National Committee 

(RNC) asked the Commission if their acceptance of 

free airtime from a cable television network, Turner 

Broadcasting System, Inc., would result in a prohibited corporate contribution. Turner had offered both 

major political parties free airtime to discuss issues, 

to demonstrate their differences and to solicit support for their parties. 

In its response to the National Committees' questions, AO 1982-44, the Commission said that the free 

cablecast time provided for the programs would not 

be prohibited corporate contributions since the programs fell into the category of news commentaries 

specifically exempted from the law's definitions of 

"contribution"and "expenditure." 

In his dissent to this opinion, Chairman Frank P. 

Reiche questioned whether the programs were actually "commentaries" since they included solicitations 

for contributions. He argued that the law's exemption 

for news stories, commentaries and editorials did not 

cover the type of program described in the advisory 

opinion and that the opinion would "effectively permit 

broadcasting corporations and possibly others, to facilitate and indirectly participate in fundraising activities of political parties." 

Contribution Limits. The Commission considered 

questions related to contribution limits in AOs 

1982-22 and 1982-49. The first opinion concerned a 

Congressional primary candidate who changed his 

candidacy from one Congressional District to another during the same election cycle as a result of a 

court-mandated redistricting plan. The Commission 

decided that he was a primary candidate for one 

Federal office and that contributions to his primary 

campaign were subject to a single limit. 

In the second opinion, AO 1982-49, the Commission ruled that, because a primary election between 

Senator Lowell Weicker (A-Connecticut) and his opponent was never held, there was no separate contribution limit for the primary. Under Connecticut law, 

the primary would have been a separate election, 

held after the party nominating convention and before the general election. (The convention and general election each constituted a separate election 

with separate contribution limits.) The Commission 

said that Senator Weicker's reelection committee 

had to return primary contributions to individuals who 

had exhausted their contribution limits for the convention and general election. 

Testing the Waters. In AO 1982-19, the Commission 

decided that, if Senator Alan Cranston (D-California) 

decided to become a 1984 Presidential candidate, 

funds that were received and disbursed by a committee formed on his behalf to "test the waters" for a 

potential candidacy would become "contributions" 

and "expenditures" subject to the law's reporting requirements, limits and prohibitions. The Commission 

also said that Commission regulations would apply to 

the exploratory committee, not just to Senator 

Cranston himself, because he had authorized the 

committee. In the opinion, the Commission discussed how the regulations would apply to committee activity during and after the testing-the-waters 

period. 

Endorsement by Candidate. In AO 1982-56, the 

Commission ruled that the appearance of Congressman Andrew Jacobs (D-Indiana) in a television ad financed by a county candidate's committee did not 

result in an in-kind contribution from that committee 

to Congressman Jacobs because the ad did not endorse or seek to influence his reelection. Rather, the 

30-second ad was limited to advocating the county 

candidate's election. 

Status of Club. In AO 1982-50, the Commission said 

that a group of Floridians could sponsor a club (the 

Florida Breakfast and Lunch Bunch or BLB) to give 

members of the Florida Congressional delegation an 

opportunity to address individuals invited to BLB 

meetings. The BLB meetings would, however, qualify 

as election-influencing activities because attendees 

would be solicited, that is, they would be informed of 

their opportunity to contribute to the campaign of a 

featured speaker before attending the session. Under these circumstances, when aggregate expendi-
13 

tures for the meetings exceeded $1 ,000 per year, 

BLB would become a "political committee" under the 

law. 

Commissioner Aikens filed a dissent to this opinion 

in which she contended that merely apprising participants of their opportunity to make a contribution 

does not constitute a solicitation under the statute. 

BLB's meetings were not campaign-related events, 

she said, and would not therefore trigger political 

committee status for BLB. 

Monitoring the Law 

Review of Reports 

Early in 1982, the Commission revised an internal 

policy governing procedures for reviewing reports 

and tracking possible violations of the campaign finance law revealed in the reports. The new review 

policy more closely reflected Congressional intent to 

concentrate on committees whose reports indicated 

substantial noncompliance with the law. The effect of 

the revised procedures was to further standardize 

the Commission's review of reports, thereby ensuring a more efficient handling of reports and a higher 

quality of review. 

Nonfiler Procedures 

On January 21, 1982, the Commission revised its 

policy for notifying committees when they failed to 

file required reports. Under the former policy, the 

Commission sent mailgrams notifying all nonfiling 

·committees of their failure to file. The revisions 

specified that the Commission send mailgrams only 

to authorized committees of those candidates that 

failed to file pre-election reports and quarterly reports 

due just before the election in which the candidate 

was running. The Commission continued, however, 

to send all committees prior notices reminding them 

of upcoming reporting deadlines. Moreover, all committees remained responsible for filing reports and 

could be subject to legal action for failure to file any 

report. More accurately reflecting the nonfiler provision in the campaign finance law, the new policy also 

enabled the Commission to reduce expenses for 

mailgrams by an estimated $18,000. 

Debt Settlement Procedures 

The Commission also changed its procedures for reviewing debt settlement statements submitted by 

committees. On July 22, 1982, the Commission approved the policy revisions which more closely 

tracked the relevant provisions of the campaign finance law. The revised policy also clarified uncertain 

points in the former procedures; it more clearly defined the circumstances under which a debt settlement statement would be required (i.e., when a creditor forgives a debt for less than the amount owed) 

and also explained when a statement would not be 

required (e.g., when a creditor and committee reach 

agreement over a disputed debt). 

Enforcing the Law 

Processing Complaints 

During 1982, the Commission reduced the time required for processing compliance cases, called matters under review or MURs. Under new procedures 

adopted in July, the General Counsel's Office gave 

the Commissioners its initial report on a case approximately one month earlier than in the past. Although the new policy affected only the first report, 

after which the Commissioners decide whether to 

dismiss the case or initiate further investigation, the 

agency made efforts to tighten up all phases of handling compliance cases. 

To aid researchers in the compliance area, the 

Commission proceeded in 1982 with the development of a MUR index. In 1981, Commission staff 

could extract information on closed MURs through 

the computer system, but the data available was limited. In 1982, the Commission added categories to 

the index, including the names of complainants and 

respondents, citations to the U.S. Code and the 

Code of Federal Regulations, and subject terms. The 

Commission planned to continue to refine the subject 

area, or thesaurus, and make the detailed index publicly available in 1983. 

Summary of Litigation 

The Supreme Court took action on four of the Commission's cases in 1982. Three of those cases, as 
14 

well as a number of other 1982 suits, arose from the 

campaign finance law's restrictions on corporate/labor activity in Federal elections (Section 441b 

of the statute). The Commission's 1982 litigation is 

summarized below. 

Corporate Activity. One case involving Section 

441b, Bread PAC v. FEC, concerned the constitutionality of the law's limitations on solicitations for 

contributions to separate segregated funds operated 

by incorporated trade associations. The appeals 

court had upheld the provision as constitutionally 

sound. On March 8, 1982, however, the Supreme 

Court vacated the court of appeals' decision on jurisdictional grounds and remanded the case for further 

proceedings. The Court held that the plaintiff corporations and political committees were not within the 

limited class of plaintiffs eligible to invoke the expedited procedures contained in Section 437h of the 

law. On December 13, 1982, the district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. (For a full 

summary of the suit, see the 1981 Annual Report, 

page 26.) 

On November 8, 1982, in another 441b case, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (lAM) v. FEC, the Supreme Court 

summarily affirmed a decision of the court of appeals. The en bane court of appeals, on April 8, 

1982, had rejected three constitutional challenges to 

the 1976 amendments to the law, which permit corporations to solicit contributions to their separate 

segregated funds from their executive and administrative personnel. (For a summary of the district court 

ruling in this case, see the 1981Annual Report, page 

23.) 

In its first constitutional challenge, lAM claimed 

that the amendment permitting corporations to solicit 

contributions from executive and administrative personnel had resulted in a great increase in the 

amount of money in corporate PACs, which created 

an imbalance in political power between corporations 

and labor organizations-an imbalance not foreseen 

by Congress when it enacted the 1976 amendments. 

lAM argued that this imbalance violated the First and 

Fifth Amendment rights of labor unions by reducing 

their political influence vis-a-vis corporations. However, the appeals court found that Congress, taking 

into account the structural differences between corporations and labor organizations, had attempted to 

treat them in a comparable manner. The court also 

noted that the Constitution "does not afford any 

guarantee against one person's or group's ability to 

fund more free speech than can another." 

In a second challenge, lAM argued that corporate 

solicitations of executive and administrative personnel are inherently coercive and thus violate those individuals' First Amendment right to refrain from supporting the corporation's political activities. As 

evidence of coercion, lAM pointed out that executive 

and administrative employees contribute in greater 

numbers and greater amounts to their corporate 

PACs than donors to PACs not operated by their employers. The appeals court, however, concluded: 

"One could argue with equal force that career employees contribute more to their corporate PACs out 

of a desire to further what they perceive to be their 

own interests...and because they have the wherewithal to do so...." The court also held that the 1976 

amendments extended the same protection against 

coercion to corporate employees as that provided to 

union members. 

Finally, lAM claimed that the law's provisions 

permitting corporations to use their treasury funds to 

administer a PAC abridged the free speech rights of 

shareholders who disagree with the corporation's political activities. lAM relied primarily upon the Supreme Court's decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of 

Education that the First Amendment prohibited a union from requiring employees to contribute to a political cause they did not support as a condition of holding a job. The court of appeals rejected this 

argument, relying upon the Supreme Court's holding 

in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that a 

shareholder is under no such compulsion to invest in 

a corporation whose political activities he opposes. 

On December 13, 1982, the Supreme Court ruled 

on another case concerning Section 441 b. In FEC v. 

National Right to Work Committee (NRWC), the 

Commission claimed that NRWC, a nonstock corporation, had violated Section 441b(b)(4)(A) by solic-
15 

iting individuals who were not its stockholders, executive or administrative personnel, or their families, for 

contributions to the corporation's separate segregated funds. NRWC argued that the individuals it solicited were "members" of the corporation within the 

meaning of Section 441b(b)(4)(C), and that the solicitations were, therefore, lawful. NRWC also argued 

that, if its solicitations were not permitted, the law's 

solicitation restriction violated its members' First 

Amendment rights of association and was also unconstitutionally vague. The district court ruled in the 

Commission's favor, finding that the law was not unconstitutional, that NRWC could not rely on the 

membership provision because its articles of incorporation and by-laws specifically stated that it was 

organized without members, and that the individuals 

NRWC solicited had none of the normal indicia of 

membership in an organization. Relying upon constitutional concerns, the court of appeals reversed that 

decision, holding that the term "member" in Section 

441b(b)(4)(C) includes anyone who contributes to 

the corporation or answers a questionnaire in a manner the corporation considers to evidence a "similar 

political philosophy" with the corporation. 

In its December ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the appeals court decision, holding that the court's "determination that NRWC's 

'members' include anyone who has responded to 

one of the corporation's essentially random mass 

mailings would ... open the door to all but unlimited 

solicitations and thereby render meaningless the 

statutory limitation to members." Moreover, the Supreme Court found that the Commission had properly treated NRWC's corporate charter as evidence 

that it had no members and also agreed with the 

Commission that a "member" must have some ongoing rights and obligations in the corporation comparable to a shareholder. Rejecting NRWC's claim 

that its constitutional rights would be violated by restricting its solicitations, the Court said such associational rights were "overborne" by the important purpose Section 441b was designed to serve, i.e., to 

prevent corporate money from corrupting Federal 

elections. In response to NRWC's claim that the statutory language was vague, the Court said the statute 

"may leave room for uncertainty" but that NRWC's 

solicitations were extended "to people who would 

not be members under any reasonable interpretation 

of the statute." 

Section 441 b was at issue in three other cases 

pending in 1982. In a direct challenge to the law's 

prohibition on corporate contributions (Section 

441b(a)), the Athens Lumber Company, a corporation, claimed that the provision abridged its First and 

Fifth Amendment rights. In Athens Lumber Company v. FEC, the corporation and its president, John 

P. Bondurant, asked the district court to certify constitutional questions to an en bane court of appeals. 

On February 9, 1982, the district court dismissed the 

case as not ripe for adjudication under Article Ill of 

the Constitution. However, on October 22, 1982, a 

three-judge panel of the appeals court reversed that 

decision, finding the case sufficiently ripe for a declaratory judgment. The panel also ruled that, although the corporation was not within the limited 

class of plaintiffs eligible to bring suit under the expedited procedures of Section 437h, the individual 

plaintiff, John P. Bondurant, was eligible to represent 

the corporation's claims. The appeals court panel itself certified the constitutional questions to the en 

bane court of appeals, rather than remanding the 

case to the district court for fact finding, as the Commission requested. On February 7, 1983, the en 

bane court of appeals vacated the decision of the 

three-judge panel and agreed to reconsider the issues en bane. 

In another case involving Section 441 b(a), Satellite Business Systems (SBS), a partnership composed of three corporations, claimed that the FEC 

had misconstrued that provision in an advisory opinion issued to SBS on March 15, 1982 (A01981-56, 

summarized on page 10). In that opinion, the Commission had stated that Section 441 b(a) barred SBS 

from either establishing a separate segregated fund 

or making direct contributions for Federal elections. 

SBS therefore asked the district court, on October 

12, 1982, to declare that the Commission's decision 

in the opinion was erroneous and to allow SBS to 

participate in Federal elections. Alternatively, SBS 

asked the court to rule that Section 441b(a), as con-
16 

strued in the advisory opinion, violated the plaintiff's 

First and Fifth Amendment rights. At the end of 1982, 

the case had not been heard. 

In a third pending case, the Commission filed suit 

on March 10, 1982, asking the district court to find 

that the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a nonprofit 

corporation, had violated Section 441b(a) by making 

prohibited expenditures in connection with 1978 Federal elections. The Commission claimed that the corporation incurred these expenditures by preparing, 

printing and distributing pamphlets that advocated 

the election of candidates opposed to abortion. The 

corporation contended that, if its activities were prohibited, the law was unconstitutional. On December 

20, 1982, the district court heard oral argument on 

both parties' motions for summary judgment. 

1980 Public Financing. Several 1982 cases arose 

from the 1980 Presidential elections. FEC v. Americans for Change concerned 26 U.S.C. Section 

9012(f), which places limits on expenditures made 

on behalf of publicly funded Presidential candidates 

in the general election. A district court had ruled that 

Section 9012(f) was unconstitutional as applied to 

Americans for Change and two other multicandidate 

committees that had planned to spend large sums in 

support of the 1980 Republican Presidential nominee. On January 19, 1982, the Supreme Court, in a 

4-to-4 vote, left the district court decision intact, but it 

did not rule upon the constitutionality of the provision. For a decision of the case, see page 19 of the 

1980 Annual Report and page 8 of the 1981 Annual 

Report. 11 

In the other cases dealing with 1980 public funding, two Presidential primary campaigns filed suit 

against the Commission. In Dolbeare v. FEC, 

Lyndon H. LaRouche's campaign challenged FEC investigations into its activities, claiming that the statutory provision authorizing the investigations (Section 

437g(a)(2)) was unconstitutional as applied because 

it placed no time limit on completion of the investiga1 1 See also Commission Agenda Document 82-170, which 

concerned Section 9012(f) and was considered by the Commission on January 6, 1983. 

tions. The LaRouche campaign also alleged that the 

Commission had undertaken the investigations to 

harass the campaign and that the investigations had 

a chilling effect on contributors' rights of free association. The campaign further claimed that the Commission had exceeded the prescribed limits on agency investigations. The Commission argued that the 

suit was not justiciable and that the LaRouche campaign had failed to present sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate the likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its case. 

The district court initially issued a preliminary injunction precluding the Commission from initiating 

any new investigations of the LaRouche campaign 

until the current investigations were completed. However, after the Commission completed its discovery 

in the case and its pending investigations into the 

campaign, the district court entered a consent order 

dismissing the case with prejudice. 

The other Presidential case was pending at the 

end of 1982. In Carter!Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc. v. FEC, the Committee, on July 6, 1982, 

asked the appeals court to review the Commission's 

determination that the Committee wa,s required to repay to the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to the 

amount of its nonqualified campaign expenditures. 

Draft Committees. FEC v. Florida for Kennedy Committee was one of four separate suits filed by the 

Commission to seek enforcement of subpoenas it 

had issued to several political committees that had 

been engaged in promoting the Presidential candidacy of Senator Edward Kennedy during 1979. (For a 

summary of those suits, see pages 23-24 of the 

1981 Annual Report.) The Commission had issued 

the subpoenas as part of its investigation into a complaint alleging that the "draft Kennedy" committees 

were affiliated committees and therefore subject to a 

single $5,000 contribution limit. The complaint alleged that the draft comittees had collectively accepted excessive contributions amounting to 

$30,000 from the Machinists Non-Partisan Political 

League, the political arm of the International Association of Machinists. 
17 

On August 2, 1982, the appeals court reversed the 

district court decision enforcing the subpoenas the 

Commission had issued to the Florida for Kennedy 

Committee. The district court held that the subpoenas met the guidelines for enforceability and were 

within the FEC's authority. The appeals court, however, found that constitutional concerns mandated 

that the usual standard for judicial review of agency 

subpoenas did not apply in the Commission's case 

and concluded that the FEC must "prove to the satisfaction of the courts that it has statutory investigative 

authority" before the courts may order enforcement 

of Commission subpoenas. The appeals court then 

found that "committees organized to 'draft' a person 

for federal office" are not "political committees" within the purview of the Commission's investigative authority. 

Judge Clark dissented from the majority opinion. In 

his dissent, he found that the statutory language and 

legislative history both demonstrated that "draft committees" fall within the jurisdiction of the campaign finance law since such committees accept contributions and make expenditures for the purpose of 

influencing the nomination of a person to Federal office. He concluded that exempting draft committees 

from the law would leave "a significant portion" of 

political activity "outside the coverage of the Act, a 

construction which the Supreme Court [has] rejected." 

Public Disclosure. On May 6, 1982, the court of appeals upheld an earlier district court ruling in FEC v. 

Hall-Tyner Election Campaign Committee. (See 

page 27 of the 1981 Annual Report for a summary of 

the district court decision.) The Commission contended that the Hall-Tyner Committee had violated 

the law by its failure to keep records of, or to disclose on its reports, the names and addresses of 

certain contributors who had elected to remain anonymous. (In 1976, Gus Hall and Jarvis Tyner were the 

respective Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates of the Communist Party, U.S.A.) The district 

court dismissed the suit, finding the Committee had 

established that enforcement of the recordkeeping 

and disclosure provisions against it would violate 

First Amendment rights of its contributors. In affirming the district court decision, the appeals court 

found that the Committee had met the standard set 

forth in Buckley v. Valeo for exempting minor parties 

from the law's disclosure requirements, i.e., the 

Committee had demonstrated a "reasonable probability" that disclosure of the names of contributors 

would subject them to harassment. Moreover, the 

appeals court held that the governmental interest 

served in obtaining information on large contributors 

did not justify the chilling effect that disclosure would 

have on their First Amendment rights of free association. On January 17, 1983, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision. 

Illegal Contributions. In FEC v. Robert Earl Short, 

the Commission claimed that two political committees and their respective treasurers had violated the 

campaign finance law by reporting disbursements as 

independent expenditures when, according to the 

Commission, they were actually in-kind contributions 

to the Short for Senate Committee of Volunteers. 

The FEC also alleged that these in-kind contributions 

exceeded the law's contribution limits. The Commission further claimed that Robert Earl Short, a 1978 

Senate candidate from Minnesota, his principal campaign committee and the committee's treasurer had 

also violated the law by failing to report the receipt of 

the in-kind contributions. 

On September 27, 1982, the district court entered 

a consent order in which the defendant committees 

agreed that they had violated the relevant provisions 

of the law. The committees further agreed to amend 

their reports within 30 days to reflect the disbursements as in-kind contributions. The district court 

imposed a $400 civil penalty on each defendant 

committee and voluntarily dismissed the case 

against individual defendants. 

Outreach Programs 

During 1982, the Commission expanded efforts to 

assist and educate candidates, committees and the 

public through a number of programs designed to 

reach particular audiences. 
18 

Workshops and Conferences 

In the spring of 1982, the Commission conducted 

three seminars in Washington, D.C., primarily for 

House and Senate candidates. Originally, the Commission had scheduled only one seminar, but, because of the demand, the agency presented two 

more. Among the estimated 100 seminar participants 

were campaign staff and consultants, Congressional 

staff and members of the press. Following Chairman 

Frank P. Reiche's opening remarks, FEC staff discussed the law's requirements, pertinent advisory 

opinions and certain legal procedures. Commissioner John Warren McGarry also participated, giving 

tips on how to avoid common problems with the 

campaign law. The seminars also included a newly 

developed slide presentation, "Sources of Candidate 

Support." 

As part of a statewide seminar on election laws, 

the Commission conducted a one-day workshop in 

Ohio on the Federal campaign finance law. Approximately 280 people attended the workshop, held in 

Columbus, Ohio, on September 13, 1982, and sponsored by the Ohio Secretary of State. Focusing on 

local party activity in Federal elections, the workshop 

represented an effort by the Commission to reach 

out to local party organizations, whose involvement 

in Federal elections may be so limited that they do 

not qualify as "political committees" under Federal 

law. By providing information to these groups, the 

Commission hoped to encourage their participation 

in Federal elections in compliance with the law. 

Additionally, Commissioners and staff spoke at 

several educational conferences and meetings, including the following: 

• American Bar Association's Committee on Election Law 

• American Bar Association's Conference on the 

FEC 

• Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies' 1982 

Communications Policy Workshop and Seminar 

on Presidential Debates and Political Communications 

• California Bar Association's Political Law 

Committee 

• Council on Governmental Ethics Laws' Annual 

Conference 

• Federal Bar Association's Program on the FEC 

• National Association of Legislative and Political 

Specialists in Education's Conference 

• National Association of Secretaries of State's 

Annual Conference 

• National Conference of State Legislatures 

• Practicing Law Institute's Seminar on the Corporation in Politics 

• Texas League of Woman Voters' Election Laws 

and Practices Conference 

• Twentieth Century Fund's Task Force on Political Committees 

• Virginia Consortium of Social Studies Supervi... 

sors and College Educators' Annual 

Conference 

• Virginia Social Studies Teachers' Annual 

Conference 

Materials and Services 

With the publication of a new series of illustrated brochures, the Commission focused on the special concerns of particular audiences. For example, one brochure covered information for local party groups, 

another explained candidate registration, and two focused on different aspects of corporate/labor activity. 

One brochure directed to the general public, Using 

FEC Campaign Finance Information, answered common questions asked by researchers working with 

Commission files and computer indexes. (See Appendix 7 for a list of the brochures and other publications.) 

In addition to the brochures, the Commission introduced the Campaign Guide for Corporations and 

Labor Organizations, the first Commission publication devoted exclusively to corporate/labor informational needs. The agency also republished its Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and 

Committees with a new section presenting samples 

of completed FEC forms. 

During 1982, the Commission encouraged educators to use Commission resources. In response to 

letters and news releases describing Commission research facilities and informational materials, the 
19 

Commission received requests for its slide and tape 

program on candidate support and for its publications, including the Clearinghouse publication, Voter 

Information and Education Programs, which outlines 

curriculums on the election process. 

Clearinghouse Activities 

The Commission's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration continued during 1982 to fulfill its 

mission by disseminating information on the Federal 

election process, assisting election officials and publishing the results of research. (Clearinghouse publications are described in Appendix 8.) 

As in 1981 , Clearinghouse research activity focused on a Congressionally mandated study to assess the feasibility and cost of developing standards 

for voting equipment used in the United States. In 

cooperation with the National Bureau of Standards, 

the Clearinghouse issued a contract to examine 

standards applicable to the hardware elements of 

electronic voting devices. Clearinghouse staff continued discussion of the effort with election officials and 

vendors and started work on a draft of the final 

report. 

Additionally, the Clearinghouse conducted workshops in Massachusetts, New York and Kentucky on 

specific problems in the administration of Federal 

elections. 

The Clearinghouse Advisory Panel did not meet 

during 1982 but planned to convene early in 1983. 
21 Chapter 2 

Planning for the 1984 

Presidential Elections 

During 1982, the Commission started laying groundwork for the 1984 Presidential public financing program. The Commission's goal was twofold: easing 

the burdens on Presidential campaigns requesting 

public funds while streamlining internal procedures 

for more efficient operation of the program. To this 

end, the Commission worked on revising the Presidential primary matching fund regulations and prepared other materials for the 1984 Presidential 

elections. 

Primary Matching Fund Regulations 

As in the two previous Presidential election cycles, 

the Commission began redrafting regulations governing the payment of public money in the form of 

matching funds to Presidential primary candidates. 1 

The Commission first reassessed its administration 

of matching funds in previous elections, reviewing 

comments from staff as well as relevant Commission 

documents, such as advisory opinions, compliance 

cases and audit reports. The Commission then wrote 

proposed regulations, based on this reevaluation, 

with a view toward providing workable rules to govern many of the areas which had caused uncertainty 

in the past. The proposed rules also included a fuller 

explanation of the certification and audit processes 

and contained new provisions to cover aspects of the 

Presidential primary process not previously addressed in the regulations. 

On August 17, 1982, the Commission published 

the proposed changes in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (47 Fed. Reg. 35892), seeking public comment on the revisions. 

The Commission held a public hearing on the proposed regulations on December 7, 1982, at which 

1Eiigible Presidential primary candidates may receive public 

funds to match contributions of money (e.g., checks) from private contributors. Loans, cash contributions, in-kind contributions and contributions from political committees are not matchable. To be eligible for matching payments, a candidate must 

first raise more than $5,000 in each of 20 States. Although an 

individual m.ay contribute more than $250 to a candidate, only a 

maximum of $250 of an individual's contribution(s) applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each State. 
22 

the Honorable Angela M. Buchanan, former treasurer of President Reagan's 1980 Presidential campaign and current U.S. Treasurer, testified. In her 

testimony, Mrs. Buchanan commented on several 

areas of the proposed regulations that were of practical concern to the Reagan Committee. In addition to 

hearing oral testimony on possible revisions to the 

regulations, the Commission received written comments from 11 individuals as well as from the American Bar Association, the Republican National Committee and the White House. 

After discussing draft regulations at a series of 

public meetings, the Commissioners approved the 

revisions on December 16, 1982, but decided not to 

forward them to Congress until after the 98th Congress had convened in 1983.2 

Some of the significant changes incorporated into 

the proposed regulations are summarized below. 

State-by-State Allocations 

Under the campaign finance law, Presidential primary campaigns receiving public funding must agree 

to limit spending to a national spending limit and a 

spending limit within each State.3 The current regulations provided few guidelines for allocating expenditures under the State limits. In contrast, the suggested revision set out definite procedures for 

allocating particular types of expenditures. Moreover, 

the proposed regulations established a category of 

national campaign expenses which would not need 

to be allocated. 

Exemptions to Spending Limit 

Another suggested provision allowed campaigns to 

exclude from the State spending limit up to 10 percent of overhead expenditures and campaign workers' salaries in a particular State as exempt compliance costs (i.e., expenditures to ensure compliance 

with the campaign finance law). Another 10 percent 

of overhead costs and salaries could be applied toward the limited exemption for fundraising. 

The Commission adopted a similar provision in the 

proposed rules regarding the national spending limit. 

Under the revision, campaigns could allocate 10 percent of overall salary and overhead expenditures as 

exempt compliance costs and another 1 0 percent as 

exempt fundraising costs. Under either exemption, 

candidates were permitted to allocate a higher percentage of expenses to compliance and/or fundraising. In such cases, however, candidates had to 

document the full amount claimed for such expenses. 

Submissions and Certifications 

The proposed rules more closely reflected actual 

procedures used in past elections for the submission 

of contributions to be matched and the Commission's 

certification of matching fund payments. Moreover, 

the suggested revisions consolidated all requirements for matching fund submissions under one part 

of the regulations. 

One new provision in that part allowed a campaign 

to submit requests for matching funds by letter rather 

than a full matching fund submission.4 The letter request would specify the amount of matchable contributions a campaign received subsequent to its last 

submission and would be accompanied by supporting bank documentation, such as validated deposit slips. The campaign's next submission would 

be a fully documented submission covering the letter 

request and the current submission. The Commission anticipated that this proposed change would al- 2 Under the campaign finance law, the Commission must 

submit proposed rules to Congress. Unless the House or Senate 

disapproves them within 30 legislative days, the Commission 

may prescribe the regulations. 

3The national spending limit is $10 million plus a Cost of 

Living Adjustment (COLA). The State limit is based on the following formula: $200,000 plus COLA or 16 cents (plus COLA) 

multiplied by the State Voting Age Population, whichever is 

greater. In its 1980, 1981 and 1982 legislative recommendations, the Commission recommended that Congress remove the 

State spending limits. 

4A full matching fund submission contains a list of matchable contributions and includes each contributor's name and address and the amount of each contribution. The submission also 

includes a photocopy of each contributor check (or other written 

instrument) and supporting bank documentation showing that 

the funds were deposited. These contributions must be submitted in accordance with the Commission's Guideline for Presentation in Good Order. 
23 

most cut in half the number of matching fund submissions prepared by campaigns while still providing for 

twice-monthly matching fund payments. 

Matchable Contributions 

The proposed rules answered a number of questions 

raised during the 1980 election cycle concerning 

whether certain contributions were eligible for matching payments. For example, one provision stated that 

contributions collected through joint fundraising with 

other candidates or committees would be matchable 

contributions. (Although the Commission had 

matched joint-fundraising proceeds in the 1980 Presidential elections, it had never codified the rule.) The 

provision also set out procedures for campajgns to 

follow when engaged in joint fundraising. 

In a change from 1980 policy, the proposed regulations stipulated that the full price for admission to a 

fundraising event, such as a concert or dinner, would 

be a matchable contribution if it met the matchability 

requirements. Contributions received when an individual tests the waters for a potential Presidential 

candidacy could also be matched, according to the 

proposed rules, once the individual declared his/her 

candidacy and if the contributions met the standards 

for matchability. Similarly, funds disbursed during 

that period would count against both the State and 

the overall expenditure limits. 

Sale of Assets 

The proposed regulations addressed the issue of 

whether campaigns could sell fundraising items either donated or purchased by the campaign, such as 

artwork. The provision permitted campaigns to sell 

such assets, though the amount paid would be a 

contribution subject to the law's limits and prohibitions. However, the provision included an exception 

for campaigns whose outstanding debts exceeded 

their cash on hand at the end of the matching payment period. These campaigns could sell assets acquired for fundraising purposes to wholesalers or 

other intermediaries who would, in turn, sell the assets to the public. The proposed rules specified that, 

in this case, the sale proceeds would not count as 

campaign contributions from either the wholesaler or 

the purchaser. 

Audits 

To clarify the statutorily mandated audits of campaigns accepting matching funds, the proposed rules 

fully described the audit process, including audit 

fieldwork and the preparation, content and public release of audit reports. Additional provisions provided 

candidates an earlier opportunity to respond to an 

initial Commission determination that the campaign 

repay public funds. In the revision, campaigns that 

submitted written statements contesting a repayment 

determination could also be granted an oral hearing 

upon an affirmative vote of four Commissioners. 

Other Preparations Under Way 

Guideline 

During 1982, the Commission worked on a substantial revision to the Guideline for Presentation in 

Good Order, a publication for Presidential primary 

campaigns seeking Federal matching payments. 

Like the 1976 and 1980 editions of the Guideline, 

the new version presented step-by-step instructions 

on the preparation of matching fund submissions. 

However, the Commission greatly expanded the 

scope of the revised Guideline to include a detailed 

explanation of the entire matching fund process. Because the Commission, after administering two previous matching fund programs, better understood 

campaigns' problems and questions, the new Guideline addressed areas of difficulty encountered by 

campaigns. For example, the revised Guideline provided a comprehensive discussion of the error codes 

which the Commission assigns to nonmatchable 

contributions contained in a submission. The Guideline's section on error codes gave explicit examples 

so that a committee could pinpoint deficiencies and 

more easily correct them. 

The revised Guideline reflected the proposed revisions to the matching fund regulations and included 

citations to the relevant Commission regulations. 

The Commission hoped that the Guideline, ready in 
24 

February 1983, would be a more usable tool for the 

preparation of submissions and would help campaigns maximize access to matching funds by ensuring that submitted contributions meet all 

requirements. 

Compliance Manual 

The Commission also worked on revisions to its Financial Control and Compliance Manual for Presidential Candidates Receiving Public Financing, another publication to assist primary campaigns. As in 

the 1980 edition, the Manual presented a total system for compliance with the campaign finance law, 

including reporting requirements. Based on practical 

recommendations by Commission auditors and campaign staffs, the revised Manual incorporated controls devised by past campaigns and provided concrete illustrations. 

For example, like the proposed regulations, the 

Manual expanded and clarified the section on Stateby-State allocations. The Manual also included expanded sections on exempt fundraising activities and 

exempt compliance costs, more reporting examples, 

improved suggestions on software specifications for 

computerized campaign systems and more detailed 

procedures for winding down and terminating the 

campaign. The Commission planned to release the 

Manual in late February or early March 1983. 

Reporting Forms 

In another effort to aid Presidential campaigns, the 

.. Commission, on December 16, 1982, approved a 

newly designed FEC Form 3P, the reporting packet 

used by primary and general election Presidential 

campaigns, including those not receiving public 

funds. The revised Presidential reporting forms implemented changes to the campaign finance law 

contained in the 1979 amendments5 and made other 

revisions that improved disclosure. At the same time, 

the Commission simplified the form, where possible, 

and resolved areas of confusion in the previous 

forms. Additionally, the Commission changed the design of the forms to enhance appearance, clarity and 

ease of completion. 

5 Presidential campaigns in 1980 were not required to comply with the changes to the reporting provisions contained in the 

1979 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. 
Chapter 25 3 

Legislative 

Recommendations 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires the 

Commission to transmit each year to the President 

and Congress "any recommendations for any legislative or other action the Commission considers appropriate...." 2 U.S.C. Section 438(a)(9). The following legislative recommendations were approved 

by the Commission on March 24, 1983. Most of 

these reiterate the 18 recommendations submitted to 

the President and Congress in May 1982. Two other 

recommendations, not included in the 1982 package, 

concern reporting waivers and certification of the 

voting age population figures and cost-of-living 

adjustment. 

Definitions 

Draft Committees1 

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

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

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Commission 

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 for Underclared 

Candidates Within the Act's Purview. Section 

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

the definition of "contribution" funds contributed 

by persons "for the purpose of influencing a 

clearly identified individual to ~eek 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." 

1 ' This recommendation reiterates the one made by the Commission on August 28, 1981. On that date, the Commission sent 

a letter to the Speaker of the House and the President of the 

Senate recommending immediate legislative action on amendments to the election law that would clarify the Act's coverage of 

the activities of "draft" committees organized to support or influence the nomination of undeclared Federal candidates. The recommendation was also included in the legislative recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on May 26, 1982. 
26 

2. Restrict Corporate and Labor Organization 

Support for Undeclared Candidates. Section 

441b(b) should be revised to expressly state 

that corporations, labor organizations and national banks are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures "for the purpose of 

influencing a clearly identified individual to 

seek nomination for election or election..." to 

Federal office. 

3. 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 and Justification: These proposed 

amendments were prompted by a recent decision 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 for Democratic Alternatives in 1980. The appeals court 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. Although the 

case is binding precedent only in the District of Columbia Circuit, the Commission believes that the 

apppeals court ruling creates a serious imbalance in 

the election law and the political process because 

any group organized to gain grass roots support for 

an undeclared candidate can operate completely 

outside the strictures of the Federal Election Campaign Act. However, any group organized to support 

a declared candidate is subject to the Act's registration and reporting requirements and contribution limitations. Therefore, the potential exists for funneling 

large aggregations of money, both corporate and. private, into the Federal electoral process through unlimited contributions made to draft committees that 

support undeclared candidates. These recommendations seek to avert that possibility. 

Volunteer Activity2 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §431 (S)(B) 

Beneficiary of Change: Public 

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider 

whether the exemption for volunteer activity, contained in 2 U.S.C. §431 (S)(B)(i), was meant to include professional services donated primarily for 

fundraising purposes rather than for actual 

campaigning. 

Explanation and Justification: The Act places no limit on the services that a professional may donate to a 

candidate. For example, a professional entertainer 

may participate in a concert for the benefit of a candidate without the proceeds of that concert counting 

toward the entertainer's contribution limitations. Similarly, an artist may donate artwork to a campaign to 

be used for fundraising or to be disposed of as an 

asset of the campaign. In both cases, the "volunteer" has thereby donated goods or services the 

value of which greatly exceeds the amount of the 

contributions which that individual could otherwise 

make under the law. 

Registration and Reporting 

Commission As Sole Point of Entry 

for Disclosure Documentsa 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §432(g) 

Beneficiary of Change: Political Committees, Commission, Public 

2This recommendation reiterates one of the legislative recommendations submitted to Congress and the President in 1981 

and published in the Commission's 1980 Annual Report. It was 

again included in the legislative recommendations submitted to 

Congress and the President on May 26, 1982. It is repeated because this area has been a continuing problem. 

3This recommendation reiterates one of the legislative recommendations submitted to Congress and the President in 1981 

and published in the Commission's 1980 Annual Report. It was 

again included in the legislative recommendations submitted to 

Congress and the Preisdent on May 26, 1982. 
27 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that it be the sole point of entry for all disclosure documents filed by Federal candidates and political 

committees. 

Explanation and Justification: A single point of entry 

for all disclosure documents filed by political committees would eliminate any confusion about where candidates and committees are to file their reports. It 

would assist committee treasurers by having one office where they would file reports, address correspondence and ask questions. At present, conflicts 

may arise when more than one office sends out materials, makes requests for additional information and 

answers questions relating to the interpretation of 

the law. A single point of entry would also reduce the 

costs to the Federal government of maintaining three 

different offices, especially in the areas of personnel, 

equipment and data processing. 

The Commission has authority to prepare and 

publish lists of nonfilers. It is extremely difficult to ascertain who has and who has not filed when reports 

may have been filed at or are in transit between two 

different offices. Separate points of entry also make 

it difficult for the Commission to track responses to 

compliance notices. Many responses and/or amendments may not be received by the Commission in a 

timely manner, even though they were sent on time 

by the candidate or committee. The delay in transmittal between two offices sometimes leads the 

Commission to believe that candidates and committees are not in compliance. A single point of entry 

would eliminate this confusion. If the Commission received all documents, it would transmit on a daily basis file copies to the Secretary of the Senate and the 

Clerk of the House, as appropriate. The Commission 

notes that the report of the Institute of Politics of the 

John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard 

University, An Analysis of the Impact of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act, 1972-78, prepared for the 

House Administration Committee, recommends that 

all reports be filed directly with the Commission 

(Committee Print, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., at 122 

(1979) ). 

Waiver Authority 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434 

Beneficiary of Change: Public 

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

would be helpful if the Commission had authority to 

suspend the reporting requirements of the Act. For 

example, during the past election cycle, the Commission encountered several problems relating to the reporting requirements of authorized committees 

whose respective candidates were not on the election ballot. The Commission had to consider whether 

the election-year reporting requirements were fully 

applicable to candidate committees operating under 

one of the following circumstances: 

• The candidate withdraws from nomination prior 

to having his or her name placed on the ballot. 

• The candidate loses the primary and therefore is 

not on the general election ballot. 

• The candidate is unchallenged and his or her 

name does not appear on the election ballot. 

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. 
28 

Monthly Reporting for Congressional 

Candidates4 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(2) 

Beneficiary of Change: House and Senate 

Candidates 

Recommendation: The principal campaign committee of a Congressional candidate should have the 

option of filing monthly reports in lieu of quarterly 

reports. 

Explanation and Justification: 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. 

Verifying Multicandidate Committee Statuss 

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

441a(a)(4) 

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Multicandidate 

Political Committees, Commission 

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 and Justification: 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 five or more Federal candidates; 

• receive contributions from more than 50 contributors; and 

• have been registered as a political committee for 

at least six 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 Commision'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 

4This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 

SThis recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 
29 

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 five or more Federal candidates and also have 

more than 50 contributors and have been registered 

for at least six months. 

Insolvency of Political Committees6 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §433(d) 

Beneficiary of Change: Political Committees, 

Commission, Public 

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 con-

. strued to...limit") suggests that the Commission has 

such authority in some other provision of the Act. If 

Congress intended the Commission to have a role in 

determining the insolvency of political committees 

and the liquidation of their assets, the Commission is 

unclear as to the nature and scope of this authority. 

Explanation and Justification: 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 FECA Amendments of 1979 added a 

provision to the law {2 U.S.C. §433(d)(2)) possibly 

permitting the Commission to establish procedures 

for determining insolvency with respect to political 

committees, as well as the orderly liquidation and 

termination of insolvent committees. In 1980, the 

Commission promulgated the "administrative termination" regulations at 11 CFR 102.4 after enactment 

of the 1979 Amendments, in response to 2 U.S.C. 

§433(d)(2). However, these procedures do not concern liquidation or application of assets of insolvent 

political committees. 

Prior to 1980, the Commission adopted "Debt Settlement Procedures" under which the Commission 

reviews proposed debt settlements in order to determine whether the settlement will result in a potential 

violation of the Act. If it does not appear that such a 

violation will occur, the Commission permits the 

committee to cease reporting that debt once the settlement and payment are reported. The Commission 

believes this authority derives from 2 U.S.C. §434 

and from its authority to correct and prevent violations of the Act, but it does not appear as a grant of 

authority beyond a review of the specific debt settlement request, to order application of committee 

assets. 

It has been suggested that approval by the Commission of the settlement of debts owed by political 

committees at less than face value may lead to the 

circumvention of the limitations on contributions 

specified by 2 U.S.C. §§441a and 441b. The 

amounts involved are frequently substantial, and the 

creditors are often corporate entities. Concern has 

also been expressed regarding the possibility that 

committees could incur further debts after settling 

some, or that a committee could pay off one creditor 

at less than the dollar value owed and subsequently 

6This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 
30 

raise additional funds to pay off a "friendly" creditor 

at full value. 

Local Party Activity 

Separate §441a(d) Limit for Local Party 

Committees7 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441a(d) 

Beneficiary of Change: Local Party Committees 

Recommendation:a Congress should amend the 

statute to provide a separate limit, under §441 a(d), 

on expenditures made by local party committees in 

the Presidential elections. 

Explanation and Justification: Local party committees share the State party's §441a(d) limit for Congressional elections but have no statutory role under 

that section for Presidential elections. The 1979 

Amendments to the Act did establish certain exemptions for State and local party committees, including 

a provision for get-out-the-vote activity during the 

Presidential election. The exemptions, however, are 

limited to activities involving volunteers. Payments 

for general public political advertising do not qualify 

under these provisions. Therefore, under the present 

statute, a local party which wants to purchase a 

newspaper ad on behalf of the party's Presidential 

nominee may make such an expenditure only when 

authorized to do so under the national party's 

§441a(d) limit. 

Many local committees are unaware of this restriction and make minor expenditures on behalf of the 

party's Presidential nominee, which are difficult for 

the national committee to track. It would be preferable for the local committees to have a small Presidential spending limit of their own (in addition to the 

Presidential spending limit given to the national party 

committees). This would aid national committees in 

administering their own 441a(d) limit for Presidential 

elections and avoid unnecessary compliance actions, while still ensuring that local parties do not introduce significant amounts of unreported (and possibly prohibited) funds into the Presidential election 

process. (It is assumed that the national committee 

would delegate its authority with respect to spending 

by State party committees in Presidential elections.) 

7A similar recommendation was included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 8Chairman McDonald filed the following dissenting opinion: 

The Commission's legislative recommendation of a separate 

§441a(d) limit for a local party committee to the Congress would 

further expand "party building" loopholes already carved by 

Congress and certain rulings of the Commission. The Commission's recommendation would provide a local party with a smal.l 

limit of its own in Presidential elections. This recommendation 

has nothing to do with the real activities of local parties. I strongly support local parties and will work for any proposal that enhances their efforts to increase participation. This recommendation will only provide a means of circumventing the Presidential 

expenditure limits. 

Presently a local party may make expenditures for get-outthe-vote activities involving volunteers in a Presidential campaign. The action my colleagues have taken will in no way build 

up these local parties and will quite likely make these committees merely another paper entity, existing only in a bank account, for their national party and its Presidential nominee. Section 441a(a)(4) of the FECA allows unlimited transfers between 

national, State and local committees of a political party. No definition of local party exists in the statute. Each precinct could 

form as many paper committees to receive national money as 

the national party desires. If the Commission's recommendation 

is enacted, an unlimited number of local committees could be 

formed and the national party could transfer the local limit to 

each local entity. This process could provide unlimited funds to 

a Presidential candidate in whatever locale desired, completely 

undermining the delicate balance constructed by Congress to 

provide each major party candidate for President with an equal 

amount of public funds. Under the present system, each party 

has ample ability to participate in the Presidential campaign 

through get-out-the-vote and the national party §441 a( d) limit 

(which is spent in local communities around the country selected by the national party). Local party headquarters are run 

on a ticket-wide basis and include the Presidential nominee in 

their efforts. Already corporate and labor funds are contributed 

to State and local parties to be used in a ratio of soft and hard 

money in the get-out-the-vote efforts in areas which are critical 

to the Federal candidates. Why do we need yet another loophole to give the Presidential campaigns unlimited spending 

power? 

If the Congress enacts this proposal, it will not increase activity at the local level, it will only increase the ability to circumvent 

the process at the national level. This result will limit participation in Presidential campaigns rather than broadening it. 

Commissioner Harris made the following statement: "I was 

not present when the Commission voted on its legislative recommendations, but am in agreement with the foregoing views of 

Chairman McDonald." 
31 

Administration of a State or Local Party 

Committee's Federal Accounte 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§431(8) and (9) and 441b 

Beneficiary of Change: Party Organizations 

Recommendation:10 The Commission recommends 

that State and local party organizations which 

choose to establish a separate Federal account for 

the funding of activity in connection with Federal 

elections, not be required to allocate costs of administration or fundraising between the Federal accounts and other segments of the organization. Such 

costs could be paid from any funds available to the 

party. 

Explanation and Justification: State and local party 

organizations are permitted to establish a separate 

"Federal account" for the purpose of accepting contributions and making expenditures in connection 

with Federal elections. A party organization that has 

established such an account is required to report the 

receipts and disbursements of the Federal account 

only. One of the most cumbersome regulations flowing from this organizational structure is the requirement that committees allocate their overhead and 

solicitation expenses between their Federal and nonFederal accounts. Specifically, committees must pay 

a portion of their administrative costs from the Federal account and a portion from the non-Federal 

account. 

Our audits of party organizations have frequently 

contained findings concerning the party's failure to 

make these allocations and have recommended that 

the non-Federal part of the organization be reimbursed from the Federal account for a reasonable 

share of the party's administrative costs. Failure to 

do so has been considered a violation of the 11 CFR 

102.5 prohibition on transferring funds from the 

party's non-Federal accounts to the Federal account 

and, in those States where corporate and/or labor 

contributions are permitted for use in State and local 

elections, a possible violation of 2 U.S.C. §441(b), 

the ban on corporation/union funds in connection 

with Federal elections. To help party committees 

avoid these potential violations, the Commission has 

approved at least two allocation systems, with a provision that the committee may formulate any other 

reasonable method. The application of these systems is, however, burdensome since technically the 

allocation percentage can change from report to report necessitating frequent recalculations. Moreover, 

the accumulation, allocation and reporting of the 

administrative expenses are time consuming. Further, the resulting allocations are somewhat arbitrary 

and serve only to provide a recognition that a portion 

of the costs are indirectly connected to Federal 

elections. 

To alleviate these problems, the Commission recommends that party committees not be required to 

allocate their administrative expenses between their 

Federal and non-Federal accounts. While this proposal might permit some corporate and labor funds 

to enter the Federal election process indirectly, this 

risk is outweighed by the substantial reduction of 

administrative burdens. Moreover, it is important to 

remember that, because of the imprecise nature of 

the allocation systems now in use, even under our 

present requirements, Federal party activity may incidentally benefit from corporate/labor funds. 

Note that this recommendation would not apply to 

expenditures made on behalf of a clearly identified 

candidate, nor to registration and get-out-the-vote 

activities. 

9This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 

10Commissioners Harris and McDonald oppose this recommendation on the ground that it would allow corporations and 

unions to finance with general treasury funds a substantial 

portion of the costs associated with a party committee's Federal 

activity. The argument that dispensing with the need to allocate 

will free party committees of an administrative burden is undercut by that part of the recommendation which retains the requirement to allocate when party expenditures are made for registration and get-out-the-vote activities or when expenditures 

are made on behalf of a clearly identified Federal candidate. 

The long-time Congressional policy of banning corporate and 

union funds from Federal elections (except for PAC contributions) and administrative simplicity would both be better served 

by banning all corporate and union contributions to party committees which actively participate in Federal elections. 
32 

Enforcement 

Modifying "Reason to Believe" Finding11 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §437g 

Beneficiary of Change: Respondents, Press, Public 

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 "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 and Justification: 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 Commision and the respondent. It implies that 

the Commission has evaluated the evidence and 

concluded that the respondent has violated the Act. 

In fact, however, a "reason to believe" finding simply 

means that the Commission believes a violation may 

have occurred if the facts as described in the complaint are true. An investigation permits the Commission to evaluate the validity of the facts as alleged. 

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

be helpful to substitute words that sound less accusatory and that more accurately reflect what, in fact, 

the Commission is doing at this early phase of 

enforcement. 

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

has violated the law everytime it finds "reason to believe," the statute should be amended. 

Public Financing 

Repeal the State Expenditure Limitations for 

Publicly Financed Presidential Campaigns12 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 a 

Beneficiary of Change: Presidential Candidate 

Committees, Commission 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that the State-by-State limitations on expenditures 

for publicly financed Presidential primary candidates 

be eliminated. 

Explanation and Justification: The Commission has 

now seen two 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. 

11This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 

12This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations· submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 
33 

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. 

Fundraising Limitation for Publicly Financed 

Presidential Primary Campaigns13 

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

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Commission 

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 $1 0 million (plus COLA14) limit 

for campaign expenditures and a $2 million (plus 

COLA) limit for fundraising (20 percent of overall limit}, each candidate would have one $12 million (plus 

COLA) limit for all campaign expenditures. 

Explanation and Justification: 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. 

Expenditure Limits 

Certification of Voting Age Population Figures 

and Cost-of-Living Adjustment 

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

Beneficiary of Change: Secretary of Commerce, 

Commission, Party Committees, Candidates 

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 and Justification: In order for the Commission to compute the coordinated party expenditure limits and the State-by-State expenditure limits 

13This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 

14Spending limits are increased by the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which the Department of Labor calculates 

annually. 
34 

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. 441a(c), the Secretary 

of Labor is required to certify the annual adjustment 

in the cost-of-living index. In both instances, the 

timely receipt of these figures would enable the 

Commission to inform political committees of their 

spending limits early in the campaign cycle. Under 

present circumstances, where no deadline exists, 

the Commission has sometimes been unable to release the spending limit figures before June. 

Contributions 

Application of Contribution Limitations 

to Family Members1s 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441a 

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Commission 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress examine the application of the contribution limitations to immediate family members. 

Explanation and Justification: Under the current posture of the law, a family member is limited to 

contributing $1 ,000 per election to a candidate. This 

limitation applies to spouses and parents, as well as 

other immediate family members. [See S. Conf. Rep. 

No. 93-1237, 93rd Gong., 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. 

First, a disparity of treatment occurs between candidates living in community property States and 

those living in non-community property States. The 

Commission has viewed candidates living in community property States as having the right to use, for 

campaign purposes, their own property, as well as 

the entire property of the spouse. In non-community 

property States, the candidate is viewed as having 

the right to use property held in his or her own name, 

but not property held solely in the name of the 

spouse. If the candidate and spouse own property as 

tenants in common or as joint tenants, the candidate 

may use one half of the property. However, this rule 

does not apply to bank accounts, held in joint tenancy, where each spouse may draw out the entire 

amount of the account. 

Second, application of the law has caused difficulties in a situation where a candidate has obtained a 

campaign loan which is secured by real property 

owned by the candidate and spouse. For example, if 

a candidate takes out a $30,000 loan secured by the 

family residence which the candidate and spouse 

own in joint tenancy, the spouse, under the law, has 

made a $15,000 contribution to the candidate. This 

result is unfair. In this regard, the Commission believes the current regulations go as far as they can in 

permitting an equitable solution to the problem. A 

more flexible approach, the Commission believes, 

would require statutory change. 

Third, problems have arisen in enforcing the limitations where a candidate uses assets belonging to a 

parent. In some cases, a parent has made a substantial gift to his or her candidate-child while cautioning the candidate that this may well decrease the 

amount which the candidate would otherwise inherit 

upon the death of the parent. 

The Commission recommends that Congress consider the difficulties arising from application of the 

contribution limitations to immediate family 

members. 

Foreign Nationals1a 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441e 

Beneficiary of Change: Foreign Nationals, 

Candidates 

15This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 

16This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 
35 

Recommendation: Congress should define the extent to which foreign nationals may participate, if at 

all, in com1ection with elections to any political office. 

Explanation and Justification: This question has 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 form a separate segregated fund 

(SSF) provided foreign nationals neither contribute to 

the SSF nor control the SSF's expenditures. At the 

same time, the Commission has, in another Advisory 

Opinion, interpreted the Act to mean that a foreign 

national may not volunteer his services to a campaign. The standard under section 441e bars contributions by a foreign national that are "in connection 

with" (rather than "for the purpose of 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. 

Since this is a provision which relates to State and 

local as well as Federal elections, its clarification 

would aid many candidates and political committees. 

Acceptance of Cash Contributions17 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441g 

Beneficiary of Change: Committees, Commission 

Recommendation: Congress may wish to modify the 

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

concerning cash contributions, consistent with other 

provisions of the Act. As currently drafted, 2 U.S.C. 

§441 g prohibits only the making of cash contributions which, in the aggregate, exceed $100 per candidate, per election. It does not address the issue of 

accepting cash contributions in excess of $100 per 

candidate, per election. 

Explanation and Justification: Currently this provision focuses only on persons making the cash contributions. However, these cases generally come to 

light when a committee has accepted these funds. 

Yet the Commission has no recourse to the committee in such cases. This can be a problem, particularly where primary matching funds are received on the 

basis of such contributions. 

While the Commission, in its regulations at 11 

CFR 11 0.4(c)(2), has included a provision requiring 

a committee receiving such a cash contribution to 

promptly return the excess over $1 00, the statute 

does not explicitly make acceptance of these cash 

contributions a violation. The other sections of the 

Act dealing with prohibited contributions {i.e., sections 441b on corporate and labor union contributions, 441 c on contributions by government contractors, 441 e on contributions by foreign nationals, and 

441f on contributions in the name of another) all prohibit both the making and accepting of such 

contributions. 

Fraudulent Misrepresentation 

Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds18 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 h 

Beneficiary of Change: Political Candidates, Parties, 

Contributors 

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 

17This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 

18This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 
36 

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 never forwarded to or used by or on behalf of the candidate or party. 

Explanation and Justification: The Commission has 

received a number of complaints charging that .substantial amounts of money were raised fraudulently 

by persons or committees purporting to act on behalf 

of candidates. Candidates have complained that 

contributions which people believed were going for 

the benefit of the candidate were diverted for other 

purposes. Both the candidates and the contributors 

were harmed by such diversion. The candidates received less money because people desirous of 

contributing believed they had already done so, and 

the contributors' funds had been misused in a manner in which they did not intend. The Commission 

has been unable to take any action on these matters 

because the statute gives it no authority in this area. 

Honoraria 

Technical Amendment19 

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

Beneficiary of Change: Federal Officers and Employees, Officeholders, Commission 

Recommendation: The Commission offers two suggestions concerning .honoraria. 

1. The entire provision concerning honoraria 

should be placed under the Ethics in Government Act. 

2. As technical amendments, Sections (c) and (d), 

which pertain to the annual limit on receiving 

honoraria (now repealed), should be repealed. 

Additionally, 2 U.S.C. §431 (B)(B)(xiv), which refers to the definition of honorarium in Section 

441 i, should be modified to contain the definition itself. 

Explanation and Justification: 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. 

Corporate/Labor Activity 

One-Year Limit on Corporate Approval 

of Trade Association Solicitations2o 

Section: 2 U.S. C. §441 b(b)(4)(D) 

Beneficiary of Change: Trade Associations 

Recommendation: The one-year limit on corporate 

approval of solicitations by trade associations should 

be removed. 

Explanation and Justification: Trade association po· 

litical action committees must annually obtain the 

separate and specific approval of each member corporation to solicit their executive and administrative 

personnel. Some trade associations have thousands 

of members, and it is a considerable burden to obtain approval to solicit every year. The one-year limitation should be removed, permitting the trade association to solicit until the corporation revokes its 

approval. 

19This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 

20This recommendation reiterates one of the legislative recommendations submitted to Congress and the President in 1981 

and published in the Commission's 1980 Annual Report. It was 

again included in the legislative recommendations submitted to 

Congress and the President on May 26, 1982. It is repeated because this area is a continuing problem. 
37 

Commission Information Services 

Budget Reimbursement Fund21 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §438 

Beneficiary of Change: Public, Commission 

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 and Justification: At the present time, 

copies of reports, microfilm, and computer tapes are 

sold to the public at the Commission's cost. However instead of the funds being used to reimburse 

the Commission for its expenses in producing the 

materials, they are credited to the U.S. Treasury. 

The effect on the Commission of selling materials is 

thus the same as if the materials had been given 

away. The Commission absorbs the entire cost. In 

FY 1980, in return for services and materials it offered the public, the FEC collected and transferred 

$37,343.73 in miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury. In FY 1981, the amount was $57,544.37, and for 

the first six months of FY 1982, $27,1 00.23 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 National Technical Information Service. Approximately $15,000 was collected in FY 1981 by GPO 

and NTIS on account of sa'les of Clearinghouse 

documents. 

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

21This recommendation was also included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President on 

May 26, 1982. 
39 Chapter 4 

The Commission 

Commissioners, 

On January 7, 1982, the Commission elected Frank 

P. Reiche as Chairman and Danny Lee McDonald as 

Vice Chairman. Both served one-year terms as 

officers. 

The election of new officers for 1982, originally 

scheduled for December 17, 1981, had been delayed because, that same day, President Reagan 

named three Commissioners to recess appointments: Joan D. Aikens, Lee Ann Elliott and Danny 

Lee McDonald. (Congress was in recess at the time 

of the appointments.) In June 1982, the Senate 

Rules Committee held confirmation hearings on the 

new appointments, and the nominations were confirmed by the full Senate in July. 

On August 3, 1982, the three Commission members were sworn into office by Associate Justice 

Sylvia Bacon of the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia. 

The Commission elected officers for 1983 on December 16, 1982. Danny Lee McDonald was elected 

Chairman and Lee Ann Elliott Vice Chairman. Both 

began serving one-year terms on January 1, 1983. 

Budget 

Fiscal Year 19822 

Through a series of continuing resolutions, Congress 

appropriated $8,990,400 for the Commission in fiscal 

year 1982. Later, in September 1982, Congress approved a supplemental appropriation of $184,000 to 

cover 50 percent of the October 1981 pay raise. 

Thus, total funding amounted to $9,174,400, some 

$2 million less than originally requested. 

Because the Commission received its funding at 

intervals and received its salary supplemental appropriation at the end of the fiscal year, it could not be 

assured of the timing or total amount of its appropria1Biographical sketches of the Commissioners appear in Appendix 1. 2See also Appendix 4. 
40 

tion in fiscal year 1982. It therefore adopted a policy 

of extreme fiscal restraint.The Commission postponed, for example, major acquisitions, replacements for wornout equipment and regional campaign 

finance seminars. 

Complementing these controls on nonpersonnel 

costs, the Commission maintained a partial hiring 

freeze, with the result that it reduced staff from a total of 241 full-time equivalent positions in fiscal year 

1980, the peak year for staffing, to 214 in fiscal year 

1982. Another factor contributing to reduced staff 

costs was the cutback in the Audit Division, motivated not only by the need to conserve funds but 

also by the recognition that, due to legislative 

changes adopted in 1979, the audit program no longer required the staffing it had in earlier years. Under 

the 1979 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), the Commission was no longer 

authorized to conduct random audits, as it had during previous elections. Instead, Congress legislated 

a system whereby the Commission would audit selected committees whose reports failed to meet 

threshold requirements for substantial compliance 

with the Act.3 (See 2 U.S.C. Section 438(b}.) Implementing this new system in 1981, the Commission 

established criteria for determining which reports 

were not in substantial compliance with the law. 

These audit selection criteria resulted in far fewer 

audits than had been conducted in previous election 

cycles, when audits were performed on a random 

basis. Responding to its reduced workload, the Commission decided in December 1981 to carry out a reduction in force (RIF) in the Audit Division and eliminated 16 of the existing 32 positions in April 1982. 

The Commission's budget was further strained 

when, in September 1982, the agency discovered 

that an employee had diverted over $500,000 in 

Commission funds for his own private use. While the 

Commission recovered some of these funds, it lost 

the use of approximately $353,000, which had not 

yet been obligated at the time the theft was discovered. The Commission was able to withstand the 

loss, however, without having to furlough any staff, 

because it had maintained stringent controls over 

nonpersonnel costs and because the staff vacancy 

rate had remained at 5.5 percent between May 20 

and September 30, 1982. 

In terms of output, productivity of Commission operations increased considerably in two areas: the 

coding and entry of data and the review of reports. 

Staff costs for Pass I coding and Pass I entry4 decreased by 23 percent and 39 percent, respectively. 

Costs for Pass Ill coding ran 21 percent below fiscal 

year 1981, while Pass Ill entry was 18 percent less. 

The Commission coded 18 percent more documents 

than it had in fiscal year 1981; the cost per document 

declined by 33 percent. 

Two factors explain this improvement. First, the 

Commission reduced the type and amount of campaign finance information entered into the computer 

data base. Second, the data coding and entry function was transferred from the Reports Analysis Division to the Data Systems Development Division. 

(Data entry was transferred in fiscal year 1981, and 

data coding in fiscal year 1982.) The reorganization 

allowed the Data Division to oversee and integrate 

all the processes involved in generating data for the 

public record. 

For the combined fiscal years 1981 and 1982, the 

reports review function showed almost a 1oo percent 

increase in productivity over 1980, attributable in 

large measure to a comprehensive reports review 

policy, adopted in 1981 and revised in 1982 (see 

page 13). 

Fiscal Year 1983 

During four Congressional hearings held in late April 

and early May 1982, the Commission requested 

3The Commission is also empowered to audit for cause, as 

the result of a compliance action (2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(2)), 

and to conduct mandatory audits of Presidential primary, general election and convention committees which receive public 

funds. 

4Computer coding and entry of campaign finance information occurs in two phases. In the first phase, Pass I, summary 

information is coded and entered into the computer. During the 

second phase, Pass Ill, itemized information is coded and 

entered. 
41 

funding for fiscal year 1983 that would allow the 

agency to complete the administration of the 1982 

elections and to prepare for the 1984 Presidential 

elections. Commission Chairman Frank P. Reiche, 

Vice Chairman Danny Lee McDonald and Commis~ 

sioner Joan D. Aikens presented budget testimony 

before the House Committee on Appropriations' Sub~ 

committee on Treasury, Postal Service and General 

Government; the Senate Committee on Rules and 

Administration; the Task Force on Elections of the 

Committee on House Administration; and the Senate 

Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on 

Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. 

In their testimony, the Commissioners stated that the 

FEC's $9,880,000 budget request for fiscal year 

1983 represented the amount the Reagan adminis~ 

tration had requested for the Commission in the 

Presidential budget for that year. This amount was 

$666,000 less than the request the Commission had 

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

on September 1, 1981. 

The Commissioners testified that, when adjusted 

for inflation, the agency's fiscal year 1983 budget re~ 

quest represented approximately the same level of 

funding as that used to administer the election law in 

1973 ($4.7 million), the year before the Commission 

was established. At that time, there were no advisory 

opinions and enforcement and disclosure programs 

were more limited in scope. 

The Budget Process 

On December 14, 1982, the Commission approved 

Directive No. 46, which formalized the current budgeting system used by the agency, with minor modi~ 

fications. In addition to identifying the organizational 

structures responsible for budget preparation and 

management, the Directive described in detail the 

entire process of planning and executing the FEC 

budget. It discussed, for example, budget planning, 

budget submission to Congress and the Office of 

Management and Budget, the Management Plan 

(which allocates actual spending among programs) 

and the Management Information System (which re~ 

ports on both the dollars and hours spent on different 

programs). 

Personnel and Labor Relations 

With the assistance of a Federal mediator, negotiators for the Commission and the National Treasury 

Employees Union, Chapter 204, reached agreement 

on a new contract covering bargaining unit employees of the Commission. The new three~year contract 

became effective on June 21 , 1982. 

With union negotiations completed, the Commis~ 

sion focused its attention on evaluating personnel 

policies and procedures for nonbargaining unit staff 

and developing internal regulatory guidance covering 

such staff. 
Appendix 43 1 

Biographical Data on 

Commissioners and 

Statutory Officers 

Commissioners 

Frank P. Reiche, Chairman 

April 30, 19851 

Before his appointment to the Commission in July 

1979, Mr. Reiche served as chairman of the first 

New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission 

for six years. Prior to that, Mr. Reiche served in a variety of Republican party positions, including· eight 

years as a Republican county committeeman. As an 

attorney specializing in tax law, Mr. Reiche graduated from Columbia University Law School in 1959 

and received a Master of Laws degree in taxation 

from New York University in 1966. Prior to that, he 

received his A.B. from Williams College in 1951 and 

a Masters Degree in Foreign Affairs from George 

Washington University in 1959. He also served as a 

member of New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill's 

blue ribbon Tax Policy Committee from 1970 to 

1972. Mr. Reiche was a partner in the Princeton law 

firm of Smith, Stratton, Wise and Heher from 1964 

until his appointment to the Commission. 

Danny Lee McDonald, Vice Chairman 

April 30, 1987 

Before his appointment to the Commission in December 1981, Mr. McDonald served as general administrator of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. In this position, assumed in 1979, he was 

responsible for the management of 1 0 regulatory divisions. He was secretary of the Tulsa County Election Board from 1974 to 1979 and served as chief 

clerk of the board in 1973. He has also served as a 

member of the Advisory Panel to the FEC's National 

Clearinghouse on Election Administration. A native 

of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, Mr. McDonald holds a 

B.A. from Oklahoma State University and attended 

the John F. Kennedy School of Government at 

Harvard University. In December 1982, he was 

elected to serve as Commission Chairman during 

1983. 

1Term expiration date. 
44 

Joan D. Aikens 

April 30, 1983 

Mrs. Aikens served as Commission Chairman between May 1978 and May 1979. She was formerly 

vice president of Lew Hodges/Communications, a 

public relations firm located in Valley Forge, 

Pennsylvania. From 1972 until 1974, she was president of the Pennsylvania Council of Republican 

Women and served on the board of directors of the 

National Federation of Republican Women. A native 

of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Mrs. Aikens has 

been active in a variety of volunteer organizations. 

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

degree from Ursinus College, Collegeville, 

Pennsylvania. 

Commissioner Aikens' original appointment to the 

Commission in 1975 was for a one-year term. She 

was reappointed for five years when the FEC was 

reconstituted and, when that term expired in April 

1981, continued to serve until receiving a recess appointment from President Reagan. On December 17, 

1981 , the President named Mrs. Aikens to complete 

the term of former Commissioner Max Friedersdorf, 

who resigned in December 1980. (During 1981, 

Commissioner Vernon Thomson, serving as an interim appointee, had held Mr. Friedersdorf's seat.) 

Lee Ann Elliott 

April 30, 1987 

Before her appointment to the Commission in December 1981, Mrs. Elliott served as vice president of 

Bishop, Bryant & Associates, Inc., of Washington, 

D.C. From 1970 to 1979, Mrs. Elliott was associate 

executive director of the American Medical Political 

Action Committee, having served as assistant director from 1961 to 1970. Mrs. Elliott also served 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 a member of the Public Affairs Committee of the 

Chamber of Commerce of the United States. In 

1979, she received the Award for Excellence in 

Serving Corporate Public Affairs from the National 

Association of Manufacturers. Mrs. Elliott, a native of 

St. Louis, Missouri, holds a B.A. from the University 

of Illinois and completed the Medical Association 

Management Executives Program at Northwestern 

University. In December 1982, Mrs. Elliott was 

elected to serve as Commission Vice Chairman during 1983. 

Thomas E. Harris 

April 30, 1985 

Mr. Harris was Commission Chairman between May 

1977 and May 1978. Before serving on the Commission, he was associate general counsel to the AFLCIO in Washington, D.C., from 1955 to 1975. He had 

held the same position with the CIO from 1948 until it 

merged with the AFL in 1955. Prior to that, he was 

an attorney in private practice and with various government agencies. A native of Little Rock and a 1932 

graduate of the University of Arkansas, Mr. Harris is 

a 1935 graduate of Columbia University Law School. 

After graduation, he clerked one year for Supreme 

Court Justice Harlan F. Stone. 

Mr. Harris was originally appointed to the Commission for a four-year term and upon reconstitution received a three-year appointment. In 1979, President 

Carter reappointed him and, on June 19, 1979, the 

U.S. Senate reconfirmed Mr. Harris for a six-year 

term. 

John Warren McGarry 

April 30, 1983 

Mr. McGarry, a native of Massachusetts, graduated 

cum laude from Holy Cross College in 1952. He subsequently did graduate work at Boston University 

and obtained a Juris Doctor degree from 

Georgetown Law Center in 1956. Mr. McGarry 

served as assistant attorney general of Massachusetts from 1959 through 1962. In that capacity he 

served as both trial counsel and appellate advocate. 

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 his appointment to 

the Commission on October 25, 1978, Mr. McGarry 
45 

served as special counsel on elections to the Committee on House Administration of the U.S. Congress. In 1980, he was elected to serve as Chairman 

of the Commission during 1981. 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr.2 

Mr. Henshaw, an Ex Officio Member of the Commission, was elected Clerk of the House of Representatives on December 17, 1975. Prior to that, he served 

as executive director of the Democratic National 

Congressional Campaign Committee from 1972 to 

1975, and as research director of the Democratic 

National Congressional Campaign Committee from 

1955 to 1972. He received a B.S. degree from the 

University of Maryland in 1954 and attended George 

Washington University Law School from 1955 to 

1956. 

Douglas Patton, attorney, continued to serve as 

Special Deputy to the Clerk of the House at the 

Commission. 

William F. Hildenbrand 

Mr. Hildenbrand, an Ex Officio Member of the Commission, was elected Secretary of the Senate in January 1981, after serving as Secretary for the Minority 

since 1974. A native of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, IVIr. 

Hildenbrand began his government service in 1957 

as assistant to Congressman Harry G. Haskell, Jr. 

From 1959 to 1960, he served as Congressional liaison officer for the former Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He then became legislative assistant to Senator J. Caleb Boggs of Delaware. From 

1969 to 1974, he served as administrative assistant 

to Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, the former 

Senate Republican Minority Leader. 

Thomas J. Josefiak, attorney, continued to serve 

as Special Deputy to the Secretary of the Senate at 

the Commission. 

2Benjamin J. Guthrie succeeded Mr. Henshaw on January 

3? 1983. 

Statutory Officers 

B. Allen Clutter, Ill, Staff Director 

Before joining the Commission, Mr. Clutter was the 

executive director of the Minnesota Ethical Practices 

Board and also served as faculty member of the 

Hamline University Law School. Prior to this, Mr. 

Clutter was an assistant professor at the U.S. Air 

Force Academy and served with the Air Force administrative units in Thailand and California. He also 

worked with the World Press Institute of Macalester 

College in St. Paul, Minnesota. A native of 

Oskaloosa, Iowa, he received a graduate degree in 

geography from Eastern Michigan University and attended business administration courses at the University of Colorado. Mr. Clutter was listed among the 

Outstanding Young Men in America in 1978. 

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel 

Mr. Steele became General Counsel in December 

1979, after serving as acting General Counsel during 

November 1979. Before this, he was Associate General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation from 

April 1977 through October 1979. Mr. Steele received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1960 and an 

LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1965. Prior to 

joining the Commission in January 1976, Mr. Steele 

was a staff attorney with the appellate court branch 

of the National Labor Relations Board. 
Advisory 

Opinions 

Enforcement 

Litigation 

Regulations 

The Commissioners 

Frank P. Reiche, Chairman 

Danny Lee McDonald, Vice Chairman* 

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner 

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner** 

Thomas E. Harris, Commissioner 

John Warren McGarry, Commissioner 

William F. Hildenbrand, Ex Officio/Senate 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., Ex Officio/House*** 

I 

General Counsel Staff Director -

Deputy Staff 

Director for 

Management 

-

-

Administration ._ 

Data Systems 

Development 

- Audit 

- Information 

Public 

- Disclosure 

_ Reports 

~ 

Analysis 

Commission 

Secretary 

Congressional 

and Intergovernmental Affairs 

Personnel and 

Labor/Management Relations 

47 Appendix 2 

FEC Organization Chart 

*Commissioner McDonald was elected to serve a one-year term as Commission Chairman beginning January 1, 1983. 

**Commissioner Elliott was elected to serve a one-year term as Commission Vice Chairman beginning January 1, 1983. 

***Benjamin J. Guthrie succeeded Mr. Henshaw on January 3, 1983. 
Appendix 49 3 

Chronology of Events, 1982 

January 

4-Commission makes available microfilmed 

cartridges containing all agenda items discussed in open meeting from 1975-1980. 

7-Commission elects Frank P. Reiche as its 

new Chairman and Danny Lee McDonald as 

its new Vice Chairman. 

17-Commission releases updated figures on the 

growth of political action committees (PACs). 

19-Supreme Court, in a 4-to-4 vote, leaves 

standing a district court ruling in FEC v. 

Americans for Change, a case concerning 

limits on independent expenditures made on 

behalf of publicly funded Presidential candidates in the general election. 

21-Commission approves revisions to its policy 

for notifying committees of their reporting obligations (nonfiter policy). 

31-1981 year-end report due. 

February 

1-Commission issues updated edition of its cumulative Index to Advisory Opinions. 

10-District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issues consent order in FEC v. Committee for Better Government and Densmore 

Sales and Service, Inc., in which the defendant committee and its connected organization 

acknowledged that they had respectively 

made and accepted prohibited contributions. 

21-Commission releases FEC 1979-80 Reports 

on Financial Activity, Final Report, Party and 

Non-Party Political Committees. 

March 

7-Commission releases FEC 1979-80 Reports 

on Financial Activity, Final Report, U.S. Senate and House Campaigns. 

8-Supreme Court rules that plaintiffs in Bread 

PAC v. FEC lacked standing to bring suit and 

remands the case to the appeals court without ruling on the constitutional issues 

involved. 

11-District Court for the Southern District of New 

York grants preliminary injunction to plaintiffs 
50 

in Dolbeare v. FEC, in which plaintiffs challenged FEC investigations of the 1980 Presidential primary campaign of Lyndon 

LaRouche. 

16-Commission makes available computer tapes 

covering 1979-80 campaign finance information corresponding to printed volumes in the 

1979-80 Reports on Financial Activity series. 

April 

2-Commission holds first all~day campaign finance seminar in Washington, D.C., for 

House and Senate candidates. 

a-Commission prescribes technical amendments to its regulations on honoraria, conforming with Congress' repeal of the annual 

honoraria limit. 

15-First quarterly report due. 

23-Commission holds second all-day campaign 

finance seminar in Washington, D.C., for 

House and Senate candidates. 

26-Commission holds third all-day campaign finance seminar in Washington, D.C., for 

House and Senate candidates. 

May 

1-Commission publishes its new Campaign 

Guide for Corporations and Labor 

Organizations. 

5-Commission approves Agenda Document 

82-72, clarifying the law's requirements for 

expenditures by party committees. 

6-Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

upholds earlier ruling in FEC v. Hall-Tyner 

Campaign Committee that the law's 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as 

applied to the Committee, would abridge First 

Amendment constitutional rights of Committee supporters. (The Committee was the principal campaign committee for the 1976 Presidential nominees of the Communist Party, 

U.S.A.) 

28-Commission submits its 1981 recommendations for legislative change to the President 

and Congress. 

June 

1-Commission submits its 1981 Annual Report 

to the President and Congress. 

-Commission makes available The 1971 Legislative History of the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

-Commission issues updated edition of its cumulative Index to Advisory Opinions. 

21-Contract between Chapter 204 of the National Treasury Employees Union and FEC management becomes effective. 

23-Commission releases preliminary figures on 

independent expenditures for the 1981-82 

election cycle. 

25-Commission releases preliminary figures on 

the 1981-82 financial activity of national party 

committees. 

30-Commission releases preliminary figures on 

the 1981-82 financial activity of political action committees (PACs). 

July 

1-Commission issues updated edition of the 

Campaign Finance and Federal Elections 

Bibliography. 

12-Commission releases updated figures on the 

growth of political action committees (PACs). 

15-Second quarterly report due. 

22-Commission approves revisions to its procedures for reviewing debt settlement 

statements. 

31-Semiannual report due for committees not active in the election year. 

August 

2-Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 

overrules district court decision in FEC v. 

Florida for Kennedy Committee and holds 

that the FEC lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

over "draft committees." 

3-Commissioners Joan D. Aikens, Lee Ann 

Elliott and Danny Lee McDonald are sworn 

into office as Senate-confirmed Commissioners after having served six months as recess 

appointees. 
51 

5-Commission releases updated figures on the 

1981-82 financial activity of political action 

committees (PACs). 

30-Commission releases updated figures on the 

1981-82 financial activity of national party 

committees. 

-Commission makes available microfilm reels 

containing 1975-1981 advisory opinion requests and advisory opinions. 

September 

27-District Court for the District of Minnesota resolves claims brought by the Commission 

against defendants in FEC v. Robert Earl 

Short. 

October 

3-Commission releases FEC 1981-82 Reports 

on Financial Activity, Interim Report No. 2: 

Party and Non-Party Political Committees. 

6-Commission releases FEC 1981-82 Reports 

on Financial Activity, Interim Report No. 1: 

U.S. Senate and House Campaigns. 

15-Third quarterly report due. 

21-Pre-general election report due. 

November 

2-Eiection day. 

8-Supreme Court affirms appeals court decision 

in /AM v. FEC that had rejected constitutional 

challenges to the law's corporate solicitation 

provisions brought by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. 

December 

1-Commission publishes new brochure series, 

covering ten different topics, and the revised 

Campaign Guide tor Congressional Candidates and Committees. 

2-Post-general election report due. 

7-Commission holds hearings on possible revisions to the Presidential primary matching 

fund regulations. 

13-Supreme Court overturns appeals court decision in FEC v. NRWC and rules that the National Right to Work Committee violated the 

law by soliciting contributions from 

nonmembers. 

16-Commission elects Danny Lee McDonald as 

its new Chairman and Lee Ann Elliott as its 

new Vice Chairman, effective January 1983. 
53 Appendix 4 

The FEC's Budget 

The table and graph below compare budget allocations, by function and division, for fiscal years 1981 

and 1982. In fiscal year 1981, the Commission's 

funding totaled $9.662 million.The Commission operated during the entire fiscal year under a continuing 

resolution of $9.283 million and received a supplemental appropriation of $379,000 to compensate for 

the October 1980 cost-of-living salary increase. In 

fiscal year 1982, the Commission's total funding 

amounted to $9.174 million, provided through a 

series of continuing resolutions totaling $8.990 million plus a supplemental appropriation of $184,000 

to cover 50 percent of the October 1981 cost-ofliving salary increase. The table below compares 

functional categories of expenditures for fiscal years 

1981 and 1982. The graph below compares the 

budget allocations among Commission divisions for 

fiscal years 1981 and 1982. 

FEC Budget 

Functional Allocation 

FV 81 FY 82 

Personnel Compensation, 

Including Benefits 

Travel 

Transportation and Motor 

Pool 

Commercial Space 

Equipment Rental 

Printing 

Contracts 

Adminisrative Expenses 

Supplies 

Library Materials 

Telephone, Telegraph 

Postage 

Space rental 

Equipment purchases 

Training 

GSA, Services, Other 

$ 6,983,704 

94,462 

10,036 

13,710 

175,534 

314,964 

910,513 

55,281 

129,253 

40,464 

166,819 

81,999 

366,806 

233,816 

38,881 

38,001 

$ 6,845,222 

44,021 

5,459 

10,982 

156,579 

180,441 

438,199 

53,538 

94,928 

32,312 

161 '148 

76,360 

572,171 

51,452 

4,829 

446,759 

Total $ 9,654,243* $ 9,174,400 

•unexpended funds were returned to the U.S. Treasury. 
54 

Percent of 

Total Budget 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Divisional Allocation 

• 

Commissioners 

FY'81 

Staff 

Director 

Office of 

General 

Counsel 

Administration* 

Audit Clearinghouse 

Data 

Systems 

Development 

Information Public 

Disclosure 

Reports 

Analysis 

DFY'82 

*Administration budget includes rent, supplies, reproduction services, etc., for the entire Commission. 
Summary of Disclosure Files 

Total Filers 

Existing 

In 1982 

Filers

Terminated 

as of 

12/31/82 

Filers 

Waived 

as of 

12/31/82 

Presidential 

Candidates 

Committees 

161 

195 

136 

56 

1 

0 

Senate 

Candidates 

Committees 

660 

667 

385 

246 

2 

0 

House 

Candidates 

Committees 

3,092 

2,823 

1,847 

1,031 

3 

0 

Party 613 292 0 

National Level Committees 53 21 0 

State Level Committees 215 93 0 

Local Level Committees 339 175 0 

Convention Committees 6 3 0 

Delegates 24 19 5 

Nonparty 3,705 333 0 

Labor Committees 419 39 0 

Corporate Committees 1,554 87 0 

Membership, Trade & 

Other Committees 1,732 208 0 

Communication Cost 

Fliers 

68 NIA NIA 

Independent Expenditures 

by Persons Other Than 

Political Committees 128 N/A N/A 

Appendix 5 

Statistics on Commission 

Operations 

55 

Continuing 

Filers 

as of 

12/31/82 

Number of 

Reports and 

Statements 

In 1982 

Gross Receipts

In 1982 

Gross 

Expenditures 

In 1982 

597 $ 1,809,437 $ 2,391,338 

24 

139 

4,007 $120,290,426 $130,469,686 

273 

421 

22,858 $183,088,870 $186,399,164 

1,242 

1,792 

321 3,533 $243,562,397 $289,878,523 

32 

122 

164 

3 

-

36 33 $ 0 $ 0 

3,371 34,464 $119,980,855 $138,692,243 

380 

1,467 

1,524 

NIA 111 NIA $ 1,215,449 

N/A 238 N/A $ 287,008 
56 

Divisional Statistics* 

Reports Analysis Division 

Documents processed 35,969 

Reports reviewed 24,826 

Requests for additional information 

Names of candidate committees published 

3,542 

for failure to file reports 

Compliance matters referred to the Office 

30 

of General Counsel or Audit Division 71 

Data Systems Development Division 

Documents receiving Pass I** coding 43,218 

Documents receiving Pass Ill** coding 19,771 

Documents receiving Pass I entry 45,133 

Documents receiving Pass Ill entry 14,467 

Transactions receiving Pass Ill entry*** 231,747 

Audits Completed by Audit Division, 

1975-1982 

Presidential 44 

Presidential Joint Fundraising 6 

Senate 11 

House 99 

Party (National) 36 

Party (Other) 83 

Nonparty 47 

Total 326 

*Figures represent fiscal year, rather than calendar 

year, totals. 

**Computer coding and entry of campaign finance information occurs in two phases. In the first phase, Pass I, summary information, including microfilm location, total receipts and total disbursements, is coded and entered into the computer 

within 48 hours of the Commission's receipt of the report. During 

the second phase, Pass Ill, itemized information is coded and 

entered. 

***Pass Ill transactions are itemized transactions including contributions of $500 or more by individuals, as well as 

conributions, transfers and expenditures of any amount by 

various committees and other filers. 

Public Records Office 

Campaign finance material made available 

to the public (total pages) 

Responses to requests for campaign 

400,000 

finance reports 

Responses to other requests for 

8,149 

information 10,138 

Visitors served 7,874 

Total people served 

Total income (transmitted to U.S. 

26,162 

Treasurer) 

Comulative total pages of documents 

$51,363 

available for review 4,100,000 

Information Services Division 

Telephone inquiries 47,654 

General information letters 179 

Distribution of FEC materials 

Prior notices (sent to inform filers 

13,454 

of reporting deadlines) 30,224 

Visitors 

Public appearances by Commissioners 

184 

and FEC staff 55 

Press releases 136 

Telephone inquiries from press 8,618 

Visitors to press office 787 

Freedom of Information Act requests 102 

Number of publications 

Assistance to Secretaries of State (State 

28 

election offices) 

Notices of failure to file with State 

2,332 

election offices 451 

Clearinghouse on Election 

Administration 

Telephone inquiries 1,690 

Information letters 562 

Visitors 53 

Workshops 9 
57 

Office of General Counsel* 

Fiscal Year 1982 

Advisory Opinions 

Requests pending at beginning of 

FV 82 14 

Requests received in FY 82 69 

Issued, closed or withdrawn in FY 82 78** 

Pending at end of FY 82 5 

Compliance Cases*** 

Pending at beginning of FY 82 96 

Opened during FY 82 95 

Closed during FY 82 111 

Pending at close of FY 82 80 

Litigation 

Pending at beginning of FY 82 36**** 

Opened during FY 82 8 

Closed during FY 82 23 

Pending at close of FY 82 21 

Number of cases won 15 

Number of cases lost 3 

Voluntary dismissals 5 

Dismissed as moot 0 

Law Library 

Telephone inquiries 

Visitors served 

1,982 

740 

*Figures represent fiscal year, rather than calendar 

year, totals. 

**73 opinions were issued; 5 opinion requests were withdrawn or closed without issuance of an opinion. 

•• *Compliance cases, referred to as MURs (matters under 

review), stem from possible violations of the campaign finance 

law which come to the Commission's attention either through 

formal complaints filed with the Commission or as a result of the 

Commission's own internal monitoring procedures. The Federal 

Election Campaign Act requires that investigations remain confidential until the Commission makes a final determination and 

the case is closed. At that point, the case file (including the complaint, the findings of the General Counsel's Office and the 

Commission's action) is made available to the public. 

****This includes one case opened in FY 81 but not reflected in the corresponding appendix of the 1981 Annual Report. 
Appendix 59 6 

Computer Indexes 

The Public Records Office, using the Commission's 

computer system, produces printouts of the following 

major disclosure indexes: 

Committee Names and Addresses 

The B Index includes the name and address of each 

committee, the name of the treasurer, the committee 

ID number, the name of the connected organization 

(if any) and a notation if the committee is a "qualified" multicandidate committee. There is a separate 

list for PACs1 and party committees. Another listing 

arranges these committees in order by their State 

address. 

Candidate Names and Addresses 

The A Index is sorted by type of office sought (President, U.S. Senator, U.S. Reprsentative) and lists alphabetically each candidate who has something on 

file relating to him/her in the current election cycle. 

The printout includes the candidate ID number, candidate name and address, year of election and party 

affiliation. 

Current Election Candidate Names and 

Addresses 

The 415 Index is similar to the A Index (above), but 

lists only those candidates who have filed statements of candidacy for the current election cycle. 

Candidate Committees 

The Report 93 is a printout of Presidential, Senate 

and House candidates, which lists the candidates in 

alphabetical order and includes, for each candidate, 

the ID number, address and party designation. Also 

listed is the name, address, ID number and treasurer's name of the candidate's principal campaign 

committee and other authorized committees. 

1PAC is a popular term used to define any political committee that has not been auttlorized by a candidate or political 

party. The term includes a separate segregated fund connected 

to a corporation or labor organization as well as a political committee without any connected organization (i.e., without a corporate or labor sponsor). 
60 

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 those political committees which 

have qualified as multicandidate committees and are 

thus permitted to contribute higher amounts to Federal candidates. 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 which have registered in the current 

election cycle. It includes the date of registration, the 

committee name, ID number, address and the committee's connected organization, if any. 

Recently Registered Committees 

The NULIST, printed weekly, lists the name, ID number, address and connected organization, if any, of 

committees which have registered during the previous week. 

Names of PACs and Their Sponsors 

The 35c Committee/Sponsor Index lists in alphabetical order the names of committees 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 lists in alphabetical order 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 selected on their registration statement. Categories include Corporation, Labor Organization, Membership 

Organization, Trade Association, Cooperative and 

Corporation Without Capital Stock. The listing includes the name of the PAC, its ID number and the 

name of its connected organization. 

Committee Disclosure Documents 

The C Index includes, for each committee, its name, 

ID number, list of each document filed (name of report, period receipts, period disbursements, coverage dates, number of pages and microfilm location), 

total gross receipts and disbursements and number 

of pages. 

Committee Ranking by Gross Receipts or 

Expenditures 

The Report 933 provides a listing of the names of 

committees ranked in order of the highest gross receipts total. Note, however, that some committees 

report monthly and some quarterly, so totals may 

represent different time periods. 

Candidate Campaign Documents 

The E Index includes for a candidate the following: 

1. Candidate name, State/district, party affiliation 

and candidate ID number. 

2. Listing of all documents filed by the candidate 

(statement of candidacy, etc.). 

3. Listing of all documents filed by the principal 

campaign committee (report type, coverage 

dates, period receipts and disbursements, number of pages and microfilm location). 

4. Listing of all documents filed by other authorized committees of the candidate. 
61 

5. Listing of all PACs and party committees forwarding contributions to the candidate's principal campaign committee and other authorized 

committees, and the aggregate total of all such 

contributions given to date. The listing includes 

the name of the connected or sponsoring organization of a contributing PAC. This listing 

also identifies committees making expenditures 

on behalf of the candidate or party committees 

making coordinated party expenditures (Section 441a(d)), including the aggregate total 

spent to date. 

6. Listing of all persons and unauthorized single 

candidate committees filing reports indicating 

they made independent expenditures on behalf 

of the candidate. 

7. Listing of all persons and committees filing unauthorized delegate reports. 

8. Listing of all corporations and labor organizations filing reports of communication costs on 

behalf of the candidate. 

9. Listing of all unauthorized single candidate 

committees supporting or opposing a candidate. The listing also identifies the committee's 

receipts and disbursements for the report period covered. 

Presidential Candidates 

The H Index for Presidential campaigns is similar to 

the E Index (above), but lists party and PAC contributions as reported by the Presidential candidates' 

authorized campaign committees. 

Itemized Receipts and Disbursements 

The G Index identifies certain itemized receipt and 

disbursement transactions made by a committee, the 

report on which the transactions were disclosed and 

the microfilm location of the transactions. Three categories are represented: 

1. Individual contributions of $500 or more. 

2. Selected loan transactions. 

3. Transfers, contributions and disbursements 

among registered committees and other filers. 

Individual Contributors 

The Name Search capability permits a person to request a computer search for a specific last name in 

the national alphabetical listing of contributors. The 

printout lists all persons with that same last name, including full name, address, occupation, date of contribution, amount of contribution, to whom it was given and the microfilm location of the reported entry. 

There is a subsantial charge for this type of index. 

However, the national listing of contributors is periodically made available on microfilm in the Public 

Records Office. It is available for review at no 

charge. 

Committee Contributions to Candidates 

The D Index includes, for each committee, its name, 

ID number, name of connected organization, notation if it is "qualified" as a multicandidate committee, 

and a listing of all Federal candidates supported, together with total aggregate contributions to, or expenditures on behalf of or against, each candidate 

during a particular election cycle. In the case of party 

committees, coordinated party expenditures (Section 

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

expenditures. 

Dates of Specific Contributions/Expenditures 

The Detailed D Index itemizes the information on the 

D Index (above). It lists in chronological order each 

contribution and expenditure made on behalf of a 

Federal candidate, along with the date, amount and 

microfilm location of each reported transaction. It 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 out in one list identifying the total 

amount contributed to each candidate by the group 

of committees. 
62 

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 communication costs). 

These periodic indexes are available in the Public 

Records Office for inspection and copying. 
63 Appendix 7 

FEC Information Services 

Public Records Office 

• How much did Federal candidates spend in the 

last election? 

• How can I find out which individuals and committees contributed to a candidate? 

• How much money did a political committee 

(e.g., a PAC) give to a candidate? 

These are the types of questions fielded by the 

FEC's Public Records Office, which provides information on the campaign finance activities of political 

committees and candidates involved in Federal elections. Located on the street floor of the Federal Election Commission, the Public Records Office is open 

for public use weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and 

evenings and weekends during heavy reporting periods. The office is a library facility with ample work 

space and a knowledgeable staff to help locate documents. The FEC encourages the public to review 

the many documents which are available: 

• Reports and statements filed by Federal 

candidats and committees (1972-present)1 

• FEC Reports on Financial Activity and Disclosure Series (published indexes that consolidate 

and summarize data taken from financial disclosure reports) 

• Daily updated computer printouts of various 

FEC indexes, as available (see Appendix 6) 

• Advisory opinion requests and advisory 

opinions 

• Index to Advisory Opinions 

• Campaign Finance and Federal Elections 

Bibliography 

• MURs (closed compliance actions and index) 

• Audits (GAO 1972-74, FEC 1975-present) 

• Court cases 

• Information on contributions submitted by Presidential candidates to establish eligibility for primary matching funds 

• Presidential matching fund certifications 

1Anyone using such documents is reminded, however, of 

the election law's requirement that any information copied from 

reports and statements may not be sold or used for any commercial purpose, other than using the name and address of any 

political committee to solicit contributions from such a committee. 2 U.S.C. Section 438(a)(4). 
64 

• Presidential and Vice Presidential personal financial disclosure statements filed under the 

Ethics in Government Act 

• General information (newspaper articles, studies on campaign finance by other organizations, informational handouts) 

• Commission information (Commission memoranda, Commission meeting agendas and 

agenda items, minutes of meetings, directives, 

bulletins, certifications of closed meetings, general distribution memoranda) 

Those outside the Washington area may request 

documents by phone or mail. When identifying the 

documents you want, indicate the full name of the 

political committee reporting, the date or type of report or document desired, and your address and telephone number. The Commission charges 5 cents 

per page for copies from paper files and 1 0 cents per 

page for copies made from microfilm. 

Sometimes a preliminary phone call can help you 

pinpoint your request and thereby expedite the Commission's response. Call the Public Records Office at 

202/523-4181, or call toll free 800/424-9530. When 

calling the toll free number, please ask specifically 

for the Public Records Office. 

Public Communications 

• How much money may a PAC contribute to a 

Federal candidate? 

• Should a political committee, authorized by a 

Congressional candidate, file its termination report with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or with the candidate's principal campaign 

committee? 

• When does our committee have to file its next 

report? 

• May an employee's immediate supervisor solicit 

the employee for political contributions to the 

company's PAC? 

. These questions are among the many the Commission receives daily on its toll free (800) phone line. 

Five information specialists, located in the Public 

Communications Office, respond to such questions 

immediately. The information specialists are not attorneys and cannot, by law, give opinions of an advisory nature.2 They can, however, help candidates 

and political committees understand, and voluntarily 

comply with, the Federal election law. They also assist others who are interested or involved in Federal 

elections. For example, information specialists will: 

• Explain and clarify FEC advisory opinions, regulations and procedures (e.g., procedures for 

filing a complaint with the FEC or for registering 

a political committee); 

• Recommend appropriate publications and reporting forms; 

• Research advisery opinions and statutory and 

regulatory provisions relevant to a specific 

question; and 

• Refer callers to the appropriate agency when 

the requests pertain to topics outside the Commission's jurisdiction (e.g., tax issues, ballot 

questions or vote issues). 

Information specialists also supply this same kind of 

information in letters responding to written inquiries. 

In addition, they accept public speaking 

engagements; participate in seminars on campaign 

finance and the election law that are sponsored by 

the FEC and other organizations; and speak informally to groups visiting the Commission. 

The Public Communications Office is open to the 

public weekdays from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. The office 

may be contacted by writing the FEC at 1325 K 

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or by calling 

202/523-4068 or toll free 800/424-9530. 

Advisory Opinions 

For questions relating to the application of the law to 

a specific, factual situation, any person may request 

an advisory opinion in writing. The Commission issues an advisory opinion once it has been approved 

2Commission staff may not grant approval or disapproval of 

a specific campaign activity. Individuals seeking FEC sanction 

for a specific activity must request an advisory opinion from the 

Commission. See 11 CFR Part 112. 
65 

by at least four Commissioners. Every advisory opinion is summarized in the Commission's newsletter, 

the Record, and copies of the request and opinions 

are available from the Public Records Office. When 

the person who requested the opinion acts in good 

faith in accordance with the advisory opinion, he or 

she is not subject to any penalties with regard to the 

activity in question. 2 U.S.C. Section 437f(c)(2). 

Publications 

The FEC's Publications Office produces materials to 

help candidates, political committees and other interested individuals understand and comply with the 

election law. Free copies of the publications listed 

below may be obtained by contacting the Public 

Communications Office at 202/523-4068 or toll free 

800/424-9530. 

• Federal Election Campaign Act 

• FEC Regulations 

• Registration Forms 

• Reporting Forms 

• Record, a monthly newsletter 

• Annual Report 

• Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees 

• Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor 

Organizations 

• Campaign Guide for Party Committees 

• House and Senate Bookkeeping Manual 

• Brochure Series: 

Advisory Opinions 

Candidate Registration 

Contributions 

Corporate/Labor Communications 

Corporate/Labor Facilities 

Independent Expenditures 

Local Party Activity 

Political Ads and Solicitations 

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance 

Law 

Using FEC Campaign Finance Information 

Volunteer Activity ' 

Reports Analysis Division 

The Reports Analysis Division (RAD) reviews the 

campaign finance reports filed by political committees and assists filers in complying with the election 

law's disclosure requirements. 

Each political committee registered with the FEC is 

assigned to one of approximately 30 reports analysts, who review committee reports and statements 

in order to detect reporting problems, monitor individual contribution limits and track those committees 

which fail to file reports. In reviewing a committee's 

reports, the reports analyst becomes familiar with reporting problems the committee may be having. An 

analyst notifies a committee of a reporting error or 

omission (or of an apparent violation of the election 

law detected in the report) by sending the committee 

a request for additional information (RFAI). A committee receiving such a request should contact the 

analyst identified in the letter by calling 

202/523-4048 or toll free 800/424-9530. Callers 

should ask to speak to a specific reports analyst or to 

RAD. 

Press Office 

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

Commission decisions, policies and actions, they respond to all inquiries from representatives of the 

print and broadcast media. More specifically, a staff 

of three: 

• Answers questions on all aspects of the Federal 

election law and Commission actions; 

• Answers questions about campaign finances, 

providing data taken from reports filed with the 

FEC by political committees; 

• Prepares statistics on campaign finance activity 

for public release; 

• Generates press releases on FEC-related 

activities; 

• Arranges interviews between the media and the 

Commissioners; and 

• Handles all requests under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Media representatives should direct their inquiries to 

the Press Office. The office, located on the street 
66 

floor of the Commission, is open weekdays from 9 

a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Press may contact the office at 

202/523-4065 or toll free 800/424-9530. When calling the toll free number, please ask specifically for 

the Press Office. 

Clearinghouse 

The FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration provides information to the public on the 

electoral process. The Clearinghouse also conducts 

regional seminars and publishes studies on ~lection 

administration. Clearinghouse reports on elect1on administration are available to the public at cost. See 

Appendix 8 for a list of Clearinghouse publications. 

For further information, contact the Clearinghouse at 

202/523-4183 or toll free 800/424-9530. When calling the toll free number, please ask specitically for 

the Clearinghouse. 

Commission Library 

The Commission law library, part of the Office of 

General Counsel, is open to the public. The colle~­

tion includes basic legal research tools plus matenals dealing with political campaign finance, corporate 

and labor political activity and campaign finance reform. The library staff prepares an Index to Advisory 

Opinions and a Campaign Finance and Federal 

Elections Bibliography, both available for purchase 

from the Public Records Office (see above). 

In addition to a general reference section that includes the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, the 

Commission's library contains the resources outlined 

below. 

Book Collection. The book collection contains 

election-related monographs and legal treatises with 

an emphasis on Federal civil procedures and administrative law and also includes legal research sets 

such as American Jurisprudence 2d and American 

Law Reports 2d, 3d and 4th. 

Periodical Collection. The collection includes: Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports, National J~urnal Reports, Harvard Law Review and Congresstonal Record. 

Journal Article File. The journal article file contains 

photocopies of pertinent law review articles and Library of Congress Congressional Research Service 

reports. 

Looseleaf Service. The two most important looseleaf 

services housed in the library are: 1) United States 

Law Week, which is published by the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) and includes recent Supreme 

Court and lower court decisions and 2) the Federal 

Election Campaign Finance Guide, published by 

Commerce Clearing House (CCH). The library also 

subscribes to the United States Federal Election 

Law (published by Oceana), Federal Regulation of 

Campaign Finance and Political Activity (published 

by Matthew Bender), Standard Federal Tax Reporter (CCH), Fair Employment Practice Service(BNA) 

and Corporation Law Guide (CCH). 

Code Section. This section contains major code materials required by the legal staff, including the 

United States Code; United States Code Annotated; 

United States Code Service; United States Congressional and Administrative News; Code of Federal 

Regulations; and Daily Federal Register. 

Reporter Section. The collection of law reporters includes the U.S. Supreme Court Reports (Official, 

West and Lawyers' Edition copies); Federal Reporter 2d; Supreme Court Digest (Lawyers' Edition); 

Federal Rules Decisions; Federal Supplement, U.S. 

App. D.C.; and the slip opinions of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

Federal Election Commission Documents. This section includes administrative material generated by 

the Commission and legislative material bearing on 

the establishment and metamorphasis of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (FECA). For example, the 

section includes legislative histories of the FECA and 

its amendments, transcripts of Commission hearings 

on regulations, and Federal Register notices. 
67 Appendix 8 

Clearinghouse Studies 

Listed below are Clearinghouse research projects; 

the publications-available at cost to the 

public-include both recent studies and the final 

products of past projects. 

Periodic Reports 

Because of budgetary constraints, the Commission 

discontinued publication of the following periodic reports: Election Law Updates and Election Case 

Law. 

The periodic report entitled Campaign Finance 

Law, although suspended for one, year, is scheduled 

to resume in 1983. This report summarizes campaign finance laws in each of the States and provides a convenient chart summary of State 

requirements. 

The Election Directory, suspended during 1981, 

resumed publication in 1982 as an in-house project 

The Directory lists names, addresses and telephone 

numbers of Federal and State election officials. 

Reports Issued in 1982 

In addition to the Election Directory, the Clearinghouse issued Education Programs in the Schools, 

the second volume of a series entitled Voter Information and Education Programs. The new publication suggests various ways in which election officials 

can develop, in cooperation with educators, good 

voter education programs in the schools. 

Reports Under Way in 1982 

Designing Effective Voter Information Programs, the 

first volume of the Voter Information and Education 

Programs series, suggests inexpensive but effective 

ways whereby election officials can convey essential 

registration and election information to the public. 

Maintaining Registration Files suggests techniques and procedures for maintaining a clean and 

accurate registration file of voters. 

Training Election Officials discusses effective, inexpensive methods for training all election workers 

as well as temporary office staff. 
68 

Previously Completed Reports 

The following publications, listed in previous annual 

reports, remain available. 

Statewide Registration Systems 1 & 2 is a report 

on computerized statewide voter registration systems. Volume I examines problems involved in implementing a statwide system and offers suggestions 

for overcoming them. Volume II describes in detail 

the forms, procedures, outputs and variations on the 

basic statewide computerized system. 

Contested Elections and Recounts is a threevolume analysis of the laws and procedures governing contested elections and recounts for Federal 

offices. Volume I examines those issues and functions within the Federal government's purview and 

makes recommendations for improving the handling 

of contested elections at the Federal level. Volume II 

examines State issues and options and makes recommendations for improving the State handling of 

such cases. Volume Ill summarizes laws related to 

contested elections in each of the States and at the 

Federal level. 

Ballot Access is a four-volume report on how candidates gain access to the ballot for Federal office in 

each of the States. Volume I identifies central administrative issues and problems and makes recommendations for improving the process. Volume II describes the administrative process in each State. 

Volume Ill details State legal memoranda and makes 

· recommendations for improving the legal process. 

Volume IV briefly summarizes ballot access requirements for Federal office in each State. 

MtJ.il Registration Systems discusses problems involved in implementing a mail registration system. In 

addition to a general description of how mail registration systems operate, the report offers practical suggestions for overcoming difficulties. 

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

other· than English. Volume I summarizes such services since 1975. Volume II provides a glossary of 

common election terms in English along with their 

Spanish and dialectal equivalents. Volume Ill is a 

manual for local election officials. It offers practical 

advice on ways to identify the language problems in 

a jurisdiction and provide bilingual registration and 

balloting services. 

Election Administration is a four-volume set 

introducing program planning, management and financial control concepts into 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 detailed task/activity checklists and flow diagrams, and demonstrates how tasks can be assigned. Volume Ill introduces a chart of accounts 

and demonstrates how budgets can be prepared and 

costs monitored by applying the chart to each election function. Volume IV is a set of legal memoranda 

summarizing State code processes with regard to 

administrative and budgeting responsibilities. 
Appendix 69 9 

FEC Federal Register 

Notices, 1982 

Notice• Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1982-1 11 CFR Part 110; 1/27/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

Communications, Advertising; Notice of 

Proposed 

Rulemaking 

3796 

1982-2 11 CFR Part 11 0; 4/8/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

Honoraria; Removal 

of Limitation 

15098 

1982-3 Filing Dates for 4/13/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

California Special 

Primary and General 

Elections 

15898 

1982-4 Filing Dates for Spe- 5/17/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

cial Primary and Spacial General Elections, 17th 

Congressional District, Ohio 

21142 

1982-5 Candidate's Use of 7/20/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

Property in Which 

Spouse Has Interest; 

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

31390 

Notice• Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1982-6 11 CFR Parts 106 8/17/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

and 9031-9039; 

Presidential Primary 

Matching Fund; Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

35892 

1982-7 Filing Dates for Spa- 9/22/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

cial General Election, 

1st Congressional 

District, Indiana 

41861 

1982-8 11 CFR Parts 106 10/1/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

and 9031-9039; 

Presidential Primary 

Matching Fund; Extension of Deadline 

for Comments on Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

43392 

1982-9 11 CFR Part 114; 11/26/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

Trade Association 

Solicitation Authorization; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

53396 

1982-10 11 CFR Parts 106 11/24/82 47 Fed. Reg. 

and 9031-9039; 

Presidential Primary 

Matching Fund; Announcement of Public 

Hearing Date 

53030 

*This appendix does not include Federal Register notices 

of Commission meetings published under the Government in the 

Sunshine Act.