ANNUAL 

REPORT 

1975 

/

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1325 K ST., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

MARCH 1976 
Federal Election Commission 

Commissioners 

Thomas B. Curtis, Chairman 

Neil Staebler, Vice Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens 

Thomas E. Harris 

Vernon W. Thomson 

Robert 0. Tiernan 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

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

Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate 

Statutory Officers 

Orlando B. Potter, Staff Director 

John G. Murphy, Jr., General Counsel 

Annual Report Editor 

Ann Lang Irvine 

ii 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Introduction V 

Establishment and Organization of the FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Commission Policies, Priorities and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

Implementing the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Public Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 

Campaign Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

Compliance and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

Federal-State Relations ........· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 

Legislative Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 

_ppendix .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

A. Biographic Data on Commissioners and Statutory Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 

B. FEC Code of Ethics ............................... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

C. Development of Regulations and Interim Guidelines ......................109 

D. Development of Advisory Opinions and Opinions of Counsel .................. 115 

E. Subject Index and Summaries of Advisory Opinions ........................121

F. FEC and the Privacy and Freedom of Information Acts ..................... 127 

G. FEC Activity Concerning Pending Legislation ............................ 129 

H. FEC Task Forces .............................................. 131 

I. Problems and Procedures in Verifying Submissions for Matching Funds ...........133 

J. F EC Publications and Documents .................................... 137 

K. Schedule of 1975 Mailings ........................................ 143 

L. F EC Library Materials ........................................... 145 

M.. Regional Seminar Schedule ........................................ 147 

N. Highlights of Buckley v.Valeo ....................� .................149 

0. Chronology of Buckley v.Valeo and FEC-Related Activities ..................151 

iii 
Introduction 

Purpose 

of the 

FEC 

By the terms of its creation under the Federal Election Campaign Act 

Amendments of 1974, the Federal Election Commission was assigned a 

mission which was without precedent or parallel at the Federal level. 

Through a program of disclosure of campaign financing, strict limitations on 

contributions and expenditures, and the granting of public financing to 

Presidential candidates, the Commission was charged with supervising and 

regulating political campaigns for Federal office. In order to accomplish this 

task the Commission was granted.specific powers of investigation, regulation, 

and interpretation. In short, the Commission was assigned the role of a 

regulatory agency for the basic process by which political power is attained 

and transferred in modern democratic society. 

Buckley 

v. 

Valeo 

Many of the programs to be administered by the FEC were new and untried, 

and there was even doubt in some quarters whether they were advisable or 

even constitutional. Some of these concerns formed the basis for the 

constitutional challenge to the law, and to the composition of the 

Commission itself, filed in January, 1975. 1 The very existence of this 

challenge, and the possible implications for the future of the Commission 

were a constant factor during the first year of operation, and undoubtedly 

affected attitudes of the public, as well as the expectations and morale of the 

staff. 

On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court decided the case of Buckley v. 

Valeo. While upholding major portions of the Act, the decision modified to a 

substantial degree the powers and duties of the Commission itself as 

originally constituted under the 1974. Act. 

2 The Court did grant a 30-day 

stay of i.ts ruling to allow Congress to act, and the stay was subsequently 

extended for another 20 days. 

Annual 

Report 

Requirement 

This Annual Report, which has been written during the uncertain period 

before the Congressional response to the ruling of the Supreme Court, is a 

requirement of the Act: "The Commission shall transmit reports to the 

1 See Appendix O for a chronology of the events associated with Buckley v. Valeo in relation to the 

activities of the Commission. 2 See Appendix N for highlights of that decision. 

V 
President of the United States and to each House of the Congress no later 

than March 31 of each year. Each such report shall contain a detailed 

statement of the activities of the Commission in carrying out its duties under 

this title, together with recommendations for such legislative or other action 

as the Commission considers appropriate." (2 U.S.C 437e). This report 

should stand first as an important historical record of the establishment and 

initial activities of a new Federal agency, but even more significantly as a 

guide and reference for future modification and implementation of Federal 

election campaign laws. 

Outline 

of 

Report 

Effort has been made to include sufficient material to interest the researcher 

while still providing an overview for the more casual reader. The basic text 

affords an analysis of Commission activities from three points of view: 

organization, policy, and program implementation. Background detail is in 

the Appendix. The first chapter gives some background on the 1974 Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments which set up the Commission, and the 

details of how the FEC came into being in April 1975. Then the 

Organization section of Chapter I focuses on the structure of the FEC, and 

how it is organized to get the job done. Each Office is described briefly, 

including its major functions. 

Chapter 11 takes a look at some of the major approaches and decisions of the 

Commission during its first year of existence, and the effect on the priorities 

and procedures which evolved. Chapter Ill, on Implementing the Act, tells 

what the FEC has accomplished from a functional point of view. Each of 

four sections deals with the coordinated activities of the Commission in 

public financing, disclosure, campaign limitations and compliance. 

A separate chapter on Federal-State Relations describes how the Commission has begun to play an informational and clearinghouse role between 

the many State and local election agencies. The primary focus here is on the 

specialized research role of the Clearinghouse of Election Administration and 

Information. A final chapter deals with the question of possible legislative 

amendments. 

The compilation of the material for the report itself became an FEC activity, 

since it afforded an opportunity for many staff members, along with 

Commissioners, to take· a wider view of the Commission and its many 

interrelated divisions than is often possible under the stress of day-to-day 

decision making. The Commission intends to use the report as a base for 

assessment of progress during the first year of existence. 

Hearings 

Consistent with its policy of "openness", the Commission invites public and 

Congressional comment and suggestion, and further suggests that the 

appropriate committees of Congress consider holding regular public hearings 

on its Annual Report. This will provide an opportunity to examine the 

Commission's work in depth and as a whole, and allow the Commission to 

make future reports more useful to both the Congress and the public. 

vi 
Establishment and 

Organization of the FEC 
Establishment 

�

� 

 1925 

Act 

Legislative History 

The manner in which American election campaigns are financed has been a 

subject of concern and controversy since the turn of the century. Over that 

time, Congress sought to regulate the process and prevent abuses in three 

ways: by prohibiting contributions from certain sources1, by requiring 

public disclosure of campaign funds, and by imposing limits on certain 

contributions and expenditures. 

Until 1972, the principal statute governing Federal elections was the Federal 

Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. While it contained disclosure requirements 

and spending ceilings for Congressional candidates and some political 

committees, the 1925 Act was not comprehensive, was easily circumvented 

and went almost wholly unenforced. As a result, subsequent campaign 

financing proposals began to take a somewhat different approach. Full 

disclosure remained the first essential, but new emphasis was placed on 

effective enforcement and on the idea of public financing as an alternative to 

a system totally dependent on private contributions. 

The pressures for reform grew through the 1950's and 1960's as campaigns 

became increasingly complex, sophisticated and expensive. Change was slow 

in coming, however, as a program of Presidential public financing adopted in 

1966 (P. L. 89-809) was rescinded by Congress a year later, and a bill to 

regulate candidates' media spending was passed but vetoed on the eve of the 

1970 mid-term election. 

1 This included prohibitions on contributions by corporations and national banks (Tillman Act, 1907), 

labor unions (Smith-Connally Act, 1943, and Taft-Hartley Act, 1949), civil servants (Pendleton Act, 

1883, and the Hatch Act, 1959). 

3 
1971 

Act 

In 1971-72, the first major election reforms since 1925 were adopted by 

Congress and signed into law. In the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 

(P. L. 92-225), Congress addressed the obvious disclosure deficiencies of the 

Corrupt Practices Act. Almost simultaneously Congress revived the earlier 

public financing proposal. An amendment to the 1971 Revenue Act (P. L. 

92-178) established the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, to be financedt

by citizens' voluntary tax check-off, and, in addition, provided limited taxt

credits and deductions for small political contributions.t

The Federal Election Campaign Act required, for the first time, comprehensive and detailed reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures both before and after all Federal elections. It vested the Secretary of 

the Senate and the Clerk of the House with responsibility for supervising 

candidates for their respective houses and gave the Comptroller General 

authority to oversee Presidential campaigns. These three Supervisory Officers 

were responsible for administering the disclosure provisions, making candidate and committee reports available to the public and assisting in 

enforcement of the law. In addition to disclosure, the 1971 Act set a ceiling 

on campaign spending from personal funds by candidates and their families 

and set limits on the amount that could be spent by candidates on media 

advertising. Finally, the Act restated certain recognized but carefully limited 

exceptions to the longstanding prohibitions on political activity by corporntions and labor organizations. This amendment to 18 USC Section 610 

permitted, among other things, the solicitation of voluntary contributions to 

·ta separate, segregated campaign fund maintained by the corporation ort

union.t

Although the 1971 Act was signed into law on February 7, 1972, thet

reporting and disclosure requirements did not take effect until April 7, 1972.t

This time enabled the Supervisory Offices to draft regulations and preparet

for orderly implementation; but the delay also permitted an eleventh hourt

influx of large contributions which thus escaped immediate disclosure. 2 

Nonetheless, the new law and the post-election investigations and lawsuitst

generated by the Watergate scandal revealed a shocking pattern of campaignt

financing practices.t

Spurred by the Watergate revelations and an aroused citizenry, Congresst

again took up the campaign reform issue in early 1973. It seemed clear thatt

disclosure alone was not sufficient deterrent to major abuses and distortionst

of the campaign process. Under consideration were comprehensive,t

2This conflict between the need for an orderly, step-by-step implementation of any new election 

reform law and the need to impose its provisions immediately, to prevent last-minute evasion, 

foreshadowed a major problem facing the new Federal Election Commission in early 1975. When the 

Commission came into existence the financing for the 1976 election was well under way. There was 

little or no time for a gradual evolution of rules and regulations, but rather an immediate necessity to 

implement policy if guidance was to be provided and the requirements of the law were not to 

be effectively avoided. 

4 
enforceable limits on all spending by candidates and committees; limits on 

contributions by individuals and organizations, a broad system of public 

financing for all Federal campaigns, and creation of an independent Federal 

Election Commission to administer and enforce the body of campaign laws. 

� ft' 1974

Amendments

These efforts culminated, after extensive hearings and debate in both houses, 

in the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (P:.L. 93-443). 

The Senate passed S. 3044 in April extending public financing to Presidential 

primaries and Congressional elections, setting overall limits on contributions 

and expenditures, and establishing an independent enforcement agency. The 

House passed H.R. 16090 on August 8, 1974. This bill differed from the 

Senate version on two significant points: it omitted Congressional public 

financing (while adding financing for the national party conventions), and it 

rejected an independent enforcement body in favor of retention of the 

existing system of Supervisory Officers as overseers of the law. 

The compromise measure which emerged from the House-Senate conference 

extended public financing to the Presidential primary and nomination 

process only, but it provided for the establishment of an independent 

Federal Election Commission with broad administrative and enforcement 

powers. Six voting members of the new FEC were to be appointed: two by 

the President, two by the Speaker of the House on the recommendation of 

the Majority and Minority Leaders, and two by the President Pro Tempore 

of the Senate on the recommendation of the Majority and Minority Leaders. 

The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House were designated to 

serve as ex-officio, non-voting members. 3 The conference· report was 

adopted by both houses in early October, and the legislation was signed into 

law by President Ford on October 15, 1974. 

Major Provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

Note: This is only a summary of the major provisions of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act. It is not a/I-inclusive. 

These provisions were effective during the time period covered by this 

Annual Report. They do not reflect changes mandated by the Supreme 

Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo. For these changes, see Appendix N. 

31t was this final compromise concerning the appointment of the six Commissioners, dividing the 

authority for appointment between the legislative and executive branches, however, which collided 

with the constitutional requirement for separation of powers. The Supreme Cqurt ruled ir, its January 

30, 1976 opinion, Buckley v. Valeo, that the Commission could not continue to exercise certain of 

its powers unless the Congress acted to reconstitute it as an Executive agency in conformance with 

Article 11 of the Constitution. 

5 
• The 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act created a

six-member Federal Election Commission responsible for administering

election law and a public financing program, and vested it with civil

enforcement.

The President, Speaker of the House, and President pro tempore of the

. Senate each appoint two members (of different parties), all subject to

confirmation by both Houses of Congress.

The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House serve as ex-officio,

non-voting members of the Commission.

Commissioners serve six-year, staggered terms, rotating a one-year chairmanship.

The Commission receives campaign reports; makes rules and regulations

(subject to review by Congress within 30 legislative days); maintains

cumulative index of reports filed and not filed; makes special and regular

reports to Congress and the President; serves as national clearinghouse for

information on administration of elections.

The Commission has power to render Advisory Opinions; 'conduct audits and

investigations; subpoena witnesses and information; initiate civil proceedings

for relief.

Criminal violations are to be referred to Justice Department for prosecution;

provision is made for advancing cases under the Act on the court docket, and

for judicial review. ·

On 

Individuals 

Contribution Limits 

$1,000 limit on amount an individual may contribute to any candidate· for 

U.S. House, Senate , or President in primary campaign (Presidential primaries 

treated as single election). 

$1,000 limit on contribution to any Federal candidate in general election 

(run-offs and special elections treated as separate elections; separate $1,000 

lfmit applies). 

No individual may contribute more than $25,000 for all Federal campaigns 

for entire campaign period (includes contributions to party organizations 

supporting Federal candidates). 

No more than $1,000 in independent expenditures ori behalf of any one 

candidate for Federal office per entire campaign is permitted. 

6 
On 

Organizations 

Certain "in-kind" contributions (up to $500 per candidate per election) are 

exempt from contribution limits. 

(To qualify, an organization must be registered with Election Commission 

for six months, receive contributions from more than 50 persons and, except 

for State party organizations, make contributi'ons to at least five Federal 

candidates.) 

$5,000 limit on amount an organization may contribu�e to any candidate for 

U.S. House, Senate, or ·President in primary election campaign (Presidential 

primaries treated as single election). 

$5,000 limit on contributions to any Federal candidate in general election 

(run-offs and Sp�cial elections treated as separate elections; separate $5,000 

limit applies). 

No more than $1,000 in independent expenditures on behalf of any one 

Federal candidate during a calendar year. 

No limit on aggregate amount organizations may contribute in campaign 

period, nor on amount organizations may contribute to party organizations 

supporting Federal candidates. 

Certain "in-kind" contributions (up to $500 per candiqate per election) are 

exempt from contribution limits. 

On Candidate's Own 

Campaign 

President-$50,000 for entire campaign 

Senate-$35,000 for entire campaign 

House-$25,000 for entire campaign 

On 

earty 

National and State party organizations are limited to $5,000 in actual 

contributions to Federal candidates, but may make limited expenditures on 

behalf of its candidate in general election (see spending limits). 

Spending Umits 

Specific communications media limitations have been repealed. However, 

the total candidate spending limits imposed allow 20 percent in addition to 

the basic limit for fund-raising, plus limited spending by parties in general 

election and a cost of living adjustment. 

Conventions $2 million for national nominating convention. 

Presidential Primary-

$10 million basic limit; in addition, candidate allowed to spend 20 percent 

for fund-raising. In any Presidential primary, a candidate may spend no more 

7 
than twice what a Senate candidate in that State is allowed to spend for the 

primary. 

General-

$20 million basic limit (Presidential candidate opting not to receive public 

financing would be allowed to spend an additional 20 percent for 

fund-raising). 

PartyNational party may spend 2¢ times Voting Age Population (VAP), or 

approximately $2.9 million, on behalf of its Presidential nominee in general 

election. 

Senate Primary8¢ times VAP of State or $100,000, whichever is higher. Additional 20 

percent of basic limit allowed for fund-raising. 

General12¢ times VAP of State or $150,000, whichever is higher. Additionai 20 

percent of basic limit allowed for fund-raising. 

PartyIn general election, 2¢ times VAP or $20,000, whichever is higher, by 

national party, and 2¢ times VAP or $20,000 by State party. 

House Primary-

$70,000. Additional 20 percent of limit allowed for fund-raising (total­

$84,000). House candidates running at large permitted to spend same 

amount as Senate candidate in that State. 

General-

$70,000. Additional 20 percent allowed for fund-raising (total-$84,000). 

House candidates running at large permitted to spend same as Senate 

candidate in that State. 

PartyIn general election, $10,000 by national party and $10,000 by State party 

on behalf of House candidates except that a Representative from a State 

with only one Representative is subject to Senatorial limits. 

General 

Elections 

Presidential Public Financing (from dollar check-off fund) 

$20 million in public funds; acceptance optional. Major party nominee 

automatically qualifies for full funding; minor party and independent 

candidate eligible to receive proportion of full funding based on past or 

8 
current votes received. If candidate receives full funding, no private 

contributions permitted. 

Conventions $2 million; optional. Major parties automatically qualify. Minor parties 

eligible for lesser amount based on proportion of votes received in past 

election. 

Primaries Federal matching of private contributions up to $250 once candidate has 

qualified by raising $5,000 in each of 20 States in matchable contributions. 

Only first $250 of any private contribution may be matched. 

Only private gifts raised after January 1975 qualify for matching for the 

1976 election; no Federal payments will be made before January 1976. 

Reporting and Disclosure 

Candidate required to establish one central campaign committee; all 

contributions and expenditures on behalf of candidate must be reported 

through this committee. Also requires designation of specific bank 

depositories. 

Full reports of contributions and expenditures to be filed with Commission 

10 days before and 30 days after every election, and within 10 days of close 

of each quarter unless committee has received or expended less than $1,000 

in that quarter. Year-end report due in non-election years. 

Contributions of $1,000 or more received within last 15 days before election 

must be reported to Commission within 48 hours. 

Other Provisions 

Cash contributions over $100 prohibited. 

Contributions from foreign nationals prohibited. 

Contributions in name of another prohibited. 

Loans treated as contributions; must have cosigner or guarantor for each 

$1,000 of outstanding obligation. 

Requires that any organization which spends any money or commits any act 

for the purpose of influencing any election must report as a political 

committee. 

Every person who spends or contributes over $100 other than to or through 

a candidate or political committee is required to report. 

9 
No elected or appointed official or employee of Government may accept 

more than $1,000 in honorarium for speech or article, or $15,000 aggregate 

per year. 

Corporations and labor unions which are Government contractors are 

permitted to maintain separate, segregated voluntary political funds in 

accordance with 18 USC 610. (Formerly all contributions by Government 

contractors were prohibited.) 

Penalties 

Increases existing fines to maximum of $50,000. Candidate for Federal 

office who fails to file reports may be prohibited from running again for the 

term of that office plus one year. 

Prohibits solicitation of funds by franked mail. Pre-empts State election laws 

for Federal candidates. 

Establishment of the FEC 

Although the Senate submitted its nominees immediately following the 

signing of the bill in October, 1974, no further steps towards establishing the 

Commission were taken until after the New Year. By that time, Senator 

James Buckley and, Eugene McCarthy, along with several other parties, had 

filed suit challenging nearly every provision of the new law and many 

provisions of the 19.71- Act. The existence of this challenge was a constant 

factor in the Commission's first year of existence. 4 

Nominees The House of Representatives made public its nominees on January 29. The 

Speaker, Carl Albert, nominating Robert Tiernan of Rhode Island upon 

recommendation of Majority Leader Thomas P. O'Neill, and Vernon W. 

Thomson upon the recommendation of Minority Leader John Rhodes. 

On February 20, nominees w�r:e submitted to the Senate for the second 

time. Joan Aikens of Pennsylvania was renominated by the President 

Pro-Tempore upon the recommendation of Minority Leader Hugh Scott. 

Senator Mansfield submitted the recommendation making Tom Harris of 

Virginia his nominee. The nominating process was completed on March 1, 

when President Gerald Ford made Tom Curtis of Missouri and Neil Staebler 

of Michigan his nominees. 5 Soon thereafter, the Commissioner designees met 

. for the first time and discussed futμre plans in the office of ex-officio 

Co�missioner Francis R. Valeo; Secretary of the Senate. 

4 See Appendix O for a chronology of the Commission's actions in conjunction with Buckley v. Valeo. 5See Appendix A for full biographic data of Commissioners and Statutory Officers. 

10 
Confirmation

and 

Swearing-in 

The House Administration Committee met on March 5 and scheduled 

confirmation hearings for March 10. House confirmation took place on 

March 19. The Senate held its hearings on March 14 and confirmed 

recommendations on April 10. The President signed their commissions on 

April 11, and the FEC's first Commissioners were sworn to office in the 

White House Rose Garden on April 14, 1975. 

As extensive preparatory work had been done by many of the Commissioners-designate, the Commission was able to hold its first meeting later 

that day at its present headquarters. At that meeting, Tom Curtis was elected 

Chairman and Neil Staebler Vice c·ha.irman. 

Statutory 

Officers 

During the remainder of the month of April, the Commissioners conducted 

exhaustive interviews for the statutory positions of Staff Director and 

General Counsel. On April 23, Orlando B. Potter was appointed the 

Commission's first Staff Director. Mr. Potter had formerly served as assistant 

to the Secretary of the Senate, where he administered the Senate program 

under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Professor John Murphy 

of Georgetown University was selected to be the Commission's first General 

Counsel on May 1. 

Appropriations One of the first major problems confronting the Commission was the lack of 

an appropriations bill. Senator Edward Kennedy and Rep. Bill Frenzel had 

testified on March 3 before the Treasury, U.S. Postal Service Appropriations 

Subcommittee to request funds for the Commission. Before the situation 

could become critical, the Senate attached as a rider to a veterans 

supplemental appropriation bill a $500,000 emergency appropriation for the 

Commission. This funding was for the remainder -of FY 75. The bill was 

quickly cleared by the House and signed into law by the President on April 

24. 

Almost immediately, the Commission began work on its fiscal year 1976 

authorization and appropriation requests, with testimony coming before the 

House Administration Committee on May 8 and the Senate Rules and 

Administration Committee on June 3. The Commission testified before the 

Treasury, U.S. Postal Service and General Government Appropriations 

�ubcommittee on April 22 and before the same appropriations committee in 

the House on May 13. The above testimony resulted in an appropriation of 

$5 million for FY 76 and $1.25 million for the first quarter of FY 77. 

Staffing Once initial appropriations had been secured, the Staff Director and the 

General Counsel selected the core of the FEC staff for their respective areas 

of responsibility. A major effort was made to find personnel with previous 

experience in the election field and many of the staff were drawn from the 

11 
three previous supervisory offices in the House, Senate and General 

Accounting Office. Others came to the Commission after successful private 

endeavors in the elections field, both at the state and Federal level. In a very 

short period of time, the FEC brought together individuals with substantial 

election administration expertise, who would serve as the foundation for the 

training and further recruitment of a professional staff. 

Special 

Counsel 

The Commission also decided to hire a Special Counsel to defend its 

composition and enforcement powers in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. This 

was done due to the possible conflict of interest which the Justice 

Department might have had in defending the Commission. 

On June 1, 1975, in accordance with 2 U.S.C. 437c and 30 days after the 

appointment of its full complement of Commissioners and Statutory 

Officers, the Federal Election Commission assumed its full powers and 

responsibilities, including assumption of those duties transferred from the 

previous supervisory offices. 

12 
Organization 

The Commissioners 

Meetings The first Commissioners took an active role in Commission affairs. While the 

law stipu Iates that the Commissioners meet once a month or at the cal I of any 

member, between April 14 and December 31, the Commission met 72 times, 

an average of eight times a month. Regularly scheduled meetings are held 

weekly on Thursdays. The Commissioners also chaired most of the Task 

Forces, interdivision staff groups which dealt with the more difficult and 

complicated programs facing the Commission. 6 Each Commissioner has an 

Executive Assistant and a Confidential Secretary to handle administrative 

matters, and to keep in contact with the day-to-day activities of the 

Commission. 

Policy 

Decisions 

The Commissioners play an active role in the legal and policy decisions of 

the Commission. Each Advisory Opinion Request is brought before the 

Commission for preliminary discussion prior to the formal commencement 

of work on the opinion, and every Advisory Opinion and Opinion of Counsel 

is reviewed on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis by the Commission prior to 

issuance. The Commissioners also review preliminary drafts of all regulations 

before they are published in the Federal Register for comment. In 

cooperation with the General Counsel's office, the Commissioners conduct 

public hearings on each set of proposed regulations. Final consideration 

entails an intensive review by each Commissioner, and can require a meeting 

as long as seven hours, as was the case with the disclosure regulations. 

Staff 

Decisions 

The Commissioners approve the hiring of staff appointed by the Staff 

Director and approve all salary rates and adjustments for Commission 

employees as fixed by the Staff Director. All internal rules and procedures 

6 See Appendix H for I ist of the Task Forces. 

13 
�

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Thomas B. Curtis Neil Staebler Joan D. Aikens Thomas E. Harris Vernon W. Thomson Robert 0. Tiernan I Fr;;ci7°R�;i;oj Edin-;;;ull..He-;;-;h-;;,,Jr1 

Chairman ··· Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner I Ex officio - I Ex officio - I 

I Senate I House I 

: Commissioner lcommissioner __ 

Staff Director 

General Counsel Orlando B. Potter 

John G. Murphy, Jr. I ... I I 

Disclosure & Compliance Administration Information Services 

Gordon A. McKay, Asst. Staff Dir. Robert N. Baker, Asst. Staff Dir. Herbert M. Koster, Asst. Staff Dir. 

-

Administrative 

. Compliance I I 

H Reports Examining and H Data Processing H Press Relations Processing I 

Rules and 

Regulations 1 Public Communications 

Public Records � Word Processing -I I ... Election Clearinghouse 

y FEC Record

y Audit and Investigation 
have been developed with the cooperation and consent of each Commi'ssioner, and are periodically reviewed by them in the light of Commission 

experience. 

Other 

Activities 

The Commissioners have been involved in other activities of the Commission 

ranging from traveling across the country speaking to various political 

committees and organizations, to assisting in the development of the report 

forms and Bookkeeping Manual. Responses to requests from the Congress 

for comments on proposed legislation are all reviewed by the Commissioners, 

all compliance actions are periodically reviewed, and all final actions on 

enforcement matters are approved by the Commission. 

Office of the Staff Director 

Role The Staff Director's position as chief executive officer of the Commission is 

established by the statutory provisions which authorize him to appoint and 

fix the salary of the Commission staff, with the approval of the Commission. 

In addition to this basic responsibility, and flowing from it, the activities of 

the Staff Director in the early months of the Commission were devoted to 

establishing the basic organizational structure of the Commission, initiating 

the functional programs of the Commission, coordinating these activities and 

translating Commission policy into action. 

Staffing At the · outset, recruitment and appointment responsibilities were most 

critical, in view of the urgent need to provide the Commission with an 

operating staff in the shortest possible time. Every effort was made to 

identify and recruit persons with experience in the implementation of 

campaign finance law. Following designation of the Staff Director on April 

23, 197 5, recruitment proceeded at a rapid pace. By the end of June, some 

55 staff members had been hired, and by the end of the calendar year, the 

staff totalled 124. 

While initial hiring of senior personnel was handled personally by the Staff 

Director, subsequent recruitment for subo�dinate positions was delegated as 

time went on, with final appointments made by the Staff Director. 

Recruitment of the legal staff was left strictly to the discretion of the 

General Counsel, who forwarded his recommendations to the Staff Director 

for final appointment. Because the Commission was held to be exempt from 

Civil Service, it was able to move with considerable speed and flexibility in 

filling critical positions with persons possessing qualifications of special value 

to the mission of the Agency. 

Organization Because of the budgetary constraints imposed upon the Commission, and 

because of the need for the closest possible relationship between the Staff 

Director and t_he rest of the Commission staff, it was decided to organize the 

15 
Staff Director's Office on the simplest possible lines. All support activity was 

provided by a Senior Executive Secretary and one Assistant Secretary. No 

Deputy Staff Director was appointed, and lines of authority flowed directly 

to the three Assistant Staff Directors heading the operational divisions of the 

Agency. 

Relations 

with 

General 

Counsel 

It was perceived at the outset that the General Counsel occupied a separate 

and collateral position, reporting directly to the Commission in consequence 

of his direct appointment by the Commission. A mutually cooperative 

approach was adopted by the two statutory officers, one manifestation of 

which was an arrangement by which the legal staff transmitted draft copies 

of its opinions and other policy statements through the Office of the Staff 

Director, thus permitting review and comment by the rest of the 

Commission staff. 

Secretary 

to the 

Commission 

An important adjunct to the Office of the Staff Director was established in 

the separate position of Secretary to the Commission, with responsibilities 

for preparing agendas for all Commission meetings, the collection and 

dissemination of all appropriate backup papers to be used at the Commission 

meetings, and taking accurate and complete minutes of all proceedings of the 

Commission. In addition, this office assumed responsibility for making tape 

recordings of all Commission proceedings and for preparing certified 

transcripts thereof upon request from interested parties? 

Off ice of General Counsel 

Role 

As the Commission's legal arm, the Counsel's Office must supply the agency 

with interpretations of the law in the form of binding Advisory Opinions and 

informal Opinions of Counsel; draft regulations to implement the law; 

proposed procedures for internal operation of the Commission itself; 

recommendations for amendments to the Act; and finally, with representation in compliance and litigation matters arising under the law. 

Organization 

Following the appointment of the General Counsel to the Commission on 

May 1, 1975, the Office was organized as a separate arm of the Commission, 

expected to work in close contact with other offices. It was felt advisable 

not to establish rigid divisions within the Office but to maintain sufficient 

flexibility so that any staff person could be called upon for any job as the 

demand arose. This was necessitated by the varied demands on the General 

Counsel's staff during the first months of operation of a new agency, and by 

a slim staff confronted by an overwhelming quantity of requests for 

direction both from within and without the Commission. To this day, 

General Counsel's Office has remained organized, despite titles, in a flexible 

'Since the transcription of proceedings is a very time-consuming process, the Commission charges a 

standard fee for this service. 

16 
manner permitting transfer of personnel on a day-to-day or a week-to-week 

basis from one principal assignment to another. 

To the extent that there were subdivisions, however much ignored in 

practice, they fell along the lines of policy and compliance matters. 

Policy 

Division 

The Policy Division was given the major responsibility of answering 

Advisory Opinion Requests and developing the regulations which would fill 

out gaps in the Act and supply elaboration of those provisions which needed 

further functional description. 8 

As i's the case with any new agency, there were also countless questions 

about the applicability of other Federal laws to the Commission, which were 

especially complicated and difficult because there was continuing doubt as 

to whether the Commission was a legislative or executive agency. The Policy 

Division had the responsibility for researching and developing positions for 

the Commission relating to these questions. Examples were the writing of a 

Code of Ethics, and determining the manner in which correspondence and 

records would be handled under the Freedom of Information and Privacy 

Acts. 9 

Counsel's Office also wrote a series of procedural narratives which would 

govern the Commission's chief functions. The two major ones were proposed 

procedures for handling Advisory Opinion Requests and a Compliance 

Procedures Narrative. Other policy needs were to develop interim guidelines 

and pol icy statements to meet special situations, such as off-year elections. 

Finally, this division handled all Congressional requests for opinions on 

pending legislation, and undertook analyses of any legislation which might 

affect the implementation of the Federal Election Campaign Laws. 1 0 

Compliance 

Division 

The Compliance Division originated with the early' receipt by the 

Commissi.on of complaints in one form or another with regard to past 

elections or current practices of ongoing political committees. In each 

compliance action the assigned attorneys worked closely with the Office of 

Disclosure and Compliance. 

•see Appendix C and D for detailed statements regarding the development of regulations and 

advisory opinions. 9See Appendix F for FEC activities concerning these Acts. 1 0see Appendix G for description of the procedures involved with pending legislation. 

17 
Litigation Toward the end of 1975, it becarne apparent that the moment had arrived 

for implementation of plans for a separate section for litigation, 1 1 qnd a 

unit to deal exclusively with the problems of implementing the disbursement 

of public monies under the public financing section of the law. A recent 

reorganization of the Office reflects these developments. 

Library A separate section of the Counsel's Office is the Library, which though used 

primarily by the legal staff, serves the entire Commission. The Library 

currently contains approximately 1,800 books, periodicals, newsletters, 

government reports and hearings, plus a journal article file.e1 2 

Staff The General Counsel's proposed budget for 1975 and 1976 provided for a 

total staff of 26 of whom 17 were attorneys. Critical characteristics for 

which each attorney or intern candidate was examined were as follows: 

election experience, a completely non-partisan approach, and a personality 

which would prove tolerant of contrasting approaches to difficult issues. 

Everyone understood that the credibility of the Commission rested in 

substantial part upon the belief in the public sector that the Commission's 

lawyers could not be compromised by any partisan suggestion. 

Relations 

Within 

FEC 

Much time was demanded in developing effective working relationships with 

other sections of the Commission. If the General Counsel's Office is to 

provide the necessary legal framework within which all Commission activities 

should take place, the staff must work daily and closely with other divisions. 

People new to one another had to grow familiar, to develop a perceptic>'n of 

the others' experience and range, and to develop a mode of merging 

information and skills. For example, the staff helped in the development of 

reporting forms and the Accounting Manual to ensure that they would be 

consistent with regulations being developed. In compliance actions, a close 

contact has been necessary to make sure of the production and preservation 

of a record which might eventually be used in a judicial proceeding. In 

addition, the legal staff has provided assistance to the Office of Information 

Services to help in providing summaries and answers which accurately reflect 

the Commission's interpretation of the law. 

1 1 As 1975 drew to a close, particularly with the initiation of the program implementing the public 

financing provisions of Title 26 of the United States Code together with the issuance of several 

advisory opinions by the Commission which drew criticism from several special interest sectors, it 

became apparent that more thought would have to be given to the development of a functional 

litigation unit above and beyond the compliance operation already in place. It was anticipated that 

from time to time persons in the public sector would have standing to challenge an advisory 

opinion; it was more than clear from the face of the statute that numerous determinations by the 

Commission under Title 26 would be subject to challenge under the judicial revieyv provisions of 

that title; and it was further evident that under existing jurisdictional provisions of Title 28, United 

States Code, other Commission determinations, throughout the range of its jurisdiction, could come 

under affirmative attack by individuals affected by the Act. 2' See Appendix L for a listing of the types of materials which are available in the library. 

18 
Relations 

Outside 

FEC 

Beyond the Commission itself lay other related agencies of government, both 

State and Federal, and numerous other groups, all of whom had to be 

contacted and much of whose expertise had to be identified for later use. In 

addition to continuing relations with the Justice and Treasury Departments, 

notable in this connection were contacts made with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Communications Commission and other Federal agencies. 

Office of Information Services 

Duties The Office of Information Services serves two functions in the Commission. 

On the one hand, it provides the focus for public and press contact with the 

Commission, and on the other, it generates, designs and produces a variety of 

materials to help explain the complex Federal campaign law to the public. In 

particular, Information Services has the vital responsibility for acquainting 

candidates, committees and the public of their specific obligations under the 

law. In order to accomplish this goal, small functional subdivisions were 

established within the Office to allow greater efficiency of operation, and let 

the public know more precisely who can help them with their particular 

question. 

Public Commun.ications 

Division 

Public Communications, a seven person division, is the focal point for public 

contact with the FEC, with special emphasis on the FEC's primary clients: 

the approximately 2,000 candidates for Federal office, 5,000 political 

committees, and countless other persons involved in political campaigns. 

They reach these clients first by responding to inquiries which come directly 

to the FEC. During 1975 such inquiries were: 

Inquiries 

Phone Inquiries 3,110 

Information Requested and 

Forwarded by Mail 2,127 

Individual Letters Responding 

to Inquiries 225 

Nationwide telephone access to the Commission was enhanced in January, 

1976 with the installation of a toll-free "800" line. The volume of 

correspondence has increased in proportion to accelerated campaign activity, 

and telephone inquiries now average 400 to 500 per week. 

Mailings Secondly, Public Communications reaches their clients by anticipating their 

needs, and generating needed information in pamphlet, letter, report or 

19 
other published form. Specialized brochures have been prepared for specific 

audiences, such as fund raisers or volunteers, and general materials have been 

developed for mass distribution to the mailing list of nearly 10,000 

developed by the Commission.e1 3 In addition, when appropriate, mailings on 

particular questions have gone to the entire mailing list or to selective 

audiences such as state chairmen, Secretaries of State, Members of Congress, 

and multi-candidate committees.e1 4

Regional 

Seminars 

An additional responsibility of this division has been the design and 

coordination of a nationwide program of Regional Seminars, beginning in 

January, 1976. This seminar program is an effort to take the Commission to 

the field, and help candidates and committee persons with their requests and 

problems in a more direct way. FEC lawyers, auditors and information staff 

are available to discuss specific problems with the candidates and committee 

personnel attending the seminars. Sessions are scheduled in 15 major cities 

through the country.e1 5 

Newsletter The Record, the Commission newsletter, is produced by a separate 

two-person division. Published every three weeks, the Record is the forma! 

vehicle for making available to the public summaries and synopses of 

Commission action on regulations, .Advisory Opinions, report deadlines, and 

other items of timely and special significance to the Commission's clients. 

The first issue was published in September, 1975 and three subsequent 

monthly issues have appeared during 1975, plus. a special year end 

supplement. The Record will be published 18 times in 1976, supplemented 

by Quarterly Indexes of Commission activities, printed as insert documents. 

Press 

Office 

All media contacts are centrali.zed in the Press Office. Here three persons 

insure coordinated responses to media questions and requests. Like the 

Public Communications Division, the work involves initiating considerable 

contact with the media through regular meetings, mailings (particularly 

outside of Washington), and notices of all F EC actions and activities. 

Although the Press officer has a narrower immediate constituency than other 

parts of the division, indirectly this office is responsible for explaining the 

law and the Commission to a much wider general audience. 

Printing/ 

Publications 

A section for Printing and Publications provides the technica I assistance and 

coordination on all Commission publications. 

Clearinghouse The National Clearinghouse for Information and Administration of Elections, an already established research operation within the GAO under the 

1971 Election Campaign Act, with its staff of three, was inherited by the 

3 ·' See Appendix J for a description of all FEC publications and documents. 1 4See,Appendix K for a complete listing of all such mailings during 1975. 1 5See Appendix M for schedule of the Regional Seminars. 

20 
Commission and has retained its identity within the Office of Information 

Services. In addition to serving as a national clearinghouse for information 

with respect to the administration of elections, the Clearinghouse conducts 

independent contract studies of the administration of elections. The 

Clearinghouse, since its major clients are state election officials, has also 

provided a needed link between the F EC and the states with regard to other 

FEC operations as well.' 6 

Office of Disclosure and Compliance 

Duties The Office of Disclosure and Compliance is the operational arm of the 

Commission. In addition to its disclosure and compliance responsibilities, 

this Office is also the primary agent for implementing the public finance 

program. 

Public 

Records 

Disclosure is the responsibility of the Public Records Division which 

maintains the financial records submitted by candidates and committees and 

makes them available to the public. This Division, which was opened on June 

2, 1975, was the first of the Commission to be fu Ily staffed and operative. 

The staff of four persons inherited nearly a million pages of campaign 

finance records from the previous supervisory offices, and since then, during 

1975, has received and prepared for public viewing approximately 25,000 

pages of documents.1. 7 

Reports 

Examining 

The first part of the compliance function is performed by the Reports 

Examining and Processing Division. A staff of 11 receives the reports 

submitted to the Commission, and reviews them for completeness and 

accuracy. Political committees and candidates often have their first contact 

with the Commission at this point and through informal contacts, this 

Division is able to assist them in developing a more complete understanding 

of the Act and its reporting requirements. 

Reports Examining is also responsible for determining whether candidates 

and their committees and contributors have adhered to the statutory 

campaign limitation on contributions and expenditures. While the number of 

documents here is enormous, totalling 3,477 during 1975, computer 

assistance, to be provided during 1976, should enable this Division to 

accomplish its monitoring function in a timely fashion. 

AID The Audit and Investigation Division's staff of 29 persons fulfills the 

remainder of the Commission's compliance responsibilities through its audit 

1 6 See chapter on Federal-State Relations for a fuller description of Clearinghouse activities. 

I' This does not include report copies filed originatiy with theClerk

of the House and the Secretary of 

the Senate which were also made available to the public by the FEC. 

21 
and investigation activities. This Division conducts the following kinds of 

audits: 

Audits 

l) Management review (to assist candidates and their political committees in

complying with the law by helping them develop and maintain accurate and

complete records),

2) Routine audits (to determine whether contribution and expenditure

limitations imposed by the Act have been respected, and to determine

whether adequate documentation exists as support for reports of candidates

and their comm_ittees),

3) Public funding audits (to determine the eligibility of Presidential

candidates for the receipt of matching funds, and to determine the amount

of public funding candidates are to receive),

4) Investigative audits (conducted in conjunction with a compliance action).

Investigations Investigations are initiated either in response to a complaint from the general 

public, or as the result of internally generated in_terest. In conducting its 

investigations, Al D works closely with the Commission's Office of General 

Counsel to ensure as fair and correct an investigation as possible. 

Combined 

Functions 

The audit and investigative functions were located in one division because 

they demand a variety of skills not normally found in either a conventional 

"auditor" or ''investigator". The Commission sought to build a staff with the 

ability to research, interview, and investigate; as well as with a knowledge of 

audit techniques, techniques of criminal investigation, and rules of evidence. 

The creation of a separate, in-house unit to fulfill the audit and investigative 

functions. followed the precedent set by the previous statutory officers. 

Combining these functions also . provides. a flexibility which allows the 

Commission to put its major effort into achieving voluntary compliance 

while at the same time being prepared and staffed to carry out whatever 

investigation might be necessary to properly enforce the law. 

Office of Administration 

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

and is responsible for personnel and related matters, budget management, 

space, supplies and contracting. In addition, several functions of the 

Commission are centralized in the office, namely a word processing centw, 

reproduction, mail (including distribution of all Commission forms arid 

brochures), and finally computer assistance for various activities of the 

Commission. 

22 
�

Staffing 

A large part of the administrative effort in the initial months of the

Commission was devoted to processing of incoming personnel, rehabilitation

of the 33,500 square feet of office space assigned to the Commission and 

establishment of procedures. The Commission had 124 individuals on board

at the year's end. Manning in the various offices was as follows: 

Commissioners and Immediate Staff 17

Staff Director's Office 5

General Counsel 26

Information Services 20

Disclosure and Compliance 44

Administration 12

Total 124 

Of the 124 individuals, 116 were in the equivalent of graded General Service

positions. It was planned to bring the Commission staff to the authorized

strength of 160 positions before the end of FY 76. 

Space 

opened its doors to the public on April 14, 1975. Rehabilitation of the

assigned office space has fallen behind schedule due largely to the fact that

another agency, occupying the space, was unable to move to a newly

assigned location. This delay has caused serious overcrowding and has

hindered the activities of the Commission, particularly in the area of

monitoring the campaigns and certifying matching funds. 

Priority effort was given, however, to refurbishing the parts of the

Commission which would be used by the public, notably the Public Records

Division which by early 1976 was located in a ground floor facility readily

accessible to the street and providing convenient and attractive space for

public use of the campaign finance reports receiv d by the Commission. 

Space was acquired at 1325 K Street in April, 1975 and the Commission

Budget 

Start-up 

funds 

$490,269 

As a start-up appropriation, in Fiscal Year 197rthe Commission received

$500,000 of which $490,269 was obligated as follows: 

Salaries $156,538

Benefits 13,306

Travel 4,254

Motor Pool 4,473

Space Rental 52,593

Equipment Rental 28,871

Printing 2,975

Support Contracts 27,000

Supplies and Materials 2,615

Library Materials 13,534

Postage 5;000

Equipment 179,110

$490,269 

23 
FY 1976 

$6,250,000 

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

$5,000,000. Furthermore, an appropriation of $1,250,000 has been granted 

for the first quarter of FY 77. Expenditures of these monies over the fifteen 

month period is budgeted as follows: 

Commission and Staff Salaries, 

including benefits $3,372,800 

Consultants 125,000 

Travel 250,000 

Motor Pool 7,500 

Space Rental 285,300 

Equipment Rental 46,959 

Printing 250,000 

Support Contracts 1,170,000 

Supplies/Materials 135,000 

Library Materials 50,000 

Telephone/Telegraph 118,200 

Postage 62,500 

Administrative Expenses 210,441 

Equipment 

$6,250,000 

166,300 

FY 1977 

$6,950,000 

An appropriation of $6,950,000 has been requested for FY 77. Congressional hearings on this request were scheduled for late March. 

Data Systems Development 

The Commission has responsibilities in several areas which can best be met 

with computer assistance. The Commission's strong desire to ensure 

voluntary compliance demands extensive and continuous public contact 

through mailings of informational brochures and other. guidelines and 

opinions of the Commission. A computerized mailing list is the only way to 

keep this system timely and up to date. Secondly, computer support is 

essential to implement several statutory responsibilities of the Commission, 

namely, the maintenance of accurate and up to date indexes of disclosure 

reports, as well as lists of persons who filed, or failed to file reports as 

required. Finally, computer assistance support is required to administer the 

various campaign limitations. This will demand continuous and cumulative 

record keeping of the reported contributions and expenditures which can be 

done most accurately and quickly with computer assistance. 

During 1975 certain steps were taken to provide data processing services to 

the Commission. A Manager of Data Processing was hired, and located in the 

Office. of Administration. A survey was undertaken to identify the needs of 

the Commission and analysis of how those needs might be satisfied was 

begun. Additionally, a contract for the use of Computer Facilities at the 

24 
Department of Agriculture was negotiated, as well as a contract for Data 

Entry Services with a private firm. Design and programming of a mailing 

system was begun, and implementation of the mailing system was scheduled 

for mid-January. 

In addition to the mailing system, plans for 1976 include the establishment 

of an information system which will assist the Commission: 

(a)to facilitate disclosure of campaign finance data;

(b)to manage, in an orderly fashion, the flow of documents and information;

(c)to perform compliance monitoring obligations.'•

(d)to procure data necessary to formulate policy and obtain compliance with

the Act.

During the development and initial implementation period of this program, 

the Director will be located in the Office of the Staff Director. The program 

will utilize purchased time on computers rather than purchasing expensive 

hardware. All data will be captured in-house for reasons of speed, security, 

accuracy and control and the Reports Examining Division will be the data 

collection point for information flowing into the system. 

1 •see chapter on Implementing the Act for a fuller discussion of how computer assistance will be 

utilized for monitoring campaign limitations. 

25 
Commission Policies, Priorities 

and Procedures 
Commission Policies, Priorites and Procedures 

Policies 

Open 

Commission 

From its inception, the Commission was especially mindful of an overriding 

need to establish its credibility at a time of public skepticism and lack of 

confidence in the political process in general. The Commission recognized 

that it should make every effort to be evenhanded in all its dealings, in fact 

as well as in appearance, and that it must hold itself at arms length from 

incumbent officeholders and partisan interests. It further concluded that its 

best course would be to conduct its affairs in the open, subject to the hard 

light of public examination and scrutiny, both to promote public understanding of its work, and to ensure the credibility of its equally divided 

bi-partisan membership. With but one brief exception, 1 this "sunshine 

policy" prevailed for all deliberations of the Commission except those 

relating to specific enforcement matters or to discussions of personnel 

matters internal to the Commission. Although such openness sometimes may 

have reduced the efficiency of deliberations, the Commission remains 

convinced it is imperative for the credibility of its actions. 

Code 

of 

Ethics 

To give further substance to its concern for the maintenance of its integrity 

and independence, the Commission devoted early attention to the drafting 

and promulgation of an internal Code of Ethics which required that 

Commissioners and staff alike hold themselves aloof from active participation in political affairs relating to Federal campaigns. 2 The Code was 

promulgated to fill a special need in view of the fact that the Commission, as 

originally constituted, was a creature of the Legislative Branch, and had been 

ruled therefore exempt from the provisions and prohibitions of the Hatch 

Act. 

1 One early meeting of the Commission was closed to press and public by a 4-2 vote of the members.

The public outcry against this one instance gave ample evidence of the correctness of the 

Commission's basic decision to be an "open" agency. 1 See Appendix 8 for full text of the Code of Ethics, adopted by the Commission on October 30, 

1975. 

29 
Voluntary 

Compliance 

2 u.s.c.

§437d

(a)(11)

The Commission early in its career embraced another philosophical tenet 

which was to have pervasive effect on all its subsequent activity, and that 

was the goal of voluntary compliance. This was suggested by the explicit 

language of the statute which directed the Commission "to encourage 

voluntary compliance" as part of a range of enforcement activities that 

included audits and investigations, complaints and hearings, civil actions for 

relief, and finally referral to appropriate law enforcement authorities. As 

embraced and amplified by the Commission, voluntary compliance suggested 

a presumption on the part of the Commission that the participants in the 

political process wanted to comply with the law and would comply if 

properly advised of their obligations. The Commission for its part would 

devote its primary effort and energy to making certain that the necessary 

advice was given and only thereafter would it concentrate on enforcement 

actions. 

Effect on 

Organization 

The emphasis on achieving voluntary compliance had profound effect on the 

structure of the Commission. It led directly to the creation of the Office of 

Information Services as one of the three principal operating arms of the 

Agency, charged primarily with providing the information which candidates 

and committees alike needed to comply with their responsibilities under the 

law. This meant devoting information resources to a much wider range of 

activities than conventional press relations and processing routine inquiries. 

Disclosure 

and 

Compliance 

The goal of voluntary compliance had effect on the structure and operation 

of a second major operating arm of the Commission, the Office of Disclosure 

and Compliance. The separate Reports Examining Division was directed to 

help candidates and committees file their required reports ac<;:urately and 

completely through prompt review and assistance; and the highly visible 

Public Records Division was created for prompt and readily available public 

access to documents, since the theory underlying disclosure is that public 

scrutiny invites voluntary compliance. Finally, and most significantly, the 

auditing and investigating functions of the Commission were combined in 

one unit with the primary objective of encouraging and promoting voluntary 

compliance (through initial review and assistance to candidates and 

committees) and only secondarily through investigation of evident wrongdoing. 

Priorities 

Backlog 

of 

Requests 

Quite apart from its influence on the structure of the Commission, the 

theme of voluntary compliance had an overriding effect on the priorities the 

Commission established in the early months of operation. As of May 1, 

1975, the Commission had received close to 100 inquiries regarding the 

application of the Act. Many were from officeholders, potential candidates 

and private individuals who needed immediate help in knowing how to plan 

and structure their 1976 campaigns if they were to be within the 

30 
requirements of the new law. The Commission decided that, in the interest 

of encouraging compliance, the legal staff should devote its primary 

attention to this extensive backlog of requests for interpretations of the law, 

particularly from those persons who were entitled to binding advice, in the 

form of Advisory Opinions, as to whether certain contemplated transactions 

or activities would be within the law. 3 

The impact on compliance was threefold. First, it was felt that if these 

unclear areas of the law were not clarified, many unintentional violations of 

the law might occur. Second, staff who were involved in the early 

implementation of the 1971 Act were mindful of the evasions of the law 

which were possible because of the delayed implementation date of that Act. 

The complexity of the new 1974 law meant that such evasions could also 

occur prior to the promulgation of formal rules, and the use of Advisory 

Opinions, by pinning down some unclear areas of the law, could to some 

extent minimize such evasion. Third, it was felt that examining the law 

through the actual cases presented by Advisory Opinion Requests would give 

the staff a feel for the real problems involved in implementing the law. This, 

in turn, would be invaluable in the development of realistic regulations of 

general applicability. 

While this decision to stress the processing of requests regarding the Act may 

have seemed to have delayed the promulgation of regulations, the two 

functions actually began simultaneously. Commissioners were aware that the 

rulemaking procedure would be time consuming, not only because of the 

involved procedures prescribed in the Act, which allowed Congress a 30-

legislative-day review period, but because of the extreme complexity of the 

law and the desire to attain maximum public involvement in the rulemaking 

process. 

Advisory 

Opinions 

2 u.s.c.

§437f

Opinions 

of 

Counsel 

Since the Act directs the Commission to issue binding Advisory Opinions to 

candidates, officeholders, and political committees on how a specific activity 

or transaction would be affected by the Act, where applicable this method 

was chosen to answer an inquiry.4 Inquiries which did not fall within the 

category of Advisory Opinions were responded to on an informal basis or 

later by issuance of Opinions of Counsel, where the issue was of sufficient 

importance but not eligible for full Commission treatment through the 

Advisory Opinion mechansim. 5 

'Under 2 U.S.C. §437(0, the Commission" ... shall render an advisory opinion, in writing, within a 

reasonable time with respect to whether any specific transaction or activity by such individual, 

candidate, or political committee, would constitute a violation of this Act, of Chapter 95 or Chapter 

96 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, or of Sections 608,610,611,613,614,616, or 617 of Title 18, 

United States Code." 4 Development of a procedure for the management of Advisory Opinion Requests was one of the early 

jobs of the General Counsel's Office and by January 1976, 76 had been issued. Formal regulations on 

the issuance of Advisory Opinions were adopted by the Commission on December 23, 1975, for 

transmittal to Congress. 5 See Appendix D for· a full description of Advisory Opinion and Opinion of Counsel procedures; and 

see Appendix E for a subject index and summaries of Advisory Opinions. 

31 
Interim 

Guidelines 

Audits 

Because the development of regulations was such a time consuming process, 

Commission emphasis on voluntary compliance also led to the decision to 

issue informal, nonbinding, general advisories, which were called "Interim 

Guidelines." These embodied the substance of general regulations which 

were in the process of being approved and promulgated. These interim 

measures did much to help persons comply with the law prior to the 

adoption of fixed regulations. Finally, F EC efforts to secure voluntary 

compliance led to the decision not to begin a major program of routine 

audits during 1975. Rather, the audit and investigation staff was used almost 

exclusively to implement the public financing program. There is no question 

that without the concentration of staff in helping the Presidential candidates 

prepare for participation in the public financing program, these candidates 

would have had a great deal more difficulty in complying with the 

requirements of the Act. 

Procedures 

Meetings 

Documents 

The two basic philosophical commitments of the Commission - "sunshine" 

and voluntary compliance - in turn had substantial effect on the procedures 

which evolved to guide Commission activities. The Commission met regularly 

in open session at established times on Thursdays with occasional special 

Tuesday meetings. Agendas were prepared and circulated in advance with 

attached back-up material permitting Commissioners and staff alike to have 

the benefit of an advance study of draft opinions, regulations and other 

policy matters. All such material is made available to the public. Detailed 

logs and other documentary indexes were kept of Advisory Opinions and 

regulations, and of all correspondence and internal memoranda and notices, 

so that the basic documents of the Commission could be readily retrieved for 

further reference. 

Regulations 

2 u.s.c.

§438c

One Commission procedure which evolved somewhat in response to 

circumstance but clearly demonstrated the need for openness, was the 

sequence of steps by which draft regulations were presented to Congress for 

review, as required by the statute. By early June of 1975, the Commission 

began to outline the scope of regulations which would have to be issued. A 

task force was created within the Counsel's Office for the purpose of 

drafting the Disclosure Regulations in the first instance, to be followed 

thereafter by regulations bearing on the Public Financing Provisions of Title 

26 of the United States Code. Following Commission approval, proposed 

regulations are sent to Congress. 

While the statute directs the Commission to "transmit" such material to the 

Congress for its review, along with a detailed explanation and justification, it 

does not elaborate or specify any steps which should be taken prior to such 

transmittal. Accordingly, before final Commission policy was adopted in this 

32 
33 

regard, and in response to urgent requests for guidance, the Commission 

transmitted its first two draft regulations, dealing with Document Filing and 

Office Accounts,6 to the Congress on July 31, and August 1, 1975, only to 

have both regulations meet with substantial Congressional disapproval. 

Public 

Input 

Thereafter, beginning in September 1975, the Commission decided as a 

matter of policy to publish all draft regulations in the Federal Register with 

a 30-day period for public comment. Public hearings were also held during 

this period to offer a forum for Congressional views as well as those of other 

interested parties. At the close of comment period, the draft regulation 

would be reworked to incorporate public and Congressional suggestions and 

then, after final approval by the Commission, the document would be 

submitted to Congress. This procedure was followed with respect to all 

subsequent transmissions of regulations with the result that many beneficial 

suggestions were received and incorporated prior to the final transmission of 

the regulation to Congress. 7 

Use of 

Federal 

Register 

In other cases, too, the Commission followed the procedure of publishing in 

the Federal Register the text of requests for Advisory Opinions, as well as 

the final responses thereto, along with the text of Interim Guidelines and 

proposed regulations. The purpose was to elicit comment from interested 

parties as well as to disseminate broadly all the basic policy documents of 

the Commission and thereby to give maximum impetus to the process of 

voluntary compliance. At the outset, such materials were published 

concurrently in the Congressional Record but this practice was suspended by 

Congress in the interest of public economy. 

Congressional 

Relations 

The problems involved in submitting the initial regulations to Congress 

typified, and in fact, exacerbated, what was to be one of the major problems 

of the Commission during the first eight months of its existence, and that 

was the whole question of how it should conduct its business with the 

Legislative Branch. It found itself in the anomalous position from the 

beginning of being in a potentially adversarial position with the very persons 

who were to review its regulations and provide its funds, and who, in fact, 

had given it its existence to begin with. Clearly the Commission was not in a 

position to conduct a conventional liaison operation with the Congress, 

although the Commissioners themselves held varying shades of opinion as to 

the degree of restraint required of them in their own dealings with the 

Legislative Branch. Initial efforts to coordinate Congressional contacts 

through the Chairman were subsequently modified as each Commissioner 

took charge of a special liaison effort on behalf of a particular regulation or 

other policy matter in which he or she had assumed a specialized interest. In 

6 These were early sections of the Disclosure Regulations which were of great initial concern to 

candidates and the public and seemed to demand immediate attention. 

7See Appendix C for fuller statement of the procedure used in developing Regulations and Interim 

Guidelines. 
December 1975, the Commission formally adopted a policy memorandum 

which centralized the coordination of Congressional liaison under the Staff 

Director and revised procedures were still in the evolutionary stage as this 

report was being prepared. 

Within 

FEC 

Within the Commission itself, working relationships were also a critical 

factor. It was recognized quite early in the Commission that there would be 

a need to promote and encourage the widest possible cross exchange of ideas 

and communication among the various operating arms of the agency, 

particularly in view of the fact that some members of the professional staff 

had extensive experience under prior administration of the preceding Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, while others were bringing fresh talents to 

the task. A close working relationship was also crucial because the divisions 

were not functioning separately but rather directing their various talents and 

skills toward common objectives, be they disclosure, public financing, 

limitations or compliance. 

Task 

Forces 

To supplement informal contacts, a number of ad hoc task forces were 

assembled to cover such specialized areas as the design of reporting forms, 

the drafting of various specialized regulations, the review of informational 

policies and publications, and disbursements of monies from the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund. In some cases, these groups were chaired by 

Commissioners who had a special interest in the subject matter at hand and 

in other cases, they were chaired by staff members and interested 

Commissioners participated on an occasional basis. In each instance, the 

main intent was to make certain that there was the fullest possible exchange 

between lawyers, accountants, reports examiners, information specialists, 

and, where need be, computer and microfilm experts. The system seemed to 

work with general salutatory results, and by year's end a total of 14 such 

groups had been constituted. 

34 
Implementing 

the Act 
37 

')( Public Financing 

Introduction 

The most novel and immediate responsibility vested in the Commission was 

to implement the Nation's first experiment with public financing of political 

candidates. This program was enacted in response to historical abuses in 

campaign financing and a desire to encourage broader public participation in 

the electoral process. The legitimacy of the idea has already been proven by 

the public response to the tax-check-off program under which taxpayers 

could indicate their willingness to participate in public financing. In three 

years public participation had grown from 3% to 23% and by December 31, 

1975, the fund stood at $61 million with an additional $30 million 

anticipated from the 1975 tax returns. 

Checkoff 

Impartiality 

Public 

Confidence 

The Commission realized early that if the public were going to accept public 

financing and the FEC role in particular, there must be no hint of partiality, 

or any intrusion into the dynamics of the electoral decision-making process. 

This demanded an objective set of criteria for determining eligibility of 

candidates, and for verifying their submissions for matching funds. The 

system had to work quickly and efficiently if the candidates were to have 

confidence that they would indeed be able to pay their campaign bills. A 

corollary goal of the Commission was to promote the greatest possible public 

understanding of the purpose of public financing and how it was working. 

Duties 

There are three accounts established in the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund: the Presidential general election account; the Presidential primary 

matching payment account; and the national party convention payment 

account. All were to be implemented for the 1976 election. The FEC had 

until January 1, 1976, to prepare to certify the first Presidential candidates 

to receive matching primary payments and to certify the national parties for 

receipt of convention financing. The general election account would not be 

used until after the primaries in 1976. 
Primary 

Matching 

Fund 

26 u.s.c.

§9033e

Responsibilities involved in the primary matching program were: 

1.e Certifying whether candidates had met the threshold requirements toe

be eligible for matching funds. These requirements involve receivinge

matching contributions of $250 or less from individuals, which in thee

aggregate represents $5,000 from each of at least 20 States; 1 

§9036e 2.e Certifying the amounts of matching funds each candidate maye

receive, based on verification of submissions made by the candidate.e

§9036e 3.e Directing the Department of Treasury to make payments for thee

amounts certified.e

Convention 

Financing 

§9008e

Steps in the convention financing program are less complicated. Under this 

program each major political party is entitled to receive up to $2 million. 

The FEC decided to make these payments in installments, based on 

statements of anticipated expenditures submitted with the quarterly 

expenditure reports. The Department of Treasury is then notified to make 

payment. 

By January 1, 1976, the deadline in the statute, the FEC had certified 11 

Presidential candidates as eligible to receive approximately $1.9 million in 

primary matching funds. The Democratic and Republican National Committees had been certified eligible for initial payments of $710,000 between 

them for the expenses of their 1976 nominating conventions. 2 

Public 

Acceptance 

The operation was accomplished with smoothness and with every evidence 

of candidate, committee and public confidence in the objectivity of the FEC 

participation in the process. The operation demanded intense use of 

manpower, at times pulling all available staff off other Commission projects. 

There is no question but that other jobs have gone undone, or been delayed 

in the process. The Commission feels, however, that this was the correct 

allocation of staff and priorities in order to get this crucial program off to a 

good start. 

' Candidates must also agree not to exceed the expenditure limitations. furnish the FEC evidence of 

qualified campaign expenses, keep and furnish to the FEC any records, books, or other information 

it may request, submit to an audit and examination by the·.FEC at the end of the primary and to 

make any repayments required by tt,e Commission (2p U.S.C. 9033). 2 In the case of convention payments, certification could have been made earlier since payments were 

authorized anytime after July 1, 1975. However, plaintiffs in Buckley v. Valeo had indicated they 

would ask the court to bar any public financin g until the case was decided. The Commission, in 

consul.tation with the party recipients and counsel in the Supreme Court challenge mutually agreed 

that the better course would be not to precipitate the injunction and to defer payments until a later 

date. 

38 
Policy Development 

Regulations 

26 U.S.C. 

§9009

Formal regulations had to be developed for both the Presidential primary 

matching plans and the convention financing program. These followed the 

normal lengthy preparation process, but the first public hearings were held 

November 4, and the respective regulations were adopted by the Commission 

by January 8. 

"Primary" 

Interim 

Guidelines 

Because of the urgency involved, however, the Commission felt compelled to 

issue Interim Guidelines to help candidates and parties know what they had 

to do to qualify for funds, specifically what contributions were matchable. 

Guidelines were issued in August and October. Although Congress specified 

criteria as to what constituted a matchable contribution, there were still 

many unclear areas and the Commission had to make several policy decisions 

based on the statutory criteria. Among the issues addressed in the guidelines 

were 1) whether in-kind contributions could be matched (they couldn't); 2) 

whether political committee contributions could be matched (they 

couldn't); and 3) whether fundraising monies could be matched (they 

could). 

Written 

Instrument 

Also included in the guidelines was the crucial requirement that all 

submissions be accompanied by a "written instrument." This caused some 

difficulty later for candidates who had collected many of their matchable 

contributions in small amounts but had not maintained a copy of the written 

instrument. This generated additional work for the candidates and the 

Commission but did not in the long run prevent those candidates from 

receiving any matching funds. Submissions were verified by sending 

confirmation letters to a sample of contributors. 

Letters to 

Candidates 

In addition to the formal policy statements, the FEC wrote letters to each 

candidate and committee giving detailed descriptions and suggested methods 

of preparing and presenting requests for matching funds. These letters were 

distributed to the candidates and their committees on November 7, 

December 9 and 31, 1975, and January 26, 1976. As Al D's and the 

committee's experience increased, the FEC was able to amend previous 

guidelines to outline simpler techniques which would permit quicker review 

and certification processes. 

"Convention" 

Interim 

Guideline 

Advisory 

Opinions 

An August Interim Guideline was also issued on Convention Financing to 

help the parties make their own plans and make initial requests for 

convention funds. The Guideline outlined standards for the parties to follow 

to qualify for financing, procedures for them to apply, and the procedures 

the FEC would follow in approving and certifying requested payments. 

Policy determinations for convention financing were much simpler because 

there was no "matching" involved, only a straight payment of up to two 

million dollars. Additional policy questions were handled through Advisory 

Opinions. One dealt with questions of whether corporations could make 

39 
contributions to assist national party conventions while the second dealt 

with the impact of public fund limitations and expenditure limitations· on 

certain kinds of convention spending. 

Eligibility and Verification Procedures 

Consultations 

The Commission also began consideration of the physical task of conducting 

the audits and reviews necessary to certify candidates who were eligible and 

to verify which funds could be matched. The FEC realized that considerable 

coordination and consultation would be necessary with the Presidential 

candidates and the national parties if they were going to meet the eligibility 

requirements set forth in the statute. During June the Commission brought 

the parties into the planning process in preparation for the convention 

financing program. F EC auditors met with representatives of the respective 

party committee staffs to review convention finance details, to discuss 

certification submission procedures. These discussions were followed up by a 

meeting with the Commissioners and top officials of the major political 

parties. 

Management 

Review 

Audits 

The preparation of the Presidential matching program was much more 

complex and it was decided that the FEC needed to work on-the-spot with 

each candidate's staff in order to prepare them for making submissions for 

matching. In August, therefore, management review audits were begun of 

those major Presidential candidates who appeared to have raised enough 

contributions to qualify. 

Audit 

Goals 

There were four goals of the management review audits: 

1. To determire whether the candidate had received matchable contributions of $250 or less, totalling $5,000 in each of 20 States;

2. To assist committee officials in maintaining their bookkeeping and

accounting systems in an order enabling them to make submissions

for matching funds with greater ease;

3. To determine what, if any, problem areas existed with regard to

submissions for matching;

4. To determine what total amounts of funds appeared to qualify for

matching payments of public funds.

Manpower 

Demands 

Field audit teams consisted of three auditors who spent approximately two 

weeks at each audit site, for a total to date of approximately 420 man-days 

of field work. Between August and December, 1975, the FEC conducted 14 

such field audits which also included work with the national parties in 

preparing them for submissions for convention financing. 

40 
Usefulness 

to FEC and 

Candidates 

In spite of a certain public concern at the time about "auditing" Presidential 

candidates, these field audits, conducted two at a time, were extremely 

helpful to the candidates, and to the Commission. Professional working 

relationships were established between the campaign treasurers and managers 

and the FEC auditors. This communication helped to prevent numerous 

problems of bookkeeping and other technical areas that could have resulted 

in delays in matching contributions. It also accelerated the job of review for 

eligibility so that 11 candidates could be declared eligible for matching funds 

by the first of the year. 

Verification 

The corollary task of verifying each submission for payment was one of the 

most tedious, time-consuming and critical tasks performed by the Commission during 1975. Not only was staff working under an intense time 

deadline, but the integrity of the public funding required that only those 

contributions which truly met the criteria should be matched. A detailed 

statement of the certification process is included in Appendix I. 

Manpower 

Needs 

It should be noted that the manpower demands were enormous: between 

December 3 and February 12, the total Al D staff of 28 was fully occupied in 

the verification process. In addition to the 1,120 man-days of normal 

working hours, the staff worked 1,650 hours on nights and weekends to 

meet the 15-day deadline imposed in the regulations. Furthermore, the 

Commission was compelled to call on other agency personnel, as provided 

for in the statute, involving an additional 1,700 man-hours. 

100% 

Review 

It should also be noted that the verification process was scrupulously 

thorough, using 100% review. Sampling was simply not possible given the 

condition of the submissions. In the future, sampling will be possible, 

particularly if the submissions arrive in better order. 

Assessment 

of 

Procedure 

As a result of constant review and improvement of procedures, the 

Commission believes that it has developed and implemented techniques for 

processing submissions which allow an accurate calculation of the amounts 

of matching funds due Presidential candidates under the provisions of 

Chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code. Those techniques, developed over 

a six-month period by AID and the committees, represent a body of new 

knowledge as they relate to the first application of matching fund payments 

to Federal candidates. 

Initial 

Certification 

and 

Payment 

With the benefit of this background preparation, formal certification began 

on December 18, 1975, when three Presidential candidates were certified as 

eligible to receive matching funds. By December 23, an additional eight were 

determined eligible, one more was added during January and two more in 

February. Certification of the political parties had taken place on November 

13, 1975. The matching funds which were verified for payment amounted to 

$1.9 million for 11 candidates on December 23, and a total by February 26 

of $9.1 million. 

41 
� 

� � � • � 

5.0 

4.5 

'"..,. � ✓ ; (V zy '" � ... '" � ... � '" <,· � (V ♦· ... ♦'- , � .,;-

PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATES' RECEIPTS, EXPENDITURES AND PUBLIC FUNDS 

6.5 

f.:0:1 Ex-mrrturn: 6.0 l::::;;;:;J r- Al reported expenditures u of J.,..ary 31, 1971. 

ffl Receipts: Al reported receipts u of January 31, 1976, 

5.5 IHI matching funds received from Treaury. 

� ✓'I. 

D Cull an Hand: Per repor1S u of January 1, 1975. 

•

Matching Funds: Certified for payment to candidate • of 2/2&n&. 

Debts: Funds reported owed to and by com111itten n 

of February 10, 1976. 

:! 4.0 

C, 

... 3.5 C, 

;;i 3.0 

2.5 

2.0 I

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 11 

�- � �\• �'-) 4- � � � ,I, � ... � .# �'-) it, �.. i � ..# � .,. � -� ,lo . .4' (,, 

<? ll ✓-v,t, <t-� 'II�� .J>+•·�� -I'�� �;i-v� <t-•�-v'°� .,, ... � ,r-�� ✓-�� �.�' .,r_<C>� 

�•� 

!I>�·�� �•·�, ..,:., 

✓

�

+· 

�t· ... 

.., 

(a � •r � ,.,J A ,, .. � (/),.

CANDIDATE AND DATE OF CERTIFICATION I 

2. Terry Sanford withdrew his candidacy on January 23. 1976. As of that 1. The date of certification is the date on which the Commission determined date he was no longet" required to file monthly reports. Therefore. all 

96 to receive matching funds. Mr. Sanford's figures are as of 12/31/75. that the candidate w� eligible under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Chapte, 

V 
Continuing 

Certification 

26 u.s.c.

§9036e

The Commission is allowed 10 days after certification of eligibility to verify a 

candidate's first submission for payment by the Treasury. Subsequent 

submissions have a 15-day deadline for verification and payment. The 

Commission continues this on-going process of determining eligibility, 

verifying submissions, and certifying payments. Prior to the Supreme Court 

decision on January 30, the Commission was certifying every two weeks. This 

process was then accelerated to weekly when the Supreme Court ruled that 

the Commission would no longer have the power to certify payments after 

February 29, pending Congressional action. 3 

PostElection 

Audits 

26 U.S.C. 

§9038e

The final step in the public financing process will come after the election 

when the FEC must determine whether public funds have been spent only for 

authorized campaign expenaTtures; and as a corollary that the expenditure 

limits have not been exceeded, since the Supreme Court has decreed that 

candidates accepting public financing are subject to expenditure limitations. 

Plans are underway for the audit programs which will be necessary for this 

step. 

Treasury Department Coordination 

Treasury 

Dept. 

Active lines of communication were set up between the Commission and the 

Treasury Department to coordinate the certifications for public monies by 

the FEC and the actual disbursement by the Treasury Department. Activities 

were coordinated in the area of developing standards and guidelines, shortage 

questions, and Secret Service. 

Shortage 

Questions 

Active consultation is on-going between the FEC and the Treasury 

Department concerning the question of primary fund payments in the event 

certifications exceed the money in the primary account. Approximately 

$12-13 million was apparently available for primary matching payments at 

the beginning of 1976, after deducting the first two payment priority 

categories of 1) general election payments and, 2) conventions. Since by 

mid-February, 1976, requests for funds had not risen above $8 million, no 

critical question of insufficient money had been raised. 4 

Secret 

Service 

The Commission also cooperated fully with the Treasury Department in 

providing financial and certification data to the Treasury after they 

determined that the matching fund data would be the standard used by the 

Department to decide which Presidential candidates would be eligible for 

Secret Service protection. 

'On February 29, the Court extended its stay by an additional 20 days. 4 The Commission considered borrowing in an election year from the general election account up to a 

level reasonably certain to be returned from the current year's income tax check-offs, but no 

decision as to the propriety of this course of action was made. This is still an on-going subject. 

43 
General 

Election 

Fund 

General Election Fund 

No specific action was completed during 1975 on general election public 

financing, other than consultations with the Treasury Department concerning the priority of tax check-off fund distribution. Preliminary work is 

in progress on a general election fund regulation. 

44 
Disclosure 

Introduction 

Purpose 

Importance 

of 

Disclosure 

In the minds of many the disclosure function of the FEC may not seem as 

dramatic as the public financing operation, concerned as it is with paper 

rather than money. That paper, however, is the cornerstone of the election 

reform effort. Without the cartons of reports being delivered on report 

deadline days, without the files of cross-referenced reports, without the 

boxes of microfilm and the ready access of the public to the information in 

those reports, there would be no reform. Campaign limitations could not be 

monitored without the reports; the public and the press could not know who 

supports which candidates and where candidates spend their money; the 

qualifications of candidates for public financing could not be readily 

certified, and the policy interpretations of the law, which are the 

responsibility of the General Counsel's office, could not be checked against 

"the real world" of campaign finance. 5 

History 

Constitutionality 

Disclosure has the longest history of any approach as a technique for reform, 

ranging back to a 1910 disclosure law, and has the soundest constitutional 

roots. Although the Courts have repeatedly found that compelled disclosure 

in itself can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief, in January 

1976, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that there are governmental 

interests sufficiently important to outweigh the possibility of infringement, 

particularly when the free functioning of our national institutions is 

involved. These interests fall into three categories: 1) better informed voters, 

2) deterrence of corruption through publicity and 3) detection of violations

of the campaign limitations.

During its first year of operation, FEC act1v1t1es in the disclosure area 

included major efforts on rules and regulations, forms and manuals, plus 

'The General Counsel's Office has found that for both Advisory Op inion and compliance matters, 

consultation with the existing p ublic records had often revealed a different factual pattern than that 

ap parent from the initial request or complaint. 

45 
Duties 

2 u.s.c.

§438e

educational assistance and providing facilities for display, retrieval and 

copying of reports. These activities required coordination among almost all 

divisions of the Commission. 

Policy Development 

Point of 

Entry 

The activity on disclosure regulations provided some of the most timeconsuming and dramatic events of the Commission's first year. The first two 

regulations sent to the Hill for review were the initial sections of the 

comprehensive disclosure regulations being developed throughout the fall. 

One of these two regulations dealt with where documents would be filed 

("point of entry"). It met with quick disapproval in early October. The 

other regulation dealt with "office accounts" and only partially involved 

disclosure. 6 

The question of point of entry had significant impact on the disclosure 

functions of the Commission since it determined whether reports would be 

filed in a single location (thus simplifying the logging, indexing, and filing 

job), or in the first instance with the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

for House reports, the Secretary of the Senate for Senate reports, and the 

Commission for all others. The modified regulation, later forwarded without 

disapproval, provided for three filing locations and did necessitate additional 

coordination so that the Commission may receive copies of the reports from 

the House and Senate respectively and make them available to the public. 

Disclosure 

Regulations 

§438(a)(10)e

Work on the comprehensive disclosure regulations was begun in early July 

and proceeded throughout the summer and fall, under new procedures which 

evolved as consequence of the initial adverse Congressional reaction. 7 Of 

particular note in the sometimes tedious, time-consuming process of drafting 

and review were the public hearings held on October 21, 22, and 24, 1975, 

to ensure that the Commission would receive the views of persons across the 

Nation having the most familiarity and experience with the previous Act and 

with the problems of the candidates and committees - in the campaign 

process. These hearings were in addition to the publication in the Federal 

Register and briefings for Members of Congress and their staffs. All these 

steps proved extremely helpful adjuncts to the drafting process. The list of 

22 witnesses included Representatives of Congress, Counsels for the National 

Committees of the major parties; Counsels for several Presidential candidates, business and labor groups, and representatives of State committees 

and of various public interest groups. , Copies of the transcript of those 

hearings are available for inspection. Over and above the 450 pages of oral 

testimony taken, the Commission received more than 40 written submissions 

running to approximately 500 pages of material. 

6 See page 111 for a discussfon of this regulation. 

7 See Appendix C for a more detailed description of the process of development of these regulations. 

46 
The final draft incorporating many public and Congressional suggestions was 

approved by the Commission on November 25 and forwarded to Congress on 

December 4. The prescribed 30-day legislative review period had not run 

when the Supreme Court ruled on January 30. 

Interim 

Guidelines 

Prior to the approval of the disclosure regulations, the Commission found it 

necessary to issue Interim Guidelines on disclosure requirements relating to 

reporting, multi-candidate committees, reporting of debts and obligations, 

the New Hampshire election, the Tennessee special election, the October 10 

quarterly report, and to basic reporting requirements. In the period from 

June 1975 through December the Commission also issued 14 Advisory 

Opinions relating to disclosure requirements. 8 

Procedures 

Forms 

§438(a)(1)

Along with the development of regulations went the designing of forms for 

reporting receipts and expenditures. Every effort was made to strike a 

balance between the desire for simplified forms and the need for forms 

sufficiently detailed to help the candidates and their committees complete 

the forms in a logical fashion, and to provide the Commission all the 

information it needs to carry out its duties. For further simplification, the 

Commission developed a "short form" for small campaigns. Final forms were 

brought before the Commission in December of 1975 and approved for 

limited initial publication in January 1976. 9 

Manual 

§ 438(a)(2)

The Bookkeeping Manual, developed to assist candidates and committees in 

maintaining proper records to comply with Federal requirements, was also an 

activity related to disclosure completed during 1975. The system presented 

therein utilized parts of other systems successfully used by candidates and 

com.mittees in the past, updated to reflect changes in the new law. 

48-Hour

AvailabiI ity 

§438(a)(4)

When reports are submitted, the Commission undertakes a special statutory 

requirement of making reports and statements available to the public within 

48 hours of receipt. During the period of this report, the Reports Examining 

Division received 25,000 pages, representing 3,500 documents from Presidential candidates and multi-candidate committees filed directly with the 

Commission. During the fall of 1975 a microfilm camera was installed to 

assist the logging-in function and create an accurate, chronological, permanent record of all reports filed. For public access, however, the 

Commission prefers to also photocopy reports for display in the Public 

Records Division. To date, these paper and microfilm files represent more 

than one million pages of reports. 

•see Appendix E for index and summaries of Advisory Opinions. 

9The Supreme Court ruling striking d own expenditure l imits, except for candidates accepting public 

financing, may make it possible to sim lify th p e forms. 

·

47 
48 

Index 

§438(a)(6)

An additional required step in this process is to create and maintain an 

accurate index of all statements and reports filed directly with the 

Commission. During 1975, this was done by manually logging in the 25,000 

pages of documents, and since there was no computer assistance this index 

was manually typed for printing in the Federal Register. Plans have now 

been developed to use computer assistance for this indexing process and to 

derive additional campaign finance data from the reports. 

Inheritance 

of Previous 

Reports 

§437(c) 

In addition to the 25,000 reports filed directly with the Commission, Public 

Records inherited nearly a million pages of campaign financing records from 

the three former supervisory offices covering the period 1972-1975. These 

records included 60 file cabinets of reports from the Comptroller General, 

56 reels of microfilm from the Clerk of the House of Representatives and a 

comparable volume from the Senate. In order to have this material in one 

coordinated form the Commission chose to have a primary record system of 

microfi Im for storage and retrieval. By the end of 1975 the Commission not 

only had all House and Senate reports available on microfilm plus a paper 

copy for public use, but had placed half the 1972 Presidential election 

reports on microfilm. This project should be completed by the spring of 

1976. 

Public 

Access 

in D.C. 

§438(a)(4)

Once the documents are filed, they must be easy to use by the public. 

Without ready accessibility, there is no effective disclosure, just files of dusty 

documents. The Commission took it as a primary goal to improve and 

increase the public knowledge about the availability of disclosure reports. In 

Washington, reports can be reviewed in a "store-front" on the first floor of 

the Commission headquarters at 1325 K Street. The office has the 

appearance of a public library, and can accommodate over 40 persons at 

reading tables in a modern, brightly lit area. Every effort is made to make 

reports easily accessible. Paper copies are filed by the State and district of 

the candidates, which permits a visitor to find all reports for any one 

candidate in one central location. Staff also assist the public in understanding what is available, how to use the copying and microfilm machines 

and what the reports mean. Five copying devices are available, two Xerox 

copiers plus three Kodak microfilm printer/reader machines which produce 

paper copies of microfilm records. 

Outside 

D.C.

§439

The Commission is also concerned that these records be available to the 

public outside the capital. A coordinated and efficient method for filling 

requests for copies of documents has permitted the office to disseminate 

across the country over 50 thousand pages of campaign finance data. In 

addition the statute requires duplicate filings with the relevent Secretaries of 

State. 

During 1975, the Commission has publicized the availability of reports 

through its general informational literature. The availability of documents 

has been highlighted in monthly newsletters to over 8,000 candidates, 
Publicizing 

Documents 

political committees, and organizations. The 600 news media organizations 

dealing with the Commission's Office of Information were also sent 

informational material. In addition, copies of the index to public records 

which includes detailed information on what is available and how to obtain 

it were sent to the 50 Secretaries of State and major libraries throughout the 

country. With the consolidation of all records to be completed in the spring 

of 1976, the Commission is planning to issue a separate public records 

brochure. The brochure will be widely distributed and serve as the principal 

means of increasing public knowledge about the availability of disclosure 

reports. 

49 
Campaign Limitations 

Introduction 

Broad 

Impact 

Complexity 

of 

Act 

The feature of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 

1974, which can have the greatest impact on candidates and committees 

alike, is the imposition of general limitations on contributions to and 

expenditures by candidates for President, Senate, and House of Representatives in both primary and general elections. Admittedly, the Act's use of 

campaign limitations does not constitute a radical innovation in the history 

of election reform. 1 0 Rather, the Act is unique because it represents 

Congress' greatest effort to date to limit, in an effective and comprehensive 

fashion, the apparent and actual influence of unlimited wealth on the 

political process. The very uniqueness and comprehensiveness of these 

statutory provisions meant, however, that the Federal Election Commission 

had to devote much of its first year of operation to clarifying the impact of 

various limitations on the financing of campaigns, and to investigating 

compliance actions involving the possible violation of these limitations. 

Contribution 

Limits 

Upheld 

Spending 

Limits 

Struck 

Before reviewing the activities of the Commission during 1975 with 

reference to campaign limitations, it should be noted that the recent 

Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, has had significant impact on 

these sections of the Act. In this opinion, the Court held the Act's 

contribution provisions to be a constitutional safeguarding of the integrity of 

the electoral process without directly impinging on the rights of individual 

citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion. On the 

other hand, the Court ruled that the First Amendment requires the 

invalidation of the expenditure provisions (18 U.S.C. 608(a), 508(c), and 

10 Limitations and even prohibitions on the making of contributions and expenditures have been 

previously applied in a piecemeal fashion to Federal elections. See Appendix C, "Brief History of 

Federal Election Regulation," in Buckley v. Valeo,_U.S. App. D.C._, 519 F.2d 821, 904-907 

(1975), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 44 U.S.LW. 4127 (U.S., January 30, 1976). 

51 
608(e)), since these provisions place substantial and direct restrictions on the 

ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected 

political expression. 

The Court did not invalidate campaign expenditure limitations for candidates 

who accept public financing. This fact, along with the still intact 

contribution limitations, means that many of the policy and procedural 

determinations of the Commission during 1975 are still relevant, to a great 

extent. Such considerations will continue to consume the time and attention 

of the FEC, candidates and committees alike.' 1 This would be particularly 

true should the Congress, as it is considering in legislation presently before it, 

extend public financing to candidates for the House and Senate. 

Pol icy Development' 1 

Difficulty 

of Implementing 

the Act. 

Emphasis 

on Policy 

Interpretations 

A review of the limits imposed by the 1974 Act might lead the reader to the 

erroneous conclusion that the Act is clear on its face as to how its limitations 

affect the conduct of political activity.' 3 Unfortunately, the complexities of 

American politics, the ambiguities in our Federal system of elections, and 

the ingenious ability of humans to invent seemingly endless variations in the 

method of financing campaigns, all combine to pose an obstacle to the 

implementation of campaign limitations which cannot be overcome by any 

statute, no matter how complex. Thus the Commission felt compelled in its 

first year of operation to supplement the statute through detailed regulations 

in order to break this obstacle into comprehensive portions, Advisory 

Opinions to clarify and interrelate these portions, and an information 

process to explain the Act's effects in layman's terms. The Commission also 

began to develop the processes and mechanisms necessary to ensure that 

candidates and political committees comply with the Act's campaign 

limitations. 

Advisory 

Opinions 

Nearly all of the requests for Advisory Opinions concerned campaign 

limitations. Candidates and committees alike were clearly uncertain as to the 

impact of the Act on specified situations. These requests were on matters as 

diverse as: 

• the application of the limitations to the Federal election activities of

State and local political parties (AO 1975-2);

• whether a loan constitutes a contribution when made to a political

party telethon (AO 1975-4);

1 1 

. For example, the Commission recently considered the question of what limits, if any, would be 

imposed on a candidate who received public monies as a Presidential candidate, but who, as a 

candidate for the U.S. Senate was presumably no longer subject to any expenditure limitations. 1 2 All policy discussions relate to the provisions of the Act prior to Buckley v. Valeo. 

''See chapter on Establishment and Organization of the FEC for a summary of the limits. 

52 
• the treatment of current .contributions received to pay debts incurred

before the effective date of the Act (AO 1975-5 and AO 1975-6);

• whether an honorarium donated to a charity counts against the limit

on honorariums (AO 1975-8);

• the application of the limits to an unopposed primary candidate (AO

1975-9);

• whether a contribution to a Congressman's office account is to be

treated as a political contribution (AO 1975-14);

• how should contributions by a corporation (AO 1975-16) or a

partnership (AO 1975-17) be treated·.'•

In fact, it was largely the Commission's concern to provide a prompt and 

definitive response to these kinds of requests which caused it to begin to 

issue Advisory Opinions prior to the promulgation of regulations. Since the 

issuance of these first opinions, if anything the volume and uniqueness of the 

Advisory Opinion requests to the Commission in the area of campaign 

limitations have increased. But this has hopefully been matched. by an 

increase in the thoroughness of the Commission's analysis of these requests 

and by the increasing sophistication of its responses. 

Special 

Elections 

Two special elections held in the fall of 1975, New Hampshire's re-run of 

the previous year's Senate contest and an election to fill a vacated Tennessee 

Congressional seat, were the first elections to be held under the Act's 

limitations. The Commission issued Interim Guidelines to these elections, 

and each candidate was informed that campaign related activities were 

subject to the provisions of the Act. To provide special assistance in an 

already highly charged election, the Commission dispatched a team of 

auditors and attorneys to New Hampshire to advise the candidates and 

discuss the implications of the Guidelines. Follow up audits were conducted 

subsequent to the election to determine whether there was compliance with 

the Act's campaign limitations. 

Further 

Interim 

Guidelines 

The Commission has to date issued two additional Interim Guidelines which 

relate to specific problems concerning the Act's limitations. The first of 

these immediately implemented the Act's intent by generally exempting 

from the limitations contributions to repay pre-1975 election debts. The 

second was intended to expand on the conclusions of AO 1975-12 by 

making generally applicable the Advisory Opinion's clarification of when 

contributions to, and expenditures by, different types of candidates for 

1 •see Appendix E for subject index and summaries of all Advisory Opinions. 

53 
delegate to a national presidential nominating convention, are subject to the 

Act's limitations. This question of delegate candidates consumed a considerable amount of time on the part of the Commission staff, notably because 

the Act did not explicitly address itself to the application of limits to these 

campaigns. Because this caused great uncertainty on the part of candidates 

and the public, the Commission felt compelled to deal with the question. 

Office 

Account 

Regulation 

The Commission has also proposed two regulations which represent general 

policy formulat,ions intended to equitably resolve special problems relative 

to the Act's limitations. In .its Office Account Regulation, transmitted first 

to Congress in July, the Commission attempted to prescribe when certain 

donations to a Federal officeholder's office account are to be treated as a 

contribution. This regulation was proposed in response to the large number 

of requests from Congress concerning whether office accounts were subject 

to the limitations in the Act. Another factor was the desire to ensure that an 

incumbent could not employ the perquisites of office in order to gain an 

unfair advantage over a challenger. Although the first and second versions of 

this regulation were disapproved by the Senate, a third version (which 

reflects modifications made to meet previous Congressional objections), is 

currently before Congress subject to the 30 day disapproval rule. 

Allocation 

Regulation 

Another major problem in implementing limitations concerned allocations of 

contributions and expenditures among various limits. Specifically, the 

Commission had to determine allocation guides between a candidate's 

primary and general election efforts; among candidates who make common 

expenditures; among various states for Presidential candidates, and between 

campaign and non-campaign common travel expenses. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposed an Allocation Regulation which is currently before 

Congress subject to the 30 day disapproval rule as provided in 2 U.S.C. 

§ 438(c).

Compliance 

Responsibility 

for 

Compliance 

During its first year of operation, the Commission also took steps to ensure 

meaningful compliance with the Act's campaign limitations. Realizing that 

most candidates and political committees do desire to comply fully with the 

Act, the Commission declared its assumption that the primary responsibility 

for compliance lay with the candidat!es ahd political committees. Political 

committees which accept contributions are thus charged with the responsibility of ensuring that they do not accept a prohibited contribution or a 

contribution in excess of the limits. Political committees are also expected 

to monitor the am.aunt of contributions received directly from the candidate 

and his immediate family. For Presidential campaign committees, any 

burden posed by such internal monitoring is readily diminished and 

compensated for by the fact that similar procedures must be followed in 

54 
55 

order to prove the campaign's eligibility for matching funds. Candidates and 

political committees are also relied on to closely follow their own 

expenditures in order to make certain that they do not exceed their 

limitations for each election, and in the case of Presidential primary 

candidates do not exceed the separate expenditure limitations provided for 

each State. 

Routine 

Field 

Audits 

2 U.S.C. 

§438(a)(8)

A more traditional tool which the Commission will utilize to ensure 

compliance with campaign limitations, is the conduct of routine audits of 

the contributions and expenditures of a candidate or political committee. 

The Commission's general auditing authority was established under 2 U.S.C. 

§ 438(a)(8). While staff limitations would prevent audits of every campaign,

it is hoped that selected audits conducted under specific criteria will

discourage any deliberate evasion of the Act's limitations. The only such

audits conducted during 1975 were in connection with the various special

elections.

Computer 

Monitoring 

It was also assumed from the beginning that the Commission would have to 

rely to a major degree on computer technology to monitor the statutory 

limitations on contributions and expenditures. Without such technology, it 

would be virtually impossible to process the enormous volume of data 

subject to the limitations, or to perform the sorting and aggregating 

functions necessary to an equitable implementation of the statute. 

Computer as 

a Tool Only 

With respect to the limitations on contributions, for example, it was 

necessary to design a system which would provide the Commission with 

compilations which showed not only when a single contributor had given 

$1,000 or more to a single Federal candidate in a single election, but also 

when that contributor had given in excess of $25,000 to all Federal 

candidates in a calendar year. The design of such a system was further 

complicated by the fact that the statute did not specify the use of Social 

Security numbers or other unique identifiers for contributors; hence, there 

would be no certain grounds for assuming that multiple listings of a 

contributor appearing to have the same name and the same address were 

indeed all from the same individual. The Commission staff was forced to 

conclude in this respect that computer-generated lists of contributors, 

arranged in alphabetical order, could only serve as a preliminary tool for 

visual inspection by auditors who would then proceed to investigate those 

instances in which a coincidence of identity on the computer list suggested 

an apparent violation of the law. 

Similarly, with respect to expenditures, it was envisionec;l that computer 

technology would be used to aggregate on a cumulative basis all expenditures 

made by or on behalf of all Federal candidates and to compare these against 

the statutory limitations established in the 1974 Act. While the Supreme 

Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo made such monitoring unnecessary with 
respect to campaigns for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, the 

requirement remained with respect to Presidential candidates accepting 

public funding. 

Delay 

Because of 

Buckley 

v. 

Valeo 

These data processing requirements were listed among the priority objectives 

assigned to the Commission's Manager of Data Processing Services when that 

position was created in October 1975. While it was not possible to design the 

necessary data capture and aggregation system until the issues in the case of 

Buckley v. Valeo had been finally decided upon, preliminary work did 

proceed through th� fall and vvinter v;,,ith th.e aid ,of oLJtsid,e consultants; and 

this preliminary wo�k had been completed at' the time this report was being 

prepared. 

Current 

Computer 

Plans 

The system env1s1ons, at its core, the in-house collection of data from 

disclosure reports at the point at which they would be received and initially 

screened by the Commission staff. Data entry clerks would identify and 

enter into computer terminals the name and address of each contributor 

together with the amount given, plus expenditure figures from the summary 

page of the report. From the data entry terminals, the material would be 

transmitted to central computer facil1ties on a' leased-time basis for 

· compilation and aggregation of the data in accordance;with the programs

specifically designed for that purpose. C0mputer0generated reports of the

compiled data would then be issued on a regular basis for the use of the

auditing staff in monitoring the limitations of the statute. ··

Information About 

the lin1itations 

Since such heavy reliance is placed on the volunta'ry compliance of

candidates and committees with the limitations, the Commission has as a

necessary corollary stressed the dissemin•ation of informatio·n concerning the

meaning of the· Act's limitations. Such informational activities were

particularly crucial in explaining the complexities ofthe limitations in the

Act. Accordingly, tefephoned and written inquiries have been promptly

· 'responded to by the Commission staff in order to provide basic clarifications

of the Act''s meaning and implications. Similarly, numerous publications

have been prepared to state in layman's terms the Commission's treatment of

the limitations. The implementation of the regional seminar program of the

Commission has also had as a major focus the clarification, in a face-to.::fat�

'· fashion, of common ambiguities regardirigthe limits.

56 
Compliance and Enforcement 

Introduction 

Compliance, investigation and enforcement are emotionally charged words 

describing processes which when injected into the atmosphere of political 

campaigns can be unsettling, at the least. The idea of a Federal auditor 

poring over the books of a candidate is often distressing to even the most 

scrupulous campaign manager. Obviously, the activities of the FEC in this 

area have been and will be closely scrutinized by politicians and the public 

alike. 

During the early months of operation, the Commission moved with caution 

in exercising the enforcement powers granted it by Congress and concentrated efforts on achieving voluntary compliance with the law. Even where 

there were investigations of evidence of noncompliance, the Commission 

used conciliation as its primary method of resolving complaints. There has 

been no occasion to use the civil enforcement powers available to the 

Commission. 

Powers 

and 

Duties 

2 u.s.c.

§437c(b)

§ 437d(a)( 11)

The FEC has varied duties in the area of compliance and enforcement. First, 

the 1974 law requires the Commission to "seek to obtain compliance with 

... " and "to encourage voluntary compliance" with Title 2 and parts of 

Title 18. This demands an active role by the Commission to obtain 

compliance voluntarily before the fact as well as the more conventional 

enforcement after the fact. 

§ 437d(a)( 11)

§438(a)(8)

Second, the Commission was granted powers to determine whether 

compliance has been achieved. These powers include conducting investigations, hearings and audits. Finally, the Commission has been given primary 

jurisdiction for civil enforcement of the Act. The subpoena, injunctive and 

other powers relative to civil enforcement are new elements in the 

57 
administration of election law as, heretofore, the supervisory officers could 

only refer cases of noncompliance to the Department of Justice for possible 

criminal prosecution. 

Voluntary Compliance 

Policy 

§e437g(a)(5)e

The Commission decided early to direct its major efforts to achieving 

voluntary compliance with the law, and to use its stronger enforcement 

powers only when absolutely necessary. A number of circumstances 

contributed to this decision, but two major concerns were that the 

requirements set out in the law are extremely complex, and the area covered 

by the law had not been previously subjected to such rigorous regulation. It 

was felt that success would best obtain if the relationship between the 

Commission and the candidates were to proceed in an atmosphere which 

allowed for the "informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion" prescribed by the Act. Although the Commission will certainly fulfill 

its obligations to enforce the law when voluntary compliance cannot be 

obtained, there is every reason for the Commission to walk softly while 

carrying a big stick. 

Information 

Activities 

Most of the branches of the Commission are actively involved in the 

production of informational material which will assist the candidates for 

Federal office, and their campaign committees, in complying with the law. 

The Commission estimates that in the first seven months of its existence, 

70% of Commission staff hours were employed in bringing about compliance 

through information and education. 

For example, almost all of the activities of the Office of Information 

Services can be seen as means of helping people comply with the law. These 

activities include the regular newsletter, The FEC Record, which summarizes 

policy decisions of the Commission, and the Regional Seminars which took 

place in early 1976 at 15 major cities across the country. The seminars are 

intended to transmit information on filing and reporting, campaign 

limitations, the use of volunteers, the role of political parties, etc.e15 The 

Information Services' general information and specialized brochures are also 

designed to encourage and facilitate voluntary compliance with the law. 

In addition to initiating information, •the Commission spends a good deal of 

time responding to specific inquiries.'The bffice of Information Services and 

Office of Disclosure and Compliance estimate that together they receive 

approximately 800 requests for information a month. 

Legal 

Activities 

Likewise, the great bulk of the work of the Commission's Office of General 

Counsel can be considered providing the legal advice necessary for voluntary 

1 5 See Appendix M for schedule of Regional Seminars. 

58 
compliance. Advisory Opinions and Opinions of Counsel are responses to 

requests for advice. Interim Guidelines are issued to help persons understand 

and comply with the law before regulations can be promulgated and 

approved. In addition, there are myriad cases of assistance given by the legal 

division on matters which do not warrant formal legal opinions. By the end 

of 1975, 76 Advisory Opinions, 48 Opinions of Counsel and 12 Interim 

Guidelines had been issued. 

Disclosure 

Activities 

Disclosure is another of the Commission's methods for obtaining voluntary 

compliance, since the statutory public display of campaign reports itself 

tends to promote voluntary compliance with the law. Such exposure may 

discourage those who might through carelessness or design use money for 

improper purposes either before or after the election, and a public armed 

with information about a candidate's most generous supporters is better able 

to detect any post-election special favors that may be given in return. 

AID 

Activities 

The Audit and Investigation Division was also active in providing information, specifically through the production of a Bookkeeping Manual, to assist 

candidates in keeping correct records. In designing reporting forms, the 

Commission emphasized the need for clarity and simplicity to facilitate 

compliance. 

Management 

Reviews 

Other examples of activity by the Audit and Investigation Division in the 

area of voluntary compliance were the management review audits, conducted 

of all the Presidential candidates' committees in order to help them meet the 

requirements to receive matching funds under the public financing program. 

FEC auditors spent many hours in the field helping the committees 

understand the requirements, and assisting them in determining which 

contributions were acceptable for matching purposes and which were not. 

When contributions were not acceptable, the committee was told how to go 

about correcting points which made the contributions unmatchable. This 

service continued once the candidates had satisfied the threshold requirements and began submitting for matching funds on a regular basis. Other 

management review audits were conducted with the Senatorial candidates 

prior to the New Hampshire special election and with the national parties in 

connection with .their qualifications for convention financing. 

Examination 

of Reports 

Once the compl�ted campaign reports have been submitted to the FEC the 

effort for voluntary compliance continues. Reports are reviewed in depth by 

the Reports Examining Division with the express purpose of discovering 

errors and allowing corrections to be made. When there are errors or 

omissions, a Request for Additional Information is sent to the filing party. 

This request is not intended to be a charge of violation of the Act, but serves 

to alert committees and candidates to the type of information required of 

them and gives them an opportunity to submit amendments to their reports. 

Special emphasis is placed on detailing the requirements of the Act to newly 

registered committees. In these, as in all other cases, telephone calls 

explaining the situation have been very helpful in reducing the rate of error. 

59 
During 1975, 3,477 documents were reviewed and acknowledged as received 

by the Reports Examining Division; of these 80% required amendments. The 

number of documents submitted with errors or omissions has been 

dramatically reduced over the months, hopefully as a result of these 

educational efforts on the part of Reports Examining. 

Compliance Review 

FEC 

Duties 

While it is a primary goal of the Commission to assist candidates for Federal 

office and their committees in complying with the law, it is also the duty of 

the Commission to determine whether or not those candidates and 

committees have, in fact, complied with the law. Once disclosure has been 

obtained, the Commission is expected to ascertain whether the information 

in reports and documents filed with it is correct and complete, and there is 

the further responsibility to determine whether campaign limitations have 

been exceeded. Finally, the Commission has special responsibilities in regard 

to Presidential primary matching funds, in that it must determine whether 

the eligibility requirements for receipt of such funds have been fulfilled, and 

whether contributions submitted for matching payments meet the Commission's acceptance standards. After the election the F EC must conduct audit 

reviews of all Presidential candidates receiving public financing to determine 

that use of public funds was in accordance with the law, and report to 

Congress thereon. Activity in this area of compliance should not be 

construed as investigation predicated on any suspicion of alleged wrongdoing. Such audits are undertaken with an assumption of compliance, in 

accordance with strict criteria and on a set time schedule. 

1975 

Presidential 

Audits 

The primary activities in this area during 1975 were the preliminary audits of 

the Presidential candidates to determine whether they had met the threshold 

requirements for receiving public financing. 16 The continued verification of 

the submissions by candidates to determine whether their contributions do 

indeed meet the criteria for matching, is also a form of examination for 

compliance. 

Routine 

Audits 

§438(a)(8)e

The FEC can also use its general audit authority to conduct periodic audits 

of selected candidates to determine compliance. "It shall be the duty of the 

Commission ... to make from time to time audits and field investigations 

with respect to reports and statements filed under the provisions of this 

chapter .... " Again such audits carry no implication of wrongdoing and will 

only be undertaken according to pre-established criteria. While the Commission conducted field audits of the Senatorial candidates in the New 

Hampshire special election, staff limitations due to the almost exclusive use 

of audit staff to verify Presidential matching funds during the last months of 

1975 precluded any further routine field audits. Specific procedures and 

1 6 The procedures here are discussed in detail in the section on Public Financing and in Appendix I. 

60 
criteria for routine audits are still in the process of being developed and 

approved and the proposed budget for FY 1977 does include plans for a 

beginning program of routine post-election audits of all major Federal 

campaigns. In planning its FY 1977 budget the Commission decided to 

conduct routine off-year audits of those candidates and committees who 

spend over a given threshold amount, $25,000 in House campaigns and 

$35,000 in Senate campaigns. Circumstances permitting, general pre-election 

audits of multi-candidate committees and State committees were being 

contemplated. 

Investigations & Enforcement 

Policies 

and 

Priorities 

FEC policy in formal compliance and enforcement act1v1t1es evolved 

gradually during 1975. From the beginning the Commission was acutely 

aware of the significance of even the most routine compliance activity in a 

field as sensitive as political campaigns and felt this dictated care and 

extreme caution in the development of policy and procedures. At the same 

time there was urgent need for some procedural guidance since complaints 

and evidence of noncompliance would and did come to the Commission and 

the obligation for investigation and enforcement must be fulfilled if the 

public and the candidates were to have faith in the viability of the 

Commission as an enforcement agency. 

There is no question that this dichotomy between a desire to proceed with 

caution and the need for immediate action meant that compliance activity 

during 1975 did not always proceed promptly or consistently. The 

Commission's concern for thoroughness and caution meant that undue time 

did sometimes elapse between the filing of a complaint and the closing of a 

case. The Commission recognizes these deficiencies, and is presently revising 

its compliance policies to clarify procedures and to provide for quicker 

turnaround period. 

Origin of 

Compliance 

Actions 

§ 437g(a)( 1)

There are several special considerations which color the development of 

compliance policy for the Commission. In the first place, the origin of 

compliance actions is quite broad. The FEC must investigate evidence of 

noncompliance originating either by the complaint of any individual, or 

through evidence generated from within the Commission. This demands an 

investigative policy which must be broader in scope than that of most other 

Federal agencies. 

Need for 

Impartiality 

Second, the very fact that the Commission is investigating in many cases 

Members of Congress and their committees, plus other candidates in the 

sensitive political arena, demands evenhanded treatment of all evidence of 

noncompliance, free from all considerations of incumbency or partisan 

interest. 

Abuse of 

Complaints 

The obverse of this is the real danger of abuse of the complaint procedure 

for political purposes. For many committees against whom a complaint is 

61 
filed, the major concern is not the charge itself, but possible publicity which 

might label them as "under investigation by Federal officials." In many 

instances, violations consist of minor technical errors; nevertheless, committees fear insinuations of willful misconduct. Therefore, the law, and the 

Commission as its arm, must seek to discourage gratuitous or frivolous 

complaints emanating from opposing candidates as a part of the campaign. 

These are not considered honest efforts to bring violations of the law to the 

attention of the appropriate authorities. Section 437g(3) of the Act states: 

"Any investigation under paragraph (2)(b) shal I be conducted expeditiously and shall include an investigation of reports and statements filed 

by any complainant under this title, if such complainant is a 

candidate." 

The Commission policy, therefore, is to find out whether a complainant is 

acting on behalf of any candidate. If so, the Commission must also 

investigate reports and statements filed by that candidate. 

Confidentiality 

§ 437g(a) ( 3)

A final consideration in policy development is the fact that confidentiality 

must be maintained at all times in any compliance action or audit activity 

which might lead to a compliance action, in keeping with the statutory 

requirement that investigations and notifications of violations shall not be 

made public unless authorized by the subject thereof. This is done in order 

to protect the individuals involved from unfair publicity stemming from 

ambiguous information. For example, when the Reports Examining Division 

finds from reviewing a report that a candidate may have unknowingly 

accepted a corporate or labor union contribution, the notification of this 

circumstance would not be made part of the individual's public file; in other 

circumstances a request for additional information would be made part of 

the file. It is the intent of the Commission to make public as much 

information as possible, while simultaneously protecting candidates from 

unfair publicity. 

Interim 

Guidelines 

Early in June the Commission recognized the urgent need for guidelines for 

the submission of complaints and one of its first Interim Guidelines, on July 

7, specified the procedures to be followed in filing a complaint. 

Narrative 

By August the Commission was able to adopt as its basic interim policy a 

Compliance Procedures Narrative which set forth a detailed plan for 

processing complaints, initiating investigations thereon, and for undertaking 

other compliance actions on the Commission's initiative. The Compliance 

Procedures Narrative was conceived as an interim and temporary framework 

to guide the operations of this staff pending the evolution of more formal 

procedures. Initial experience with complaints and other enforcement 

actions during the summer and fall of 1975 indicated a need for a review and 

revision of the procedures. 

62 
Regulations In late fall of 1975, the Counsel's Office drew up a formal regulation 

embodying the basic concepts with some revisions of the previously adopted 

narrative and this was published for public comments in December 1975. 

Hearings were scheduled to be held in early February 1976, but were held in 

abeyance following the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo. Within 

the Commission itself continuing discussions occurred with respect to 

modifying and improving the Commission's methods of responding to 

apparent violations. 

1975 

Compliance 

Actions 

The FEC opened 57 compliance cases during 1975 and by December had 

closed files on 31 of these cases. In 81 % of the cases closed, it was 

determined either that the Commission had no jurisdiction, or that there had 

been no violation of the Act. 

TERMINATED COMPLIANCE ACTIONS 

Voluntary No No Referred to 

Compliance Jurisdiction Violation Department of 

Achieved Justice 

5 10 15 

The cases which the Commission has considered or is still considering include 

matters such as: 1) an inadvertent failure to place a disclaimer on campaign 

literature; 2) an intentional failure to disclose contributions and expenditures; 3) allegations of improper control by a corporation of a political 

action committee; 4) failure to register with the Commission; 5) solicitation 

of contributions in excess of $1,000; 6) receipts of campaign contributions 

from individuals which exceeded the $1,000 per election limitation; and 7) 

receipt of contributions in excess of the $5,000 per election limit from 

multi-candidate committees. It is anticipated as the campaign year moves 

closer towards the elections that there will be a steady increase in the 

number of compliance actions opened by the Commission. 

Procedures In all these cases, the Commission's Legal and Disclosure and Compliance 

Divisions worked in tandem. Under the 1975 compliance procedures the 

Assistant Staff' Director for Disclosure and Compliance had primary 

responsibility for initial screening for jurisdiction, sufficiency of a complaint, 

or in the case of internally raised matters, sufficient cause to initiate an 

investigation. The General Counsel was kept personally informed of the 

status of all compliance actions and day-to-day responsibility for monitoring 

individual cases was given to a staff attorney, including the drafting of initial 

notification letters, and discussions with the respondent as to the scope of 

the Commission's authority and the records and documents to be reviewed. 

63 
The Audit and Investigation Division of the Office of Disclosure and 

Compliance assumes responsibility for actual investigations. No investigation 

was made without the knowledge and approval of the Commissioners. 

Relations 

with 

Dept. of 

Justice 

In developing overall policy, the Commission had numerous discussions with 

the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. In order to ensure a smooth transfer of information between the 

Department and the Commission, there is a continual, informal exchange at 

the staff level. Matters requiring formal action are transmitted by the Staff 

Director or the General Counsel, as directed by the Commission. It should be 

noted that 2 U.S.C. § 437g(b) of the Act requires the Department to file 

periodic reports with the Commission concerning any cases it had referred to 

the Attorney General. These reports were properly filed in the one case 

referred by the Commission to the Department in 1975. 

64 
Federal-State 

Relations 
Federal State Relations 

FEC Clearinghouse Function 

Common 

Concerns 

The Commission regards its relations with State and local election agencies as 

one of its most important responsibilities. Not only do these State and local 

agencies have the ultimate responsibility for conducting both State and 

Federal elections, but they have many other areas of common concern. In 

the area of campaign financing, for example, some 38 States have passed 

legislation affecting the campaign financing activities of various State and 

local candidates. Similarly, many State and local election offices are making 

substantial efforts to improve the elections process by means of voter 

education activities, improving voter registration methods, and providing 

new and improved vote-counting equipment. 

Lack 

of 

Communication

Despite these common concerns, there is an almost total lack of communication among State and local election jurisdictions. There are over 6,300 

independent election boards who, it is estimated, directly expended $813 

million for administering elections during fiscal years 1970-1973. In addition 

there are literally tens of thousands of other governmental units who spent 

additional sums in administering local elections. 

Many election boards have faced and solved such difficult election problems 

as approving and purchasing vote-counting equipment, automating registration and voting systems, absentee registration and voting, training election 

poll workers, informing the voters on candidates and issues, and re-counting 

the election results. Their experiences, however, have not been available to 

other election administrators facing similar problems. Because of the lack of 

communication among these thousands of election jurisdictions, millions of 

dollars have been wasted through duplication of effort. Similarly, in the area 

of campaign financing, most States have great difficulty in learning what 

other States are doing and in discovering how various legislative efforts could 

be successfully applied. 

67 
1971 

Clearinghouse 

Congress, in recognizing these problems, created a National Clearinghouse 

for Information on the Administration of Elections within the General 

Accounting Office under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This 

function was transferred to the Federal Election Commission by 2 U.S.C. 

439(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. This 

section of the Act calls upon the Commission to serve as a national 

clearinghouse for information with respect to the administration of 

elections and to conduct independent contract studies of the administration 

of elections. These studies are to include, but not be limited to: the method 

of selection of, and the type of duties assigned to, election board officials 

and personnel practices relating to the registration of voters, and voting and 

counting methods. Finally, this section provides that the research products 

issuing from these efforts be made available to the general public at cost. 

FEC Role 

The Commission, by performing this clearinghouse function, feels that it can 

serve as an effective communication link among Federal, State and local 

election agencies, while always recognizing that the FEC has absolutely no 

regulatory or supervisory authority over State and local elections and 

procedures. Not only can these three levels of government learn a great deal 

through a free and open exchange of information but also, and most 

significantly, the exchange of information can and has resulted in substantial 

cost savings as more efficient methods are adopted from the experiences of 

others. 

1975 

Activities 

The Commission has already taken a number of pos1t1ve steps toward 

achieving this clearinghouse goal. The Vice Chairman of the Federal Election 

Commission has been officially appointed by the Commission as coordinator 

of State and local relations. State and local election offices have been 

receiving the F EC Record, Federal campaign financing information and 

Clearinghouse reports on a regular basis. Commissioners and various staff 

members have been invited to address numerous organizations of State and 

local election officials including the National Association of Secretaries of 

State, the National Association of Counties, the International Institute of 

Municipal Clerks and Recorders, and the International Association of 

County Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers. The Commission has 

also encouraged State and local election officials to attend and participate in 

its regional seminar program. Finally, the Commission has encouraged State 

and local election officials to visit the Commission and attend its meetings 

here in Washington. So far, officials from 20 States have visited the 

Commission. The Commission has received a large volume of correspondence 

with personal comments indicating that State and local election officials are 

very receptive to this information transfer function. 

FEC 

Questionnaire 

In October of 1975, the Commission sent a questionnaire to all 50 State 

election offices requesting information on their experiences in handling 

Federal campaign finance reporting requirements. Under 2 U.S.C. 439, 

Federal candidates must file a copy of all Federal campaign finance reports 

68 
with their State election office, which must maintain such copies and make 

them available for public inspection. As of March 1, 1976, 45 States had 

responded to the questionnaire and provided valuable information on their 

filing procedures and office operations, copying and viewing facilities and, 

most importantly, made numerous suggestions to improve this reporting 

system. A compilation and analysis of these comments and suggestions will 

be made available to the Commission and all appropriate State officials. 

Clearinghouse Research Studies 

During 1975, the Commission through its clearinghouse function, has 

published and distributed five major research reports originally prepared for 

the General Accounting Office. 

An Analysis of Laws and Procedures Governing Absentee Registration and 

Absentee Balloting in the United States: 

Produced under contract with Indiana University's School of Public and 

Environmental Affairs, this study analyzes the legal and procedural 

aspects of absentee registration and absentee voting in each of the fifty 

States. Volume I describes the problems and provides a brief history of 

absentee voting from the national perspective. The core of the volume is a 

detailed, step-by-step description and discussion of the absentee process 

(complete with State summary tables). The analysis targets on problems in 

the process as they appear variously in the fifty State systems. The volume 

concludes with an analysis of Federal legislation affecting absentee voting 

and 33 specific recommendations for improving the absentee system. 

Volume 11 of the report is a set of detailed legal memoranda describing the 

absentee law in each State with references to the respective State election 

codes. 

Federal-State Election Law Survey: An Analysis of State Legislation, 

Federal Legislation, and Judicial Decisions: 

A recurring report issued under agreement with the American Law 

Division of the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service. These 

surveys compile and summarize all Federal and State legislation and 

litigation relating to elections. Each volume contains a State-by-State 

review and brief analysis of legislation passed in State assembly sessions; a 

review, analysis, and status report of Federal election-related legislation; a 

review and brief description of State supreme court, Federal court, and 

Supreme Court cases; and a digest of relevant Department of Justice 

rulings, Internal Revenue Service rulings, and State Attorney General 

opinions. 

69 
Government Expenditures for Election Administration: Fiscal Years 1970 

to 1973: 

A compilation of State and national statistics on the administration costs 

of elections in the United States during fiscal years 1970 through 1973. 

These years included one Presidential election, two Congressional elections, and most State and local general elections. The purpose of this 

report is to provide a reliable estimate of the public expenditure for 

conducting elections. 

It has long been suspected that it costs a great deal more than expected 

for any single jurisdiction to conduct its elections. The results of this 

survey provide supporting evidence. During the four fiscal years 1970 

through 1973, State and local governments directly expended an 

estimated $813 million for administering elections. It is interesting to note 

that in most cases local governments spent considerably more money for 

election administration than did State governments. Only in Alaska, 

Delaware, and Hawaii was more money expended by State than by local 

governmental units. 

Analysis of Federal and State Campaign Finance Law: 

A two-volume document issued under contract with the American Law 

Division of the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service. The 

first volume presents an overview of Federal and State campaign finance 

regulations followed by summaries of the campaign finance laws of the 

United States, each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

The second volume contains five quick-reference charts highlighting 

significant provisions of Federal and State campaign finance law. Statutory 

provisions for the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico are also covered. 

As a consequence of the recently enacted campaign finance laws 

throughout the Nation, this publication has attracted widespread interest 

and is in great demand. 

Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying: 

The first comprehensive attempt to analyze the use of computers in the 

vote-counting process. Included in the report are descriptions of hardware, 

software, and administrative problems encountered in fourteen elections 

in which electronic computing technologywas utilized as well as suggested 

methods of assuring more confidence in the accuracy and security of the 

vote-tallying process. These methods include aids to audits of calculations, 

physical controls over ballots and computer records, and guidelines for the 

use of computer programs, computer facilities and teleprocessing. 

Methods of improving the election preparation process also are included 

and described. Institutional factors are also discussed which should be 

70 
considered if improved accuracy and security controls and more effective 

election preparations are to be implemented. Finally, recommendations 

for additional research and other activities are provided. 

Written reactions to Clearinghouse contract reports, by State and local 

election legislators and administrators, have been highly favorable. Since 

June of 1975, hundreds of State and local election administrators have cited 

the value of the above reports both in terms of providing information and in 

money saved for their operations. In addition to publishing and making 

available these required studies on election administration, the three-person 

Clearinghouse staff also carries on extensive telephone and letter correspondence with State and local election administrators in ever-increasing 

numbers. Since June of last year, we estimate that over 500 non-routine 

telephone inquiries on election administration were received and handled 

while over 500 non-routine letters were received and answered in addition to 

the thousands of routine inquiries handled by the Clearinghouse. 

Clearinghouse Advisory Panel 

Information 

Exchange 

As noted earlier the Clearinghouse serves as a central information exchange 

for the 50 States and the over 6,000 local election boards. In fulfilling this 

role, it is essential that the Clearinghouse maintain a close liaison with State 

and local election administrators for at least three reasons: 

• to define the problems and issues facing election administrators in

order to ensure that contracted research projects are of maximum

usefulness at the State and local levels;

• to identify and collect any State or local research reports, experiences,

or other useful information so that jurisdictions may benefit from the

experience of others;

• to keep abreast of the "state of the art" of election administration in

order to provide timely information to the Congress, the Commission,

State legislators and executives, and to the general public.

To accomplish this liaison task, the Clearinghouse has identified all the State 

and local election administrators and established contact with them - itself a 

major undertaking. Since it is hardly possible to hold a national discussion of 

problems and research priorities among six or seven thousand people, the 

Clearinghouse, with the approval and encouragement of the Commission, 

developed a channel of communications fairly unique among Federal 

regulatory agencies: a State and local government advisory panel. 

Composition The Clearinghouse Advisory Panel is presently comprised of twenty State 

election officials, county and local election administrators and State 

71 
legislators who are distinguished by their knowledge, interest, and activity in 

the area of elections. The Panel serves in an advisory capacity to the 

Commission in establishing research needs and priorities and, to a great 

extent, in defining the role of the Clearinghouse. 

The three-tier, bi-partisan character of the Panel provides a kind of 

stereoscopic view of the state of election administration and offers the first 

national forum for a full discussion of the problems in planning and 

managing elections. 

Issues and 

Problems 

The Advisory Panel held its first meeting in Washington, D.C. on the 6th and 

7th of January, 1976, and attracted an audience of noted election experts, 

Commission members and Congressional staff. Their discussion focused on 

specific issues and problems in a range of general topics including: 

1. State and local election planning, management, budgeting, and

personnel training;

2. Voter registration systems;

3. The administrative aspects of candidate certification, campaign ethics

and campaign financing regulations;

4. Voter balloting system;

5. Vote tabulation, reporting, recording, contested elections and recount procedures; and

6. The causes of non-voting, institutional barriers to voter participation,

and voter information services.

Project 

Ideas 

The discussion stressed the need for the Clearinghouse to serve even more 

actively as an information center. Over 20 specific project ideas emerged 

with priorities attached to guidance in formulating election office budgets; 

analyses of alternative voter registration systems; guidance in developing 

standards and specifications for automating voting devices; an analysis of 

laws and procedures for managing contested elections and re-counts; and an 

analysis of institutional barriers to voter participation. 

72 
Legislative 

Recommendations 
Legislative Recommendations 

Introduction 

In any area as novel and complex as election law, comprehensive legislation 

will invariably contain flaws and omissions. Congress enacted, in only three 

years, three major, landmark pieces of legislation - the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and the 

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. Other, somewhat less 

comprehensive legislation was also passed, including a bill which substantially overhauled many of the provisions of the tax code relating to 

elections. 

Congress has anticipated the need to continually modify, renew and update 

election legislation. The 1974 Amendments contained provisions requiring or 

instructing the Commission to submit legislative recommendations to the 

Congress and the President. 1 Since its inception, the Commission has kept an 

inventory of possible amendments to the law. The list which follows is a 

condensation of the Commission's inventory representing those areas where 

possible legislative remedies are needed to assure the smooth functioning of 

the law. The Commission has not attempted to arrive at a consensus as to 

which provisions of the law should be amended, but rather submits the 

following list of possible areas which the Congress may wish to consider for 

amendment. Individual Commissioners may disagree as to the advisability 

and necessity of some of the amendments on the list. 

At the time of submission of these legislative recommendations, Congress is 

working on the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976. Some 

of the Commission's proposed legislative changes are included in the bills 

1 2 USC 437d(d) and 2 USC 437e.

75 
being marked up by the Congressional committees responsible for election 

legislation. Due to the uncertain status of these bills, the Commission has 

decided to submit its recommendations in their original form. 

The Commission has divided these recommendations into eight categories: 

1.eSimplification, 2. Clarification, 3. Judicial Determinations, 4. Consolidation, 5. Compliance and Enforcement, 6. Presidential Elections, 7. Miscellaneous, 8. Technical and Conforming.e

Simplification 

One of the major concerns of the Commission is simplifying the law and 

reducing the burdens on candidates and committees. As presently written, 

the law frequently applies indiscriminantly to large Presidential committees, 

multicandidate committees, medium-size Senate committees and small 

1-buse and political party committees. Both the Commission and the 

Congress must continually seek ways to simplify the law in order to reduce 

the burden on candidates and committees and to make. procedures less 

cumbersome. Specifically: 

Threshold 

for 

Recordkeeping 

The threshold for keeping records of the identification of contributors could 

be raised from $10 to $25 or $50. 2 While almost all candidates and 

committees keep these records for fundraising purposes, the present 

threshold can be raised to reduce the legal burdens on candidates and 

committees without thwarting the purposes of the Act. The Supreme Court 

found in Buckley v. Valeo that: 

[t]ehe $10 and $100 thresholds are indeed low. Contributors of relativelye

small amounts are likely to be especially sensitive to recording ore

disclosure of their political preferences. These strict requirements maye

weU discourage participation by some citizens in the political process, ae

result that Congress hardly could have intended. Indeed, there is little ine

the legislative history to indicate that Congress focused carefully on thee

appropriate level at which to require recording and disclosure. Rather, ite

seems merely to have adopted the thresholds existing in similar disclosuree

laws since 1910. [ Footnote omitted.] But we cannot require Congress toe

establish that it has chosen the highest reasonable threshold. The line ise

necessarily a judgmental decision, best left in the context of this complexe

legislation to congressional discretion. We cannot say, on this bare recorde

that the limits designed are wholly without rationality.e

Thus, while it is not immediately necessary for Congress to revise its 

minimum recordkeeping requirements, it may wish to do so, in view of the 

Supreme Court's belief that the recordkeeping thresholds -are low. 3 

2See 2 USC 432 (c)(2) 3Btickley v. Valeo, 44 USLW 4127, 4151-4152 (U.S., January 30, 1976). 

76 
Oral 

Contracts 

There is considerable merit to amending the law to provide that a contract, 

promise, or agreement must be written in order to constitute a contribution 

or an expenditure.4 Thus, oral contracts and promises would no longer be 

covered by the Act's definition of contribution and expenditure. The 

existing language presents severe enforcement problems for the Commission 

and causes needless confusion on the part of candidates and political 

committees. 

Amended 

Registration 

The requirement that multicandidate committees file an amended registration statement each time they contribute to (i.e., "support") a Federal, 

state, or local candidate could be repealed or amended to require only the 

reporting of various categories of Federal candidates supported. This 

registration requirement can be both cumbersome and duplicative. The 

periodic reports by multicandidate committees also contain a listing of 

candidates and committees supported. The additional registration requirement is particularly burdensome for multicandidate committees who must 

file dozens, even hundreds of amended registration statements during each 

election year. 5 

Local 

Filing 

The requirement that each committee include in its registration statement a 

listing of all reports required to be filed by the committee with state or local 

officers should be repealed. This requirement is no longer necessary, because 

of the provision in the 1974 Act Amendments which pre-empts state 

reporting requirements. 6 

Point 

of 

Registraton 

An amendment could be made to clarify that multicandidate and party 

committees register and report to the Commission and not to the candidates 

they support. 7 

Quarterly 

Reporting 

The threshold for the waiving of candidate or committee quarterly reports 

could be increased. The law now exempts from the quarterly reporting 

requirements any committee which receives contributions of $1,000 or less 

and makes expenditures of $1,000 or less. The $1,000 figure could be 

increased to $2,500 or $5,000 in non-election years. 8 

The waiver of quarterly reporting requirement period could be extended to 

include the period from 20 days before the election to 40 days after the 

election. Under the present law, when the last day for filing a quarterly 

report occurs within 10 days of an election, the filing of the quarterly report 

is waived and superceded by the pre-election report. Extending this waiver to 

4 See 2 USC 431 (el (21 and (fl (2); 18 USC 591 (el (21 and (f) (21. 

5See 2 USC 433(b)(6) 

'see 2 use 433(b)(10I 

7See 2 USC 432(f) (21, USC 433 (el, 2 USC 434(al(1 ), (21, but contra 2 USC 433(a), 2 USC 435(b), 

2 use 434lel. 8See 2 use 434(a)(1)(C). 

77 
quarterly reports required to be filed immediately after the election would 

reduce the number of reports without thwarting the purposes of the Act. 9 

Itemized 

Transfers 

Transfers aggregating less than $100 per calendar year could be exempted 

from the requirement that they be itemized on candidate and committee 

reports. Presently, all transfers by candidates and political committees must 

be itemized and reported. 1 0 

Consolidated 

Reports 

Additional time should be provided for the consolidation and filing of 

pre-election reports. Authorized committees of a candidate now file their 

reports with the principal campaign committee on the same day which the 

principal campaign committee must consolidate and file those reports with 

the Commission. Alternatively, a different mechanism could be developed 

for the filing of reports. For example, the principal campaign committee 

could be required to file only a summary sheet on the 10th day, and a 

complete consolidated report several days thereafter. 1 1 

Clarification 

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 and the 1974 Amendments represent a comprfrhensive effort by Congress to regulate campaign financing. Any initial, wide 

ranging effort to regulate a political system as complex and diverse as ours 

will inevitably have some arbitrary distinctions and tend to treat factors and 

matters which are different as being alike. Some of these disparities are 

inherent in any system of regulating elections, but others can be remedied by 

legislation. There are several changes needed in the present statutory scheme 

in order to take into account the diverse elements of the political system. 

Proliferation The law could be amended to stipulate that political committees under the 

direction or control of another person, including any parent, subsidiary, 

branch, division, department, local or affiliate unit of that person would be 

considered as a single political committee for purposes of the contribution 

limitations. Political parties should be exempt from this restriction, although 

they would still be subject to the test which prohibits political committees 

under the direction or control of another person from having a separate 

contribution limitation. 

Multicandidate

Committee 

In order to attain qualified multicandidate committee status (i.e., to be 

eligible to give $5,000 per election to Federal candidates), political 

9 See 2 USC 434(a)( 1 )(b). 1 0 see 2 USC 434(b)(4). 

'' See 2 USC 434(a)(1)(A)(i). 

78 
committees cou Id be required to make contributions of $100 or some other 

specified sum to five Federal candidates. Under the 1974 Act A mendments, 

a political committee need only give $1 to five candidates to be eligible to 

give $5,000 to the sixth candidate. 

In addition, political committees could be required to make contributions to 

five or more Federal candidates every two or four years in order to retain 

their eligibility to give $5,000 per election per candidate. Currently, once a 

political committee meets the $5,000 test, it can give $5,000 to only one or 

two candidates each election. 

Draft 

Movements 

. Thought should be given to amending the law to make the contribution 

limitations applicable to draft movements. Under the present law, an 

individual is not a candidate unless he takes the action necessary to get on 

the ballot, makes or raises or authorizes a person to make or raise 

contributions or expenditures on his behalf or takes other affirmative action 

to become elected to Federal office. Thus, draft movements on behalf of 

individuals (who are not candidates under the definition contained in the 

Act) may accept contributions up to $25,000 from individuals and of 

unlimited amounts from political committees. The existing disclosure 

requirements for draft movements should be retained. 

Dual 

Candidacies 

Amendments to the law are needed to delineate the status of dual 

candidacies, and in particular, the applicability of the disclosure provisions 

and contribution and expenditure limitations to dual candidacies for: 

(a) President and Senate,

(b) President and 1-buse of Representatives,

(c) House and Senate,

(d) Delegate and Congress,

(e) Federal and state or local office.

For example, if an individual is simultaneously a candidate for the Senate 

(where there is no expenditure limitation) and for the Presidency (where 

there is an expenditure limitation for· those candidates accepting public 

funds) in the same state, are both of his or her campaigns subject to the 

Presidential spending ceiling for that state or may his or her senatorial 

campaign spend unlimited amounts of money? Also, if a candidate for 

Congress (who may not accept contributions in excess of $1,000 per election 

- $5,000 for a multicandidate committee) is simultaneously an unauthorized delegate-candidate (who has no contribution limitations), may he

or she accept contributions of $25,000 from individuals or of unlimited

amounts from other persons for the delegate-candidacy or are both

campaigns subject to the Congressional ceilings?

79 
Minor and 

Independent

Parties 

The Congress may wish to consider granting the Commission specific 

statutory authority to waive candidate and committee disclosure requirements particularly with regard to minor and independent parties. A recent 

court decision construed the District of Columbia campaign finance law 

(which closely parallels the Federal law) as necessarily embracing such waiver 

authority. Doe v. Martin, 404 F Supp. 753, 757 (D.C., 1975). 

Judicial Determinations 

Although the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended 

(hereinafter "the Act") only became generally effective on January 1, 1975, 

already there has been significant judicial reaction to this and similar 

statutes. The courts have upheld most of the key provisions of the Act, but 

have found certain statutory provisions to be unconstitutional and in other 

instances have narrowly construed certain provisions in order to avoid a 

finding of unconstitutionality. While the judiciary's holding on the constitutionality of the Act is the law of the land, it remains solely the province 

of Congress to further facilitate the use of the Act by making conforming 

revisions so that the law on its face reflects the Courts' holdings. In order to 

aid Congress in implementing the judiciary's rulings, the Commisison makes 

the following recommendations and observations concerning possible legislative changes. 

Definition 

of 

"Contribution"

It is recommended that the definition of contribution be amended to 

specifically 

include, not only contributions made directly or indirectly to a candidate, 

political party, or campaign committee, and contributions made to other 

organizations or individuals but earmarked for political purposes, but also 

all expenditures placed in cooperation with or with the consent of a 

candidate, his agents, or an authorized committee of the candidate. The 

definition of 'contribution' * ** for disclosure purposes parallels the 

definition in Title 18 almost word for word, and we construe the former 

prnvision as we have the latter. So defined, "contributions" have a 

sufficiently close relationship to the goals of the Act, for they are 

connected with a candidate or his campaign. 1 2 

Unauthorized 

Activities 

Notice 

The Supreme Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that the governmental interest 

in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption is inadequate to 

justify a ceiling on independent expenditures, 1 3 but also held that the 

disclosure of persons making independent expenditures for the purpose of 

expressly advocating an election result is permissible.o1 4 

1244 USLW, at 4150. 1344 USLW, at 4140. 1444 USLW, at 4149-4151. 

80 
The Congress may wish to extend the requirement that unauthorized or 

independent activities by political committees include a notice that such 

activities are not authorized by the candidate to include all persons making 

unauthorized expenditures. 

Reporting 

Independent 

Expenditures 

It is recommended that the provision requiring the reporting of independent 

expenditures [2 U.S.C. § 434(e)] be amended to clearly conform with the 

Supreme Court's opinion. 

In summary § 434(e) as construed imposes independent reporting requirements on individuals and groups that are not candidates or political 

committees only in the following circumstances: ( 1) when they make 

contributions earmarked for political purposes or authorized or requested 

by a candidate or his agent, to some person other thah a candidate or 

political committee, and (2) when they make an expenditure for a 

communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly 

identified candidate. 1 5 

Consolidation 

Congress may wish to consider consolidating the various titles presently 

under the jurisdiction of the Commission in order to avoid the inherent 

overlapping, duplication and conflicts which now exist. Consolidation could 

afford a means of diminishing the confusion and misunderstanding that now 

may result in a person being inadvertently in non-compliance with the Act. 

Definitions Instead of four separate sets of definitions, there should be one single set 

with the same term having the same meaning for all provisions. A term which 

is used to require disclosure generally is also used to limit contributions and 

expenditures and to provide public funds and thus, as a rule, these terms 

should be defined in a stylistically and substantively identical fashion. Where 

a difference in definition is required in order to implement a policy 

distinction, such a distinction should be explicitly not�d. 1 6 

1 <44 USLW, at 4151. 

1 6 Examples of the confusion which can result from a lack of parallelism in the Act are: 

(a) The $500 limit to the exceptions to the definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" 

appears at the end of the paragraph in 2 U.S.C. §431 (e)(5), 18 U.S.C. § 591 (e)(5), and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 591 (f)(4), but appears at the end of each subparagraph in 2 U.S.C. § 431 (f) (4). 

(b) The phrase "to the extent that the cumulative value" appears in 2 U.S.C. § 431 (el (5), 18 

U.S.C. § 591(e) (5); and 18 U.S.C. § 591 (f)(4), but the phrase "if the cumulative value" appears in 2 

u.s.c. § 431 (f) (4). 

(c) An exception is provided to the definitions of "contribution " and "expenditure" in 2 

U.S.C. §431(e)(5)(F) and (f)(4)(H), but this exception does not appear in 18 U.S.C. §591(e)(5) 

and (f)(4). 

(d) The word "individual" is used in the $500 limit to the exceptions to the definitions of 

"contribution" and "expenditure" in 2 U.S.C. §431 (e)(5), 2 U.S.C. § 431 (f)(4), and 18 U.S.C. 

§591 (e)(5), but the word "person" is used in 18 U.S.C. §591 (e)(5). 

81 
FEC 

Authority 

and 

Powers 

The Commission's authority and powers should be the same with respect to 

each provision under its jurisdiction. The Commission should be specifically 

granted the power to write regulations for Title 18. The Commission is 

presently confronted with a paradox whereby it is required to answer any 

and all requests for Advisory Opinions relating to Title 18, often involving 

major policy decisions of general applicability, but is not granted the 

authority to reduce these important policy decisions to regulations. 

Each Commission power, duty, responsibility and obligation should be cited 

uniformly in only one place in the Code. 

Other 

Election 

Provisions 

The Congress should conduct a thorough review of all election-related 

provisions not under the Commission's jurisdiction. Some of these provisions 

are outmoded, vague, or overly broad and could be amended or repealed. 

Others could be placed under the Commission's jurisdiction, in particular, 18 

u.s.c. 612. 

Compliance 

Penalties 

Compliance with the law is the Commission's most important goal and 

responsibility. There are several amendments which could be made to 

streamline and facilitate compliance with the law. 

The penalty provisions could be more consistent so that the severity of the 

penalty is commensurate with the seriousness of the violation. 

The penalty provisions could be amended to specifically make it an offense 

to knowingly submit false, erroneous or incomplete information to the 

Commission. 

Legal 

Responsibility 

The statute places sole responsibility for filing reports of campaign receipts 

and expenditures on the treasurer of a political committee. This approach 

tends to focus the law's requirement on a campaign official who may not be 

an important figure in the committee hierarchy. Under the current law, a 

committee chairman might attempt to avoid responsibility for his committee's reporting violations by claiming that the statute imposes no reporting 

duty on him. While the "aiding and abetting" provisions of the Federal 

criminal law can be used under many circumstances, the raising of this false 

issue can mislead a court or jury. The statute could be amended to place 

equal reporting responsibility on the chairman and the treasurer of a political 

committee. 

82 
Presidential Elections 

Delegate 

Candidate 

The law should clarify the status of delegate candidates and the applicability 

of the disclosure provisions and contribution and expenditure limitations to 

their activities. 1 7 

State 

Filing 

Read literally, the law would require Presidential candidates to file a copy of 

each statement filed with the Commission with the Secretary of State in 

each state where the candidate makes an expenditure, regardless of whether 

that expenditure is made during the reporting period. The Act should be 

amended to require reports for Presidential candidates to be filed with the 

Secretary of State only during those periods when an expenditure is made in 

the state. 1 11 

Written 

Instruments 

All written instruments representing contributions submitted to the Commission for matching purposes should be required to specifically designate the 

individual whose candidacy they are intended to support. 

Miscellaneous Amendments 

Political 

Parties 

The law should make greater recognition of the role of the political parties in 

the political process. While the Act does make some distinctions between 

party and special interest activities, those distinctions do not fully reflect the 

political parties' different function and purpose. Broad based permanent, 

on-going political party activities are healthy for the political system and 

should be exempt from many of the restrictions imposed on other 

multicandidate committee activities. For example, when read literally, the 

Act might count as an expenditure or contribution in-kind the mere mention 

of a candidate in a party newsletter, even though this is a traditional 

function of the political party and does not generally represent any real evil. 

Private 

Benefit 

Campaign Activities for Private Benefit/Conversion of Campaign Funds. 

Prior to 1972 the law prohibited the purchase of goods or articles the 

proceeds of which inured to the benefit of a Federal candidate or political 

committee. (18 USC §608(b), repealed by the 1971 FECA.) Congress may 

wish to consider reinstating some controls on campaign activities conducted 

for the private profit of the candidate or committee and/or the conversion 

of political funds to personal use. 

State 

Filing 

Although the state election commissions are frequently the most logical 

place to have Federal reports filed, all such reports must currently be filed 

1 7 The Commission has already submitted recommendations to the Congress for a statutory scheme to 

regulate this process. 8 I See 2 USC 439. 

83 
with the Secretary of State. An amendment could be offered to give 

discretion to the states to decide where reports should be filed.' 9 

All reports and statements required to be filed with both the Commission 

and the Secretary of State or other appropriate state agency should be filed 

simultaneously. Presently, there is no date or deadline for the filing of 

reports and statements required to be filed with the Secretary of State or 

other appropriate state agency. 

Each multicandidate committee should file only with the Secretary of State 

or other appropriate state agency in the state in which it is headquartered. 

Committees which make one contribution to a Presidential candidate or 

contributions to several congressional candidates should not have to file in 

every state in which the Presidential candidate files or in every state in which 

the congressional candidates file. 

ReviAw 

of 

Regulations 

The definition of "legislative days" for the review of regulation provision 

should be clarified as to whether it includes only days on which both I-buses 

are in session or days on which either House is in session. 

Technical and Conforming Amendments 

•e The limitations on expenditures relative to a clearly identifiede

candidate (18 U.S.C. 608(e)) should be repealed. The Supreme Courte

has held this provision to be unconstitutional.e

•e The provisions requiring reports by certain persons (2 U.S.C. 437a)e

should be repealed. The Court of Appeals held this section to bee

unconstitutionally vague an� overbroad. 2 0 The Court of Appeals'e

ruling was not appealed. 21 

•e The provision relating to judicial review (2 U.S.C. 437h) should bee

amended to include the definitional section (18 U.S.C. 591). As statede

by the Court of Appeals:e

Poor draftsmanship does, in fact, exist. For example, 2 U.S.C. § 437h, 

the provision establishing review on constitutionality by certification 

to this court and appeal to the Supreme Court does not include among 

its list of reviewable criminal sections, 18 U.S.C.§ 591, the section 

which sets forth the definitions underlying those sections which are 

deemed reviewable. 2 2 

1 •see 2 USC 439. 2 0 8uckley v. Valeo,_U.S. App. D.C._, 519F 2d 821, 869-878(1975). 21 44 USLW at 4145 n 70. 2251'9 F 2d, at 907, n. 2. 

84 
85 

• In 2 U.S.C. 437b(a)(1) "Chapter 97" should read "Chapter 96".

• 2 U.S.C. 437d(a)( 10) should be amended by striking "subsection

(a)(1) of this section" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 438(a)(1)

of this chapter." This cross reference is incorrect.

• 2 U.S.C. 455 and 2 U.S.C. 456 have been improperly codified and

should be amended by striking out "title Ill of this Act" each place it

occurs and inserting "this chapter."
Appendix 
A. Biographic Data on Commissioners

and Statutory Officers

Thomas B. Curtis 

Mr. Curtis, the Commission chairman, is a 64-year-old Republican from 

Missouri, who served in the House from 1951-69. He was an unsuccessful 

candidate for the Senate against Democrat Thomas F. Eagleton in 1968 and 

1974. A former vice president and general counsel for the Encyclopedia 

Brittanica, Curtis has chaired the Federal Rent Advisory Board (1971-73), 

the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ( 1972-73) and the Twentieth 

Century Fund's Task Force on Financing Congressional Campaigns ( 1970). 

He was graduated from Dartmouth College in 1932 and received his law 

degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 1935. He was originally 

appointed for six years. 

Neil 0. Staebler 

The vice chairman, 71, has been chairman of the Michigan Democratic State 

Central Committeee ( 1950-61 ), a member of the National Democratic 

Committee (1965-68 and 1972-75) a one-term Member of the House 

(1963-65) and a gubernatorial candidate in 1964 against former Gov. 

(1963-69) George W. Romney, the incumbent. He served on President 

Kennedy's Commission on Campaign Financing in 1961 and was vice 

chairman of the 1970 Twentieth Century Task Force on Financing 

Congressional Campaigns. Currently the owner of a land development 

company, Staebler was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1926. 

He was originally appointed for three years. 

Joan D. Aikens

At the time of her appointment, Joan Aikens was a vice president and 

account executive for LH/C ( Lew Hodges/Communications) in Valley Forge, 

Pa. Aikens, 46, was president of the Pennsylvania Council of Republican 

Women while also a member of the board of directors of the National 

Federation of Republican Women from 1972-74. She was graduated from 

Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa., in 1950. She was originally appointed for 

one year. 

Thomas E. Harris 

Mr. Harris was associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C. 

from 1955-75. He had held the same position with the CIO from 1948 until 

it merged with the AF L in 1955. Prior to that he was an attorney in private 

practice and with various government agencies. Harris, 63, was appointed to 

89 
the Commission by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Mr. Harris is a 

native of Little Rock and a 1932 graduate of the University of Arkansas. He 

is a 1935 graduate of Columbia University Law School, where he was on the 

Law Review and was a Kent Scholar. After graduation, he clerked one year 

for Supreme Court Justice Harlan F. Stone. He was originally appointed for 

four years. 

Vernon W. Thomson 

Mr. Thomson, 69, was a Republican Member of Congress from Wisconsin 

from 1961-75. Before that, he was his State's Governor (1957-59), attorney 

general (1951-57) and a member of the State legislature (1935-49). He holds 

a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin and is a graduate of its law school. 

He was originally appointed for five years. 

Robert 0. Tiernan 

Mr. Tiernan served as a Democratic member of Congress from Rhode Island 

for eight years, and prior to that as a State legislator for seven years. An 

attorney, he was born in Providence, Rhode Island, and is a graduate of 

Providence College and Catholic University Law School. Mr. Tiernan has 

been admitted to practi.ce in all Federal courts, the State of Rhode Island, 

and the District of Columbia. He has held various national and State party 

positions. He was originally appointed for two years. 

Ex Officio Members of the Commission 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr. 

Mr. Henshaw, an Ex Officio Member of the.Commission, is currently serving 

as Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was elected Clerk on 

December 17, 1975, after serving as appojnted Acting Clerk as of November 

17, 1975. Prior to that he served as Director of the Democratic National 

Congressional Committee, from 1972-1975, and Research Director of the 

Democratic National Congressional Committee from 1955-1972. He received 

a B.S. degree from the University of Mar.vi.and in 1954, attended George 

Washington University Law School from 19�5-56.e1 

Francis R. Valeo 

Mr. Valeo, an Ex-Officio Member of the Commission, was elected Secretary 

of the Senate in October 1966, and previously served as Secretary of the 

1 Appointed in November 1975 to replace Pat Jennings. 

90 
Senate Majority. In the 1950's, he was both Chief of the Foreign Affairs 

Division of the Library of Congress, and the Senior Specialist for the Library 

of Congress on International Relations, on loan to the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee. He is a native of Brooklyn, New York, and holds A.B. 

and M.A. degrees in Political Science from New York University. He is a 

co-author, with Ernest S. Griffith, of the 5th Edition of CONGRESS: Its 

Contemporary Role (1975). Secretary Valeo was one of three Supervisory 

Officers under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 

Statutory Officers 

Orlando B. Potter - Staff Director 

Before joining the Commission, Mr. Potter was consultant to the Secretary 

of the U.S. Senate in the administration of campaign disclosure laws. Prior to 

that he was legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell, and in 1968 

was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from New York. Mr. 

Potter previously was a Washington correspondent and editorial writer for 

the Providence (A.I.) Journal Bulletin. A 1950 graduate of Hamilton College, 

Mr. Potter also holds a Masters Degree from Yale University. He received a 

Congressional Staff Fellowship from the American Political Science Association in 1970, and did graduate work in computer science at American 

University. 

John G. Murphy, Jr. - General Counsel 

Mr. Murphy came to the Commission from the Georgetown University Law 

Center where he is a tenured Professor specializing in constitutional law. 

While on leave from Georgetown, Mr. Murphy advised the Faculty of Law of 

the Lebanese National University in Beirut for the Ford Foundation. Earlier 

he served as a consultant to OEO and HEW on developing legal services 

programs. The General Counsel graduated from Harvard in 1958 and from 

the Georgetown University Law Center in 1961. He served as editor of the 

Georgetown Law Journal and, later, as law clerk to the then U.S. District 

Court of Appeals Judge Warren E. Burger. 

91 
B. FEC Code of Ethics

The Commission adopted a Code of Ethics on October 30, 1975. The Code 

is based on standards generally applicable to Federal Government agencies as 

well as input from the Commissioners and the staff. In several respects the 

Code is stricter than the standard Civil Service Code of Ethics. The 

Commissioners, for example, have restricted themselves from participating in 

all political campaigns, and contributing to candidates even at the State and 

local level. Similarly, although the Commission is not subject to the Hatch 

Act, the Code prohibits Commissioners and employees from participating in 

activities prohibited by that statute and goes even further in forbidding most 

employees from publicly supporting candidates for Federal office. In order 

to minimize the possibility of financial conflicts of interest, the Code 

requires most professional employees to submit detailed financial disclosure 

statements. 

Subpart A - General Provisions. 

1. Purpose.

Public trust in the fairness and integrity of the elections process is vital in a 

free, democratic society. The Federal Election Commission is committed to 

honest, independent and impartial monitoring and enforcement of Federal 

election law. Members and employees shall adhere to and observe the highest 

standards of conduct in all their official activities. 

Members and employees of the Commission shall use full energies and 

powers to: 

• Facilitate public confidence in the election process;

• Encourage citizen participation and involvement in the political

process;

• Judiciously, expeditiously and vigorously enforce the law;

• Promote general understanding of the laws under the Commission's

jurisdiction.

Attainment of these goals necessitates strict and absolute fairness and 

impartiality in the administration of the law, including: 

• Nonpartisanship. The Commission's conduct, deliberations, and

decisions shall be made without regard to partisan or political

93 
considerations. No preferential or other favorable treatment shall 

be granted to any organization, individual or person. 

• Freedom from Conflicts of Interest. No action by the Commission,

its members, or employees shall be based on self-interest, personal

friendship or prior political associations. Members and employees

shall limit their outside activities so as to avoid a conflict of interest

or appearance thereof.

• Political Activity. Members of the Commission shall refrain from

participating in all political campaigns, including actively supporting,

working for, or contributing to a candidate, committee or party, or

in any way publicly exhibiting or advocating a partisan choice.

• Gifts, Entertainment. No Member or employee shall solicit or accept

any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or any other thing of

monetary value from any person, organization or group made with

the intent to directly or indirectly affect Commission actions or

decisions.

• Commission Deliberations. To the greatest extent practicable, all

Commission deliberations will be open to the widest possible public

view and all proceedings shall be fully accessible to the general

public.

2. Definitions.

• "Commissioner" means a voting member of the Federal Election

Commission.

• "Conflict of interest" means a situation in which an employee's

private interest is inconsistent with the efficient and impartial

conduct of his official duties and responsibilities. The conflict is of

concern whether it is real or only apparent.

• "Employee" means an employee of the Federal Election

Commission.

• "Official responsibility" means "the direct administrative or

operating authority, whether intermediate or final, and either

exercisable alone or with others, and either personally or through

subordinates, to approve, disapprove, or otherwise direct Government action." (18 U.S.C. 202(b))

• "Person" means an individual, a corporation, a company, an

.association, a firm, a partnership, a society, a joint stock company,

or any other group, organization or institution.

94 
• "Special Government employee" means a special Government

employee as defined in section 202 of Title 18 of the United States

Code, who is employed by the Commission:

The term "special Government employee" shall mean an officer or 

employee of *** any independent agency of the United States *** who 

is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with or 

without compensation, for not to exceed 130 days during any period of 

365 consecutive days, temporary duties either on a ful/time or 

intermittent basis, ***. (18 U.S.C. 202(a).) 

Subpart B - Ethical and Other Conduct and Responsibilities of Employees . 

. 1. Gifts, entertainment, and favors. 

(a) A Commissioner or employee of the Federal Election Commission

shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity,

favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of monetary value,

from a person who:

• Has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual or other business or

financial relations with the Commission;

• Conducts operations or activities that are regulated or

examined by the Commission;

• Has interests that may be substantially affected by the

performance or nonperformance of the Commissioner or

employee's official duty.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply:

• Where obvious family or personal relationships govern when

the circumstances make it clear that it is those relationships

rather than the business of the persons concerned which are

the motivating factors;

• To the acceptance of food, refreshments, and accompanying

entertainment of nominal value in the ordinary course of a

social occasion or a luncheon or dinner meeting or other

function where a Commissioner or an employee is properly in

attendance;

• The acceptance of lodging on rare or infrequent occasions

where a Commissioner or an employee is properly in attendance and circumstances thereof are reported to the Commission;

95 
• To the acceptance of unsolicited advertising or promotional

material such as pens, pencils, note pads, calendars, and other

items of nominal intrinsic value; and

• To the acceptance of loans from banks or other financial

institutions on customary terms to finance proper and usual

activities, such as home mortgage loans.

(c) A Commissioner or an employee shall not solicit a contribution

from another employee for a gift to an official superior, make a

donation as a gift to an official superior, or accept a gift from an

employee receiving less pay than himself (5 U.S.C. 7351).

However, this paragraph does not prohibit a voluntary gift of

nominal value or donation in a nominal amount made on a special

occasion such as marriage, illness, or retirement.

2. Outside Employment.

(a) Definition. As used in this part, the term "outside employment or

other outside activity" refers to any work, service, or other

activity performed by an employee, but not a Commissioner, other

than in the performance of his official duties. It includes such

activities as writing and editing, publishing, teaching, lecturing,

consulting services, self-employment, and other work or services,

with or without compensation. Commissioners shall comply with

this section by devoting such portion of their time as is necessary

to assure that their duty to administer the programs of the Federal

Elections Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, is fully and

faithfully1

discharged.

(b) Policy.

(1) Employees may be permitted to engage in outside employment or other outside activity that is compatible with the

full and proper discharge of the duties and responsibilities of

their Government employment. Guidelines for determining

compatibility are set forth in (c). An employee who intends

to engage in outside employment shall obtain the approval,

through his official superior, of the Staff Director. A record

of each approval under this paragraph shall be filed in the

employee's official personnel folder.

(2) Employees are encouraged to participate as private citizens in

the affairs of their communities: Provided, that the limitations prescribed below, and otherwise by these regulations,

are observed. Among these activities may be the following:

96 
(A) Speaking, writing, editing and teaching.

(B) Participation in the affairs of charitable, religious,

professional, social, fraternal, non-profit educational

and recreational, public service, or civic organizations,

and the acceptance of an award for a meritorious

public contribution or achievement from any such

organization.

(c) Guidelines and limitations. Outside employment or other outside

activity is incompatible with the full and proper discharge of an

employee's duties and responsibilities, and hence is prohibited, if:

• It would involve the violation of a Federal or State statute, a

local ordinance, Executive order, or regulation to which the

employee is subject.

• It would give rise to a real or apparent conflict of interest

situation even though no violation of a specific statutory

provision was involved.

• It would involve acceptance of a fee, compensation, gift,

payment of expense, or any other thing of monetary value in

circumstances in which acceptance might result in, or create

the appearance of, a conflict of interest.

• It might bring discredit upon the Government or the

Commission or lead to relationships which might impair public

confidence in the integrity of the Government or the Commission.

• It would involve work with any contractor or subcontractor

which is connected with any work being performed by that

entity for the Commission or would otherwise involve work

for any person or organization which may be in a position to

gain advantage in its dealings with the Government through the

employee's exercise of his official duties.

• It would identify the Commission or the employee officially

with any organization or individual whose activities are subject

to the Commission's jurisdiction, or would create the false

impression that it is an official action of the Commission, or

represents an official point of view. In any permissible outside

employment, care shall be taken to ensure that names and

titles of employees are not used to give the impression that the

activity is officially endorsed or approved by the Commission

or is part of the Commission activities.

97 
• It would involve use of the employee's time during his official

working hours.

• It would involve use by the employee of official facilities, e.g.,

office space, office machines or supplies, or the services of

other employees during duty hours.

• It wou Id be of such extent or nature as to interfere with the

efficient performance of the employee's Government duties, or

impair his mental or physical capacity to perform them in an

acceptable manner.

• It would involve use of information obtained as a result of

Government employment which is not freely available to the

general public in that it either has not been made available to

the general public or would not be made available on request.

However, written authorization for the use of any such

information may be given when the Commission determines

that such use would be in the public interest.

3. Prohibited Financial Interests.

A Commissioner or employee shall not: 

• Engage in, directly or indirectly, a financial transaction as a result

of, or primarily relying on, information obtained through his

Government employment.

• Have a financial interest that conflicts substantially, or appears to

conflict substantially, with his Government duties and responsibilities, except in cases where the employee makes full disclosure in

accordance with § 11 hereof, and the employee disqualifies himself

from participating in any decisions, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in

any proceeding of the Commission in which the indirect financial

interest is or appears to be affected.

• A Commissioner or employee should disqualify himself from a

proceeding or matter in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned where he knows that he or his spouse or minor child

residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject

matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other

interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the

proceeding.

98 
4. Use of Government Property.

A Commissioner or employee shall not directly or indirectly use, or allow 

the use of, Government property of any kind, including property leased to 

the Government, for other than officially approved activities. An employee 

has a positive duty to protect and conserve Government property including 

equipment, supplies, and other property entrusted or issued to him. 

5. Misuse of Information.

A Commissioner or employee is prohibited from directly or indirectly using 

or allowing the use of official information obtained through or in connection 

with his Government employment which has not been made available to the 

general public, for the purpose of furthering a private interest. 

6. Political and Organization Activity.

(a) Although the Commission is not subject to the Hatch Act ( 18

U.S.C. 602, 603, 607 and 608) it is the policy of the Commission

that the Commissioners and all Commission employees shall

refrain from political activities forbidden by that Act, as heretofore or hereafter amended and as interpreted by the Civil Service

Commission from time to time.

(b) The Commission has further concluded that because of its

peculiarly delicate role in the political process the following

additional restrictions are necessary:

• No Commissioner or employee paid at the rate of GS 11 or

above or auditor or investigator shall publicly support a

candidate, political committee subject to the jurisdiction of

the Commission.

Employees should be aware that contributing to candidates, 

political parties, or political committees subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission is likely to create a conflict of 

interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest. Further, the 

making of such contributions could give rise to violations of 18 

U.S.C. § 208, which prohibits certain acts affecting a personal 

financial interest. For these reasons, such contributions are 

strongly discouraged. 

• No Commissioner or employee shall display partisan buttons

or badges or other insignia on Commission premises.

99 
(c) Special employees are subject to the restrictions contained in this

section when in active duty status only and for the entire 24 hours

of any day of actual employment.

(d) Employees on leave, on leave without pay, or on furlough or

terminal leave, even though the employees' resignations have been

accepted are subject to �he restrictions. A separated employee who

has received a lump-sum payment for annual leave, however, is not

subject to the restrictions during the period covered by the

lump-sum payment or thereafter, provided he does not return to

Federal employment during that period. An employee is not

permitted to take a leave of absence to work with a political

candidate, committee, or organization or become a candidate for

office with the understanding that he will resign his position if

nominated or elected.

(el An employee is accountable for political actIvIty by another 

person acting as his agent or under the employee's direction or 

control if he is thus accomplishing indirectly what he may not 

lawfully do directly and openly. 

7. Miscellaneous Statutory Provisions.

Each employee shall acquaint himself with each statute that relates to his 

ethical and other conduct as an employee of his agency and of the 

Government. In particular, attention of employees is directed to the 

following statutory provisions: 

• Chapter 11 of Title 18, United States Code, relating to bribery,

graft, and conflicts of interest, as appropriate to the employees

concerned (see § § 203.9, 203.10, and 203.11 ).

• The prohibition against lobbying with appropriated funds ( 18 U.S.C.

1913).

• The prohibition against disloyalty and striking (5 U.S.C. 7311, 18

U.S.C. 1918).

• The prohibition against the employment of a member of the

Communist organization (50 U.S.C. 784).

• The prohibition against ( 1) the disclosure of classified information

(18 U.S.C. 798, 50 U.S.C. 783) and (2) the disclosure of

confidential business information (18 U.S.C. 1905).

100 
• The provision relating to the habitual use of intoxicants to excess (5

u.s.c. 7352).

• The prohibition against the misuse of a Government vehicle (31

U.S.C. 638a(c)).

• The prohibition against the misuse of the franking privilege ( 18

u.s.c. 1719).

• The prohibition against the use of deceit in an examination or

personnel action in connection with Government employment ( 18

u.s:c. 1917).

• The prohibition against fraud or false statements in a Government

matter ( 18 U.S.C. 2071 ).

• The prohibition against mutilating or destroying a public record ( 18

u.s.c. 2071 ).

• The prohibition against counterfeiting and forging transportation

requests (18 U.S.C. 508).

• The prohibitions against ( 1) embezzlement of Government money

or property (18 U.S.C. 641 ); (2) failing to account for public money

(18 U.S.C. 643); and (3) embezzlement of the money or property of

another person in the possession of an employee by reason of his

employment (18 U.S.C. 654).

• The prohibition against unauthorized use of documents relating to

claims from or by the Government (18 U.S.C. 285).

• The prohibition against an employee acting as the agent of a foreign

principal registered under Foreign Agents Registration Act ( 18

u.s.c. 219).

• The prohibition against certain activities of departing and former

employees ( 18 U.S.C. 207).

• The prohibition against certain acts affecting a personal financial

interest ( 18 U.S.C. 208).

8. Reporting of Employment and Financial Interests - Regular

Employees.

(a) Not later than 30 days after the effective date of this part, an

employee designated in paragraph (d) of this section shall submit

through his or her supervisor to the Staff Director or his designee

101 
or, in the case of the Staff Director, to the Chairman of the 

Commission, ,. statement (Appendix A to this part) and a 

supplemental questionnaire (Appendix C to this part), setting 

forth the following information: 

• A list of the names of all corporations, companies, firms, or 

other business enterprises, partnerships, non-profit organizations, and educational or other institutions with or in which

he, or, if he has constructive control over their assets, his

spouse, minor child or other member of his immediate

household has -

(A) Any connection as an employee, officer, owner, director,

member, trustee, partner, advisor, or consultant

including an offer for future employment or a temporary

absence from employment, such as a leave of absence; or

(B) Any continuing financial interest, through a pension or

retirement plan, shared income, or other arrangement as

a result of any current or prior employment or business

or professional association; or

(C) Any financial interest through the ownership of stock,

stock options, bonds, securities, or other arrangements

including trusts.

• A list of the names of his creditors and, if he has constructive

control over their assets, the creditors of his spouse, minor

child or other member of his immediate household, other than

those creditors to whom they may be indebted by reason of a

mortgage on property which he occupies as a personal

residence or to whom they may be indebted for current and

ordinary household and. living expenses such as those incurred

for household furnishings, an automobile, education, vaca- · · tions, or the like.

• A list of his interests and, if he has constructive control over

their assets, those of his spouse, minor child or other member

of his immediate household in real property or rights in lands,

other than property which he occupies as a personal residence.

(b) For the purpose of this section "member of his immediate

household" means a full-time resident of the employee's household who is related to him by .blood.

(c) Before a final offer of employmentmay be made to an applicant

for employment with the Commission,

102 
• The Commission supervisor to whom the applicant would

report shall obtain and review a Confidential Statement of

Employment and Financial Interest from the applicant;

• The supervisor to whom the applicant would report shall

certify that there is no conflict, appearance of conflict or

potential conflict of interest between the interests disclosed on

the statement and the proposed duties of the applicant; and

• The Staff Director or his designee shall make a determination

that there is no conflict, appearance of conflict or potential

conflict of interest between the interests disclosed on the

statement and the proposed duties of the applicant.

(d) Statements of employment and financial interests are required of

the following:

• Employees paid at a level of the Executive Schedule in

subchapter 11 of chapter 53 of Title 5, United States Code.

• Employees paid at the rate of GS 11 or above.

(e) Changes in, or additions to, the information contained in an

employee's statement of employment and financial interests shall

be reported in a supplementary statement as of June 30 each year.

If no changes or additions occur, a negative report is required.

Notwithstanding the filing of the annual report required by this

paragraph, each employee shall at all times comply with the

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208.

(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not require an employee to

submit any information relating to his connection with, or interest

in, a professional society or a charitable, religious, social, fraternal,

recreational, public service, civic, or political organization or a

similar organization not conducted as a business enterprise. For

the purpose of this section, educational and other institutions

doing research and development or related work involving grants

of money from or contracts with the Government are deemed

"business enterprises" and are required to be included in an

employee's statement of employment and financial interests.

(g) The Commission shall hold each statement of employment and

financial interests and each supplemental questionnaire in confidence. Each person designated to review statements of employment and financial interests and supplemental questionnaires

under § 203.27 is responsible for maintaining the statement in

103 
confidence and shall not allow access to, or allow information to 

be disclosed from, a statement or a questionnaire except to carry 

out the purpose of this part. 

(h) The statements of employment and financial interests and supplementary statements required of employees are in addition to, and

not in substitution for, or in derogation of, any similar requirement imposed by law, order, or regulation. The submission of a

statement by an employee does not permit him or any other

person to participate in a matter in which his or the other person's

participation is prohibited by law, order, or regulation.

(i) An employee who believes that his position has been improperly

included as one requiring the submission of a statement of

employment and financial interests is entitled to obtain a review of 

his complaint under the Commission's grievance procedure.

(j) This section does not apply to special Government employees,

who are subject to the provisions of subpart C.

(k) The Staff Director or his designee shall retain the Confidential

Statements of employees.

Subpart C - Ethical and Other Conduct and Responsibilities of Special 

Government Employees. 

1. Use of Commission Employment.

A special Commission employee sliall not use his or her Commission 

employment for a purpose that is, or gives the appearance of being, 

motivated by the desire for private gain for himself or another person, 

particularly one with whom he has family, business, or financial ties. 

2. Use of Inside Information.

(a) A special Commission employee shall not use inside information

obtained as a result of his Government employment for private

gain for himse.lf or another person either by direct action on his

part or by counsel, reoommendation or suggestion to another

person, particularly one with whom he has family, business, or

financial ties. For the purpose of this section, "inside information"

means information obtained under Commission authority which

has not become part of the body of public information.

(b) A special Commission employee may teach, lecture, or write in a

manner not inconsistent with Subpart A in regard to employees.

104 
3. Coercion.

A special Commission employee shall not use his Commission employment 

to coerce, or give the appearance of coercing, a person to provide financial 

benefit to himself or another person, particularly one with whom he has 

family, business, or financial ties. 

4. Gifts, Entertainment, and Favors.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a special

Commission employee, while so employed or in connection with

his employment, shall not receive or solicit from a person having

business with this Commission anything of value as a gift, gratuity,

loan, entertainment, or favor for himself or another person,

particularly one with whom he has family, business, or financial

ties.

(b) Exemptions to paragraph (a) of this section are the same as those

authorized to employees under Subpart A.

5. Miscellaneous Statutory Provisions.

Each special Commission employee shall acquaint himself with each statute 

that relates to his ethical and other conduct as a special Commission 

employee of the Commission and of the Government. In particular, 

attention of special Commission employees is directed to the statutory 

provisions listed in Subpart B § 7. 

6. Reporting of Employment and Financial Interest - Special Government

Employees.

(a) A special Government employee shall submit through his supervisor to the Staff Director or his designee a statement of

employment and financial interests (Appendix B tq this part) and

a supplemental questionnaire (Appendix C to this part), which

reports

• all current Federal Government employment,

• the names of all corporations, companies, firms, State or local

governmental organizations, research organizations, and educational or other institutions in or for which he is an employee,

officer, member, owner, trustee, director, advisor, or consultant, with or without compensation,

105 
• any financial interest through the ownership of stock, stock

options, bonds, securities, or other arrangements including

trusts, and

• the names of all partnerships in which he is engaged.

(b) The statement and supplemental questionnaire required under this

section shall be submitted at the time of employment and shall be 

kept current throughout the term of a special Government

employee's service with the Commission. A supplementary statement shall be submitted at the time of any reappointment; a

negative report will suffice if no changes have occurred since the

submission of the last statement.

Subpart D - Reviewing Statements of Employment and Financial Interests 

1. Determination of Conflict of Interest

(a) The Staff Director or his designee in cooperation with the

employee's supervisor shall review the statements required by

Subpart B and Subpart C to determine whether there exists a

conflict, appearance of conflict, or potential conflict, between the

interests of the employee or special Government employee

concerned and the performance of his service for the Government.

The Chairman of the Commission shall review the statement

submitted to him by the Staff Director. If the Staff Director or 

designee determines that such a conflict or appearance of conflict

exists, he shall discuss with the employee possible ways of 

eliminating the conflict or appearance of conflict. If he concludes

that remedial action should be taken, he shall refer the statement 

to the Commission with his recommendation for such action. The

Commission, after consideration of the employee's explanation

and such investigation as it deems appropriate, shall direct

appropriate remedial action if it deems it necessary.

(b) Remedial action pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may

include, but is not limited to:

• Changes in assigned duties.

• Divestment by the employee of his conflicting interest.

• Disqualification for a particular action.

• Disciplinary action.

106 
107 

2. Membership in Associations.

All Commission personnel who are members of nongovernmental associations or organizations must avoid activities on behalf of the association or 

organizations that are incompatible with their offi�ial government positions. 

3. Reporting Suspected Violations.

Personnel who have information which causes them to believe that there has 

been a violation of a statute or policy set forth in this part will promptly 

report such incidents to their immediate superiors. If the superior believes 

there has been a violation, he will report the matter to the Staff Director. 

Any question or doubt on the part of the immediate superior will be 

resolved in favor of reporting the matter. 
C. Development of FEC Regulations and Interim

Guidelines

Regulations 

The regulations promulgated by the Commission, as with any regulation 

promulgated by an agency under the Administrative Procedure Act, have the 

force and effect of law as they interpret the statutes under the Commission's 

jurisdiction. 

The procedures developed for the preparation of FEC regulations include: 

1. Initial draft by a regulation writing team and staff review within the

Office of the General Counsel;

2. Presentation for Commission review and approval;

3. Publication in the Federal Register;

4. Commission hearings with public and private witnesses for receipt of

written and oral comments from the public (Hearings for the disclosure

regulations ran three days in October, 450 pages of oral testimony were

taken, and 40 additional written submissions were received running to

500 pages of material);

5. Redraft based on the hearings, public comments received and further

in-house review;

6. Adoption by the Commission and transmittal to Congress;

7. Congressional hearings;

8. Promulgation in final form after 30 legislative days if neither House has

objected (this step is prescribed by the statute, 438(c) ).

Regulations covering the following areas have been adopted and transmitted 

to the Congress, or will be adopted in the near future: 

Subject of Regulation 

1. Disclosure, covering the reporting requirements under Title 2 of the U.S.

Code;

Current Status (as of 

1 /31 /76) 

1. Final FEC approval

11/25/75

109 
Subject of Regulation (Continued) 

2. Document filing, covering the Title 2

provisions relating to where statements

and reports are filed;

3. Office accounts, covering the reporting of

activities under statute 4 39(a) of Title 2;

4. Presidential primary matching funds,

covering those parts of Title 26 of the

U.S. Code relating to the matching of

primary contributions;

5. Convention financing, relating to those

parts of Title 26 covering the Federal

contribution to party convention activities;

6. Allocation, covering the allocation by

Presidential, senatorial and House candidates of contributions, expenditures, and

travel activities;

7. Advisory opinion procedures, covering

the Commission's process for considering

and adopting advisory opinions;

8. Compliance procedure, covering the

Commission's process in accepting, reviewing and making the final determination on complaints regarding a candidate

or committee's failure to comply with

the statute regulations;

9. Subpoenas, covering the Commission's

authority to subpoena witnesses and

material.

Current Status (Continued) 

2. Rejected by House

10/22/75

2nd Final F EC approval 11 /25/75

3. 1st & 2nd version

rejected by Senate

10/8/75

3rd Final F EC approval 11 /25/75

4. F EC Final approval

12/18/75

5. F EC Final approval

1 /8/76

6. F EC Final approval

12/23/75

7. FEC· Final approval

12/23/75

8. Publica tion in

Federal Register

1 /15/76

9. Pu b lication in 

Federal Register 

10/09/75 

110 
Case Study of Disclosure Regulations 

The amount of Commission time spent on developing regulations obviously 

varies substantially, depending on the subject matter involved. The Commission's disclosure regulations, covering Title 2 reporting by candidates and 

committees, is the most comprehensive and detailed of the Commission's 

regulations and a description of its evolution will provide an excellent 

overview of the procedures and time involved. 

In early July, the General Counsel designated three staff attorneys to form a 

regulation drafting team to prepare the initial draft of the disclosure 

regulations. This initial draft was completed within approximately three 

weeks. The three staff attorneys worked virtually full-time on this first draft. 

It was then circulated to a larger group of members of the General Counsel's 

staff, who met in several sessions to review the drafts line-by-line, making 

changes throughout the first draft. This revised version was finalized and 

circulated to the Commission and the rest of the staff the week of August 4. 

Throughout the month of August, the General Counsel's office conducted a 

series of in-house discussions of the August 4 version, to review it part by 

part, line by line. These sessions were attended by ,Commissioners, their 

assistants and other staff members, particularly those from the Audit and 

Investigation Division, which would be directly concerned with the 

enforcement of the disclosure provisions. These sessions, and continuing 

review by the General Counsel's office, produced a second formal version 

which was distributed to the Commissioners and staff the week of 

September 12. This draft was subject to comments from the staff•and then a 

final acceptable version was completed, which was approved by the 

Commission for publication on September 17. This version was published in 

the Federal Register on September 29 for a 3().day public comment period. 

At this point, the Commission scheduled public hearings on the published 

regulations, which were held on October 21, 22 and 24. Twenty-two public 

witnesses were heard, and written comments were received from approximately 50 individuals and organizations. 405 pages of testimony was taken 

during the public hf:larings, in addition to the prepared statements offered by 

most of the public witnesses. 

Prior to the public hearings, a briefing was held by the Commission for 

Members of Congress and their staffs from the committees which have 

jurisdiction over the Commission's activities. These briefings included a 

presentation of the substance of the regulation and extensive discussions 

between the staff members from the Congress and the Commission in an 

attempt to fully explain and understand the proposed regulation. 

Following the close of the public comment period on October 29, each of 

the written comments received and the relevant pages of the hearing 

111 
transcript were indexed and broken down by regulation section and 

subsection. At this point, the Office of General Counsel regulation drafting 

team began the final redraft of the regulations, taking into account, section 

by section, the comments and testimony received. 

A revised draft was prepared and circulated to the Commissioners and staff 

for additional comments. A series of in-house sessions, again covering the 

regulation section by section, line by line, were held to fine-tune this draft. 

The result of this procedure was a final draft presented to the Commission 

on November 21. The Commission held a special meeting on November 25, 

considered the disclosure regulation section by section, and approved it in a 

six-hour-plus meeting. Following this final approval, the regulation drafting 

team prepared the explanation and justification which the statute requires to 

accompany each proposed regulation when it is transmitted to the Congress. 

The final approved version of the regulation, along with the explanation and 

justification, was formally transmitted to the Congress on December 4. 

Following transmission to the Congress, individual Commissioners and 

Commission staff have been available to explain and describe the regulations, 

and the Commission's rationale behind specific provisions. At the request of 

Members of Congress and staff members of the appropriate committees, 

individual Commissioners and staff members from the Commission have met 

and explained the regulations. 

The Committee on House Administration held public hearings on January 

27, at which Commissioners and public witnesses presented their views to 

the Committee. 

Interim Guidelines 

The Commission has from time-to-time used the device of an interim 

guideline to state Commission policy in an area where regulations have either 

not yet been promulgated, or will not be, because of the subject matter. In 

general, interim guidelines are drafted using procedures similar to that for 

regulations. An initial draft is prepared by the Office of General Counsel, 

considered by the General Counsel's staff, circulated to the Commission for 

comments, and a final draft is prepared. A significant difference, of course, is 

that guidelines are not published for comment prior to final adoption. Also, 

unlike regulations, the guidelines do not have the force and effect of law, but 

do state the Commission's policy in various areas. Interim guidelines have 

been issued in the following areas: 

112 
Interim 

Guidelines 

Federal Register 

Date 

Federal Register 

Notice 

Number 

1. Reporting June 2, 1975 1975-1 

2. Addendum to interim

guidelines June 16, 1976 -3

3. Mu !ti-Candidate

committees June 26, 1975 -6

4. Complaint procedure July 7, 1975 -9

5. Reporting old debts

and obi igations August 5, 1976 -20

6. Records to be maintained

for certification for primary matching funds August 11, 1975 -22

7. New Hampshire election September 3, 1975 -34

8. Disbursement procedures

for public financing September 3, 1975 -36

9. Presidential primary

matching funds September 9, 1975 -40

10. Tennessee special

election September 22, 1975 -47

11. October 10 quarterly

report September 29, 1975 -53

12. Reporting requirements October 9, 1975 -58

113 
D. Development of Advisory Opinions and Opinions

of Counsel

Advisory Opinions 

Prior to the effective date of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act 

amended, it was often difficult for candidates and political committees to 

determine whether they were in compliance with an existing Federal election 

statute, particularly when a statute did not directly address the legality of 

the campaign activity which concerned the candidate or committee. On 

occasion, informal advice could be obtained from the Department of Justice 

and the General Accounting Office, but this advice did not have the same 

force and effect as a legally binding ruling from an appropriate administrative agency. 

Thus, to remedy this deficiency, when Congress created the Federal Election 

Commission it specifically granted to the Commission the power to issue 

Advisory Opinions. The Act provides that on the request of any Federal 

officeholder, any candidate for Federal office, or any political committee, 

the Commission shall render an Advisory Opinion as to whether any specific 

transaction or activity by that individual or committee constitutes. a 

violation of the Act. Any person who receives an Advisory Opinion and acts 

in accordance with the provisions and findings of such Opinion, will be 

presumed to be in compliance with the Act. 

The Commission has adopted a number of Advisory Opinion guidelines for 

persons submitting a request which have also been formulated as regulations 

and submitted to Congress for consideration. Under these procedures: 

(a) an agent may request an Opinion on behalf of a principal, provided that

the agent discloses the identity of the principal;

(b) requests are required to include all relevant facts; requests are directed

to be sent to the Federal Election Commission, Office of the General

Counsel, Advisory- Opinion Section, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20463; and

(c) an Advisory Opinion Request (AOR) is assigned an AOR number for

reference purposes on receipt by the Commission.

The internal procedure for developing Advisory Opinions stresses maximum 

Commission involvement and also provides for public comment. These steps 

are: 

1. Preliminary Commission discussion of Advisory Opinion Request.

115 
2. Publication of Request in the Federal Register with 15-day period for

public comment.

3. Research and writing of draft of Advisory Opinion by legal staff.

4. Review by Office of Disclosure and Compliance.

5. Submission for Commission consideration.

6. Formal Commission discussion and adoption of necessary amendments.

7. Adoption by the Commission by a majority of those present and

voting.

8. Publication of the Opinion in the Federal Register.

9. Transmittal of Opinion to the requestor.

10. Provision is also made for reconsideration on written request of 

original requestor of a Commissioner who voted with the majority on

the Opinion.

Opinions of Counsel 

Pursuant to its obligation to elaborate on and clarify the meaning of the Act, 

the Commission has authorized its Office of the General. Counsel to issue 

Opinions of _Counsel. These opinions are issued in responli�Jo inquiries from 

persons whodo not have standing under the Act tojequest an Advisory 

Opinion, or to persons who have such standing but who ,have posed a 

question about a transaction or activity which would no{violate provisions 

of the law. Opinions of Counsel are used to respond only to inquiries from 

persons who are subject to t,he sanctions of the Act. 

Opinions of Counsel should.be un_derstood as being in general, no more than 

, their title suggests, a statement ofthe current view of the, Qffice of General 

Counsel with respect to the issues in question. These opini,e>ris stress that the 

presumption of compliancewhich would normally attach i!i c,onnection with 

an Advisory Opinion does not attach to an Opinion of Coynsei. 

The Commission's procedure for issuing an Opinion of ;Counsel is simpler 

than the. procedure for Advisory Opinions. Opinions, of Counsel are 

circulated to the full Commission and unless a Commissioner objects to the 

content of the circulated Opinion, the Opinion will issue. over the General 

Counsel.'s signature at the cl9se · of the second full wor�ing day following 

circulation. In the event that any Commissioner objects ·to an Opinion of 

Counsel, the Opinion is put on the agenda for the next meeting of the full 

Commission. 

116 
When appropriate, the Commission will direct that Opinions of Counsel be 

printed in the Federal Register and elsewhere to assure the widest possible 

circulation. For example, see OC 1975-12, 41 FR 3990 (January 27, 1976). 

Monthly Production 

Through the month of December, the Commission and the Office of the 

General Counsel have issued the following number of Advisory Opinions 

(AO's) and Opinions of Counsel (OC's): 

AO's OC's 

July 

August 

September 

October 

4 

10 

7 

12 

3 

6 

11 

7 

November 18 10 

December 25 11 

Totals 76 48 

Copies of all Advisory Opinion and Opinion of Counsel requests, all 

comments received on these requests, and all public memoranda prepared by 

the Commission are maintained for public inspection during normal office 

hours at the Commission's Public Records Office. 

Case Study of Advisory Opinion 1975-15 

The preparation and consideration of an Advisory Opinion issued in response 

to a request from the Wallace Campaign is illustrative of the time and effort 

expended in producing an Advisory Opinion. Initial work on this AOR began 

in early August, and thereafter consumed a good deal of the time and 

attention of five attorneys, including t he General Counsel, and the 

Commissioners for a period of five weeks until September 18, 1975 when it 

was approved and issued by the Commission. On its face the request 

appeared simple enough. The Wallace Campaign asked: 

"May the Wallace Campaign, a nonprofit corporation, enter into a 

contract with George C. Wallace, which contract grants the campaign 

exclusive rights to use Mr. Wallace's photograph, facsimile signature, 

117 
photo-biograph and minted likeness in books or on watches, minted 

medallions and coin-like replicas. In return for this use the campaign 

would set aside a specified portion of sales proceeds realized as a result of 

the sale for these items as a royalty for Mr. Wallace, would keep an 

account of these royalties, and would disburse royalties to Mr. Wallace 

upon his demand but not to exceed an amount of $15,000 per year. The 

contractual period was 10 years with a right of extension by mutual 

consent for an additional 5 years. At termination of the contract, any 

funds remaining in the royalty account would be paid to Mr. Wallace." 

At the outset the issues raised in the request appeared to fall into four 

general areas. First, what disclosure requirements, if any, applied to 

expenditures by the campaign to acquire the described items, to disburse 

royalty payments 1:0 Mr. Wallace, and to record and disclose proceeds 

received as a resu It of the sale of the items. A second issue raised was 

whether the purchase price paid for any of the items sold was required to be 

counted, in whole or in part as a contribution by the purchaser to the Wallace 

campaign and counted aga·inst the individual contribution limit of $1,000. 

Thirdly, the request raised an issue as to whether the amounts disbursed by 

the Wallace campaign as royalties to Mr. Wallace and the amounts disbursed 

to purchase the various items were subject to the applicable spending limits. 

A fourth issue that proved difficult for the Commission and its staff, was 

whether the royalty arrangement between Mr. Wallace and the Wallace 

Campaign, Inc., was an arms-length transaction permitting Mr. Wallace to 

realize royalty income derived from his status as a Presidential candidate. 

The disclosure issues raised by the various transactions - sale and purchase 

of the items and royalty payments - were readily resolved. However, the 

limitation questions and the propriety of Mr. Wallace receiving royalties as a 

result of campaign activity proved more troublesome. In its initial 

consideration of a draft opinion presented by the General Counsel, 

approximately one month after the public comment period ended, considerable discussion focused on whether the described items were "campaign" items or simply items that the campaign was selling in a commercial 

venture to provide income to Mr. Wallace. 

Following the receipt of clarification from the request:or, the General 

Counsel proposed, and the Commission agreed, that funds received to 

"purchase"any of the items should be regarded as contributions without 

regard to the actual profit realized by the Wallace campaign from the "sale" 

of any of the described items. The conclusion then followed that 

expenditures for those materials, including royalty payments to Mr. Wallace 

under the contract, were expenditures to influence his nomination or 

election, since they were necessary in order for the campaign to acquire the 

items and sell them to raise campaign funds. 

118 
The Commission's consideration of this issue proceeded simultaneously with 

its review of the important question whether the amounts paid by 

contributors to "purchase" campaign items and paraphernalia were gifts of 

money that would count in determining the eligibility of a Presidential 

candidate for matching funds, or that could be matched in whole or in part 

with Federal funds. The Commission decided that any amount paid for 

campaign items of "significant intrinsic and enduring value" could not be 

matched with Federal funds. 

There remained the essential question of whether the royalty contract with 

Mr. Wallace was in violation of Federal statutes within the advisory opinion 

jurisdiction of the Commission. During the Commission meeting in which 

this opinion was discussed for the third time, it was eventually decided that 

the contract was not unlawful. Finally, after several intervening hours of 

staff time preparing several drafts reflecting developments from Commission 

discussion, the Advisory Opinion responding to this request was approved 

and issued to the Wallace Campaign. 

As a result of increased familiarity with the statute by the Commission and 

its staff, very few opinions have required as much time as was needed in 

preparing and deliberating on the opinion just described. Generally, they 

have been approved at the same meeting when initially presented by the 

General Counsel for Commission consideration. Others, involving in some 

cases issues of greater complexity and controversy, required several 

Commission meetings and concomitant preparation time and effort by the 

Commission staff. 

119 
Subject Index Advisory Opinion No. 

Awards 85 

Bank accounts 

Bank contributions 

2, 41 

14 

Bankruptcy 102 

Billboard signs 

Campaign debts 

Cash contributions 

67 

5, 6, 39, 44, 50, 57, 64, 68, 

82, 88, 102, 106 

44 

Charitable contributions 55 

Check, Contributions by 60 

Connected organization - Definition 44 

Contributions - Definition 63 

Contributions - Limits - Earmarking 

Contributions - Limits - President 

10,26,32,48, 74 

44 

Contributions - Limits - Primary election 53 

Contributions, Non-election year 

Contribution - Time limits 

Corporate contributions 

(see also Political education committees - Contributions) 

;ounty political committee contributions 

48, 74 

57, 74 

1,13, 14, 16, 21, 23, 39, 47 

50,59

29 

Dual candidacy 

Election - Definition 

Excess campaign funds 

Expenditures, Allocation of - Statements 

11, 61 

12,44,54, 105 

26,51,53,60,88

2,87 

Expenditures - Limits - General election 53 

Family contributions 

F.E.C. - Advisory Opinions, Applicability 

Fees, Accountants' 

31,65

50 

27 

Fees, Agents' 

Fees, Attorneys' 

84 

27 

Franked mail 3 

Fundraising costs 

Gifts 

33,49,62, 78 

20 

Government contractors' contributions 

Honorariums 

Individual contributions 

Intern programs 

31, 99, 110 

8, 13,20,46,55,63, 77,84, 

85,89,93

48, 74 

100 

Investment of contributions 41 

Labor, Organized - Contributions 14 

Loans 4,50 

Loans by a candidate 57 

c. Subiect Index and Summaries of Advisory Opinions

121 
Loans, Retired 69 

Multi-candidate political committees 

Newsletter accounts (see also Office accounts) 

Newspaper subscriptions 

Nominating conventions, National 

Nominating conventions, National - Delegates' contributions 

32,36,45,87

2,3

30 

1, 54 

and expenditures (see also Nominating conventions, 

National - Selection of delegates) 12 

Nominating conventions, National - Host committees 

Nominating conventions, State 

47 

105 

Nomination by petition 53 

Non-profit organizations - Contributions 

Office accounts (see also Newsletter accounts) 

Officers of political committees 

Officers of political committees - Signature of 

75 

4, 10, 14, 51, 64 

35 

67 

Partnership contributions 

Personal funds 

Personal services, Voluntary 

Political committee - Administrative expenses 

17, 31 

11,111

97, 100 

21 

Political committee, Affiliated 44 

Political committee - Authorization of 44 

Political committee, Common control of 32 

Political committee - Definition 

Political committee - Incorporation of 

28,81

37 

Political committee - Organization 

Political committee, Principal 

Political committee - Reporting 

Political committee, Subordinate 

95 

16 

28,40,49

2 

Political committee, Subordinate - Contributions 120 

Political conferences as contributions 87 

Political education committees - Contributions 

Political education committees - Reporting 

Primary election - Definition 

Raffles 

20,23,36

20 

44,54, 105 

60 

Registration of voters - Drives 20,21 

Reporting, Continuous 

Reporting dates 

18 

44 

Reporting requirements 2 

Royalties 

Telethons 

15, 77 

4 

Television broadcasts 

Transfer of campaign funds 

Travel expenses 

Unauthorized persons' expenditures 

U.S. Congress. House. Clerk - Opinions 

U.S. President - Expenditures 

U.S. Vice-President - Expenditures 

46,107

10,22,40,45,66

8, 13,20,30, 72,87,98 

22 

50 

33,72 

72 

Unopposed primary candidates 9 

122 
Summary Descriptions of Advisory Opinions 

This chart represents a listing and brief description of all Advisory Opinions issued by the Commission 

through mid-January. Advisory Opinions are not necessarily approved in sequential order. Reference 

following each description is the publication date and page number in the Federal Register. Those persons 

reading this chart are advised that-pending promulgation of Rules and Regulations - the Opinions apply 

only to the requesting parties and are published for informational purposes only. 

AO 1975-1 NATIONAL PARTY CONVENTIONS. Corporations may not make contributions to assist national party 

conventions except under limited circumstances. (7 /15/75-

29791) 

, AO 1975-2 MICHIGAN COMMITTEES. State Committee 

and subordinate local party organizations may allocate 

expenditures among each other for purposes of the party 

spending limits. (8/ 18/75-36092) 

AO 1975-3 REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. Costs of printing or preparing matter sent under 

Congressional frank are not covered by contribution and 

expenditure limits. (8/18/75-36092) 

AO 1976-4 DEMOCRATIC PARTY TELETHON. Endorsers or 

guarantors of loans to Democratic National Telethon are 

"contributors" subject to limits. (7 /15/75-29791) 

, AO 1976-6 PRE-1 973 DEBTS. Contribution and expenditure limits do not apply to cancellation of pre-1973 debts. 

(7 /25/75-31315) 

· I 1976-6 1973-1974 CAMPAIGN DEBTS. Only the 

Ii,. . .Jtion on expenditures from a candidate's personal funds 

applies to cancellation of 1973-1974 campaign debts. 

(7/25/75-31315) 

AO 1976-7 CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE ACCOUNTS. 

Contributions and expenditures from office accounts are 

subject to limitations but contributions and expenditures from 

franking accounts are exempt. (9/3/75-40673) 

AO 1975-8 HONORARIUMS. Designating honorariums to 

charity counts against limit on honorariums. (8/21 /75-36746) 

AO 1975-9 UNOPPOSED PRIMARY CANDIDATE. An 

unopposed primary is defined as an "election" for 

contribution/expenditure limitations. (8/19/75-36242) 

AO 1975-10 INTERNAL TRANSFER OF CAMPAIGN 

FUNDS. Answers a series of questions on transfers between 

committees, either Federal or non-Feder.al. (9/3/75-40674) 

AO 1975-11 DUAL CANDIDACIES. Defines applicability of 

limits of candidates running for two Federal offices 

simultaneously. (9/16/75-42839) 

AO 1975-12 DELEGATE SELECTION. Application of the 

law to the delegate selection process. (11 /28/75-55596) 

AO 1975-13 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MONIES. 

Corporations cannot provide travel e1<penses to candidates. 

(8/21 /75-36746) 

AO 1975-14 CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEFRAY CONSTITUENT 

SERVICE EXPENSES. Corporations, national banks, and unions 

may not cpntribute to office accounts. (8/13/75-34084) 

AO 1975-15 WALLACE CAMPAIGN ROYALTIES. Candidate George Wallace can receive royalty payments. (9/24/75-

44040) 

AO 1975-16 INCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS. Incorporated associations cannot contribute to campaigns. Numerous 

campaign committee requirements explained. (8/19/75-

36242) 

AO 1975-17 PARTNERSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS. Partnerships are limited to $1,000. and each partner's share counts 

against his limit. (9/3/75-40673) 

AO 1975-18 CONTINUOUS REPORTING OF PAST DEBTS 

Committees with outstanding debts must continue to report.

(9/16/75-42838) 

AO 1976-20 POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEES. 

Political committees may perform certain non-candidateoriented activities without incurring contributions or 

expenditures. (10/1 /75-85292) 

AO 1975-21 LOCAL PARTY COMMITTEE ACCOUNTS. 

Sets forth an allocation formula to be used in determining the 

portion of expenses that may be paid from non-corporate 

sources and expenses that may be paid from corporate funds in 

States where such contributions are permitted. ( 11 / 12/75-

52794)

AO 1976-22 TRANSFERS OF FUNDS. Transfers of funds 

trom a Senatorial committee to a party organization are 

expenditures. AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES. A person cannot 

be authorized to receive contributions but not be authorized to 

make expenditures. ( 10/1 /75-45295) 

AO 1975-23 CORPORATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. Establishes procedures for administering and soliciting 

contributions to a corporate political action committee. 

(12/3/75-56584)

AO 1976-26 EARMARKED CONTRIBUTIONS. Application

of contribution limitations to earmarked campaign funds

deposited with Senatorial campaign committees. (11 /4/75-

51351)

AO 1976-27 ATTORNEY AND ACCOUNTANT FEES.

Attorney and accountant fees must be charged against

expenditure limits. (8/20/75-36532) 

AO 1975-28 STATUS OF POLITICAL COMMITTEES. Clarifies 

the status of political committees supporting a former 

candidate for the Presidency. (11 /4/75-51352) 

AO 1975-29 POLITICAL PARTIES. Applicability of contribution limits to county committees. (11 /4/75-51353) 

AO 1975-30 OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND CONSTITUENT 

SERVICES FUNDS. A principal campaign committee may make 

expenditures to purchase newspaper subscriptions and to 

reimburse the candidate for travel expenses. (11 /4/75-51353) 

AO 1975-31 GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS. Contributions 

by individuals and their spouses who are connected with 

Government contractors. (11 /28/75-55598) 

•These Opinions are affected by the Supreme Court decision, Buckley v.. Valeo. 44 USLW 4127 (U.S. �anuarv 30. 1976) 

123 
• AO 1975-32 MULTI-CANDIDATE COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTIONS. A multi-candidate political committee is prohibited from 

contributing more than $5,000 per candidate per election, but 

may contribute without limitation to a national committee of a 

political party or other political organization provided such 

contributions are not earmarked to a particular candidate. 

(11 /28/75-55599) 

• AO 1975-33 FUNDRAISING COSTS. Attribution of 

Presidential fundraising costs on a State-by-State basis. 

(1/12/76-1862) 

AO 1975-35 ORGANIZATION OF POLITICAL COMMITTEES. 

Individuals may serve as officers of more than one political 

committee. (9/24/75-44040) 

AO 1975-36 PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. 

Payment of administrative costs incurred by a corporation on 

behalf of a political action committee operating as a separate 

segregated fund is not prohibited. (12/18/75-58802) 

AO 1975-37 INCORPORATED POLITICAL COMMITTEES. 

Committees organized solely for political purposes may 

incorporate. (9/11175-42303) 

AO 1975-39 CAMPAIGN DEBTS. Settlement of campaign 

debts owed to corporations. (12/31 /75-60162) 

AO 1975-40 REPORTING OF POLITICAL _CONTRIBUTIONS. 

Political committees and candidates must report al_l 

contributions from all political committees no matter how small 

the amount. (10/9/75-47691) 

AO 1975-41 INVESTMENT OR DEPOSIT OF CONTRIBUTIONS 

INTO SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. Committees may make internal 

transfers of funds between checking and savings accounts 

without listing transactions on thereport. (10/9/75-47691) 

AO 1975-45 MULTI-CANDIDATE COMMITTEES. Application 

of contribution limitations to multi-candidate committees. 

(11 /19/75-53722) 

AO 1975-46 DISTINGUISHES "HONORARIUM" FROM 

"STIPEND." Distinguishes between an "honorarium"--:­

accepted for a single event or transaction, and a "stipend"_: 

accepted as fixed or regular compensation for services 

rendered. ( 12/ 11 /75-57756) 

AO 1975-4 7 CLARIFICATION OF AO 1975-1. Enumerates the 

purpo,ses for which national convention host committees may 

make expenditures and sets forth the application of convention 

spending limitations to such expenditures. (10/24/75-49883) 

AO 1975-48 CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUL Tl-CANDIDATEe

COMMITTEES. Contributions by an individual to a multicandidate committee which financially supports the same 

candidate(s) as the individual contributor are permissible under 

certain conditions. ( 11 /28/75-55600) 

AO 1975-49 REPORTING OF TICKET PURCHASES FOR 

FUNDRAISING EVENT. When the aggregate ofeticket purchases 

for a fundraising event by one person exceeds $10. records 

must be kept. Purchases over $100 must be reported along 

with the occupation and principal place of business of the 

purchaser. The portion of the donation which covers the actual 

costs of a fundraising event must be reported as a contribution 

and charged against the contribution limits. (11 /28/75-

55600) 

AO 1975-50 CORPORATION DEBTS. Corporations may not 

settle/forgive debts incurred by candidates in a commercially 

reasonable manner, except under extenuating circumstances. 

(12/16/75-58392) 

AO 1975-51 OFFICE ACCOUNTS. Use of excess ca.mpaign 

funds to purchase Congressional office equipment, or for 

computer terminal to aid in handling of Congressman's 

constituent mail. ( 11 /5/75-51611) 

AO 1975-52 STATE COMMITTEE AID TO RETIRE DEBTS.· 

Extent to which a State committee may assist a successf\.11 

Federal candidate in retiring a 1974 election campaign debt. 

(11/12/75-52794) 

AO 1975-53 NOMINATION BY PETITION EFFORT. Application 

of limitations on contributions and expenditures to nomination 

by a petition effort. (12/16/75-58392) 

AO 1975-54 CAUCUS/CONVENTION PRIOR TO PRIMARY 

l:LECTION. _ A caucus or convention held prior to a primary 

election but which does not select a nominee is not a separate 

election and will be considered part of the primary election. 

(12/18/75-58802) 

AO 1975-55 HONORARIUM LIMITATIONS. Donation of 

money to charity by an organization is not s

ubject to 

honorarium limitations when such donation is not a condition 

for a speech. (12/31/75-60162) 

• AO 1975-57 REPAYMENT OF LOANS. Contributions to repay 

loans made before Jan. 1, 1975, which were received prior to 

issuance of the Commission's Interim Guideline on retiring 

past debts need not adhere to that Guideline. (11 /5/75-

51611) 

AO 1975-69 CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS. A multicandidate committee may accept corporate contributions 

(permitted _under State law) in cormection with a fundraising 

event and deposit such contributions in II separate bank 

account to be used only for State candidates. (11 /19� 75-

53729) 

AO - 1976�60 FUNDRAISING EVENTS. Fundr.!ising .ee

for Federal canqidate. (12/18/75-58802) · _ 

AO 1976-61 ALLOCATION OF SALARIES. Allo'cation ofe

accountants' salaries in dual candidacy situation. (1,/12/76-

1863) 

• AO 1975-62. CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEFRAY FUNDRAISING 

COSTS. The portion of a donation which covers the actual costs 

of a fun,:lraising dinner must be counted .as a contribution. . - (11 /12/75-52795) 

AO 1976-63 PAYMENT OF HONORARIUM BY POLITICAL 

COMMITTEE. An honorarium paid by a political committee to a 

Federal officer is not a contribution when the audience 

addressed is not part of the electorate with respect to which 

he/she is a candidate. (12/16/75-58397)e

AO 1976-64 FUNDRAISING EVENTS TO RETIRE DEBTS. A 

single fundraising function may be held to retire a 1972 

campaign debt and a 1973-74 office account deficit. 

(11 /12/75-52795)e

• AO 1975-65 CONTRIBUTIONS BY FAMILY MEMBERS. A 

member of a candidate's immediate family may contribute 

more than $1,000 per election, provided the member does note

exceed the $25,000 aggregate ceiling on 'lll contributions in a 

calendar year by an individual, or the limitation on 

expenditures/contributions from the candidate's personal 

funds and those of his immediate family. (12/16/i5·58393) 

AO 1976-66 TRANSFERS FROM STATE COMMITTEES. 

Transfers from a candidate's State committee to his Federal 

committee are permissible except when funds are from 

prohibited sources. (11 /19/75-53722) 

124 
AO 1976-67 CAMPAIGN BILLBOARDS. Use of name of 

campaign committee chairman and treasurer on billboard signs 

is not required under 2 U.S.C. §435(b}. 11 /12/75-52795) 

AO 1975-68 PRE-1975 CAMPAIGN DEBTS. A fundraising 

dinner to retire a 1974 campaign deficit, held b_efore publication 

of the Commission's Interim Guideline on Pre-1975 Campaign 

Debts, is not retroactively subject to that Guideline. 

(11 /28/75-55601) 

AO 1976-69 LOANS AS CONTRIBUTIONS. A loan that is 

extinguished or retired no longer counts against the 

contribution limitations. (12/11175-57756) 

AO 1976-72 TRAVEL RELATED TO PARTY-BUILDING 

ACTIVITIES. A national party committee may pay for expenses 

incurred by Presidential candidates who are engaged in partybuilding activities before Jan . 1 of a Presidentialelection year. 

(12/3/75-56589) 

AO 1976-74 CONTRIBUTION IN NON-ELECTION YEARS. A 

contribution made to a multi-candidate committee in a nonelection year is not presumed to count against the contributor's 

$25,000 aggregate limit for the election year. (11/4/75-

51353) 

AO 1976-75 CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-PROFIT ORGAc 

NIZA TION. A non�profit organization whose exclusive function 

is the support of candidates for political office, which is 

incorporated for liability purposes only, may make contributions 

to and independent expenditures on behalf of Federal 

candidates under certain conditions. (12/16/75-58398) 

AO 1975-77 ROYALTIES. Royalties from publication of a 

book are not an honorarium. (11 /4/75-51611) 

AO 1976-78 FUNDRAISING EXEMPTION. The 20% fundr; 1 exemption applies broadly to fundraising costs.not just 

to , actual solicitation of contributions. (11 /19/75-53722) 

AO 1976-82 SOLICITATION TO RETIRE 1974 CAMPAIGN 

DEBT. Except for the limitations on the candidate's use of his 

own funds and those of his immediate family, the contribution 

and expenditure limitations do not apply to fundraising 

activitres in 1976 which are solely for the purpose of retiring a 

1974 campaign debt. (12/11175-57757) 

AO 1976-84 AGENT'S FEES. Payment of agent's fees 

cannot be deducted from an honorarium for purposes of 

limitations. (12/31175�60163) 

AO 1975-85 CLARIFIES "HONORARIUM." Establishes 

guidelines for definition of an "award" that is not considered an 

"honorarium." (12/11175-57757) 

• AO 1975-87 MULTI-CANDIDATE COMMITTEE COSTS. 

Organizational costs of forum for candidates sponsored by 

multi-candidate committees are not chargeable against 

spending limits of attending candidates. ( 1 /20/76-2940) 

AO 1975-88 EXCESS FUNDS SOLICITED TO RETIRE 1974 

DEBT. Clarifies what may be done with excess funds solicited to 

retire 1974 campaign debts. (12/11 /75-57757) 

AO 1975-89 HONORARIUMS. Honorarium treated as 

accepted in year when obligation to pay honorarium arose. 

{1 /12/76-1863) 

AO 1975-93 1974 HONORARIUM. Acceptance of a $2,000 

honorarium for a speech given in 1974 which was not actually 

received until 1976, is not in violation of 18 U.S.C. §616. 

( 12/16/75-58394) 

AO 1975-95 SEPARATE COMMITTEES. State Party

Committee establishes separate committees for State and 

Federal election campaign purposes. (12/31 /75-60163) 

AO 1976-97 VOLUNTEER SERVICES. An entertainer's 

time and talent can be volunteered on behalf of a candidate for a 

fundraising event without attribution of the value of his 

services to the $1,000 contribution limit. Out-of-pocket 

expenses for travel and subsistence will be attributable to the 

entertainer's contribution ceiling, to the extent that the 

cumulative value of these activities exceeds $500. ( 11 /28/75-

55601)

AO 1975-99 GOVERNMENT CON.TRACTORS. The prohibition of contributions by government contractors does not 

apply to State and local elections. (12/31/75-60163) 

AO 1975-105 NOMINATING CONVENTION. Pre-primary 

nominating convention is part of the primary election process. 

{ 12/31 /75-60164)

AO 1975-106 1974 DEBTS. Repayment of 1974 debts not 

attributed to limits in 1980 election. (12/31 /75-60165) 

AO 1975-107 ATTRIBUTION OF COSTS. Attribution of 

costs of a brief television show describing the "legislative 

business" of a Congressman. (12/31/75-60165) 

125 
F. FEC and the Privacy and Freedom of

Information Acts

The Privacy Act 

The stated purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974 (P. L. 93-579) is to safeguard 

individuals against an invasion of privacy by Federal Government agencies. 

Under the provisions of this Act, the Commission published its Systems of 

Records in the Federal Register on August 22, 1975 (40 FR 36875). The 

Commission determined that it would maintain eleven categories of records. 

These are: 

1. Advisory opinion requests and public comment;

2. Audits and investigations;

3. Compliance actions;

4. Correspondence;

5. Meetings and telephone communications;

6. Personnel;

7. Registration of political committees and designations by candidates;

8. Reports of contributions and expenditures;

9. Rulemaking and public comment;

10. Certification for primary matching funds and for election campaign

funds;

11. Payments for Presidential nominating conventions.

The Commission will review these categories from time to time in an effort 

to ensure their accuracy and make necessary changes or additions. 

The Privacy Act also requires agencies to publish regulations which outline 

the procedures whereby an individual can determine whether a system of 

records contains information about that individual and how that individual 

may procure this information. Further, agencies are required to set out 

procedures for review of the record where an amendment or correction is 

sought by the individual. 

127 
Pursuant to the above guidelines, the Commission published its Privacy Act 

regulations on August 22, 1975 (40 FR 36872) and invited written 

comments from the public. These regulations, like the systems of records, 

will be reviewed periodically for any necessary changes or revisions. 

Freedom of Information Act 

Most of the information in the FEC record systems is open to the public, the 

exceptions being personnel and compliance action information which have 

limited access because of the nature of the information compiled. Access to 

compliance action material is actually restricted by statute (2 U.S.C. 437g(a) 

(3)). In all other systems, the Commission will disclose such identifiable

records under the Freedom of Information A ct (5 U.S.C. Section 552) where

requested.

By statute, the Commission is actually required to make requests for 

Advisory Opinions, statements and reports filed under Title 2 of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, available for public inspection 

and copying. The Commission, as a matter of policy, has also made available 

minutes of Commission meetings, requests for opinions of counsel, correspondence in response to these requests, proposed regulations and other 

similar information which does not fall within these statutory commands. 

The Commission will continue to make available as much information as 

possible about its work so long as such disclosure does not cause an 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or involve ongoing enforcement 

proceedings. 

128 
G. FEC Activities Concerning Pending Legislation

Requests from Congress 

From time to time, the Commission is asked by Congress to comment on 

proposed legislation. The Commission has adopted a procedure which 

provides for a limit of 31 days between the date of receipt of a Congressional 

request for comment and the date of Commission response. 

When the FEC receives a request from Capitol Hill to comment or to testify 

on a piece of proposed legislation, a brief letter of acknowledgement is sent 

to the House or Senate committee which made the request. The acknowledgement letter specifies a date when the Commission response will be 

delivered to the requesting party. 

Within one week to ten days after Commission receipt of a request for 

comment, the staff prepares a file containing all relevant information 

necessary for Commission consideration of the pending bill. This "bill file" 

containing the staff's draft recommendations is reviewed by the office of the 

General Counsel and the Staff Director prior to circulation to the 

Commissioners and their executive assistants, who have approximately 1-2 

weeks for review. 

No later than the end of the second week of Commission consideration, the 

staff prepares the final draft of the Commission comment or testimony. This 

final draft usually reflects a consensus of the Commissioners' views. In the 

event that a consensus over the issue does not exist, draft alternative 

responses are prepared. 

If the Commissioners indicate to the staff a desire to testify on the bill, the 

staff prepares the final draft of the Commission comment or testimony. This 

final draft usually reflects a consensus of the Commissioners' views. In the 

event that a consensus over the issue does not exist, draft alternative 

responses are prepared. 

Other Pending Legislation 

In addition to preparing responses to Congressional requests for comment on 

pending legislation, the Commission staff analyzes various legislative 

proposals, which, if enacted, would have an impact upon the administration 

of Federal or state election laws. 

A few of the legislative proposals which the Commission staff has reviewed 

during 1975 are as follows: 

1. The Concept of "Regional" Primaries

129 
2. "Government in the Sunshine"

3. Public Financing of House and Senate Elections

4. Repeal of the Hatch Act

5. Postcard Voter Registration

6. "Lobby" Regulation

7. The Franking Privilege

130 
H. FEC Task Forces1

Task Force/Chairman 

1. Task Force on Forms Revision

Peter Roman, Chairman 

2. Task Force on Certification for Public Financing

Peter Roman, Chairman Pro Tempore 

3. Task Force on Complaint Procedures

Gordon Andrew McKay, Chairman Pro Tempore 

4. Task Force on Point-of-Entry

John G. Murphy, Jr., Chairman 

5. Task Force on Information Policies

Herbert Koster, Chairman 

6. Task Force on Section 439a

Commissioner Robert 0. Tiernan, Chairman 

7. Task Force on Delegate Selection

Commissioner Thomas E. Harris, Chairman 

8. Task Force on Relations with Other

Federal Agencies 

Vice-Chairman Neil Staebler, Chairman 

9. Task Force on Allocation of Candidate

Expenses

Vice-Chairman Neil Staebler, Chairman _. 

w 

Action 

Revision and submission for adoption of reporting 

forms for use by candidates, committees, and individuals 

Met to establish internal criteria and procedures for 

certification for public financing 

Established internal Commission procedures to be followed 

in the handling of complaints and alleged violations 

Drafted Regulation which was transmitted to the Congress 

for review pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 438(c) 

Established information policies of the Commission 

Drafted Regulation which was transmitted to the Congress 

for review pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 438(c) 

Met with representatives of the major and minor Parties to 

establish workable criteria for monitoring contributions 

and expenditures made in the delegate selection process. 

Recommendation for legislative remedies transmitted to 

the Congress. 

On-going Task Force and projects 

Drafted Regulation which was transmitted to the Congress 

for review pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 438(c) 
.... 

w H. FEC Task Forces1 (Continued) I\J 

Task Force/Chairman 

10. Task Force on Data Processing and Computer

Applications 

Orlando Potter, Chairman 

11. Task Force on Matching Funds Distribution

Harriet Robnett, Chairman 

12. Task Force on Multicandidate Committees

Vice-Chairman Neil Staebler, Chairman 

13. Task Force on Long-Range Commission Planning

Orlando Potter, Chairman 

14. Task Force on the Budget

Commissioner Vernon Thomson, Chairman 

Action 

Established data processing/computer requirements and 

priorities for the Commission 

Submitted a report to the Commission dealing in-depth 

with the issue of availability of public monies and 

demands therefor 

Drafted memorandum setting out criteria for assessing 

commonality of control within multicandidate, i.e., 

Political Action Committees, and recommendations for 

Regulations 

On-going Task Force 

Gave recommendations for economies and efficient 

utilization of Commission resources 

1 June 24, 1975 to March 12, 1976 
Problems and Procedures m Verifying Submissions 

for Matching Funds 

Quality of Presentations 

Due to the newness and complexity of provisions for receipt of matching 

funds, candidates had a good deal of trouble with their original submissions. 

Since August 21, candidate committees had been required to retain 

photocopies of contributor checks as documentation of the date and amount 

of the contribution and identity of the contributor. The Commission had 

determined that this was the fastest and least expensive way to obtain 

independent confirmation that the contributions had in fact been made by 

the persons recorded in committee records. Other confirmation techniques, 

such as mailing confirmation letters to selected contributors, were deemed to 

be too time consuming. Test letters were, however, used in cases where 

committees had not maintained photocopies of contributor checks or signed 

contributor cards before August 21. I 'if'/ '5 

In the early presentations, committees also experienced considerable 

difficulty in correlating their alphabetical lists of contributors to the 

photocopies of the checks. In addition, key-taping and programming 

problems resulted in the generation of unsatisfactory contributor lists. As a 

result, multiple contributions from single individuals were often presented 

on computer lists as being from a number of different individuals. This, in 

turn, led to the danger that the committee might inadvertently present, and 

Al D certify, contributions from an individual which aggregated in excess of 

the $250 maximum matchable amount specified in the Act. 

Because of these problems, it was not possible to use• most generally 

accepted auditing techniques in reviewing the submission. Instead, each of 

the several hundred thousand transactions had to be individually reviewed to 

establish whether it met the matchability criteria established in the Act and 

individually correlated to the master alphabetical list. 

Manpower Needs 

The 100% item-by-item review required considerable amounts of manpower. 

Between December 3, 1975, and February 12, 1976, the Al D staff of 28 was 

fully occupied with the certification process. Besides the 1, 120 man days of 

staff time devoted to the process of certification during normal working 

hours, the staff worked 1,650 hours on nights and weekends to meet the 15-

day certification deadline imposed by the Regulations. With one exception, 

all deadlines were met. The exception involved a submission of some 

100,000 entries and 40,000 photocopied documents, which, because of its 

considerable deficiencies, had to be subjected to an item-by-item review. 

133 
Since the staff power available to meet the certification deadlines was 

insufficient, the Commission drew on the services of other Commission staff 

personnel, six staff employees of the General Accounting Office, made 

available to the Commission on a detail basis by the Comptroller General, 

and an average of eight temporary employees. Together, approximately 

1,700 man days have been devoted to the certification process. 

Present Procedures 

With the development and approval of certification review procedures, and 

with a developing understanding and ability of the committees to prepare 

auditable matching funds presentations, certification has evolved into a 

three-step process: 

1. Review of supporting documentation. Every photocopied check or

signed contributor card is reviewed to ensure that it is matchable.

Contributions are considered not matchable if they are:

• submitted by corporate check

• submitted by labor union treasury check

• represent a contribution of another political committee

• are not contributions of money (i.e., in-kind contributions)

In these cases, the photocopies are returned to the committee with a 

notification that they are not matchable. In the case of corporate or 

union checks, of course, the committee will have to present sufficient 

documentation and information to establish that unlawful contributions 

have not been made. 

In other cases, the contribution is insufficiently documented to be 

considered matchable. Since it is an otherwise matchable contribution, 

such items are returned to the committee with a request for further 

information. Examples of insufficient documentation include: 

• lack of documentation for listed item {no photocopy, etc.)

• contributor's name omitted

• mailing address omitted

• contributor's signature omitted

• cash contribution of $100 or less not supported by signed

contributor card

134 
• need for additional documentation to prove contribution was made

with personal funds

2. Review of master list. A complete review is also made of the

alphabetical list submitted by the committee. The same criteria is

applied to the master list as is applied to the supporting documentation.

In addition, the list is examined to ensure that the computer program

permits the proper aggregation of multiple contributions made by an

individual.

3. Verification of Master List. Last, sampling procedures are going to be

used (instead of the earlier 100% review) to ensure that each item on the

master list is supported by an appropriate support document verifying

the information on the alphabetical list. Before January 19, 1976,

considerable time was spent in carrying out this step, since the disarray

of the presentations prevented the use of standard sampling techniques.

Since that date,the use of statistical sampling has considerably speeded

up the process. Now, any presentation which shows an excessive error

rate is returned to the committee for further preparation.

If the error is found not to be excessive, a calculation of the dollar 

amount of probable error in the presentation is made. That amount is 

then deducted from the corrected figure to derive the final amount 

payable to the committee. The committee is given the choice of 

accepting the reduced amount without recourse, or withdrawing the 

entire presentation for later resubmission. This percentage reduction 

takes place after any non-matchable payments have been deducted . 

• 

135 
J. FEC Publications and Documents

This appendix is a comprehensive list of publications and documents 

available from the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20463. 

Publications 

Newsletter THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION RECORD 

Published in a six- or eight-page format, this newsletter serves as a primary 

vehicle of the Commission to inform its various audiences of the following: 

• Proposed Regulations

• Interim Guidelines

• Advisory Opinion Requests

• Advisory Opinions

The FEC RECORD is published on a tri-weekly basis, to assist candidates for 

Federal office, political committees supporting them, and the general public 

in their efforts to understand and comply with Federal election campaign 

law. 

Available from the Public Communications Division of the Office of 

Information Services. 

Pamphlets SPECIAL GUIDE FOR CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEERS 

This four-page brochure gives general guidance to a volunteer who wishes to 

participate in political campaigning. Specific topics dealt with are: contribution of a volunteer's time; fundraising; and use of campaign advertising. 

SPECIAL GUIDE FOR FUNDRAISERS 

This six-page brochure provides an overview of general rules that a campaign 

fundraiser should follow to meet responsibilities under the law. Topics 

presented include: definition of contributions; obtaining information necessary for reporting purposes; tax benefits for political contributors; limitations and prohibitions on contributions; Presidential primary election 

matching funds; and notices and identification to be carried by literature or 

advertisements soliciting funds. 

137 
SPECIAL GUIDE FOR CANDIDATES 

This eight-page brochure explains who is a candidate and what a candidate 

must do and may not do in complying with the Federal Election Campaign 

Act. Topics dealt with include: establishing candidacy; setting up books; 

filing reports with the Federal Government; notices to be given in reporting; 

and aid to be given the candidate by the Federal Election Commission. 

SPECIAL GUIDE ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES (in 

preparation) 

This brochure is designed for use by candidates for Federal office and those 

involved with their election campaigns. It describes how the Federal Election 

Campaign Law governs 1) support activity by individuals and organizations 

regarding contributions, volunteer work and independent expenditures; 2) 

expenditure activity by candidates, their authorized committees and political 

parties; and 3) activity permitted each election participant. This publication 

also discusses special problems of allocating and reporting expenditures and 

contributions. 

STATE EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS 

This is a list of the State expenditure limitations for Presidential candidates 

which are based on most recent estimates of the voting age population per 

State. 

BQoklets MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW 

(December 1975) 

Written in layman's language, this 64-page booklet summarizes major 

provisions of Federal Election Campaign law. An analysis is given of 

pertinent sections of Titles 2, 5, 18, 26, and 47 of the U.S. Code. 

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAWS (January 1976) 

This 74-page booklet presents extracts of the following provision of U.S. 

Code Titles as indicated: Title 2 - The Congress - Chapter 14, Federal 

Election Campaigns; Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure - Chapter 29, 

Elections and Political Activities; Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code -

Chapter 95, Presidential Election Campaign Fund; and Chapter 96, Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. An Appendix to this publication includes extracts of Title 18, 26, 39 (Postal Service) and 47 

(Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs), over which the Federal 

Election Commission has no jurisdiction, but which are included for 

reference purposes. 

138 
Clearinghouse 

Studies 

and 

Reports 

These research publications by the Clearinghouse on Election Administration seek to improve the administration of elections in the United States by 

providing broad-based information on: 

• Federal and State election laws

e Case descisions and Attorney General opinions 

• Election administration problems

• Voter registration methods

• Absentee registration and voting procedures, and

• Costs of administering elections.

FEDERAL-STATE ELECTION LAW SURVEY - AN ANALYSIS OF

STATE LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 1973 and 1974 issues 

available with monthly updates. Reports published on a monthly basis with 

annual summaries. Federal and State election laws are compiled, summarized, and indexed (June-November 1975). 

ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL AND STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. 

June 1975, two volumes. A compilation of Federal and State campaign 

finance laws and regulations covering both Federal and State offices. 

TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS. June 1975. A compilation of 

general information of State and local provisions for the training of election 

officials. Several recommendations for improving training procedures are 

offered. 

AN ANALYSIS OF LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING ABSENTEE 

REGISTRATION AND ABSENTEE VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES. 

June 1975, two volumes. Analyzes absentee registration and absentee voting 

in the 50 States. Volume 11 provides legal memoranda of each State's 

absentee voting system and gives State code citations. 

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR ELECTION 

ADMINISTRATION: FISCAL YEARS 1970 TO 1973. J1,Jly 1975. A

compilation of State and national expenditures for administration of 

elections. 

EFF ECTIVE USE OF COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY IN VOTETALLYING. March 1975. A description of computer hardware, software, 

and administrative problems encountered in 14 electronically computed 

elections. The report suggests methods of insuring greater accuracy and 

security in the vote-tallying process. 

139 
ELECTION LAWS EXAMINATION WITH RESPECT TO VOTING EQUIPMENT. January 1975. An analysis of legal certification of voting equipment 

in the 50 States. Includes extensive on-site analysis of 10 States. 

Documents 

Available through the Public Communications Division 

Published 

in 

Federal 

Register 

• Advisory Opinion Requests (AOR's)

• Advisory Opinions (AO's)

• Interim Guidelines

• Proposed Regulations

• Index to FEC documents previously published in the Federal Register.

• Calendar of 1976 Filing Deadlines

Available through the Press Relations Division 

FEC 

�eleases 

• FEC press releases.

• Summary of FEC regulation status.

Available through the Public Records Division of the Commission at a cost 

of 10¢ per page. 

Campaign 

Finance 

Reports 

• Presidential candidate reports and/or those of their personal political

committees.

• Congressional candidate reports and/or those of their personal political

committees.

• Multi-candidate committee reports from a) party-related committees,

Republican, Democratic, etc., and b) non-:Jarty related committees, such

as committees affiliated with labor unions or corporations.

• Reports filed by individuals reflecting independent, campaign-related

expenditures.

FEC 

Activities 

• Minutes of all Commission meetings open to the general public.

• Transcripts of all public hearings held on regulations proposed by the

Commission.

140 
• Comments from the general public on Advisory Opinion Requests.

• A monthly summary of terminated compliance actions.

• Copies of opinions of Counsel.

• FEC budget proposal for FY 77 (available from Staff Director Orlando

B. Potter).

Buckley 

V. 

Valeo 

• FEC Brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

• FEC Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

External 

Publications 

• Copies of audits and other publications prepared by the General

Accounting Office, pursuant to the 1971 Federal Election Campaign

Act.

• Congressional Quarterly publications concerning campaign financing.

• Citizens' Research Foundation publications concerning campaign

financing.

• Common Cause publications concerning campaign financing.

141 
K. Schedule of 1975 Mailings

Date Sent Persons Receiving Mailing Contents 

July 12, 1975 Secretaries of State 1) Letter of Introduction

2) Yellow Book (Federal Campaign Laws)

July 12, 1975 State Party Chairmen 1) Letter of Introduction

2) Yellow Book

July 28, 1975 Mass Mailing-All candidates, 

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizens 

1) Cover Memorandum

2) FEC Procedure Sheet

3) AO R 1975-1 to 1975-23 Summary Sheet

4) Federal Register, July 21, 1975 (Revision of Forms)

5) Federal Register, July 25, 1975 (AO 1975-5, 1975-6)

August 11, 1975 Mass Mailing-All candidates, 1) Cover Memorandum

2) Federal Register, August 5, 1975 (Office and Franking

Account)

3) Federal Register, August 11, 1975 (IG: Recordkeeping

for Matching Funds)

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizens 

Last Week of 

September 1975 

(September 19, 1975) 

Mass Mailing-All candidates, 

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizens 

1) Cover Memorandum

2) Interim Forms

September 29, 1975 

October 8, 1975 

October 9, 1975 

_. 

+:>, 

w 

Mass Mailing-All candidates, 

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizens 

1) Cover Memorandum

2) Federal Register, September 29, 1975 (Disclosure

Regulations)

State Party Chairmen 1) Cover letter requesting addresses of persons to be

included on the mailing list

2) Copy of Record # 1

Secretary of State List 1) Cover Letter

2) Federal Register, September 29, 1975 (Disclosure

Regulations) 
K. Schedule of 1975 Mailings (Continued)

.i:,. 

.i:,. 

Date Sent Persons Receiving Mailing Contents 

Last Week of 

October 1975 

Mass Mailing-All candidates,

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizens 

1) Second copy of the newsletter 

2)e General Information Brochure 

November 12, 1975 Mass Mailing-All candidates, 

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizens 

1)e Cover Memorandum 

2)e Primary Date Charts (3) 

3) Federal Register Notice# 65 (Xeroxed copy) 

(Index of Reports) 

4) Federal Register, November 5, 1975 (Allocation 

Regulations) 

November 28, 1975 Selected Mailing: 

Secretaries of State 

State Party Chairmen 

Members of Congress 

Presidential Committees 

Multi-candidate Committees 

1) Cover Memorandum 

2) Press Release, November 19, 1975 ( Delegate Selection) 

3) Federal Register, November 28, 1975 (Delegate 

Selection, AO 12) 

December 3, 1975 Secretaries of State 1) Letter requesting confirmation of primary dates 

December 5, 1975 Members of Congress 1) Cover Memorandum 

2) Office and Franking Account Regulation 

3) Two-page highlight on Disclosure Regulations 

December 16, 1975 Mass Mailing-All candidates, 

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizens 

1) Cover Memorandum 

2) December 1975 Record IV 

3) Brochures-Volunteers and Fundraisers 

4) Federal Register, December 12, 1975 (Proposed Forms) 

December 29, 1975 Mass Mailing-All candidates, 

Political Committees and 

Interested Citizen� 

1)e Cover Memorandum 

2) Interim Forms (January 31 Report) 

January 6, 1976 Minor Political Party 

Chairmen ( 14 total) 

1) Cover Letter 

2) Yellow Book 

3) General Information Brochu re 
L. FEC Library Materials

To Be 

Collected 

General Reference Works (e.g., almanacs, dictionaries, directories, atlases, 

manuals, etc.); 

Federal Election Commission Publications (e.g., transcripts of F EC hearings, 

Opinions of Counsel, Advisory Opinions and Advisory Opinion Requests, 

FEC minutes, Task Force reports, FEC newsletter, etc.); 

Case Material File (e.g., briefs, slip opinions for relevant court cases); 

Journal Article File (e.g., law journal articles on relevant topics, Library of 

Congress Congressional Research Service reports, etc.); 

Periodicals and journals to which the Library subscribes; 

A book collection of election-related monographs and legal treatises; 

Code materials (e.g., U.S. Code, U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative 

News, Code of Federal Regulations, State election laws); 

Law reporter materials (e.g., Federal reporters, Shepard's Citations, Modern 

Federal Practice Digest, etc.); 

Legislative documents (e.g., government reports, hearings, and legislative 

histories of selected laws, compiled in cooperation with the FEC Legislative 

Assistant). 

Indexes Opinion Index: This serves as 1) a key to dates of publication in the Federal

Register of FEC Advisory Opinions, Advisory Opinion Requests, Interim 

Guidelines, and Proposed Regulations; 2) a subject index to the above, and a 

requester index to the AO's and OC's; 3) U.S. Code index to AO's and OC's. 

Index to Library Book Collection: Card catalogue, author, title, and subject 

index to the present book collection are nearly completed. 

Journal Article File Index: In existence is an index by author and journal 

issue number. A subject index to this file is in production. 

Legislative History Indexes: This is an index to the legislative debates on the 

1974 Federal Election Campaign Amendments, and consists of page 

references to subjects and speakers. A similar index has been partially 

completed for the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. 

145 
M. Schedule of Regional Seminars

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

REGIONAL 

SEMINAR 

PROGRAM 

has scheduled a series of regional seminars across the United States to 

stimulate greater political participation through an understanding of 

Federal campaign laws and the functions of the Commission. All seminars 

are open to the public, free of charge. 

A second series is scheduled for April 1976. 

First Series: 

Date City Location Congressional Districts 

Mon., Jan. 26 Wasihington, D.C. Senate Caucus Room 

( Russell) 

CANDIDATES FOR U.S. SENATE 

Wed., Jan. 28 Washington, D.C. Gold Room 

Rayburn House Office 

Building 

CANDIDATES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Fri., Jan. 30 Washington, D. C. House Caucus Room 

Cannon House Office 

Building 

CANDIDATES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Mon., Feb. 2 Washington, D. C. Ballroom, Marvin Center 

(George Washington University) 

800 - 21st Street, N.W. 

MULTI-CANDIDATE COMMITTEES 

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 

Wed., Feb. 4 Baltimore, Md. Room G30, A & B 

Fallon Federal Building 

31 Hopkins Plaza 

MARYLAND 1 through 8 

WEST VIRGINIA 1 and 2 

Sat., Feb. 7 Richmond, Va. Hotel John Marshall 

5th and Franklin Streets 

VI RGI NIA 1 through 10 

NORTH CAROLINA 1 through 4, 6 and 7 

Fri., Feb. 13 Chicago, Ill. Palmer House 

17 East Monroe 

WISCONSIN 1 through 9 

ILLINOIS 1 through 20 

NEBRASKA 1 through 3 

SOUTH DAKOTA 1 and 2 

NORTH DAKOTA 1 

MINNESOTA 1 through 8 

IOWA 1 through 4 

MICHIGAN 11 

INDIANA 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 

Sat., Feb. 14 Cincinnati, Ohio Netherland Hilton Hotel 

35 West Fifth Street 

KENTUCKY 3 through 7 

IND I ANA 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 

OHIO 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 

WEST VIRGINIA 3 and 4 

Tues., Feb. 17 Philadelphia, Pa. Room 3306, William J. Green, Jr. 

Federal Building 

600 Arch Street 

PENNSYLVANIA 1 through 25 

NEW JERSEY 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 

DELAWARE 1 

147 
Date City Location Congressional Districts 

Fri., Feb. 20 Salt Lake City, Utah 

Sat., Feb. 21 San Francisco, Calif. 

Mon., Feb. 23 Los Angeles, Calif. 

Wed., Feb. 25 Dallas, Texas 

Mon., Mar. 1 St. Louis, Mo. 

Tues., Mar. 2 Detroit, Mich. 

Sat., Mar. 6 Memphis, Tenn. 

Mon., Mar. 8 Atlanta, Ga. 

Fri., Mar. 12 New York, 

N.Y. 

Sat., Mar. 13 Boston, Mass .. 

Room 820, Federal Building 

125 South State Street 

Hastings College of Law 

198 McAI I ister Street 

Hyatt Regency 

711 S. Hope Street 

Room 7A 23, Federal Building 

1100 Commerce 

Room 1612 

Federal Building 

1520 Market Street 

Troy Hilton 

Maple Road and Stephenson 

Highway 

Holiday lnn-Rivermont 

200 West Georgia Avenue 

Room 556, Federal Building 

275 Peachtree, N.E. 

Room 305 

26 Federal Plaza 

Sheraton Boston 

Prudential Center 

UTAH 1 and 2 

IDAHO 1 and 2 

COLORADO 1 through 5 

WYOMING 1 

MONTANA 1 and 2 

NEW MEXICO 1 and 2 

CALIFORNIA 1 through 17 

OREGON 1 through 4 

WASHINGTON 1 through 7 

ALASKA 1 

NEVADA 1 

ARIZONA 1 through 4 

CALIFORNIA 18 through 43 

HAWAII 1 and 2 

OKLAHOMA 1 through 6 

LOUISIANA 4, 5, 7, 8 

ARKANSAS 3 and 4 

TEXAS 1 through 24 

MISSOURI 1 through 10 

IOWA 5 and 6 

ILLINOIS 21 through 24 

KENTUCKY 1 and 2 

KANSAS 1 through 5 

MICHIGAN 1 through 10, 

12 through 19 

OHIO 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 

20, 21,22, 23 

TENNESSEE 4 through 8 

MISSISSIPPI 1 through 5 

ARKANSAS 1 and 2 

ALABAMA 7 

LOUISIANA 1, 2, 3, 6 

GEORGIA 1 through 10 

ALABAMA 1 through 6 

NORTH CAROLINA 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 

SOUTH CAROLI NA 1 through 6 

TENNESSEE 1 through 3 

FLORIDA 1 through 15 

NEW YORK 1 through 39 

CONNECTICUT 1 through 6 

NEW JERSEY 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 

13, 14, 15 

MASSACHUSETTS 1 through 12 

VERMONT 1 

RHODE ISLAND 1 and 2 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 and 2 

MAINE 1 and 2 

In most cases, seminars will run from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Presentations by a Commissioner and members of 

the legal, audit and public information staffs will be brief. Maximum time has been reserved for questions and answers. 

For further information, contact: 

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 

(800)e424-9530 

148 
*

N. Highlights of Buckley v. Valeo

Constitutional Provisions 

Provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the 

Act), found to be constitutional (reference to the slip opinion ;s by page 

number only): 

1. The limitations on contributions to candidates for Federal office (6-2

vote; Burger, Blackmun, dissenting; pp. 7-33). Specifically, the Court

upheld:

(a) the $1,000 limit on contributions by any person to a Federal

candidate in any election [ 18 U.S.C. § 608(b) ( 1)] (pp. 17-29, see

also p. 48, fn. 59);

(b) the $5,000 limit on contributions by a multi-candidate political

committee to a Federal candidate in any election [18 U.S.C.

§608(b) (2)] (pp. 29-31);

(c) the $25,000 limitation on total individual contributions during any

calendar year [18 U.S.C. §608(b) (3)] (pp. 32-33).

2. The disclosure and recordkeeping provisions requiring reporting by

candidates, political committees, and individuals or groups which receive

contributions and make certain kinds of expenditures (6-2 vote; Burger,

Blackmun, dissenting; pp. 54-79). Specifically, the Court upheld:

(a) the $10 and $100 thresholds for disclosure and recordkeeping

requirements in 2 U.S.C. § § 432, 434 (pp. 76-79);

(b) the reporting requirement of 2 U.S.C. § 434(e) for any person

( other than a political committee or candid ate) who makes ( 1)

contributions to influence a Federal election or (2) expenditures

for communications which expressly advocate the election or

defeat of a clearly identified Federal. candidate, other than to a

political committee or candidate, in an amount greater than $100

in a calendar year.

3. Public financing of Presidential elections through (a) the Presidential

primary matching fund, (b) the Presidential general election campaign 

fund, (c) the national nominating convention fund (7-1 vote; Burger, 

dissenting; pp. 79-103). 

149 
Where a Presidential candidate has accepted public funding of campaign 

efforts in an election, the candidate and his/her campaign committees are 

subject to the national and State expenditure Iimits applicable to that 

election [18 U.S.C. §608(c) (1) (A)) (pp. 102-103). 

Unconstitutional Provisions 

Provisions of the Act found to be unconstitutional: 

1. The limitations on expenditures (pp. 7-17, 35-52). Specifically, the

Court invalidated:

(a) the limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 608(a) on expenditures by candidates from his or her personal funds [5-3 vote; White, Marshall,

Rehnquist, dissenting] (pp. 45-48);

)/;(b) the overall limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 608(c) on campaign 

expenditures by Federal candidates in any election [7-1 vote; 

White, dissenting] (pp. 48-52). Note the exception above for 

Presidential candidates who accept public funding in any election. 

(c) The $1,000 limitation of 18 U.S.C. § 608(e) on independent 

expenditures [7-1 vote; White dissenting] (pp.33-45). 

2. The composition of the Federal Election Commission as to all but its

informational and certain investigatory powers [8-0 vote] (pp.

103-107).

The Court accorded "de facto validity" to past acts of the Commission, and 

provided for a 30-day stay of judgment, during which the Commission may 

validly exercise all the duties and powers which it previously possessed, in 

order to permit Congress to reconstitute the Commission in conformity with 

the Appointments Clause of Article 11 of the Constitution (pp. 136-137). 

150 
0. Chronology of Buckley v. Valeo and Relevant

FEC Administrative Developments

Even before the Commission became operational, the Act which it had been 

created to administer had come under constitutional attack in the case of 

Buckley v. Valeo, and the shadow of this case was to overcast a number of 

Commission actions. Thus the following chronology is prepared to assist the 

reader in understanding the simultaneous development of the case of 

Buckley v. Valeo and the Commission's initial operations. 1 

January 1 THE ACT BECOMES EFFECTIVE AS LAW. 2 

2 Bill of complaint filed in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia requesting that the 

Act be declared unconstitutional and its administration and enforcement be enjoined. The 

original plaintiffs were Senator James Buckley, 

former Senator Eugene McCarthy, New York 

Civil Liberties Union, Representative William 

Steiger, Stewart R. Mott, Committee for a 

Constitutional Presidency, the American Conservative Union, and Human Events, Inc. Secretary of the Senate Francis Valeo, Clerk of the 

House of Representatives W. Pat Jennings, 

Comptroller General El mer B. Staats, and 

Attorney General William Saxbe were named as 

the original defendants. 

24 U.S. District Court Judge Howard F. Corcoran 

ruled that the plaintiffs raised "substantial constitutional questions." Accordingly, under provisions in the Act for the expedited determination of constitutional questions, Judge Corcoran 

certified the case directly to the Circuit Court. 

February 27 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia ruled that Common Cause, the League 

of Women Voters, and the Center for Public 

Financing of Elections could intervene as defendants. The Mississippi Republican Party, the 

Libertarian Party, and the Conservative Victory 

1 In this chronology, dates which refer to developments in Buckley appear in lower case letters; all 

other dates appear in all capital letters. 2 The provisions relating to the preemption of State Law became effective on October 15, 1974. 

151 
final judicial ruling, and promising to publicly 

notify the plaintiffs at least seven days prior to 

an attempt to certify these funds for distribution. 

July 7 COMMISSION PUBLISHED INTERIM GUIDELINE FOR COMPLAINT PROCEDURE AND 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABILITY. 

8 COMMISSION CONDUCTED FIRST DISC USSION OF SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS 

ARISING UNDER THE ACT. 

15 COMMISSION PUBLISHED ITS Fl RST AD29 COMMISSION ISSUED ITS Fl RST OPINION 

OF COUNSEL. 

August 1 COMMISSION SUBMITTED FIRST PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO CONGRESS. 

(OFFICE ACCOUNTS & POINT OF ENTRY.) 

15 Court of Appeals rendered its decision on 

Buckley v. Valeo. With one exception (2 U.S.C. 

Section 437a), the Court upheld the substantive 

provisions of the Act with respect to contributions, expenditures, and disclosure. The Court 

also sustained the constitutionality of the Commission. 

September 19 The plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief before 

the Supreme Court in which they requested that 

the Court reverse the decision of the Court of 

Appeals. 

October 6 Probable jurisdiction noted by the Supreme 

Court. The cases were consolidated and time for 

oral argument was allotted. 

8 SENATE DISAPPROVES THE PROPOSED 

OFFICE ACCOUNT REGULATION. 

15 & 20 Defendants-appellees filed their briefs before the 

Supreme Court. 

VISORY OPINION. 

154 
22 Commission requests that the Department of 

Justice substitute by stipulation the Commission 

as a party defendant in Buckley. Commission 

representatives meet with the Solicitor General 

and Attorney General to request the fullest and 

most forceful representation by the Justice 

Department. 

29& 30 Justice Department announces that it will 

defend the constitutionality of the Act in the 

Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. However, 

it also stated its intention to file a separate brief 

in the Supreme Court which will outline both 

sides of the constitutional issues. 

June 1 TRANSFER OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FROM PRIOR SUPERVISORY OFFICERS TO THE COMMISSION 

BECOMES EFFECTIVE. 

2 COMMISSION PUBLISHES ITS FIRST 

INTERIM GUIDELINES (ON REPORTING). 

10 Commission representatives met with the 

Attorney General to discuss the Justice Department's representation of the Commission. 

11 Chairman Curtis met with President Ford to 

discuss the Buckley case. 

13 Oral argument of Buckley v. Valeo before the 

Court of Appeals and a three-judge District 

Court sitting jointly (consideration of threejudge District Court was limited to issues arising 

under Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code). 

15 COMMISSION PUBLISHES Fl RST ADVISORY 

OPINION REQUEST. 

25 & 26 Plaintiffs in Buckley sought an injunction to 

prevent, prior to a final judicial ruling on the 

case, the disbursal of funds by the Commission 

for the purpose of financing the 1976 national 

nominating conventions of the Democratic and 

Republican parties. Commission avoided a confrontation by promising to postpone such a 

disbursal as long as possible or until there is a 

153 
final judicial ruling, and promising to publicly 

notify the plaintiffs at least seven days prior to 

an attempt to certify these funds for distribution. 

July 7 COMMISSION PUBLISHED INTERIM GUIDELINE FOR COMPLAINT PROCEDURE AND 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABILITY. 

8 COMMISSION CONDUCTED FIRST DISC USSION OF SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS 

ARISING UNDER THE ACT. 

15 COMMISSION PUBLISHED ITS FIRST ADVISORY OPINION. 

29 COMMISSION ISSUED ITS Fl RST OPINION 

OF COUNSEL. 

August 1 COMMISSION SUBMITTED FIRST PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO CONGRESS. 

(OFFICE ACCOUNTS & POINT OF ENTRY.) 

15 Court of Appeals rendered its decision on 

Buckley v. Valeo. With one exception (2 U.S.C. 

Section 437a), the Court upheld the substantive 

provisions of the Act with respect to contributions, expenditures, and disclosure. The Court 

also sustained the constitutionality of the Commission. 

September 19 The plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief before 

the Supreme Court in which they requested that 

the Court reverse the decision of the Court of 

Appeals. 

October 6 Probable jurisdiction noted by the Supreme 

Court. The cases were consolidated and time for 

oral argument was allotted. 

8 SENATE DISAPPROVES THE PROPOSED 

OFFICE ACCOUNT REGULATION. 

15 & 20 Defendants-appellees filed their briefs before the 

Supreme Court. 

154 
22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISAPPROVES THE PROPOSED POINT OF 

ENTRY REGULATION. 

November 10 Oral argument before the Supreme Court on 

Buckley v. Valeo. 

December 16 COMMISSION VOTES TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFFS IN BUCKLEY V. VALEO OF ITS 

INTENT TO CERTIFY TO THE SECRETARY 

OF THE TREASURY 7 HE ELIGIBILITY OF 

CERTAIN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO 

RECEIVE MATCHING FUNDS ON DECEMBER 23, 1975. 

17 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court received 

an application for the purpose of enjoining 

appellees from making the certifications for the 

payment of matching funds. 

22 The Supreme Court declared that there being no 

majority to grant the application for an injunction, the application was denied. The Chief 

Justice and Justices Stewart, Blackman, and 

Rehnquist would have granted the injunction. 

23 COMMISSION MADE FIRST CERTIFICATION 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 

THAT CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR PRES1 DENT AND THE DEMOCRATIC AND 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEES 

ARE E LIGIBLE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC 

FINANCING. 

January '76 30 The Supreme Court rendered its decision, 

affirming in part and reversing in part the 

decision of the Court of Appeals. Among its 

other holdings, the Court found the Commission 

to be unconstitutionally appointed, but stayed 

the effect of this holding for 30 days. 

<>U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976 622-928/452 l-3 155