Federal 

Election 

Commission 

Annual Report 1980 

Federal Election Commission 

1325 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 
Commissioners 

John Warren McGarry, Chairman 

Frank P. Reiche, Vice Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens 

Thomas E. Harris 

Robert 0. Tiernan 

Vernon W. Thomson 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Edmund L. Henshaw, 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 1980 was written and published by the Commission's Office of Publications. 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON,D.C. 20463 

June 1, 1981 

The President of the United States 

The Congress of the United States 

Dear Sirs: 

We submit for your consideration the sixth annual 

report of the Federal Election Commission, as 

required by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended. The 1980 Annual Report lists 

the Commission's recommendations for legislative 

action and describes the activities performed by 

the Commission in carrying out its duties under 

the Act. We hope you will find this a useful 

summary of the Commission's efforts to administer 

the Act during 1980. 

JOHN WARREN McGARRY 

Chairman 
Table of 

Contents 

Page 

Introduction 1 

Chapter 1. 

Legislative Recommendations 3 

Chapter 2. 

The 1980 Presidential Elections 11 

Primary Matching Fund Program 11 

Convention Financing 16 

General Election Financing 16 

Disclosure 17 

Legal Issues 19 

Chapter 3. 

Administration of the Election Law 23 

Encouraging Voluntary Compliance 23 

Disclosure 27 

Audits 30 

Enforcement 30 

Legal Issues 31 

Chapter4. 

The Commission 39 

Appendices 

1. Biographical Data on Commissioners 43 

and Statutory Officers 

2. FEC Organization Chart 47 

3. Chronology of Events, 1980 49 

4. The FEC's Budget 53 

5. Statistics on Commission Operations 55 

6. Clearinghouse Activities 59 

7. FEC Testimony 63 

8. Primary Matching Fund 65 

Certifications and Audits 

9. Expenditure Limits for Publicly 67 

Funded Candidates 

10. Presidential Election Regulations: 69 

Summaries 

11. FEC Advisory Opinions: Summaries 73 

12. FEC Federal Register Notices, 1980 119 

13. Computer Indexes Available 125 

14. Assistance Available from the FEC 127 
1 Introduction 

In 1980, the Federal Election Commission 

presided for a second time over the public 

financing of Presidential elections and, also for 

the second time, the Commission implemented a 

comprehensive set of Amendments to the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (the 

Act). These two events are the focus of this 

year's Annual Report; they underlie a new set of 

legislative recommendations presented in 

Chapter One. Both substantive and technical in 

nature, the recommended changes aim at reducing the burdens on political committees 

while preserving the core of the Federal campaign finance law. 

Chapter Two examines the 1980 Presidential 

elections. Expanded outreach to candidates, 

timely primary matching fund certifications and 

audits, increased disclosure of campaign finance 

data - all these contributed to a successful 

public funding program in 1980. Statistical data 

on candidates' qualified campaign expenses and 

public funding payments and repayments are 

not included since they are not available at this 

writing. They will be the subject of a separate 

report to Congress, as required by law, once the 

post-election audits have been completed. 

Chapter Three reports on the Commission's 

administration of other aspects of the campaign 

finance law, noting particularly the impact of 

the 1979 Amendments on Commission programs. Within two months after President 

Carter signed the Amendments, the Commission 

translated mandated changes into functioning 

programs. 

Chapter Four describes the Commission's 

internal administration, including the appointment of new officers, steps taken to trim the 

budget, an internal program review and the 

implementation of the labor/management agreement. 

Using an approach adopted in the 1979 Annual 

Report, this year's report describes only new 

programs and changes that occurred in 1980. 

Statistical details, such as the operation of the 

Public Records and Public Communications 

Offices, are included in Appendix 5. Descriptions of the Commission's organization and 

ongoing operations may be found in the 1977 

and 1978 Annual Reports. 
Chapter 3 1 

Legislative 

Recommendations 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires the 

Commission to include in its annual report 

" ...recommendations for any legislative or 

other action the Commission considers 

appropriate ...." Section 438(a)(9). The 

following recommendations reflect the Commission's experience in administering the 1979 

Amendments to the election law and in administering the public financing program in two 

Presidential elections. The Commission believes 

these suggestions will make the election law 

more workable and more acceptable by political 

committees and the public. Continuing to evaluate its administration of the election law, the 

Commission may offer additional recommendations later this year. 

Reporting 

General Waiver Authority (2 U.S.C. §436) 

In the· past, there have been instances when the 

Commission may have wished to suspend the 

reporting requirements of the law in cases where 

reports or requirements were excessive or unnecessary. In the 1979 Amendments to the Act, 

Congress repealed 2 U.S.C. §436 which provided the Commission with a limited waiver 

authority. That provision was unclear and of 

limited use; nonetheless, to reduce needlessly 

burdensome disclosure requirements, the Commission should have authority to grant general 

waivers or exemptions from the extensive 

reporting, recordkeeping and organizational 

requirements of the Act. Each proposal for a 

general waiver would, of course, be submitted to 

Congress in the form of a regulation subject to 

legislative review. If Congress does not grant the 

Commission general waiver authority over the 

reporting requirements of the law, it should 

consider changing specific provisions that have 

proven burdensome. The Commission suggests 

the following changes: (1) a candidate's principal campaign committee existing solely to 

extinguish debts from a previous campaign 

should be permitted to file semiannual reports 

even in an election year, provided that, if the 

candidate is currently seeking election, he or she 

has authorized a new principal campaign committee, which is reporting for that election 

and (2) the principal campaign committee of a 

candidate for the office of President should not 

be required to file pre- and post-general election 

reports if the candidate is no longer seeking 

election. 

Point of Entry (2 U.S.C. §432(g)) 

The Commission recommends that it be the sole 

point of entry for all disclosure documents filed 

by Federal committees. A single point of entry 

would eliminate any confusion about where candidates and committees are to file their reports. 

It would assist committee treasurers by having 

one office with which to file, correspond and 

ask questions. At present, conflicts may arise 

when more than one office sends out materials, 

makes requests for additional information and 

answers questions relating to the interpretation 

of the law. A single point of entry should also 

reduce the cost to the Federal government of 

maintaining three different offices, especially 

in the area 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, 
4 

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)). 

Authorized Presidential Committees 

(2 U.S.C. §434(a)(3)) 

To mm1m1ze reporting burdens, Congress 

may wish to permit authorized Presidential 

committees filing reports on a monthly basis 

to revert to quarterly filing, where the candidate 

is no longer seeking nomination or election to 

the office of President and has so notified the 

Commission in writing. In addition, Congress 

may wish to allow such committees to file 

semiannual reports in a nonelection year. 

48-Hour Reports (2 U.S.C. §434(a)(6)) 

Require recipient committee to report in one 

notification contributions of $1 ,000 or more 

received after the close of books on the 20th 

day before the election through the 10th day 

before the election. Contributions of $1,000 

or more received after the 10th day would be 

reported within 48 hours. 

Contribution and Expenditure 

Limitations 

Election Period Limitations (2 U.S.C. §441a) 

The contribution limitations are structured on a 

"per-election" basis, thus necessitating dual 

bookkeeping or the adoption of some other 

method to distinguish between primary and 

general election contributions. The Act could 

be simplified by changing the contribution 

limitations from a "per-election" basis to 

an "annual" or "election-cycle" basis. If an 

annual limitation is chosen, contributions 

made to a candidate in a year other than the 

calendar year in which the election is held 

should be considered to have been made during 

the election year. Thus, multicandidate committees could give up to $10,000 and all other 

persons could give up to $2,000 to an authorized committee at any point during the election 

cycle. 

Contributions by Minors (2 U.S.C. §441a) 

The Act does not stipulate at what age a minor 

child may make contributions. Presently, the 

Commission is forced to rely on subjective 

criteria such as whether "the decision to contribute is made knowingly or voluntarily by the 

minor child." Congress should establish an age 

below which contributions by children would be 

considered to have been made by the parent and 

subject to the parent's $1 ,000 contribution 

limitation. 

Contributions to Draft Committees (2 U.S.C. 

§441a) 

Consideration should be given to the contribution limitations that apply to draft committees. 

Since the $1,000 limitation on contributions by 

persons other than multicandidate committees 

applies only to candidates, a person may give up 

to $5,000 per year - the limit applicable to 

"other political committees" - to a draft committee. Precisely this situation was presented in 

Advisory Opinion 1979-40. Congress may wish 

to amend the statute to make the $1 ,000 

limitation, rather than the $5,000 limitation, 

applicable to contributions to political committees whose purpose is to influence a clearly 

identified individual to become a candidate. 

Although the limitation on contributions by 

multicandidate committees to candidates or to 

draft committees is $5,000, multicandidate 

committees, as well as other persons, may make 

two contributions toward the nomination of an 

individual - one contribution to a draft movement and, if the individual later becomes a 

candidate, another contribution to the candidate's authorized committee. Accordingly, Congress may wish to consider amending the Act to 

provide that a person who has contributed to 

a draft committee with the knowledge that 

his or her contribution will be expended to 

draft a clearly identified individual will, for the 

purposes of the contribution limitations, be 

considered to have made a contribution to 

a "candidate." If that individual should become 

a candidate, the contributors to the draft movement would be eligible to give to the candidate's 
5 

authorized committees only to the extent their 

earlier aggregate contributions did not exceed 

the "candidate" limits. 

Earmarked Contributions (2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(8)) 

Section 441 a(a) (8) states that contributions 

made on behalf of a candidate through an 

intermediary or conduit shall be considered 

contributions to the candidate by the original 

donor. The statute should be amended to make 

this prov1s1on applicable to contributions 

earmarked to political committees. 

Foreign Nationals (2 U.S.C. §441e) 

Section 441 e should be revised to state whether 

this section reaches U. S. corporations owned 

by foreign nationals, subsidiaries of foreign 

corporations and trade associations with 

members who are foreign nationals or foreign 

corporations. 

Voluntary Services (2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(8)) 

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. Congress may wish to circumscribe 

the use of volunteer professional services when 

they are donated solely for fundraising rather 

than for actual campaigning. A similar question 

is raised when an artist donates artwork to a 

campaign to be used for fundraising or to be 

disposed of as an asset of the campaign. 

Trade Association Solicitation Approval 

(2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(D)) 

Trade association political action committees 

must 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 administrative burden to obtain 

approval to solicit every year. The one-year 

limitation should be removed, and the trade 

association should be allowed to solicit until the 

corporation revokes its approval. 

Presidential Elections 

Repayments to the Fund (26 U.S.C. §9007(b)) 

Repayments under the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act (Chapter 96, 

26 U.S.C.) are credited to the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund, while repayments 

under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

Act (Chapter 95, 26 U.S.C.) are credited to the 

general fund of the Treasury. All repayments 

should be credited to the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund so that dollars checked off by 

taxpayers for the Fund do not indirectly end 

up in the general fund. 

Use of Contributions Matched by Federal Funds 

(26 U.S.C. §9038(b)(2)(B)) 

Section 9038(b)(2)(8) requires the repayment 

of any matching funds used for any purpose 

other than " ...to restore funds ...which 

were used, to defray qualified campaign expenses." This provision requires the repayment of an amount equal to any expenditure 

from matching funds or private contributions 

made for nonqualified campaign expenses. (See 

11 CF R 9038.2(a)(2).) The Congress may wish 

to more clearly state in §9038(b)(2)(B) that a 

candidate who accepts public funding may not 

make expenditures from public funds or private 

contributions for other than qualified campaign 

expenses. 

Qualified Campaign Expenses (26 U.S.C. 

§ §9002(11) and 9032(9)) 

Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26 of the Internal 

Revenue Code contain different definitions of 

"qualified campaign expense." Chapter 95 

defines a "qualified campaign expense" to 

mean an expense incurred to further the election 

of a Presidential candidate. Chapter 96 defines 

"qualified campaign expense" to mean an 

expense incurred in connection with a campaign 

for nomination to the office of President. The 

Commission recommends that the definition 

contained in Chapter 96 be incorporated into 

Chapter 95. 

Also, the second sentence of the paragraph 

following 26 U.S.C. §9002(11)(c) should be 
6 

clarified to indicate whether it incorporates the 

"coattails provision" (2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(B)(xi)) 

or the limitations on "support" of other candidates by a principal campaign committee (2 

U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(B)). 

Public Funding for Independent Candidates 

(26 U.S.C. § §9002(2), 9003 and 9008) 

Congress should consider clarifying whether or 

not an independent candidate, who is not a new 

party candidate, is eligible for post-election 

public funding in the general election. 

State Spending Limits 

(2 U.S.C. §441a(b)(1 )(A)) 

The Commission has observed during the 1976 

and 1980 primary election cycles that candidates and their respective principal campaign 

committees have-expended heavy resources in an 

attempt to observe the State-by-State spending 

limitations contained in 2 U.S.C. §441a(b)(1) 

(A). The Commission has also spent a considerable amount of its audit resources in verifying 

compliance with these State limitations. In the 

process, it has uncovered a number of difficulties. First, it has been difficult to differentiate between expenses that were "national" 

in impact and expenses that were targeted to a 

specific State(s). For example, how does one 

categorize nationwide media broadcasts, nationwide mailings and the distribution of campaign 

literature which addresses issues of national 

interest rather than issues pertaining to a specific 

State(s). 

Additionally, it has been difficult to determine 

how to reasonably attribute travel costs to a 

specific State(s) when a candidate and support 

staff travel throughout the United States. 

Finally, it has been difficult to determine how 

to reasonably attribute to a specific State(s) 

the costs of producing and airing television 

spots, especially in light of cable television 

and its penetration into multistate markets. 

The areas mentioned above are but a few of 

the practical difficulties encountered when 

one attempts to attribute the costs associated 

with a nationwide Presidential campaign to 

specific States. The Commission has also found 

that, with a few exceptions (Iowa, New 

Hampshire and Maine), candidate expenditures 

have not approached the State limits. The Congress may, therefore, wish to remove the Stateby-State limitations and retain the overall 

expenditure limitation, with an amendment to 

incorporate the present 20 percent fundraising 

exemption into the overall limit. (See the 1979 

Annual Report, page 40, for a detailed discussion of a fundraising exemption recommendation.) 

Public Funding of Federal Candidates by States 

(2 U.S.C. §431 (8) and (9)) 

At least one State has established a public 

funding scheme in which State tax money is 

distributed to State party committees, which in 

turn have discretion over the amount each candidate for office in that party should receive. Congress may wish to consider excepting these payments from the definitions of "contribution" 

and "expenditure" so that the party is not a 

contributor and so that these amounts do not 

apply to §441 a(d) limits. 

Entitlement of Eligible Candidates to Payments 

(26 U.S.C. §9004(a)(2)) 

Under §9004(a)(2), a minor or new party Presidential candidate who received more than 5 

percent of the popular vote would be eligible for 

pre-election funding in the next Presidential 

general election. If the candidate did not run 

again, the party's new nominee would be eligible 

for such funding. If the candidate ran in the 

next election as an independent or the candidate 

of yet another new party, both the candidate 

and his or her old party would be eligible for 

pre-election funding in the next election. Congress may want to eliminate the opportunity 

for such double funding. 

Recovery of Public Funds (26 U.S.C. 

§ §9010(b) and 9040(b)) 

Sections 9010(b) and 9040(b) should be amended to clarify that the Commission may seek 

repayments of amounts determined to be 
7 

repayable in the context of enforcement proceedings and audits under sections other than 

9038. As currently drafted, those sections 

are confusing since they do not reference the 

Title 2 enforcement procedures, which may 

uncover payments improperly made, or the 

other provisions permitting Commission audits. 

Deadline for Consideration of Initial Matching 

Fund Certification (26 U.S.C. §9036) 

In order to allow the Commission sufficient time 

to adequately verify the initial threshold submission to establish eligibility for matching 

funds, the 10-day period for processing should 

be increased to 20 days. 

Commission Duties, Powers and 

Authorities 

Number of Legislative Days for Regulation 

Review (2 U.S.C. §438(d)) 

The 1979 Amendments contained a provision 

reducing the number of legislative days for Congressional review of Commission regulations 

from 30 days to 15. This reduction was only 

applicable, however, to the regulations written 

to implement the 1979 Amendments. Congress 

should shorten the period for review of all Commission regulations to 15 legislative days. 

In addition, two different standards currently 

apply to Congressional review of Commission 

regulations because two different definitions 

of "legislative day" are provided under Title 2 

and Title 26. In Title 2, legislative days are 

counted separately in each House of Congress. 

In Title 26, legislative days are only counted 

when both Houses are in session. The Title 26 

provision should be revised to match the Title 2 

provision, thus avoiding unnecessary delay in 

regulation review. 

Judicial Review (2 U.S.C. §437h; 

26 U.S.C. § § 9010, 9011, 9040 and 9041) 

The Act contains different judicial review provisions which Congress should consider conforming to each other. As noted by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, no 

apparent reason exists for the different review 

provisions in Title 2 and in Chapters 95 and 96 

of Title 26. This anomaly creates difficulties for 

the courts because cases brought under one Act 

often also involve questions relating to the 

other Acts. See Republican National Committee 

v. Federal Election Commission (case brought 

under both 2 U.S.C. §437h and 26 U.S.C. 

§9011 (b)). The requirement of §437h that 

cases be heard by the courts of appeals sitting 

en bane has been noted by the Courts of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Fifth 

Circuit and the Ninth Circuit as presenting great 

difficulties. The en bane requirement should be 

repealed and Congress should establish a single 

judicial review provision applicable to all three 

Acts. 

Revolving Fund (2 U.S.C. §438) 

Although the FEC charges fees for publications 

and photocopies of documents provided to the 

public upon request and pursuant to the 

Freedom of Information Act, none of the 

monies collected reimburse the FEC for 

resources used. Instead, the money is transferred 

to the U. S. Treasury. For the fiscal year ended 

September 30, 1980, the FEC collected and 

transferred $37,342.73 to the Treasury (the 

miscellaneous receipts account). This amount 

represented fees derived from selling Commission publications and photocopies of documents to the public. In order for the FEC to 

receive reimbursements for the documents it 

provides, a "revolving fund account" must be 

authorized by law. According to the Treasury 

Fiscal Requirements Manual, Congress would 

have to authorize a revolving fund account to 

finance a continuing cycle of operations in 

which expenditures would generate receipts and 

the receipts would be available for new expenditures. In addition, costs awarded to the Commission in litigation (e.g., printing, but not 

civil penalties), should be payable to the revolving fund. 

Comment Period for Advisory Opinions 

(2 u.s.c. §437f(d)) 

The 1979 Amendments provide that advisory 
8 

op1mon requests submitted by candidates or 

their committees within 60 days of an election 

must be answered within 20 days. However, the 

Act sets a 10-day public comment period for 

all requests. This comment period should be 

shortened to five days for requests under the 

20-day requirement to give the Commission 

sufficient time to fully consider and incorporate 

comments received. 

Registration 

Names of Committees (2 U.S.C. §432(e)) 

Under Section 432(e)(4), authorized committees must include the candidate's name in the 

name of the committee. Separate segregated 

funds must include the name of their connected 

organization in their name under Section 

432(e)(5). The concept behind these requirements is to enable the public to know whom 

these committees represent. However, many 

political committees connected with the organization are not covered by these provisions, even 

though the public has the same need to know. 

"Draft" committees, so called "dump" committees and "delegate" committees should also 

be required to include the name of the person 

or candidate they support or oppose in their 

name, with .an appropriate reference to the 

nature of the committee, e.g., "draft," "delegate" or "dump." In addition, other political 

committees which have connected organizations 

or sponsors but which are not segregated funds 

should be required to include the name of their 

parent organization in the committee's name. 

No committee should be able to use the name 

of a political party in its name unless it is an 

official party committee. Similarly, no committee should be able to include the name of a 

Federal office in its name unless it is an authorized committee. 

Other Statutes 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) 

Congress should exempt the Federal Election 

Commission from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. None of the Commission's regulations could have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

businesses due to the nature of the Commission's jurisdiction, which mainly extends 

to political committees. The Commission is 

therefore required to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act in a negative fashion, 

spending time and resources repeatedly asserting that no effect on small businesses will result from Commission rulemaking. A far simpler 

solution would be to exempt the Commission 

from these requirements. 

Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579) 

The Commission should be exempted from 

its duty to comply with the accounting requirements of 5 U.S.C. §552a(c) to the extent 

that the section requires an accounting of all 

disclosures maintained on the public record. The 

Commission has a reading room to which 

members of the general public may come and 

inspect microfilm copies of public reports. 

Placing such documents on the public record is a 

routine use of such materials. An exemption 

from the accounting requirements would not 

contravene the principles of the Privacy Act 

since the individuals involved are those running 

for office or contributing to candidates for 

Federal office. Congress has determined that in 

this situation the public's need to know the 

financial activities of political committees 

outweighs any privacy interest such individuals 

may have in this area. 

Technical Amendments 

26 u.s.c. §527(f)(3) 

The cross-reference in 26 U.S.C. §527(f)(3) 

should be changed from "section 610 of Title 

18" to "section 441 b of Title 2." 
9 

Gender Specific Language 

Gender specific language should be eliminated 

from the statute wherever it appears. Examples 

include § §439a, 441 a(a)(7), 441 b(b)(3)(C), 

441f, 441h, 442, 9002(11)(a), 9012(b)(2), 

9035, etc. 

Definitions (2 U.S. C. §431) 

The 1979 Amendments changed the numeration 

of the definition subsections in 2 U.S.C. §431 

from letters to numbers. As a result of this 

change, citations to this section have numbers 

following numbers, e.g., 2 U.S.C. §431 (8). 

Such citations differ from traditional citation 

form and therefore appear incorrect and can be 

awkward to cite orally. The numeration should 

be changed to lower case letters. 
10 

The Commission certified $29,440,000 in public funds 

to each major party nominee. The candidates financed 

their Presidential general election campaigns with this 

money. 

o; 

c 

0 

·~ 

$ 

c 

c 
Chapter 2 11 

The 1980 Presidential 

Elections 

Insights gained from the 1976 Presidential 

elections and two years' extensive planning 

enabled the Commission to administer public 

funding of the 1980 Presidential elections with 

greater ease and efficiency than in 1976. The 

Commission certified more primary matching 

fund payments than in 1976 and completed 

audits much more rapidly. 

This chapter opens with a description of the 

Commission's monitoring of public funding and 

includes an explanation of why certifications 

proceeded more efficiently and audits more 

quickly than in 1976. The chapter also examines 

the Commission's 1980 efforts to. provide the 

public with financial information on the Presidential elections. Finally, the chapter discusses 

several legal issues that emerged from advisory 

opinions and litigation. 

Primary Matching Fund Program 

Certifications 1 

Although there were fewer publicly funded 

candidates this year, more money was certified 

than in 1976: the Commission certified 

$24,877,959 to 15 candidates in 1976; in 1980, 

the Commission certified $31,337,971 to 10 

candidates. 2 Additionally, new certification procedures and the use of computerized programs 

to verify matching fund requests helped facilitate the certification process. 

Certification Procedures. Streamlined certification procedures for matching fund submissions3 enabled the Commission to certify 

funds as quickly as in 1976 (within four days) 

while investing less staff time in the process. 

Every two weeks the Commission considered 

candidates' requests for matching funds. In most 

cases, candidates received payment within 

the same week of their request.4 

Because of this brief turnaround period, however, the Commission could not verify the 

accuracy of matching fund requests until after 

the Treasury had paid the candidates. To avoid 

certifying matching funds for an amount greater 

than that to which the candidate was entitled, 

the Commission adopted a holdback procedure. 

In case of possible errors and omissions on 

requests for matching funds, the Commission 

automatically held back 15 percent of the 

amount candidates requested on their first four 

requests. After certification, each matching fund 

request was verified to determine the exact 

amount to which the candidate was entitled. If 

the Commission had held back too much or too 

little, adjustments were made to the candidate's 

1 The Commission certifies matching funds to eligible Presidential primary candidates. They receive public funds to match 

small contributions of money (e.g., checks) from private contributors. Loans, cash contributions, in-kind contributions 

and contributions from committees are not matchable. To be 

eligible for matching payments, a candidate must first raise 

more than $100,000 in amounts exceeding $5,000 from each 

of 20 States. Up to $250 of an individual's contribution may 

be matched with Federal funds. Also, a candidate must agree 

to limit expenditures to $10 million plus a cost-of-living 

adjustment. In 1980, this limit was $14,720,000. (See 

Appendix 9.l 

2 As of April 15, 1981. See Appendix 8 for amounts certified 

to each candidate. 

3 A matching fund submission is the request for matching fund 

payments that the candidate submits to the Commission. A 

matching fund submission contains a list of matchable contributions, alphabetized by contributor name, and includes each 

contributor's address and the amount of each contribution. 

The submission also includes a photocopy of each contributor check (or other written instrument). These contributions 

must be submitted in accordance with the FEC Guideline for 

Presentation in Good Order, which gives complete instructions on the preparation of matching fund submissions. 

4 The Commission accepted matching fund requests every 

other Monday and considered resubmissions (contributions 

previously rejected) on alternate Mondays. Upon receipt of 

matching fund requests, the Audit Division immediately prepared certification documents which, on Tuesdays, were reviewed by the Staff Director and circulated to the Commis· 

sioners for their approval. If a Commissioner raised an objection, the Commission considered and voted on the matter in 

an open-session meeting held Thursday morning. That same 

day the Commission hand-delivered to the Secretary of the 

Treasury letters authorizing payments to the candidates. Certified funds were quickly transferred from the Presidential 

Primary Matching Account to campaign accourits. 
12 

next certified payment. On subsequent requests, 

the holdback percentage was based on the actual 

error rate on the previous four submissions, 

as determined by Commission auditors. 

Verification Procedures. To determine the actual 

amount of matchable contributions, the Audit 

Division evaluated matching fund submissions 

to see if they met the requirements for matchable contributions. For a number of reasons, 

verifications of matching fund submissions 

proceeded more efficiently in 1980 than they 

had in 1976. First, a computer sampling technique reduced time and money spent in the 

verification process. Developed by an outside 

accounting firm and programmed, in part, by 

the Commission, the technique was not available 

in 1976, when Commission auditors manually 

verified primary matching fund submissions 

without computer assistance, a lengthy and 

tedious process. The statistical sampling technique eliminated the need to review and verify 

each contribution listed on a matching fund 

submission. Instead, Commission auditors reviewed only a sample group of contributions 

identified by the sampling program. If they 

discovered a high rate of nonmatchable contributions in the sample, the program provided a 

larger sample of contributions, which auditors 

then verified. This technique resulted in statistically valid verifications of matching fund 

requests while reducing time invested in the 

process. 

Computer technology assisted the verification 

process in another way as well. In 1980, several 

committees provided computer tapes of their 

matching fund submissions. These tapes enabled 

the Commission to reduce the time normally 

required for entering into the computer data 

contained in the submissions. 

Computerized data also gave the Commission 

immediate access to the status of matching fund 

submissions. A program could produce, for 

each candidate, the amount certified to date; 

the amount of matchable and unmatchable 

contributions submitted; and the number of 

submissions and resubmissions received. The 

Commission used this data to keep track of 

overall matching fund activity. 

Audits5 

The Commission completed and publicly released reports on five post-primary audits by 

December 1980; the remaining five audits were 

scheduled for release by Spring of 1981.6 This 

contrasted markedly with 1976, wh.en postprimary audits extended over two years. What 

accounts for this difference? 

Experience gained from the 1976 elections 

helped facilitate the 1980 audit process. Many 

individuals who had participated in the 1976 

audits served on the staffs of the Commission 

and various Presidential campaigns. They applied 

their practical knowledge to the 1980 audit 

process. This alone, however, cannot explain the 

difference between the 1976 and 1980 audits. 

Other factors were at work, as well. 

.Outreach. The Commission recognized that one 

way of reducing the time required to audit 

Presidential campaigns was to prevent problems 

from developing in the first place. To this end, 

the Commission initiated an outreach program 

to help publicly funded campaigns better 

understand and comply with the election law. 

The Commission first provided Presidential 

committees with the Financial Control and 

Compliance Manual for Presidential Candidates Receiving Public Financing. The Manual, 

distributed early in 1979, set out guidelines for 

accounting, budgetary and reporting systems. 

Auditors noted that, in general, those campaigns 

that relied on the Manual had fewer problems 

with recordkeeping and reporting. Secondly, 

5 The Presidential Primary Matching Fund Account Act requires the Commission to conduct a thorough examination 

and audit of the campaign finances of each publicly funded 

candidate. The audit determines whether a candidate must 

repay any money to the matching payment account. 

6 See Appendix 8 for chart showing post-primary audit reports 

that have been rel.eased to the public. 
13 

recognizing the need to establish good communication between the campaigns and the 

Commission in the early stages of the election 

cycle, the Commission assigned a team of 

auditors, reports analysts and attorneys to work 

with each Presidential committee that was 

eligible for public funds. Members of the support team became familiar with the unique 

needs and problems of the particular campaign 

they assisted. They were available to answer 

questions, resolve problems and, in general, to 

help committees establish reliable reporting and 

accounting methods. 

Threshold Audits. As another measure taken to 

help Presidential candidates comply with the 

election law, the Commission established procedures for conducting threshold audits of each 

campaign receiving public funds. Commission 

staff conducted the threshold audit as soon as a 

committee had established matching fund 

eligibility, enabling the committee to correct 

problems at an early stage in the campaign. 

However, because candidates did not submit 

letters stating that they had fulfilled eligibility 

requirements until late 1979 and early 1980, 

well after their campaigns had begun, threshold 

audits were delayed and took place much later 

than anticipated. In many cases, committees had 

already amassed extensive records requiring 

Commission staff to spend more time on this 

preliminary audit than had originally been 

contemplated. Nevertheless, the program proved 

beneficial. Upon completion of fieldwork at 

campaign headquarters, Commission auditors 

held an "exit interview" with campaign staff. 

During this conference, Commission staff 

discussed the committee's bookkeeping and 

accounting methods, pointed out deficiencies 

and recommended improvements. For example, 

auditors suggested modifying methods for 

allocating expenditures against State-by-State 

limits. Campaign workers were free to act upon 

the recommendations immediately. Subsequently, the Audit Division prepared an interim 

audit report, which generally repeated recommendations offered informally at the exit 

interview. After a thorough legal review by 

the General Counsel's Office and approval by 

the Commissioners, the interim report was 

forwarded to the committee for inspection. The 

last phase of the threshold audit came when the 

Commission released the final threshold audit 

report to the public. 

Post-Primary Audits. Procedures established for 

processing audits played a major part in the 

Commission's rapid completion of the postprimary audits. Under these new procedures, 

originally recommended by the Arthur Andersen 

study of 1979/ the Commission established, 

and adhered to, a timetable of internal deadlines 

for each stage of the audit process - from 

fieldwork to legal review to Commission approval. 

Furthermore, the Commission changed its policy 

of granting unlimited extensions to Presidential 

committees for responding to the interim or 

final audit report. In 1976, Presidential committees had frequently requested, and been granted, 

extensions of time, during which they searched 

for additional documentation needed to prove 

that certain expenses were qualified campaign 

expenses. Since, under the campaign law, 

matching funds are available only to pay qualified campaign expenses, it was naturally to the 

advantage of Presidential campaigns to maximize 

the number of expenses that could meet the 

test of qualified campaign expenses. The extensions of time provided such an opportunity, 

but they prolonged the entire audit process. In 

1980, the Commission decided to grant such 

extensions only under unusual circumstances. 

Moreover, instead of delaying public release of 

post-primary audit reports until all matters 

relating to the campaign were finalized, the 

Commission released audit reports as soon as 

they were completed. When necessary, a statement accompanied the report indicating that 

continued on page 16 

7 For a summary of Commission testimony on the A~dersen recommendations, see Appendix 7. 
14 

The Commission certified $4,416,000 in public funds to 

the Democratic National Committee and the Republican 

National Committee for their respective national nominating conventions. 

0 

1-

0 

:X: 

Q. 

z 

;:) 

...... 

c:•

c: 

0 

0 

z 

> 

E 

E 

0 

1-

0 

1-

0 

J: 

Q. 

z 

;:)

,-._ 

c: 

CD 

c: 

0 

0 

z 

> 

E 

E 

0 

1-
15 

0

... 

0 

E

.. 

~ 

0 

li 

:t: 

u 

·a 

>-
16 

certain matters had been referred to the General 

Counsel's Office for · consideration, which 

prevented any violation of the law's confidentiality requirement. This last procedure, 

adopted by the Commission in the closing days 

of the 1976 audits, permitted the Commission 

to release reports many months earlier than was 

possible when all legal questions were resolved 

prior to the audit's release. 

Regulations 

In July 1980, the Commission prescribed two 

revisions to the regulations governing the suspension of primary matching fund payments 

when candidates exceed the State spending 

limits. The new provisions are summarized in 

Appendix 10. 

Convention Financing 

The 1979 Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (effective early January 1980) 

increased by $1 million the public funding 

entitlement major parties may receive to finance 

their national nominating conventions. Under 

the new provision, each major party is entitled 

to $3 million (plus a cost-of-living adjustment). 

By February 1980, the Democratic and Republican National Committees had each received a 

maximum entitlement of $4,416,000 in public 

funds. In compliance with the public funding 

law, the Audit Division began audit fieldwork 

of both committees in December 1980. The 

Commission expected to publish the final audit 

reports early in April 1981. The audit reports 

will determine whether either committee must 

repay any public funds. 

This year, in August, the Commission prescribed 

new regulations regarding the selection of delegates to national nominating conventions. 

These regulations represent the Commission's 

attempt to balance several concerns. On the one 

hand, the Commission wanted to avoid restricting the activities of individuals seeking to become delegates to national nominating conventions. On the other hand, the Commission 

wanted to make sure that Presidential primary 

candidates did not make unreported and unlimited campaign expenditures in the guise of 

delegate expenses. Similarly, the Commission 

wanted to ensure that groups supporting slates 

of delegates observed disclosure requirements 

and contribution limits. Major provisions of the 

delegate regulations are highlighted in Appendix 

10. 

General Election Financing 

Major Party Candidates 

On July 24, 1980, the Commission approved 

payment of $29,440,0008 in public funds for 

the general election campaign of Republican 

Presidential nominee Ronald Reagan and his 

Vice Presidential running mate, George Bush.9 

The candidates had requested the funding in a 

letter written on July 18 to the Commission. 

Democratic Presidential nominee Jimmy Carter 

and his running mate, Walter Mondale, requested 

funding in a letter written August 15. On August 

21, the Commission approved a $29,440,000 

payment for the Democratic general election 

campaign. In compliance with the revised 

general election financing regulations, the 

candidates agreed to abide by the overall spending limit, to use only public funds for the 

campaign and to comply with other legal requirements. 

The Commission began to audit both the 

Republican and Democratic campaigns in 

January 1981 and anticipates public release of 

the audit reports in July 1981. The final report 

will determine whether the candidates complied 

with the financial requirements of the law 

and whether they must repay any public funds 

to the U.S. Treasury. Under the election law, 

publicly funded Presidential nominees must 

make repayments 1) if their qualified campaign 

expenses exceed the amount of public funds 

8 $20,000,000 plus a cost-of-living adjustment. See Appendix 9. 

9 See page 20 for a summary of a court suit that challenged the 

Commission's certification to the Republican nominees. 
17 

they receive; 2) if they accept private contributions to defray qualified campaign expenses; 

3) if they use public funds other than for qualified campaign expenses or loan repayments; or 

4) if the amount of public funding they receive 

exceeds their lawful entitlement. 26 U.S.C. 

Section 9007(b). 

New Party Candidate 

Anderson's Certification. On November 13, 

1980, nine days after the general election, 

the Commission certified a payment of 

$4,164,906.24 to Presidential candidate John 

Anderson and his running mate, Patrick 

Lucey.1 0 This certification, the first made 

to a new party candidate in the history of 

Presidential public financing, was based on 

procedures established by the Commission on 

November 3 (see below). Since Mr. Anderson's 

entitlement of $4,206,976 was calculated 

according to an unofficial vote count, the 

Commission withheld one percent to safeguard 

against possible overpayment. The unofficial 

returns showed that Mr. Anderson had received 

5,581,379 votes (or about 6.5 percent of total 

votes cast in the election). However, official 

tabulations of the vote later showed Mr. 

Anderson had received 5,719,437 votes. Accordingly, on January 8, 1981, the Commission 

certified an additional $77,397, including the 

one percent originally withheld. Mr. Anderson's 

total funding amounted to $4,242,304. As with 

the major party candidates, a final audit will be 

conducted to determine whether any funds must 

be repaid to the U.S. Treasury. 

New Certification Procedures. In order to 

expedite John Anderson's public funding, the 

Commission established specific certification 

procedures for post-election funding of new 

party candidates. Under the new procedures: 

- The candidate had to submit required agreements and certifications before the election. 

- If the candidate received five percent or more 

of the total vote (based on unofficial election 

returns), the Commission would certify, 

within 10 days, an initial payment proportional to the major party candidate's 

grant. 11 

- The candidate could challenge this initial 

determination in writing within 15 days. 

- No later than 10 days after receiving official 

election results, the Commission would make 

a final determination of the candidate's 

payment and, if necessary, would adjust the 

initial payment. 

Regulations 

Public funding of general elections proceeded 

according to revised regulations prescribed by 

the Commission in September 1980. These 

revised regulations contained refinements based 

on the Commission's experience in administering 

public financing in the 1976 general elections. They also reflected the 1979 Amendments 

to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The 

revised general election regulations were renumbered to conform with the sections of the 

U.S. Code on which they are based (26 U.S.C. 

Section 9001, et seq.). Appendix 10 contains a 

summary of the revisions. 

Disclosure 

Processing Information 

In 1976, when the Commission's computer 

system was in a rudimentary stage, computerized information on Presidential campaign 

finance activity was limited. The Commission 

produced most information manually, which 

required substantial staff time and effort. For 

example, the list of all 1976 Presidential candidates (over 200) was compiled and updated 

by hand. Computer-generated printouts of 

financial information were available only for 

three Presidential candidates. The Commission's 

summary report on 1976 Presidential finance 

activity contained information that was, again, 

for the most part manually assembled. 

1 

°For a discussion of legal issues related to John Anderson's 

campaign, see page 20. 

11 See Appendix 9 for the formula used in calculating proportional payment. 
18 

By 1980, computer technology largely replaced 

the manual compilation of statistics. For the 

first time, staff entered into the computer 

system comprehensive and detailed information 

from Presidential reports. Information included 

all summary data on campaign receipts and 

disbursements, including the receipt and disbursement of public funds. Similarly, staff 

entered information pertaining to matching fund 

submissions, including total funds matched for 

each candidate. A computerized error-listing 

system, run on a monthly basis by reports 

analysts, served to improve the accuracy of data 

by identifying errors in reporting, data coding, 

data entry and programming. Statistics on 

Presidential elections remained current because 

the Commission placed high priority on the 

review and data entry of Presidential reports -

analysts reviewed reports within 30 days of 

receipt. 

The enlarged data base enabled the Commission 

to develop and disseminate more refined, more 

varied and more timely information than in 

1976. In cooperation with other divisions, the 

Data Systems Development Division created 

programs that retrieved data on various aspects 

of Presidential campaign finance activity and, 

upon public request, the Public Records Office 

ran printouts of these programs. 

Disseminating Information 

Since 1976, the Commission has witnessed a 

growing interest in campaign finance materials. 

Public demand has come from many sectors of 

the nation, including the press, political committees and operatives, and academia. These groups 

requested materials of all kinds: reports filed by 

individual committees, computer indexes and 

printouts, and the FEC Reports on Financial 

Activity, a series of reports consolidating and 

comparing the information filed by political 

committees. To service public demand for 

information, the Public Records Office extended 

visiting hours on reporting deadline weekends 

and remained open seven days a week from 

October 15 through election day. 

Raw Data and Computer Printouts. By the end 

of 1980, the Public Records Office had made 

available almost 160,000 pages of Presidential 

campaign finance reports and statements filed 

by over 250 Presidential aspirants. In addition to 

campaign reports and primary matching fund 

submissions, the Office made public almost 100 

Ethics Act reports, the personal financial statements required of all Presidential and Vice 

Presidential candidates under the 1978 Ethics in 

Government Act. The Office also answered, 

within 24 hours, numerous letters and phone 

orders for Presidential documents. 

The Commission responded to the specific needs 

of those requesting information. For example, in 

response to the press and others interested in 

matching fund requests, the Commission made 

available microfilm reels of matching fund 

submissions - easier to handle than the paper 

copies that had been available in 1976. Regional 

interest prompted the Commission to issue 

printouts listing contributors to Presidential 

candidates by State. The Commission also 

developed a new Presidential index, the H 

Index,1 2 which presented detailed information 

on contributions from political committees as 

reported by the Presidential campaigns. Because 

the major campaigns filed monthly disclosure 

reports, while some committees contributing to 

Presidential campaigns disclosed such support 

only at calendar quarters, the new H Index 

presented information on a timely basis. 

Reports on Financial Activity Series. The FEC 

Reports on Financial Activity of Presidential 

Pre-Nomination Campaigns, a monthly series of 

statistical reports, covered campaigns whose 

total receipts and disbursements exceeded 

$100,000. The series presented a breakdown of 

money raised and spent by Presidential primary 

campaigns. Additional tables provided details 

on primary matching fund activity, individual 

contributions over $200, and contributions from 

12 See Appendix 13 for a description of available indexes. 
19 

nonparty political committees. The most recent 

report released in the series, Interim Report 

No. 7, covered the campaign activity of 16 

Presidential contenders from the start of their 

campaigns through May 31, 1980. Upon publication of each report, the Press Office issued a 

release explaining the report's significance and 

including a statistical chart that presented 

information of special interest to the press, such 

as the total amount of party and nonparty 

committee contributions each candidate received. The Commission plans to issue a final 

cumulative report in 1981. 

Legal Issues 

Contribution/Expenditure Limits 

in Presidential Elections 

During 1980, the Commission defended the 

constitutionality of the public financing law in 

two suits. In Republican National Committee v. 

FEC, originally filed in June 1978, the Supreme 

Court upheld the constitutionality of the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. The 

Republican National Committee ( RNC) had 

challenged the provision limiting major party 

candidates' qualified campaign expenditures to 

the amount of public funds they received. The 

RNC had also challenged the provision prohibiting publicly funded candidates from accepting 

private contributions. In April 1980, the Court 

unanimously affirmed the rulings of two lower 

courts that both provisions were constitutional. 

The Commission, as the agency responsible for 

administering and enforcing the election law, 

defended the constitutionality of Section 

9012(f) of the public funding law in FEC v. 

Americans for Ch{Jnge, Americans for an Effective Presidency· and Fund for a Conservative Majority. Section 9012(f) prohibits unauthorized committees from making expenditures of over $1,000 to further the election of 

Presidential nominees receiving public funds. 

The defendant committees allegedly planned to 

spend large sums on independent expenditures13 on behalf of a publicly funded Presidential nominee. The Commission filed suit after 

Common Cause had filed a similar suit against 

Americans for Change on July 1, 1980. Common Cause had asked the Court to construe 

Section 9012(f) and to uphold its constitutionality. The Commission successfully intervened 

in the Common Cause suit, seeking dismissal of 

the case on the grounds that the Commission 

had exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement 

of the alleged violations and that Common 

Cause lacked standing to bring suit. On August 

28, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia dismissed the enforcement portion of 

Common Cause's suit but did not rule on the 

issue of Common Cause's standing. While 

agreeing with the Commission that Section 

9012(f) would apply to the defendant committees' expenditures, the Court concluded that the 

section was unconstitutional. As of February 

1981, the case was scheduled to be heard by the 

Supreme Court. 

Candidate Eligibility for 

Primary Matching Funds 

In Felice M. Gelman and Citizens for LaRouche, 

Inc. v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia affirmed the Commission's 

determination that Lyndon LaRouche had failed 

to reestablish his eligibility for primary matching 

funds in the Democratic Presidential primary 

held in Michigan on May 20, 1980. In its May 28 

ruling, the Commission found that Mr. 

LaRouche had failed to receive 20 percent of all 

votes cast for Democratic contenders in the 

primary, the minimal amount necessary to 

reestablish eligibility. 

In their suit, filed on June 1, plaintiffs contended that the Commission should have applied the 

definition of "candidate" provided in Section 

13 An independent expenditure is "an expenditure by a person 

for a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate which is not made with 

the cooperation or with the prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or 

any agent or authorized committee of such candidate." 11 

CFR 109.1 (a). 
20 

9033(2) of the public funding law in determining whether Mr. LaRouche had reestablished his 

eligibility. The provision stipulates that, for 

purposes of establishing initial eligibility for 

primary matching funds, a Presidential primary 

candidate must be "actively conducting campaigns in more than one State." In calculating 

total votes in the Michigan primary, Mr. 

LaRouche argued, this definition of "candidate" 

would have excluded votes cast for a candidate 

who had ceased to campaign actively in more 

than one State and votes cast for "uncommitted" delegates (those not pledged to any 

specific candidate). The Commission argued that 

the provisions of Section 9033(c)(4)(B) required 

the Commission to count total votes cast for all 

Presidential primary candidates in a particular 

primary - including aU votes cast for inactive or 

write-in candidates or "uncommitted" delegates. 

In upholding the Commission's method of 

determining Mr. LaRouche's reeligibility for 

primary matching funds, the Court stated 

" ...petitioners' narrow focus on the word 

'candidate,' to the exclusion of the phrase 

within which that word appears, results in a 

strained and artificial construction that is at 

odds with the Act's underlying concern that 

Federal matching funds should go only to those 

candidates who have demonstrated at least 

minimal public support for their candidacies." 

Major Party Certifications 

The Commission's certification of public funds 

to the Republican nominee was challenged in 

Carter-Mondale Reelection Committee, Inc. and 

the Democratic National Committee v. FEC, 

filed July 24, 1980. The Carter-Mondale Committee (the Committee) asked the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to 

prevent the Commission's certification of the 

Republican nominees, pending resolution of an 

administrative complaint filed by the plaintiffs 

against the nominees. In their complaint to 

the Commission, the Committee had said that 

Ronald Reagan would be ineligible for public 

funds since he had allegedly violated the law on 

several counts. The Committee had charged that 

several groups, purportedly making independent 

expenditures on Mr. Reagan's behalf, were in 

fact making qualified campaign expenditures 

with the prior consent of the candidate and his 

agents. In the suit, the Commission argued that 

the certification was proper and within the 

Commission's exclusive jurisdiction. On September 12, the Court ruled in the Commission's 

favor and affirmed the Commission's "action in 

certifying the nominees' application for funds." 

New Party Candidates 

During 1980, the Commission issued four 

advisory opinions14 and engaged in two court 

suits, all arising from issues relating to new party 

candidates. 

Eligibility for Public Funds. In AO 1980-56, the 

Commission decided that the total number of 

votes cast for Mr. Barry Commoner in the 

Presidential election would determine his 

eligibility for retroactive public funding - regardless of whether his name appeared on State 

ballots as an independent candidate or as the 

Citizens Party's candidate. 

In John B. Anderson and the National Unity 

Campaign for John Anderson v. FEC, filed July 

31, 1980, the plaintiffs asked the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia to rule that: 

- Mr. Anderson would be entitled to postelection public funding if he were to receive 

five percent or more of the vote as an independent candidate; and 

- If he were denied public funds, then the 

public financing law would be unconstitutional. 

14 The Commission issues advisory opinions to persons who 

raise questions on the application of the law or Commission 

regulations to a specific factual 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). See also 

pages 27, 31 and Appendix 11. 
21 

The Commission argued that, before filing suit, 

Mr. Anderson should have requested an advisory 

opinion on his eligibility for public funding. 

Upon urging by the Court, the National Unity 

Campaign requested the Commission's advice, 

which resulted in AO 1980-96 (see below). On 

September 8, the Court dismissed the suit. 

The Commission determined in AO 1980-96 

that John Anderson could be eligible for postelection funding. Under the general election 

public financing law, an individual must be a 

"candidate" of a "political party" in order to 

receive public funds. Mr. Anderson qualified as a 

"candidate" because he was to appear on the 

ballot in 10 or more States. A number of organizations supporting Mr. Anderson's candidacy 

qualified as "political parties" because they 

satisfied the criteria established in Commission 

regulations. Specifically, the Anderson organizations had "nominated or selected an individual 

for election" by obtaining ballot access for 

Mr. Anderson in their respective States. In 

addition, the name of the nominated individual 

(Mr. Anderson) was to appear "on the general 

election ballot as the candidate of such 

... organization." Therefore, once the Commission received official verification that Mr. 

Anderson's name would appear on the State 

ballots as their candidate, the organizations 

would acquire "political party" status. 

Commissioner John Warren McGarry filed a 

dissenting opinion to AO 1980-96. In the 

dissent, he maintained that the opinion did not 

address the real issue presented in the request, 

namely, whether John Anderson was eligible, 

as an independent candidate, for post-election 

public funding. Commissioner McGarry concluded that John Anderson should be entitled to 

post-election funding as an independent, without being compelled to establish a party apparatus in order to qualify for public funding. 

Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a concurring opm1on similar to Commissioner 

McGarry's dissent. Mr. Reiche stated that the 

opinion refused to acknowledge that Mr. 

Anderson's campaign was "dedicated to the 

election of an independent candidate" and was 

"devoid of any interest in the formation of a 

political party." He considered that independent 

candidates should be treated as eligible for 

public funding on an equal basis with minor or 

new party candidates and should not have to 

"cloak themselves with the appearance of 

political party formality ...." 

Commissioner Robert 0. Tiernan also filed a 

separate opinion in which he unequivocally 

concurred in AO 1980-96. He stressed that the 

issue presented in AO 1980-96 was not whether 

the public funding provisions could be expanded 

to include independent candidates "in order to 

avoid constitutional snags ...." Instead, the 

Commissioner contended that the issue concerned only whether Mr. Anderson would be 

eligible for post-election funding as a new party 

candidate. 

Bank Loans. AO 1980-108 addressed the permissibility of bank loans to be made to Mr. 

Anderson's principal campaign committee, the 

National Unity Campaign. The Commission 

decided that, although the loans were to be 

secured on the expectation that Mr. Anderson 

would receive public funds, they would not be 

treated as prohibited contributions but, rather, 

as bona fide loans. The Commission reasoned 

that the loans would not necessarily fall outside 

the "ordinary course of business" solely because 

the principal means of repayment would be 

the post-election funds available to Mr. 

Anderson if he received five percent of the 

popular vote. Furthermore, the loans would not 

violate the law's requirement that bank loans be 

"made on a basis which assures repayment" 

solely because Mr. Anderson's receipt of postelection funds was contingent on his receiving 

at least five percent of the vote. The Commission noted that the risk of the candidate's 

failure to repay the loans was mitigated by a 

proposed revolving credit agreement that included several risk-control mechanisms. 
22 

Commissioner Tiernan filed a dissenting opinion 

to AO 1980-108, in which he questioned the 

legal standing of the advisory opinion request. 

Citing Section 112.1 (b) of Commission regulations, Mr. Tiernan stated that the National 

Unity Campaign's request was "merely an 

abstract question of general interpretation about 

the possible actions of a third party bank" and 

was, therefore, "procedurally deficient as an 

advisory opinion request ...." 

In their concurring opinion, Commissioner 

Thomas E. Harris and Commissioner McGarry 

stated that they did not believe AO 1980-1 08 

ruled on the merits of the proposed loan agreement. Both Commissioners would have preferred 

that the opinion exclude any mention of the 

loan agreement's particulars since the details 

were irrelevant to the opinion's conclusion. 

Committees Supporting New Party Candidates. 

Mr. Anderson again brought suit against the 

Commission in John B. Anderson v. FEC, filed 

September 8, 1980. In this second suit, Mr. 

Anderson challenged the constitutionality of 

two provisions of the election law: 

- The provision that entitles a national party 

committee to receive contributions of up to 

$20,000 per year from individuals (Section 

441a(1 )(b)); and 

- The provision that permits a national party 

committee to make special "coordinated 

party expenditures" on behalf of its Presidential nominee (Section 441 a(d)). 

Mr. Anderson sought a preliminary injunction 

directing the Commission to permit the application of both provisions to the "National Unity 

Campaign 441a(d) Committee," which had 

registered as a committee only the day before 

filing suit. The Commission successfully opposed 

the motion and defended the constitutionality 

of the challenged provisions. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the First Circuit granted the Commission's motion to remand the case to the 

district court for fact finding. The case is still 

pending. 

However, the National Unity Campaign for John 

Anderson and the National Unity Campaign 

441a(d) Committee subsequently requested an 

advisory opinion on their status as national 

committees of a political party. In AO 

1980-131, the Commission held that, because 

neither committee qualified as a national committee, they were not entitled to receive up to 

$20,000 in contributions from individuals or to 

make coordinated party expenditures (441 a(d) 

expenditures). Neither committee had nominated candidates for other Federal offices; conducted voter registration and get-out-the-vote 

drives; provided speakers; organized volunteer 

workers; publicized issues of importance to the 

party; or held a national convention. The Commission believed that the committees operated 

as single-candidate committees exclusively on 

behalf of John Anderson and his running mate, 

Patrick Lucey. 
Chapter 3 

Administration of the 

Election Law 

2a 

The Commission's Public Records Office provides microfilmed campaign finance reports for public inspection 

and copying. 

The 1979 Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act, effective January 8, 1980, had a 

major impact on Commission operations. The 

Commission altered existing programs and 

developed new ones to implement the Amendments. The Commission made these administrative changes quickly in order to have the new 

programs functioning in time for the 1980 

elections. In addition, the Commission made 

other program changes to more fully disclose 

and monitor election activities. 

This chapter summarizes 1980 Commission 

developments that do not specifically relate to 

the public financing of Presidential elections. 

The first part of the chapter describes the 

impact of the 1979 Amendments on Commission activity. Program improvements initiated 

by the Commission during the past year are also 

discussed.1 The chapter ends by examining 

relevant legal issues arising from 1980 litigation 

and advisory opinions. 

Statistical information on the operations of 

Commission divisions and offices is provided in 

Appendices 5 and 6. 

Encouraging Voluntary 

Compliance 

During 1980, the Commission continued to 

encourage voluntary compliance with the 

election law.2 The 1979 Amendments affected 

this mission in two ways. First, the Commission 

sought to promote compliance with the newly 

amended law by promptly responding to questions from candidates and committees and 

by alerting organizations to changes that specifically concerned them. Secondly, the 1979 

1 For detailed descriptions of the Commission's ongoing operations, see the 1977 and 1978 Annual Reports, available for 

review in the Public Records Office and for purchase through 

the Government Printing Office. 

2 Commission testimony before the House Administration Committee's Task Force described ongoing Commission efforts to 

promote voluntary compliance. See Appendix 7. 

Q> 

c: 

j 

~ 

~ 

"' 
24 

From its beginning, the Commission has promoted compliance with the election law by helping political committees understand the requirements of the law. 

Amendments imposed modifications on the 

Commission's methods and procedures for 

promoting compliance. 

Assistance to Committees 

From its beginning, the Commission has promoted compliance with the election law by helping 

political committees understand the requirements of the law. In the wake of the 1979 

Amendments, the Commission stepped up its 

efforts in this regard. President Carter signed 

into law the 1979 Amendments to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act in January 1980, ten 

months before the 1980 general election and 

only a few weeks before the first primaries. Both 

the Public Communications Office and the 

Reports Analysis Division were at once confronted with questions from candidates and 

committees on the changes in the law and their 

effect on campaign activities. In order to meet 

the public's immediate need for information, 

both offices held a brief but intensive retraining 

program for staff who answer telephone calls 

and letters from the public. Within a month, 

the Commission released its own edition of the 

newly amended Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act). In addition, the Publications Office 

produced a supplemental issue of the Commission's monthly newsletter, the Record, which 

summarized the 1979 Amendments and highlighted changes that affected specific groups, 

such as party or candidate committees. (See the 

FEC's 1979 Annual Report, page 27.) A second 

supplement to the Record, directed exclusively 

to State and local party organizations, explained 

in greater detail how the 1979 Amendments 

impacted on their operations. The Commission 

also published its own version of newly revised 

regulations (see below). 

Finally, the Commission notified certain types 

of committees that the Amendments stipulated 

changes in their procedures. Letters to unauthorized candidate committees alerted them to the 

new requirement that prohibits such committees 

from including in their titles the names of 

candidates they support or oppose. Similarly, 

separate segregated funds were notified of the 

new provision that requires a separate segregated 

fund's title to include the name of its sponsoring 

organization. Another notification explained 

that reports on office accounts were no longer 

required. 

Filing Notifications 

Reminder notices of upcoming reports and 

overdue reports have been a key part of the 

Commission's effort to encourage compliance 

with the Act's reporting requirements. The 1979 

Amendments codified procedures for notifying 

committees of filing dates for special election 

reports and for taking action against committees 

that fail to file reports on time. These changes to 

the law did not substantially affect Commission 

operations as the Commission had been fulfilling 

the newly mandated requirements for some 

time. The Commission had been sending committees "prior notices" alerting them to upcoming filing deadlines, including those for sp-ecial 

election reports. In compliance with the amended law, the Commission began to publish special 

election filing dates in the Federal Register. 

While continuing the practice of sending mailgrams that notify nonfiling committees of their 
failure to file reports, the Commission began to 

give delinquent committees additional time to 

respond to the mailgram before the Commission 

initiated enforcement procedures. As required 

under the amended law, the Commission published only the names of nonfiling candidate 

committees. Formerly, the names of all nonfilers 

were published. 

The Reports Analysis Division began to use a 

new computerized word processing system to 

issue standard letters that asked committees to 

provide additional information or to address a 

particular problem. The new system expedited 

notifications and proved cost efficient. 

Regulations 

To help committees understand the requirements of the new Amendments, the Commission 

sent to Congress a set of revised regulations 

seven weeks after the President signed the 

amended law; this met the deadline set in the 

Amendments. The amended statute also allowed 

the Commission to prescribe these regulations 

after a Congressional review period of only 15 

legislative days, rather than the normal 30 days. 

On April 1, the Commission formally prescribed 

the new regulations, which modified only those 

parts of the previous regulations that were 

affected by the 1979 Amendments. The regulations on reporting requirements (Part 1 04), 

for example, were changed substantially, while 

the regulations on separate segregated funds 

(Part 114) were altered only slightly. The 

following chart shows which parts and sections 

of the previous regulations were affected and 

what types of changes were made. In some cases, 

provisions were rewritten; sometimes they were 

merely renumbered; occasionally they were 

deleted altogether. The citations refer to the 

Commission's first set of regulations, prescribed 

on April 13, 1977. 

Part 

No 

Change Rewritten Renumbered Deleted 

100 • • 

101 • • 

102 • • 

103 • 

104 • • 

105 • § 105.4 

106 •(except 

minor 

revisions) 

§106.1 (c)(3) 

§ 1 06.2(a) 

§ 106.3(d) 

continued 

25 
Part 

No 

Change Rewritten Renumbered Deleted 

107* • 

108 §108.7 

§108.8 

§ § 1 08.1 - 1 08.6 

109 § 109.1 §109.2 

§109.4 

§ 109.4 § 109.3 

§109.5 

110 § 110.1 

§ § 110.3-

110.5 

§ § 110.8-

110.10 

§ 110.2(b) 

§ 110.6(c)(4) 

§110.6(c)(4)(i) 

§110.11(a) 

§110.12(a) 

§ 11 0.12(b)(5) & (6) 

§ 110.7(c)(3) § 110.7(b)(5) 

§110.7(c)(2) 

§110.11(c) 

111 • • 

112 • • 

113 §113.1 § 113.2(c) & (d) 

§ 113.3(b) 

§113.5(b) 

§ 113.5 § 113.4 

114 •(except 

minor 

revisions) 

§ 114.1 (a)(2)(v) 

§ 114.6(c)(3) 

§ 114.6(d) 

§114.6(d)(2)(ii) 

§ 114.6(d)(3)(i) & (ii) 

9008 •(except 

minor 

revisions) 

§9008.3(a) 

26 

* Previous change. Amended Section 107 was prescribed by the Commission on December 20, 1979, and published in the Federal RegistEr on November 1, 1979 (44 Fed. Reg. 63045). 
27 

Advisory Opinions3 

Advisory opinions - through which the Commission offers guidance on how the law applies 

to specific situations - have been an effective 

way of promoting compliance with the Act. The 

1979 Amendments modified advisory opinion 

procedures by expanding the list of those who 

could request opinions and by ensuring that 

requesters received an opinion within a definite 

time. Prior to the Amendments, advisory opinions could be issued only to Federal officeholders, candidates and political committees; 

under the amended statute, any person could 

request an opinion. Consequently, there was a 

marked increase in the number of advisory 

opinions issued in 1980 - 134, compared 

with 65 opinions issued in 1979 and 108 advisory opinions in 1978. The increased number of 

opinions in 1980 also reflected the fact that 

individuals wanted guidance on the practical 

application of the Amendments to specific 

activities. For example, committees asked for 

c.larification of new statutory restrictions on the 

titles of political committees. Many requesters 

wanted advice on the use of excess campaign 

funds because the Amendments prohibited the 

personal use of excess funds by persons who had 

not been officeholders when the new Amendments became law (January 8, 1980). 

The Commission released opinions more quickly 

than in the past, reflecting the new statutory 

deadline of 60 days. Further, the amended law 

established an expedited 20-day deadline for 

requests submitted by candidate committees 

within 60 days before an election in which the 

candidate was involved. Under the new procedures, the Commission issued advisory opinions (not including expedited opinions) on an 

average of 46 days after receiving a request.4 

Disclosure 

During 1980, the Commission implemented 

legislative changes in the disclosure of campaign 

finance information and modified its procedures 

for disseminating this information to the public. 

On the one hand, the Commission published 

new reporting forms and adopted new procedures for computerized reporting of campaign 

finance information. On the other hand, the 

agency developed new computer programs, 

generated more press releases and systematized 

regulations governing public access to documents. 

New Forms and Reporting Requirements 

The 1979 Amendments modified the requirements that apply to the disclosure of financial 

activity by political committees. For example, 

the reporting categories, under which committees disclose particulars of receipts and disbursements, were redefined and reordered. The 

Amendments also reduced the number of 

reports committees had to file and changed the 

schedule of deadlines for filing reports. 

The Commission redesigned the reporting forms 

to implement the Amendments and to make 

them easier for committees to use. The final 

forms included, for the first time, line-by-line 

instructions. They were published in March 

and April 1980. 

Changes in reporting requirements necessitated 

revisions in computer programs as well. Because 

the Data Systems Development Division corrected the programs quickly, the Commission 

continued to release periodic campaign finance 

statistics with no interruption. Nevertheless, the 

3 The Commission issues advisory opinions to persons who raise 

questions on 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). See pages 20 and 

31 for brief summaries of advisory opinions that addressed 

significant issues in 1980. All advisory opinions issued in 1980 

are summarized in Appendix 11. 

4 For statistics on the Office of General Counsel's activities, see 

Appendix 5, page 57. 
28 

changes in reporting categories made it difficult, 

in some cases, to compare 1980 statistics with 

those of 1978 and 1976. 

The Commission also adopted new procedures 

for approving computerized formats used by 

committees to itemize their receipts and disbursements. Commission regulations permitted 

committees to substitute computer printouts for 

standard forms but required committees to first 

submit a sample format for Commission approval. To qualify for Commission approval, the 

computerized format had to include all information required on the Commission's own forms; it 

had to present information in the same order as 

the forms; and it had to lend itself to being 

legibly reproduced and microfilmed. To expedite approval of requests to use a computerized 

format, the Commission delegated approval 

authority to the Reports Analysis Division. 

Press Activity 

The Press Office continually updated press 

releases on campaign finance information during 

the election year. Using the latest computer 

data, the Office issued a series of statistical 

charts on contributions by nonparty committees 

and on money raised and spent by Senate and 

House campaigns. 

These press releases heightened national interest 

in campaign finance activity. While continuing 

to respond to inquiries from reporters around 

the nation, the Press Office briefed a growing 

number of foreign press representatives. The 

Office also coordinated activity with major 

networks and local television stations that 

filmed Commission activity for news stories and 

special programs. 

New Computer Indexes 

In response to the growing interest in independent expenditure5 activity, the Commission 

created three new indexing programs6 in July 

1980. Issued regularly, they provided detailed 

information on independent expenditures covering the period 1977-1978 and 1979-1980. One 

index listed independent expenditures by the 

committees or persons who made them, indicating the candidates they supported or opposed 

and the total amounts they spent, per candidate. 

A second index gave the particulars of each 

independent expenditure as well as the summary 

information provided by the first index. The 

third index, a revision of one used in 1979, 

listed independent expenditures by candidate, 

providing the details of each expenditure made 

for or against a candidate. 

Growth of Nonparty Political Committees 

An example of how the Commission's computer 

Changes in reporting requirements, stemming from the 

1979 Amendments, necessitated revisions in computer 

programs. Because the Commission corrected the programs quickly, it continued to release periodic campaign 

finance statistics with no interruption. 

., 

c 

...J 

"' .. 

., 

"'

.. 

iii 

5 See footnote 13, page 19, for the definition of independent expenditure. 

6 See also Appendix 13. 
Number of NONPARTY COMMITTEE GROWTH 

Committees* 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

Total 

Corporate 

Nonconnected 

~----~~~--~----~~----~~~~~------ubor 

500 

29 

base was used to extract information of relevance to the public is presented in the nonparty 

(noncandidate) political committee growth 

chart. Based on data entered into the computer 

as of December 31, 1980, the chart shows an 

increase of more than 500 nonparty committees 

during 1980. The chart plots the growth of 

nonparty committees between 1975 and 1980. 

Figures show that 608 committees were in 

existence at the beginning of 1975. By the end 

of 1976, that number rose to 1,146 and, by 

January 1981, it reached 2,551. The graph does 

not reflect the financial activity of these committees. 

*This graph includes all political committees that are not authorized 

by a Federal candidate and are not established by a political party. 
30 

The 1979 Amendments gave State and local party committees more opportunities for participation in the 

Federal election process. 

Purchase of Commission Documents 

and FOIA Requests 

In June 1980, the Commission's revised regulations on the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) became effective, as did new regulations 

governing public access to Commission documents. The regulations set out uniform procedures and fees for providing documents to the 

public both under FOIA and pursuant to the 

Commission's public disclosure duties. 7 The 

Press Office, which responds to FOIA requests, 

received 83 requests in 1980. A number of these 

requests were for computer tapes containing 

such data as Commission mailing lists, indexes 

of committees registered with the Commission 

and information on contributions to candidates. 

Audits 

The 1979 Amendments stipulated new procedures for determining which committees the 

Commission would audit. Under the amended 

provisions, the Commission adopted audit 

selection criteria that established a threshold for 

substantial compliance with the law. Reports 

analysts rated a committee's reports on the basis 

of certain criteria. If the rating exceeded the 

compliance threshold, then, by an affirmative 

vote of four, the Commission could direct staff 

to audit that committee. The Commission had 

to begin such an audit within 30 days of the 

vote. However, in the case of a candidate's 

authorized committee, the Commission had to 

initiate the audit within six months after the 

election for which the candidate campaigned. 

Enforcement 

The 1979 Amendments substantially changed 

procedures for processing complaints (called 

Matters Under Review or MURs) filed with the 

Commission. Early in February 1980, the 

Commission adopted interim enforcement procedures, later included in the revised regulations 

implementing the amended statute. The new 

procedures eliminated the "reasonable cause to 

believe" stage in the enforcement process and 

required the Commission to give additional 

notifications to respondents. As a result, legal 

staff had to review 150 matters that were 

pending when the Amendments became law. 

The 1980 general elections necessitated special 

compliance procedures to quickly resolve 

possible election law violations affecting candidates and campaigns involved in the election. In 

September 1980, the Commission approved 

procedures for expediting complaints filed with 

the Commission within 30 days before the 

November election. These procedures applied 

only to Federal candidates running in the 

general election and to political committees 

making contributions and expenditures in 

connection with the election. Expedited procedures cut by almost one month the time required to process complaints. 7 See the chart on Commission regulations, Appendix 5, page 58. 
31 

Because of special statutory requirements for 

expediting judicial review (2 U.S.C. Section 

437h), virtually all Commission litigation was 

conducted under extremely expedited schedules. 

Court suits proceeded rapidly from discovery to 

briefing to argument. Despite the pressures of 

time, the Commission established a record of 

success in its 1980 court actions. 8 

Legal Issues 

A number of legal issues, which emerged in 1980 

from Commission litigation and advisory opinions (AOs), served to more clearly define the 

election law. They are discussed below. 

Independent Expenditures9 

Three advisory opinions distinguished expenditures that were truly independent from those 

that, because of invalidating circumstances, 

resulted in contributions to the candidates 

involved. In AO 1979-80 (issued March 12, 

1980), the Commission ruled that the National 

Conservative Political Action Committee's 

(NCPAC) proposed independent expenditure 

advocating the defeat of a candidate might 

be considered an in-kind contribution benefiting 

the candidate's opponent. In making the independent expenditure, NCPAC wished to use the 

services of a consultant who had previously been 

engaged by the opponent. The Commission 

noted that, in order for the expenditure to be 

independent, it could not be made "with the 

cooperation or prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a 

candidate or any agent or authorized committee 

of the candidate." 11 CFR 109.1(b)(4)(i). 

Based on this definition, the Commission 

presumed that NCPAC's expenditures advocating the defeat of a candidate would not be 

independent if: 

- The consultant engaged by NCPAC had been 

an agent of the opponent; or 

-The expenditure was based on information 

provided by the opponent or his agent; or 

-The expenditure was made through any 

person connected with the opponent's campaign, as specified by 11 CF R 109.1 (b)(4) 

(i)(B). 

Similarly, in AO 1980-116, the Commission 

determined that the Americans for a Responsible Presidency, an independent expenditure 

committee, could not make an independent 

expenditure on behalf of a certain candidate if 

they used the speech-making services of an 

individual previously paid by the committee of 

the same candidate. These circumstances implied 

coordination between the speaker and the 

candidate's campaign. 

In AO 1980-46, NCPAC again consulted the 

Commission about an independent expenditure. 

The Committee asked whether or not its expenses for a proposed mass mailing to advocate a 

candidate's election and to solicit contributions 

for him would be considered an independent 

expenditure. The Commission determined that 

the expenditure would be an in-kind contribution to the candidate because NCPAC planned 

to receive the contributions before passing them 

on to the candidate's committee. The Commission reasoned that, in accepting contributions 

collected and forwarded by NCPAC, the candidate's committee would be accepting NCPAC's 

solicitation services. 

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens filed a dissenting 

opinion to AO 1980-46, in which she noted that 

the opinion disputed the independence of the 

expenditure only because of the candidate's 

acceptance of the contributions solicited and 

transmitted by NCPAC - not because the 

contributions were from NCPAC or controlled 

by NCPAC or solicited with the prior consent of 

the candidate. 

8 For statistics on. the Office of General Counsel's activities, see 

Appendix 5, page 57. 

9 See footnote 13, page 19, for the definition of independent ex· 

penditure. 
32 

Commissioner Max L. Friedersdorf also dissented to AO 1980-46. Like Commissioner Aikens, 

Mr. Friedersdorf noted that NCPAC's payments 

for the mass mailing were assumed to be independent expenditures at the time of the mailing 

and became in-kind contributions only when the 

candidate accepted the contributions. 

Additionally, the courts examined the issue of 

limitations on contributions from individuals 

and groups to political committees making independent expenditures. In Stewart R. Mott, 

Rhonda K. Stahlman and the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPACJ v. 

FEC, filed December 17, 1979, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the 

election law, Commission regulations and 

advisory opinions. Plaintiffs based their argument on the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo 

decision, which held that limitations on independent expenditures were unconstitutional. 

Plaintiffs therefore contended that limitations 

on contributions to independent expenditure 

committees would likewise be unconstitutional. 

The Commission argued that some of the claims 

presented in the suit were not ripe for consideration by the Court while others failed to state 

a claim upon which relief could be granted. The 

District Court for the District of Columbia 

agreed with the Commission and, on June 30, 

1980, dismissed the suit. The Court pointed out 

that, in its Buckley v. Valeo decision (424 

U.S. 1 at 38 (1976)), the Supreme Court had 

upheld the constitutionality of the contribution 

limits. 

Committee Communications 

The issue of what constitutes "express advocacy" (of the election or defeat of a candidate) 

was the subject of court cases and advisory opinions. The suit FEC v. Central Long Island 

Tax Reform Immediately (CLITRIM) arose 

from a verified administrative complaint filed 

with the Commission. The complainants had 

alleged that, because CLITRIM's publication and 

distribution costs for a pamphlet constituted an 

independent expenditure, CLITRIM had committed two violations of the election law: failure 

to report the costs of the independent expenditure and failure to publish a notice stating who 

had paid for the pamphlet. The Commission 

proceeded through the administrative enforcement process set out in Section 437g of the 

election law. Because the Commission and 

CLITRIM were unable to settle the matter 

through a conciliation agreement, on August 1, 

1978, the Commission filed a civil complaint in 

the District Court to enforce the law, as authorized in Section 437g(a)(6). 

In its defense, CLITRIM questioned the constitutionality of: the Commission's attempt to 

enforce the law; the provisions that CLITRIM 

had allegedly violated; and certain of the Commission's regulations. Furthermore, CLITRIM 

claimed that its pamphlet was not subject 

to the independent expenditure provisions since 

it did not expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of candidates. In its argument to support 

this claim, CLITRIM pointed out that the 

pamphlet had not contained any of the terms of 

express advocacy specified by the Supreme 

Court in Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. (1976) at 

44 N.52). 

Responding to this argument, the Commission 

maintained that the CLITRIM pamphlet was not 

merely informational; rather, it was intended to 

influence elections since it had discussed 

CLITRIM's position on certain issues, evaluated 

candidates' positions on the same issues and 

urged readers to vote with CLITRIM. Additionally, the Commission argued that the challenged 

provisions were constitutional. In a limited 

ruling, which did not address the constitutional 

issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Second 

Circuit) concluded that the CLITRIM pamphlet 

did not contain express advocacy and, therefore, 

that CLITRIM had not violated the law. 

In AO 1980-9, the Commission determined that 

a letter, printed and distributed by Arizonans 

for Life, a registered political committee, was 

not an independent expenditure because it did 

not expressly advocate the defeat of a candidate. 

Although the letter made stat{!ments relating 
33 

to Senator Edward Kennedy's Presidential 

candidacy, it did not contain the explicit wording required for express advocacy. The Commission noted that expenses for the letter would, 

however, be reportable by the committee as 

general disbursements. 

In AO 1980-106, the Commission said that 

payments made by FaithAmerica, an unincorporated association, to publish and distribute a 

brochure summarizing Presidential candidates' 

views would constitute "expenditures" made 

for the purpose of influencing a Federal election. The payments would be considered 

"expenditures" because the information, and 

the manner in which it was to be presented, were 

designed to influence the reader's choice in the 

1980 Presidential election rather than to promote discussion of public issues. 

Corporate Communications 

Several advisory opinions concerned the use of 

corporate funds for public communications. 

Clarifying the scope of permissible nonpartisan 

communications, the opinions permitted ads 

urging voter registration, but disallowed the 

dissemination of candidates' views on campaign 

issues. 

In AO 1980-20, the Commission approved the 

use of corporate funds to pay for a newspaper 

advertisement that read "Please Register to 

Vote." The opinion, requested by Rexnord, 

Inc., overruled a previous opinion (AO 1979-48) 

also issued to Rexnord. The Commission delineated the reasons why the corporate-sponsored 

advertisement complied with the regulations: 

- Rexnord's activity did not involve providing 

personal services, such as driving people to the 

polls, which would have required joint sponsorship with a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization under Commission regulations. 

- The advertisement was strictly nonpartisan 

and did not suggest that readers register with 

a particular party. 

- The advertisement did not appeal to any 

identifiable group, since Rexnord had placed 

it in a general circulation newspaper. 

In 1980, the Commission prescribed new regulations 

governing the funding of candidate debates. 

Commissioners Thomas E. Harris and Robert 0. 

Tiernan filed a dissent to this advisory opinion. 

They argued tha~, under current regulations, if a 

corporation wished to urge the general public to 

register to vote, it could do so only by distributing or reprinting information prepared by 

election officials. They suggested, therefore, that 

the Commission draft a regulation permitting 

strictly nonpartisan corporate communications 

to the public rather than issue an advisory 

opinion. 

In a concurring opinion, Commissioner Frank P. 

Reiche drew a distinction between"pure speech," 

that is, nonpartisan speech, and "speech plus," 

which he defined as assertive political speech. 

The Commissioner categorized as "pure speech" 

the Act's expenditure exemption for "nonpartisan activity designed to encourage individuals to vote or to register to vote." 2 U.S.C. 

Section 431(9)(B)(ii). Stating his belief that 

Congress did not intend to prohibit corporations 

from engaging in "pure speech," Mr. Reiche 

concluded that this exemption for nonpartisan 
34 

voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives 

applied to corporate communications such as 

Rexnord's. Mr. Reiche was also in favor of 

revised regulations that would clarify the "pure 

speech" activities permitted to corporations. 

The Commission, in AO 1980-33, permitted a 

nonprofit, incorporated membership organization to finance public announcements encouraging voting and voter registration. The Commission determined that the radio announcements, 

in which the National Association of Realtors 

urged voter registration, satisfied the same 

nonpartisan criteria applied to Rexnord's 

newspaper advertisement. One radio announcement, considered in the Supplement to AO 

1980-33, differed from the other communications in its suggestion that the public obtain 

registration information at real estate offices of 

Association members. The Commission approved the announcement with a proviso that 

the information be prepared by election officials 

and be distributed in a nonpartisan manner. 

Commissioners Tiernan and Harris dissented to 

AO 1980-33 and its Supplement for the same 

reasons they had dissented to the Rexnord 

opinion, namely, they believed the issue should 

be resolved through the regulatory process, 

rather than by an advisory opinion. 

In AO 1980-90, the Commission responded to a 

request by the Atlantic Richfield Company, 

which proposed producing for public distribution a videotape of interviews with major 

Presidential candidates. The Company intended 

that the interviews would be carried on commercial and cable television. The Commission 

determined that the communication would 

result in prohibited contributions to each of the 

candidates because the tape was prepared by the 

Company and not obtained from a civic or other 

nonprofit organization, as the regulations 

required. 

Commissioners Aikens and Friedersdorf dissented to this opinion as an "overly restrictive 

interpretation" of the Act's prohibitions on 

corporate activity. The Commissioners did 

not believe that Section 441 b, the provision 

prohibiting corporate contributions and expenditures, extended to nonpartisan public 

service communications sponsored by corporations. Rather, they contended that Section 441 b 

was designed only to prevent corporations from 

engaging in "active electioneering," that is, 

partisan activity urging the public to vote for a 

particular candidate or party. 

Professionals' Volunteer Services 

Two advisory opinions dealt with the issue of 

whether the Act's exemption for volunteer 

activity applied to professional services donated 

solely for fundraising. Because of differing 

interpretations, the Commissioners failed to 

approve a third advisory opinion request on the 

same issue. 

In AO 1980-34, the Connally for President 

Committee made the following inquiry about 

artists' volunteer services: when artists created 

and donated a piece of artwork, did the donation constitute a contribution in-kind if the 

committee used the artwork as a fundraising 

device? The Commission determined that if the 

artists were reimbursed for their materials (e.g., 

canvas, paints), no contribution would result. 

However, the full purchase price of each artwork 

sold would be considered a contribution to the 

Committee. The Commission noted further that 

the Committee's proposed sale of artwork by a 

dealer would be a fundraising, not a commercial, 

activity since the money collected would be 

used to retire the Committee's debts. 

The Commission addressed the same issue in AO 

1980-42, requested by the Hart for Senate 

Committee. Here, the Commission similarly 

determined that entertainers' volunteer services 

for a fundraising concert would not be considered contributions; nevertheless, the proceeds 

from ticket sales would be contributions from 

the ticket purchasers. Moreover, the Commission 

approved the Committee's plan to contract a 

professional promoter to stage the concert but 

advised the Committee to establish controls 
35 

ensuring that purchasers did not violate the 

election law's dollar limits or prohibitions on 

contributions. The Commission also delineated 

the required banking and transmittal arrangements for the proceeds. 

Commissioner Reiche wrote dissenting opinions 

to both AO 1980-34 and AO 1980-42. In his 

dissents, the Commissioner stated that the value 

of professionals' volunteer services should be 

construed as a contribution, subject to the same 

$1,000 limit that applies to "every citizen." 

Commissioner Reiche remarked that the volunteer services exemption was originally designed 

to encourage grassroots participation in political 

campaigns and was not intended to permit the 

donation of unlimited professional services. 

Additionally, Mr. Reiche argued that purchasers 

of concert tickets or artworks were not usually 

interested in making political contributions. 

Rather, the entertainer or artist, by donating 

valuable services, was actually making a contribution to support a favored candidate. 

In AOR 1980-136, the Kennedy for President 

Committee requested an opinion on the use of 

artwork to settle debts. The Committee had 

acquired artwork volunteered by artists and had 

sold some of the artwork to raise funds for the 

primary campaign. With the campaign over, 

the Committee wished to exchange the remaining artwork for a reduction of debts owed to 

creditors. A draft response to AOR 1980-136, 

which followed AO 1980-34 as a precedent, 

failed to obtain the required four votes of the 

Commissioners. 

Compliance Procedures 

The election law's requirements for processing 

complaints were the basic issue of three court 

cases. 

In Durkin for U.S. Senate Committee v. FEC, 

the Court upheld the Commission's jurisdiction 

in resolving compliance matters within the time 

frame stipulated by the election law. The Durkin 

for Senate Committee, on October 27, 1980, 

requested the Court to take action to stop the 

activities of a Defeat Durkin effort, which the 

Durkin Committee claimed had failed to register 

as a political committee and had accepted 

excessive contributions. 

Three days earlier, the Durkin Committee had 

filed a complaint with the Commission and 

requested that the Court order the Commission 

to expedite the complaint. The Court held that 

it had no jurisdiction over the suit since the 

Act requires that the party accused in a complaint be given 15 days to demonstrate no action 

should be taken. The Court explained that the 

Commission was unable to act on the Durkin 

Committee's complaint until after the parties 

had responded or 15 days had elapsed. On 

October 31, 1980, the District Court denied the 

Committee's request and dismissed the suit. 

Common Cause v. FEC concerned the interpretation of the law's requirement that the Commission act on complaints within 90 days. 1 0 In 

its suit filed in November 1978, Common Cause 

maintained that the Commission had acted 

contrary to law in not taking action within 90 

days after Common Cause had filed a complaint. 

The complaint alleged that the national and 

State political action committees {PACs) of the 

American Medical Association (AMA) were 

affiliated committees and thus shared a common 

contribution limit per candidate, per election. 

Common Cause's complaint listed numerous 

instances where the combined contributions of 

the national and State PACs had exceeded 

the limits in the 1976 Congressional eJections. 

At the time Common Cause filed its suit, the 

Commission had entered into conciliation 

agreements with the national PAC and a few 

State PACs. But by the Spring of 1980, when 

the case was heard in a District Court, the 

Commission had entered into agreements with 

an additional 16 State PACs and was preparing 

to enter into 11 more agreements. The Court 

10 The 1979 Amendments to the Act increased the time to 120 

days. 
36 

noted this, as well as the fact that the Commission had broadened the scope of its initial 

investigation and, further, had begun investigating four similar complaints filed against AMA's 

PACs. 

Common Cause nevertheless maintained that the 

Commission had acted contrary to law in not 

taking final action on its complaint within 90 

days. The Commission, on the other hand, 

argued that the 90-day provision simply gave 

the Court power to decide after 90 days whether 

or not the Commission had acted contrary to 

law. The Court supported the Commission's 

interpretation and pointed out that Common 

Cause's original complaint required extensive 

investigation to obtain proof of the allegations. 

Therefore, the Court did not find the Commission's efforts to collect further evidence to be an 

abuse of discretion. The Court did, however, 

order the Commission to either enter into 

conciliation· agreements with the remaining 

respondents within 30 days of the Court's ruling 

or bring suit against them. The Commission 

entered into agreements with the rest of the 

respondents within the time period, and the 

Court issued an order on June 13, 1980, dismissing the case. 

In Felice M. Gelman and Citizens for LaRouche, Inc. v. FEC, filed on October 1, 1980, 

the Court required the Commission to follow 

the enforcement procedures outlined in the 

election law (Section 437g) when conducting an 

investigation of contributions submitted for 

primary matching funds (at least in the absence 

of other established procedures for such investigations). The Commission had argued that its 

investigation of LaRouche contributors was not 

governed by Section 437g since the investigation 

was made pursuant to the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act. On October 

27, 1980, the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia enjoined the Commission from 

continuing its investigation without first notifying the LaRouche Committee of the legal and 

factual basis for the investigation. 

Constitutional Challenges to Section 441 b 

During 1980, the Commission continued to 

defend the constitutionality of Section 441 b of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act. The provision prohibits corporations, labor organizations and national banks from making contributions or expenditures in connection with Federal 

elections.1 1 The provision also places restrictions on the solicitation procedures used by 

separate segregated funds established and 

administered by corporations, labor organizations, trade associations and membership organizations. For example, a corporation or its 

separate segregated fund may solicit only 

stockholders, executive and administrative personnel and their families. This limitation on 

corporate solicitations was challenged as unconstitutional in National Chamber Alliance for Politics v. FEC. A recent ruling by the Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed 

the Commission's position that the case was not 

ripe for judicial consideration. On November 31, 

1980, tile Supreme Court denied the National 

Chamber's petition for the Court to consider the 

case. In Bre{Jd Political Action Committee v. 

FEC, the Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit 

agreed with the Commission that the limitation 

placed on solicitations by an incorporated trade 

association (restricted to executive and administrative personnel of member corporations that 

have given prior approval) violated neither the 

First nor Fifth Amendment. The matter is now 

on appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Other challenges to Section 441 b during 1980 

included: 

- California Medical Association (CMA) and 

California Medical Political Action Committee (CALPAC) v. FEC was heard by the 

Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit), which 

denied challenges to the First and Fifth 

Amendments. CMA, a nonprofit unincorpo11 National banks and Congressionally authorized corporations 

are not permitted to make contributions or expenditures in 

connection with any election: local, State or Federal. 2 

U.S.C. Section 441b(a). 
37 

rated association, contended that the Section 

441 a limitation placed on CMA's contributions to CALPAC was an infringement of 

First Amendment rights. Secondly, CMA 

argued that Section 441 b violated the equal 

protection provisions of the Constitution. 

Under Section 441 b, corporations and labor 

organizations may give unlimited administrative support to their separate segregated 

funds, while CMA may support CALPAC 

only by contributing to it, and these contributions are subject to limits. CMA appealed the 

Court's decision to the Supreme Court, where 

oral argument was heard on January 19, 1981. 

- FEC v. T. Bertram Lance was originally filed 

by the Commission to enforce its order 

requesting the deposition of Mr. Lance in 

connection with an administrative enforcement case. On January 5, 1981, the Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the 

constitutionality of Section 441 b's prohibition on contributions by national banks. 

The case is now on appeal to the Supreme 

Court. 

- FEC v. National Right to Work Committee 

was filed by the Commission to enforce 

Section 441 b limitations on solicitations by 

corporations without capital stock. The 

District Court for the District of Columbia 

upheld the constitutionality of the provision 

on April 24, 1980. The defendants appealed 

this judgment and briefs have been filed in 

the Court of Appeals (District of Columbia 

Circuit). 

Voters today are more informed about the campaign finances of Federal candidates as a result of the election law's 

public disclosure provisions. 
Chapter 39 4 

The Commission 

Commissioners and Statutory Officers 1 

On December 18, 1980, the Commission 

unanimously elected Acting Chairman John 

Warren McGarry to serve a one-year term as 

Commission Chairman and Commissioner Frank 

P. Reiche to serve as Vice Chairman. Both terms 

began on January 1, 1981. Mr. McGarry, former 

Commission Vice Chairman, succeeded to 

Acting Chairman when Max L. Friedersdorf 

resigned from the Commission on December 16 

to serve as Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs in the Reagan administration. On 

January 2, 1981, President Carter named former 

Commissioner Vernon W. Thomson to serve an 

interim appointment as Commissioner to fill the 

vacancy created by Chairman Friedersdorf's 

resignation. Mr. Thomson was sworn in at the 

Commission by Chairman McGarry on January 

5, 1981. 

The December election of new officers marked 

a change in the Commission's procedures. 

Previously, the election of officers had occurred 

in May. The Commission decided to elect the 

Chairman and Vice Chairman in the last open 

meeting of December, with terms of office 

coinciding with the calendar year. 

On August 21, 1980, the Commission appointed 

B. Allen Clutter, Ill, as Staff Director to fill the 

vacancy created by the resignation of Orlando B. 

Potter. 

Management Plan 

Although the Commission based its FY 1981 

Management Plan2 on a tentative budget of 

$9.410 million, the actual operating budget was 

$9.283 million, the amount prescribed in a 

continuing resolution of the FY 1980 appropriation. (The Commission originally expected an 

appropriation of $9.283 million and requested a 

supplemental appropriation of $612,350 to 

cover the 1980 October pay raise.) Until Congress determined the actual appropriation, the 

Commission held some programs in abeyance. 

The plan called for a reduction of staff through 

attrition, although an effort was made to spread 

the burden of staff reductions as equitably as 

possible. Staff attrition was designed to ensure 

sufficient resources to handle the peak activity 

generated by the 1980 elections and year-end 

reports (filed by all committees in January), 

while eventually reducing staff to minimum 

levels. 

The 1981 Management Plan was based on several 

principles. First, priority was given to the 

Presidential election public funding program. To 

this end, the Audit Division shifted resources to 

ensure the completion of all Presidential audits 

as rapidly as possible. 

Secondly, the Management Plan gave priority to 

program changes stemming from the amended 

election law. The Office of General Counsel's 

policy program, for example, required additional 

staff to comply with the statutory deadlines 

imposed on advisory opinion responses and to 

handle the increased number of requests for 

advisory opinions expected as a result of the 

Amendments to the Act. The plan also anticipated a closer working relationship between the 

Reports Analysis and Audit Divisions as a result 

of the audit selection process stipulated in the 

Amendments. 3 

Finally, the plan tried to preserve vital pr-ograms 

at a minimum cost. The Commission continued, 

for example, to enter into the computer summary data taken from all reports. However, in an 

effort to reduce the costs of data entry, the plan 

called for entering detailed information only for 

individual contributions of $500 and over 

(rather than over $200). 

1 Biographical sketches of the Commissioners and statutory officers appear in Appendix 1. 

2 The Management Plan is prepared by the Commission's Office 

of Planning and Management in cooperation with office and 

division heads. It encompasses all the Commission's programs 

for the fiscal year: October 1980- September 1981. 3 See page 30 for a description of the audit selection process. 
40 

The plan also substantially decreased the Clearinghouse contracting program, which provides 

technical information requested by State and 

local election officials. This reduction was 

mandated by the authorization language for FY 

1981, which placed a ceiling of $400,000 on 

Clearinghouse operations. 

Limited resources precluded a campaign finance 

seminar program to acquaint political commit· 

tees with the requirements of the law, but the 

plan did continue the Commission's policy of 

distributing free publications that help committees and candidates understand and comply with 

the election law. 

Internal Review 

The Planning and Management Office completed 

its second internal review, an evaluation of the 

Information Division4 and the Clearinghouse on 

Election Administration.5 Planning and Management conducted the review to determine wheth· 

er the offices met their program objectives in a 

cost efficient way and to assist them in making 

improvements. 

In its analysis of the Information Division's 

three branches - Public Communications, 

Publications and the Press Office- Planning and 

Management found that the Division had fulfilled its major function of providing information to candidates, committees and the general 

public and had effectively accommodated the 

informational needs of the media. In addition, 

Planning and Management offered suggestions 

on how the Division might more effectively 

assist the Commission's constituency in voluntary compliance with the election law. The 

Information Division implemented the following 

recommendations in 1980: 

- The Record adopted a Q and A format for its 

"800 Line" column to make clear that the 

column provides answers to questions the 

Commission actually receives from the public. 

Additionally, the column began to appear 

more regularly. 

- To devote more attention to the needs of 

State and local party organizations, the 

Division published a Record Supplement 

especially for their use and also prepared, for 

1981 publication, a more detailed party 

guide. 

- The Public Communications Office standardized routine letters to accelerate responses to 

common inquiries. 

- To encourage timely filing of reports, prior 

notices (sent by Public Communications to 

committees to remind them of upcoming 

reporting obligations) carried an additional 

message that explained compliance action 

would be taken if committees failed to 

file timely reports. 

- The Commission renovated the Press Office to 

allow more privacy of telephone conversations and briefings with visiting press. 

In their assessment of the Clearinghouse, Planning and Management tried to determine if the 

Office fulfilled, its mandated function "to serve 

as a national clearinghouse for the compilation 

of information and review of procedures with 

respect to the administration of Federal elections." Planning and Management concluded 

that the Clearinghouse was effectively using its 

limited resources to the maximum benefit of 

elections officials. The review recommended 

that the Clearinghouse, within the limits of a 

restricted budget, attempt to fund follow-up 

surveys of conferences and workshops to determine how attendees used the information 

presented. 

Labor /Management Relations 

Nineteen-eighty was the first full year of implementation of the collective bargaining agreement 

between the Commission and Chapter 204 of 

the National Treasury Employees Union. The 

new contract resulted in: 

4 For a summary of Commission testimony on the Information 

Division, see Appendix 7. 

5 See Appendix 6 on Clearinghouse Activities. 
41 

- More consistency in the handling of personnel 

policies and procedures; 

- Improved working relationships within the 

Commission; and 

- Easier access to the basic rules of personnel 

administration for the bargaining unit. The 

contract contained articles on a variety of 

personnel subjects, including merit selection 

and promotion procedures for positions 

within the bargaining unit. 

In administering the contract, a Labor Management Relations Committee, composed of 

representatives from management and labor, 

discussed concerns of both parties over contract 

language and provisions of the 1978 Civil Service 

Reform Act. Meeting several times throughout 

the year, the committee arrived at understandings on health and safety inspections, building 

~ecurity, parking space for carpools, overtime 

compensation and internal training programs. 

The Commission was one of the first Federal 

agencies to implement a new system for evaluating employee performance as required by the 

Civil Service Reform Act. In consultation with 

the union and employees, supervisors established 

performance standards for each position within 

the bargaining unit. The performance standards 

described the critical elements (i.e., major 

functions) of a given job and established competency levels ("outstanding" to "not acceptable") 

for the performance of each element. These 

quantitative and qualitative guidelines made the 

evaluation process a more consistent and impartial one. 

At year's end, the Commission was taking steps 

to fill a vacancy for a full-time specialist to 

serve as Director of Personnel and Labor Relations and making plans for the renegotiation of 

the contract, which expires in July of 1981. 
Appendix 1 43 

Biographical Data on 

Commissioners and 

Statutory Officers 

Commissioners 

Max L. Friedersdorf, Chairman 

Resigned December 16, 1980 

Mr. Friedersdorf, Chairman of the Commission, 

served as Staff Director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee from January 1977 until 

his appointment to the Commission in February 

1979. A native of ·Indiana, Mr. Friedersdorf 

received his B.A. from Franklin College in 1952 

and earned an M.A. from American University in 

1970. He pursued a journalism career in Indiana 

before serving as administrative assistant and 

press secretary to former Congressman Richard 

L. Roudebush (R-Ind.) from 1961 to 1970. 

During 1970, he was Director of Congressional 

Relations for the Office of Economic Opportunity. From 1971 to 1977, Mr. Friedersdorf 

served in several White House posts. He was 

Deputy Assistant for Congressional Affairs to 

President Nixon from 1971 to 1974. He continued as Deputy Assistant to President Ford 

until 1975, when he became the President's 

Assistant for Legislative Affairs. Mr. Friedersdorf left the Commission on December 16, 

1980, to accept the position of Special Assistant 

for Legislative Affairs to President-elect Reagan. 

John Warren McGarry, Vice Chairman 

April 30, 19831 

Mr. McGarry, Vice Chairman of the Commission, was elected Commission Chairman for a 

one-year term beginning January 1, 1981. Mr. 

McGarry graduated cum laude from Holy Cross 

College in Massachusetts in 1952. He subsequently did graduate work at Boston University 

and obtained a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown Law Center in 1956. From 1959 through 

1962, Mr. McGarry was Assistant Attorney 

General of Massachusetts. In that tapacity 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 

temporarily by special resolution every two 

years through 1972 in order to oversee House 

elections. From 1973 until his appointment to 

the Commission on October 25, 1978, Mr. 

McGarry served as Special Counsel on Elections 

to the Committee on House Administration of 

the U.S. Congress. 

Frank P. Reiche 

April 30, 1985 

Before his appointment to the Commission in 

July 1979, Mr. Reiche served as Chairman of the 

first New Jersey Election Law Enforcement 

Commission for six years. Prior to that, Mr. 

Reiche served in a variety of Republican party 

positions, including eight years as a Republican 

county committeeman. An attorney specializing 

in tax law, Mr. Reiche graduated from Columbia University Law School in 1959 and received 

a Master of Laws degree in taxation from New 

York University in 1966. Prior to that, he received his A.B. from Williams College in 1951 

and an M.A. in Foreign Affairs from George 

Washington University in 1959. Mr. Reiche was 

with the Princeton firm of Smith, Stratton, Wise 

and Heher from 1962 until his appointment to 

the Commission. He was elected as Vice Chairman of the Commission for a one-year term 

beginning January 1, 1981. 

Robert 0. Tiernan 

April30, 1981 

Mr. Tiernan was Commission Chairman between 

May 1979 and May 1980. He served as a Democratic Member of Congress from Rhode Island 

for eight years and, prior to that, as a State legislator for seven years. He was born in Providence, 

Rhode Island, and graduated from Providence 

College and Catholic University Law School. Mr. 

Tiernan has been admitted to practice in all 

Federal courts, the State of Rhode Island and 

the District of Columbia. He has held various 

national and State party positions. Originally 

appointed for two years, he received a five-year 

term upon reconstitution of the Commission. In 

August 1980, the American Bar Association 

1 Term expiration date. appointed Mr. Tiernan to serve a one-year term 
44 

as a member of its Advisory Commission to the 

Special Committee on Election Law and Voter 

Participation. 

Joan D. Aikens 

April 30, 1981 

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. from Ursinus 

College, Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Her original 

appointment to the Federal Election Commission in 1975 was for a one-year term. She was 

reappointed for five years when the FEC was 

reconstituted. 

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 AFL-CIO 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 Shoal, where he was on the Law Review 

and was a Kent Scholar. After graduation, he 

clerked one year for Supreme Court Justice 

Harlan F. Stone. He was originally appointed 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. 

Vernon W. Thomson 

Interim Appointment2 

A former member of Congress from Wisconsin 

(1961-75), Mr. Thomson was one of the original 

Commissioners of the FEC, serving between 

1975 and 1979. He was Chairman of the Commission between 1976 and 1977. Before his election to Congress in 1960, Mr. Thomson served as 

Governor of Wisconsin ( 1957-59). He was a 

member of the Wisconsin State Assembly for 

16 years, serving three consecutive terms as 

Speaker. In addition, he served three terms as 

Attorney General of Wisconsin and was elected 

Assistant District Attorney of Richland County 

and City Attorney and Mayor of Richland 

Center. He holds a B.A. from the University of 

Wisconsin and received his law degree from the 

University of Wisconsin Law School. 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr. 

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. 

Joseph Stanley Kimmitt3 

Mr. Kimmitt, an Ex Officio Member of the 

Commission, was elected Secretary of the Senate 

in April 1977. He previously served as Secretary 

2 Mr. Thomson was appointed to fill the vacancy created by 

Commissioner Max L. Friedersdorf's resignation. 

3 Mr. Kimmitt was replaced by William F. Hildenbrand, who was 

elected Secretary of the Senate on January 5, 1981. 
45 

of the Majority for the Senate (1966-77) and as 

Administrative Assistant to the Majority Leader 

of the Senate. A native of Great Falls, Montana, 

he holds a B.S. degree in political science from 

Utah State University. Mr. Kimmitt also attended the University of Montana and did graduate 

work at George Washington University. Mr. 

Kimmitt was inducted as a private in the U.S. 

Army in 1941 and retired as a colonel in 1966. 

Harriet Robnett, attorney, served as Special 

Deputy to the Secretary of the Senate at the 

Commission.4 

Statutory Officers 

B. Allen Clutter, Ill, Staff Director5 

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. 

4 Thomas J. Josefiak, appointed as Special Deputy to Mr. 

Hildenbrand, replaced Ms. Robnett. 

5 Orlando B. Potter, former Staff Director, resigned on July 4, 

1980. 
The Commissioners 

Max L. Friedersdorf, Chairman* 

John Warren McGarry, Vice Chairman** 

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner 

Thomas E. Harris, Commissioner 

Frank P. Reiche, Commissioner** 

Robert 0. Tiernan, Commissioner 

J.S. Kimmitt, Ex Officio/Senate*** 

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

I 

Regulations 

and Legislation 

Advisory 

Opinions 

Enforcement 

Litigation 

Office of 

General Counsel 

Office of 

Staff Director 

rl Office of Planning r - ____ and Management ___::.,._____, 

Commission I 

_ Secretary _,;...______. 

Administration 

Audit 

Data Systems 

Development 

Information 

Services 

Public 

Disclosure 

Reports 

Analysis 

Appendix 47 2 

FEC Organization Chart 

*Mr. Friedersdorf resigned on December 16, 1980. Filling his seat as an interim appointee, Vernon W. Thomson began to serve as 

Commissioner on January 5, 1981. 

**Mr. McGarry wa.s elected Commission Chairman, and Mr. Reiche, Vice Chairman, on December 18, 1980. Their terms began on 

January 1, 1981. 

***Mr. Kimmitt was replaced by William F. Hildenbrand, who was elected Secretary of the Senate on January 5, 1981. 
48 

January 

3 - Commission determines Edward 

Kennedy and George Bush are eligible 

for primary matching fund payments.* 

8 - 1979 Amendments to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971 

(as amended in 1974 and 1976) 

become law (Pub. L. No. 96-187). 

13-15 - National Clearinghouse on Election 

Administration holds Regional Seminar on Election Administration in 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 

15 - Commission determines that Ronald 

Reagan and Robert Dole are eligible 

for primary matching fund payments. 

- Public Communications Office holds 

Campaign Finance Seminar in WinstonSalem, North Carolina. 

21 - Commission determines that Philip 

Crane is eligible for primary matching 

fund payments. 

22 - Commission determines that Edmund 

Brown is eligible for primary matching 

fund payments. 

- Illinois special election. 

25 - Commission releases Interim Report 

Number 1, the first in the continuing 

series, FEC Reports on Financial 

Activity, Presidential Pre-Nomination 

Campaigns. 

31 - Commission adopts procedures to implement special election notification 

requirements stipulated in the 1979 

Amendments. 

- 1979 year-end report due. 

February 

2 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 

Circuit dismisses a suit filed by the 

FEC against Central Long Island Tax 

Reform Immediately (CLITRIM). 

5 - Commission determines that John 

Anderson is eligible for primary matching fund payments. 

7 - Commission adopts interim enforcement procedures implementing the 

1979 Amendments. 

13 - Commission certifies remainder of the 

Democratic National Committee's full 

entitlement of $4,416,000 to finance 

the Democratic National Convention. 

19 - U.S. Supreme Court denies a petition 

for certiorari in three cases brought by 

Lyndon LaRouche and Leroy Jones 

against the Commission. 

- In consulation with the Commission, 

Comptroller of the Currency issues a 

circular to all national banks notifying 

them of the Act's prohibitions on contributions and expenditures. 

22 -Commission releases FEC Reports on 

Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 2 on Presidential campaigns. 

27 - Commission certifies remainder of the 

Republican National Committee's full 

entitlement of $4,416,000 to finance 

the Republican National Convention. 

28 - Commission transmits to Congress 

proposed regulations to implement 

the 1979 Amendments to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act. (See April 1.) 

March 

1 -Commission publishes FEC Record 

Supplement summarizing the 1979 

Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. 

5 - Commission terminates the primary 

matching fund eligibility of Howard 

Baker. 

7 - Commission sends new Forms 1, 2, 3, 

and 3X to Congress. 

13 - Chairman Robert 0. Tiernan, accompanied by Vice Chairman Max 

L. Friedersdorf, testifies on election 

administration costs and postage-free 

mailing of absentee ballots before the 

House Subcommittee on Postal Operations and Services. 

* The Commission certified primary matching fund eligibilitY to 

three candidates in 1979: Howard Baker on November 1, 

Jimmy Carter on November 20 and Lyndon LaRouche on 

December 18. 
Appendix 49 3 

Chronology of Events, 

1980 

17 - Commission promulgates new Forms 

1, 2, 3 and 3X. 

21 - Commission releases FEC Reports on 

Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 3 on Presidential campaigns. 

26 - Chairman Robert 0. Tiernan and 

Commissioner Frank P. Reiche testify 

before the Senate Rules Committee 

on the FY 1981 budget authorization 

request. 

27 - Commission terminates the primary 

matching fund eligibility of Robert 

Dole. 

April 

1 - Commission prescribes new regulations 

implementing the 1979 Amendments 

to the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

- Commission prescribes new regulations 

governing the funding and sponsorship 

of candidate debates. 

3 - Commission terminates the primary 

matching fund eligibility of Edmund 

Brown and Philip Crane. 

9 - Pennsylvania special election. 

10 - Commission transmits to Congress 

revised regulations governing the suspension of primary matching fund 

payments to Presidential candidates. 

(See July 3.) 

- Commission transmits to Congress its 

annual report on activities performed 

in compliance with the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

- U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia issues a consent judgment 

in which the defendants, Marjorie 

Bell, the Bell for Senate Committee 

and its two treasurers, agree to pay a 

civil penalty. 

14 - U.S. Supreme Court unanimously 

affirms two lower court decisions upholding the constitutionality of the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

Act challenged by the Republican 

National Committee in a suit brought 

against the Commission. 

- U.S. District Court for the District of 

New Jersey issues a consent judgment 

in which Jeffrey Bell agrees to pay a 

civil penalty. 

15 - First quarterly report due. 

16 - U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan, Southern District, 

approves a consent decree in which 

Gene Williamson agrees to pay a civil 

penalty. 

17 - Commission terminates the primary 

matching fund eligibility of Lyndon 

LaRouche. 

24 - U.S. Court for the District of Columbia 

grants the Commission's motion for 

summary judgment in the consolidated 

suits the Commission and the National 

Right to Work Committee had filed 

against each other. 

25 - Commission releases FEC Reports on 

Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 4 on Presidential campaigns. 

May 

1 - Commission approves a revised policy 

for accepting invitations to address 

public gatherings. 

- National Clearinghouse on Election 

Administration announces the availability of Election Directory '80 and 

Bilingual Elections Services Study, 

Volume II. 

- Commission's library issues a Campaign Finance and Federal Election 

Bibliography. 

13 - Commission publishes in the Federal 

Register revised Freedom of Information Act regulations and new regulations covering access to public 

records. (See June 12.) 

14 - Commission unanimously elects Vice 

Chairman Max L. Friedersdorf as its 

new Chairman and Commissioner 

John Warren McGarry as its new Vice 

Chairman. 

- Commission transmits to Congress 

proposed regulations governing contri-
50 

butions to and expenditures by delegates to national nominating conventions. (See August 7 .) 

17 - Louisiana special election. 

21 - Commission testifies before the House 

Administration Committee's Task 

Force on Audits and Reports Review. 

21-22 - National Clearinghouse on Election 

Administration conducts two workshops on Federal election responsibilities in conjunction with the annual 

meeting of the International Institute 

of Municipal Clerks in Toronto, 

Canada. 

23 - Commission releases FEC Reports 

on Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 5 on Presidential campaigns. 

28 - Commission denies a request to reestablish matching fund eligibility 

for Lyndon LaRouche. 

June 

1 - Commission transmits to the President 

and Congress its Annual Report for 

1979. 

3 - West Virginia special election. 

12 - Commission's revised Freedom of 

Information Act regulations and new 

regulations governing access to public 

records become effective. 

- Commission sends new Forms 4, 5 

and 7 to Congress (promulgated 10 

legislative days later). 

13 - Commission transmits to Congress proposed revised regulations governing 

the public financing of Presidential 

general election campaigns. (See 

September 5.) 

- U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia dismisses a suit brought by 

Common Cause against the Commission. 

18 - Commission testifies before the House 

Administration Committee's Task 

Force on Enforcement. 

20 - Commission releases FEC Reports on 

Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 6 on Presidential campaigns. 

30 - U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia dismisses a suit filed by 

Stewart Mott, Rhonda Stahl man 

and the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) against the Commission. 

- Commission testifies before the House 

Administration . Committee's Task 

Force on Information and Public 

Disclosure. 

July 

3 - Commission prescribes revised regulations governing the suspension of 

primary matching fund payments to 

Presidential primary candidates. 

4 - Commission Staff Director Orlando B. 

Potter resigns. 

10 - Commission approves revised nonfiler 

procedures. 

14 - Commission introduces new computer 

indexes on independent expenditures. 

- Republican National Convention 

opens in Detroit. 

15 - Second quarterly report due. 

22 - U.S. District Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia affirms the 

Commission's determination that 

Lyndon LaRouche had failed to 

reestablish matching fund eligibility. 

24 - Commission certifies $29,440,000 in 

in Federal funds for the general 

election campaign of Republican 

Presidential nominee Ronald Reagan 

and his running mate, George Bush. 

29 - Commission releases FEC Reports on 

Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 7 on Presidential campaigns. 

30 -Commission Chairman Max L. 

Friedersdorf testifies on the Clearinghouse Bilingual Election Services 

Study before the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional 

Rights. 

31 - Semiannual report due for committees 

not active in the election year. 
51 

August 

1 - Commission releases three new publications: FEC Record Supplement for 

State and Local Party Organizations; 

Campaign Guide for Congressional 

Candidates and Committees; and 

House and Senate Bookkeeping 

Manual. 

5 - Michigan special primary election. 

7 - Commission prescribes new regulations on contributions to and 

expenditures by delegates to national 

nominating conventions. 

11 - Democratic National Convention 

opens in New York City. 

21 - Commission certifies $29,440,000 in 

Federal funds for the general election 

campaign of Democratic Presidential 

nominee Jimmy Carter and his 

running mate, Walter Mondale. 

- Commission names B. Allen Clutter, 

Ill, as Staff Director. 

28 - U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia denies the Commission's 

motion for summary judgment in the 

suit the Commission had filed against 

Americans for Change and two other 

independent expenditure committees. 

September 

2 - Commission adopts procedures for 

approval of requests to use computerized formats for reporting itemized 

receipts and disbursements. 

5 - Commission prescribes revised regulations governing the public financing 

of Presidential general election campaigns. 

9 - U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia dismisses the suit that John 

Anderson had filed against the Commission. 

12 - Commission issues revised guidelines 

on acceptance of contributions from 

unregistered organizations (Directive 

Number 19 Revised). 

25 - Commission adopts procedures for 

expediting complaints filed within 

30 days of the November 4 general 

election. 

-Commission releases FEC Repons on 

Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 9 on 1979-1980 activity of 

party and nonparty political committees. 

October 

1 - Commission releases FEC Reports on 

Financial Activity, Interim Report 

Number 8 on 1979-1980 activity of 

House and Senate campaigns. 

- Commission's Public Communications 

Office extends office hours until 

election day. 

15 - Third quarterly report due. 

- Commission's Public Records Office 

extends office hours until election 

day. 

23 - Pre-general election report due. 

27 - U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia rules in favor of the 

plaintiffs in the suit filed by Felice 

Gelman and Citizens for LaRouche, 

Inc. against the Commission. 

-Commission appoints Alice K. Helm 

as Deputy General Counsel. 

29 - U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia grants the Commission's 

motion to dismiss the suit filed by 

Fred Ames against the Commission. 

31 - U.S. District Court for the District of 

New Hampshire dismisses the suit 

filed by the Durkin for U.S. Senate 

Committee against the Commission. 

November 

3 - Commission adopts new procedures 

for certifying public funds to new 

party Presidential candidates. 

4 ~ Election Day. 

- Michigan special election. 

13 - Commission certifies $4,164,906.24 

in Federal funds to the general 

election campaign of new party 

Presidential candidate John Anderson 

and his running mate, Patrick Lucey. 
52 

- U.S. Supreme Court denies the Commission's petition for certiorari in its 

suit against the AF L-CIO. 

30 - U.S. Supreme Court denies a petition 

for certiorari filed by the National 

Chamber Litigation Center (a legal 

arm of the Chamber of Commerce) in 

the National Chamber Alliance for 

Politics suit against the Commission. 

December 

4 - Post-general election report due. 

16 - Commissioner Max L Friedersdorf resigns to accept position as 

Special Assistant for Legislative 

Affairs to President-elect Reagan. 

18 - Commission unanimously elects John 

Warren McGarry as its new Chairman 

and Commissioner Frank P. Reiche as 

its new Vice Chairman. 

- Commission adopts new dates for 

election of officers. 

31 - Commission releases official vote 

totals for the 1980 Presidential 

election compiled by the National 

Clearinghouse on Election Administration. 
53 Appendix 4 

The FEC's Budget 

In fiscal year 1980, the Commission received an annual budget appropriation of $8,646,000 plus a 

supplemental appropriation of $300,000 to compensate for the October 1979 cost-of-living increase. 

These monies were expended during the fiscal year as follows: 

Commission and Staff Salaries, Including Benefits ................................$6,462,187 

Travel ................................•.....•............................. 219,333 

Transportation and Motor Pool.................................................. 10,250 

Commercial Space ............................................................ 11,917 

Equipment Rental .•......................................................... 206,120 

Printing ................................................................... 349,248 

Contracts.................................................................. 738,486 

Administrative Expenses ......•................................................62,820 

Supplies...........................................•....................... 123,411 

Library Materials ............................................................. 23,172 

Telephone, Telegraph ........................................................ 168,618 

Postage ................................................................... 101,453 

Space Rental ............................................................... 364,308 

Equipment Purchases ......................................................... 41,435 

GSA, Services, Other.............................................•............ 56,982 

TOTAL $8,939, 740* 

During most of fiscal year 1981, the Commission operated on a continuing resolution of the fiscal year 

1980 budget ($9,283,000). Based on the continuing resolution, plus an expected supplemental 

appropriation to compensate for the October 1980 cost-of-living increase, expenditures were budgeted 

as follows: 

Commission and Staff Salaries, Including Benefits ...............•................$6,981,034 

Travel .................................................................... 221,188 

Transportation and Motor Pool ................................................... 6,859 

Commerical Space ............................................................ 11,800 

Equipment Rental ........................................................... 192,359 

Printing ...................................................................324,231 

Contracts.................................................................. 753,967 

Administrative Expenses •........•............................................. 58,616 

Supplies................................................................... 100,850 

Library Materials ............................................................. 44,905 

Telephone, Telegraph ........................................................ 171,306 

Postage .................................................................... 70,000 

Space Rental ............................................................... 368,446 

Equipment Purchases ......................................................... 25,000 

Training.................................................................... 27,.295 

GSA, Services, Other.......................................................... 53,000 

TOTAL $9,410,856 

An appropriation of $11,143,285 has been requested for fiscal year 1982. 

*Unexpended funds were returned to the U.S. Treasury. 
54 

Budget Allocation 

The graph below compares the budget allocation of resources among Commission divisions for Fiscal 

Years 1981 (planned) and 1982 (requested). 

Percent of 

Total Budget 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Commissioners Staff 

Director 

Office of 

General 

Counsel 

Administration* Audit Clearinghouse Data Information 

Systems 

Development 

Public 

Disclosure 

Reports 

Analysis 

FY '81 

Planned 

FY'82 *Administration budget includes rent, supplies, reproduction services, etc., for

the entire Commission. Requested 
Presidential 3,205 $162,289,030 $155,821,594 

Candidates 

Committees 

307 

248 

230 

68 

9 

0 

68 

180 

Senate 6,209 $ 85,238,712 $ 93,190,978 

Candidates 

Committees 

643 

691 

273 

220 

6 

0 

364 

471 

House 26,099 $120,443,620 $118,616,360 

Candidates 

Committees 

2,923 

2,678 

1,154 

828 

56 

0 

1,713 

1,850 

Party 834 243 0 591 6,681 $197,075,615 $205,803,531 

National Level Committees 

State Level Committees 

Local Level Committees 

Convention Committees 

Delegates 

81 

247 

454 

6 

46 

17 

52 

153 

0 

21 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

64 

195 

301 

6 

25 

Nonparty 2,777 226 0 2,551 37,646 $ 84,548,985 $ 97,956,149 

Labor Committees 343 46 0 297 

Corporate Committees 

Membership, Trade & 

Other Committees 

1,256 

1,178 

52 

128 

0 

0 

1,204 

1,050 

Communication Cost Filers 42 0 0 42 107 NIA $ 1,599,450 

Independent Expenditures 

by Persons Other Than 

Political Committees 

355 139 0 216 1,537 NIA $ 11,235,247 

Summary of Disclosure Files 

Appendix 5 

Statistics on 

Commission Operations 

55 
58 

FEC Regulations Prescribed in 1980 

Date Sent 

Regulations* to Congress 

Federal Register 

Publication 

Date Prescribed** 

by the Commission 

11 CFR Parts 100, 110 and 114 

Candidate Debates 

12/27/79 12/27/79 

(45 Fed. Reg. 76734) 

4/1/80 

11 CFR Parts 100-106, 108-114 

and 9008 

Implementing 1979 

Amendments to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act 

2/28/80 3/7/80 

(45 Fed. Reg. 15080) 

4/1/80*** 

11 CFR Part 4 

Public Records and the 

Freedom of Information Act 

11 CFR Part 5 

Access to Public Disclosure 

Division Documents 

11 CFR 9033.9 

Suspension of Primary 

Matching Fund Payments 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

4/10/80 

5/13/80 

(45 Fed. Reg. 31291) 

5/13/80 

(45 Fed. Reg. 31292) 

4/15/80 

(45 Fed. Reg. 25378)

6/12/80 

6/12/80 

7/3/80 

11 CFR Parts 100 and 110 

Contributions to and 

Expenditures by Delegates 

to National Nominating 

Conventions 

5/14/80 5/23/80 

(45 Fed Reg. 34865) 

8/7/80 

11 CFR Parts 100, 106, 110, 

140-146 and 9001-9007 

Public Financing of Presidential General Election 

Campaigns 

6/13/80 6/27/80 

(45 Fed Reg. 43371) 

9/5/80 

*The chart lists all revisions to FEC regulations prescribed in 1980. 

**The Commission may prescribe its regulations 30 legislative days after it has transmitted them to Congress, provided neither the 

House nor the Senate disapproves them during this period. 

***A special provision expediting this set of regulations ( §303 of Pub. L. No. 96-187) enabled the Commission to prescribe them 15 

legislative days after they were sent to Congress. 
Appendix 69 6 

Clearinghouse Activities 

During 1980, the Commission's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration fulfilled 

its mission by collecting and disseminating 

information on the electoral process, by furnishing assistance to election officials and by 

publishing the results of Clearinghouse research 

on the administration of Federal elections. This 

year, the Commission testified before two House 

subcommittees on areas researched by the 

Clearinghouse. 

Testimony Before Congress 

Testimony on Election Costs 

and Absentee Ballot Systems 

On March 13, 1980, Commissioner Robert 0. 

Tiernan, then Commission Chairman, testified 

before the House Subcommittee on Postal 

Operations and Services on election administration costs of postage-free mailing of absentee 

ballots. Commissioner Tiernan was accompanied 

by Commissioner Max L Friedersdorf, then 

Commission Vice Chairman, Dr. Gary Greenhalgh, Assistant Staff Director for Information 

and Director of the National Clearinghouse on 

Election Administration, and William Kimberling, Deputy Director of the Clearinghouse. 

In his testimony, Mr. Tiernan noted that, 

according to Clearinghouse research studies, 

State and local governments would spend close 

to $300 million for administering the 1980 

elections. He went on to predict that such 

governments will absorb close to $1 billion in 

election administration costs between 1978 and 

1981. 

In discussing benefits of proposed legislation 

for a postage-free absentee ballot system, Commissioner Tiernan said that the system would 

increase the return of absentee ballots. He cited 

as examples LaSalle County, Illinois, and Pima 

County, Arizona, which both have postage-free 

systems, and Los Angeles County, California, 

which does not. "LaSalle and Pima Counties 

have a return rate of 93 percent on absentee 

ballots and Los Angeles County has only 69 percent," he said. He also noted that the proposed 

postage-free system would benefit home-bound 

persons, such as the elderly and handicapped, 

who find it as difficult to go to the post office 

as they do to go to the polls on election day. 

Testimony on Bilingual Study 

On July 30, 1980, Chairman Max L. Friedersdorf testified before the House Subcommittee 

on Civil and Constitutional Rights on the 

Bilingual Election Services report, which was 

based on a multiyear study of bilingual election 

practices conducted by the University of New 

Mexico under contract to the Co!Jlmission's 

Clearinghouse. {See page 61 for a description of 

the study.) 

Mr. Friedersdorf explained that the primary purpose of the study was to provide local election 

officials with a broad range of suggestions for 

designing programs to administer bilingual 

elections. The study did not, however, attempt 

to assess the need for or success of the bilingual 

provisions of the 1976 Voting Rights Act; nor 

did it measure the costs or effectiveness of such 

programs. 

General Information Activities 

The Clearinghouse answered well over 1,000 

inquiries prompted by election-year interest 

in voter registration and voting procedures, 

including absentee ballots. There were similar 

demands for information on the Electoral 

College and other less well known features of 

the election process. In response to foreign 

interest in the American electoral process, the 

Clearinghouse briefed over 600 foreign visitors 

directed to the Commission by the Department 

of State. After the November elections, the 

Clearinghouse compiled and released election 

returns, as certified by State election officials, 

for all Federal offices, including the Presidential 

race. 

Assistance to Election Officials 

The Clearinghouse continued to provide support 

services to State and local election officials and 
60 

State legislators through its research programs 

and workshops. The popularity of the regional 

conferences on election administration, a 1979 

project, led to the development of a continuing 

program of selected workshops on Federal 

election responsibilities for individual States and 

election-related associations. Additionally, the 

Clearinghouse logged over 3,000 calls and 1,000 

letters from officials around the nation. 

Publications 

The Clearinghouse continued to conduct research projects on topics of special concern to 

election officials. The following publications -

all available at cost to the public - include 

both ongoing studies and the final products of 

completed research. 

Continuing Reports 

Election Law Updates is a quarterly series, 

cumulative through the calendar year, which 

summarizes all election code changes in each of 

the 50 States. The series is designed to provide 

up-to-date election code information to State 

legislators, court officials and election administrators. 

Election Case Law reports, a quarterly series 

cumulative through the calendar year, summarizes election cases in the State and Federal 

courts. The reports provide updates of judicial 

developments pertinent to elections. 

Campaign Finance Law is an annual report summarizing campaign finance laws in each of the 

States as well as at the Federal level. The report 

also provides a convenient chart summary 

of State and Federal requirements. 

Election Directory is an annual report which 

summarizes the responsibilities of each State's 

chief election official, election board or commiSSIOn. Names, addresses and telephone 

numbers of State election officials, offices and 

related legislators are also provided. 

Studies Currently Underway 

Training Election Officials suggests methods for 

training poll workers, deputy registrars and 

chief election officials for election day. It is 

a "how-to" volume that will assist State and 

local officials in designing effective training 

programs. 

Registration File Maintenance will focus on 

improving the accuracy of voter registration 

lists around the country. Product manuals will 

offer concrete guidance in adding, deleting, 

changing and purging file entries. Emphasis 

will be placed on verifying these steps by both 

manual and automated file systems. 

Voter Information and Education will examine 

existing State and local information and education programs and will consider other vehicles 

for communication. The resulting manuals will 

help State and local officials develop effective 

education and information programs. 

Completed Topical Reports 

The following reports, previously listed, are still 

available. 

Voting Systems is a three-volume report on voting equipment currently on the market. Volume 

I describes each device in detail and offers 

local officials step-by-step procedures for 

defining equipment needs and procuring equipment. Volume II summarizes representative 

State codes with regard to voting equipment 

acquisition. Volume Ill offers recommendations 

for drafting such legislation. 

Statewide Registration Systems 1 & 2 is a report 

on computerized statewide voter registration 

systems. Volume I examines problems involved 

in implementing a statewide system and offers 

suggestions for overcoming them. Volume II 

describes in detail the forms, procedures, outputs and variations on the basic statewide computerized system. 

Contested Elections and Recounts is a threevolume analysis of the laws and procedures 
61 

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. 

Mail 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 63 7 

FEC Testimony 

On three occasions in 1980, Commission Chairman Max L. Friedersdorf, accompanied by Vice 

Chairman John Warren McGarry, testified 

before House Administration Committee oversight task forces. 1 The Commission testimony 

summarized past and present activity in audits, 

reports review and enforcement. Testimony on 

information programs and public disclosure 

addressed specific topics selected by the task 

force. 

Testimony Before the Task Force 

on Audits and Reports Review 

On May 21, 1980, Chairman Friedersdorf testified on the Commission's audit and reports 

review policy. After describing how the Commission's procedures have evolved over the past 

five years, Mr. Friedersdorf discussed problems 

the Commission has confronted and overcome. 

He especially noted improvements engendered 

by the Arthur Andersen review of September 

1979.2 

The Chairman pointed out developments that 

were the outgrowth of the Andersen study: 

1. The Commission has adopted as its major 

audit objective an attempt to expand audit 

coverage by identifying areas of the greatest 

risk of noncompliance, by streamlining audit 

procedures, and by focusing on matters 

involving questions of material compliance 

with the election law; 

2. The Commission has allocated its limited 

resources to more significant problems in 

recordkeeping, reporting and compliance 

by adopting materiality thresholds below 

which compliance matters are not pursued; 

3. The Commission has strengthened personnel 

resources by raising the salary for entrylevel auditors to attract qualified graduates 

and by providing audit staff with both inhouse and outside specialized training. 

Mr. Friedersdorf also summarized Commission 

procedures for carrying out threshold audits 

of primary candidates receiving public funds and 

explained the internal deadlines established to 

expedite public release of Presidential audits.3 

Finally, he noted the Commission has implemented a two-track mechanism for non-Presidential audits, which imposed strict deadlines 

for public release of audit reports: 12 weeks 

after fieldwork for reports with unresolved legal 

issues and 10 weeks for other reports. 

Testimony Before the Task Force 

on Enforcement 

Chairman Friedersdorf testified on the Commission's enforcement activities on June 18. 

He cited voluntary compliance as a major 

goal of the Commission and went on to describe 

assistance provided to candidates and committees by the Public Information Office in order to 

meet this goal. Stressing that advisory opinions 

also foster voluntary compliance, Mr. Friedersdorf explained that, by requesting an opinion, a 

person can obtain the protection of a binding 

legal opinion before undertaking an activity. He 

also noted that clearly written regulations 

contribute to voluntary compliance, and he 

went on to review the Commission's progress in 

that area. In the process of drafting regulations, 

the Commission has consulted with other 

Federal agencies to avoid conflicts with their 

regulatory requirements. 

Finally, Mr. Friedersdorf detailed the Commission's enforcement procedures, mentioning 

that the 1979 Amendments increased the time 

required to process a complaint. He pointed out 

that when the Commission is unable to resolve a 

violation through a conciliation agreement, the 

election law authorizes the Commission to file 

suit in a district court. Mr. Friedersdorf stated: 

"In the overwhelming majority of cases, the 

1See also Appendix 6 for testimony related to Clearinghouse 

activity. 

2The 1979 Annual Report summarizes the Andersen recommendations on pages 6 and 16. 3see also page 12. 
64 

court has agreed with the Commission's legal 

and factual findings and has granted some form 

of injunctive or other relief." 

As candidates and committees become more 

familiar with the law, Mr. Friedersdorf said 

that the Commission expects an increasing level 

of voluntary compliance. On the other hand, 

a higher level of sophistication also means that a 

larger proportion of complaints will involve 

more complex factual situations and legal issues, 

requiring a greater commitment of Commission 

resources. 

Testimony Before the Task Force 

on Information and Public Disclosure 

On June 30, Chairman Friedersdorf addressed 

the particular topics on public information and 

disclosure selected by the task force. The 

following paragraphs briefly summarize Mr. 

Friedersdorf's remarks on major issues. 

Regional Centers. The Chairman described 

various plans for establishing regional centers 

that would provide, to the public, campaign 

finance data in the form of microfilm prints, 

computer index listings, computer tapes and 

software programs. Mr. Friedersdorf also estimated the costs of each plan. 

Computerized Reporting of Campaign Finance 

Activity. In describing four ways in which 

computers might be used by political committees to report their campaign finances, Mr. 

Friedersdorf reviewed Commission action taken 

to implement or investigate the options. He also 

evaluated them according to their feasibility and 

remarked on certain problems inherent in each 

program. 

Assignment of Attorney to the Information 

Office. Commissioner Friedersdorf stated that 

the addition of an attorney to the Information 

Office would not be appropriate. He explained 

that it is not within the Office's scope to render 

legal advice to candidates and committees. Information staff provide requesters with as much 

information as possible to allow callers to make 

their own determinations as to the legality of 

their particular situations. In areas where there 

has been no interpretation of the law and no 

other information is available, the Information 

staff suggests the caller request an advisory 

opinion from the Commission. Mr. Friedersdorf 

added that the Information Office works very 

closely with the General Counsel's Office. 

Press Office Dissemination of Positive Information on the Commission. Mr. Friedersdorf said that, because of budget constraints, the 

Press Office is restricted to responding to media 

inquiries and to correcting misinformation. The 

three-person staff, "stretched to the limit," 

cannot initiate new information outreach 

programs. As an example, the Commissioner 

mentioned that, in 1979, the Office developed a 

computerized mailing list to reach media representatives in every State. However, because of 

lack of staff and resources, the list has never 

been used; Press Office mailings are sent only to 

the Washington press corps. 
Appendix 65 8 

Primary Matching Fund 

Certifications and Audits 

Primary Matching Fund 

Certification Activity* 

Amount 

Certified by 

Commission 

To Date 

Maximum 

Entitlement 

Remaining** 

No. of 

Submissions 

No. of 

Contribu· 

tions 

No. of 

Resubmissions 

Name of 

Candidate 

Amount 

Requested 

ANDERSON, John 7 $2,895,484 80,744 0 $2,680,347 0 

BAKER, Howard 14 2,699,562 67,490 0 2,635,043 0 

BROWN, Edmund 15 996,153 16,273 3 892,249 0 

BUSH, George 12 6,373,497 86,612 0 5,716,247 0 

CARTER, Jimmy 28 5,490,096 63,423 3 5,117,854 $589,089 

CRANE, Philip 17 2,140,551 69,695 1 1,898,838 0 

DOLE, Robert 5 467,117 3,752 1 446,226 0 

KENNEDY, Edward 29 4,447,034 81,678 4 4,130,452 $882,824 

LAROUCHE, Lyndon 15 592,982 10,663 13 526,253 0 

REAGAN, Ronald 10 8,254,771 213,747 0 7,294,462 0 

TOTALS 152 $34,357,247 694,077 25 $31,337,971 

*As of April15, 1981. 

**Maximum Entitlement Remaining is based upon candidate's statement of net outstanding campaign obligations. 

Post-Primary Audit Reports 

Released to the Public* 

Audit Report Date Made Public 

Philip Crane, Crane for President Committee .............................November 14, 1980 

Edmund Brown, Brown for President Committee ..........................December 16, 1980 

Robert Dole, Dole for President Committee, Inc.** ........................December 16, 1980 

John Anderson, Anderson for President Committee ........................December 18, 1980 

Howard Baker, Baker Committee ......................................December 18, 1980 

Jimmy Carter, Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc ..................January 21, 1981 

Ronald Reagan, Reagan for President ...................................February 2, 1981 

George Bush, George Bush for President .................................February 4, 1981 

Lyndon LaRouche, Citizens for LaRouche ...............................April 15, 1981 

*As of Apri115, 1981. 

**On March 10, 1981, the Commission released an addendum to the final audit report on the Dole Committee. 
66 

Type of 

Presidential Candidate 

Exempt Fundraising 

Spending Limit1 Spending Limit2 

PRIMARY ELECTION 

Primary Candidates a. National Limit:4 

$10,000,000 +COLA 

b. State Limit: 

The greater of $200,000 

+COLA or $.16 x State 

VAP7 +COLA 

20 Percent of the 

National Limit5 

Primary Candidates Not Accepting 

Public Funds 

No Limit Not Applicable 

GENERAL ELECTION 

Major Party Candidates8 a. National Limit:9 

$20,000,000 +COLA 

b. State Limit: 

None 

Not Applicable 10 

Minor Part.y 12 or 

New Party 3 Candidates 

a. National Limit:9 

$20,000,000 +COLA 

b. State Limit: 

None 

20 Percent of 

the following: 

the National Limit minus 

the amount of Public Funding 

Received 

Candidates Not Accepting 

Public Funds 

No Limit Not Applicable 

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

1974 as the base year. The COLA for 1979 was 47.2 percent. Spending limits for 1980 included this increase. 

2 Any fundraising expenditures exceeding the fundraising spending limit count against the overall spending limit. 

3 A National party committee may make special limited expenditures, called coordinated party expenditures or 441a(d) expenditures, 

on behalf of its Presidential nominee. Coordinated party expenditures are not considered contributions and do not count against a 

candidate's expenditure limit. 11 CFR 110.7(al. 

4 This equaled $14,720,000 in 1980. 

5 This equaled $2,944,000 in 1980. 

6 This equaled $7,360,000 in 1980. 

1 VAP is the Voting Age Population, which the Department of Commerce calculates annually. 

8 A major party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received 25 percent of more of the total popular votes in the 

preceding Presidential election. 11 CFR 9002.6. 
Appendix 9 

Expenditure Limits for 

Publicly Funded Candidates 

67 

Maximum Amount of 

Public Funds Candidate 

May Receive 

National Party Spending3 

Limit for Candidate 

Limits on Spending 

from Personal Funds 

50 Percent of 

the National Limit6 

Not Applicable $50,000 

Not Applicable Not Applicable No Limit 

$20,000,000 + COLA9 2 cents x VAP of U.S. 

+COLA 11 

$50,000 

Ratio of:14 

candidate's 

Public Funds = popular vote 

$20,000,000 average popular 

+COLA vote of major 

party candidates 

2 cents x VAP of U.S. 

+COLA11 

$50,000 

Not Applicable 2 cents x VAP of U.S. 

+ COLA11 

No Limit 

9 This equaled $29.440,000 in 1980. 

10 When Federal funds are insufficient to cover a major party candidate's full entitlement, the candidate may raise private funds and the 

exempt fundraising limit becomes applicable. See 11 CFR 1 00.8(b)(21 IIi) and 9003.3(b)(41. 

11 The national party spending limit is based on the voting age population (VAP) and the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of the preceding year. Since the 1979 national VAP was 157,529,000 and the 1979 COLA was 47.2 percent, the national party spending limit 

equaled $4,637,653.76 in 1980. 

12 A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 percent and 25 percent of the total popular 

votes in the preceding Presidential election.11 CFR 9002.7. 

13 A new party candidate is the nominee of any party that is neither a major party nor a minor party. 11 CFR 9002.8. 

14 A minor or new party candidate is eligible to receive a proportionate amount of the public funding available to major party 

candidates ($29,440,000 in 19801. Payments are based on the ratio of the minor party's or new party's popular vote in the past or 

current Presidential election to the average number of popular votes received by the major party candidates. 11 CFR 9004.2 and 

9004.3 
Appendix 1 0 69 

Presidential Election 

Regulations: Summaries 

In 1979, as part of its preparation for the 1980 

elections, the Corhmission prescribed regulations 

governing the public financing of Presidential 

primary elections and national nominating 

conventions. In addition, the Commission sent 

to Congress proposed regulations on the financing and sponsorship of candidate debates. The 

debate regulations were prescribed in April 

1980.1 

The Commission's program of revising the public 

financing regulations continued in 1980. In July, 

the Commission prescribed two revisions in the 

regulations governing suspension of primary 

matching funds. The Commission also revised 

regulations on the public financing of the Presidential general election, which were prescribed 

in September. Moreover, new regulations on 

contributions and expenditures by delegates to 

the national nominating conventions were 

prescribed in August 1980. Major provisions of 

these new ~nd revised regulations are summarized below.2 

Suspension of Primary Matching 

Funds 

One revised provision of the regulations implementing the Presidential Primary Matching 

Payment Account Act permits the Commission 

to suspend matching fund payments if a candidate knowingly, willfully and substantially 

exceeds the spending limit prescribed by law for 

a particular State. Under previous regulations, 

the Commission could suspend payment if a 

candidate knowingly and willfully exceeded the 

spending limit. Under a second revised provision, 

a candidate who exceeds the spending limit 

will not be permitted to reestablish eligibility. 

Formerly, the Commission would resume 

payments if the candidate repaid an amount 

equal to the excessive expenditure and additionally paid a civil or criminal penalty resulting 

from the violation. 

Public Financing of Presidential 

General Elections 

Candidate Eligibility 

Major party candidates must sign and submit 

a letter of agreement and written certifications3 

to the Commission within 14 days after receiving their party's Presidential nomination. Minor 

and new party candidates must submit a letter 

of agreement and written certifications within 

14 days after qualifying for the ballot in 10 

States. Minor and new party candidates may, 

however, request an extension of this deadline. 

Candidate's Withdrawal from Campaign 

When an individual ceases to be a Presidential 

candidate,4 he/she must submit a written 

statement to the Commission within 60 days 

indicating: campaign debts, cash-on-hand, estimated winding-down costs, the value of any 

capital assets, and debts owed to the campaign. 

Personal Funds 

A candidate may spend personal funds of up to 

$50,000 for any qualified campaign expenses. 

In addition to the candidate's personal assets 

and salary, "personal funds" may include 

funds of the immediate family over which the 

candidate had legal title or to which, under State 

law, the candidate had the right of beneficial 

enjoyment at the time he/she became a candidate. When a family member contributes funds 

which the candidate does not control, the funds 

1 For detailed summaries of Commission regulations proposed or 

prescribed in 1-979, see pages 9-12 of the 1979 Annual Report 

2 See page 58 of Appendix 5 for a chart on regulations prescribed in 1980. For a discussion of revised regulations implementing the 1979 Amendments to the election law, see page 

25. 

3 In the letter of agreement, the candidate must agree to furnish 

records of campaign expenses, permit the conduct of an audit, 

identify the person authorized to receive payments on his/her 

behalf and designate a campaign depository. In the written 

certifications, the candidate must certify that he or she will 

comply with the Act's limits on expenditures, contributions 

and the use of personal funds. 

4 Any individual who is not actively conducting a campaign in 

more than one State for the Presidency and Vice Presidency 

ceases to be a candidate. 
70 

are considered contributions subject to the 

$1,000 limit. They do not count against the 

$50,000 limit on personal funds. 

Legal and Accounting Fund 

Contributions to a Legal and Accounting Compliance Fund. Federally funded candidates may 

accept private contributions for a legal and 

accounting compliance fund. Contributions 

to the fund, which are subject to the Act's 

$1,000 per election limit and to the prohibitions 

on contributions, must be kept in an account 

separate from Federal funds. Federal funds may 

not be used to solicit contributions to this 

account. Further, solicitations to the compliance 

fund must clearly indicate that contributions 

will be used for compliance purposes. 

Funds may be transferred from the candidate's 

primary campaign to the compliance fund, provided the candidate has sufficient funds to make 

any required repayments of primary matching 

funds. Contributions designated for the primary 

campaign, but which are made after the beginning of the general election expenditure report 

period, may also be deposited in the compliance 

fund provided the candidate committee complies with certain requirements specified in the 

regulations. 

Disbursements from the Compliance Fund Disbursements from the compliance fund (other 

than funds loaned to the candidate's campaign 

for start-up expenses) are not chargeable to the 

candidate's spending limit, but they are reportable. These funds may be used to comply with 

the Act; pay civil penalties resulting from 

violations of the Act;5 make repayments of 

public funds to the U.S. Treasury, if required; 

pay up to 10 percent of all overhead costs 

allocable to the campaign's other legal and 

accounting compliance costs; and solicit contributions to the compliance fund. The compliance 

fund may not be used to pay debts remaining 

from the candidate's primary campaign, unless 

excess funds remain after all debts of the general 

election campaign are liquidated. 

Start-Up Expenses 

Candidates are permitted to make disbursements 

to set up a basic campaign organization before 

the expenditure report period begins or before 

they receive public funds. Such disbursements 

count as qualified campaign expenses and thus 

must ultimately be defrayed with public funds. 

In the interim before public funds are available, 

however, the candidate may fund such disbursements from other sources. Subject to the restrictions detailed in the regulations, the candidate 

may borrow from the compliance fund, from 

banks in the ordinary course of business, from 

the primary campaign or from personal funds. 

Winding Down Costs 

Payments made to terminate campaign activity 

after the close of the expenditure report period 

are considered qualified campaign expenses. For 

example, rental of office space required for 

"winding down" activities of the campaign is a 

qualified campaign expense. Thus, candidates 

must use Federal funds to defray this expense. 

Documentation of Expenses 

The candidate has the burden of proving that all 

disbursements made by the candidate, or any 

authorized committee or agent of the candidate, 

are qualified campaign expenses. Minimum 

documentation required for qualified campaign 

expenses includes: 

For disbursements of $200 or less, a canceled 

check to the payee (unless the disbursement is 

from a petty cash fund); and 

For any single disbursement exceeding $200, a 

receipted bill from the payee or a canceled 

check plus a bill, invoice, voucher or memorandum from either the candidate or the committee. 

Audits 

It is the candidate's responsibility to facilitate 

5 Civil or criminal penalties resulting from violations of the Act 

may not be paid from Federal funds. 
71 

a Commission audit by gathering records in a 

central location and providing the necessary 

space and personnel to perform the audit. All 

bank records and supporting documentation for 

expenditures of public funds must be provided 

by the candidate. 

Reporting Requirements 

General Election vs. Other Elections. The candidate's authorized campaign comminee(s) must 

file separate reports for the general election 

campaign and for other elections. 

Campaign Funds vs. Compliance Funds. With regard to the general election, the campaign must 

file two separate reports: one disclosing receipts 

and disbursements for qualified campaign 

expenses, the other disclosing activity of the 

legal and accounting compliance fund. 

Disputes Procedure for Certification and Repayment For those instances when a candidate 

challenges a Commission determination concerning certifications and repayments of public 

funds, a procedure has been standardized to 

conform with due process requirements. The 

candidate has an opportunity to respond to a 

Commission decision within a specified time, 

engage counsel if he/she so desires and submit 

written evidence in support of his/her position. 

The Commission is required to consider the 

evidence submitted and provide a statement of 

reasons underlying its final determination, 

including a summary of any investigation 

conducted. 

Delegate Regulations 

Contributions to Delegates6 

Contributions from Persons. Since a delegate 

does not seek nomination or election to Federal 

office, he or she is not a "candidate" under 

the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). 

Therefore, the reporting requirements and 

contribution limits (per candidate) of the 

Act do not apply to contributions made to 

promote an individual's selection as a delegate 

to a national nominating convention. However, 

since the contributions to a delegate are made 

for the purpose of influencing a Federal election (i.e., a national nominating convention 

or a primary election or caucus held to select 

delegates to a national convention), they do 

count against the individual contributor's 

aggregate contribution limit of $25,000 per 

calendar year. Moreover, contributions may 

not be made from sources prohibited by the 

Act (e.g., corporations or labor organizations). 

Contributions from Presidential Campaign Committees. Contributions to a delegate by the 

campaign committee of a Presidential candidate 

who has received matching funds are chargeable 

to the Presidential candidate's spending limits. 

Expenditures by Delegates 

Expenditures to Promote Selection Only. Expenditures by a delegate to promote only the 

individual's selection as a delegate are not 

limited or reportable. Nor would they be chargeable to a Presidential candidate's spending limits. 

Moreover, the regulations permit individuals to 

make these expenditures from their personal 

funds. 

Example: An individual could spend any 

amount during the delegate selection process for 

communications advocating his/her selection or 

for travel and living expenses, including travel to 

the national nominating convention. These 

payments would not be reportable. 

Expenditures for Campaign Materials. Expenditures made by a delegate for certain campaign 

materials (e.g., pins, bumper stickers, handbills, 

brochures or yard signs) that advocate his or her 

selection and also refer to a Presidential candidate are not limited or reportable, as long as 

they are used only in connection with volunteer 

activities. These expenditures would not be 

considered contributions to the Presidential 

6 The term "delegate" includes both delegates and individuals 

seeking selection as delegates to national nominating conventions. 
72 

candidate or expenditures chargeable to the 

Presidential candidate's spending limits. 

Expenditures for Public Media. Payments made 

by a delegate for political advertisements directed to the general public (e.g., communications in 

broadcast media, newspapers, magazines or 

direct mail) which advocate the individual's 

selection as a delegate and refer to a Presidential 

candidate are not limited or reportable unless 

they qualify as either a contribution in-kind to, 

or an independent expenditure on behalf of, the 

Presidential campaign. 

Delegate Committees 

If several persons, acting as a group, support the 

selection of delegate(s) by receiving contributions or making expenditures which exceed 

$1,000 a year, the group becomes a political 

committee. This delegate committee is subject 

to the standard registration and reporting 

requirements, contribution limits and prohibitions of the Act. 

Party Committees 

Administrative expenses incurred by local, 

county, district or State party committees for 

sponsoring conventions or caucuses to select 

delegates are not reportable, but may not be 

paid with contributions which are prohibited 

under the Act. 

Ballot fees paid to State or district party committees by individuals to qualify as delegate 

candidates are not contributions or expenditures 

under the Act. These payments are not subject 

to any spending limits and are not reportable. 
Appendix 11 73 

FEC Advisory Opinions: 

Summaries 

The following summaries of Advisory Opinions 

(AOs) include those issued between January 1 

and December 31, 1980. Those seeking guidance 

for their own activity should consult the full 

text of an advisory opinion and not rely on the 

synopsis given here. Copies of the full text of 

AOs are available from the Public Records 

Office at the Commission. (Telephone: 202/ 

523-4181 or toll free, 800/424-9530) 

AO 1979-58: Volunteer Services Provided by 

Senior Partner of Law Firm 

The senior partner of a law firm may engage in 

volunteer fundraising and political activities for 

the Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc. 

(the Committee) without such activities counting as in-kind contributions from the firm 

to the Committee. 2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(A). 

Although the senior partner would be providing 

services to the Committee during the law firm's 

normal business hours, his income from the firm 

would not be considered compensation for such 

services because: 1) the partner's income is not 

based on time devoted to firm business but 

rather on "his proprietary or ownership interest 

in the firm"; and 2) the partner has complete 

discretion in the use of his time, and no reduction of income to the firm would occur if, 

for whatever reason, he spent fewer hours at the 

firm. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: March 5, 1980; 

Length, including dissent: 6 pages) 

AO 1979-62: Solicitations by 

Trade Association PAC 

The Tooling and Machining PAC, the separate 

segregated fund of the National Tool, Die and 

Precision Machining Association (NTDPMA), a 

trade association, may not solicit the executive 

or administrative personnel of corporations 

which are members of the Chicago Tool and Die 

Institute (CTDI) but are not members of 

NTDPMA. Although CTDI and NTDPMA have 

similar goals, interests and membership requirements, not all the member corporations of CTD I 

are members of NTDPMA. The Tooling and 

Machining PAC would, therefore, be specifically 

precluded from soliciting those corporations 

that are not members of NTDPMA. (Date 

Issued: February 14, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1979-66: Notice in Trade 

Association's Publications 

The Associated General Contractors of America 

(the Association), a trade association, may 

publish in two of the Association's publications 

a notice regarding the financial activity of its 

separate segregated fund, AGC-PAC. One of 

the publications is circulated to nonmembers as 

well as members; the other is circulated to 

members only. Since the notice does not encourage readers to support AGC-PAC activities 

or provide information on how they may 

contribute to AGC-PAC, the notice does not 

constitute a "solicitation" under the Act. (The 

Act specifically restricts "solicitations" by a 

separate segregated fund to the membership 

of its sponsoring association. 2 U.S.C. §437f.) 

Chairman Robert 0. Tiernan and Commissioner 

Thomas E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion. 

(Date Issued: January 30, 1980; Length, including dissent: 3 pages) 

AO 1979-67: Teacher Intern Program 

Scholarships awarded for services provided to · 

the Republican National Committee (RNC), to 

the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or 

to any Senate or Congressional staff by graduate 

students participating in an intern program 

sponsored by the George Peabody College for 

Teachers of Vanderbilt University would not be 

considered in-kind contributions under the Act. 

Since the basic purpose of the intern program is 

educational and if the interns do not devote 

substantial time to federal election campaign 

purposes, the compensated interns' services 

would not constitute in-kind contributions. The 

Peabody Center, as sponsor of the program, 

would not be considered a political committee 

under the Act. 2 U.S.C. § §431(8) and (9). To 

the extent that the interns' activities are not 

related to campaigns for federal office, funds 

contributed to or spent by the Peabody Center 

to defray the cost of the program would not be 
74 

subject to the Act's limits or prohibitions 

on contributions. Commissioners Joan D. 

Aikens, Max L. Friedersdorf and John W. 

McGarry filed a concurring opinion. (Date 

Issued: February 11, 1980; Length, includinq concurring opinion, 7 pages) 

AO 1979-68: Solicitations by Membership 

Organization's Separate 

Segregated Fund 

The Illinois Medical Political Action Committee 

(IMPAC), a separate segregated fund established 

by the Illinois State Medical Society (ISMS), 

may solicit contributions in conjunction with an 

annual dues statement for ISMS and the American Medical Association (AMA), the national 

association with which ISMS is affiliated. 

IMPAC may also make unlimited transfers of 

funds to the AMA's separate segregated fund, 

the American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC), since IMPAC is affiliated with 

AMPAC. (Date Issued: January 11, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1979-69: Trade Association's Solicitation 

of Associate Members 

The Alaska Loggers' Association/Clarence 

Kramer Political Action Committee (ALA/PAC), 

the separate segregated fund of the Alaska 

Loggers' Association, Inc. (A LA), may not 

solicit "associate members" of ALA. 

While the Act and Commission Regulations 

permit a trade association, or its separate segregated fund, to solicit contributions to the fund 

from its members, ALA's associate members do 

not meet the criteria for membership. 11 CFR 

114.1(e). Specifically, an incorporated membership organization without capital stock may 

only solicit "members" or those persons who 

have interests and rights in the organization, 

who assume some right to participate in the 

organization's direction, and who have an 

obligation to help sustain the organization 

through regular financial contributions. Since 

ALA's bylaws specifically state that its associate members do "not have the right to vote at 

any meeting or have any voice in ALA or any 

control over its officers," the associate members 

are not, therefore, "members" of ALA as 

defined by 11 CFR 114.1 (e). (Date Issued: May 

13, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1979-70: General Public Communication 

by Separate Segregated Fund 

The LTV Corporation Active Citizenship Campaign (LTVI ACC), a separate segregated fund of 

the LTV Corporation, may pay the costs of 

publications for the general public which contain statements by several Presidential candidates on campaign issues selected by LTVIACC. 

Since the proposed communication would, in 

effect, be a means of advertising each candidate's views, the costs of publishing the communication would constitute an in-kind contribution to each of the candidates. 2 U.S.C. 

§431(8)(A)(i). The amount of the contribution 

to each candidate would be equal to the cost of 

publishing the communication divided by the 

number of responses printed. 11 CFR 106.1(a). 

Since the costs of publishing the information 

would count as in-kind contributions, the LTV 

Corporation may not reimburse LTV/ACC for 

the publication costs; nor may the LTV Corporation pay the costs itself. The Corporation's 

payment of these costs would violate the Act's 

ban on corporate contributions and expenditures in connection with federal elections. (Date 

Issued: January 11, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1979-72: Trade Association's 

Reimbursement of Separate 

Segregated Fund 

The National Association of Home Builders 

(NAHB) may reimburse its separate segregated 

fund, the Build Political Action Committee 

(Build-PAC), for solicitation costs that BuildPAC had unnecessarily and mistakenly paid 

for in connection with a fundraiser for BuildPAC. 

As required by Commission Regulations (11 

CFR 114.5 (b)(2)), Build-PAC had previously 

reimbursed NAHB for fundraising costs which 
75 

exceeded one-third of the gross revenues of the 

fundraiser. However, in calculating total costs, 

Build-PAC had mistakenly included costs for 

soliciting contributions. Since the Act permits a 

membership corporation to pay these solicitation costs for its separate segregated fund 

(2 U.S.C. §441(b)(4)(C)), Build-PAC did 

not have to include these costs in determining 

the required payment for costs of entertainment 

and prizes awarded at the event. As a result of 

this erroneous calculation, BuildPAC had 

actually overpaid NAHB. NAHB may, therefore, 

repay 8uild-PAC the overpayment ($18,906.54) 

resulting from the error. Commissioner Thomas 

E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a concurring opinion. 

(Date Issued: February 1, 1980; Length, including concurring opinion and dissent, 6 pages) 

AO 1979-73: Allocation of Advance Staff 

Salary and Per Diem 

in Presidential Campaign 

For purposes of complying with national and 

state-by-state expenditure limits, applicable to 

the primary election, the Kennedy for President 

Committee (the Committee) should allocate 

advance staff salary and per diem costs to 

the state with respect to which the staff engages 

in campaign activity. According to Commission 

Regulations, expenditures "for staff, media, 

printing, and other goods and services used in a 

specific State should be attributed to that 

State." 11 CFR 106.2(b). Therefore, the Committee should allocate expenditures for advance 

staff salaries to each state limit in proportion to 

the time that the advance person, working either 

out of national headquarters or in the field, 

spends in connection with the campaign in that 

state. The Committee should allocate per diem 

costs to the state where the advance person uses 

the per diem. Expenses for interstate travel, 

however, and for per diem used during such 

travel need not be attributed to any individual 

state limit. All expenditures attributed to any 

state must also be attributed to the overall 

national expenditure limit. (Date Issued: January 11, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1979-74: Payment of Compensation 

to Candidate 

William Emerson, a candidate for the U.S. House 

of Representatives, may receive compensation 

for his legislative lobbying and consulting 

business without such compensation constituting contributions or expenditures, provided 

the compensation: 

1. Results from bona fide employment, genuinely independent of his candidacy; 

2. Is exclusively in consideration of his services; 

and 

3. Does not exceed what a similarly qualified 

person would receive for the same work, over 

the same period of time. (Date Issued: January 11, 1980; Length 2 pages) 

AO 1979-75: Combined Fundraising by Trade 

Association PAC and Its State 

and Local Affiliates 

The Associated Builders and Contractors Political Action Committee (ABC-PAC), established 

by the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. 

(ABC), a trade association, may follow the 

procedures it proposed to the Commission 

for accepting and allocating contributions 

received through a combined federal/state 

fundraising effort. 

State and local ABC chapters (affiliated with 

ABC) have established political action committees (Chapter PAC's) to support exclusively 

candidates for state and local office. Under the 

proposed procedures, a written agreement will 

provide that funds jointly collected by the 

Chapter PACs and the ABC-PAC will be divided 

on a 2/3-1/3 basis and that no part of the 

contributions received by a Chapter PAC will be 

used to support a federal election. All solicitation materials will inform contributors that 1/3 

of their contribution will be allocated to federal 

elections and, thus, be charged against applicable 

contribution limits of the Act. 

The jointly collected funds will be deposited in a 

special escrow account. The bank will divide the 

contributions according to the agreed ratio and 
76 

transfer to the Chapter PAC and ABC-PAC 

accounts the portion due to each. ABC-PAC's 

Statement of Organization will identify all such 

special accounts as campaign depositories. 

ABC-PAC will officially "receive" each contribution on the day the designated ABC-PAC state 

representative actually receives the funds, rather 

than when the funds are transferred into ABCPAC's account. The representative will deposit 

all contributions into the escrow account within 

10 days of receipt, and will furnish ABC-PAC 

headquarters with the information on contributors and contributions necessary for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. (Date 

Issued: January 18, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1979-76: Sale of Books to Corporations 

as Contributions 

The RSC Campaign Fund (the Committee), a 

political committee, may not sell to corporations books that it published for fundraising 

purposes. The gross proceeds of the sale are 

considered contributions, whether the books 

are sold above, below or at cost, and the Act and 

Commission Regulations prohibit a corporation 

from making a contribution to a political 

committee. 

The Commission distinguished this opinion from 

two previous opinions (AO 1979-24 and AO 

1978-18) wherein the sale of excess campaign 

assets and contributor lists did not constitute 

contributions because, unlike the books published by the Committee, the items were not specifically acquired or developed for general fundraising purposes. (Date Issued: January 22, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO ·1979-77: Activities of 

Affiliated Committees 

Since the Trammell Crow Partners (the Crow 

Partnership) owns controlling stock in the 

Trammell Crow Company (the Crow Company), 

and since the partners of the Crow Partnership 

are also executive officers of the Crow Company, the two organizations are considered 

affiliated for purposes of the Act; thus, their 

respective political committees are affiliated 

committees. Accordingly, the Trammell Crow 

Partners Political Committee (the Partners 

Committee) and the Trammell Crow Company 

PAC (the Crow Company PAC) must make and 

receive contributions as though they are a single 

committee with a single contribution limit. Each 

committee, however, must file reports separately 

and identify the other as an affiliated committee 

on its Statement of Organization. 

The Crow Company PAC, a separate segregated 

fund, may solicit contributions from the individual partners of the Crow Partnership since 

they own all the stock of the Crow Company, a 

corporation, and the Crow Company PAC is 

affiliated with the Partners Committee. 

On the other hand, since the Partners Committee is not a separate segregated fund of a 

corporation, it may solicit contributions from 

any individual who may otherwise make lawful 

contributions under the Act. 

The Crow Company may provide the Partners 

Committee with corporate employees to render 

legal and accounting services solely to ensure 

compliance with the Act. The compensated 

services are not considered contributions but 

must be reported by the Committee in accordance with Commission reporting regulations. (Date Issued: January 29, 1980; Length: 4 

pages) 

AO 1979-78: Definition 

of Honorarium 

The fee paid to Senator Daniel P. Moynihan for 

serialization of his book in The New Yorker, 

prior to the book's publication, does not constitute an honorarium, but rather a book royalty. 

Payment for an article is specifically included in 

the definition of honorarium in 2 U.S.C. §441i. 

"Article" is defined in Commission regulations 

to include "a writing other than a book, which 

has been or is intended to be published." 11 

CFR 110.12(b)(4). However, since Senator 

Moynihan's publisher negotiated the serializa-
77 

tion fee, received the fee from the magazine and 

paid the Senator his percentage of the fee, the 

fee represents a royalty for Senator Moynihan's 

book rather than a payment for an "article." 

(Date Issued: January 11, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1979-80: Independent Expenditures 

Program of a Multicandidate 

Political Committee 

Use of consultants or vendors by the National 

Conservative Political Action Committee 

(NCPAC), a multicandidate political committee, 

to make independent expenditures may result in 

an in-kind contribution to a candidate for 

federal office under certain circumstances. 

Before undertaking an independent expenditure 

program advocating the defeat of certain candidates for federal office, NCPAC sought guidance 

'from the Commission in determining whether 

NCPAC would be prohibited from engaging a 

particular consultant or vendor, in connection 

with making independent expenditures advocating the defeat of a clearly identified candidate, if 

that consultant or vendor had also been separately engaged by an opponent of that candidate 

or by a potential opponent of that candidate. 

The Act and Commission regulations state the 

conditions which must be met in order for an 

expenditure to be independent. Specifically, 

"independent expenditure means an expenditure 

by a person for a communication expressly 

advocating the election or defeat of a clearly 

identified candidate which is not made with the 

cooperation or with the prior cons~nt of, or in 

consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or authorized 

committee of such candidate." (Italics added.) 

The questions posed by NCPAC suggested that 

NCPAC was concerned with the last element 

(italicized) in the definition of an independent 

expenditure. Commission regulations specifically 

define this element of an independent expenditure as an expenditure which is not arranged, 

coordinated or directed "by the candidate or 

his/her agent prior to the publication, distribution, display or broadcast of the communication." 11 CFR 109.1 (b)(4). Further, the regulations state that such cooperation or coord ination in making the expenditure would be 

presumed to exist if: 

1. The expenditure is "based on information 

about the candidate's plans, projects, or needs 

provided to the expending person by the 

candidate," or 

2. The expenditure is "made by or through any 

person who is, or has been, authorized to raise 

or expend funds, who is, or has been, an 

officer of an authorized committee, or 

who is, or has been, receiving any form of 

compensation or reimbursement from the 

candidate, the candidate's committee or 

agent." 11 CFR 109.1 (b)(4)(i). 

Therefore, if NCPAC engages the services of a 

vendor or consultant to make independent 

expenditures advocating the defeat of a certain 

candidate, the presumption is that the expenditures would not be independent and would 

result in an in-kind contribution to the candidate's opponent if: 

1. An agency relationship exists or existed 

between the candidate's opponent and a 

vendor or consultant engaged by NCPAC; or 

2. The expenditure is based on information 

provided by the opponent or the opponent's 

agent; or 

3. The expenditure is made by or through any 

person connected with the opponent's campaign, as specified by 11 CFR 109.1 (b)(4) 

(i)(B). (See above.) 

The Commission then applied these three 

criteria for an independent expenditure program 

to nine specific situations presented by NCPAC. 

(Date Issued: March 12, 1980; Length: 10 

pages) 

AO 1979-81: Free Use of Community 

Facility for Fundraising Event 

Free use of the Kansas City Armory for a 

fundraising event by the Winn for Congress 
78 

Committee (the Winn Committee) would not 

constitute an in-kind contribution to the Winn 

Committee by the State of Kansas (owners of 

the Armory), by the Citizen's Military Committee (managers of the Armory) or by the 

Wyandotte County Republican Committee (the 

group that transferred to the Winn Committee 

their right to use the Armory free of charge once 

a year) provided the conditions below are met. 

Under the Act as amended in 1979, the term 

"contribution" excludes, under certain circumstances, "the use of real or personal property, 

including a church or community room." 

2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(b)(ii). In this case, the use 

of the Armory free of charge would not be 

considered an in-kind contribution to the Winn 

Committee as long as the Armory: 

- is commonly offered and used on a regular 

basis by members of the Kansas City community for noncommercial and community 

purposes; and 

- is available for use without regard to political 

affiliation. 

There would be no reporting requirement if the 

use is not a contribution under these conditions. 

(Date Issued: February 13, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1979-82: Use of Excess 

Campaign Funds 

Congressman Ronald M. Mottl (D-Ohio) may 

transfer excess campaign funds to his son's 

campaign for state office as long as the transfer 

of funds is lawful under Ohio law. Under the 

1979 Amendments to the Act, candidates who 

were not members of Congress on the day the 

1979 Amendments were enacted into law 

(January 8, 1980) may not use excess campaign 

funds for personal use. Since, however, 

Congressman Mottl was a Member of the U.S. 

House on that date, the question does not arise 

as to whether a transfer to his son's state campaign would be considered using the funds for 

"personal use." 2 U.S.C. §439a. 

Further, the Act does not limit the amount of 

funds which may be transferred by Congressman 

Mottl's principal campaign committee to candi· 

dates for state or local office. 2 U.S.C. §441 a. 

(Date Issued: February 8, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1980-1: Solicitation of Insurance 

Agents by Corporation PAC 

The Farmer's Mutual Hail Political Action 

Committee (FMH-PAC), the separate segregated 

fund of the Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance of 

Iowa (the Company), may not solicit contributions from the commissioned insurance 

agents who represent the Company. 

The commissioned agents may not be considered 

"executive or administrative personnel" because 

the Company does not withhold income tax 

from the agents' salaries. 11 CF R 114.1 (c). 

Since corporations may solicit only their executive and administrative personnel and stockholders, FMH-PAC may not solicit these agents 

for contributions. (Date Issued: February 15, 

1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-3: Qualifying as the National 

Committee of a Political Party 

Documentation provided to the Commission 

demonstrates that the Executive Committee of 

the Citizens Party is engaged in sufficient partybuilding activity on the national level to qualify 

as the "national committee" of the Citizens 

Party, once the Citizens Party qualifies as a 

"political party" under the Act and Commission 

Regulations. To qualify as a political party, the 

Citizens Party must obtain verification from a 

state election official that a federal candidate's 

name will appear on that state's election ballot 

as a Citizens Party candidate. 2 U.S.C. 

§431 (16). At that time, assuming the Executive 

Committee continues its party-building activities, it would qualify as the national committee 

of a political party. 

Determination of national committee status 

would permit the Citizens Party to accept 

contributions subject to the annual limit 
79 

($20,000 or $15,000) of 2 U.S.C. §441a(a) and 

to make limited national party expenditures as 

provided by 2 U.S.C. §441a(d). The Commission did not express an opinion, however, on the 

applicability of public funding provisions of the 

Act to possible activities by the Citizens Party 

and its potential Presidential candidate since the 

Executive Committee did not present any 

specific transaction or activity related to these 

provisions of the Act. (Date Issued: March 

4, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-4: Legal Services Donated 

to Presidential Committee 

for Defense in Civil Suit 

Compensation paid by several law firms to their 

staffs for legal services rendered without charge 

to the Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee 

(the Committee) to defend the Committee in a 

civil lawsuit would not be considered contributions under the Act. (The complaint alleges 

that the Committee improperly allocated costs 

between political and official travel and did not 

properly reimburse the government for such 

travel, in violation of the Hatch Act, the Appropriations Act and the plaintiff's constitutional rights.) The firms' compensation enables the 

Committee to present a defense to a civil complaint rather than enabling the firms' staffs to 

participate in the Committee's political activities. Therefore, since the donated legal services 

are not rendered for the purpose of influencing 

a federal election, they are not contributions. 

(Date Issued: February 1, 1980; Length: 3 

pages) 

AO 1980-5: Delegate Selection 

Payments made by individuals to the Louisiana 

Democratic State Central Committee (the State 

Committee) for the purpose of qualifying as 

delegates to the 1980 Democratic National 

Presidential Nominating Convention are not 

considered contributions or expenditures because such individuals are not candidates for 

federal office under the Act. 2 U.S.C. §431(3). 

Accordingly, the qualifying fee paid to the party 

would not have to be reported; nor would a 

contribution limit be imposed on the fee. The 

fee may not, however, be paid from contributions prohibited under the Act. 2 U.S.C. 

§ §441b and 441e. 

The Act and Commission regulations would, 

however, apply to certain expenses relating to 

the delegate's campaign, as follows: 

Expenditures Made by Delegate for His/Her 

Selection Only. Expenditures made from contributions received by the delegate candidate from 

individuals, or from the delegate's personal 

funds, and used to advocate only the delegate's 

selection, would not be subject to the Act's 

expenditure limits; nor would they be reportable. However, contributions from individuals would be chargeable to the contributor's $25,000 annual contribution limit. 

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(3). In addition, the delegate 

may not accept contributions from sources 

prohibited under the Act. 2 U.S.C. § § 441 b 

and 441e. 

Expenditures by Delegate for Campaign Materials. Expenditures made by delegate candidates 

for campaign materials (e.g., bumper stickers, 

pins, handbills, posters, yard signs and brochures) which are used in connection with 

volunteer activity and which advocate his/her 

selection, but also refer to a Presidential candidate, are neither limited nor reportable. 2 U.S.C. 

§431 (8)(B)(xi). 

Expenditures by Delegate for Public Media. 

Expenditures by delegates for public media (e.g., 

broadcast faci I ities, newspapers, magazines, 

billboards, direct mail or similar types of general 

public communications or public advertising) which both advocate the delegate's selection 

and refer to a Presidential candidate would 

count either as: 

1. An independent expenditure if the expenditure expressly advocated the election of a 

clearly identified Presidential candidate and 

was not made in consultation or cooperation 

with the Presidential candidate or any of his 
80 

authorized committees or agents (2 U.S.C. 

§434(c) and 11 CFR 109.2(b));or 

2. An in-kind contribution to the Presidential 

candidate if the expenditure were made in 

consultation with the Presidential campaign. 

Only that portion of the expenditure allocable to the Presidential candidate would be 

considered an in-kind contribution chargeable 

to his expenditure limits. 

Expenditures by Delegate Slate. If a delegate 

campaigns through a delegate slate, the delegate 

slate becomes a political committee if its expenditures exceed $1,000 during a calendar 

year. 2 U.S.C. §431(4). The delegate slate 

political committee would be subject to the 

reporting requirements, contribution limits and 

prohibitions of the Act relating to all other 

political committees. Expenditures for public 

media advertising made by the delegate slate 

committee to advocate selection of a delegate, 

but which also refer to a Presidential candidate, 

would be considered allocable independent 

expenditures or allocable in-kind contributions 

made by the committee on behalf of the Presidential candidate. 2 U.S.C. § §434(b)(6)(B), 

441a(a) (7) and 441a(b)(2). (Date Issued: March 

10, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-6: Association's Solicitation Plan; 

Contributions Made 

by Corporate Check 

Association's Solicitation Plan. A plan proposed 

by the Farm Bureau, Inc. (the Farm Bureau), a 

trade association, to solicit contributions from 

its members is not permissible under the Act and 

Commission Regulations. 

Under the plan, the Farm Bureau would have 

combined the collection of annual membership 

dues with the solicitation of contributions to its 

proposed separate segregated fund, Agripac. 

Members would have been billed for both a 

contribution to Agripac (in an amount specified 

by the Farm Bureau) and their dues. Members 

who did not wish to contribute to Agripac could 

theri have requested a refund for the amount of 

the contribution. The plan is not permissible 

because the Farm Bureau would not have merely 

suggested contribution guidelines, permitted by 

11 CFR 114.5(a)(2), but it would have required 

that contributions be for a specified amount. 

Moreover, the Farm Bureau would not have 

informed the members that they were free 

to contribute more or less than the specified 

amount, as required by 11 CFR 114.5(a)(2) 

through (5). 

Since the Farm Bureau's solicitation plan was 

not permissible, the Commission did not decide 

on whether the method it proposed for separating contributions and dues was permissible. 

Contributions Made By Corporate Check. An 

individual who is a stockholder in a small, 

closely-held corporation may not make a combined payment of membership dues and a 

contribution to the Farm Bureau with the 

corporation's check. Payment by corporate 

check would result in a prohibited contribution 

from the corporation unless the check were 

drawn on a nonrepayable corporate account 

established for the individual. (Date Issued: 

April 9, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-7: Political Contributions by 

State-Chartered Corporation 

The Central Capital Corporation (Central 

Capital), a wholly owned subsidiary of Central 

Savings and Loan Association (Central Federal), 

may make contributions to candidates for state 

and local office as permitted by California law. 

Central Federal is a federally chartered corporation; its subsidiary Central Capital is a statechartered corporation. Although the Act prohibits a federally chartered corporation from 

making contributions or expenditures in connection with any election for any political office (2 

U.S.C. §441b), that prohibition does not extend 

to a state-chartered subsidiary provided that it is 

a distinct legal entity from its parent corporation. In this case, as long as there are no 

circumstances to suggest Central Capital and 

Central Federal are one entity, Central Capital is 

not subject to the Sec. 441 b prohibition on 
81 

contributions by federally chartered corporations. (Date Issued: March 4, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1980-8: Transfer of Funds From 

State PAC to Federal PAC 

The transfer of funds from the Beloit Corporation's state political action committee (State 

PAC) to its federal political action committee 

(Federal PAC) would be permissible under the 

circumstances described in the opinion. 

In December 1979, the Beloit Corporation 

consolidated its State PAC and Federal PAC into 

the Beloit Corporation PAC (the Committee). 

At the time of consolidation, the balance of the 

State PAC's funds ($216.45) was transferred 

to the Committee. Since $200.00 of the transferred funds had previously been transferred by 

the Federal PAC to the State PAC and were, 

therefore, funds permissible under the Act, the 

Committee may retain the funds. The remaining 

$16.45 may also be retained by the Committee 

provided that the State PAC functioned under 

Wisconsin law as a separate segregated fund 

whose contributions came from individuals or 

the Committee can demonstrate the funds 

represented contributions permissible under the 

Act. (Date Issued: March 13, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1980-9: Communication Costs Paid by 

Political Committee 

Costs incurred by Arizonans for Life (the 

Committee) in printing and mailing a letter 

which contained statements relating to Senator 

Edward M. Kennedy's Presidential candidacy are 

not considered "independent expenditures." 

Costs of the letter must, however, be reported as 

general disbursements by the Committee in 

accordance with 2 U.S.C. § §434(b)(4)(H) and 

434(b)(6)(B)(v). 

Although the letter clearly identified Senator 

Kennedy as a candidate for Federal office and, 

as indicated by the request, was not produced in 

cooperation or consultation with Senator 

Kennedy's campaign, the letter still did not 

qualify as an independent expenditure, as 

defined by 2 U.S.C. §431(17), because it did 

not expressly advocate the election or defeat of 

Senator Kennedy. Commission Regulations 

specifically define "express advocacy" as a 

communication which contains, but is not 

limited to, such words as: "vote for," "cast your 

ballot for," "Smith for Congress," or, conversely, "vote against," "defeat," or "reject." 11 

CFR 109.1(b)(2). (Date Issued: March 13, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-10: Title of a Corporate Political 

Action Committee 

United Telecom Political Action Committee, the 

separate segregated fund of United Telecommunications, Inc. (the Committee), must change its 

official name to "United Telecommunications, 

Inc. Political Action Committee" since the 1979 

Amendments to the Act require a separate segregated fund to include the full name of its 

connected organization in its title. 2 U.S.C. 

§432(e). Further, the Committee must file an 

amended Statement of Organization with 

the Commission reflecting this name change. 

2 U.S.C. §433(c). 

While its official name must appear on all 

disclosure reports and notices of sponsorship 

(2 U.S.C. §441d), the Committee may continue 

to use its abbreviated name, "United Telecom 

Political Action Committee," on its letterhead 

and on committee checks. (Date Issued: March 

10, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-11: Contributions by Spouse 

An individual who has neither a personal checking account nor a joint checking account may 

make contributions to Rufus C. Phillips Ill's 

1978 Senatorial campaign by using a check 

drawn on the account of a spouse, even if the 

spouse has already contributed $1,000 to the 

candidate. However, the check, or an accompanying written statement, must indicate whose 

contribution the check represents and must 

be signed by the intended contributor. (Date 

Issued: March 10, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 
82 

AO 1980-14: Transfer of 

Campaign Materials 

Ralph M. Hall may use campaign materials from 

his 1972 campaign in his 1980 campaign. The 

value of the materials must be reported as an 

in-kind contribution from Mr. Hall to his 1980 

principal campaign committee, Hall for Congress. 

The Act and Commission Regulations permit the 

unlimited transfer of funds between a candidate's previous campaign committee and his or 

her current committee provided none of the 

funds transferred contain contributions prohibited under the Act. 11 CFR 110.3(a)(2)(iv) and 

2 U.S.C. §441a, 441b, 441c and 441e. In this 

case, since the campaign materials to be transferred were originally purchased by Mr. Hall 

from personal funds, and thus do not represent 

contributions prohibited under the Act, the 

amount to be transferred is not limited. 11 CFR 

11 0.3(a)(2)(iv). (Date Issued: March 21, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-16: Corporate Payment of Expenses 

for Candidates' Participation 

in Charity Event 

Corporate payment of the expenses incurred by 

federal officeholders during their participation 

in a charity-fundraising golf tournament sponsored by the Danny Thompson Memorial 

Leukemia Fund would not constitute either 

contributions or expenditures under the Act 

(2 U.S.C. § §431(8) and (9)), even though some 

of the officeholders may also be candidates for 

federal office. The major purpose of the golf 

tournament is to raise funds for leukemia 

research rather than to promote the nomination 

or election of any candidate. Therefore, as long 

as the tournament neither solicits campaign 

funds nor advocates the election of a participating candidate, corporate sponsors of the 

event may provide transportation, lodging and 

meals to the candidates without making prohibited corporate contributions. (Date Issued: 

March 21, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-17: Fundraising by 

Multicandidate Committee 

The Alternatives Fund (TAF), a multicandidate 

political committee, may contract with individuals to solicit contributions to TAF. Under the 

terms of a contract, TAF would reimburse each 

individual for all receipt-verified expenses 

incurred by the fundraising effort and would 

pay each individual a fixed percentage of the 

total contributions he/she raised. t3y receiving 

reimbursement for his/her expenses, the fundraiser would avoid making a contribution 

to T A F. Moreover, since the services rendered 

by the individual fundraisers would qualify as 

uncompensated volunteer services, they would 

not be considered in-kind contributions to TAF 

even if the percentage fee were less than the 

normal and usual charge paid for such services. 

11 CFR 100.4(a)(iii)(A). 

If, however, TAF contracted with a person who 

could not provide volunteer services under the 

Act, such as a corporation or government 

contractor, TAF would have to pay the usual 

and normal charge for fundraising services. Any 

difference between the usual and normal charge 

and the price paid by TAF to the fundraising 

organization would result in an in-kind contribution to TAF and would be subject to the 

Act's limits and prohibitions on contributions. 

2 U.S.C. § §441 a and 441 b. 

Total funds raised by the fundraisers must be 

recorded and reported as contributions. The 

percentage fees paid to the fundraisers, as well as 

reimbursements of fundraising costs, must be 

reported as expenditures by TAF. (Date Issued: 

March 28, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-18: Separate Segregated Fund 

Established by Four 

Affiliated Corporations 

Four affiliated corporations, the Kanter Corporation, ITt Corporation, National Bank of 

Florida and the Bank of Florida in South 

Florida, may jointly sponsor a separate segre-
83 

gated fund, KAN PAC.1 Neither the Act nor 

Commission Regulations preclude joint sponsorship of KAN PAC by the four corporations 

because they meet the requirements for affiliation spelled out in Commission Regulations at 

11 CFR 110.3(a)(1 )(iii)(A). Specifically, the 

controlling interest in the voting stock of each 

company is owned beneficially by Joseph H. 

Kanter or the Kanter Corporation, which, in 

turn, is owned by Mr. Kanter and his immediate 

family. Since the corporations meet the affiliation requirement, their proposed plan to 

allocate KAN PAC's administrative and solicitation expenses (which are not reportable as 

contributions or expenditures under the Act) 

would also be permissible. 2 U.S.C. 

§ §431(8)(B)(vi) and (9)(B)(v). (Date Issued: 

April 25, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-19: Sale of Poll 

by Labor Union 

The sale of poll results by the Wendell Young 

for Congress Committee (the Committee) 

to the United Food and Commercial Workers 

Union (the Union) would result in a prohibited 

contribution to the Committee by the Union. 

By selling the opinion poll, which a professional 

polling firm conducted under contract to the 

Committee, the Committee would recoup the 

fee it had paid the polling firm for the poll 

($9,400), while still receiving the benefit of the 

information produced by the poll. The Union, in 

effect, would be paying for the poll on behalf of 

the Committee, thus making a prohibited 

in-kind contribution to the Committee. (Date 

Issued: March 14, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-20: Nonpartisan Voter 

Registration Communication 

Rex nord, Inc. may use corporate funds to pay 

for a general circulation newspaper advertisement that reads "Please Register To Vote" and 

that includes "Rexnord, Inc." printed in a lower 

corner of the ad because: 

1. Rexnord's activity involves only a communication urging nonpartisan participation - not 

personal services, such as driving people to 

polls, which would require joint sponsorship 

with a nonpartisan organization. 

2. The Rexnord advertisement lacks any suggestion that the reader designate a political party 

preference when registering to vote. 

3. The ad does not appeal for political participation on the part of any identifiable group 

to assure the well-being of a particular political party. 

4. By placing the ad in a general circulation 

newspaper, Rexnord has not tried to determine the political preference of the audience 

who may read the advertisement 11 CF R 

114.4. 

This opinion overrules AO 1979-48, also issued 

to Rexnord, Inc. and summarized in the December 1979 issue of the Record. Chairman Robert 

0. Tiernan and Commissioner Thomas E. Harris 

filed a dissenting opinion. Commissioner Frank 

P. Reiche filed a concurring opinion. (Date 

issued: May 1, 1980; Length: 10 pages, including dissenting and concurring opinions.) 

AO 1980-21: Donation of Baseball Tickets 

to Host Committee 

of National Party Committee 

The New York Yankee Baseball Club may 

donate tickets to the Host Committee of the 

National Democratic Convention for free 

distribution to convention delegates. The 

tickets wilt not be considered a prohibited 

corporate contribution by the Yankee Ball Club 

to the Host Committee. 11 CF R 114.1 (a)(2) 

(viii). Nor will the tickets be considered a 

convention expenditure. 11 CF R 9008. 7(d)(4). 

The Yankee Ball Club's donation of tickets is 

considered a permissible in-kind contribution to 

the Host Committee since the free distribution 

of tickets wilt assist the Host Committee in 

welcoming convention delegates to New York 

City. 11 CFR 9008.7(d)(2). (Date Issued: April 

20, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

1KAN PAC's official title will include the names of all 

four corporations as required by 2 U.S.C. §432 

(e)(5). 
84 

AO 1980-22: Corporate Sponsorship 

of Town Meetings 

Costs incurred by the American Iron and Steel 

Institute (an incorporated trade association) and 

its member companies in sponsoring a series of 

town meetings in which federal officeholders 

(who may be candidates) participate would not 

constitute either contributions or expenditures 

under the Act. 

Since the purpose of the town meetings is to 

provide a forum for discussion of issues facing 

the steel industry, and not to nominate or elect 

candidates to federal office, Senators and 

Congressmen may participate in meetings held 

in their state or district provided: 

1. All remarks, including pre-meeting publicity, 

are restricted to steel industry issues and do 

not include any statements expressly advocating the election or defeat of any federal 

candidate; and 

2. Campaign contributions are neither solicited 

nor accepted by the federal officeholders 

at the event. (Date Issued: April 15, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-23: Name of Separate 

Segregated Fund 

The Agricultural and Dairy Education Political 

Trust (ADEPT), a separate segregated fund, 

must modify its official name to include the full 

name of its connected organization, the MidAmerica Dairymen, Inc., as required by the 

1979 Amendments to the Act. 2 U.S.C. 

§432(e). On documents such as checks and 

letterhead, however, ADEPT may use an abbreviated title consisting of a prefix before its 

current name, as long as the abbreviated title 

makes clear to the public who sponsors the 

separate segregated fund. "Mid-Am Dairymen" 

or "Mid-America Dairymen," two suggestions 

offered by ADEPT, would be adequate; 

"Mid-Am" or "Mid-America" would not be sufficiently recognizable by the public. 

Its official name and the abbreviation must 

appear on an amended Statement of Organization, on all disclosure reports required under the 

Act, and on any sponsorship notices required 

under 2 U.S.C. §441d. 2 U.S.C. §433(c). 

(Date Issued: April14, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-25: Authorization Notice 

on Candidate's Issue Letter 

Mr. Jack Smilowitz, a Congressional candidate, 

is not required to include an authorization 

notice on a letter he intends to distribute to the 

public, in which he opposes a California ballot 

initiative. Although Mr. Smilowitz's proposed 

letter identifies him as a candidate and gives his 

party affiliation, an authorization notice is not 

required because the letter does not expressly 

advocate his election or solicit contributions to 

his campaign committee. 2 U.S.C. §441d. Costs 

incurred in writing, photocopying, and distributing the letter are reportable as expenditures by 

his campaign committee. 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(4). 

(Date Issued: April 20, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-26: Contributions by 

Government Contractor 

The Stenholm for Congress Committee (the 

Committee) may retain contributions from an 

individual who is not a government contractor 

but who contracts with businesses which are 

under contract to the federal government. 

Commission Regulations specifically state that 

the Act's ban on contributions by government 

contractors does not apply to this type of 

situation. 11 CFR 115.1(d). (Date Issued: April 

20, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-27: Earmarking Portion 

of Membership Dues 

For Separate Segregated Fund 

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), 

an incorporated trade association, may not 

solicit contributions to its separate segregated 

fund (FedPac) by allowing individual members 

to direct a fixed percentage of their membership 

dues to FedPac without increasing the total 

amount of their dues. 

The portion of dues earmarked for FedPac 

would not be personal contributions from 

members but, rather, would be corporate money 
85 

diverted to FedPac by the member's designation. 

Since corporate funds thus allocated to FedPac 

would be used in connection with federal 

elections, FAH's proposed solicitation procedure 

is prohibited under 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). (Date 

Issued: April 28, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-28: Party Ad Promoting 

Delegate Selection 

A payment made by the Republican Committee 

of Chester County (the Committee) for newspaper advertising which advocates the selection 

of specific delegates to attend the Republican 

National Convention, and which may also 

include an endorsement of the delegates by a 

Congressional candidate, would be an "expenditure" by the Committee since the purpose of 

the advertising is to influence a federal election. 

2 U.S.C. §431(9)(A)(i). The Act specifically 

defines a federal election to include a "primary 

election held for the selection of delegates to a 

national nominating convention of a political 

party." 2 U.S.C. §431 (1 )(C). The Committee 

would report payments for the proposed newspaper advertising as follows: 

Endorsement of Delegates by the Committee 

Only. If the advertising exceeded $1,000 (or 

exceeded $1,000 when combined with other 

contributions and expenditures made for federal 

elections during 1980), the Committee would 

have to register as a political committee and 

report the expenditure. 2 U.S.C. § §433 and 

434. 

Endorsement of Delegates by the Committee 

and a Congressional Candidate. If the newspaper 

advertising also included an endorsement of the 

delegates by a Member of Congress who is a 

candidate for re-election, the Committee would 

not have to allocate the costs of the advertising 

between the Congressional candidate and the 

delegates unless the purpose of the advertisement was also to influence the re-election of the 

Member of Congress. If the advertising did 

reflect an intent to influence the re-election 

of the Congressional candidate, an in-kind 

contribution to the candidate by the Committee 

would result. In that event, the candidate's 

campaign committee would have to report the 

advertising as both an in-kind contribution to, 

and an expenditure by, the campaign committee 

and would have to comply with the allocation 

regulations. 11 CFR 106.1. (Date Issued: April 

14, 1980; Length : 4 pages) 

AO 1980-29: Use of 

Campaign Funds 

Congressman Norman D. Shumway may use his 

campaign funds to pay for his expenses as a 

delegate to the National Republican Nominating 

Convention. The Commission has stated in 

previous opinions that candidates and their 

committees have wide discretion in deciding 

how to spend campaign funds. 

If campaign funds are used to defray his convention expenses, the Congressman's campaign 

committee must report those payments as an 

"expenditure" if the purpose of the payment is 

to influence Mr. Shumway's election. If the 

payment is made for some other purpose, the 

committee must nevertheless report it as a 

general disbursement. 11 CFR 104.3(b)(4)(i) 

and (ii). (Date Issued: April 28, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1980-30: Conversion of 1980 Campaign 

Committee Into 

1982 Campaign Committee 

Excess campaign funds from Frank Askin's 1980 

Congressional campaign may be used for any 

lawful purpose, but may not be converted to 

personal use. :i U.S.C. §439a. Mr. Askin, previously registered as a House candidate seeking 

nomination in New Jersey's June 3 primary, 

ceased to be a candidate for that election on 

March 10, 1980. On that date, he amended his 

Statement of Candidacy, redesignating his 1980 

campaign committee as the principal campaign 

committee for his 1982 election. Assuming that 

there were no outstanding debts or obligations 

from Mr. Askin's 1980 primary campaign, the 

funds remaining from the 1980 campaign may 

be used for: 
86 

1. Making pro rata refunds to contributors to 

the 1980 campaign; and 

2. Supporting the candidate's nomination in the 

1982 primary election. 

The 1982 campaign committee must, however, 

report refunds of contributions. 11 CF R 104.3 

(b)(2)(v)(A) and (B). 

Undesignated contributions received between 

March 10 (the date on which Mr. Askin ceased 

to be a candidate for the 1980 election and 

became a candidate for the 1982 election) and 

the 1982 primary count toward his 1982 primary election. A contributor to his 1980 campaign (prior to March 10, 1980) may also 

contribute to his 1982 primary election. A 

separate contribution limit applies to each 

election. 

Because Mr. Askin is now a candidate only for 

an election in 1982, his committee must file 

semiannual reports, required during a nonelection year, rather than quarterly reports, 

required during election years. 11 CFR 104.5(a). 

The committee must identify (on Schedule A) 

each person contributing in excess of $200 

during 1980, regardless of whether the 

contributions were for the 1980 or 1982 election. The report should include a notation, 

however, indicating the election for which the 

contribution was intended. 

Expenses paid by the campaign committee for 

publishing and distributing a newsletter promoting Mr. Askin's candidacy as a delegate to the 

Democratic National Convention must be 

reported by the committee. 2 U.S.C. §434. 

Since a reference to Senator Edward Kennedy 

(to whom the candidate had pledged his support) was not made in consultation with the 

Senator or any of his authorized committees or 

agents, the committee does not have to report a 

portion of the newsletter expenses as an in-kind 

contribution to Senator Kennedy. Nor are the 

expenses chargeable to Senator Kennedy's 

expenditure limit. 2 U.S.C. §441a(b). 

If Mr. Askin's Congressional district is redesignated as a result of redistricting, the 1982 campaign committee must amend its Statement of 

Organization (FEC Form 1) to reflect the 

change. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a 

concurring opinion. (Date Issued: May 30, 1980; 

Length: 9 pages, including concurring opinion.) 

AO 1980-32: Use of Excess Campaign Funds 

to Retire Campaign Debts 

The Dannemeyer for Congress Committee (the 

Committee) may use excess campaign funds 

raised in 1979 to retire debts of the candidate's 

1978 campaign for Congress and his 1976 

campaign for state assembly, if permitted by 

state law. 

Since the Committee's 1979 fundraising occurred after it had begun to engage in financial 

activity for Mr. Dannemeyer's 1980 Congressional campaign, and since the Committee was 

not specific as to the proposed use of the 

funds raised, the funds received in 1979 count as 

contributions to his 1980 election. The Act and 

Commission Regulations permit political committees to use excess campaign funds for a 

variety of specified purposes and for "any other 

lawful purpose." 2 U.S.C. §439a; 11 CFR 

113.2. The Committee's use of 1980 excess 

campaign funds to retire debts of previous 

campaigns is considered a "lawful purpose." 

Commissioners Thomas E. Harris and Frank P. 

Reiche filed a dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: 

May 21, 1980; Length: 5 pages, including 

dissenting opinion.) 

AO 1980-33 

and Supplement: Trade Association's 

Nonpartisan Voter Drive 

The National Association of Realtors (the 

Association), a nonprofit, incorporated trade 

association, may finance voter registration and 

get-out-the-vote programs directed to both 

Association members and the general public. 

Program for Members. The Association may 

make either partisan or nonpartisan communications to its members through phone banks. 11 
87 

CFR 114.3(c)(3),114.7(h)and 114.8(h).ltmay 

also distribute voting materials prepared by 

election officials. 11 CF R 114.4(c)(2). 

Program for General Public. With regard to four 

radio announcements submitted for Commission 

approval, the Association may transmit three to 

the general public. These three transcripts, 

which urge voter registration, satisfy the criteria 

that the Commission applied to a newspaper 

advertisement in AO 1980-20: 

1. The communications lack any suggestion that 

a person designate a political party preference 

when registering to vote; 

2. The communications do not appeal to any 

identifiable group to ensure their political 

well-being; and 

3. By appealing to the general public in a radio 

broadcast, the Association has not tried to 

determine the political preference of the 

audience. 

The fourth communication (considered in the 

Supplement to AO 1980-33) also satisfies the 

nonpartisan criteria, but differs from the other 

three in its suggestion that the public obtain 

registration information at the real estate offices 

of certain Association members. The Association 

may use this transcript in communications with 

the general public, provided the information 

supplied by the realtors is prepared by local 

election officials for distribution to the general 

public and is distributed in a nonpartisan manner, without endorsing, supporting or promoting 

registration with a particular party. 11 CFR 

114.4(c)(2). 

Eight proposed get-out-the-vote announcements, 

encouraging voting rather than registration, also 

meet the three nonpartisan criteria set out in AO 

1980-20 and summarized above. One of these 

announcements, however, which suggests that 

the public obtain absentee voting information at 

realtor offices, may be used only if it also 

complies with the provisions of 11 CFR 114.4 

(c)(2). 

Date Issued: June 2, 1980; Length: 8 pages, 

including dissenting opinions; Supplement/Date 

Issued: August 6, 1980; Length: 6 pages) 

AO 1980-34: Artwork Donated to (and Sold 

by) Political Committee 

Volunteer services supplied by artists in creating 

artwork for the Connally for President Committee (the Committee) would not constitute a 

contribution to the Committee, as long as the 

Committee reimburses the artists for the costs 

of artwork materials. However, the full purchase 

price of each artwork, when later sold by the 

committee, would constitute a contribution to 

the Committee by the purchaser and would be 

subject to the Act's limits and prohibitions on 

contributions. 2 U.S.C. § §441a, 441b, 441c 

and 441e. 

The sale of the artwork by an art dealer would 

constitute a political fundraising activity (rather 

than a commercial transaction) since revenue 

from the sale of the artwork would be transmitted to, and used by, the Committee to 

retire its campaign debts. Accordingly, the 

Committee would have to instruct the art dealer 

to: 

- Identify each artwork as part of the Connally 

Committee collection; and 

- Advise potential buyers that the proceeds 

from the sale of the artwork count as a 

contribution to the Committee. 

Further, all the Committee's financial transactions related to the sale of the artwork, 

reimbursements to the artists for basic materials 

used to create the artwork, and the commission paid to the art dealer would have to be 

reported by the Committee as expenditures, 

according to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. §434. 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the 

possible application of tax laws to the artwork 

sales since those issues are not within its jurisdiction. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: May 23, 

1980; Length: 7 pages, including dissenting 

opinion.) 

Commissioners Robert 0. Tiernan and Thomas 

E. Harris filed dissenting opinions. (Opinion/ 
88 

AO 1980-36: Preemption of 

State Law 

The Ruth Miller for Congress Committee does 

not have to comply with an Ohio statute requiring campaign advertisements to disclose the 

name and address of the secretary or chairman 

of the committee responsible for the communication. Since the Act and Regulations supersede 

and preempt state law with respect to disclosure 

required in conducting campaigns for federal 

office (2 U.S.C. §453), the advertising notice 

requirements of §441d, which do not require 

the name or address of the sponsoring individual, supersede the Ohio statute. (Date Issued: 

April 28, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-37: Contributions from 

Government Contractor 

The Stenholm for Congress Committee (the 

Committee) must refund contributions received 

from a government contractor and disclose the 

refund in its next report. 

The contributions must be returned because the 

contributor, the sole proprietor of a trucking 

business involved in four contracts with the U.S. 

Postal Service, is specifically prohibited by the 

Act and Commission Regulations from making 

contributions or expenditures to influence 

federal elections from business, personal or 

other funds under his control. 11 CF R 115.5. 

(Date Issued: May 23, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-38: Allocation of Computer-Use 

Expenses Between State 

and Federal Committee 

An agreement to allocate computer rental and 

data entry costs between the Allen for Congress 

Committee (the Federal Committee) and the 

campaign committee of a Michigan legislative 

candidate (the State Committee) is permitted by 

Commission Regulations provided that the 

committees allocate costs in a manner that 

reflects the actual use and benefit to each 

campaign.11 CFR 106.1 and 110.8(d)(3). 

Under the agreement, the two campaign committees would evenly divide computer costs for 

data entry of voter information in areas where 

their legislative and Congressional districts 

overlap. Each campaign committee would 

then absorb all costs of data entry and rental in 

areas that do not overlap. To ease bookkeeping 

requirements, the Federal Committee has paid 

all data entry costs and the State Committee has 

paid a security deposit and rental for the use of 

the computer. Each committee plans to reimburse the other for those costs assignable to it. 

The computer costs would be reported as 

follows: 

Payments by the Federal Committee 

Since the Federal Committee's payments for 

data entry of voter information are not for the 

purpose of influencing the state candidate's 

election, but rather for the purpose of influencing Mr. Allen's reelection, the Federal Committee must report the data entry costs as operating 

expenditures. 11 CFR 104.3(b)(2)(i). 

Reimbursements by the State Committee 

to the Federal Committee 

Reimbursements to the Federal Committee 

by the State Committee for its share of the data 

entry costs must be reported by the Federal 

Committee as receipts in the form of offsets to 

operating expenditures. 11 CFR 104.3(a)(3) 

(ix)(A), (B) and (C). Since payments to the 

Federal Committee must be from funds permissible under the Act, and since the State Committee is not a political committee under the Act, 

the State Committee must establish one of 

the following accounting procedures if it accepts 

funds prohibited by the Act: 

1. Establish a separate account for funds permissible under the Act and from which payments 

to the Federal Committee would be made; or 

2. Demonstrate through a reasonable accounting 

method that, whenever such payments are 

made, the State Committee has received 

sufficient funds permissible under the Act to 

make payments to the Federal Committee. 

In addition, the State Committee must keep 

records, which it will make available to the 
89 

Commission upon request. 11 CFR 102.5(b) 

(1 )(i) and (ii) and 100.7(a)(1 )(i)(D). 

Federal Committee's Obligations to 

the State Committee 

The Federal Committee's obligations to the 

State Committee for its outstanding share of the 

computer rental and security deposit are expenditures by the Federal Committee. 11 CFR 

1 00.8(a)(2). If the committees' agreement was 

in writing, the Federal Committee must report 

its obligations as of the date the agreement was 

made. If the agreement was not in writing, the 

Federal Committee must report the obligation 

and actual payments according to 11 CF R 

104.11. 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the 

application of Michigan law to the Federal 

Committee's payments to the State Committee. 

This opinion supersedes Advisory Opinions 

1976-11 0 and 1978-67 with respect to payments 

from political organizations that are not "political committees" under the Act. (Date Issued: 

May 16, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-39: .Investment of Funds 

in Money Market Fund 

The Fluor Public Affairs Committee (FiuorPAC), the separate segregated fund of the Fluor 

Corporation, may invest its campaign funds in a 

professionally managed money market fund (11 

CFR 103.3), provided Fluor-PAC returns 

campaign funds invested in the money market 

fund to its campaign depository before the 

funds are used to make expenditures. 

Although Fluor-PAC need not file an amended 

Statement of Organization designating the 

money market fund as an additional campaign 

depository, Fluor-PAC must fulfill the following 

reporting requirements: 

1. Total campaign funds invested in the money 

market fund must be included in the total 

amount of funds reported by the committee 

as"cash-on-hand." 11 CFR 104.3(a)(1). 

2. Fluor-PAC must report as a receipt any 

income earned on its investment. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b)(2)(J) and (b)(3)(G). (Date Issued: 

May 16, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-40: Multicandidate Committee 

Status for Affiliated Committees 

The Transamerica Corporation Political Action 

Committee (TRANSPAC) and its affiliated 

separate segregated fund, Occidental Life 

Insurance Company of California Political 

Action Committee (OXY-PAC), may qualify as 

multicandidate committees once they have 

collectively satisfied the Act's requirements for 

multicandidate committee status. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(4). Together, that is, they must have 

been registered for at least six months, must 

have received contributions from more than 50 

donors and contributed to at least five federal 

candidates. 

As affiliated committees, TRANSPAC and 

OXY-PAC are subject to a single contribution 

limit with regard to both contributions received 

and contributions made. 2 U.S.C. §431 (4)(8) 

and §441a(a)(5). (Date Issued: June 9, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-41: Use of Candidate's Excess 

Campaign Funds After His Death 

Excess campaign funds and assets of the Slack 

for Congress Committee, the principal campaign 

committee of the late Congressman John M. 

Slack, Jr., may be transferred to his family or his 

office staff. 

Under the 1979 Amendments to the Act, 

candidates who were not members of Congress 

on the day the 1979 Amendments were enacted 

into law (January 8, 1980) may not use excess 

campaign funds for personal use. 2 U.S.C. 

§439a; 11 CFR 113.2. Since, however, Mr. 

Slack was a member of Congress at that time, 

the proposed use of the funds would be permissible, provided West Virginia state law does 

not make the proposed transfer unlawful. (Date 

Issued: May 16, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 
90 

AO 1980-42: Fundraising Concerts Conducted 

for Senatorial Campaign 

Committee · 

Volunteer services provided by entertainers for 

fundraising concerts to be held on behalf of the 

Hart for Senate Campaign Committee, Inc. (the 

Committee) would not count as in-kind contributions to the Committee, provided the Committee reimbursed the entertainers for their 

expenses. 2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(8). Further, the 

Committee could contract with a promoter who, 

as an agent of the Committee, would handle 

concert arrangements. 

Under the contractual arrangements, ticket sales 

could be made at outlets normally used for 

commercial concerts, and tickets issued could be 

identical to those issued for nonpolitical concerts. Advance publicity and notices at sales 

locations, however, would have to inform ticket 

purchasers that the concert would benefit the 

Committee. 

Since ticket sales would be treated as contributions from the purchasers, the proceeds would 

have to be handled as contributions. The Committee would have to establish controls to 

ensure that purchasers did not violate the Act's 

dollar limits or prohibitions on contributions. 

The identity of contributors would have to be 

obtained when any person's ticket purchases 

exceeded $50 at the same selling location. 2 

U.S.C. §432(b); 11 CFR 102.9. 

Checks for ticket purchases would not have to 

be made payable to the Committee, but they 

would have to be deposited in the special 

account established for the fundraiser. Proceeds 

deposited in the special account would then 

be forwarded to the campaign's treasurer within 

10 days of their receipt. 2 U.S.C. §432(b)(1 ); 

11 CFR 102.8(a). The treasurer, in turn, would 

have to deposit the proceeds in a designated 

campaign depository within 10 days of their 

receipt. 11 CFR 103.3(a). Alternatively, the 

promoter, as the Committee's agent, could 

transfer the proceeds from the special account 

directly to a designated Committee account 

within 10 days of their receipt. The promoter 

would also have to keep records for all ticket 

proceeds. 2 U.S.C. §432; 11 CFR 102.9. 

The promoter could pay for concert expenses 

from ticket sale proceeds deposited in a special 

account established in an official campaign 

depository. Similarly, funds in this account 

could be used to pay the promoter the usual and 

normal fee for his services. The promoter would 

then forward the balance of the proceeds to the 

Committee. All expenses (including fees to the 

promoter) would be subject to the Act's recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche issued a dissenting 

opinion. (Date Issued; June 25, 1980; Length, 

including dissenting opinion: 14 pages) 

AO 1980-43: Reporting 1974 Debts 

by 1980 Committee 

Martin Frost, a candidate for reelection to the 

House of Representatives in 1980, may report 

outstanding debts of his 1974 Congressional 

campaign by either one of the following methods approved by the Commission: 

1. Congressman Frost's 1980 campaign committee may consolidate the 1974 campaign 

debts with activities reported by the 1980 

campaign committee. The 1980 committee 

would use separate contribution schedules 

(Schedule A's) to identify contributions 

received to retire the 1974 debt and contributions received for the 1980 campaign. In 

addition, the committee would file a separate 

debt schedule (Schedule C) identifying the 

1974 debts until they are retired. 

2. Alternatively, Congressman Frost may continue to file separate, semiannual reports as a 

1974 candidate until the debts for that 

election are extinguished. The 1980 Committee would continue to file quarterly. 11 

CFR 104.3(d), 104.5(a)(2) and 104.11; and 2 

U.S.C. §434(a)(2)(B). (Date Issued: May 23, 

1980; Length: 2 pages) 
91 

AO 1980-44: Collection Systems Proposed 

by Labor Organization for its 

Separate Segregated Fund 

Two collection systems proposed by the National Education Association (N EA) to collect 

contributions for its political action committee, 

NEA-PAC, would be permissible; however, two 

other proposed systems would not. 

Under the current system, NEA members 

authorize deduction of a fixed sum from their 

pay checks for contributions to NEA-PAC and 

for their unified membership dues to NEA. To 

ease the administrative burden imposed by a 

provision of the Act requiring timely transmittal 

of political contributions to the treasurer of a 

political committee (2 U.S.C. §432(b)(2)), NEA 

proposed four alternative payroll deduction 

systems, all of which would be less costly and 

time-consuming than NEA's current collection 

system. 

Under the first proposed collection system, the 

entire NEA-PAC contribution would be deducted from the first payroll deduction check of 

NEA's membership year. Membership dues 

would then be deducted from subsequent 

checks. No change would be made in the members' current payroll deduction authorization 

form. The third proposed system is identical to 

the first, except that the authorization form 

would indicate that NEA-PAC's contribution 

was being drawn entirely from the first payroll 

deduction check. 

These two collection systems would not be 

permissible. By deferring its receipt of membership dues in order to facilitate member contributions to NEA-PAC, NEA would be giving 

"something of value, if not an advance ... to 

NEA-PAC." Therefore, NEA's service would 

constitute a prohibited contribution from NEA 

to NEA-PAC. 2 U.S.C. §441b (b). Even if NEA 

members signed authorization cards agreeing to 

defer their membership dues, a prohibited 

in-kind contribution would still result since NEA 

- not its individual members - would be 

providing the deferred receipt of dues. 

Under the second proposed collection system, 

the NEA-PAC contribution would be deducted 

in one lump sum from the last payroll deduction 

check after all membership dues had already 

been deducted from previous checks. There 

would be no change in the authorization form. 

The fourth proposed system is the same as the 

second except that the authorization form 

would indicate the change in the payroll deduction system. 

These collection systems would be permissible 

because NEA-PAC's contributions would be 

deferred, rather than NEA's membership dues. 

Therefore, NEA would not be making a prohibited in-kind contribution to NEA-PAC. To 

be fully permissible, however, the second and 

fourth collection systems would also have to 

meet all legal requirements pertaining to the 

solicitation, collection and transmittal of contributions to NEA-PAC. (Date Issued: July 3, 

1980; Length: 5 pages) 

AO 1980-45: Nonprofit Organization's 

Nonpartisan Voter 

Registration Drive 

Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc. 

(PPNYC), a nonprofit corporation, may conduct 

nonpartisan voter registration drives for the 

general public at its clinics. Commission regulations specifically permit corporations and labor 

organizations to support such nonpartisan voter 

registration drives for the general public as long 

as these activities are jointly sponsored with a 

nonpartisan, nonprofit civic group and are 

conducted by the civic group. 11 CFR 114.14 

(d). Although this regulation does not specifically address PPNYC's situation, where the 

qualified civic group unilaterally undertakes a 

voter registration drive without a corporate 

co-sponsor, the regulation does not require a 

civic group to find a corporate co-sponsor for an 

otherwise permissible activity. Commissioner 

Robert 0. Tiernan filed a dissenting opinion. 

(Date Issued: June 11, 1980; Length, including 

dissent: 4 pages) 
92 

AO 1980-46: Fundraising Plan 

of Independent Expenditure 

Committee 

Expenditures made by the National Conservative 

Political Action Committee (NCPAC) for a mass 

mailing that advocates a candidate's election and 

solicits contributions to his campaign through 

NCPAC (as a conduit) would be considered an 

in-kind contribution to the candidate's principal 

campaign committee, rather than an independent expenditure. 

The solicitation system proposed by NCPAC for 

the mass mailing would consist of a letter 

suggesting that a contribution for the candidate 

be mailed to NCPAC, which would gather and 

transmit the contributions to the candidate's 

principal campaign committee. Even if no 

communication occurred between NCPAC and 

the candidate or any agents of his campaign, 

expenditures for the mass mailing would be an 

in-kind contribution to the candidate's principal 

campaign committee because, in accepting the 

earmarked contributions forwarded through 

NCPAC, the candidate's campaign would also be 

accepting the solicitation services provided by 

NCPAC. 

NCPAC would be considered a conduit transmitting the contributions to the candidate's 

principal campaign committee. Since, however, 

NCPAC would exercise no control over the 

contributions made to the candidate, the contributions would not count as contributions by 

NCPAC and would not count against NCPAC's 

$5,000 contribution limit. 11 CFR 110.6(d)(1 ). 

Instead, the contributions would count against 

the individual contributor's limits. 2 U.S.C 

§441a(a) and 11 CFR 110.1. 

As a conduit, NCPAC would be required to 

report the contributions to both the candidate's 

principal campaign committee and to the 

Federal Election Commission according to 

reporting procedures detailed in Commission 

Regulations. See 11 CFR 110.6(c)(4)(i), (ii) and 

(iii). Chairman Max L. Friedersdorf and Commissioner Joan D. Aikens filed dissenting opinions. (Date Issued: June 25, 1980; Length: 9 

pages, including dissents) 

AO 1980-47: Preemption of State Law 

Regulating Election Day 

Services 

The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) 

does not supersede or preempt a Maryland 

law that would prohibit the Conroy for U.S. 

Senate Committee from making payments for 

"walk around services" performed on election 

day. The Maryland law defines payments for 

"walk around services" to include the following 

activities which the Conroy for U.S. Senate 

Committee proposed to undertake: payments to 

campaign workers engaged in distributing 

campaign literature, sample ballots, or other 

campaign material; serving as poll watchers; and 

other campaign activities performed on the day 

of the election. (Date Issued: May 13, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-48: Cooperative's Solicitation 

· of Corporate Members' 

Stockholders 

A separate segregated fund proposed by the MidStates Distributing Company (Mid-States), an 

incorporated cooperative association, may not 

solicit contributions from the shareholders of its 

corporate members. Commission Regulations 

define solicitable members as "all persons who 

are currently satisfying requirements for membership in a cooperative." 11 CFR 114.1(e). In 

this case, a direct membership relation does not 

exist between Mid-States and the shareholders of 

its corporate members. Mid-States could, however, solicit its own individual members. (Date 

Issued: June 9, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-49: Use of Campaign Funds 

for Personal Living Expenses 

Steven D. Weinstein, a Congressional candidate, may use campaign funds for ordinary 

and necessary living expenses incurred during 

the 1980 campaign. The ban on converting 

"excess campaign funds" to personal use, 

contained in the 1979 Amendments to the 

Act (2 U.S.C. §439a), does- not affect the 
93 

candidate's use of campaign funds for campaign purposes during the course of the campaign. (Date Issued: May 16, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1980-50: Corporate Payment of Expenses 

in Connection with Separate 

Segregated Fund 

The United Merchants and Manufacturers, Inc. 

(the Corporation) may pay for certain expenses 

relating to a meeting that would introduce 

executive and administrative personnel to the 

Corporation's separate segregated fund (UM&M 

PAC). 

At the proposed breakfast or luncheon meeting, 

the UM&M PAC directors would discuss the 

PAC's structure, philosophy and purpose, and 

would explain the contribution mechanisms 

available to solicitable employees, though 

contributions would not be collected at the 

meeting. The cost of food and transportation to 

the meeting would range from $9 to $22 per 

employee. The corporation may pay these 

expenses since they are incurred in establishing, 

administering and soliciting contributions to a 

separate segregated fund. 11 CFR 114.1(b). 

Because the meeting would not impart a prize or 

entertainment benefit to the employee, UM&M 

PAC need not reimburse the corporation for the 

meeting's expenses. 

The Commission could not reach agreement on 

the question of whether the Corporation's 

payment of employee salaries for time spent 

traveling to and attending the meeting would be 

considered a cost of establishing, administering and soliciting contributions to a separate 

segregated fund, or whether the payment would 

constitute a prohibited corporate expenditure. If 

UM&M PAC were to hold the meeting on a 

non-working day, however, the question would 

not arise. (Date Issued: July 11, 1980; Length: 5 

pages) 

AO 1980-51: Volunteer Services Provided by 

Bank Employees During 

Work Hours 

Volunteer services provided by an employee of 

the First Farmer and Merchants National Bank 

(the bank) to a political organization during 

work hours would not result in an in-kind 

contribution by the bank, as long as the volunteer activities involved only an " ... occasional, 

isolated or incidental use" of the bank's facilities.11 CFR 114.9(a)(1) (iii). 

An employee of the bank could use up to one 

hour per week of regularly scheduled work time 

to provide services to a political committee and 

to act as its official treasurer (including lending 

his or her name to authorization notices for 

political advertising) because the volunteer 

activities would not prevent the employee from 

completing his or her normal amount of work. 

11 CFR 114.9(a)(1 )(i). However, the bank 

would have to be reimbursed for any additional 

overhead or operating costs the bank incurred as 

a result of the volunteer activities. 11 CF R 

114.9(a). If paid by the employee, this reimbursement would be considered an in-kind 

contribution to the political organization. 

2 u.s.c. §434. 

The Commission expressed no opm1on on the 

application of rules of the Comptroller of the 

Currency to the volunteer services since those 

rules are not within its jurisdiction. (Date 

Issued: September 3, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-53: Donation of Promotion Item 

to Host Committees 

of National Conventions 

Kelly Services, Inc. may donate canvas tote bags 

to the host committees of the Democratic and 

Republican National Conventions for free 

distribution to delegates and convention attendees. Costs of providing the tote bags would not 

count against either national party's expenditure 

limits for the convention. 
94 

Kelly Services, Inc. may provide the tote bags, 

which will be inscribed with the convention's 

name on one side and the company's name on 

the other, because the bags are of nominal value, 

are provided solely for bona fide advertising 

purposes, and are provided in the ordinary 

course of business. 11 CFR 9008.7(c)(2). (Date 

Issued: June 17, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-54: Contributions by 

National Bank 

The First National Bank of West Monroe may 

not make contributions to the Louisiana Political Action Council (LAPAC), a committee 

supporting candidates for state office. The Act 

prohibits national banks from making contributions and expenditures in connection with 

"any election to any political office" (2 U.S.C. 

§441b(a)), including donations to political 

committees which support candidates for state 

or local office as well as federal office. (Date 

Issued: June 17, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-55: Corporate Assistance 

for Secretary of State's 

Voter Registration Drive 

The Office of the Secretary of State for Connecticut, which administers the state's elections, 

may accept corporate assistance in undertaking 

the following nonpartisan voter registration 

activities, provided these activities are permitted by state law: 

Reprinting and Distributing Voter Registration 

Information. A corporation may use its facilities 

to reprint and distribute to the general public 

materials prepared by the Secretary of State on 

topics such as voter registration and party 

enrollment. These reprints may contain the 

corporation's logo, identification or a statement 

identifying the corporation's participation, such 

as: "Printed and distributed as a public service 

by the XYZ Corporation in conjunction with 

the Secretary of State of Connecticut." 11 

CFR 114.4(c)(2). 

Voter Registration Drives. Since the voter 

registration drives which the state's registrars of 

voters plan to undertake would be completely 

nonpartisan, corporations may make their 

facilities available for the drives. The corporations' employees may also assist in the drives as 

officially appointed assistant registrars. 11 C F R 

114.4(d)(2) and (3). (Date Issued: June 25, 

1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-56: Method of Counting Votes 

to Determine New Party 

Candidates's Eligibility 

for Public Funding 

The total number of votes cast in the 1980 

Presidential general election for Mr. Barry 

Commoner will be counted to determine his 

eligibility for retroactive public funds and 

the appropriate amount due - regardless of 

whether his name appears on a state ballot as an 

independent candidate or as the Presidential 

candidate of the Citizens' Party. Under the Act, 

a minor or new party candidate is eligible 

for retroactive public funding if the candidate of 

a political party receives five percent or more of 

the total number of popular votes cast for 

President. 11 CFR 9004(a)(3). (Date Issued: 

June 17, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-57: Fundraising to Defray 

Candidate's Litigation Fees 

The Bexar County Democratic Party (the 

Committee) may solicit funds for Congressman 

Henry B. Gonzalez, which Mr. Gonzalez will 

then use to defray litigation fees he incurred 

while challenging the nominating petitions of a 

potential Republican opponent. Since Mr. 

Gonzalez's litigation activity could influence the 

outcome of a federal election by preventing his 

opponent's name from appearing on the state 

ballot, funds raised by the Committee would 

be considered "contributions" to Mr. Gonzalez's 

principal campaign committee and would be 

subject to the reporting requirements, limitations and prohibitions of the Act. 

The Committee could raise funds for Mr. 

Gonzalez's litigation fees by using either one of 

the following methods: 

1. If the Committee solicited funds and contri-
95 

buted them to Mr. Gonzalez's principal 

campaign committee, the Committee would 

be required to register and report as a "political committee" under the Act once it had 

received contributions in excess of $5,000. 

2 U.S.C. § §433 and 434. Contributions to 

the Committee by an individual and contri· 

butions by the Committee to Mr. Gonzalez 

would each be subject to a $5,000 per year 

limit, provided the Committee qualified as a 

multicandidate committee (i.e., the committee had been registered for at least six 

months, had received contributions from 

more than 50 donors and had contributed to 

at least five federal candidates). 

2. Alternatively, Mr. Gonzalez could mail out a 

fundraising letter on the Committee's letter· 

head. In this case, the fundraising would be an 

activity of Mr. Gonzalez's campaign. Therefore, expenditures made for the solicitation, and any funds received, would be 

expenditures by and contributions to Mr. 

Gonzalez's principal campaign committee. As 

such, they would be reportable by Mr. 

Gonzalez's campaign. The Gonzalez campaign 

committee would also be required to include 

a statement on the solicitation authorizing the 

fundraising activity. 2 U.S.C. §.,.41d. (Date 

Issued: June 25, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-58: National Bank's Contributions 

to State Senator's Officeholder 

Expense Funds 

Union Bank and Trust Company (the Bank), a 

national bank in Grand Rapids, Michigan, may 

make donations payable by corporate check to 

the Officeholder Expense Funds of state senators. Michigan law prohibits public officials from 

using their officeholder expense funds to make 

contributions or expenditures to further their 

nomination or election to public office. The 

Act's ban on political contributions by national 

banks would not, therefore, apply to donations 

made to a state officeholder's expense fund if 

that fund is not utilized in connection with 

any election to any federal, state or local office. 

(Date Issued: June 25, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-59: Corporate Funds Donated 

to Defray Administrative Costs 

of Trade Association's 

Separate Segregated Fund 

The Lawyers Title Insurance Company (LTIC), a 

corporation, may donate funds to an account 

maintained by the American Land Title Association (ALTA), a trade association, to defray the 

administrative and solicitation expenses of 

ALTA's separate segregated fund, the Title 

Industry Political Action Committee. Because 

the Act exempts administrative and solicitation 

expenses from the definition of "contribution" 

or "expenditure," L TIC may make this donation 

to ALTA (in addition to its membership dues) 

without violating the Act's prohibition on 

corporate contributions. 2 U.S.C. §441 (b)(2)(C) 

and §431(8)(B)(vi) and 9(B)(v). Commissioners 

Thomas E. Harris and Robert 0. Tiernan filed a 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: July 11, 

1980; Length: 3 pages, including dissenting 

opinion) 

AO 1980-60: Contributions Accepted by 

Campaign Committee for 

Two Separate Elections 

The Galperin for Congress Committee (the 

Committee) may accept contributions for both a 

nominating convention, held on April 26, 1980, 

to select candidates for a June 3 special general 

election in West Virginia, and for a regular Congressional primary election (also held on June 

3). Since the nominating convention and the 

Congressional primary are separate elections, 

separate limits would apply to contributions 

received for these elections. 2 U.S.C. §441a 

(a)(6); 11 CFR 110.1(j)(1) and 110.2(d)(1). 

However, contributions accepted by the Committee for the nominating convention must have 

been received on or before April 26. Contributions received after April 26 would count as 

contributions for the June 3 primary election 

(11 CFR 110.1 (a)(2)(ii)), unless the contributions are specifically designated for the convention and do not exceed the Committee's 

outstanding debts for the convention. (Date 

Issued: May 30, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 
96 

AO 1980-62: Labor Union's Solicitation of 

Temporary Employees 

The Pipefitters Local 524 Political Action Fund 

(the Committee), the separate segregated fund 

of the Pipefitters Local 524 (the Local), may 

solicit contributions from one category of 

temporary employees (travel card holders) but 

not from another category (permit card hold· 

ers). 

The Committee proposed soliciting both types 

of temporary employees through a voluntary 

payroll deduction plan. One group, the travel 

card holders, are not members of the Local. 

They are, however, members of other local 

unions affiliated with the Local's national 

organization, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe 

Fitting Industry of the United States and 

Canada (United Association). Under Commission Regulations, the travel card holders are 

considered members of the United Associa· 

tion by virtue of being members of one of its 

affiliated local unions. The Committee may 

therefore solicit these employees because a 

subsidiary organization or its separate segregated 

fund may solicit members of its "parent organi· 

zation," i.e, the United Association. (See also 

AO 1978-75.) 

The other group of employees, the permit card 

holders, are not members of the Local or of the 

United Association. The Committee may not, 

therefore, solicit this group of employees. 2 

U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(A). Commissioners Thomas 

E. Harris and Frank P. Reiche filed concurring 

opinions. (Date Issued: July 3, 1980; Length: 6 

pages, including concurring opinions) 

AO 1980-63: Costs of Fundraiser 

as In-Kind Contribution 

Costs ($250) incurred by Mr. Collis Chandler for 

co-hosting a fundraiser on behalf of the Committee for Tim Wirth (the Committee) are 

reportable as an in-kind contribution to the 

Committee. Comparable costs ($250) incurred 

by his co-host, Mr. Michael Murphy, are not, 

however, reportable as a contribution because 

the fundraiser was held in his home. Under the 

1979 Amendments to the Act, the costs of 

providing volunteer services on behalf of candi· 

dates, including costs of invitations, food and 

beverages, are not considered contributions to 

the candidate if: 

1. The volunteer activity is conducted in the 

individual's home or a church or community 

room; and 

2. The costs for such volunteer activity do not 

exceed $1,000 per election. 2 U.S.C. §437f; 

11 CFR 100.7(b) (4) and (5). (Date Issued: 

June 30, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-64: Labor Organization's Payment 

of Members' Delegate Expenses 

The National Education Association (N EA), a 

national labor organization, may not use its 

general treasury funds to pay the travel and 

living expenses of NEA members who will be 

attending the Democratic and Republican 

national nominating conventions as delegates. 

The Act explicitly prohibits labor organizations 

from making contributions or expenditures in 

connection with federal elections. 2 U.S.C. 

§441b. The Commission's proposed delegate 

selection regulations reinforce this prohibition 

by explicitly stating that "all contributions to 

and expenditures by any delegate ... are subject 

to the prohibitions of 11 CFR 110.4(a), Part 

114; 2 U.S.C. §§441b and 441e." Moreover, 

the delegates' expenses would not be considered 

the type of exempted expenditure which a labor 

organization may make for nonpartisan get-outthe-vote drives directed to members. 11 CF R 

114.3(c)(3). (Date Issued: July 9, 1980; Length: 

3 pages) 

AO 1980-65: Solicitation Authorization 

Published in Trade Association 

Magazine 

The National Tire Dealers and Retreaders 

Association (NTDRA) may publish an authorization form in its bimonthly magazine, Dealer 

News, which requests authorization from 

member corporations to solicit their personnel. 

The form proposed by NTDRA must, however, 
97 

be revised to adequately explain the purpose and 

use of the form. 

Although the Dealer News is distributed to both 

NTDRA members and nonmembers (nonmembers may not be solicited under the Act), 

an authorization request could be published 

because it would not be considered a solicitation 

for contributions. Instead, the publication of the 

request form would be considered a method of 

obtaining approval from NTD RA's corporate 

members to solicit their stockholders, executive 

and administrative personnel and their families. 

However, the authorization request, as proposed, is not sufficiently specific in stating its 

purpose. To meet the requirements of FEC 

Regulations and to avoid an improper solicitation of nonmembers, the form must make clear 

that: 1) only corporate members of NTDRA 

may approve the solicitation; 2) approval may 

not be given if the corporation has already 

approved a solicitation by another trade association during the year; and 3) a corporation 

which is not already a member will not become 

a member by signing and returning the authorization form. 11 CFR 114.8(d)(3). (Date Issued: 

July 29, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-67: Notices on Invitations; 

Contributions by Spouses 

Authorization/Nonauthorization Notice. Invitations to receptions hosted on behalf of the 

Russell B. Long Committee (the Committee) do 

not require a disclaimer notice stating who 

authorized and paid for the invitations. Although the primary purpose of the receptions is 

to gain support for Senator Long's campaign for 

the Senate, and those invited may be solicited 

for contributions at the reception, a disclaimer 

notice is not required because the invitations 

will not include any statement which expressly 

advocates the election of Senator Long or any 

statement which specifically solicits contributions (or mentions the possibility of soliciting 

contributions) to his campaign. 

Contributions by Spouses. If a check contributed to the Committee is to count as a contribution from husband and wife, both individuals 

must sign either the check or an accompanying 

letter which specifies what portion of the 

contribution is to be attributed to each. 11 CFR 

100.7(c) and 1 04.8(d). If not so attributed, the 

entire amount of the check is considered a 

contribution from the person signing the check. 

This requirement applies regardless of the 

property laws of the state where the contributors reside. 

A portion of a contribution drawn on a partnership account may not be attributed to a spouse 

of a partner, unless the spouse is also a member 

of the partnership. (Date Issued: August 12, 

1980; Length: 5 pages) 

AO 1980-68 

and Supplement: Contributions to Runoff 

Campaign 

The Zell Miller for U.S. Senate Committee (the 

Committee) may, before the primary election 

takes place, establish an escrow account (or 

authorize a separate campaign committee) to 

accept contributions for a possible runoff 

election in Georgia. Moreover, the Committee 

may accept contributions for the runoff election 

from persons who have contributed up to 

$1,000 to Mr. Miller's primary campaign. 

However, these contributions must be returned 

to the donors if Mr. Miller does not run in the 

primary runoff. 11 CF R 1 02.9(e). 

Post-dated checks received by the Zell Miller for 

U.S. Senate Committee (the Committee) for a 

primary runoff election are considered contributions to the Committee as of the date the 

Committee receives them. They are subject to a 

separate contribution limit for the runoff 

election. A post-dated check must be reported as 

a memo entry for the reporting period during 

which it is received, but the amount should not 

be included in cash totals until after the check 

has been deposited. (Banks will not permit 

the deposit of post-dated checks until the date 

written on the check.) 2 U.S.C. §434(b); 11 

CFR 102.9(a)(1) and (2). (Opinion/Date Issued: 

July 11, 1980; Length: 3 pages; Supplement/ 

Date Issued: August 28, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 
98 

AO 1980-69: Solicitation Form Used by Labor 

Union's Separate Segregated Fund 

The 101 Political Fund (the Fund), the separate 

segregated fund of the Hoisting and Portable 

Engineers Local Union 101 (the Union), may 

use a solicitation form that, when signed by a 

union member, authorizes the Fund to deduct a 

portion of the member's Vacation Fund. The 

Vacation Fund consists of payments made by 

the member's employer. 

In a previous advisory opinion requested by the 

Fund on the permissibility of this solicitation 

system (AO 1979-60), the Commission concluded that the Vacation Fund could be used as 

a source of voluntary contributions to the Fund 

because it was maintained as an escrow account 

separate from the Union's treasury funds. 

Modified to reflect that advisory opinion, the 

new authorization form states that the amount 

to be deducted from the Vacation Fund (five 

cents per hour worked) is only a suggested 

amount and that a member may authorize an 

amount more or less than five cents per hour. 

Further, the revised form states that the Union 

will not favor or discriminate against a member 

based on the amount contributed to the Fund or 

based on a decision not to contribute. 11 CFR 

114.5(a)(2). (Date Issued: July 24, 1980; 

Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-70: Purchase of Materials from 

Independent Expenditure 

Committee 

The Committee for Independent Expenditures 

for Republicans (the Committee) is a political 

committee which intends to make independent 

expenditures on behalf of several federal candidates during the 1980 general elections. The 

Committee may sell campaign materials it 

produces to an individual who intends to use the 

materials to make his own independent expenditures. The individual must observe the following 

guidelines: 

1. The individual may publish advertisements 

purchased from the Committee without 

disclosing the name of the Committee. These 

advertisements must, however, disclose the 

individual's full name as well as a statement 

that the advertisement is not authorized by 

any candidate or candidate's committee. 2 

u s~c. §441d. 

2. The individual may make contributions of up 

to $5,000 to the Committee during 1980. 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1) (C). However, funds spent 

to purchase campaign materials from the 

Committee are considered contributions to 

the Committee and count against the $5,000 

limit. 

In addition, the individual may make independent expenditures in his own name (from 

personal funds) while acting as an officer of the 

Committee. (Date Issued: August 11, 1980; 

Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-71: Notices Required for Corporate 

Employee Solicitations 

The Oak Industries, Inc. Political Action Association (the Association), the separate segregated 

fund of Oak Industries, Inc., is not required to 

include a disclaimer notice on literature used to 

solicit contributions from the corporation's 

stockholders and their families and its executive 

or administrative personnel and their families. 

Since the disclaimer notice is required only for 

communications directed to the general public, 

and since Commission Regulations prohibit 

corporate separate segregated funds from 

soliciting the general public, the disclaimer 

notice would not apply to the Association's 

solicitation literature. 2 U.S.C. §441d and 

§441 b(b)(4)(A){i). 

Although the 1979 Amendments to the Act 

repealed the requirement for a notice stating 

that a copy of a separate segregated fund's 

report was available for purchase from the 

FEC, the Association may continue to use the 

notice if it so desires. (Date Issued: July 29, 

1980; Length: 2 pages) 
99 

AO 1980-72: Law Partnership's 

Political Contribution Plan 

The law firm of Kilpatrick and Cody (the 

Partnership) may pay costs of establishing and 

operating a voluntary political contribution plan 

for its members without registering and reporting as a political committee provided the 

partnership does not spend in excess of $1,000 

to undertake certain activities that would 

"influence federal elections." Under the proposed contribution plan, each member of the 

partnership who wished to contribute to candidates for public office would establish a special 

bookkeeping account with the partnership. By 

writing a personal check, the partner could 

withdraw personal funds from this account to 

make contributions to the candidate or political 

committee of his/her choice. Any special account funds not contributed would be refunded 

at the end of the year to the individual who had 

set the funds aside. The partnership's bookkeeper would maintain records of the special 

accounts, as well as any contributions from the 

accounts, at a negligible cost to the partnership. 

The costs incurred by the partnership in establishing and maintaining the contribution 

plan would not constitute "expenditures" 

because their purpose is not to influence federal 

elections. Rather, the purpose of the plan is to 

"facilitate the management of personal funds of 

participating partners." Moreover, the partnership indicates no intention to create a political 

committee since the member's decision to 

contribute funds to a candidate would be 

an individual, not a group, decision. 

The proposed contribution program would 

become a political committee, however, if the 

partnership spent more than $1,000 to influence 

federal elections. An attempt to influence 

elections would occur if: 

1. The partnership distributed information within the firm which identified partners participating in the plan, the amounts of their 

contributions and the candidates to whom 

they contributed. 

2. Participation in the plan was conditioned on a 

formal or informal agreement to make, or to 

refrain from making, contributions to any 

particular candidate or class of candidates. 

3. The program included any arrangement 

whereby several contributions for the same 

candidate would be accumulated and collectively forwarded to the candidate. (Date 

Issued: August 12, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-74: Labor Organization's 

Membership Solicitation Program 

Operating Engineers Local 37 (Local 37) may 

use a proposed solicitation plan, provided that 

Local 37 modifies its contribution authorization 

form to indicate how the member can contribute an amount other than that suggested by the 

union. Under the proposed solicitation program, 

a member of the Local voluntarily signs an 

authorization card permitting the deduction and 

transfer of funds from his or her Vacation Fund 

to the separate segregated funds established, 

respectively, by the national labor organization 

of which Local 37 is a member and by a labor 

federation with which the national labor organization is affiliated. The Vacation Fund is a 

permissible source of voluntary contributions 

because it consists of funds earned by union 

members and does not include funds commingled with union treasury monies or funds 

required as a condition of employment or union 

membership. 

The proposed deduction/authorization card is 

acceptable because it contains a clear statement 

informing contributors of the political purpose 

of the funds and assurances that the contribution guidelines are merely suggestions and the 

union will not penalize anyone because his/her 

contribution is too small or because he/she 

decides not to contribute at all. However, the 

form must be revised to indicate the contributor 

can contribute an amount other than that 

suggested by the authorization form. 

The Commission noted that Commission Regulations governing joint fundraising and tranfers 

of contributions between affiliated committees 

also apply to the solicitation program. 11 CFR 
100 

102.6, 102.8 and 103.3. (Date Issued: August 

12, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-75: National Trade Association's 

Solicitation of ''Designated" 

Members 

The National Restaurant Association (N RA), a 

national trade association, must obtain written 

approval from its member corporations before 

soliciting contributions to its separate segregated 

fund from employees who have been designated 

by these corporations as individual N RA members. 

Under N RA's membership policy, a member 

organization may designate its executive and 

administrative employees as individual members 

of N RA. The corporate member "transfers 

portions of its membership rights" to the 

individual it designates as a member. It may also 

pay the annual N RA dues of the designated 

member. While the individuals designated as 

N RA members are entitled to all the rights 

and benefits accorded to individuals who obtain 

membership by initiating their own application, 

the designated members enjoy these rights and 

benefits solely by virtue of their employers' 

membership in N RA. In effect, the designated member acts as a representative of his or 

her employer in the exercise of membership 

rights. N RA would, therefore, be precluded 

from soliciting these individuals without prior 

approval by their corporate employers. 11 

CFR 114.8. By contrast, under 11 CFR 114.7, 

N RA could directly solicit noncorporate individual members who had independently applied 

for membership. Commissioner Joan D. Aikens 

and Chairman Max L. Friedersdorf filed a 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: August 18, 

1980; Length: 8 pages, including dissenting 

opinion) 

AO 1980-76: Fees for Regular Radio and 

Television Appearances 

Fees received by Senator William Proxmire for 

regular appearances on a monthly radio program 

and a weekly television program do not count 

against his $25,000 per year honorarium limit. 

The fees are considered "stipends" under 

Commission Regulations - as distinct from 

"honoraria" - because they constitute "payment for services on a continuing basis, including a salary or other compensation paid by news 

media for commentary on events other than 

the campaign of the individual compensated." 

11 CFR 110.12(c)(3). 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the 

application of tax laws and Senate rules to the 

stipends. (Date Issued: August 1, 1980; Length: 

2 pages) 

AO 1980-78: Use of Campaign Finance 

Information in Candidate's 

Solicitation Letter 

Using information obtained from disclosure 

reports filed with the FEC, Senate candidate 

Don L. Richardson may, in a solicitation letter, 

publish the total disbursements made by candidates in previous elections. Since the letter 

would not disclose the identity of contributors, 

use of this information would not be prohibited 

by 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4) or 11 CFR 104.15. 

(Dated Issued: August 12, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1980-79: Name of Independent 

Expenditure Committee 

Advocating Presidential 

Candidate's Defeat 

Mr. Brad Sherman may not use the name 

"Americans Against Reagan" for a proposed 

political committee which would be "totally 

independent of any other political committee, 

candidate or political party" and which would 

advocate the defeat of the Republican nominee 

in the general election. Under the Act and 

Commission Regulations, any political committee which is not authorized by a candidate 

may not include the name of any candidate in 

its title. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(4) and 11 CFR 

102.14(a). (Date Issued: August 1, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 
101 

AO 1980-80: Separate Campaign Committees 

for Special and Primary Elections 

Mr. George W. Crockett may use the principal 

campaign committee established for his Congressional primary election to campaign in a 

special election held on the same date to fill the 

same Congressional seat. Since the two campaigns would be for different terms of the same 

office, Mr. Crockett would not be subject to 11 

CFR 110.8(d)(1 ), which requires a candidate to 

designate separate campaign committees when 

running "for more than one Federal office." 

(Date Issued: July 11, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-81: Application of 1980 Annual 

Limit to Individual's 1979 

Contributions to Draft 

Committees 

Contributions amounting to $12,000 made in 

1979 to three "Draft Kennedy" committees by 

Mr. Mark B. Dayton count against his $25,000 

annual contribution limit for 1979- not 1980. 

Mr. Dayton's contributions do not count against 

his 1980 contribution limit because they were 

not donated to a "single candidate" committee 

(i.e., a committee supporting Edward Kennedy 

only) or to committees authorized by Edward 

Kennedy; nor were they designated for a particular election. 11 CFR 110.5(b)(2). At the 

time Mr. Dayton made the contributions, Mr. 

Kennedy had not yet announced his candidacy 

for the Presidency or authorized any of the 

three draft committees. 

The Commission noted that this opinion did not 

constitute a determination of when Mr. Kennedy became a Presidential candidate or whether 

the draft committees were affiliated or unaffiliated. (Date Issued: September 11, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-83: Reporting by Inactive 

Presidential Committee 

The Crane for President Committee, Inc. (the 

Committee), the principal campaign committee 

of former Presidential candidate Philip Crane, 

must continue to file reports on a monthly basis 

during 1980. The Act and Commission Regulations require monthly reporting during an 

election year for principal campaign committees 

of Presidential candidates that have received 

contributions or made expenditures aggregating 

$100,000. Mr. Crane's committee has exceeded 

this threshold and, therefore, may not change 

to a quarterly reporting schedule even though 

Mr. Crane is no longer a candidate. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(a)(3)(A); 11 CFR 104.5(b). (Date Issued: 

September 10, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-84: Continued Use of Authorized 

Committee's Former Title 

Congressman Richard C. White's authorized 

campaign committee (the Committee) must use 

its official title, the Richard C. White Congressional Club of the Permian Basin, on the Committee's statement of organization, on all 

reports filed by the Committee and on all 

authorization/nonauthorization notices required 

by 2 U.S.C. §441d. (The Committee had recently amended its former title, Congressional Club 

of the Permian Basin, to include the candidate's 

name, as required by 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(4) and 

11 CFR 102.14(a).) 

The Committee may, however, use stationery 

imprinted with its former title for mailings that 

solicit contributions or advocate his election, 

provided the Committee includes a statement 

giving its full official title and indicating it has 

authorized and paid for the mailing. 2 U.S.C. 

§441 d (a)( 1). When the old stationery is used 

for communications that do not require the 

authorization notice, the Committee's official 

title does not have to be included. Nor does 

the former title of the Committee's checking 

account have to be amended since the account is 

not subject to the authorization/nonauthorization notice required by 2 U.S.C. §441d. (Date 

Issued: August 28, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-86: Abbreviated Title for Separate 

Segregated Fund 

The American Natural Resources, Inc. Political 

Action Committees (the Committees), the 

separate segregated funds of American Natural 

Resources, Inc., may not continue using the 
102 

abbreviated title "AN R" on Committee checks 

and letterhead. "AN R" is not an acceptable 

acronym because it is not a clearly recognized 

abbreviation by which the corporation is commonly known and it does not adequately inform 

the public that American Natural Resources, 

Inc. sponsors the Committees. 2 U.S.C. §432(e) 

(5); 11 CFR 102.14(c). (Date Issued: August 28, 

1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-87: Local Party Committee's 

Expenditures for Presidential 

Ticket 

The Pelham Republican Town Committee, a 

subordinate committee of the state party 

committee, may make expenditures for local 

newspaper and direct mail advertising which 

support the Republican Presidential ticket only 

if the Republican National Committee authorizes the subordinate committee as its designated 

agent. Moreover, these expenditures must be 

charged against the Republican National Committee's overall "coordinated party" expenditure limit for the Presidential ticket and must be 

reported by the national committee. 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(d)(1) and (2); 11 CFR 110.7(a)(4), 

109.1 (d)(2) and 104.3(b)(1 )(viii). 

Commission Regulations prescribed after the 

enactment of the 1979 Amendments eliminated 

the special $1,000 expenditure which a subordinate party committee could make on behalf 

of its party's Presidential nominee in the general 

election. Under current Regulations, subordinate 

party committees may, however, make other 

types of exempted expenditures that indirectly 

benefit the Presidential nominee. For example, 

a state or local party committee may pay for: 

- Certain campaign materials (e.g., handbills, 

pins, bumper stickers, brochures) which are 

distributed by volunteers, provided the 

materials are not designed for general public 

political advertising and meet other conditions spelled out in Commission Regulations. See 11 CFR 100.7(b)(15) and 100.8 

(b)(16); and 

- Voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities, provided specified conditions are met. 

See 11 CFR 100.7(b) (17) and 100.8(b)(18). 

A local party committee is required to register as 

a "political committee" under the Act, however, 

when it spends more than $5,000 a year for such 

exempted activities. (Date Issued: September 

15, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-88: Personal Services Donated to 

Presidential Campaign 

Committee 

Bookkeeping services donated by an individual 

to the Citizens for Election of Harry Davis as 

President Committee would not be considered a 

contribution under the Act; nor would the 

services be reportable. 2 U.S.C. § §431 (8)(B)(i) 

and 431 (8)(A)(i). The individual would not, 

therefore, have violated the Act's contribution 

limits when the value of the uncompensated 

services exceeded $1,000. (Date Issued: September 16, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-89: Donation of Food and Beverage 

to Congressman's District Office 

Receptions 

Food and beverage donated by corporations, 

partnerships, sole proprietorships and individuals 

to receptions hosted by Congressman Tony 

Coelho at his district offices would not constitute "contributions" or "expenditures" under 

the Act. 

The receptions will be held for members of an 

Arts Committee (and other interested parties) 

who advise Congressman Coelho on federal 

legislation related to the arts. Since the purpose 

of the receptions is to help Congressman Coelho 

carry out his duties as a federal officeholder, and 

not to support his reelection campaign, donations to the receptions would not be subject 

to the Act's limits and prohibitions on contributions or reporting requirements. 2 U.S.C. 

§ §431(8) and (9), 441b. 

Such donations could, however, result in prohibited contributions from corporations or 

in-kind contributions from individuals, sole 

proprietorships and partnerships if: 

1. Any communication made in connection with 
103 

the receptions expressly advocated the 

election or defeat of Congressman Coelho or 

any other candidate for federal office; or 

2. Contributions were solicited, made or accepted for Congressman Coelho's campaign. 

This opinion supersedes those portions of AO 

1975-14. and OC 1975-125 that held that 

donations received and spent by federal officeholders to defray expenses related to their office 

are reportable contributions and expenditures. 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the 

application of Rules of the U.S. House of 

Representatives or of the Internal Revenue Code 

to the donations. (Date Issued: September 5, 

1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-90: Public Affairs Program Produced 

and Distributed by Corporation 

The Public Affairs Division of the Atlantic 

Richfield Company (the Company) may not 

produce a videotape of interviews with the 

major Presidential candidates on energy-related 

topics for use on commercial and cable television because the communication would result 

in a prohibited in-kind contribution to each of 

the candidates. Commission Regulations permit 

corporations to distribute nonpartisan communications to the general public only if the 

communications: 

1. Do not favor one candidate or political party 

over another; and 

2. Are obtained from a civic or other nonprofit 

organization which does not endorse or 

support, or is not affiliated with, any candidate or political party. 11 CFR 114.4(c)(3). 

Although nonpartisan in nature, the proposed 

videotape would still result in a prohibited 

in-kind contribution to each of the participating 

candidates since it was prepared by the Company - not a civic or other nonprofit organization. Nor would the program be considered a 

news story exempt from the Act's definition of 

expenditure since that exemption applies only 

to election-related news stories, commentaries 

and editorials sponsored by broadcasters, 

newspapers or other public media. 2 U.S.C. 

§431(1 )(B)(i). Chairman Max L. Friedersdorf 

and Commissioner Joan D. Aikens filed a dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: September 9, 

1980; Length: 5 pages, including dissenting 

opinion) 

AO 1980-92: Corporate Contributions to 

Nonpartisan Organization's 

Voter Registration Drives 

The Voter Registration Program (VRP), a 

nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation whose sole 

purpose is to sponsor voter registration drives, 

may accept donations to support its voter 

registration drives from corporations, foundations and other entities if, in connection with 

its efforts to register voters in California, it has 

not, does not and will not endorse, support or 

oppose candidates for political office or political 

parties. 11 CF R 114.4(d)(2). (Date Issued: 

September 11, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-93: Coin as Campaign Item 

Richard Bozzuto, a Senate candidate from 

Connecticut, may distribute a United States 

penny as a campaign item. All costs related to 

the distrihution must be reported pursuant to 2 

U.S.C. §434. The Commission expressed no 

opinion on the possible application of other 

federal statutes to the item. (Date Issued: 

September 10, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-94: Essay Contest Sponsored by 

Congressman's Campaign 

Committee 

The Whitehurst for Congress Committee may 

pay all costs of sponsoring an essay contest for 

high school students in Mr. Whitehurst's Congressional district, as long as these costs are 

reported pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §434. (Date 

Issued: September 19, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-95: National Bank's Contribution 

to State Political Fund 

The First National Bank of Florida (the Bank) 

may make a contribution to "5 for Florida's 

Future," a fund whose express purpose is to 
104 

promote adoption of five amendments to 

Florida's Constitution. Although the state's 

referendum on the ballot issues will be held in 

conjunction with a primary run-off election, the 

bank's contribution does not fall within the 

purview of the Act because the contribution 

will be used to influence a ballot referendum -

not the election of any candidate for public 

office. The Commission noted that the Supreme 

Court examined virtually the same issue in The 

First National Bank of Boston et a/. v. Bellotti. 

(Date Issued: September 19, 1980; Length: 3 

pages) 

AO 1980-96: Post-Election Public Funding for 

New Party Presidential Candidate 

John B. Anderson will not be excluded from 

receiving post-election public funding as the 

Presidential candidate of a new party, provided: 

1. Mr. Anderson receives five percent or more of 

the total popu Jar votes cast in the 1980 

Presidential general election (including votes 

cast for him as an independent candidate); 

and 

2. Mr. Anderson satisfies all other eligibility 

requirements for public funding stipulated in 

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. 

Mr. Anderson will not be excluded from receiving post-election public funding because his 

campaign efforts for the Presidency have qualified him as a "candidate," and the various 

organizations supporting him have qualified as 

newly established "political parties" for purposes of the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund Act and relevant Commission Regulations. 

Mr. Anderson qualifies as a "candidate" under 

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act 

because he is presently certified to be on the 

ballot .(or has met all requirements for ballot 

access) in 10 or more states as either an independent candidate or the candidate of a political 

party. 2 26 U.S.C. §9002(2)(8). 

A number of the organizations supporting Mr. 

Anderson's candidacy qualify as "political 

parties" because they meet the three criteria 

established in Commission Regulations for 

a "political party." Specifically, each of these 

political organizations constitutes: "1) an 

association, committee, or organization 2) which 

nominates or selects an individual for election to 

any federal office, including the office of President or Vice President of the U.S. 3) whose 

name appears on the general election ballot as 

the candidate of such association, committee or 

organization" (numbers added for emphasis). 11 

CFR 9002.15. 

The National Unity Campaign, headquartered in 

Washington, D.C., and various state organizations supporting Mr. Anderson satisfy the 

second criteria of a political party, i.e., that of 

"nominating" or "selecting" a candidate, 

because they have met the requirements in their 

respective states for obtaining ballot access for a 

candidate. In some states, the Anderson organizations have conducted successful petition 

drives while in other states the organizations 

have obtained ballot access by holding caucuses 

to select delegates to state conventions which, in 

turn, have selected Mr. Anderson as their Presidential candidate. 

The organizations which have nominated Mr. 

Anderson will fulfill the third criteria of "political party" when the FEC receives verification 

from appropriate state election officials that Mr. 

Anderson will appear on the ballot in their 

respective states as the candidate of one of these 

organizations. 

The Commission did not decide whether the 

National Unity Campaign or any of the other 

organizations which have nominated Mr. Anderson constitute a "national committee of a 

political party" as defined by 2 U.S.C. 

§431 (14). Vice Chairman John Warren McGarry 

2 1n AO 1980-56, the Commission concluded that a new party 

candidate would be eligible to receive post-election public funding based on all the popular votes received by the candidate in 

the 1980 Presidential general election, including those votes 

cast for the candidate as an independent candidate. 
105 

filed a dissenting opinion. Commissioners Frank 

P. Reiche and Robert 0. Tiernan filed concurring opinions. (Date Issued: September 4, 1980; 

Length: 21 pages, including dissenting and 

concurring opinions) 

AO 1980-97: Trust for Pre-Election 

Presidential Transition Activities 

The Presidential Transition Trust (the Trust), a 

group established to undertake certain transition 

activities on behalf of a potential new Republican administration prior to the November 4 

election, will not constitute a "political committee" under the Act, provided the Trust: 

1. Does not assist the Reagan-Bush Committee 

in any of its campaign activities; and 

2. Does not use its assets to further the election 

of the Republican Presidential ticket. 

Donations to, or disbursements by, the Trust 

would not be considered "contributions" or 

"expenditures" under the Act. 

As an organization totally separate from the 

Reagan-Bush Committee, the Trust plans only to 

conduct transition activities, such as gathering 

information about critical jobs in a possible new 

administration and identifying personnel qualified to fill those positions. Donors to the Trust 

will be asked to sign a card affirming that their 

donations are given for the purpose of funding 

pre-election transition activities and not for 

influencing federal elections. Donations will be 

limited to $5,000 per individual. In addition, 

The Trust will not accept donations from 

corporations, national banks or labor organizations. 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the 

application of the Presidential Transition Act of 

1963 to the Trust's activities since that statute is 

outside its jurisdiction. (Date Issued: September 

15, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-98: Title/Solicitation Activities 

of Separate Segregated Fund 

The Birmingham Trust National Bank Committee for Good Government (the Committee) is 

an acceptable title for the separate segregated 

fund of the ~irmingham Trust National Bank 

(the Bank) because it includes the sponsoring 

organization's full name. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(5); 

11 CF R 1 02.14(c). (To comply with 1979 

Amendments to the Act, the Committee had 

changed its title from the Southern Committee 

for Good Government to its current title.) The 

Committee's title does not have to include the 

names of the Bank's corporate affiliates whose 

executive and administrative personnel the 

Committee also solicits. 

The Committee's new abbreviated title, BTNB 

Committee for Good Government, is not permissible, however, because "BTNB" is not a 

clearly recognizable abbreviation. 11 CF R 

102.14(c). 

The Commission noted that the Advisory 

Opinion Request had suggested that the 'committee does not restrict solicitations to shareholders and executive and administrative personnel of the Bank and its affiliates. While the 

Bank or the Committee may solicit the executive and administrative personnel of the 

Bank's subsidiaries, branches, divisions and 

affiliates and their families at any time, it may 

solicit other employees only twice a year according to special procedures described in 11 CFR 

114.6(1 ). (Date Issued: September 26, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-99: Accounting Methods for 

Contributions Under $50 

When the Republican Roundup Committee (the 

Committee), a registered political committee, 

hosts fundraising events, it must keep records of 

all contributions, including those under $50. 2 

U.S.C. §432(c)(1 ). While neither the Act nor 

the Commission's Regulations specify the details 

for keeping records of contributions under $50, 

the Regulations state that "an account [of all 

contributions received] shall be kept by any 

reasonable accounting procedure." 11 CFR 

102.9(a). 

The Commission recommended two alternative 

accounting methods for keeping the records of 

small contributions: 
106 

1. The Committee may keep the same records of 

contributions under $50 that it must keep for 

contributions of $50 or more, i.e., the name 

and address of each contributor and the date 

and amount of the contribution. If the 

Committee uses this method, or otherwise 

retains information on the names of contributors, it should also track the amount 

donated by each contributor on a calendar 

year basis so it can comply with the requirements for recording aggregated contributions. 

11 CFR 102.9(a)(2). 

2. Alternatively, the Committee may record the 

name of the fundraising event, the dates the 

contributions were received for the event, and 

the total amount of contributions received on 

each day for the event. Using this method, the 

Committee must nevertheless keep more 

complete records for contributions aggregating $50 or more (see above). (Date Issued: 

September 26, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-100: Separate Segregated Fund 

Established by Corporation 

Wholly Owned by Foreign 

Nationals 

The Revere Sugar Corporation (Revere), a 

corporation wholly owned by foreign nationals, 

may pay costs of establishing, administering and 

soliciting contributions to a separate segregated 

fund (the Committee). Revere's sponsorship of 

the Committee will not result in (prohibited) 

contributions by foreign nationals. Revere itself 

is not a "foreign principal" - hence not a 

"foreign national" - because it is a domestic 

corporation whose principal place of business is 

in the United States. (See 22 U.S.C. §611 (b).) 

Moreover, no foreign nationals will exercise 

decision-making authority over the Committee's 

activities and no contributions will be solicited 

or accepted from foreign nationals. 

The Commission noted that it has authority to 

audit the Committee's activities. Commissioner 

Thomas E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion. 

(Date Issued: September 19, 1980; Length: 

4 pages, including dissenting opinion) 

AO 1980·1 01: Commercial Use of Campaign 

Finance Information 

Except for information identifying individual 

contributors, Marwin I. Weinburger may use any 

information copied from FEC documents and 

reports filed with the Commission in a directory 

of political action committees, which he plans to 

publish and sell. 

Although the Act and Commission Regulations 

generally prohibit commercial use of information copied from FEC reports, Section 

1 04.15(c) of the Regulations does allow this 

information to be used in newspapers, magazines, books and other similar communications. 

The communications, however, may not use any 

FEC information on individual contributors. 

(Date Issued: September 26, 1980; Length: 3 

pages) 

AO 1980-102: Definition of Immediate Family 

for Solicitation Purposes 

The Fru-Con Corporation Political Action 

Committee, the separate segregated fund of the 

Fru-Con Corporation, may solicit contributions 

from the immediate family of Fru-Con's executive and administrative personnel. For these 

purposes, "immediate family" includes the 

children and parents who live in the household 

with the corporate personnel. The Committee 

may not, therefore, solicit members of the 

immediate family living outside the home. 

2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(A); 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1 ). 

(Date Issued: October 1, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-103: State Party's Distribution 

of Tax Checkoff Funds 

to Federal Candidates 

Since the North Carolina State Democratic 

Executive Committee (the State Party), a 

multicandidate committee, exercises control 

over funds which are accumulated through 

a state tax checkoff and distributed to Democratic Congressional candidates, the funds would 

constitute contributions from the State Party. 

They are subject to the $5,000 per candidate, 

per election, contribution limit. 
107 

The source of the funds is the North Carolina 

Election Campaign Fund, provided for by state 

law and funded by individuals who check off a 

dollar from their taxes on their state income tax 

forms. The state law does not, however, specify 

a formula for distributing the funds to eligible 

candidates. This decision is made by a committee comprised of the State Party chairman, 

Party treasurer and the eligible candidates. The 

State Party would therefore exercise control 

over allocating the funds, rather than simply 

acting as a distribution agent or conduit. (Date 

Issued: October 10, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-105: Notices Required 

for Advocacy Literature 

The Pro-Life Action Council (the Council) must 

include a notice of nonauthorization on any 

general public political communication which 

the Council finances if the communication 

expressly advocates the election or defeat of a 

clearly identified candidate for federal office. If 

the communication is issued without a candidate's authorization, the notice must clearly 

identify the Council as the organization which 

has " ... paid for the communication and state 

that the communication is not authorized by 

any candidate or candidate's committee." 2 

U.S.C. §441d(a)(3); 11 CFR 110.11(a)(1)(iii). 

(Date Issued: October 6, 1980; Length: 2 

pages) 

AO 1980-106: Summary of Presidential 

Candidates' Positions on 

Public Issues Published by 

Unincorporated Association 

Payments made by FaithAmerica, an unincorporated association of Christian laymen, to publish 

and distribute a proposed brochure summarizing 

Presidential candidates' views would constitute 

"expenditures" made for the purpose of influencing a federal election. The payments would 

be considered "expenditures" because the information, and the manner in which it was to be 

presented, were designed to influence the 

reader's choice in the 1980 Presidential election 

rather than to promote discussion of public 

issues. The publication listed the position of 

each Presidential candidate, pro or con, on issues 

of concern to Christian clergy and laymen. 

Moreover, FaithAmerica planned to distribute 

the publication close to the time of the Presidential election. If the expenditures for the proposed publication exceeded $1,000 during 1980, 

FaithAmerica would have to register and report 

as a political committee. 2 U.S.C. § §431, 433 

and 434. (Date Issued: December 23, 1980; 

Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-107: Volunteer Services Provided 

by Senior Partner of Law Firm 

A senior partner may provide free services to the 

Reagan-Bush Committee during normal working 

hours while continuing to receive full compensation from his law firm. 2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(A). 

The compensation will not count as an in-kind 

contribution from the firm to the Committee 

because the partner's compensation is not 

determined by the number of hours worked and 

the partner has complete discretion in the use of 

his time, provided he does not engage in other 

business activities. Rather, his income is based 

on his proprietary or ownership interest in the 

firm reflecting, for example, his ability to attract 

clients, solve problems and counsel others. 

Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a dissenting 

opinion. (Date Issued: October 6, 1980; Length: 

5 pages, including dissenting opinion) 

AO 1980-108: Bank Loans Made to New Party 

Presidential Candidate 

Loans made by a consortium of banks to the 

National Unity Campaign, the principal campaign committee of Presidential candidate John 

B. Anderson, could be treated as bona fide 

loans, rather than as prohibited contributions, 

even though they would be secured by Mr. 

Anderson's expectation of receiving postelection public funding. (To be eligible for 

post-election public funding as a new party 

candidate, Mr. Anderson must receive five 

percent or more of the total votes cast in the 

general election.) 

More specifically, the loans would not necessarily fall outside the "ordinary course of 
108 

business" solely because the principal means of 

repayment would be the post-election federal 

funds available to Mr. Anderson if he receives at 

least five percent of the popular vote. Furthermore, the loans would not violate the Act's 

requirement that bank loans be "made on a pasis 

which assures repayment" solely because Mr. 

Anderson's receipt of post-election financing is 

contingent on his obtaining five percent or more 

of the vote. The Commission noted that the risk 

of the candidate's failure to repay the loans was 

mitigated by a proposed Revolving Credit 

Agreement, which included the following 

risk-control mechanisms: 

1. Under the "available commitments formula," 

the amount of funds available to the Anderson campaign on any given day would depend 

on Mr. Anderson's performance in the most 

recent opinion polls. 

2. Total loans available to the Anderson campaign would not exceed $10 million. 

3. All loans would have to be used solely to 

defray qualified campaign expenses. 

4. In order to borrow at all, Mr. Anderson would 

have to be favored in the polls by no less than 

six percent of the voters. 

5. A series of dollar limits and time restraints 

would be set on all loan transactions. The 

Agreement specifies, for example, that the 

Anderson campaign may not borrow additional funds within 10 days of the preceding 

borrowing or borrow more than a total of $6 

million within 20 days of the Agreement. 

6. Mr. Anderson would assign his rights to 

post-election funds to his principal campaign 

committee, which in turn would assign those 

rights to an agent representing the banks. 

Further, the Anderson campaign would irrevocably authorize the Commission to have all 

public funds paid directly to the agent. 

7. Numerous provisions of the Agreement would 

safeguard the banks' first-priority security 

interest in any post-election public funds Mr. 

Anderson might receive. 

8. The Anderson campaign would remain liable 

for the debt even if Mr. Anderson failed to 

receive post-election public funding. 

The Commission expressly did not decide, 

however, whether any particular loan made 

pursuant to the Agreement would be considered 

a loan negotiated in the "ordinary course of 

business," because this decision would depend 

on many other factors involved in the particular 

loan transaction. The Commission therefore 

cautioned against any use of the opinion as a 

legal sanction for any particular loan transaction. Further, the Commission expressed no 

opinion on the application of other laws and 

regulations to the loans, including tax laws or 

state and federal banking laws. Vice Chairman 

John Warren McGarry and Commissioner 

Thomas E. Harris issued a concurring opinion. 

Commissioner Robert 0. Tiernan issued a dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: October 6, 1980; 

Length: 17 pages, including concurring and 

dissenting opinions) 

AO 1980-109: Candidate Support Provided 

by Subscription Periodical 

Endorsement of candidates for federal office by 

The Ruff Times (a subscription periodical), 

including solicitations to their campaigns, would 

not constitute contributions to the candidates 

by Mr. Ruff, The Ruff Times or the subscription 

periodical's publisher. If a commentary in the 

periodical did solicit contributions to a candidate, the contributors would have to be instructed to forward their contributions directly to the candidate's campaign committee - and 

not to The Ruff Times. Nor would campaign 

advertising prepared and paid for by a candidate's committee and published in the periodical 

result in a contribution to the candidate, provided the candidate's campaign committee paid 

the usual and normal rate for the advertisements. 

Commentaries in The Ruff Times endorsing 

specific candidates would not constitute contributions because Section 100. 7(b)(2) of Commission Regulations specifically exempts from 

the definition of contribution "any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by a ...·periodical publication." Further, "periodical publication" has 
109 

been defined to mean a publication in bound 

pamphlet form appearing at regular intervals and 

containing articles of news, information, opinion 

or entertainment, whether of general or specialized interest, which ordinarily derives its revenue 

from subscriptions and advertising. (Date Issued: 

October 6, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-110: Local Party Organization's 

Status as a Political Committee 

The local Greenburgh Democratic Campaign 

Committee (the local committee) may use 

$2,250 in contributions, which it had received 

from two candidates for state office, a Congressional candidate and two local political committees, to rent a campaign headquarters and 

provide phone services, volunteer activities and 

mailings for the three candidates. The local 

committee would not become a political committee subject to the Act's registration and 

reporting requirements provided: 

1. Total costs incurred by the local committee 

for activities exempted from the Act's definition of "contribution" and "expenditure" did 

not exceed $5,000; 

2. The cost of the phone services benefitting the 

Congressional candidate did not exceed 

$1,000; and 

3. The local committee made no other "expenditures" or "contributions" on behalf of the 

Congressional candidate. 

Although the Act specifically exempts from the 

definition of "contribution" and "expenditure" 

payments for slate cards and campaign materials 

used in connection with volunteer activities 

(e.g., campaign pins, bumper stickers and 

handbills), the local committee would have to 

register and report as a political committee if 

such costs exceeded $5,000. The costs of phone 

services provided on behalf of the Congressional 

and local candidates would, however, be considered in-kind contributions to each candidate 

in proportion to the benefit each candidate 

reasonably expected to derive from the services. 

11 CFR 106.1. Therefore, if the amount attributable to the Congressional candidate exceeded $1,000, the local committee would be 

required to register and report as a political 

committee. (Date Issued: October 10, 1980; 

Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-111 : Separate Segregated Fund 

Established by Trade 

Association With Dues-Paying 

Foreign Members 

The Portland Cement Association (the Association), a trade association whose members 

include dues-paying foreign corporations, may 

pay the costs of establishing, administering and 

soliciting contributions to a separate segregated 

fund (the fund). Moreover, contributions made 

by the fund will not violate the Act's prohibition on contributions by foreign nationals. 

2 U.S.C. §441e. 

The Association's payments for establishing and 

administering the fund would be permissible 

because: 

1. The Association itself is not a "foreign 

national" or a "foreign principal" but a 

discrete corporation organized under United 

States laws with its principal place of business 

in the United States; and 

2. The Association will not allow foreign nationals to exercise decision-making authority over 

the fund's activities. 

Contributions made by the fund would be 

lawful because the Association does not plan to 

solicit or accept contributions from foreign 

nationals. 

The Commission noted that it had authority to 

audit the fund's activities, including its decision-making processes. 2 U.S.C. § §437d and 

438. Commissioner Thomas E. Harris filed a 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: October 16, 

1980; Length: 3 pages, including dissenting 

opinion) 

AO 1980-113: Disposition of Excess 

Campaign Funds 

The Zell Miller for U.S. Senate Committee (the 

Committee) may use its excess campaign funds 

to: 

1. Establish campaign funds for any of Mr. 
110 

Miller's future campaigns for federal, state or 

local office; 

2. Reimburse Mr. Miller's state campaign for 

funds it transferred to the Committee; and 

3. Establish a fund for official state duties Mr. 

Miller will carry out as lieutenant governor. 

If excess funds may be used for these purposes 

under Georgia law, they may be similarly used 

under the Act and Commission Regulations 

provided: 

1. Excess funds transferred to future campaigns 

for federal office are lawful under the Act (11 

CFR 110.3(a)(2) (iv)); and 

2. Excess funds transferred to either Mr. Miller's 

state campaign or to any future campaigns are 

used for campaign purposes. 11 CFR 113.2. 

The Committee may not, however, use the 

excess funds to establish a travel fund to be used 

by Mr. Miller's wife when she accompanies him 

on official duties because no specific information suggests her trips would serve an official 

purpose. The travel fund would therefore 

constitute a "personal use" of the excess funds, 

which is prohibited by 2 U.S.C. §439a and 11 

CFR 113.2. (Note: As amended in 1979, the 

Act provides that excess campaign funds may 

not be converted to personal use, unless the 

candidate was a member of Congress on January 

8, 1980. Mr. Miller was not.) 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the 

application of federal tax laws to the use of 

excess campaign funds since those laws are not 

within its jurisdiction. (Date Issued: November 

7, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-114: Disposition of Refunds Made 

to Terminated Campaign 

Committee 

Telephone refunds received by the terminated 

Calabrese for Congress Committee (the Committee) may be transferred to Mr. Calabrese as 

partial repayment for loans he had previously 

made to the Committee. The refunds are not 

considered "excess campaign funds" - and, 

therefore, not a prohibited transfer of excess 

campaign funds for personal use - because Mr. 

Calabrese originally made a loan to the Committee rather than a gift. The loan was consistently reported as a loan until the Committee 

decided to terminate. Under these circumstances, the telephone refund does not constitute "excess campaign funds" - i.e., funds "in 

excess of any amount necessary to defray ..• 

expenditures." 

The Committee must report receipt of the 

refunds from the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and their payment to Mr. Calabrese, in an 

amended termination report pursuant to 2 

U.S.C. §434 and 11 CFR 104. (See also AO 

1979-5.) (Date Issued: November 7, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-115: Law Firm's Compensation to 

Partner Campaigning for 

Congress 

To avoid making a contribution to Mr. Pierce 

O'Donnell's Congressional campaign, his law 

firm must either: 

1. Reduce Mr. O'Donnell's share of partnership 

profits to reflect actual hours billed to his 

clients; or 

2. Indicate that Mr. O'Donnell's value to the 

firm throughout the year increased, offsetting 

the reduction in Mr. O'Donnell's "client 

billable hours." 

In the absence of any indication that Mr. 

O'Donnell's value to the firm had increased, any 

compensation to Mr. O'Donnell in excess of the 

actual hours he worked for the firm would be 

considered a contribution to his campaign 

because compensation to partners is based, in 

part, on the number of hours they bill to clients. 

The Commission distinguished this situation 

from that presented in Advisory Opinion 

1979-58, where full compensation to a senior 

partner was not considered to be an in-kind 

contribution from his firm because, in that firm, 

compensation was based solely on the partner's 

proprietary interest in the firm and not on the 

amount of time spent on firm matters. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a concurring 
111 

opm1on. (Date Issued: October 14, 1980; 

Length: 7 pages, including concurring opinion) 

AO 1980-116: Independent Political 

Committee Aided by Paid 

Presidential Campaign Worker 

If a person who is paid to make speeches on 

behalf of a Presidential committee assists Americans for a Responsible Presidency (ARP), an 

independent political committee, ARP may not 

make independent expenditures either for 

the Presidential candidate or against his opponents, regardless of whether: 

1. A R P reimburses the campaign worker for 

making the speeches; 

2. The campaign worker has any express or 

implied authority to make or direct expenditures by the Presidential candidate's authorized committees; or 

3. The campaign worker has consulted with the 

Presidential candidate on campaign strategy. 

ARP is precluded from making the independent 

expenditures because Commission Regulations 

presume an expenditure is not "independent" if 

it has been made by or through any"... person 

who is, or has been receiving ... compensation or reimbursement from the candidate." 

11 CFR 109.1 (a) and 109.1(b)(4)(i). (Date 

Issued: November 14, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-117: Conversion of State Committee 

to Principal Campaign 

Committee of Federal Candidate 

The Concerned Citizens for Kleczka (the Committee), Mr. Gerald Kleczka's state campaign 

committee, may register and report as his 

principal campaign committee for feder~l 

office, even though the treasury of the state 

committee contains some contributions that are 

not permissible under the Act. The newly 

registered federal committee must, however, 

handle its cash-on-hand (i.e., funds left over 

from the state committee) in the following way: 

1. The Committee must exclude from cash-onhand any contributions not permissible under 

the Act. This means the Committee may not 

keep or use funds donated by a separate 

segregated fund that received contributions 

through a reverse checkoff system. 11 C F R 

104.12. 

2. On its first report, the Committee must 

disclose the source of all cash-on-hand on the 

basis of last in, first "on hand." Mr. Kleczka's 

cash-on-hand may only include those permissible contributions most recently received by 

the state committee prior to its registration 

as a federal committee. 11 CFR 104.12. (Date 

Issued: November 7, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-118: Solicitation of Stockholders 

Who Granted Limited, 

Irrevocable Proxies 

The Exchange Community Action II Political 

Action Committee, the separate segregated fund 

of the Exchange International Corporation 

(EIC), may solicit without limit EIC stockholders even though they have granted certain 

irrevocable, limited proxies to another individual. 

Commission Regulations define as a solicitable 

stockholder " ... a person who has a vested 

beneficial interest in stock, has the power to 

direct how that stock shall be voted, if it is 

voting stock; and has the right to receive dividends." (emphasis added) 11 CFR 114.1(h). 

Assuming the EIC stockholders meet the other 

requirements of 11 CFR 114.1(h), they are 

solicitable stockholders because they have 

retained their right to vote on all but two 

stockholder matters. The two matters specifically delegated to the proxy holder for a fouryear period are: the right to vote on procedural 

matters submitted for a stockholder vote at 

annual stockholder meetings and the right to 

vote for the election or removal of members of 

EIC's Board ,of Directors. Commissioners 

Thomas E. Harris and Robert 0. Tiernan filed a 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: December 

4, 1980; Length: 5 pages, including dissenting 

opinion) 
112 

AO 1980-119: Allocation of Coordinated 

Party Expenditures for 

Television Ads 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee 

(the Committee), which was designated as an 

agent by the Republican National Committee to 

make coordinated party expenditures for several 

Senatorial candidates, must attribute the full 

amount of such expenditures to the spending 

limits stipulated by 2 U.S.C. §441a(d)(3). 

In making the coordinated party expenditures, 

the Committee planned to purchase television 

time in certain markets that would result in 

broadcasting a political ad in several states. The 

ad would advocate the election of a single 

Senatorial candidate in one state; none of the 

content would be directed to a race in another 

state reached by the broadcast. 

In calculating the amount of coordinated party 

expenditures, the Committee must count the 

total costs for the advertising, rather than only 

that portion of the costs corresponding to the 

proportion of the total viewing audience that 

lives in the candidate's state. Calculating coordinated party expenditures on the basis of 

"political effectiveness" is not permissible 

because: 

1. The Act and Regulations do not provide for 

such a calculation; and 

2. Section 106.2(c) of the Commission's regulations does not apply to this case. This 

regulation applies only to expenditures by 

Presidential primary candidates. (Date Issued: 

October 24, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-120: Convention Expenses Defrayed 

by Host Committee with Funds 

Transferred from General to 

Separate Account 

The Republican National Convention, Inc. (the 

Host Committee) may pay certain convention 

expenses of the Republican National Committee 

with funds it transfers from its general account 

to a separate account that it maintains specifically to defray convention expenses. The Host 

Committee may transfer the funds because, 

when the funds were first received, they would 

have qualified for deposit in the separate account: i.e., they consisted solely of donations 

from local retailers that were made in amounts 

proportional to the commercial return the 

retailers had reasonably expected to derive from 

the convention. 11 CFR 9008.7(d)(3)(ii). (Date 

Issued: November 14, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-121: Qualifying as the National 

Committee of a Political Party 

The Socialist National Committee (the Committee) qualifies as the national committee of 

the Socialist Party, U.S.A. (the Party) because 

documentation it submitted to the Commission 

indicates that it has engaged in sufficient activity 

on the national level to satisfy the requirements 

for "national committee" status. 2 U.S.C. 

§431( 14). Specifically, documentation provided 

by the Committee indicates: 

1. The Committee has established a national 

office to administer the affairs of the Party. 

2. The Committee is the "governing body" of 

the Socialist Party (a "political party" under 

the Act by virtue of having nominated several 

Presidential candidates that have appeared on 

state ballots as the Party's candidates) (2 

u.s.c. §431(16)); 

3. The Committee has state and local Party 

affiliates; 

4. The Party conducts biennial national conventions to determine policy and a national 

platform, elect Party officers and nominate its 

Presidential candidate; 

5. The Party maintains a speakers bureau, 

disseminates information to the public and 

maintains communication within the Party 

through its publications. 

As the national committee of the Party, the 

Committee may: 

1. Receive contributions of up to $20,000 per 

year from individuals (2 U.S.C. §441 a); and 

2. Make limited coordinated ( §441 a(d)) party 

expenditures on behalf of the Party's. nominees for Federal office. 
113 

The Commission did not express an opmton, 

however, on the applicability of public funding 

provisions of the Act (i.e., primary election and 

convention funding) to possible activities by the 

Party and its potential Presidential candidates 

since the Committee did not present any specific 

transaction or activity related to these provisions 

of the Act. (Date Issued: December 4, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-122: General Election Contributions 

Used to Retire Primary Debts 

New Yorkers for Myerson, Inc. (the Committee), the principal campaign committee of Bess 

Myerson's campaign for the U.S. Senate, may 

not use contributions earmarked for the general 

election campaign to retire debts of her primary 

campaign. Miss Myerson was a candidate only 

in the primary, and all the Committee's debts 

and obligations were incurred for that election. 

Since the contributions earmarked for the 

general election were from individuals who had 

already contributed up to $1,000 to Miss 

Myerson's primary campaign, use of these 

contributions to retire primary debts would 

cause the contributors to exceed their primary 

election limits ($1,000 per donor). 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(1)(A). The Committee must, therefore, return these earmarked contributions to 

the contributors to avoid receipt of contributions in excess of the limits. (Date Issued: 

December 22, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-123: Use of Excess Campaign Funds 

for Christmas Thank-You Notes 

Selden for Senate (the Committee) may pay the 

costs of Christmas thank-you notes it sends to 

campaign staff. If the Committee does not file a 

termination report before sending the notes, 

costs associated with the mailing would be 

considered reportable expenditures. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b); 11 CFR 104.3(b). If the Committee 

files a termination report before mailing the 

notes, costs of the mailing would constitute a 

use of excess campaign funds. The use, however, would not be considered a personal use, 

which is prohibited under the Act, because the 

mailing is sufficiently campaign-related, i.e., the 

direct consequence of ending a campaign. In the 

absence of any State law to the contrary, 

using funds for thank-you notes to staff would 

constitute the spending of excess funds for a 

"lawful purpose" under the Act. 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the 

possible application of tax provisions, which are 

not within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Date 

Issued: November 21, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-125: Receipt, Use and Reportable 

Value of $100-Contribution 

Made in Silver Dollars 

The reportable value of 100 silver dollars received by the Cogswell for Senate Committee 

'80 (the Committee) depends on whether the 

Committee treats the coins as currency (i.e., as a 

$100 cash contribution) or as a commodity to 

be liquidated or bartered (i.e., as an in-kind 

contribution). If the Committee treats the coins 

as currency, it must deposit them in its bank 

account and report them as a direct contribution 

of $100. 

Alternatively, if the Committee treats the coins 

as a commodity by negotiating a campaign 

worker's salary in silver coins, the value of the 

contribution is determined by the fair market 

value of the coins on the day the Committee 

received them. 11 CFR 104.13(b). (The fair 

market value is based on prices established for 

silver coins by the silver commodities market.) 

If, however, the fair market value of the coins is 

greater than $1,000, the in-kind contribution is 

in excess of the contribution limits. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(11). If this occurs, the Committee 

must return that portion of the contribution 

that is in excess of the limits. (Date Issued: 

November 21, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-126: Political Committee Status 

of Get-Out-The-Vote Activity 

Independent Voters for a Republican Victory 

(Independent Voters), a political organization 

established by Mr. Warren Lewis, is a "political 

committee" under the Act even though Mr. 

Lewis alone was responsible for the committee's 
114 

activity and decisions (i.e., establishing a bank 

account in the organization's name, soliciting 

contributions, preparing and distributing a 

brochure urging independent voters to vote for 

Republican candidates in the 1980 general elections). 2 U.S.C. §431(4)(a); 11 CFR 100.5(a). 

As such, Independent Voters is subject to all 

applicable provisions of the Act, including the 

registration and reporting requirements of 2 

U.S.C. § §433 and 434. 

Mr. Lewis and the contributors to Independent 

Voters constitute a political committee because 

they comprise " ... a group of persons ..." that 

received or spent more than $1,000 to influence 

a federal election. 2 U.S.C. §431(4) (A). Also 

relevant are the facts that Mr. Lewis: 

1. Established an organizational identity (all 

contributions were solicited to, and deposited 

in a bank account established in the name of, 

Independent Voters); and 

2. Reached beyond his personal funds to involve 

numerous people in the same activity by 

soliciting contributions from a broad range of 

persons across the country. Moreover, these 

contributors divested themselves of any 

control over how the organization's funds 

were spent. (Date Issued: December 22, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-127: Conversion of Federal 

Committee to Federal/ 

Nonfederal Committees 

The Democratic Party of South Carolina (the 

Party Committee), a registered political committee with a combined federal/nonfederal account, 

may establish a separate account for state and 

local elections while continuing to use the registered account exclusively for federal elections, 

provided: 

1. The Party Committee properly allocates 

outstanding debts between the federal and 

nonfederal accounts and keeps sufficient 

documentation to support the reasonableness 

ofthatallocation (11 CFR 106.1);and 

2. The Party Committee's federal account 

reports the change in accounts as an amendment to its Statement of Organization (Form 

1) and discloses the allocation of debts on its 

next required report (Form 3X). The federal 

account may not terminate its reporting 

obligations until its portion of the total debt 

has been liquidated. 11 CF R 102.3 and 1 02.4. 

The Commission did not approve any specific 

method for allocating outstanding debts. (Date 

Issued: December 4, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-129: Corporation Established 

Pursuant to the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act 

Although the Sealaska Corporation (Sealaska) is 

incorporated under Alaska law, it is considered a 

corporation organized by authority of a law of 

Congress and is therefore prohibited from 

making contributions or expenditures in con-, 

nection with any election to any political office 

(local, state or federal). Sealaska qualifies as a 

corporation organized by authority of Congress 

because it is incorporated pursuant to the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (Claims Act), an 

act of Congress. More specifically, the Claims 

Act: 

1. Provides for the establishment of corporations, such as Sealaska, and requires that 

their articles of incorporation be consistent 

with the Claims Act; and 

2. Regulates Sealaska's bylaws, board of directors, issuance of stock, as well as the voting 

rights of its stockholders and its distribution 

of profits. (Date Issued: December 5, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-130: Nonfederal Committee's Loan 

Repayment to Federal 

Committee 

The Garcia for Assembly Committee (the Garcia 

Committee), a nonfederal committee, may repay 

a $5,000 loan obtained from the Fazio for 

Congress Campaign Committee (the Fazio 

Committee), a political committee registered 

under the Act. The Garcia Committee may make 

the repayment from an account that contains 

contributions from corporations and labor 

unions, as long as it: 
115 

1. Repays the loan (and interest, if any) from 

funds permissible under the Act; 

2. Can demonstrate, through a reasonable 

accounting method, that sufficient funds to 

pay the loan have been received from permissible sources and such funds are present in the 

Committee's account; and 

3. Keeps records of funds received and expended 

and, upon request, makes such records 

available for FEC examination. 11 CFR 

102.5(b)(1}(ii). 

Because the loan repayment is not a contribution, it is not subject to the Act's contribution 

limits. Nor would interest charged on the loan 

be a contribution to the Fazio Committee, 

except to the extent that the interest exceeded 

the commercially reasonable rate prevailing 

when the loan was made. 11 CFR 100.7(a) 

(1)(i)(D). (Date Issued: December 4, 1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980-131: Application of Contribution 

and Expenditure Limits to 

Committees Supporting New 

Party Candidate 

Because neither the National Unity Campaign 

for John Anderson nor the National Unity 

Campaign 441a(d) Committee qualifies as the 

national committee of a political party, neither 

committee may: 

1. Receive contributions of up to $20,000 from 

individuals (2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(B)); or 

2. Make coordinated party expenditures on 

behalf of the Anderson campaign. §441a(d). 

Neither committee qualifies as the national 

committee of a political party because, at this 

time, neither one has demonstrated that its 

activity on a national level is such that it may be 

regarded as a national committee under the Act. 

Neither one has: nominated candidates for other 

federal office; conducted voter registration and 

get-out-the-vote drives; provided speakers; organized volunteer workers; publicized issues of 

importance to the party and its adherents 

throughout the United States; or held a national 

convention. 

Rather than functioning as national party 

committees, the Anderson committees have 

operated as single-candidate committees active 

exclusively on behalf of the Presidential campaign of John Anderson and his running mate 

Patrick Lucey. Moreover, the Anderson 441 a(d) 

Committee does not qualify as the national 

committee of the National Unity Campaign 

because it is not responsible for the daily activity of the National Unity Campaign. Nor is it 

identified as a national committee in the bylaws 

of the National Unity Campaign. 

Because neither committee qualified as the 

national committee of a political party, the 

Commission did not decide whether either one 

was a "political party" under the Act. (Date 

Issued: November 20, 1980; Length: 5 pages) 

AO 1980-132: Contributions from Partnership 

with One Corporate Member 

Contributions made by Multivisions, a partnership with one corporate partner, to the primary 

and general election campaigns of Alaskans for 

Gruening do not constitute prohibited corporate 

contributions because Mu ltivisions did not 

attribute any portion of the contributions to the 

corporate member. When making a contribution, 

Multivisions could choose to attribute a contribution to only certain individual partners as long 

as: 

1. The contributing partners' respective profits 

were reduced (or their losses increased) by the 

exact amount of the portion of the contribution attributed to them; 

2. The profits (or losses) of only the contributing partners were affected; 

3. The contributions did not affect the corporate member's share of profits (or losses); 

4. The portion of the contribution attributed to 

each individual partner did not exceed his or 

her contribution limits (2 U.S.C. §437f and 

11 CFR 110.1(e)(2));and 

5. The contributions were reported pursuant to 

2 U.S.C. §434. Issued: December 12, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 
116 

AO 1980-133: Solicitation to Labor PAC 

Through Checkoff from 

Membership Dues 

The Central States Joint Board International 

Union of Allied, Novelty and Production 

Workers, AFL-CIO (the Joint Board) may not 

use a procedure it proposed for soliciting contributions to its separate segregated fund. 

Under the Joint Board's proposed solicitation 

plan, individual members of the local affiliates 

would be asked to make voluntary contributions 

by designating a portion of their monthly dues 

to the fund without increasing total dues required. Donors would have the option of not 

contributing any portion of their dues to the 

separate segregated fund, in which case they 

would still pay the full amount of dues. Commission Regulations explicitly prohibit the plan 

because, in effect, it would result in a transfer 

of funds from the local affiliate's general 

treasury to the separate segregated fund. 11 

CFR 114.5(a)(1) and 114.5 (b). (Date Issued: 

December 22, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-134: Application of Contribution 

Limits to Independent Senate 

Campaign 

If Senator Lowell Weicker campaigns for reelection in 1982 as an independent, rather than 

as a Republican candidate, his principal campaign committee, Weicker '82 Committee 

(the Committee), may: 

1. Accept up to $1,000 from an individual for 

the primary election and up to $1,000 from 

the same individual for the general election; 

and 

2. Accept contributions for both the primary 

and general election campaigns prior to the 

primary election. All contributions for the 

general election must, however, be so designated. Moreover, the Committee must use an 

acceptable accounting method to distinguish 

between primary and general election contributions and may have to return general 

election contributions if Senator Weicker does 

not campaign in that election. 

If Senator Weicker campaigns as a minor or new 

party candidate (i.e., a candidate "without 

nomination by a major party") instead of as an 

independent, the same contribution limits will 

apply. 

As an independent or as a minor or new party 

candidate, Senator Weicker may select one of 

three primary election dates provided by FEC 

Regulations. See 11 CFR 100.2 (c)(4)(i), (ii) and 

(iii). 

The Commission did not decide on any separate 

issues that may arise if Senator Weicker changes 

his current Republican filing status after he 

qualifies for the ballot under Connecticut law. 

(Date Issued: December 22, 1980; Length: 

3 pages) 

AO 1980-135: Payments Made by Corporation 

to Indemnify Staff of its 

Separate Segregated Fund 

Against Legal Liability 

Payments made by the Raytheon Company (the 

Corporation) to indemnify corporate officers 

and employees against any legal liability (e.g., 

fines, judgments or settlements) incurred in 

connection with activities of the Corporation's 

separate segregated fund (the Committee) are 

permissible. Such payments constitute expenses 

of administering the Committee rather than 

prohibited corporate contributions. 2 U.S.C. 

§§431(8)(B)(vi) and 441b(b)(2)(C); 11 CFR 

114.11 (b). (Date Issued: December 22, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-138: Senator-Elect's Use of Excess 

Campaign Funds for Transition 

Expenses, Winding Down Costs 

and Living Expenses 

Senator-elect Frank H. Murkowski could use 

excess campaign funds of his 1980 Senatorial 

campaign to pay for his transition expenses (e.g., 

travel between Alaska and Washington, D.C., 

moving his family to Washington and maintaining a transition office between November 5, 

1980, and the date he was sworn in as a U.S. 

Senator). The Act and Commission Regulations 

permit a candidate or individual to use excess 
117 

campaign funds for "ordinary and necessary 

expenses" incidental to his/her duties as a 

federal officeholder. 2 U.S.C. §439a and 11 

CF R 113. Although Mr. Murkowski had not yet 

been sworn in as a U.S. Senator, he nevertheless 

could use excess campaign funds in these ways 

because federal officeholder is defined as "an 

individual elected to or serving in the offi·ce 

of ... Senator ...." 11 CFR 113.1(c). The 

Senator-elect's principal campaign committee 

could also use the excess funds to pay costs of 

winding down his campaign (e.g., office rental, 

postage, staff salaries and telephone costs) 

because campaign committees have wide discretion in determining how campaign funds may 

be spent in winding down a campaign. The 

campaign committee, however, had to report 

these costs pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §434. 

Mr. Murkowski could not, however, use the 

excess funds to pay his living expenses or those 

of his family during the transition period since 

these were not incidental to his election but 

rather were "personal expenses." Only those 

federal officeholders who were members of 

Congress when the 1979 Amendments to the 

Act were passed on January 8, 1980, could use 

excess campaign funds for such personal expenses. 11 CFR 113.1(c). (Date Issued: December 22, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 
Appendix 119 12 

FEC Federal Register 

Notices, 1980 

Federal Register 

Notice* Title Publication Date Citation 

1980-1 Notice of Designation 

of Official to Receive 

Presidential Primary 

Candidate Certification 

of Inactive Status 

1/22/80 45 Fed Reg. 4999 

1980-2 Draft Regulations to 

Implement 1979 Amendments to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act 

(Published for comment) 

1/23/80 45 Fed. Reg. 5546 

1980-3 Notice to Committees 

Filing Year-End Reports 

1/28/80 45 Fed Reg. 6475 

1980-4 Presidential Election Campaign Fund; Presidential 

Primary Matching Fund 

(FEC prescribes proposed 

regulations) 

2/12/80 45 Fed Reg. 9559 

1980-5 Filing Date for 

Pennsylvania Special 

General Election 

2/28/80 45 Fed Reg. 13411 

1980-6 Contributions to and 

Expenditures by Delegates 

to National Nominating 

Conventions (Draft regulations published for comment) 

3/3/80 45 Fed Reg. 13766 

1980-7 Opinion and Regulation 

Index Supplements 

3/3/80 45 Fed Reg. 13816 

1980-8 Amendments to Federal 

Election Campaign Act 

of 1971 (Transmittal of 

regulations to Congress) 

3/7/80 45 Fed Reg. 15080 

*This appendix does not include Federal Register notices of Commission meetings published under the Government in the Sunshine Act. 
120 

Federal Register 

Notice* Title Publication Date Citation 

1980-9 Multicandidate Political 

Committees; Index 

(Notice of publication) 

3/19/80 45 Fed Reg. 17633 

1980-10 Amendments to the 

Federal Election Campaign 

Act of 1971 (Announcement of effective date for 

regulations implementing 

1979 Amendments to the 

FECA) 

4/1/80 45 Fed. Reg. 21211 

1980-11 Technical Amendments 

and Corrections (Technical 

revisions to Commission 

regulations) 

4/1/80 45 Fed. Reg. 21209 

1980-12 Funding and Sponsorship 

of Federal Candidate 

Debates (Announcement 

of effective date for new 

regulations) 

4/1/80 45 Fed Reg. 21210 

1980-13 Federal Candidate Debates 

Funding and Sponsorship; 

Federal Election Campaign 

Act Amendments of 1979 

Regulations; Corrections 

4/8/80 45 Fed Reg. 23642 

1980-14 Presidential Election Campaign Fund; Presidential 

Primary Matching Fund 

(Transmittal of regulations 

to Congress governing suspension of matching fund 

eligibility) 

4/15/80 45 Fed Reg. 25378 

1980-15 Filing Date for West 

Virginia Special 

General Election 

4/17/80 45 Fed Reg. 26131 
121 

Federal Register 

Notice* Title Publication Date Citation 

1980-16 Rulemaking Petition; 

Notice of Availability 

(Requested by the 

Democratic National 

Committee and the 

Democratic Senatorial 

Campaign Committee to 

require specified notice 

on all solicitations for 

contributions by political 

committees conducting 

negative campaigns) 

4/21/80 45 Fed Reg. 26819 

1980-17 11 CFR Part 110 

Amendments to Federal 

Election Campaign Act 

of 1971; Correction 

(Reflects deletion of 11 

CFR 110.7(b)(5) from 

the 1979 Amendments) 

4/23/80 45 Fed. Reg. 27435 

1980-18 11 CFR Part 4 

Public Records and the 

Freedom of Information 

Act (Final rule) 

5/13/80 45 Fed Reg. 31291 

1980-19 11 CFR Part 5 

Access to Public 

Disclosure Division 

Documents (Final rule) 

5/13/80 45 Fed Reg. 31292 

1980-20 11 CF R, Subchapter E, 

Parts 9001-9007, 9009 

Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund: General 

Election Financing (Notice 

of proposed rulemaking) 

5/15/80 45Fed Reg. 32003 

1980-21 11 CF R, Parts 100 and 

110 Contributions to 

and Expenditures by 

Delegates to National 

Nominating Conventions 

(Transmittal of regulations 

to Congress) 

5/23/80 45 Fed Reg. 34865 
122 

Federal Register 

Notice* Title Publication Date Citation 

1980-22 Public Financing of 

Presidential General 

Election Campaigns 

(Transmittal of regulations to Congress) 

6/27/80 45 Fed Reg. 43371 

1980-23 Federal Election Commission Opinion and 

Regulation Index 

(Notice of availability) 

6/24/80 45 Fed Reg. 42369 

1980-24 Suspension of Primary 

Fund Payments 

(Announcement of effective date for regulations) 

7/3/80 45 Fed. Reg. 45257 

1980-25 Filing Dates for Michigan 

Special Primary and 

General Elections 

7/17/80 45 Fed. Reg. 47919 

1980-26 11 CF R, Parts 100 and 

110 Contributions to 

and Expenditures by 

Delegates to National 

Nominating Conventions 

(Notice of final rulemaking) 

8/7/80 45 Fed Reg. 52356 

1980-27 11 CF R, Chapter 1 

Nonpartisan Communications by Corporations or 

Labor Organizations 

(Notice of proposed 

rulemaking) 

8/25/80 45 Fed. Reg. 56349 

1980-28 11 CFR, Parts 100, 106, 

110, 140-146 and 9001-

9007 Public Financing of 

Presidential General Election Campaigns (Effective 

date confirmation) 

9/5/80 45 Fed Reg. 58820 
123 

Notice* Title 

Federal Register 

Publication Date Citation 

198().29 Public Records; 

Indexes to Statements and Reports 

(Notice of availability) 

10/9/80 45 Fed. Reg. 67148 

198().30 11 CF R Part 112 

Advisory Opinion 

Requests, Barring 

of Withdrawals 

(Notice of proposed 

rulemaking) 

10/24/80 45 Fed. Reg. 70474 

198().31 Negative Campaigns 

(Denial of rulemaking 

petition) 

10/24/80 45 Fed. Reg. 70568 
125 Appendix 13 

Computer Indexes 

Available 

A Index: Names and Addresses 

of Candidates 

Sorted by type of office sought (President, 

U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative), and alphabetically by last name or by State/Congressional 

district. 

B Index: Names and Addresses 

of Committees 

Includes name of connected organization, name 

of treasurer, committee 10 number, notation if 

it is "qualified" as a multicandidate committee, 

and filing frequency, This index can be sorted 

alphabetically by committee name, by committee 10 number, and by type (Presidential, Senate, 

House, party, nonparty). 

C Index: Disclosure Documents Filed 

by Political Committees 

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. 

D Index: Index of Political Committee 

Contributions to and Expenditures 

for Candidates 

Includes, for each committee, its name, I D 

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 

each candidate (1977-78 or 1979-80). In the 

case of party committees, coordinated party 

expenditures (Section 441 a(d)) are listed in 

place of independent expenditures. 

E Index: Index of Candidates 

and Supporting Committees 

Includes for each candidate the following: 

1. Candidate name, district/State, party affiliation and candidate ID number. 

2. Listing of all documents filed by the candidate (type, coverage dates, period receipts, 

period disbursements, number of pages, 

microfilm location). 

3. Listing of all documents filed by the principal 

campaign committee (see C Index for explanation). 

4. Listing of all documents filed by other 

authorized committees of the candidate. 

5. Listing of all committees (other than those 

authorized by the candidate) forwarding 

contributions to the candidate, the principal 

campaign committee, or an authorized 

committee, and the aggregate total of such 

contributions given to date. 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 or unauthorized single 

candidate committees filing reports indicating 

they made independent expenditures on 

behalf of the candidate. 

7. Listing of all persons or committees filing 

unauthorized delegate reports. 

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

behalf of the candidate. 

9. Listing of all unauthorized single candidate 

committees registering support for or against 

a candidate. The listing also identifies the 

committee's receipts and disbursements for 

the report period covered. 

G Index: Index of Itemized Transactions 

for Each Candidate 

and Political Committee 

Identifies the amount of itemized receipt and 

disbursement transactions, the report on which 

the transactions were disclosed and the microfilm location of the transactions. Five categories 

are represented: 

1. Individual transactions, including individual 

contributions and loan activity. 

2. Selected loan and loan repayment transactions, including loans from banks. 

3. Unregistered political organization transactions, that is, contributions to candi-
126 

dates from organizations which are not 

registered under the election law. 

4. Corporate refund/rebate transactions with 

itemized receipts showing refunds of deposits. 

5. Transactions among registered candidates/ 

committees which indicate transfers and Joan 

activity. 

H Index: Index of Presidential Candidates 

and Supporting Committees 

Similar to the E Index, but lists party and nonparty contributions as reported by the candidate's authorized campaign committees. 

Y Index: Special Inquiry 

This immediate access system permits direct 

video displays or printouts of selected information in the disclosure data base. It consists of 

approximately 30 separate programs which may 

be used to locate, retrieve or display individual 

items or categories of information. An example 

is the Text search capability. By indicating a 

word or phrase, the computer searches and lists 

all political committee titles that include the 

word or phrase. 

Another example is the Treasurer's Name 

search capability. By indicating the last name of 

a person, the computer searches and lists all 

political committee treasurers with the same 

last name. 

Other Indexes 

In addition to the above indexes, which are 

available on request, 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. 
127 Appendix 14 

Assistance Available 

from the FEC 

General Assistance 

Candidates, committees and the public may 

obtain information and materials (including 

publications listed below) from the FEC's Office 

of Public Communications. Contact the Commission in Washington, D.C., at 523-4068 or call 

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. 

Requests for opinions and the opinions themselves are made public. A requesting person who 

in good faith acts in accordance with the advisory opinion will not be subject to any penalties 

with regard to the activity in question. 2 U.S.C. 

Section 437f(c) (2). 

Publications 

- The Federal Election Campaign Act 

- FEC Regulations 

- Registration Forms 

- Reporting Forms 

- Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates 

and Committees 

- FEC House and Senate Bookkeeping Manual 

- Guideline for Presentation in Good Order 

-The FEC Record, a monthly newsletter 

- Record Supplement for State and Local Party 

Organizations 

- Record Supplement: Summary of 1979 

Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act 

- The Annual Report 

- The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance 

Law, a brochure for the general public 

Public Records Office 

This office makes available to the public the 

documents listed below. Documents may be 

inspected at the Commission, purchased or 

copied ( 10 cents per page for copies from microfilm and 5 cents per page for copies from paper 

files).* 

- Reports and statements filed by Federal 

candidates and committees ( 1972-present) 

- FEC Disclosure Reports 

- FEC Reports on Financial Activity and 

Disclosure Series (published indexes which 

consolidate and summarize data taken from 

the financial disclosure reports) 

- Daily updated computer printouts of 

various FEC indexes, as available 

- Index of Independent Expenditures 

- Index of Multicandidate Political Committees 

- Index of all Registered Political Committees 

- Index of all Federal Candidates 

- Index of Political Committees and Their 

Sponsors 

- Index of Sponsors and Their Political 

Committees 

-Financial Control and Compliance Manual for 

Presidential Candidates Receiving Public 

Financing (applies to Presidential primary 

candidates only) 

- Index to Advisory Opinions 

- Campaign Finance and Federal Election 

Bibliography 

- MU Rs (closed compliance actions and index) 

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

- Court cases (Buckley v. Valeo, etc.) 

- Presidential matching fund certifications 

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

Ethics in Government Act 

- Information on contributions submitted by 

Presidential candidates to establish eligibility 

for primary matching funds 

- 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, newsletters, directives, bulletins, certifications of 

closed meetings, general distribution memoranda) 

* Anyone 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 by any 

person for the purpose of soliciting contributions or 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). 
128 

Clearinghouse 

The National Clearinghouse on Election Administration provides information to the public on 

the electoral process and publishes studies on 

election administration. For details, see Appendix 6. 

Commission Library 

The Commission law library, part of the Office 

of General Counsel, is open to the public. The 

collection includes basic legal research tools plus 

materials 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 Election Bibliography, both available 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 Journal Reports, Harvard Law Review 

and the Congressional 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 

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 Code Congressional and Administrative 

News; Code of Federal Regulations; and Dally 

Federal Register. 

Reporter Section. The collection of law reporters includes the U.S. Supreme Court Reports 

(Official, West and Lawyer's Edition copies); 

Federal Reporter 2d,· Supreme Court Digest 

(Lawyer's 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 Document Center. 

This section includes administrative material 

generated by the Commission and legislative 

material bearing on the establishment and 

operation of the Commission. For example, the 

section includes legislative histories of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act, transcripts of 

Commission hearings on regulations and Federal 

Register notices. 

* U.S. t'DVERNMENr PRINJ'ING OFFICE : 1981 0 - 346-903