Annual Report 1977 

Federal Election Commission 

1325 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

March 1978 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 
Commissioners 

Thomas E•. Harris, Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman 

William L. Springer 

Neil Staebler 

Vernon W. Thomson 

Robert 0. Tiernan 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Clerk of the House 

J. S. KimmiH, Secretary of the Senate 

Statutory Officers 

Orlando B. PoHer, Staff Director 

William C. Oldaker, General Counsel 
iii 

letter of Transmittal 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 

To the Congress of the United States: 

We submit for your consideration the third annual report 

of the Federal Election Commission as required by the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. This 

Annual Report 1977 includes a detailed statement of Federal 

Election Commission activities performed in carrying out its 

duties under this Act, together with recommendations for 

such legislative or other actions the Commission considered 

appropriate. We hope you will find this a useful description 

of the Commission's efforts to implement the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

Respectfully, 

THOMAS E. HARRIS 

Chairman 
Table of Contents 

Introduction vii 

I. Meeting Commission Objectives 1 

Chapter 1: Administer Public Financing of Presidential 

Elections . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . 3 

Chapter 2: Obtain Compliance . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . • . • . . • . . . . 6 

- Regulations .••.••••.....••••••.•••..•.. ~.......... 6 

- Advisory Opinions • . . . . . . • . . • • • • . . • . . . . . . . • • • • • • . • 8 

- Information . . . . . . . . • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . • 11 

- Audits . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . • . . . . . • . . . . . 12 

- Enforcement . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • • . • . • . • • • . . . . . . . 15 

- litigation . . . . . . . . • • • . • • . . . . . . . . . . • . • . • • • • . • . . . . . . • 18 

Chapter 3: Facilitate the Public Disclosure of 

Information , • • • • • • . • . . . . • • . . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • . 21 

Chapter 4: Serve as a Clearinghouse for Election 

Administration Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. • . • . . . . . . 27 

II. Legislation 31 

Chapter 5: legislative Recommendations • . • • • • . . • • . . . . . . 33 

Chapter 6: Commission Testimony . . . • . • • . . • • . . . . . . • • . . • 36 

Ill. Organization and Operation 39 

Chapter 7: Organization . . . . .. • .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 41 

Chapter 8: Operation . • . . . • • . • • . . . . . . . . • . • . • • • • • • . . . . . . 43 

~~~~ ~ 

1. Biographical Data on Commissioners and Statutory 

Officers . . • • . . • . . • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • . • • • • 49 

2. FEC Organization Chart . . • . . • • • • . • • • . . • . . . . . • • • • • • • 51 

3. FEC Chronology of Events} 1977 • • • • • . . • . . . . . • • • • • • • • 52 

4. FEC Opinions: Summaries . • . . • . . . • . • . • . • . • • • . . . . . . . 55 

5. Public Financing .. • • . .. • .. .. . • .. .. .. . . . .. • .. . . .. .. . 66 

6. Summary of Disclosure Files on Candidates and 

Committees • • . . . . . • • • • • • . • • • • . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • . . . . . • 68 

7. Computer Indexes Available ........................ 69 

8. Audit Statistics • • • • • • . . . . . . • . • • . • • • • • . . . . . . . . . • • • . • . 71 

9. FEC Publications and Clearinghouse Studies . • • • • • • • • 73 

10. FEC library: Summary of Collection •. . . . . . • . • • • . • • • • 76 

11. Campaign Finance Survey: Synopsis . • . • . . . • . • • • • . • . . 78 

12. FEC Federal Register Notices} 1977 . . . . . • • • • • • • • • . . . . 81 

13. Privacy and Freedom of Information Acts • • . • • • • . . . . 83 
vii 

Introduction 

lhe Commission's third year was distinguished 

from the preceeding years by two factors: the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. 

Valeo and the effects of a nonelection year. 

The effect of the Buckley decision was not fully 

felt until 1977-a year after it was handed down. 

That decision laid the foundation for new legislation placing sole responsibility for the enforcement of Titles 2 and 26 of the U.S. Code with the 

Commission. Thus, in 1977, the Commission 

formulated, for the first time, a comprehensive set 

of enforcement procedures. 

With the passage of the 1976 Amendments, moreover, the Commission wrote a complete set of 

regulations implementing the Act. Prescribed on 

April 13, 1977, the new regulations became the 

medium, together with the statute, through which 

the Commission administered the Act and made 

policy. 

The Buckley decision and resulting Amendments 

in election year 1976 meant that the nation conducted its Federal elections under a law only five 

months old. Not surprisingly, this gave rise to 

numerous questions and problems. In 1976, the 

Commission had been called upon to answer 

these questions and make many decisions to resolve these problems with little time for reflection. 

The absence of regularly scheduled Federal elections made 1977 a unique year for the Commission. For the first time in its short existence, the 

Commission could pause to evaluate its past 

actions and, on the basis of that evaluation, refine 

its policies and procedures and, where necessary, 

formulate new ones. The Commission drafted an 

amended regulation, for example, to deal with the 

unexpected problem of Presidential primary candidates acquiring surplus contributions after 

having received enough public funds to defray 

their campaign expenses. As another example, the 

Commission expanded its computer capability 

enabling it to streamline the monitoring of reports 

and facilitate their disclosure to the public. 

In addition to providing time to evaluate past experience and develop new procedures, the nonelection year permitted the Commission to 

address many audits and enforcement cases resulting from the 1976 elections. 

Without the pressure of pending elections, in 1977 

the Commission also engaged in long-range planning and formulated several basic objectives to 

serve as guides in its administration of the statute: 

-To administer public funding of Presidential 

elections. 

-To obtain compliance with the Act by interpreting the Act through regulations, rendering 

advisory opinions, providing information, monitoring reports and enforcing the provisions of 

the law. 

-To provide the public with information on the 

campaign finance activities of candidates and 

committees. 

-To serve as a clearinghouse for information on 

the State administration of Federal elections. 

These objectives became the basis for systematic 

program development, budget allocation and 

program evaluation. 

Part I of this report describes Commission activities in terms of meeting these four objectives. Part 

II covers the Commission's views on legislation relating to Federal elections including the Commission's recommendations for changes in the 

Federal Election Campaign Act. Part Ill describes 

the organization and operation of the Commission. 

New objectives, new procedures, new internal 

processes-all these had one basic purpose: to 

enable the Commission to administer the election law as smoothly as possible in 1978 and in the 

future. 
3 

r 

Administer Public Financing of 

Presidential Elections 

The Commission's first objective, to administer 

public financing of Presidential elections, reflects 

the statutory requirement embodied in Chapters 

95 and 96 of the Act. Although the Presidential 

election was held in 1976, Commission activity in 

fulfilling this objective cqntinued into 1977. The 

Commission made final certifications for matching 

funds, audited those candidates receiving public 

funds, and, in a few cases, required the repayment of public funds. ·rhe nonelection year also 

gave the Commission an opportunity to reflect on 

its procedures, identify problem areas and propose solutions. 

Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund 

During the 1976 election period, the Commission, for the first time in U.S. politics, implemented a program of public financing of Presidential elections.* Funded through the dollar 

check-off on income tax forms, the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund is divided into separate 

accounts designed to finance three aspects of the 

Presidential election campaign: 

1. Presidential Primary Matching Account 

This account provides matching funds to those 

Presidential candidates who meet the initial 

threshold amount ($5,000 in contributions of $250 

or less from individuals in each of 20 States). Each 

candidate may receive matching funds for every 

contribution of $250 or less from individuals up to 

$5,000,000 (plus the cost-of-living increase for that 

year). 

2. Party Convention Payment Account 

The law provides that each major political party 

is entitled to up to $2,000,000 (plus the cost-ofliving increase) to help finance its nominating 

convention. Additionally, minor party conventions may be funded on a proportionate basis. A 

major party is a party whose candidate in the previous Presidential election received 25 percent or 

more of the popular vote. Minor party is defined 

as one whose candjdate for President in the previous Presidential election received more than 

five but less than 25 percent of the total number.of 

popular votes cast in such election. 

3. Presidential General Election Account 

This account provides public funding for major 

party Presidential nominees who agree to certain 

statutory conditions. Each candidate becomes 

eligible for $20_,000,000 (plus the cost-of-living 

increase), provided he or she accepts no private 

contributions. Partial and post-election funding is 

available for qualifying minor or new party 

candidates. 

After an intense year in 1976* of implementing a 

new program-i.e., determining eligibility of 

candidates, verifying matchable contributions, 

certifying public funds-1977 activity was directed 

to the final certification of primary matching 

funds, audits and subsequent repayments of 

public funds. 

*For more infom\ation on the activity of the Fund, see 

Appendix 5. 

*For detailed information on the public financing program in 

1976, see the Commission's 1976 Annual Report. 
4 

Certifications in 1977 

During 1977, certifications of primary matching 

funds continued at a reduced level as the various. 

primary campaigns wound down. The Act requires 

that matching payments be used solely to defray 

qualified campaign expenses. Qualified campaign 

expenses may be incurred only before the date of 

the candidate's "ineligibility" for public funds. (A 

candidate becomes "ineligible" if he/she fails to 

receive at least 10 percent of the votes cast in two 

consecutive primary elections in which he/she 

actively sought election.* For all other candidates, the ineligibility date is the date of 

withdrawal from the race or of the nominating 

convention.) 

On February 3, 1977, the Commission adopted an 

amendment to its then-proposed matching fund 

regulations.· This amendment tied post-eligibility 

matching fund payments to net outstanding 

campaign obligations, private funds raised after 

the candidate's date of ineligibility, and previous 

post-eligibility matching fund payments. The effect 

was that matching funds could be received to liqui-

. date qualified campaign debts only to the extent 

that privately raised funds were not available. 

Under the previous regulation (which did not 

contemplate the situation in which candidates 

woi:Jid receive sufficient post-eligibility private 

contributions to retire their primary debts), the 

Commission would have matched contributions 

up to the amount of the outstanding debt on the 

date of ineligibility, regardless of the amount of 

private funds raised after that date. A partial 

repayment would have been required, however, if 

the candidate had accumulated a surplus. 

Together with those matching fund submissions 

pending from 1976, the Commission certified a 

total of $516,164.48 in matching payments during 

1977. Out of the 15 candidates receiving public 

funds in 1976, eight continued to receive funds in 

1977 to pay 1976 election campaign debts. See 

Appendix 5. 

Audits 

The Commission is required to conduct a 

"thorough examination and audit" of all primary 

matching fund recipients, publicly funded party 

convention committees and general election 

Presidential candidates receiving public funding 

to ensure the funds are used in accc:>rdance with 

conditions required under the Act. The scheduling 

of these audits is outlined in the statute: 

-Primary Matching Fund: Audits must be conducted ". . ., after each matching payment 

period... . " (~1 U.S.C. §9.!)38(a).) The "matching 

payment perioa" ends on· the date of the 

candidate's party nominating convention. 

-Convention Account: Audits must be conducted ". . . no later than December 31 of the 

calendar year in which the Presidential nominating convention involved is held." (26 U.S.C. 

§9008(g).) 

-General Election Fund: Audits must be conducted " ... after each Presidential election 

... . " (26 U.S.C. §9007(a).) 

After the 1976 election period, the Commission 

was required, under these provisions, to conduct 

audits of the 15 Presidential candidates receiving 

matching funds, the two national nominating conventions which received public funding, and the 

two major party Presidential candidates who received public funds for the general election . 

As 1976 was the first year a program of public 

financing for Presidential elections had ever been 

implemented and the audits of these candidates in 

1977 were the first audits of any type conducted by 

the Commission, questions were raised and 

problems encountered. For example, the question was raised during the audits as to what extent 

documentation of expenditures should be provided by a campaign to ensure that public funds 

were used solely for qualified campaign expenses, 

as required by the Act. For additional preblems 

raised in the area of public financing, and 

Commission recommendations for possible solutions, see the Chapter on legislative Recommendations. 

The procedures followed in Presidential audits are 

similar to those used in the random and referral 

audits described in the Audit Section. During the 

field audit, the candidates' expenditures are verified to determine whether funds were used for expenses other than qualified campaign expenses. 

The audit also determines whether candidates 

have debts of surplus funds as of the date of their 

ineligibility. On the basis of these determinations, 

the audit report may recommend to the Commission that repayment of public funds be made. 

Repayments 

Repayment of funds to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is required if: 

*This criteria for ineligibility was first enacted in the 1976 

Amendments to the Act, which took effect on May 11, 1976. 
5 

1. The amount received exceeds the amount to 

which the candidate (or convention committee) is entitled; 

2. The "qualified campaign expenses" of the 

candidate (or convention committee) exceed 

the limitations set forth in the Act; 

3. Public funds are used for other than "qualified campaign expenses"; or 

4. Public funds remain after debts and obligations 

have been liquidated. 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, each 

major party was eligible to receive $2,182,000 in 

Federal funds in quarterly payments to defray 

expenses related to their 1976 conventions. In 

March 1977, the Democratic National Committee 

(DNC) and the Republican National Committee 

(RNC) returned to the Federal Treasury a total of 

more than a half million dollars in surplus public 

funds. The DNC refunded $170,065 and the RNC 

$362,136, in unused funds. 

On May 12, 1977, in another repayment action, 

the Commission directed Governor Milton Shapp, 

former Presidential primary candidate, to repay to 

the U.S. Treasury $299,066.21, an amount equal to 

the total amount of Federal matching funds he 

had received. The Commission based its decision 

on the fact that Governor Shapp had incorrectly 

certified to the Commission that he had met the 

eligibility requirements for obtaining primary 

rnatching funds and was, therefore, not entitled to 

any public funds. During the required audit and 

examination of Governor Shapp's campaign 

finance reports, the Commission determined that 

certain unusual patterns of contributions existed. 

Further examination and investigation disclosed 

that <;ertain persons made illegal contributions.* 

When these improper contributions were subtracted from the total amount submitted, the 

Commission found that Governor Shapp had not 

satisfied the 20-State threshold requirement to 

qualify for public funding. Since Governor Shapp 

did not meet the statutory qualifications for 

matching funds, the Commission determined that 

the matching payments he received were in 

excess of the amount to which he was entitled 

and, therefore, had to be repaid. 

Other repayments by Presidential primary candidates were made as a result of the statutorily~ 

required field audits by the Commission. These included refunds of certain expenditures determined by the Commission to be nonqualified 

campaign expenses and of a statutorily-mandated 

percentage of unused funds. For a summary of 

repayments, see Appendix 5. 

*As a result of enforcement actions stemming from these investigations, the Commission entered into conciliation 

agreements and/or levied fines against several individuals. 
6 

r 

Obtain Compliance 

The Commission devoted much of its staff and 

resources to the fulfillment of its second objective, 

to encourage candidates and committees to comply with the provisions of the Act. The Commission 

attempts to achieve this goal by: 

A. Prescribing regulations· which interpret the 

Act; 

B. Rendering advisory opinions applying the Act 

or regulations to specific factual situations; 

C. Disseminating information on the Act and 

regulations; 

D. Monitoring campaign activity reflected in reports and statements; · 

E. Implementing systematic procedures for en­

. forcement; and 

F. Defending Commission actions through litigation. 

Each of these programs is discussed respectively in 

the sections below. 

Regulations 

To lay the groundwork for fulfilling the objective of obtaining compliance, the Commission 

prescribes regulations which flesh out and clarify 

the broader provisions of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. They have the effect of law. Under 

the . Act, the Commission cannot prescribe 

regulations until Congress has had 30 legislative 

days to review them, during which time either the 

House or the Senate may disapprove the 

regulations. 

Regulations Prescribed 

in April 

After hearings, extensive debate and revisions, 

the Commission sent its first set of proposed disclosure regulations to Congress in December 1975 

and January 1976. • The Supreme Court decision 

(Buckley v. Valeo) on January 31, 1976, suspended 

the Commission's rulemaking authority and, thus, 

these regulations never went into effect. 

Following passage of the 1976 Amendments to the 

Act, signed into law on May 11,1976, the Commission approved a new set of regulations which 

were sent to Congress on August 3, 1976. These 

proposed regulations had been under review for 

28 legislative days when Congress adjourned on 

October 1, 1976. Consequently, the Commission 

was not able to prescribe this second set of regulations. 

On January 11, 1977, the Commission resubmitted 

to Congress the regulations it had approved on 

August 3, 1976, modified by three substantive 

amendments to the following sections: 

-§102.9: Reporting particulars of expenditures. 

-§114.4: Corporate and labor organization distribution of voter registration information. 

-§134.3: Formula for repayment of Presidential 

matching funds. 

*Two separate regulations (on Document filing and Office Actounts) were sent to Congress in July and August, 1915. Both 

were subsequently disapproved. 
7 

On March 29, the 3D-legislative-day review period 

for the regulations expired without either House 

of Congress exercising its veto. A week later, on 

April7, the Commission voted 6-0 to prescribe the 

regulations. The notice of promulgation appeared 

in the Federal Register on April 13, the effective 

date of the regulations. 

With the prescription of its regulations, the Commission equid issue Advisory Opinions based on 

the application of the regulations as well as the 

Act. In addition, the promulgated regulations provided an interpretive base for enforcement 

proceedings. 

Regu Iatory Process 

Continues 

The regulatory process is a continuous one. 

Regulations may become outdated when changes 

are made in statutes on which they are based. Late 

in December, for example, Congress passed the 

Social Security Financing Act (P.L 95-216), which 

contained several amendments to 2 U.S.C. §441i, 

the honorarium provisions of the Act. The Commission's regulations (Part 110.12) will be modified 

to reflect the legislative changes. 

New regulations may also be needed to deal with 

situations not foreseen in the current regulations. 

During 1977, numerous staff meetings were held at 

the Commission to discuss the drafting of technical and clarifying amendments to the regulations, 

as well as substantive additions reflecting new 

Commission policy. New regulations are frequently based on the practical knowledge gained 

from implementing the Act and regulations. The 

public financing regulations, for example, are 

being revised on the basis of a year's experience in 

the certification of public funds and the resulting 

audits. 

Rulemaking Notices 

During 1977, the Commission published, in the 

Federal Register, three different notices on proposed rulemaking, each requesting public comment on issues in need of further clarification. 

Corporate and Labor Solkitations 

The first notice, published on May 26, 1977, 

requested public comments on questions concerning the statutory requirement that corporations make solicitation methods available to labor 

organizations (§114.5(k) ). The Commission had 

determined, while considering an advisory opinion request submitted by Continental Oil Company (CONOCO), that the current regulations did 

not cover the specific factual situations posed in 

the CONOCO request. 

Under existing FEC regulations, any corporation 

which raises funds for its separate segregated fund 

by soliciting voluntary contributions from its executive and administrative personnel and stockholders must, upon request, make the same solicitation 

method available to a labor organization with 

respect to its members. FEC regulations identify, as 

examples, several methods of political solicitation, 

including payroll deduction or "check-off" plans, 

computer mailing services and the use of corporate meeting rooms to explain voluntary giving. 

The following is a summary of the questions raised 

in the rulemaking notice: 

1. To what extent is a corporation required to 

make its solicitation plan available to a labor organization (representing the corporation's employees) after the corporation stops utilizing 

the plan, if the union's request was initially 

made while the plan was still in use? 

2. To what extent must a corporation make its 

solicitation plan available to a labor organiza-' 

tion if the union's request was initially made 

after the corporation stopped utilizing the 

plan? 

3. Is a parent corporation required to make its 

solicitation plan avaialble to a labor organization representing employees of one of its 

subsidiaries if the parent corporation solicits the 

executive and administrative personnel of 

another subsidiary corporation which does not 

employ any members of this labor organization? 

At the end of the year, the staff was considering 

the comments received in order to draft proposed 

regulatory language forCommission consideration. 

Candidate Debates 

On July 12, 1977, a second notice was published 

to solicit public comment on the sponsorship and 

financing of public debates between candidates 

for Federal office. Hearings were held on September 12, 1977. The issue arose from the FEe's decision in the fall of 1976 that the Carter-Ford Presidential debates could be sponsored by the League 

of Women Voters, but that corporate or union 

general treasury funds could not be used to help 

finance the debates. 

During the hearings., the Commission received 

testimony on this issue and several additional 

questions, including: 

-Are contributions to finance debates "made for 
8 

the purpose of influencing" or "in connection 

with" a Federal election? 

-Does the inclusion or exclusion of particular 

candidates (for example, independent or third 

party) have significance as to the debate's "influence on" or "connection with" a Federal 

election? Are factors such as receipt of public 

financing or ballot qualifications important in 

determining whether a debate would have an 

"influence on" or be "in connection with" a 

Federal election? 

-Is the nature (such as nonprofit or educational) 

of the sponsoring organization relevant to the 

debate's "influence on" or "connection with" 

an election? 

-Under what circumstances are disbursements 

made by a corporation, labor organization or 

Federal contractor to finance a debate not considered a contribution or expenditure "in connection with" an election? 

-Who should control the subject matter or 

format of the debate? 

-To what extent does sponsorship or financing of 

debates by corporations, labor organizations 

· and Federal contractors affect the debates 

and/or the ensuing election? 

Testimony was given by nine witnesses, including 

represeMatives from the League of Women Voters 

and the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, an attorney for a 1976 independent Presidential candidate, two 1976 Federal congressional 

candidates and several other individuals with an 

interest in campaign financing. In addition to 

hearing testimony, the Commission received 15 

written comments. 

After reviewing the comments and testimony received, on December 8, 1977, the Commission 

approved new proposed regulatory language 

which would permit corporations and labor 

organizations to donate general treasury funds to 

' certain nonP.rofit groups for use in the sponsorship of candidate debates. The Commission debated, but did not adopt, three alternative 

proposals for establishing criteria for participation in debates. The proposed language must be 

submitted to Congress for 30 legislative days 

before the regulation may be prescribed. 

Independent Expenditures 

A third notice requested public comment on 

the general subject of independent expenditures. 

After considering several advisory opinions dealing with independent expenditures, the Commission appointed a Task Force consisting of a Commissioner and several staff members to study the 

issue, identify the problems and propose possible 

solutions. The notice published on October 18, 

1977, posed several questions to assist in this 

process: 

-Do the present regulations offer sufficient guidance to a person who wishes to know whether a 

contemplated expenditure is independent? 

'-With reference to the statutory definition of "independent expenditure" as an expenditure 

" ... expressly advocating the election or defeat 

of a clearly identified candidate...." what 

types of expenditures constitute express advocacy of the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate? 

-Should factual situations which give rise to the 

presumption that an expenditure is not independent include: 

a) The situation where there has been substantial or significant contact between the 

expending person and the candidate, committee or agents; or 

b) The situation where an individual who is, or 

has been, actively participating in the financing or management of a candidate's campaign either makes an independent expenditure or is in a decision-making position 

within a committee which makes an independent expenditure on behalf of that 

candidate? 

-Are there constitutional or other considerations 

which require or allow a distinction between 

independent expenditures made by committees and those made by individuals? 

-Should the definition of "agent" (§109.1(b)(5)) 

be expanded (or narrowed)? If it is expanded, 

should it include any person who is an agent 

under the common law of agency, including an 

employee or an independent contractor? 

Comments received were being reviewed by 

Commission staff at the end of the year to assess 

the need for modified or additional regulatory 

language on this subject. 

Advisory Opinions 

In its effort to assist candidates and committees 

in complying with the Act and regulations, the 

Commission issues advisory opinions (AO's) 

applying a general rule of law, as stated in the Act 

or the Commission's regulations, to a specific 

factual situation. An AO provides legal protection to the following persons who, in good 
9 

faith, act in accordance with the provisions or 

findings of the opinion: 

1. The requestor of the AO* and 

2. Any persons involved in a specific activity 

which is"... indistinguishable in all its material 

aspects ..." from the activity described in the 

AO. 

The 1976 Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act specified that any general role of 

law must first be stated in the Act or in formally 

prescribed regulations before being discussed in 

an advisory opinion. Consequently, between the 

enactment of the 1976 Amendments in May 1976 

and the promulgation of Commission regulations 

in April 1977, the only advisory opinions issued 

were those based solely on the Act. During this 

period, however, the FEC continued to receive 

advisory opinion requests which required responses based, at least in part, on the Commission's proposed regulations. Each of these responses (designated "Re: AOR") contained a 

notice indicating it was informational in nature 

and did not constitute an advisory opinion 

because it was based in part on proposed:regulations then pending before the Congress. The Re: 

AOR did not afford the recipient the same. legal 

protection as that granted through an advisory 

opinion. 

Advisory Opinion 

Procedure 

All advisory opinion requests (AOR's) are made 

public in the Office of Public Records at the 

Commission. Interested members of the public 

may make comments on any AOR within 10 days 

of the date it is made public. A line description of 

the AOR and other pertinent information for 

obtaining copies is published on a monthly basis in 

the Commission's newsletter, the Record. The 

Commission discontinued, for budgetary reasons, 

its previous policy of publishing summaries of 

AOR's in the Federal Register, effective October 1, 

1977. 

The Office of General Counsel considers each 

request for an AO. If necessary, it seeks additional 

information from the requestor. The Office 

presents a draft AO to the Commission in open 

session during a regularly scheduled Commission 

meeting. All AO's must be approved by at least 

four Commissioners. An advisory opinion may be 

reconsidered provided the original requestor 

submits a written request to that effect, and one of 

the Commissioners who voted with the majority 

approving the original opinion makes the motion 

to reconsider. Once issued, AO's are made public 

in the Office of Public Records and summarized in 

the Record. · 

During 1977, the Commission issued 46 advisory 

opinions and 11 Re: AOR's (issued before April13, 

1977). For summaries of these AO's and Re: 

AOR's, see Appendix 4. 

Summaries of Advisory 

Opinions 

Advisory opinions cover a wide variety of subjects. During the 1976 election year, opinions 

focused on questions such as the legality of certain contributions or expenditures and the reporting requirements. Questions during 1977, the 

nonelection year, dealt more with the use of excess 

campaign funds, officeholder activities, corporate 

and labor organization activity and preparations 

for the upcoming 1978 election. Major issues in 

1977, addressed in several advisory opinions, are 

summarized below. 

Use of Excess Campaign Funds 

With the winding down of the campaigns from 

the 1976 election, many requests for advisory 

opinions concerned the use of excess campaign 

funds. The statute provides (2 U.S.C. §439a) that 

excess funds may be used: 

1. To support activities of a Federal officeholder; 

2. As donations to charitable organizations; or 

3. For any other lawful purpose. 

The Commission confirmed that excess funds 

could be used by a Congressman for a television 

program to inform his constituents of new 

developments (Re: AOR 1976-107) or to pay for 

telephone bills in excess of a Congressman's communication allowance (Re: AOR 1976-114). The 

Commission also concluded that, as used in 2 

U.S.C. §439a, "any other lawful purpose" includes 

the transfer of excess funds to a future campaign 

(AO 1977-24) and the retirement of debts from a 

1969 congressional or a 1976 gubernatorial. campaign (AO 1977-41 and AO 1977-48), as well as the 

payment of legal fees incurred in defending the 

candidate against criminal charges (AO 1977-39). 

"An AO may be requested only by Federal officeholders, 

candidates for Federal office, political committees supporting su"h candidates, and the national committee of a political 

party. 
10 

Corporate and Labor Organization Activity 

In a request from the Continental Oil Company submitted in 1976 (Re: AOR 1976-106), the 

Commission considered whether or not employee/participants in CONOCO's Employee 

Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) were stockholders 

for puposes of the solicitation provisions of the 

Act (2 U.S.C. §441b). In its original response issued 

December 30, 1976, the Commission determined, 

by a 4-2 vote, that the participants in CONOCO's 

ESOP did not fall within the Commission's definition of "stockholder" (11 CFR §114.1(h)), which 

requires that stockholders have: 

1. A vested beneficial interest in the stock; 

2. The power to direct how that stock will be 

voted; and 

3. The right to receive dividends. 

The response concluded that while CONOCO's 

ESOP participants met the first two criteria for 

stockholders, the third did not apply. It stated 

" ... while the cash dividends generated by the 

stock are reinvested by the trustee for the benefit 

of the shareholders, these 'stockholders' do not 

receive the dividends directly." 

In September 1977, by a 4-1 vote, the Commission 

agreed to reconsider the response, thereby 

rendering the original response null and void. The 

issue to be reconsidered centered on the third criterion for stockholders: whether the "right to 

receive dividends" meant the direct, physical 

receipt of dividends at any time, or whether this 

phrase implied receipt of any nature including 

payment of dividends to a trustee for the benefit 

of the employee/participant, as in the case of 

CONOCO's ESOP. 

The Commission was unable to reach a consensus 

in this matter. 

The Commission received a second advisory 

opinion request on the subject of solicitations 

under §441b from the Proprietary Industry Political Action Committee (PIPAC) (AO 1977-16). It 

asked whether the Board of Directors of PIPAC's 

sponsoring trade association (Proprietary Association) could be solicited even though. they were 

also executive or administrative personnel of 

certain member corporations of the Association. 

Some of these member corporations had not 

given the statutorily-required prior approval for 

solicitations by the trade association. 

The Commission concluded, in an opinion issued 

in November, that the solicitations could not be 

made: The members of the Board of Directors 

were not stockholders or executive or administrative personnel of the trade association, the only 

group which, under the Act, could be solicited 

without restriction. Rather, the members of the 

Board could be solicited by the trade association 

only if their employing corporation had consented 

to a solicitation by the trade association, and had 

not consented to solicitations by any other trade 

association in that calendar year. 

Advisory opinion requests answered by the 

Commission dealt with several other subjects concerning corporate and labor organization activity, 

including the following: 

-Corporations may not use payroll deduction 

plans to solicit contributions for a trade association political action committee (Re: AOR 

1976-94). 

-National banks may establish separate segregated funds (Re: AOR 1976-109). 

Duration of Candidacy 

The Commission responded to several advisory opinion requests concerning the duration of candidate or committee status. Following 

are summaries of two of thes~ opinions: 

-AO 1977-11 concluded that a Member of Congress was a candidate ". . . irrespective of 

whether the Member 'officially' declared as a 

candidate for reelection ..." when he maintained a campaign account which accepted 

contributions or made expenditures (as defined 

in the Act), or when such an account was maintained by a continuing campaign committee on 

his behalf. 

-A 1976 candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives had forgiven a loan to his campaign 

committee so that it could terminate. He asked 

the Commission whether his committee could 

accept a contribution received several months 

after termination and use it as partial repayment 

of the forgiven loan. AO 1977-43 concluded 

that once a committee had properly terminated, it could not subsequently receive contributions. Vice Chairman Joan Aikens filed a dissenting opinion. 

Affiliated Committees 

In several opinions, the Commission dealt with 

the difficult question of affiliation. Other opinion 

requests on this subject are still pending. In a brief 

opinion, the Commission confirmed that two 

committees which are affiliated may transfer unlimited amounts of funds between them (AO 

1977-21). However, the two committees must 
11 

maintain separate identities for disclosure purposes and both must file campaign finance disclosure reports with the Commission. 

With regard to the question of whether or not 

affiliation exists between two committees, AO 

1976-104 applied the criteria set out in Commission regulations (§110.3 (a)(1)(iii)) to a specific set 

of circumstances. The opinion held that the Good 

Government Committee of First Federal Savings of 

Miami (the Committee) was affiliated with the 

Florida Savings Political Action Committee because they met two of these criteria: 

... (D) Similar patterns of contributions; 

(E) The transfer of funds between committees which represent a substantial portion 

of the funds of either the transferor or 

transferee committee ... 

The Commission based its conclusion on information from the Committee and a review of its 

reports filed. 

Search Committee 

In a request received by the Commission, the 

Iowa 1980 Senate Campaign Committee (the 

Committee) proposed to"... function initially as a 

search committee 'for the purpose of selecting the 

best Republican candidate' for the 1980 Senate 

election in Iowa." At the time of selection, the 

Committee would become that candidate's principal campaign committee. The Committee raised 

the question as to whether it could function as a 

principal campaign committee without a candidate until such time as a candidate was selected. 

The Commission concluded that the committee 

" ... may be established and operate as a 'political 

committee' under the Act ... [and] ... if desired, 

the Committee may operate under the contribution limits applicable to contributions which are 

fT!ade to a principal campaign committee." The 

opinion also determined that the Committee 

could retroactively be designated as the principal 

campaign committee of the candidate eventually 

selected. However, the opinion imposed numerous conditions on the acceptance of contributions 

by the Committee and on the application of 

contribution limitations to contributions received 

both before and after the committee's designation 

as a principal campaign committee. 

Chairman Thomas Harris and Commissioner Neil 

Staebler dissented from the majority opinion's 

conclusion. 

Joint Fundraising 

In two advisory opinions issued during 1977 

(AO 1977-14, AO 1977-23), the Commission 

defined certain procedures for joint fundraising 

which would ensure proper disclosure and 

compliance with the contribution limitations of 

the Act. 

The Commission agreed that contributions could 

be divided among the participating candidates 

according to a predetermined formula. All such 

contributions received through joint fundraising 

would, of course, be subject to contribution 

limitations. Therefore, a donor who had already· 

contributed up to the limit to one of the 

participating candidates would have to allocate 

his/her contribution among the other participating candidates (rather than subscribing to the 

predetermined formula) to avoid exceeding 

contribution limitations. 

Fundraising costs, including advances for prepaid 

expenses, would have to be allocated among the 

participating committees according to the same 

formula adopted for allocating contributions. Any 

other allocation would result in a contribution inkind (subject to limitations) by the committee 

which pays more than its proportionate share. 

A separate political committee could be designated by the participating candidates to conduct 

the joint fundraising. However, each participating 

candidate would have to designate, as one of 

his/her own depositories, the depository of such 

separate committee.· 

Finally, the Commission stated that each candidate 

would have to report the.portion of contributions 

which he/she received. Any proportionate contribution exceeding $100, when added to other 

contributions from the same donor, would have to 

be fully itemized. 

Information 

As one of the major means of obtaining 

compliance with the Act, the Commission has 

always stressed its policy of making as much 

information as possible available to candidates and 

committees, and to the general public. By making 

information available, the Commission is able to 

help candidates and committees understand their 

obligations under the Act, particularly reporting 

requirements and contribution limits. It can also 

help the general public understand FEC functions 

and activities. A variety of information programs 

have been created to further this goal of 

' ... · 
12 

explaining the law, answering questions and 

assisting filers. 

Information Division 

These information programs are administered 

by th" Information Division, consisting of three 

branches*: the Office of Public Communications, 

the Press Office and the Publications Office. The 

Office of Public Communications' primary function is to respond to inquiries and requests for 

materials by candidates, committees and the 

general public. In spite of the fact that 1977 was a 

nonelection year, the Office maintained three 

toll-free tel~phone lines (800/424-9530) in addition 

to regular telephone lines, which enabled it to 

respond to nearly 25,000 phone inquiries and to 

fill over 8,000 individual requests for materials. In 

addition, the staff responded to over 400 general 

information letters. Periodic informational mailings to all candidates, committees and the general 

public were also coordinated through this Office. 

All contacts with the press continued to be 

centralized in the Press Office. During 1977, this 

Office handled approximately 2,200 calls from 

media sources around the country with questions 

about the campaign law. This Office handles all 

press calls to ensure prompt, coordinated responses to media questions and requests, and to 

ensure uniform dissemination of information 

about Commission policies and actions. In 

addition to responding to inquiries, the Office 

issued 43 press releases on major Commission 

decisions, policies and activities. Other regular 

mailings included notices of Commission meetings. The Press Office, a focal point for all public 

inquiries about compliance matters, is responsible 

for maintaining the statutorily-mandated confidentiality for pending compliance matters and for 

putting closed compliance cases on the public 

record. 

During 1977, the Publications Office produced 

materials directed toward helping candidates, 

committees and other interested individuals 

understand the Act and FEC policies. The monthly 

newsletter, the Record, served as the primary 

means through which the Commission imparted 

information on its current decisions, policies and 

procedures. The Office continued to develop the 

Campaign Guide series, each volume of which 

focused on a particular set of election law provisions, such as nonelection year activity or requirements of congressional candidates and their committees. The Office also published the Commission's newly prescribed regulations, complete 

with two indices to the general provisions of the 

regulations and the public financing provisions, 

respectively. For summaries of specific publications, see Appendix 9. 

Public Appearance Policy 

In response to invitations to address public 

gatherings, the Federal Election Commission sends 

representatives, free of charge, to explain or 

discuss election and campaign finance laws. In 

April, the Commission identified five guidelines 

for accepting such invitations: 

1. The Commission's appearances must afford 

equal opportunity to all political parties, 

without preferential treatment to any organization or person. 

2. FEC appearances must permit the Commission 

to maximize its contact with the public, within a 

limited travel budget. 

3. As a general rule, that portion of the function 

involving Commission representatives must be 

open to the general public. 

4. The Commission cannot accept invitations 

when the sponsors appear to have organized 

the function to gain financial profit or commercial advantage. (This limitation does not, however, prevent FEC appearances at functions 

charging reasonable fees to cover costs of the 

function.) Nor can the Commission participate 

when its presence at the function has been advertised in such a manner as to suggest profit or 

commercial advantage for the sponsor. 

5. The Commission must reject invitations when 

its participation would be associated with political solicitation effo~ts or with endorsement of 

partisan activities. 

During 1977, Commissioners and FEC staff made 

approximately 72 public appearances in 19 States, 

Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. 

In addition to participating in outside conferences 

and seminars, the Commission welcomed various 

student and citizens groups and foreign visitors to 

Commission headquarters in Washington. A short 

· tour of the Commission, followed by a discussion 

and question/answer session, acquainted visitors 

with the Commission's role. 

Audits 

To further promote compliance with the Act, 

the Commission directly verifies campaign financ-

*Although administratively a part of the Information Division, 

the Clearinghouse is discussed in a separate chapter of the 

report. 
13 

ing information through audits of candidates and 

committees. The Act requires the Commission 

" ... to make from time to time audits and field 

investigations with respect to reports and statements filed under the [Act]." 2 U.S.C §438(a)(8). 

These referral or random audits are in addition to 

those required under Title 26 for Presidential 

candidates receiving public funds. For further 

information on audits required under Title 26, see 

Chapter on Public Financing. 

The statutorily required audits of Presidential 

candidates were the top priority for the Commission during late 1976 and the early months of 1977. 

later in 1977 the Commission implemented its 

policy for random or referral audits. In April, it 

approved a staff report establishing scheduling 

priorities and procedures for conducting these 

audits. The procedures are described berow. The 

policy for random or referral audits, approved in 

November 1976, is discussed at the end of this 

chapter. 

Audit Procedures 

The audit procedures approved by the Commission in April endorsed three objectives for FEC 

audits: 

-To verify reporting accuracy; 

-To determine compliance with the Act; and 

-To provide guidance to persons required to file 

reports under the Act. 

The Commission stressed the importance of using 

its auditing staff to help educate candidates and 

committees about proper recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures. The seven-step auditing 

process adopted by the Commission reflects this 

priority. 

Step 1: Pre-Audit Review 

In order to prepare for audit field work and to 

have an overview of the committee's campaign 

activity, the first step of the audit is a review of all 

statements and reports filed by the committee 

with the Commission. At this stage, the audit staff 

makes extensive use of the information available 

in the Disclosure Information System. 

With the support of the Disclosure Division, the 

audit staff also reviews the Disclosure file on the 

committee. That file may include Requests for 

Additional Information (RFAI's), correspondence, 

records of telephone conversations with the committee, and other pertinent information. Finally, 

the audit staff consults with the Office of General 

Counsel to determine if any advisory opinions or 

informational letters have been issued to the 

committee or if it is or has been involved in any 

compliance matters. 

Step 2: Entrance Conference 

The entrance conference between the committee and the auditors is designed to promote an 

understanding of the Commission's goals of education, assistance and voluntary compliance, and 

to outline the general steps of the audit. At this 

stage, the auditors obtain a description of the accounting and bookkeeping methods used by the 

committee and also obtain written statements 

from the committee on the availability of records 

and the identity of all campaign depositories. 

Step 3: Field Review 

Following recognized accounting practices, the 

auditors then review the actual records maintained by the committee. This examination 

includes reconciliation of all bank statements to 

obtain an overall picture of the committee's financial activity, review of receipts and expenditures, 

review of all debts and obligations, and a comparison of the committee's records with the filed 

disclosure reports. 

Step 4: Exit Conference 

The exit conference between the auditors and 

the committee is used to identify, for the 

committee, any disclosure or compliance problems found during the audit. The auditors recommend changes or adjustments to be made through 

amendments to the committee's reports and offer 

suggestions to improve accounting procedures. 

Step 5: Post-Audit Report 

After returning to the Commission from the 

field, the auditors summarize their field work and 

complete any working papers. At this stage, auditors refer to the Office of General Counsel possible serious violations of the Act which may require 

enforcement action, or questions raised during 

the course of the audit needing legal clarification. 

If necessary, a letter is sent to the committee summarizing the findings of the audit and requesting 

amendments to reports to correct any minor violations found during the audit. 

Based on the audit findings, the auditor's research 

and the committee's response to FEC recommendations, an audit report is drafted containing the 

following information: 

A. Background: Authority and purpose of the 

audit, dates covered by the audit and com-
14 

mittee organizational information. 

B. Audit Opinion: Auditor's opinion on the overall compliance of the committee. This opinion 

may vary from an unqualified opinion where no 

material problems are discovered, to an adverse 

opinion where the audit disclosed serious 

problems. 

C. Findings 

1. Significant violations and violations requiring committee amending action: Identification of the section of the U.S. Code which 

has been violated, a statement of the facts, 

recommendations for correction made to 

the committee by the auditor, the committee's response to these recommendations, 

and a recommendation for Commission 

action. 

2. Technical violations requiring no action. 

All materials involved in a particular audit (working papers, letters, the report itself, etc.) are processed in two ways to ensure the integrity of the 

final report: Indexing, to identify the workpaper 

which substantiates each fact in the audit report; 

and referencing, which is an internal control process whereby an individual, who has taken no part 

in the particular audit, verifies that the facts stated 

in the report are accurate and that the workpapers 

and related materials adequately support the 

findings, conclusions and recommendations ex-

. pressed in the report. 

Certain audits, especially those raising policy 

questions or compliance problems, are referred at 

this stage through the Staff Director's Office to the 

Office of General Counsel. A legal analysis of the 

report is made to verify that the recommendations 

contained in the report are legally supportable. 

Any changes or recommendations made by the 

Office of General Counsel are forwarded back to 

the audit staff by the Staff Director's Office. 

Step 6: Presentation to the Commission 

A final audit report, together with a legal analysis (if necessary), is presented to the Commission. 

The approval of at least four Commissioners is 

required before the audit report may be released. 

Depending on the complexity of the audit, the 

audit report is discussed and acted on during a 

Commission executive session meeting, or is circulated to the Commissioners individually for 

approvaL 

Step 7: Completed Audits 

Once an audit report is approved by the Commission, the committee receives a copy of the final 

report. At this time, the audit report is also made 

public and is available in the Office of Public 

Records at the Commission. In the case of House 

or Senate audits, reports for all candidates/committees contending for the same seat are released 

at the same time, when possible. For a listing of all 

audits released to the public to date, see 

Appendix 8. 

Implementation of Audit 

Policy 

The Commission's Audit Policy provided for 

audits of all types of filers, as follows: 

1. Multicandidate Committees* 

Multicandidate committees would be selected 

for audit on the basis of either a "dollar threshold" or "random selection." Under the category 

of "dollar threshold," the policy called for audits 

on a two-year cycle of all multicandidate committees whose receipts or expenditures exceeded 

$100,000 in an election year. During election year 

1976, 121 multicandidate committes exceeded this 

threshold. 

In addition, random selections for audits would be 

made from those multicandidate committees with 

financial transactions of less than $100,000 during 

the election year . 

2. National Party Committees 

The policy included audits of the two major 

national political party committees, to be conducted on a two-year cycle. 

3. State Party Committees 

All State party committees filing with the Commission would be audited every two years. 

Although only one State party committee was 

audited during 1977, an additional 76 State party 

committees are projected for audits during 1978. 

4. Senate and House Candidate Committees 

Senate and House candidate committees Would 

be audited by a "random selection" of 10 percent 

of the seats for which an election is held in each 

election year. For the 1976 election, these audits 

encompassed 44 House and four Senate seats and 

'"Included in the term "multicandidate committee" are 

separate segregated funds established by corporations, labor 

organizations, trade associations and other groups, as well as 

minor political party national committees and local major and 

minor party-related committees. 
15 

approximately 100 candidates in all. For each of 

the 48 elections randomly selected, the Commission audited: 

-All major party general election candidates; 

-All other general election candidates who received five percent or more of the vote; and 

-All candidates who raised or spent more than 

$10,000. 

If the winning candidate received more than 75 

percent of the vote in the general election, but 

less than 75 percent in a primary election victory, 

then the Commission also audited all primary candidates of the same party who received more than 

five percent of the vote, or who received or spent 

more than $10,000. Congressional candidate audits 

were given top priority for the latter half of 1977 in 

an effort to complete them during the nonelection year. Candidates in the earliest 1978 primaries 

were audited first, and all audits for a particular 

seat were done at the same time, where scheduling permitted. 

5. Presidential Candidates Not Receiving 

Public Funds 

Audits of minor party Presidential candidates 

would be limited to those who appeared on a 

minimum of 10 State general election ballots. 

6. Other Audits 

The policy also called for random audits of five 

percent of those corporate/labor organizations 

filing reports on their communication costs (2 

U.S.C. §431(f)(4)(C)) and eight percent of those 

persons filing independent expenditure reports. 

7. Referral Audits 

In addition, the policy included "referral 

audits." Such audits would cover referrals by the 

Disclosure Division or the Office of General 

Counsel of any candidate or committee whose 

reports and statements indicated need for assistance to improve their reporting or record keeping 

systems. 

Enforcement 

As a final step in obtaining compliance, the 

Federal Election Commission has exclusive civil 

enforcement authority over all provisions of the 

F~deral l:lection Campaign Act. This authority, 

stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in 

Buckley v. Va/eo, was spelled out in the 1976 

Amendments to the Act (2 U.S.C. §437d(e)). The 

first section below examines the procedures used 

by the Commission, applicable to all enforcement 

cases. The second section deals with the monitoring of reports conducted by the Disclosure Division which, in some cases, results in an enforcement action. 

Enforcement Procedures 

The enforcement procedures followed by the 

Commission are specifically outlined by the 

statutory language of the Act. Each step must be 

approved by at least four Commissioners (2 U.S.C. 

§437(c) ). If at any stage a vote of four cannot be 

obtained, the case is closed. The following is a 

brief summary of the procedural steps in an enforcement action: 

Preliminary Review 

The statute provides that enforcement actions 

may be initiated either by a signed, sworn, 

notarized complaint (2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(1)), or by 

information which the Commission received 

" ... in the normal course of ... [it's] supervisory 

responsibilities...." (2 U.S.C. ·§437g(a)(2).) 

When a complaint is received, or information 

within the Commission indicates the possibility of 

a violation of the Act, the Office of the General 

Counsel assigns it a "Matter Under Review" 

(MUR) number and conducts a preliminary review 

of the case. A report is presented to the Commission containing: 

1. A summary of the complaint; 

2. A preliminary legal analysis; and 

3. A recommendation for Commission action. 

The Office of the General Counsel attempts to 

complete these preliminary reports within seven 

days of the time a complaint is received. The recommendation for Commission action may result 

in one of two dispositions: a) If the Commission 

determines there is "reason to believe" that a 

violation of the Act has occurred, the enforcement action proceeds; or b) If the Commission 

concludes there is no "reason to believe" the Act 

has been violated, the MUR is closed. 

Investigation 

In cases in which the Commission concludes 

that information affords it "reason to believe" a 

violation may have occurred, the Office of General Counsel conducts a formal investigation into 

the MUR. Any person involved in the alleged violation is notified of the Commission's finding and 

is informed of the statutory opportunity to dem-
16 

onstrate that"... no action should be taken ... by 

the Commission ..." against that person. An investigation may include, where necessary, issuance of subpoenas for records or depositions, or 

issuance of an order requiring answers to written 

questions. If the Commission concludes, as a result 

of the investigation, that the evidence supports 

the conclusion that there is "reasonable cause to 

believe" the Act has been violated (2 U.S.C. 

§437g(a)(S)(A) ), the case proceeds to the next step, 

·conciliation. On the other hand, if the Commission determines that there is no "reasonable cause 

,to believe" the Act has been violated, the case is 

closed. 

Conciliation 

If the Commission concludes that there is "reasonable cause to believe" that a violation has 

occurred, it is required to ". . . make every 

endeavor for a period of not less than 30 days to 

correct or prevent such violation by informal 

methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion, and to enter into a conciliation agreement 

with the person involved .•.." The only exception 

to the 30-day requirement is that the conciliation 

period is shortened where the violation involves 

the filing of pre-election reports or a complaint is 

filed close to an election. Once a conciliation 

agreement is entered into, unless violated, the 

MUR is closed. 

Ovil Action 

If conciliation attempts fail and the Commission 

determines that there is a "probable cause to 

believe" that the Act has been violated or is about 

to be violated, the Commission may institute a 

civil action for relief, including a permanent or 

temporary injunction, a restraining order or a civil 

penalty not exceeding the greater of $5,000 or the 

amount of the violation. Determinations involviog 

certain "knowing or willful" violations of the Act 

may be referred to the Justice Department for 

criminal action. 

Availability to the Public 

The statute sets forth specific requirements for 

confidentiality concerning all enforcement actions. 

Under 2 U.S.C. §437(a)(3)(B), no notification or 

investigation may be made public by any member 

of the Commission or other person without the 

written consent of the person involved in the 

alleged violation. The statute provides for fines up 

to $5,000 for violators of this provision. 

The Commission makes public all closed cases 

where it determines that no violation of the Act 

occurred and those cases where conciliation 

attempts were completed, including any conciliation agreements entered into. Compliance cases 

made public are available in both the Public 

Records Office and the Press Office of the Commission. The basic documents contained in each 

file include: 

1. The complaint filed (where applicable). 

2. The report by the Office of General Counsel 

which was adopted by the Commission. 

3. The formal Commission action sheet. 

4. Any conciliation agreements. 

5. Any Commissioner opinion. 

· 6. The close-out letter to the persons involved in 

the case, indicating the Commission's final disposition of the matter. 

Indexes of MUR's which_"Yer~made public were 

available by MUR number, by names of the parties 

involved in each case and by the date they are put 

on the public record. In addition, by the end of 

the year, the Commission had nearly completed 

microfilming compliance cases which have been 

made public for viewing in the Public Records 

Office. 

As of December 31, 1977, 486 enforcement cases 

had been processed by the Office of General 

Counsel. This total included 107 cases which were 

pending at the end of 1976,48 initiated in 1977as a 

result of a complaint filed pursuant to §437g(a)(1) 

and 79 resulting from internal Commission review 

in 1977. 

Cases 

Closed 

(Status 

when closed) 

Pending 

Cases 

(Status as of 

12/31m) 

Preliminary Review 273 21 

Investigation 35 52 

Conciliation Period 16 18 

Civil Action 46 0 

The above chart summarizes the status of the cases 

as of December 31, 1977. The majority of those 

cases made public were closed after preliminary 

review of the complaint, without necessitating an 

investigation or further action. 

Special Procedures for 

Monitoring Reports 

In addition to the enforcement actions described above and handled by the Office of 

General Counsel during 1977, the Disclosure Division developed a comprehensive information 
17 

base from which to monitor compliance with the 

Act. There were two aspects of this monitoring 

process: First, a review to determine the adequacy 

of reports filed; second, a review of committees 

and candidates to identify those who failed to file 

required reports. 

Review of Reports 

The teams of reports analysts use the original 

reports and computer-based indexes for monitoring compliance with 58 major requirements of the 

Act, and for reviewing completeness, accuracy 

and possible violations. In election year'1976, the 

Commission had concentrated primarily on the 

review of reports from Presidential or multicandidate committees whose total receipts or expenditures were in excess of $10,000. In 1977, this threshold was removed, greatly increasing the number 

of candidate and committee reports to be reviewed. Computerized cross-referencing of candidates, political committees and contributions 

assisted this review. 

If during the review the teams observe any disclosure or limitation problems, the candidate or committee receives either a Request for Additional 

Information (RFAI) or a Surface Violation Letter: 

1. An RFAI is sent to a filer if a disclosure report is 

found to lack information required to be disclosed under the Act, or if there are omissions 

or mathematical errors requiring correction. If 

there is no response to the initial RFAI, a second 

letter is sent requesting the information. If the 

filer ultimately fails to provide adequate information, the matter is referred to the Office of 

General Counsel for review and possible formal 

compliance procedures. 

2. ·A Surface Violation Letter is sent to a filer if a 

disclosure report shows on its face an "apparent violation" of the contribution or expenditure limitations or some other major provision 

of the statute. If an inadequate response or no 

response is received, a second letter is sent to 

the filer. If the filer ultimately fails to supply a 

satisfactory response to its inquiry, the Disclosure Division refers the matter to the Office of 

General Counsel. 

During 1977, the Disclosure Division sent approximately 2,500 RFAI's and 300 Surface Violation 

Letters. 

Nonfiler Procedures 

The Disclosure Division also monitored compliance with the provisions of the Act which require 

Federal candidates and political committees to file 

detailed reports of their campaign receipts and 

expenditures. The nonfiler program was expanded 

from a limited group of candidates and committees monitored in 1976 to the monitoring of all 

types of filers, including: 

-Candidates and committees with continuing reporting obligations from the 1976 election; 

-Continuing party and nonparty committees; 

-Candidates and committees in 1977 special elections; and 

-Candidates and committees commencing activity for 1978 or 1980. 

The Commission's nonfiling procedures begin 

when the Disclosure Division sends a "prior 

notice" ·to inform all candidates and committees 

of their filing obligations. After a filing date has 

passed, the Disclosure teams compile an initial list 

of candidates and committees who either have not 

filed one or more required reports or have failed 

to register altogether. Then a notice is sent to each 

person on the list, indicating the Commission has 

found "reason to believe" that a violation of the 

Act has occurred. If the recipients of the notice do 

not respond adequately, or fail to respond at all, a 

second notice is sent stating the Commission has 

taken the next enforcement step and found "reasonable cause to believe" the Act has been violated. Continued noncompliance with the reporting or registration requirements results in the 

Commission's publishing the names of those candidates and committees who have failed to file or 

register, as required by the Act. 

During 1977, there were 26 filing deadlines to be 

monitored (a year-end report, monthly reports, 

quarterly reports and pre- and post-election 

reports for the four special elections held in 1977). 

During the first six months of 1977, the Disclosure 

teams worked to consolidate and verify an accurate list of those candidates and committees required to file. 

For the April 10 Quarterly report, 750 candidates 

and/or political committees were sent "reason to 

believe" notices and 331 of these received a 

second notice ("reasonable cause to believe"). 

Three hundred and thirty-seven nonfiling notices 

were sent to candidates and committees failing to 

file the July 10 Quarterly report. The four special 

elections held in 1977 for the U.S. House of Representatives resulted in 53 initial nonfiling notices 

and 22 follow-up notices. In the special elections, 

five candidate names were published. 

After the Octber 10 Quarterly report, the Commission modified its procedure by developing a 

consolidated status report on 346 candidates and 
18 

political committees who had failed to file one or 

more reports in 1977. On October 15, the Commission sent 147 letters to candidates and committees who had more than one report due explaining the compliance actions taken against 

them. It also sent telegrams to 199 candidates or 

committees who had failed to file the October 10 

Quarterly report. Disclosure analysts followed 

these telegrams and letters with telephone calls 

explaining the reporting requirements and encouraging the filing of reports. A second consolidated status report on November 16 showed that 

of the 346 candidates or committees contacted by 

the Commission, 187 subsequently filed reports 

and were in compliance. 

The Commission then voted to send "reasonable 

cause to believe" notices to the 159 remaining 

nonfile'rs. By the end of December, the number of 

nonfilers still not incompliance had been reduced 

to 39, or 0.8 percent of the 5,160 candidates and 

committees required to file in 1977. On January 9, 

1978, the Commission published the names of 

those 39 nonfilers. 

In addition to publishing the names of nonfilers, 

the Commission has the authority to undertake 

further enforcement action, including civil court 

enforcement and the imposition of civil fines. 

During 1977, 16 suits against nonfilers were filed in 

U.S. District Courts. 

Litigation 

During 1977, substantial numbers of cases were 

brought to test the Act and Commission actions. 

Several of these suits were filed pursuant to the 

specific review provisions of 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(9), 

which provide that any part aggrieved by either 

the Comissions's dismissal or failure to act on its 

complaint may bring suit in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia. In other actions, suit 

was filed either under 2 U.S.C. §437h, to seek 

review of the consitutionality of the Act, or under 

the general review provisions of the Federal code. 

The following is a summary of the major litigation 

brought against the Commission. 

Litigation Under §437g(a)(9) 

A candidate, Brian A. Hampton, filed suit 

against the Commission alleging that it had failed 

to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act by 

dismissing one complaint filed with it and failing 

to act on a second. The Court decision to dismiss 

the case agreed with the FEC's argument that the 

dismissal of Mr. Hampton's complaint was not 

contrary to law.* Further, the Court stated that 

because Hampton filed his complaint in District 

Court "before allowing the Commission 90 days in 

which to act upon his second complait.t," the 

FEC's failure to act "was not contrary to law." An 

appeal by Mr. Hampton is pending. 

In two additional cases filed against the Commission, both plaintiffs alleged that the Commission 

had failed to act on their complaints against the 

National Education Association (NEA) and certain 

of its affiliates. (The two cases were consolidated 

by the Court because they " ... involve[d] com~ 

mon questions of law....") The complaints argued 

that NEA had violated the FECA by: 

1. Administering a plan which compelled teachers, as a condition of employment, to pay 

money to NEA's fund for political purposes; 

and 

2. Soliciting such payments without informing the 

employees of their right to refuse without 

reprisal. 

The Commissio~ argued that its power to initiate 

civil actions was/'... the exclusive remedy for enforcement of the provisions of the Act..." except 

as provided under §437g(a)(9). In the Commission's view, this exception did not apply because it 

had acted on the complaints and was attempting 

to enter into a conciliation agreement. 

The Court ruled that the 90-day time period established by law in §437g(a)(9) must serve as the time 

limit for formal resolution of complaints in order 

that the complaint process not be " ... subverted 

through infinite delays ..." and that the plaintiffs 

not be left " ... without any way of knowing 

whether any action at all has been taken on their 

'complaints."** The Court ruled that the Commission must bring about formal resolution of the 

complaints within 30 days of its order by dismissal, 

entry into a conciliation agreement or institution 

of a formal enforcement action. 

In another suit, also filed by the National Right to 

Work Committee, plaintiffs alleged that the Commission had failed to .act on the complaint the 

Committee had filed with the Commission against 

the AFL-CIO and its political action committee 

(COPE). 

*Brian A. Hampton v. Federal Election Commission, United 

States District court for the District of Columbia, Docket No. 

76-1392 (April 15, 1977). 

-**PauTE.C.hamherlain, eta/. v. Vernon w. Thomson, eta/.; National Right to Work Committee v. Vernon W. Thomson, et 

a/., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 

Docket Nos. _77-382'_, 77-435 (August 31, 1977). 
19 

The Commission argued that the exception to 

filing civil actions under §437g(a)(9) did not apply 

in this case since the FEC had acted but had not 

completed action on the original complaint because of complex legal and factual situations 

involved. The Court did not agree and ruled that 

the Commission had 30 days in which to act upon 

the complaint.* The Commission subsequently 

filed suit against the AFl-CIO alleging violations of 

the Act in that COPE transferred to its Political 

Contributions Committee funds from the AFLCIO general treasury. 

Suit Challenging Legislative 

Review of Regulations 

In a suit filed in 1976, Ramsey Clark, former candidate in the New York State Senate primary election, asked the U.S. District Court of the District of 

Columbia for declaratory and injunctive relief 

against those provisions in the Act governing legislative review of the rules, regulations and advisory 

opinions of the FEC. Under these provisions, regulations proposed by the Commission may not be 

prescribed until they have been before Congress 

for 30 legislative days, during which time either 

house may disapprove them. 

Clark argued that the uone-house veto" violated 

the constitutional principle of useparation of 

powers." Further, he asserted, regulations would 

be tainted by congressional influence on the 

Commission's decision-making process. He also 

claimed the procedure delayed promulgation of 

Commission regulations, thereby denying him, as 

voter and as candidate, protection of the Act. 

Intervening as a plaintiff on behalf of the Executive 

Branch, the Attorney General also requested an 

injunction against the "one-house veto," arguing 

that it intrudes "upon those areas reserved by the 

Constitution of the United States to the Executive 

Branch...." 

The Federal Election Commission asked the Court 

to dismiss the complaint, arguing, inter alia, the 

case was not ripe for Court action since Congress 

had not disapproved any regulation and the plaintiff had claimed no hardship resulting from compliance with the substance of a proposed 

regulation. 

The District Court certified a number of constitutional questions to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Coneluding that the matter was not uripe" for- adjudication, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in a 6-2decision 

on January 21, 1977, returned the certified questions to the District Court unanswered, with 

instructions to dismiss. The Court said that Clark's 

case, based on his status as a candidate, became 

moot when he failed to win the primary in New 

York. As a voter, Clark had neither protested a 

specific veto action by Congress nor identified any 

proposed regulation tainted by the threat of veto 

or review. With respect to the constitutional issue 

raised by the one-house veto, the Court held the 

case was uunripe" because congressional disapproval of a proposed regulation had not yet 

occurred. uuntil Congress exercises the onehouse veto," the Court said, "it may be difficultto 

present a case with sufficient concreteness as to 

standing and ripeness to justify resolution of the 

pervasive constitutional issue which the onehouse veto provision involves." 

On June 6, 1977, the Supreme Court of the United 

States affirmed the lower Court's decision.* 

Litigation Challenging 

Disclosure of Campaign 

Contributors 

In August 1976, the Socialist Workers Party 

(SWP) amended its complaint to name the Federal 

Election Commission and the U.S. Attorney 

General as defendants in a suit charging that the 

Act, as applied to the SWP, is unconstitutional 

because of alleged harassment directed against 

the SWP. In October 1976, three defendants filed 

motions to dismiss the case. On January 17, 1977, 

the U.S. District Court denied the Federal Election Commission's motion to dismiss the case and 

remanded the matter to the FEC, ordering it to 

develop a full factual record and make specific 

findings of fact concerning the u . •• present nature 

and extent of any harassment suffered ..." by the 

SWP as a result of the disclosure provisions of the 

Act. It granted the motions to dismiss by the Attorney General because he had expressly indicated 

no intention to enforce criminal sanctions against 

the SWP while the matter was still pending before 

the Courts and because the Federal Election 

Commission had exclusive primary jurisdiction 

over civil enforcement, and granted the administrative officers' motion to dismiss since their 

*National Right to Work Committee v. Vernon W. Thomas, et 

al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 

Docket No. 77-831 (November 18, 1977). 

*Clark v. Va/eo, eta/., United States District Court for the District 

of Columbia, Docket No. 76-1227 (September 3, 1976); 559 

F.2d 642 (1977); 97 S. Ct. 2667 (1977). 
20 

supervisory duties had been transferred to the 

Federal Election Commission. 

The District Court subsequently ordered the Commission not to proceed in the case pursuant to 2 

U.S.C §437g; in September 1977, the Court of 

Appeals ruled that order unappealable. The 

Commission was given until March 15, 1978, to 

return to the Court with the findings of fact 

ordered.* 

Suit on Candidate Debates 

Prior to the regulatory proceedings held by the 

Commission on the issue of candidate debates, the 

league of Women Voters of the United States 

(LWVUS) filed a complaint** in U.S. District Court of · 

the District of Columbia against tf1e FEC asking 

that the Court declare null and void that portion 

of the Commission's Policy Statement on Presidential Debates issued August 30, 1976, which prohibited contributions from corporations and labor 

organizations to the league of Women Voters Education Fund (the Fund) for purposes of defraying 

expenses related to the 1976 televised Presidential 

debates between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, 

sponsored by the Fund. Such corporate and union 

contributions, the FEC had said in its statement, 

would be "in connection with" a Fedral election 

and would therefore be prohibited under the Act. 

The Policy Statement had expressed the Commission's view, however, that the Fund could accept 

funds from political action committees established by corporations or labor organizations to 

pay for the debates. 

The Commission argued .that the "Court has no 

jurisdiction over this action because the Commission's policy statement is not a final agency 

action." The policy statement "expresses its view 

of what interpretation of the law it would seek to 

enforce ..."and"... represents an attempt bythe 

Commission to _give informal advice in an uncharted area of the law." 

The Court denied the Commission's motion to dis­ , miss, after which the Commission filed its answer 

to the original complaint. 

Suit Challenging Trade 

Association Activities 

The provisions of the Act governing the solicitation activities of trade associations were challenged in a suit filed by Bread Political Action 

Committee (Bread PAC) et al. (two trade associations and three political action committees) in the 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.* 

The complaint asked the Court to declare the provisions set out in 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(D) unconstitutional because they deny the plaintiffs their First 

Amendment rights to freedom of speech and 

association and their Fifth Amendment right to 

due process of the law; The suit asked for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission~ 

In asking that the case be dismissed, the Commission argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction 

because: 

-Standing to initiate a suit seeking review of the 

constitutionality of the Act is statutorily granted, 

under 2 U.S.C. §437h, to the Commission, national political parties and voters-but not to 

trade associations. 

-Plaintiffs' action, lacking any factual context, is "... not a case or a controversy." The Commission 11 ••• has invoked no authority against plaintiffs nor required of them any activity." 

-The Court should exercise restraint since "... the Act provides a comprehensive scheme 

of review and gives the Commission prosecutorial discretion in enforcement." 

The Court denied both the Commission's motion 

to dismiss and a motion by the plaintiffs to certify 

c.onstitutional questions. The Court also denied a 

motion by plaintiff Bread PAC for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the provisions of the Act prohibiting solicitations by Bread 

PAC at the trade association's imminent convention. Bread PAC has appeated the Court's refusal 

to certify constitutional questions pursuant to 2 

u.s.c. §437b. 

•socialist Workers Committee v. W. Pat Jennings, eta/., United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia, Docket No. 

74-1338 (January 17, 1977); United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia, Docket No. 77-1490 (December 13, 

1977). . 

..League orWomen Voters, et a/. v. Federal Election Commission, et a/., United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia, Docket No. 77-0235. 

•Bread Political Action Committee, et a/. v. Federal Election 

Commission, et ai., United States District Court for .the 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Dooket No. 

77C-947. 
21 

r 

Facilitate the Public Disclosure of 

Information 

Meeting the Commission's third objective, to· 

provide the public with information on campaign 

finance activities of Federal candidates and committees, was primarily the responsibility of the Disclosure Division during 1977. To fulfill this goal, 

the Commission makes available all campaign 

finance information which, under the Act, must be 

made public: primarily the campaign finance 

reports and statements filed by Federal candidates 

and committees. In addition, other campaign 

finance data which the Commission considers appropriate is made available (e.g., the Disciosure 

Series of statistical studies). 

Receipt of Documents 

Although 1977 was an "off-election" year, the 

Commission continued to give priority to the 

public disclosure of Federal candidate and committee reports and statements, in accordance with 

the reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. During 1977, the Commission 

received, controlled, reviewed and made public 

over 2J,500 reports from 6,757 candidates/committees! totaling oyer 169,000 pa_ges 9t£ampaign 

finance information. These reports disclosed more 

than $100 million in receipts and $87 million in 

expenditures. 

The npnelection year disclosure provisions of the 

Act required quarterly reports (April 10, July 10, 

October 10) and a year-end report (January 31), 

monthly reports for multicandidate committees 

who requested monthly filing, and pre- and postelection reports for candidates and committees 

involved in the four special elections held in 1977. 

In addition to these ongoing reportil'lg r~onsi_-__ 

bilities, candidates and committees continued to 

file termination reports for 1972, 1974 and 1976 

campaigns. Other filers amended registrations to 

indicate, for example, new candidates supported 

or officers appointed, and still others filed new 

statements of candidacy or committee registrations for election activity in 1978 and 1980. 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires that 

reports be made available to the public within 48 

hours after their receipt. Immediate public access 

to this large volume of material required a close 

working relationship with the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate, 

as well as the development within the Commission 

of a night-shift filing operation and an efficient 

document-processing unit during peak filing 

periods. 

Since April 7, 1972, when the disclosure requirements of the Act were first put into effect, the 

Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate 

have been the initial~'points of entry" for House 

and Senate campaign finance reports, and have 

microfilmed these incoming reports. The Comtnission continued this practice of microfilming witt\ 

respect to incoming Presidential, multicandidate 

and other reports for which it is the point of entry. 

The FEC also obtained microfilmed copies of the 

House and Senate reports. 

This cooperative document control system permitted public access within ,48 hours to reports 

filed at the FEC (100,934 pages), the Clerk's office 

(49,950 pages) and the Secretary's office (19,073 

pages) in 1977. All reports Were made public in the 

Public Records Office at the Commission. 
22 

Team Processing of Reports 

Early in 1977, the Commission reorganized the 

Disclosure Division into five teams of reports 

analysts, each concentrating on the review of documents filed by a specific type of candidate, committee or individual. This "team concept" encouraged analysts to develop expertise in reviewing 

reports of a specific category of filers with similar 

reporting and accounting problems, contribution 

limitations, affiliations and financial transactions. 

The new system also permitted candidates and 

rommittees to contact FEC staff who were knowledgeable about their reporting difficulties, and 

about the requirements of the Act as applied to 

their particular situation. 

The five teams were organized according to the 

following categories of filers: 

1. Presidential candidates and committees. 

2. Senate candidates and committees. 

3. Ho~se candidates and committees. 

4. Party committee filers. 

5. Nonparty committee filers. 

In reviewing reports, each team was responsible 

for identifying and indexing incoming documents, 

entering into the computer contribution and expenditure data, reviewing documents for completeness and accuracy, and monitoring limitations and prohibitions. The size of each team was 

determined by the number of filers in each category and the amount of receipts and expenditures 

to be monitored. A chart on the types and number 

of filers handled by each team appears in Appendix 6. 

In 1976, the Commission initiated a computerbased indexing and information retrieval system to 

assist with the Disclosure Division's responsibility 

to process and review campaign filings. This system was continued and improved during 1977. It 

.consists of financial data and other information 

entered from the campaign reports. In three steps, 

or "passes," each team of reports analysts transfers increasingly more detailed information from 

the reports into the system. For more detailed information on the Disclosure Information System, 

see section on Computer Support in the Chapter 

.on Organization and Operation. 

Pass 1: Identifying and Indexing 

The first step for each team is to identify and 

index incoming documents. This immediate categorization of reports allows the Commission to 

retrieve data easily for public review, locate documents for analysis, and store data for future use. 

To fulfill the indexing and identification requirements for Pass I, each team extracts from the 

reports specific information such as name and 

type of candidate or committee (Presidential, 

Senate, House, etc.), type of report, date filed, and 

total receipts and expenditures for each reporting 

period. This data is typed into computer terminals, 

permitting retrieval of different types of information in almost any order. By supplying the computer with a committee's identification number, 

for e:<ample, an individual could obtain a list of all 

documents filed by that committee, with coverage 

dates, receipts and expenditures, and microfilm 

location of each report. 

Identification of reports in this manner facilitates 

quick access to the specific microfilm location of 

documents and also assists the Commission in 

producing periodic lists of "nonfilers," doublechecking committee registrations, and maintaining an accurate mailing list of all candidates and 

committees. 

Pass II: Entering Committee Contributions 

and Expenditures 

The second step for each team is to enter into 

the computer data about political committees' 

contributions to, or expenditures on behalf of, 

Federal candidates. In this phase of the process, 

each team enters into the computer the name of 

the political committee, the name, State and/or 

District of each candidate supported, and the 

amounts of contributions or expenditures. Pass II 

data is utilized by the teams to monitor compliance with the contribution limits and the filing of 

required reports. 

While all teams review reports for committee contributions made directly to candidates, the nonparty team also uses Pass II information to monitor 

two specific kinds of expenditures: "independent 

expenditures" and "communication costs." A 

committee makes an "independent expenditure" 

when it purchases a communication "expressly 

advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" without conferring or collaborating with that candidate or committee. These 

expenditures are not limited but must be 

reported. · 

A corporation or a union incurs "communication 

costs" when it purchases and distributes partisan 

communications to its stockholders, executive and 

administrative personnel and their families, or 

union members and their families. These expenditures are also unlimited, but must be reported to 

the FEC by the corporation or union when they 

exceed $2,000 per election. 
23 

The Party team also monitors specific party expenditure limitations using information entered at 

this stage. Under the Act, State and national party 

committees are permitted to make expenditures 

on behalf of Presidential, Senate and House candidates in connection with the general election, 

within limitations based on population. 

Pass Ill: Entering Individual and Committee 

Contributions 

The teams' third step is to enter data from 

reports for use in the monitoring of compliance 

with the individual and committee contribution 

limitations. The Federal Election Campaign Act 

limits contributions of money, guarantees, loans, 

and "anything of value" to Federal candidates, 

their committees, and party and nonparty committees. It also limits the total amount of contributions an individual may make in any calendar year. 

Using the data entered during this third step, team 

members check reports to be sure that each contribution has been properly disclosed and is within 

the limitations. 1

During 1977, the Commission maintained a 

computerized alphabetical list of individual contributors who gave $500 or more in a single contribution. In October 1977, this threshold was 

lowered and the Disclosure Division began entering the names of contributors who gave over $100 

in a single contribution (retroactive to January 1, 

1977). 

During this stage; transfers (contributions) from 

unregistered committees are also entered into the 

computer. This data assists the Commission in 

identifying committees which are required to 

register and file campaign finance reports by 

virtue of having raised or spent more than $1,000 

in support of Federal candidates. 

Preparation and Release 

of Statistics 

On January 21, 1977, the Commission approved 

a report of the Task Force on Statistics, establishing guidelines for the preparation and release of 

campaign finance statistics on the 1976 elections. 

By publicizing the areas in which the FEC planned 

to gather data, the Commission hoped to facilitate 

planning by other groups engaged in research on 

campaign financing and preclude unnecessary 

duplication of Commission studies. 

Under these new guidelines, the Commission 

collected statistics in five categories according to 

specific priorities. Presidential statistics were 

collected from reports of campaigns where the 

candidate received primary matching funds or 

where the candidate was on the general election 

ballot in at least 10 States. Senate and House statistics were gathered from reports of candidates 

on the general election ballots. The final two statistical categories were based on statistics from. 

reports of nonparty committees with receipts or 

expenditures exceeding $100,000 and national 

party committees. 

In February 1977, the Commission also decided to 

collect additional statistics on independent expenditures and communication costs by corporations, labor organizations and trade associations. 

This Disclosure Series was released periodically 

during 1977. The following are highlights of the 

reports: 

Index of Independent Expenditures 

An index released by the Federal Election Commission on March 23 revealed that individuals and 

groups spent $373,993 in "independent expenditures" in support of or opposition to 43 Federal 

candidates in the 1976 elections. Of this total, 

$364,823 was spent in support of 43 candidates and 

$9,170 was spent in opposition to two candidates. 

(An "independent expenditure" is a disbursement for communications expressly advocating 

the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. It may not be made with the cooperation or 

at the request of a candidate or his/her authorized 

agents. Independent expenditures are reported by 

the person or group making them.) The 130-page 

index, itemizing independent expenditures alphabetically by candidate and spender, covered the 

period from January 1, 1975, to February 28, 1977. 

It did not include independent expenditures 

made by regularly reporting political committees. 

National Party Report 

A report released by the Commission on April 

27 revealed that both the Democratic and Republican national parties received the majority of 

their 1976 election contributions in amounts of 

less than $100. Compiled from reports filed between January 1, 1975, and December 31, 1976, the 

report analyzed the total income and expenditures 

of each major political party (and its affiliated 

committees) for the 1976 Federal election campaigns. Included were national party committees, 

affiliates, convention committees, congressional 

committees and party-identified committees. Adjusted to reflect interparty transfers, repaid loans, 

and in-kind and earmarked contributions, total receipts of the Republican Party committees were 
24 

$45,705,686 and total expenditures were $40,076,187. 

Receipts .(or the Democratic Party commi£tees 

totaled $18,209,774 with total expenditures of 

$17,562,370. 

Index of Communication Costs by Corporations, 

Unions, Membership Organizations and Trade 

Associations 

On April 27, an FEC index was released disclosing that 71 corporations, labor and ·membership 

organizations and trade associations reported 

spending $2,146,899 on "internal communications" for or against 414 Federal candidates in 

· 1976. Under the Act, corporations, labor and 

membership organizations and trade associations 

are required to report the costs of partisan communications made to stockholders, executive and 

administrative personnel, or to members and their 

families, when these costs exceed $2,000 per election. The index covered election-related communications from May 11, 1976, through December 

31, 1976: Of the total communication costs reported, more than $2 million (93.9 percent) was 

spent by 66 labor organizations. Four corporations 

spent an aggregate of over $31,000 (1.4 percent) 

and one membership organization reported 

spending more than $101,000 (4.77 percent). 

Report on 1976 Senate Campaigns 

The FEC released on May 3 a report analyzing 

the receipts and expenditures of 64 Senate candidates who appeared on 1976 general election 

ballots. Covering the period of January 1, 1975, 

through December 31, 1976, the report listed "adjusted" receipts and expenditures. All figures in 

the report represented the combined totals for 

primary and general election activity. Highlights of 

the report include: 

-of atotal of $39,129,660 in receipts for Senate . 

general election candidates, 28.3 percent consisted of individuals' contributions of $100 or 

less; 13.4 percent of individuals' contributions 

of between $101 and $499; and 27.9 percent of 

individuals' contributions of $500 or more. 

-Democrats and Republicans received approximately the same amount of contributions; but 

25 incumbents received 42 percent of the total 

receipts, while 23 challengers received 27 percent and 16-open-seat candidates received 31 

percent of total contributions. 

Report on 1976 Presidential Campaign 

On June 5, 1977, the Commission released a 

report on 1976 Presidential Campaign Receipts 

and Expenditures compiled from campaign finance reports filed with the FEC from January 1, 

1975, through December 31,1976. The report analyzed the receipts and expenditures of 23 Presidential candidates, including 15 candidates who 

received public funding for the primaries (two of 

whom were also the major party nominees in the 

general election) and eight third party or independent candidates who were on the general 

election ballot in at least 10 States. Highlights of 

the report include: 

-Over half (approximately 51 percent) of total 

private primary contributions received respectively by Democratic candidates, Republican 

candidates and non-major party candidates 

were made in amounts of $100 or less. 

-Qf the $39,612,365 total received by 13 Democratic candidates during the primaries, 37 percent was provided by the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund. 

-Of the $26,255,259 total received by two Republican candidates during the primaries, 34 percent was from the Presidential Fund. 

-Of the $46,118,867 total received by 10 candidates in the general election (two major party 

candidates and eight third party or independent candidates), 95 percent was from public 

funds. 

-Total adjusted receipts for the 23 candidates included in the report were $113,986,491 of which 

60 percent came from public funds. 

-Total expenditures fqr the 23 candidates 

amounted to $112,775,207 of which 59 percent 

was spent for primaries and 41 percent for the 

general election. 

Report on Corporate-Related Political 

Adion Committees 

The C,ommission released a report on the 

political activity of 450 corporate political action 

committees (PAC's) compiled from reports filed 

during the period January 1, 1975, through December 31, 1976. The report consisted of three 

parts: a summary of PAC activity, including the 

receipts and expenditures of 450 PAC's; an alphabetical listing of corporations with two or more 

political action committees; and an alphabetical 

listing of all other PAC's and their sponsoring 

organizations. Highlights of the report include: 

-The nine largest PAC's, those with receipts and/ 

or expenditues in excess of $100,000, spent 18.5 

percent ($1,074,208) of the total amount spent 

by all corporate PAC's ($5,803,415), even though 

they comprised only two percent of the total 

number of the PAC's involved in 1976 election 

period. 
25 

-Most of the PAC's (42 percent) reported receipts 

and expenditures of less than $9,999. 

-Of the 450 PAC's registered with the Commission, 89 had registered by January 1, 1975; 208 

registered between January 1, 1975, and May 10, 

1976; and 153 registered after May 11,1976, the 

effective date of the 1976 Amendments to the 

Federal Election Campaign Act. 

-Over 94 percent of the PAC's provided the 

names of their affiliated and/or connected 

organizations. 

Report of 1976 House of Representatives 

Campaigns 

On October 2, 1977, the Commission released a 

report compiled from the reports filed by 860 general election candidates for the U.S. House of 

Representatives in 1976 who received five percent 

or more of the vote. Included in the report were 

433 Democrats, 390 Republicans and 37 independent or minor party candidates. The report summarized receipts and expenditures of each candidate, providing a breakdown of candidates by 

party status, incumbent-challenger-open seat and 

winner-loser. Highlights of the report include: 

-Donations from individuals of $100 or less made 

up 36 percent of the total ($65,740,937) received 

by all 860 candidates. Of these small contributions, $11,551,598 was received by Democratic 

candidates, $11,978,694 by Republican candidates and $149,724 by independent or minor 

party candidates. 

-Expenditures by Democratic candidates 

amounted to 53.1 percent of the total expenditures ($60,907,960) made during the period 

covered: January 1, 1975, through December 

31, 1976. Republican candidates made 46.1 percent of all expenditures and independent or 

minor party candidates made the remaining .8 

percent. 

Public Records 

The Federal Election Commission makes campaign finance reports filed by Federal candidates 

and committees available for public review and 

copying in its "storefront" Public Records Office. 

During 1977, this office provided over a million 

pages of Federal campaign finance data for public 

inspection. Visitors to the office ranged from 200 

per week in early 1977 to 350 per month between 

October and December 1977. There is no charge 

for reviewing the files in the Public Records Office 

and any document may be copied at a cost of 10 

cents per page.* During 197:7, the Office copied 

and sold over a quarter million pages of statements and reports on self-service copy machines, 

and processed 1,215 written requests and 847 

phone requests for copies of specific candidate 

and committee reports from across the country. 

Computer Indexes Available for Reference 

Aside from the reports themselves, the second 

major format for public disclosure consisted of 

daily updated computer printouts of FEC indexes. 

Several indexes are required by the statute, such as 

the Index of Statements and Reports. Others were 

developed to promote public understanding of 

the data. A complete list of these indexes is available on request. A partial listing appears in 

Appendix 7. 

Other Documents Available 

Although the principal function of the Public 

Records Office is to make available to the public 

campaign reports filed by candidates and committees, Public Records also maintains other information for public review. The following is a list of 

additional materials available in 1977 from the 

Public Records Office: 

• Commission Documents (press releases, memoranda, agendas, agenda items and minutes of 

Commission meetings) 

• FEC Opinions (Index, Advisory Opinion Requests, Opinions of Counsel, comments on 

Advisory Opinions) 

• Compliance Cases (Index, closed compliance 

actions)·. 

• Audits (GAO 1972-1974, FEC) 

• Court Cases (Buckley v. Va/eo, etc.) 

• Presidential Matching Funds Certifications 

• Hearing Transcripts (upon request) 

• General Information (newspaper articles, studies on campaign finance by other organizations, 

informational handouts) 

• FEC Publications (Campaign Guides, Record, 

Federal Register notices) 

• "A Study of the Impact of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act on the 1976 Elections" (FEC 

Survey) 

• Disclosure Series 

*Anyone using such documents is reminded, however, of the 

Act's requirement that "any information copied from such reports and statements shall not be sold or utilized by any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for any 

commercial purpose." 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4). 
26 

Assisting the States 

The Federal Election Campaign Act (§439) requires candidates and committees to file cop.ies of 

their Federal campaign finance reports with their 

Secretary of State or equivalent State officer. As a 

result, each of the 50 States maintains copies of 

reports of Federal candidates for public inspection and copying. 

During 1977, the Commission provided greater 

assistance to the States in meeting their obligation 

to make reports available to the local public. The 

Commission appointed a Coordinator of State Disclosure to serve as liaison between the Commission and the State filing offices. In addition, the 

Disclosure Division used computerized lists of 

candidate and committee filings to produce a 

State-by-State list of reports filed by candidates 

and political committees. This list was circulated 

by the Coordinator at the National Conference of 

Secretaries of State in September 1977 and an update of the list was sent to all Secretaries in October. The State offices were asked to cooperate on 

a voluntary basis by comparing their own filings 

against the Commission's list and to notify the 

Commission of any discrepancies. 

The Commission also surveyed the State officers in 

August as to their problems in administering this 

provision of the Act. The responses indicated ways 

in which the Commission could further assist the 

States in fulfilling their responsibilities, and made 

recommendations for new legislation in this area. 

During 1978, the Coordinator will compile lists of 

Federal candidates for use in information mailings, 

and will compile election results for each of the 

1978 elections. 
27 

Serve as a Clearinghouse for Election 

Administration Information 

To achieve its fourth and final objective, the 

Commission maintains a National Clearinghouse 

for Election Administration Information. The 

Clearinghouse disseminates election administration information to assist Federal, State and local 

election agencies in developing efficient and effective election systems. In addition, it compiles' 

and develops information about election adminis-

. tration through contract studies. 

Election Administration 

Administering elections is a complicated and 

expensive function performed by.State and local 

governments. While an election occurs on only 

one day during the year, the admil::tistration of that 

election involves: 

-Overall planning, management, budgeting, and· 

the training of permanent and temporary staff; 

-Defining the voting jurisdictions and informing 

candidates and the public of any changes; 

-Certifying the qualifications of candidates and 

issues, and designing the ballot; 

-Registering voters and maintaining registration 

records; 

-Monitoring and maintaining records on campaign financing; 

-Providing the public with information about the 

election; 

-Establishing the polls, including the recruitment of poll workers, the identification of polling places, the acquisition and testing of equipment and ·the preparation of materials . and 

facilities; 

-Tabulating the votes cast, as well as recording 

and reporting them; and 

-Certifying the results, including conducting any 

system verification or recounts. 

The administration of these election fun~ions is 

further complicated by the number and variety of 

State and local agencies directly or indirectly responsible for them. There are over 6,300 independent election boards directly responsible for 

some aspect of conducting elections, with well 

over 10,000 individuals involved. Conservative 

estimates place the administrative costs of a fouryear election cycle at over $1 billion. 

Despite their numbers and common interests, 

there is often a lack of effective communication 

among State and local election officials. Many 

election officials continue to face problems in 

approving and purchasing vote-counting equipment, operating various voter registration systems, 

processing candidates and petitions, establishing 

effective voter education programs and training 

poll workers. While some election agencies have · solved such difficult problems, their experiences 

have not been available to administrators and 

legislators in other jurisdictions. As a result, mil-. 

lions of dollars and staff hours are wasted through 

duplication of efforts while the election systems 

function unevenly and occasionally with unfortunate consequences. 

Recognizing a need for the systematic collection' 

and sharing of election administration information, Congress in 1971 created a National Clearing­

~ouse for lnform~tion on the Administration of 

llections within the General Accounting Office. 

the unit was transferred to the Federal Election 
28 

Commission by 2 U.S.C. §439(b) of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. This 

section of the Act directs the Commission to serve 

as a clearinghouse for information with respect to 

the administration of elections and to conduct independent contract studies of the administration 

of elections. Studies are to include, but are not 

limited to: methods of selecting and the responsibilities of election board officials, personnel practices relating to the registration of voters, as well as 

voting and vote-counting methods. Finally, the 

statute provides that the research products issuing 

from these efforts be made available to the general public at cost. 

Clearinghouse Research 

Program 

Clearinghouse resources are devoted largely to 

research projects on topics of special concern to 

election officials and which are beyond the scope 

or capacity of any one State or local jurisdiction. 

Such research efforts take one of two forms: Contract research projects or in-house staff research 

projects. 

Contract Research 

The contract research effort constitutes the 

largest single item in the Clearinghouse budget. 

Research topics and specifications are selected in 

conjunction with the Clearinghouse Advisory Panel 

and typically focus on one of the election functions (or a troublesome aspect of them) listed in 

the introduction above. A normal research 

contract requires a review of the literature and 

history on the topic, a review and documentation 

of relevant State and Federal laws, a survey of 

relevant current practices around the nation, and 

a set of recommendations or models appropriate 

'to the varied needs and resources available in 

State and local jurisdictions. Each pr()jectnormally 

issues more than one report so that the pertinent 

information can be directed to the particular audience (State officials, local administrators, or State 

legislators) for whom it is intended. 

As an additional measure to ensure the utility and 

readability of the final reports, each contractor is 

required to establish an advisory board of five to 

eight election officials or area experts. This board 

serves as both a resource for and a reviewer of the 

contractor's work. 

Staff Research 

Internal staff research projects absorb a significant portion of Clearinghouse staff time. These 

projects range in depth and intensity from those of 

rapid information retrieval using the Documents 

Center (described below) to research projects 

requiring several weeks' analysis. Projects of this 

type are undertaken in response to requests from 

State or local election officials or legislators; 

members of Congress or their staff; representatives of foreign governments; or other divisions 

within the Commission itself. 

Research Reports 

Clearinghouse research reports are provided 

free of charge to Federal, State and local government officials. Members of the general public may 

purchase copies from the Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service. 

Since the inception of this program on June 1, 

1976, nearly 5,000 copies of Clearinghouse reports 

have been sold. See Appendix 9 for a complete 

listing of Clearinghouse reports. 

Clearinghouse Information 

Program 

In addition to its research efforts, the Clearinghouse plays an active role in collecting and 

disseminating information about the election 

process. 

Clearinghouse Documents Center 

The central physical feature of the Clearinghouse is its Documents Center which is rapidly 

becoming the largest national resource for information about .election administration and procedures. In addition to general and historical works, 

the Documents Center maintains statistical summaries of voter registration, voter turnout and 

election returns for Federal offices; State and Federal election laws, hearings and case law; State and 

local forms, sample ballots and procedures; and 

other reports, theses and analyses relevant to 

election. administration. The Documents Center 

serves as the principal resource for staff research 

projects and is available to election administrators, 

legislators and members of the general public. 

FEC Journal of Election Administration 

The Clearinghouse's primary means of communication with election administrators around 

the country is the FEC Journal of Election Administration, published quarterly. 

The Journal is designed to provide a forum for 

national discussion of problems in election management and, as such, publishes articles submitted 
29 

by Federal, State and local election-related officials. The Journal also keeps readers informed of 

Clearinghouse activities, services and reports. The 

Journal is currently distributed to approximately 

10,000 State and local election officials and legislators whose addresses are categorized and maintained in the FEC computer system. 

Clearinghouse Assistance 

Program 

Consonant with its mission of serving as a clearinghouse of information on election administration, the Clearinghouse staff responds to a variety 

of requests for personal appearances and assistance. In addition to accepting speaking engagements at national and State organizations and 

associations, the Clearinghouse has provided 

specific assistance to State legislatures, legislative 

committees and State commissions which contemplate changing their election laws and procedures. At the same time, the Clearinghouse frequently serves as a general information service by 

directing State and local officials to the Federal 

agency or official concerned with the particular 

problem. 

Clearinghouse Advisory 

Panel 

To help ensure that the activities and research 

projects of the National Clearinghouse are consistent with the needs and priorities of election 

officials around the country, the Commission approved in 1976 the formation of a Clearinghouse 

Advisory Panel. 

The Advisory Panel is composed of 20 State election officials, local election administrators, and 

State legislators appointed for two-year terms with 

ten appointments made each year. The three-tier, 

bipartisan character of the Panel provides a wideranging view of election administration and offers 

the first national forum of its kind for discussion of 

problems in planning and managing elections. 

The Panel meets twice annually to review the 

current problems and priorities in election administration, to review Clearinghouse research projects and services and to make recommendations 

to the Commission for future projects and activities. It also serves as a liaison between the 

Clearinghouse and other Federal, State, and local 

agencies. During 1977, the Panel met on January 9-

10 and again on July 25-26. 
33 

r 

The Commission is required by the statute (2 

U.S.C. §437e) to send to Congress each year " ..• 

recommendations for such legislative or other 

action as the Commission considers appropriate...•" In its annual report for 1976, the Commission recommended a number of far reaching legislative changes for simplifying and streamlining the 

Federal Election Campaign Act. During 1977, Congress began consideration of these recommendations and other proposals for modifications of the 

Act. The Commission reiterates its support for its 

1976 recommendations and the proposals contained in its test>imony to the congressional committees during the past year. In its 1977 annual 

report, the Commission offers additional recommendations based mostly on its experience with · 

.the audits of Presidential candidates and committees. Two recommendations are also included 

which would streamline the administration of the 

Act. 

Repayments to the Treasury 

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act 

and Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act stipulate the conditions under which 

repayments of funds are to be made and the 

formulas for computing such repayments by Presidential candidates to the Federal Treasury. The 

Commission is given authority to make these determinations. In its regulations implementing 

these provisions, the <:;ommission has attempted 

to give candidates and committees ample leeway 

to challenge Commission determinations with 

respect to the repayment of funds to the Federal 

Treasury and sufficient time to gather funds to 

make repayments. These regulations have generaiJy operated fairly and equitably. However, there 

Legislative 

Recommendations 

have been a few instances where this time period 

has been used to accrue interest on the amounts 

which the Commission has determined must be 

repaid to the Treasury. In order to simplify therepayment procedure and ensure the fiscal integrity 

of the Presidential public financing process, the 

Commission recommends that all surplus funds, 

regardless of amount, be repaid to the Treasury at 

the end of a campaign. (Any such repayment re- · 

quirement ·should, of course, exclude payments 

made for tax purposes.) 

In the alternative, the statute should be amended 

to require that any and all interest earned on public monies from savings accounts, government 

bonds, and other sources be returned to the U.S. 

Treasury. This latter requirement would insure 

that Presidential committees do not gain private 

advantage from funds which the Commission has 

determined must be repaid to the. Federal 

Treasury. 

Use of Contributions 

Matched by Federal Dollars 

An ambiguity exists in the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act in that the Commission is given specific authority to require repayment only of Federal monies to the public 

Treasury. At least one Presidential campaign has 

argued that the Commission cannot require the 

repayment of contributions which ~re submitted 

for . matching purposes and that these contributions can be used for other than qualified campaign expenses. _For example, under this theory, 

private contributions could be submitted to the 

Commission to obtain matching funds. Once 
34 

matched, these private contributions could then 

be used for the personal expenses of the candidate, the ordinary and necessary expenses of an 

officeholder,- and any other nonqualified campaign expense. The Commission, according to 

proponents of this argument, has no authority to 

require repayments of funds used in this manner 

or to prevent these private contributions from 

being matched with Federal monies. The Commission takes the view that, since these contributions 

are used to obtain Federal funds on a dollar for 

dollar basis, they should not be used for noncampaign purposes. The statute should specifically 

prohibit the use of private contributions which are 

submitted for matching public grants for other 

than qualified campaign expenses. 

Compliance Funds 

The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976 specificially exclude from the definition of "contribution" the payment of legal and 

accounting services by a regular employer to 

insure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act and Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26 of the 

Internal Revenue Code. The Commission's regulations specifically permit a Presidential campaign to 

set up a separate account containing private 

monies to be used for compliance purposes. Outside of these exempted donations for legal and 

accounting services, a major party Presidential 

candidate receiving full public financing in the 

general election may not receive private contributions. In order to insure the integrity of the Presidential general election public financing provisions and to eliminate the need for all private contributions in the general election, the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund Act should be amended. , 

to provide a block grant of a specified amount for 

legal and accounting services for each candidate 

and committee receiving public funds. 

Definition of Nominating 

Process 

The statute does not delineate what constitutes 

a bona fide nominating process for purposes of 

obtaining Presidential primary matching funds. 

There are no specific criteria set forth for determining . whether a political party actually has a 

nominating process. Under the current law, a 

political party could have a pro forma nominating 

process, and the party's candidate could receive 

public primary matching funds which may then be 

used for the general election. Criteria need to be 

established which will answer a number of 

questions. For example, can a candidate or political party unilaterally declare that a nomination 

process has occurred and claim public funding? 

When does a nominating process begin and when 

does it end? Can a minor party candidate be 

nominated within a few days or weeks of a Presidential general election, thus being allowed to 

collect matching funds up through the date of 

nomination, in which case a substantial portion of 

these funds might be used to influence the general election? The Presidential Primary Matching 

Payment Account Act should be amended to provide guidelines for answering these questions. 

Qualified Campaign 

Expense 

Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26 of the Internal 

Revenue Code contain different definitions of 

"qualified campaign expense." Chapter 95 defines 

a "qualified campaign expense" to mean an 

expense incurred to further the election of a Presidential candidate to Federal office. Chapter 96 defines "qualified campaign expense" to mean an 

expense incurred in connection with a campaign 

for nomination to the Office of President. The 

Commission recommends that the broader definition contained in Chapter 96 be incorporated into 

Chapter 95. 

Vice Presiden'tial 

Candidates 

The Act does not provide a coherent statutory 

framework for the treatment of Vice Presidential 

candidates. For example, the campaign depository 

of the Vice Presidential candidate is considered to 

be the campaign depository of the Presidential 

candidate. Yet, the definitions of "candidate" and 

"Federal office" differentiate the Presidential candidate fromthe Vice Presidential candidate. Thus, 

the Vice Presidential candidate is required to file 

disclosure reports separately from the Presidential 

candidate. In the Presidential general election, expenditures made on behalf of the Vice Presidential 

candidate are considered to be made on behalf of 

the Presidential candidate of the same political 

party and are thus subject to an expenditure limitation. A framework should be set forth for Vice 

Presidential candidates clearly and consistently 

delineating their requirements under both the 

Federal Election Campaign Act and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. 
35 

Principal Campaign 

Committees 

Under thecurrent law, the name of most principal campaign committees identifies the candidate 

supported. However, in a relatively few cases, it is 

difficult to determine which candidate a principal 

campaign committee supports because the committee's name does not contain the candidate's 

name as, for example, "Good Government Committee" or "Spirit of '76." In order to avoid confusion, the name of the principal campaign committee should be required to contain the name of the 

candidate supported. 

Federal Reports Act 

The Federal Election Campaign Act does not exempt the Commission from the requirements of 

the Federal Reports Act. The Commission is 

required to submit all forms and other similar materials requesting information from candidates 

and committees to the General Accounting Office 

for approval, thus delaying Commission efforts to 

improve its information retrieval systems. A major 

goal of the Federal Reports Act is, of course, to 

prevent duplicative Federal paperwork. Since, 

however, the Commission is granted exclusive primary jurisdiction over the Federal Election Campaign Act and no other Federal agencies have responsibility for collecting data in this area, the 

Commission should be exempt from the requirements of this law. Such an exemption would facilitate Commission efforts to streamline the reporting process and expedite the simplification and 

development of forms and other similar materials. 
36 

Chapter 6 

Commission Testimony 

The Commission testified before both houses of 

Congr~ss on several bills dealing with various 

aspects of campaign financing and election reform. With regard to each issue discussed below, 

the Commisssion presented information on subjects within the Commission's area of expertise. 

Universal Voter Registration 

Commissioners Tiernan and Springer appeared 

before the House Administration Committee on 

April 25, 1977, to analyze possible FEC administration of H.R. 5400, the Universal Voter Registration 

bill. The bill would establish a program under FEC 

administration permitting individuals with proper 

identification to register to vote at the appropriate 

polling place on election day. FEC administrative. 

duties would include developing criteria for 11proper identification" on election day, distributing information and technical assistance on effective registration methods, approving State registration outreach plans, administering grants to the 

States to pay for the programs, monitoring the 

programs and referring possible criminal violations to the Attorney General. Grants would be allocated to the States to implement election-day 

registration for Federal elections. Additional assiStance would be available to those States which implemented voter outreach programs to increase 

registration or which instituted election-day registration for State and local elections. 

The Commission, although taking no position on 

the bill's substantive merits, offered specific suggestions to improve the proposed program's implementation and enforcement. Suggestions to 

improve the bill included expanded and more 

precise enforcement proviSions for the FEC such 

as powers to conduct audits, issue subpoenas, take 

depositions, investigate matters uncovered in 

audits or reported by persons outside the Commission and file civil suits against violators. Commissioner Tiernan commended the bill's encouragement of Federal-State cooperation, but warned 

that adequate lead time would be essential for 

smooth program operation. To make the plan operative for 1978 elections, the Commission estimated that $300,000 in start-up costs would be 

needed in 1977. Total program costs for Fiscal Year 

1978 were estimated at $1,362,000. 

On May 6, 1977, Commissioner Tiernan presented 

similar testimony before the Senate Committee on 

Rules and Administration. 

No further action was taken on this legislation during 1977. · 

Amendments to the Federal 

Election . Campaign Act 

On May 6,-1977, Commissioner joan Aikens testified before the Senate Committee on Rules and 

Administraton on amendments to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act. While the proposed 

amendments were contained in several bills, the 

FEe's testimony focused on S: 1344. Several appendices contained comments on other pending bills. 

The Commission statement covered five areas of 

concern: 

1. Simplification of the Act. 

2. Contribut.ion limitations and the role of political parties. 

3. Corporate and union activity. 
37 

4. Presidential campaigns. 

5. Clarifying technical amendments. 

Citing both FEC recommendations on needed 

changes in the Act (published in the Commission's 

1976 Annual Report) and a recent survey on the 

Act's impact on election campaigns (see Appendix 

11), Commissioner Aikens expressed Commission 

endorsement of many of the amendments contained in S. 1344 and recommended a small number of additional changes. 

On August 3, 1977, the Senate voted 83-1 to approve S. 926, the "Federal Election Campaign Act 

Amendments of 1977." (The approved bill did not 

include ahy congressional public financing provisions. See below.) 

On October 13, 1977, Chairman Thomas Harris 

and Commissioner Vernon Thomson testified 

before the House Administration Committee on 

amendments to the Act. The revisions included 

proposals drafted by the Committee's staff and 

those contained in the Senate bill (S. 926). Endorsing many of the proposed changes, the Commission's testimony focused on four major areas in 

the House proposals: 

1. Disclosure. 

2. Political party activity. 

3. Enforcement. 

4. Discretionary authority of the FEC. 

In addition, the Commission offered several 

suggestions for needed changes which were not 

addressed by the staff proposals or the Senate bill, 

including legislative recommendations previously 

submitted by the FEC and solutions to other problem areas which had come to the Commission's attention. Detailed Commission comments on the 

specific House proposals were contained in an 

appendix to its written testimony. 

No further action was taken by the House during 

1977. 

Congressional Public 

Financing 

On May 6, 1977, Chairman Harris (serving then 

as Vice Chairman) appeared before the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration to comment on S. 926, a bill proposing public financing of 

Senate election campaigns. His testimony, while 

taking no position as to the merits of the proposal, 

answered Committee inquiries on three topics: 

1. Cost per election year to fund Senate campaigns. 

2. Agency cost for staff and equipment to administer and monitor the proposed program. 

3. Technical suggestions on program implementation and enforcement. 

The Commission estimated that public financing 

under S. 926 would cost between $27.6 and $38.7 

million for the Senate election process (combining 

primary and general election campaign costs), 

with an administrative cost of approximately $1.24 

million for fiscal year 1978. The Commission explained, however, that its projections could 

change significantly with modifications in legislative or administrative requirements. 

. With regard to technical changes in the bill, Commissioner Harris recommended that Congress 

consolidate all public financing into one title of 

the U.S. Code; establish a single point of entry for 

all disclosure statements and reports; clarify 

matching payment el.igibility; clarify the status of 

party expenditures on behalf of candidates accepting public funds; clarify procedures for determining when a publicly-funded candidate is exempt 

from the expenditure limit by virtue of an opponent's exceeding the limit; simplify reporting requirements; and provide guidelines for reducing 

payments to candidates in case of shortages in the 

Federal fund. 

On August 3, 1977, the Senate voted to delete the 

public financing provisions from S. 926. 

On July 12, 1977, Chairman Harris and Vice Chairman Aikens testified before the House Administration Committee on congressional public financing legislation. Although the testimony did not 

cover any specific proposed legislation or address 

the merits of any proposat the Commission explained the processes and procedures involved in 

the 1976 system of Presidential public financing 

and gave tentative cost estimates for providing 

funds to congressional candidates under such a 

system. 

The FEC presented a step-by-step outline of how 

candidate requests for Presidential primary matching funds and certification of (';iindidates were 

handled during the 1976 P,r~.~Jdential campaign. 

The primary goal of the Conl:mi~sion in implementing Presidential public 'financing was to 

ensure public confidence in the distribution of 

public funds. Chairman Harris stated that, in the 

view of the Commission, this goal was met with 

the help of several effective safeguards, which included: 

1. The FEC certification process whereby all requests for matching funds were reviewed prior 

to certifying payment to the Treasury. 
38 

2. The congressional requirement that the FEC 

conduct post-election audits of all candidates 

receiving public funds. 

3. The congressional provision that the candidate 

be personally responsible for any repayment required. 

While noting the lack of specific proposed legislation on which to base cost estimates, the FEC discussed two hypothetical systems of funding (all 

matching funds after reaching threshold vs. partial 

grant plus matching funds) as a basis for making 

tentative projections. The FEe's estimates for congressional public financing, when combined with 

prior estimates for Senate public financing, ranged 

from $36 million to $62 million. 

Finally, the Commission offered several recommendations concerning the income tax checkoff 

and payment provisions including: 

-A provision changing current law to require a 

one-time reduction in payments to candidates 

in the event of insufficient funds in the checkoff account. 

-A provision requiring the FEC and the Treasury 

to report to the Congress on the status of the 

account as soon as possible after the 1978 election. 

-A provision requiring that any necessary repayment of general election and convention funds 

be made to the checkoff account. 

1-A provision requiring that eligibility for further 

\ public funding cease when the total private 

contributions plus public funds received by a 

candidate equal the allowable spending limitations. 

-A provision requiring that any surplus campaign 

funds remaining after campaign debts have 

been extinguished be regarded as public funds 

and therefore returned to the Treasury. 

The House committee took no further action ori 

this legislation during 1977. 

Personal Financial 

Disclosure 

In testimony presented on June 7, 1977, before 

the House Select Committee on Ethics, Chairman 

Thomas Harris and Vice Chairman Joan Aikens 

commented on several procedural aspects of the 

proposed legislative Branch Disclosure Act of 

1977. This Act, to be administered by the Clerk of 

the House and the Secretary of the Senate, would 

require Members of Congress, candidates for 

Congress and staff persons earning over $25,000 

per year to file personal financial disclosure statements for public inspection. 

Noting the similarity between procedural questions confronted by the Commission and those 

raised by the proposed Act, the Commission described FEC methods for informing candidates 

about their disclosure obligations, reviewing reports for accuracy and compliance, and dealing 

with State officials who have administrative responsibilities under campaign finance laws. 

The FEC also offered several recommendations to 

ease administrative problems through coordinating campaign and personal financial disclosure requirements. These recommendations included: 

1. A provision defining "candidate" as one who 

has registered as a candidate under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act, or who has taken action 

to qualify for the State ballot. Personal disclosure requirements would thus be triggered by 

FEC registration, enabling the new program to 

avoid duplicating the process of seeking out 

many minor campaigns that may be unaware of 

disclosure obligations, 

2. A singl.e centralized candidate list to facilitate 

coordination of FEC and congressional financial 

disclosure documents. 

3. A provision to give the Clerk of the House and 

the Secret(\ry of the Senate the power to grant 

reporting waivers to candidates whose campaign financial activity is minimal. 
41 

r 

Organization 

The Federal Election Commission, created by 

the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), is 

composed of six Presidentially appointed Commissioners and two ex officio nonvoting members, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of 

the House of Representatives. In addition, the law 

provides for two statutory officers appointed by 

the Commission: the Staff Director and the General Counsel. 

The bulk of the Commission's staff is divided between two major units under the direction of the 

two statutory officers, respectively. (See Appendix 

2.) During 1977, the various subdivisions of the staff 

were as follows: 

1. Commissioners and their immediate staff 

2. Staff Director's Office 

-Office of Planning and Management 

-Disclosure Division 

-Audit Division 

-Information Division 

-Admi'1istration Division 

-Data Systems Development Division 

3. Office of General Counsel 

As of December 31, 1977, the Commission staff 

totaled 211 permanent employees, and 19 temporary employees. 

In December, a prospective realignment was 

announced, to be effective January 1, 1978, 

establishing a separate Reports Analysis Division to 

incorporate all disclosure review functions formerly assigned to the Disclosure Division. The 

realignment reflected an increased emphasis the 

Commission placed on routine monitoring of the 

disclosure prov1s1ons of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. 

The Commissioners 

The Commissioners are responsible for administering, seeking to obtain compliance with, and 

formulating policy with respect to the Act, 

codified in Titles 2 and 26 of the U.S. Code. All decisions must be made by a majority vote of the 

members except that four affirmative votes are required to approve regulations, render advisory 

opinions and take certain actions in connection 

with enforcement (2 U.S.C. §437c). 

Thomas E. Harris, former Vice Chairman of the 

Commission, was unanimously elected Chairman 

by his fellow Commissioners on May 12, 1977; 

joan D. Aikens was unanimously elected Vice 

Chairman. Both assumed office on May 21, 1977. 

From May 1976 to May 1977, Commissioner Vernon W. Thomson served as Chairman of the Commission. By statute, any Commissioner is limited to 

a single, one-year term as Chairman. The Chairman and the Vice Chairman must be affiliated 

with different political parties. ). S. Kimmitt, sworn 

in as the new Secretary of the Senate on April 1, 

1977, became a new ex officio member. Both the 

Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 

are represented at the Commission by Special 

Deputies who maintain offices at the Commission 

and participate in all Commission meetings and 

operations. 

Generally meeting twice a week during 1977 (once 

in open session and once in closed session}, the 

Commissioners considered an increasing number 

of compliance cases, defined audit policies and 
42 

procedures, requested repayments ofpublic funds 

and continued to render advisory opinions. 

Sunshine Policy 

During its two and a half year history, the. Cornmission has been committed to making itself fully 

accessible to the public. Sunshine Act regulations, 

adopted by the Commission on March 2, 1977, 

require that meetings be publicly announced in 

advance and conducted in open session except 

when the Commissioners discuss alleged violations of the Act. In those instances, the meetings 

are automatically closed because of the statutory 

requirement that such matters be kept confidential. In addition, and subject to approval by the 

majority of the Commissioners, meetings may be 

closed to the public only when the Commission 

considers: 

-Matters solely related to personnel; 

-Confidential financial or personal information; 

or 

-Information which, if prematurely disclosed, 

would adversely affect a proposed FEC action. 

None of these criteria apply, however, if the public interest otherwise requires a meeting to be 

open. During 1977, 50 formal meetings and many 

task force sessions were open to the public. 

Election Law Survey 

At the direction of the Commissioners, a survey 

on the impact of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act on the 1976 elections was conducted by two 

firms, Decision Making Information and Hart Research Associates. 

The 240-page document, released on April 28, 

1977, revealed that the law was working reasonably well, that it had not, as some predicted, stifled 

the political process, and that campaigns made use 

of the Commission and were generally satisfied 

with its response to their inquiries. The study was 

intended as a basis for recommendations for 

' changes in the Act (included in the 1976 Annual 

Report), as a guide to future Commission priorities 

and as a benchmark from which to evaluate future 

· changes in campaign finance legislation. The 

Commissioners specificially did not undertake to 

examine major questions of policy such as public 

financing of elections, contribution limits, and 

corporate and labor PAC activities. Special precautions were taken to contact an accurate crosssection of campaigns operating in the 1976 House 

and Senate elections. Eight hundred and fifty 

House and Senate campaigns, representing more 

than two-thirds of those contacted, provided data 

through written questionnaires and personal interviews. For a summary of the survey's findings_. 

see Appendix 11. 

Office of the Staff Director 

The Staff Director is the executive officer responsible for staff appointments and organization 

and, together with the General Counsel, for the 

implementation of Commission policy through a 

variety of programs. Several significant steps were 

taken during 1977 to expand and strengthen the 

central executive role of the Office of the Staff 

Director. Principal among these was the creation 

of the position of Deputy Staff Director with broad 

responsibility for assisting in the supervision of all 

phases of Commission activity, particularly planning and procedural development. The position of 

Associate Staff Director was also created with special responsibility for training and orientation of 

Commission staff, and planning and implementation of operational changes. Concurrently, the 

Office of Planning and Management, which was 

organized early in 1977 as a separate entity, 

expanded its role as a management support unit 

within the Office of the Staff Director. 

Office of General Counsel 

The Office of General Counsel directs the enforcement activities of the Commission and 

represents and advises the Commission regarding 

any legal actions brought against it. The Office is 

also responsible for drafting, for Commission consideration, proposed legal interpretations of the 

Act which are embodied in regulations, and for 

drafting advisory opinions. 

During 1977, the Enforcement Section of the Office of General Counsel was organized to carry out 

the new enforcement duties conferred on the 

Commission as a result of the Supreme Court 

decision in Buckley v. Valeo and the 1976 Amendments to the Act. The structure of the Office was 

modified to accommodate the new duties, and 

procedures were devised and implemented to 

facilitate careful yet efficient processing of the 

Commission's enforcement cases. 
43 

apter 

Operation 

The operation of the Commission during 1977 

was affected by several changes. With the implementation of zero-based budgeting and the creation of a separate Office of Planning and Management, the budgetary process required division 

heads to identify each of their programs with a 

specific Commission objective. In addition, as a result of the Supreme Court decision (Buckley v. 

Valeo) and the 1976 Amendments to the Act, the 

staff was classified according to Civil Service 

standards. Fwthermore, the Commission approved and began to implement an Equal Employment Opportunity plan. Finally, expanded computer support allowed the Commission to assume 

more of its own administrative functions. These 

changes are described in greater detail below. 

Planning and Management 

Effective January 17, 1977, a separate Office of 

Planning and Management was instituted with 

overall authority for Commission planning and 

management, as required of all Federal agencies. 

Reporting directly to the Staff Director, the new 

office works in conjunction with the Budget Task 

Force in formulating and developing the Commission budget, evaluating the consistency of Commission programs with FEC objectives, and reviewing 

all FEC reporting forms, manuals and recordkeeping systems. During 1977, the office provided staff 

support for the Commission budget and fiscal 

planning activity. Considerable effort was spent 

during the year to apply the principles of zerobased budgeting to the management of the Commission's fiscal affairs. 

In Fiscal Year 1978, Planning and Management 

plans to monitor and develop a method of 

reviewing disclosure reports, advise the Commission on the impact of any legislative changes on 

the campaign finance law, and review organizational and administrative procedures at the FEC. 

Zero-Based Budgeting 

The Budget Task Force, chaired by a Commissioner, made its budget recommendations after 

evaluating alternative program packages submitted by division heads in accordance with zerobased budgeting principles. The program packages were ranked in terms of their ability to 

achieve one or more of the Commission's major 

objectives: 

1. Administer public funding of Presidential candidates; 

2. Obtain compliance with the Act; 

3. Facilitate public disclosure of information on 

campaign finance activities of candidates and 

committees; and 

4. Serve as clearinghouse for election administration information. 

The Commission also instituted a work reporting 

system to help monitor budget outlays and program results and to provide more accurate data for 

future budget planning. Each month, division 

heads reported staff costs allocated among 

ongoing division programs. 

Budget 

In Fiscal Year 1977 the Commission received an 

annual appropriation of $6,000,000 plus a supplemental appropriation of $180,000 to compensate 
FEC BUDGET ALLOCATION 

25 Key: ~FY77 ~ ~FY78 .FY79

20 

PERCENT OF 

15 

TOTAL BUDGET 

10 

Commissioners/ Office of Audit Disclosure lnformation1 Administratlon2 Data Systems3 

OFFICE Staff General Counsel 

Olrc;;:tor 

Footnotes: 1. Public Information resource~ include Clearinghou>e ronrractual com, 

2. Administration contains resources not allocated including rent, supplies 

reproduction servi<.:es, etc. 

3. Data Systems rcsour~;es presented include only developmental programs. All other computet costs (I.e., operating time, contract service, etc.} have been allocated to other organizational uniu:, 

44 

for the October 1976 cost-of-living pay increase. 

These monies were expended during the fiscal 

year as follows: 

Commission and staff salaries, 

including benefits $3,964,466 

Consultants 29,652 

Travel 181,743 

Motor Pool 5,938 

Space Rental 306,077 

Equipment Rental 167,081 

Printing 161,525 

Contracts (including 

Clearinghouse) 776,853 

Supplies 91,013 

Library Materials 15,552 

Telephone/Telegraph 113,857 

Postage 24,933 

Administrataive Expenses 115,745 

Equipment 218,254 

TOTAL $6,172,689 

For FY 78 the Commission received an annual appropriation of $7,300,000. Expenditure of these 

funds is budgeted as follows: 

Commission and staff salaries, 

including benefits $4,615,261 

Consultants 50,000 

Travel 242,788 

Motor Pool 10,000 

Space Rental 331,440 

Equipment Rental 184,603 

Printing 276,222 

Contracts (including 

Clearinghouse) 1,042,163 

Supplies 107,760 

Library Materials 22,000 

Telephone/Telegraph 136,410 

Postage 25,000 

Administrative Expenses 129,960 

Equipment 126,393 

TOTAL $7,300,000 
45 

In addition, the Commission has requested a supplemental appropriation of $310,000 to defray the 

costs of the October 1977 statutory pay increase. 

An appropriation of $8,624,000 has been requested 

for FY 79. 

The graph on page 44 compares the proposed allocation of resources among FEC divisions during 

Fiscal Years 1977, 1978 and 1979. Fiscal Year 1977 

figures are based on estimates from division heads 

for the final five months of the fiscal year (May 

through September). 

Accounting and Financing 

In order to be responsive to the needs of its staff 

and able to reimburse its vendors in a timely 

fashion, the Federal Election Commission proceeded with plans to manage all of its own 

accounting and finance activities. In this regard, 

the Administration Division worked closely with 

the Commission's Data Systems Development 

Division (see below), the U.S. General Accounting 

Office and the Department of Treasury. The 

Commission expects that a computerized system 

for independent accounting will be developed, 

tested and approved in time for it to assume full 

responsibility for accounting and finance by 

October 1, 1978. 

Personnel 

Job Classifications 

The Commission formalized personnel practices and procedures throughout the Agency during the course of the year. All staff positions were 

classified according to Civil Service standards, as a 

result of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

Amendments of 1976 which transformed the Commission into an Executive Branch Agency as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Va/eo. The classification process established 

a job description and grade level for each position. 

All positions are excepted, however, from the 

competitive service. 

The Office of the StaffDirector promulgated, with 

the Commissibn's approval, a comprehensive set 

of personnel policies covering promotions and 

performance ratings, grievances and complaints. 

Orientation and Training for Employees 

During 1977, the Commission established both 

an orientation program for new employees and a 

training program for existing employees. The 

tra1nmg program consisted of presentations by 

each division to other divisions and the Commissioners' offices describing the role and the mission 

of each division, its procedures and practices, and 

the various ways which other divisions could use 

its services. The orientation program was given to 

all new employees within one to four weeks of 

their entrance on duty. This program, supplemented by an Employees Handbook, consisted of 

a general introductory session to the Commission, 

presentations by each division, and an analysis of 

the Act and the Commission's regulations. Finally, 

each new employee attended a Commission 

meeting. 

In addition, the Commission had special training 

programs such as weekly regulation review sessions, periodic presentations by the Data Systems 

Development Division on new computer capabilities, and audit site visits by key personnel. The 

Commission is also exploring methods of incorporating the professional programs offered by 

other agencies into its own training program, particularly where specialized courses will benefit 

selected individuals in a manner which the Commission cannot duplicate. 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

On March 31, the Commission adopted specific guidelines to ensure equality of employment 

for all persons working at the FEC, regardless of 

race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, or 

physical handicaps. To carry out this policy, the 

Commission designated several staff members to 

serve as Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) officers while continuing their other regular duties 

at the FEC. Officers included a Director, a Federal 

Women's Program Coordinator and two EEO 

counselors. 

Later in the year, the Commission adopted an 

Equal Employment Opportunity Plan which summarized the Commission's EEO policy, assessed 

action already taken by the Commission to implement EEO policy, and outlined future action. It 

also included an analysis of the composition of the 

Commission staff to provide a data base for future 

evaluations and policy determinations. 

Since the inception of the Commission's EEO program, only three informal complaints of discrimination have been filed. No complaint reached the 

formal stage. However, approximately 20 employees asked for and received some form of EEO 

counseling regarding such matters as training and 

upward mobility. 

During 1977, the EEO staff conducted recruiting 

activities aimed primarily at filling a substantial 
46 

number of attorney position vacancies with 

minority individuals. EEO staff contacted placement offices at the major law schools and interest 

groups such as the Urban League and the National 

Bar Association. 

The Federal Women's Program Coordinator initiated a series of seminars to deal with problems 

faced by women in Federal employment, such as 

obtaining credit. 

Computer Support-Data 

Systems Development 

Division 

In order to provide broader based computer 

support to the entire Commission, the Data Systems Office was reorganized as a separate division 

in early 1977. The new Data Systems Development 

Division (DSDD) expanded its scope to include 

computer support not only for the Disclosure Division, as it had done in 1976, but for the other divisions of the Commission as well. The Division 

now offers computer support in four major areas: 

Disclosure Information System: The Disclosure Information System was developed in 1976 to store 

general information which would allow the Commission and the public to determine which candidates and committees were registered and what 

reports had been filed, and to track contributions 

and expenditures. 

During 1977, ,the capabilities of the Disclosure Information System were greatly expanded. New 

information was entered for itemized receipts and 

expenditures and additional programs were developed to cross-reference data already entered into 

the system. These additions allowed the Commission to undertake a more detailed analysis of campaign finance activity and to monitor campaign 

limitations more closely. During 1977, DSDD produced an average of 30 standard indexes per 

month, which were available to the FEC and the 

public. · 

Administrative Support System: Prior to 1977, the 

General Services Administration provided the 

Commission with all its administrative support 

functions. In 1977, DSDD planned and began to 

implement the computerization of the Commission's support functions. Personnel and mail control systems were completed in 1977. The Commission will assume all administrative responsibilities 

by 1978 when it completes the computertzation of 

payroll, inventory, budget and accounting systems. 

Information System: To facilitate the distribution 

of materials by the Information Division, DSDD 

developed and implemented a computer system 

to produce mail labels for periodic mailings. The 

system increased the Division's ability to make 

selected mailings and to respond to inquiries. 

General Support: As a service division, DSDD also 

helps other divisions utilize the various computer 

systems in their daily operations. Such· individual 

requests for computer a~sistance averaged 44 per 

month. 
49 

ppe 1 

Biographical Data 

on Commissioners 

and Statutory Officers 

Commissioners 

Thomas E. Harris, Chairman 

April 30, 1979* 

Presently Chairman, Mr. Harris was associate 

general counsel to the AFL-CIO in Washington, 

D.C., from 1955 to 1975. He had held the same 

position with the CIO from 1948 until it merged 

with the AFL in 1955. Prior to that, he was an attorney in private practice and with various Government agencies. A native of Little Rock and a 1932 

gr~duate of the University of Arkansas, Mr. Harris 

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 to the Commission for a 

four-year term and upon reconstitution received a 

t~ree-year appointment. 

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman 

April 30, 1981 

At the time of her initial appointment, Mrs. 

Aikens was Vice President of Lew Hodges/ 

Communications, a public relations firm located in 

Valley Forge, Pennsylvania~ From 1972 until 1974, 

she was President of the Pennsylvania Council of 

Republican Women and served on the Board of 

Directors of the National Federation of Republican 

Women. A native of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Mrs. Aikens has been active in a variety of 

volunteer organizations. She received her B.A. 

from Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pennsylvania. 

Her original appointment to the Federal Election 

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

was reappointed for five years when the FEC was 

reconstituted. 

•Term expiration date. 

William L Springer 

April 30, 1977 

Mr. Springer, an attorney by profession, served 

as State's Attorney of Champaign County, Illinois, 

from 1940 to 1942. After military service in the 

Navy, he returned to Champaign, Illinois, and 

served as County Judge from 1946 to 1950. In 1950 

he was elected to the 82nd Congress and reelected 

to each succeeding Congress from the 22nd Congressional District of Illinois until his retirement at 

the close of the 92nd Congress. President Nixon 

appointed him a Commissioner of the Federal 

Power Commission in 1973. He resigned in December 1975 and was appointed to the Federal Election Commission by President Ford in 1976. Mr. 

Springer is a graduate of DePauw University and 

the University of Illinois Law School. He received 

LL.D. degrees from Millikin University in 1953, 

Lincoln College in 1966, and DePauw University in 

1972. 

Neil 0. Staebler 

April 30, 1977 

The Commission's first Vice Chairman, Neil 0. 

Staebler was formerly chairman of the Michigan 

Democratic State Central Committee (1950-61), a 

member of the National Democratic Committee 

(1965-68 and 1972-75), a ontt~erm Member of the 

House (1963-65) and a gubet,patQJial candidate in 

1964 against former Gov. Ceorge W. Romney 

(1963-69). 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, Mr. Staebler was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1926. Originally appointed 

for three years in 1975, he was reappointed upon 

reconstitution for a one-year term. 
50 

Vernon W. Thomson 

April 30, 1979 

Vernon Thomson, the Commission's second 

Chairman, was a Republican Member of Congress 

from Wisconsin from 1961 to 1975. Before that, he 

was his State's Governor (1957-59), Attorney General (1951-56) and a member of the State legislature (1935-50). 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 and for 

three years when the Commission was reconstituted. 

Robert 0. Tiernan 

April 30, 1981 

Robert 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, 

Rho.de Island, and is a graduate of Providence College and Catholic University Law School. Mr. 

Tiernan has been admitted to practice in all Federal courts, the State of Rhode Island, and the 

District of Columbia. He has held various national 

and State party positions. Originally appointed for 

two years, he received a five-year term upon 

reconstitution of the Commission. 

Ex Officio Members 

.of the Commission 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr. 

Edmund L. Henshaw, and Ex Officio Member.of 

the Commission, was reelected Clerk of the 

House of Representatives for the 95th Congress. 

He had been appointed Acting Clerk of the House 

on November 17, 1975, and was elected Clerk on 

December 17, 1975. Prior to that, he served as 

Executive Director of the Democratic National 

Congressional Committee, from 1972-1975, and 

Research Director of the Democratic National 

Congressional Committee from 1955 to 1972. He 

received a B.S. degree from the University of 

Maryland in 1954, and attended George Washington University Law School from 1955 to 1956. 

Douglas Patton, attorney, serves as Special Deputy 

to the Clerk of the House at the Commission. 

Joseph Stanley Kimmitt 

Stanley Kimmitt, an Ex Officio Member of the 

Commission, was elected Secretary of the Senate 

Tn-Aprll1977. ~He previously served as Secretary of 

the Majority for the Senate (1966-1977) and as Administrative Assistant to the Majority Leader of the 

Senate. A native of Great Falls, Montana, he holds 

a Bachelor of Science degree in political science 

from Utah State University. Mr. Kimmitt also attended the University of Montana and did graduate work at George Washington University. Mr. 

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

in 1941 and retired as a colonel in 1966. 

Harriet Robnett, attorney, serves as Special Deputy 

to the Secretary of the Senate at the Commission. 

Statutory Officers 

Orlando B. Potter, Staff Director 

· Before joining the Commission, Orlando 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 (R.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. 

William C. Oldaker, General Counsel 

William Oldaker began serving as General 

Counsel on January 1, 1977, after being Assistant 

General Counsel. for Compliance and Litigation 

since 1975. Holding B.A. and J.D. degrees from the 

University of Iowa, he also attended the Graduate 

School of Business at the University of Chicago. 

Prior to coming to the Commission, Mr. Oldaker 

served with the Federal Communications Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission. 
Federal Election Commission 

I

Thomas E. Harris Joan D. Aikens Neil 0. Staebler William L. Springer VernonW. Thomson Robert 0. Tiernan J. S. Kimmitt Edmund L. Henshaw~ Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Ex Officio/Senate Ex Officio/House 

Office of 

General Counsel 

I I 

l- Office of the r-- Office of 

Staff Director Planning & Management 

I I 

Disclosure Audit Information Administrative Data Syste~~ision 1 Division* Division Division Division Development Division I 

Appendix 2 

FEC Organization Chart 

*Effective January 1, 1978, the Disclosure Division was reorganized into two separate entities: Public Disclosure Division VI and Reports Analysis Division. ..... 
52 

ppendix 3 

Chronology of Events, 1977 

January 

1 Disclosure Division anti Data Systems 

Development Division established. William C. Oldaker begins serving as General Counsel. 

3 Commission issues policy statement on 

post-election contributions to retire 

1976 campaign debts. 

9 Clearinghouse Advisory Panel meets. 

11 FEC resubmits proposed regulations to 

Congress. 

17 Office of Planning and Management 

created. 

21 FEC publishes names of nonfilers of 

post-general election report. FEC approves· report of the Task Force on Statistics establishing guidelines for the· 

preparation and release of campaign 

finance statistics on the 1976 elections. 

31 Year-end report due. 

February 

3 FEC adopts amendment to proposed 

matching fund regulation (§134.2(c)(2)). 

8 FEC sends legislative recommendations 

to Congress. 

10 Monthly reporting in 1977 approved for 

political committees. 

22 Special generai election in Minnesota 

for the 7th Congressional District. 

March 

2 FEC adopts Sunshine Regulations to 

govern proceedings. 

7 S.926 introduc;ed in Senate, providing 

for public financing of Senatorial elections. 

9 Sunshine Regulations implemented. 

15 Testimo·ny before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the Commission's budget request for Fiscal Year 

1978. 

16 Testimony before the House Administration Committee concerning Section 

114.5 of the Commission's regulations 

(negative check-off prohibition). 

17 FEC sends Report to Congress on Commission activities under the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

18 Democratic and Republican National 

Committees return to the Federal 

Treasury over one-half million dollars in 

surplus public funds. 

22 President Carter presents election reform package to Congress. Included in 

the package is a bill to allow electionday voter registration, to eliminate the 

Electoral college and to provide for the 

public financing of Congressional elections. House Administration Committee votes not to exercise its power of 

veto over §114.5 of the Commission's 

regulations. 
53 

23 FEC releases Index of Independent 

Expenditures. 

28 Annual Report for 1976 sent to Congress. 

29 30th legislative Day for the Commission's proposed regulations. 

30 Testimony before the House Appro:­

priations Committee {Subcommittee 

on Treasury, Postal Service and General 

Government) concerning the Commission's budget request. 

31 FEC adopts specific guidelines to ensure equality of employment opportunity. 

April 

1 j. S. Kimmitt, sworn in as Secretary of 

the Senate, becomes ex officio member 

of the Commission. 

5 Special election in Georgia for 5th Congressional District. 

7 Commission approves procedures for 

conducting audits. 

10 First quarterly report due. 

13 Regulations prescribed. FEC prescribes 

full set of regulations after the 30-legislative day congressional review period 

expires March 29 with neither House of 

Congress exercising its veto. 

14 Index to reports available in the Office 

of Public Records released to the 

public. 

21 Invitation policy adopted by the Commission. Commission establishes scheduling priorities for 1977 audits. 

25 Testimony before the House Administration Committee on universal voter 

registration. 

27 Index on Communication Costs by 

Corporations, Unions, Membership 

Organizations and Trade Associations 

published. National Party Report published. 

28 FEC releases 240-page survey "A Study 

of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

on the 1976 Elections." 

May 

3 Report on 1976 Senate Campaigns 

published. 

6 Testimony before the Senate Rules and 

Administration Committee on election 

reform, including universal voter registration, public financing of congressional elections and amendments to the 

Act. 

12 FEC directs Governor Milton Shapp to 

repay matching funds. Commissioners 

elect Thomas E. Harris Chairman, Joan 

D. Aikens Vice Chairman, effective May 

21. 

14 FEC publishes names of two nonfilers 

for the pre-election report in the Washington special election. 

17 Special general election in Washington for the 7th Congressional District. 

26 Public comment invited on a proposed 

regulation on corporate obligation to 

make its political solicitation methods 

available to a labor organization. 

June 

5 Report on 1976 Presidential Campaign 

Receipts and Expenditures published. 

7 Testimony before the House Select 

Committee on Ethics concerning personal financial disclosure. 

July 

10 Second quarterly report due. 

12 Testimony before the House Administration Committee on congressional 

public financing. Public comment invited on the subject of sponsorship and 

financing of public debates between 

candidates for Federal office. 

14 FEC completes action on agency job 

classifications. 

25 Clearinghouse Advisory Panel meets. 

August 

3 The Senate approves S.926, the "Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1977." 
54 

4 FEC announces commencement of 

routine audits of randomly selected 

congressional races. 

8 Commission approves FY 1979 budget 

proposals. 

27 Special election in louisiana for the 1st 

Congressional District. 

September 

12 FEC holds hearings on sponsorship and 

financing of public debates between 

candidates. 

October 

2 Report . on 1976 House Campaigns 

released. 

10 Third quarterly report due. 

13 Testimony before the House Administration Committee concerning proposed amendments to the Act. 

15 First office account report due. 

18 FEC requests public comment on regulations governing independent expenditures. 

20 Commission approves Equal Employment Opportunity Plan. 

December 

6 Commission presents FY 1979 budget 

proposals to the Senate Rules Committee. 

8 Commission approves amendment to 

Section 114.4 of the regulations allowing donation of corporate or labor organization funds to qualified organizations for use in sponsoring nonpartisan 

candidate debates. 

20 President signs into law the Social 

Security Financing Bill containing amendments to the honorarium provisions of 

the Act (2 U.S.C. §441i). · 
55 

ppendix 4 

FEC Opinions: Summaries 

Prior to the promulgation of Commission regu" 

lations on April 13, 1977, the Commission issued 

two types of opinions: 

1. Advisory Opinions, designated as AO's, concerned the application of the Act to specific 

factual situations. Any person requesting an 

AO, who in good faith acts in accordance with 

the findings of the opinion, would not be 

penalized under the Act. The opinion co~ld 

also be relied upon by any other person mvolved in a specific transaction which was indistinguishable in all material aspects from the 

activity discussed in the AO. 

2. Informational Responses to Advisory Opinion 

Requests, des~gnated as Re: AOR's, differed 

from AO's in that they were based in part on 

the Commission's proposed regulations and 

they offered no legal protection to recipients 

until the regulations on which they were based 

went into effect (April 13, 1977). 

After the regulations were prescribed, the Commission no longer issued Re: AOR's. The advisory 

opinion, as defined above, is now t~e only ~yl?e of 

response given to requests for adv1sory op1mons. 

The following summaries of AO's and Re: AOR's 

include those issued between January 1, 1977, and 

December 31, 1977. Those seeking guidance for 

their own activity should consult the full text of an 

advisory opinion and not rely on the synopsis 

given here. Copies of the full text of AO's andRe: 

A OR's are available from the Office of Public Records at the Commission. (202/523-4148-toll free 

800/424-9530) 

Re: AOR 1976-94: Payroll Deduction Plan Used 

by Trade As~ociation PAC 

Section 114.8(e)(3) of the Commission's proposed regulations (submitted to Congress on 

August 3, 1976, and publishe~ _in the F~~eral 

Register August 25, 1976) exphc1tly proh1?n: a 

corporation which belongs t? a trade assoc~a.tlon 

from using a payroll deduction plan to fac1htate 

contributions from its executive and administrative personnel to the trade association's. political action committee (PAC). However, m the 

specific case of the Connecticut Insurance 

Political Action Committee (CIPAC), established 

by the Insurance Associ~tion of Conne:tic~t (a 

trade association), otherw1se proper contrrbut1ons 

made by payroll deduction on or before August 

25, 1976, are permissible since an earlier draft of 

proposed regulations (publi~~ed in. the Federal 

Register May 26, 1976, to ehCJt pubhc comment, 

but never adopted) permitted member corporations to use such a payroll deduction system. Following public hearings, the Commission formany 

approved the proposed regulations prohibiting 

the use of payroll deductions to facilitate contributions to a trade association PAC. 

Re: AOR 1976-103: Forgiving Campaign Debts 

Owed to Individuals Rendering Personal Services 

If a candidate has incurred a debt for a personal service which does not count as a contribution under the Act, the person who rendered the 

service may forgive the debt without thereby 

making a contribution (for limitation p~rposes). 

The candidate would, however, have to f1le an explanation of the settlement. Services which do not 

count as contributions include: legal or accounting services rendered to the candidate ~o insure 

compliance with the Act; volunteer servtces provided without compensation and any usual and 

normal expense related to the volunteer activity; 

and travel on behalf of a candidate, as long as the 

travel expenses do not exceed $500 per election. 
56 

AO 1976-104: Affiliation of Political Committees 

The Good Government Committee of First Federal Savings of Miami (the Committee) is an affiliated political committee of the Florida Savings 

Political Action Committee (FSPAC). Because the 

committee gave a substantial portion of its total 

receipts to FSPAC, and the reports of the two 

committees demonstrated similar patterns of contributions, the Commission concluded that the 

two committees met two criteria established in 

FEC Regulations to determine committee "affiliation." (See §110.3(a)(1)(iii).) Therefore, the Committee and FSPAC are regarded as a single 

committee for contribution limitation purposes, 

and transfers between the two committees are unlimited. However, each committee must file 

separate reports. In a related question, the Commission had insufficient information to determine whether the Committee was affiliated with 

the Savings Association Political Elections Committee, another political committee. 

Re: AOR 1976~ 105: Activity of Political Action 

Committee Established by 

Membership Organization 

The advisory opinion procedure may not be 

used to obtain Commission approval of the 

Articles of Organization proposed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 

(AICPA) to govern the operations of its political 

actior. committee (the committee). The Commission may, however, respond to specific, factual 

issues addressed in that statement. Eligibility to 

participate in the committee's activities and 

membership in the committee expand neither the 

class of individuals to whom AICPA may make 

partisan communications funded from its general 

treasury, nor the class of individuals who may be 

solicited by either AICPA or the committee. 

Re: AOR 1976-107: Use of Excess Campaign 

Funds 

Congressman Whitehurst may use excess campaign funds to finance a series of television programs, to be aired over the next two years, informing constitutents of factual happenings in Washington that may affect them directly or indirectly. 

Any use of funds, however, would be considered 

a campaign expenditure if made for the purpose 

of influencing a Federal election. The Commission 

has no authority to comment on tax implications 

of such a transfer. 

AO 1976-108: National Party Committee Expenditures on Behalf of Congressional 

Candidates 

Specified party campaign committees, such as 

the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), are considered national party 

committees. Funds may be transferred between 

party committees without limitation. If, therefore, the Republican National Committee (RNC) 

designates the NRCC as its agent for making general election expenditures on behalf of House 

candidates, funds of either the NRCC or the RNC 

may be expended on behalf of a candidate for 

Congress. The limit on national party expenditures for Congressional candidates applies, however, to the national party as a whole (including all 

its committees), not to each committee separately. 

If the RNC designates as its spending agent a committee which is not a committee of the Republican 

Party, the RNC would have to provide the funding since transfers by a nonparty agent to the RNC 

would be limited to $20,000 or $15,000 per year. 

Re: AOR 1976~109: Activity by National Bank's 

Separate Segregated Funds 

The Society National Bank of Cleveland (Society 

National), the Society Corporation which owns 

the stock of Society National, and other banks also 

owned by Society Corporation may each participate in the establishment and maintenance of two 

separate segregated funds: 1) SOPAC, created to 

support candidates for Federal office and 2) the 

Association, established. to support candidates for 

State and local office only. Such participation may 

include the defraying of expenses incurred in the 

establishment and administration of the separate 

segregated funds and in the solicitation of voluntary contributions to them. SOPAC, as a registered, political committee, would fulfill its reporting 

obligations under the Act by filing reports with 

the FEC and copies of such reports with appropriate State officers. As long as the Association 

does not contribute to Federal candidates or 

political committees, and none of its receipts or 

disbursements are "contributions" or "expenditures" under the Act, the Association would not 

be a political committee and therefore would not 

be subject to the Act's reporting requirements. 

AO 1976-110: Contributions from local Candidate's Campaign Account 

The Akaka for Congress Committee (the Committee) must return a $500 contribution received 

from a local candidate's campaign account 
57 

because corporate and noncorporate contributions were co'llmingled in that account and a 

contribution made from commingled funds is 

considered an indirect corporate contribution 

prohibited under the Act. The Committee could, 

however, accept a contribution made from a local 

candidate's personal funds. 

Re: AOR 1976-111: Definition of Administrative 

Costs Incurred by Labor 

Organization and its PAC 

The League of Voter Education (the LeagueL 

the political action committee formed by the 

Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers 

Union (the Union), may accept reimbursements 

from the Union for legal fees the League paid in 

connection with its own formation because the 

fees are considered administrative costs. While 

the Union is not required to report such disbursements, the League must disclose the receipt of 

Union funds as a reimbursement for administrative costs. 

The costs of printing political cards supporting an 

individual's candidacy is not considered an 

administrative cost, regardless of whether the 

individual qualifies as a candidate under the Act 

or qualifies to appear on a State ballot. The Union 

could not, therefore, reimburse the League for 

such printing costs. 

AO 1976-112: Democrats Abroad Constitutes 

Party Committee 

Democrats Abroad is considered a party committee because it "represents the Democratic 

Party to Americans living in foreign countries, and 

... functions as part of the official structure of the 

Democratic Party." It is not, however, considered 

a State party committee since it is not responsible 

for the day-to-day operation of a political party at 

the State level. Therefore, it is not entitled to the 

special allowance granted State parties for making 

expenditures on behalf of Federal candidates in 

the general election. Democrats Abroad is, however, regarded as a subordinate of the national 

party committee. Transfers between Democrats 

Abroad and other Democratic party committees 

are not, therefore, subject to contribution limits, 

but they are reportable as intraparty transfers. 

Re: AOR 1976-113: Follow-Up Solicitations by 

Trade Association PAC 

When the Savings Bankers Nonpartisan Political Action Committee (PAC) conducts its annual 

solicitation of officers of member corporations 

over a three- or four-month period beginning in 

November 1976 and extending into 1977, it must 

obtain prior and specific approval from corporate 

members for the 1977 "follow-up" solicitations, 

even though it already received approval for the 

initial fundraising solicitation made in 1976. 

Re: AOR 1976-114: Use of Excess Campaign 

Funds 

Congressman Joseph Early may use excess 

campaign funds to defray telephone costs incurred in the ordinary course of his official duties. If 

the disbursements for phone calls are made from 

an office account, to which the excess campaign 

funds were first transferred, they would be subject to the reporting requirements set forth in the 

Commission's proposed regulations on office 

accounts, section 113.4. 

AO 1976-116: Expenditures by Principal 

Campaign Committee 

Congressman Mario Biaggi's principal campaign committee may make expenditures in 1977 

for a book and screenplay about the Congressman's life, intended to influence the Congressman's future election. These expenditures must 

be reported, as must all disbursements by a 

political committee. 

AO 1977-1: Post-Election Use of Property Purchased by Principal Campaign 

Committee 

A car purchased by Congressman Norman 

Lent's principal campaign committee during his 

1976 campaign may be used by the Congressman 

and his staff after the election is over. Since 

property purchased by a principal campaign committee " ... may be treated like surplus campaign 

funds ..."the car may be used for any lawful purpose. Committee disbursements related to the 

car, however, constitute reportable expenditures 

by the principal campaign committee. 

Re: AOR 1977-3: Office Accounts 

Senator Ted Stevens may accept private c.ontributions to establish a "leader's office account" 

to be used for paying costs associated with 

Stevens' duties as a Senate leader since these 

duties are among those of a Federal officeholder. 

Receipts and disbursements from this account 

must be disclosed. They are not, however, subject 

to contribution limits unless they are made for the 

purpose of influencing a Federal election. Funds 
58 

from the account may be used to pay costs of 

attending "political functions" involving another 

Senator. If, however, attendance at a "political 

function" relates to influencing the election of 

another Senator, the use of office account funds 

would constitute a contribution-in-kind by Stevens to that Senator's campaign. As such, they 

would be subject to the Act's limitations and 

could not be made at all if the account contained 

any corporation or labor organization treasury 

funds. 

AO 1977-4: Donation of Goods to Officeholder 

Congressman Richard T. Schulze may accept 

from the Franklin Mint (a corporation) a donation of 250 medals, valued at approximately $2,000, 

to be awarded by the Congressman as medals of 

merit to selected constituents, only if: 1) Schulze is 

not a candidate for any 1978 Federal election and 

2) the medals are neither intended for use nor 

actually used in connection with a future Federal 

election campaign. If these two conditions are not 

met, the donation would violate the Act because it 

would constitute an in-kind contribution by a corporation "in connection with a Federal election." 

AO 1977-5: Legal and Accounting Fees Related to 

Ensuring Candidate's Compliance 

with FECA 

Contribution limits apply to donations made to 

a candidate specifically to defray legal and accounting services rendered solely to ensure compliance with the Act. The limits do not apply, 

however, when an employer donates the services 

(i.e., pays the salary) of his accountant-employee 

or his attorney-employee. A principal campaign 

committee may establish a separate fund for defraying costs of legal and accounting services 

rendered to ensure compliance with the Act. Contributions to such a fund would, however, constitute contributions to the candidate and, therefore, 

would count against the donor's contribution 

limits. Further, all receipts and expenditures 

would be reportable. 

AO 1977-7: Solicitation of Personal Funds 

The Federal Election Campaign Act does not 

apply to a plan submitted by Congressman George 

Hansen to solicit funds for purely personal, noncampaign purposes. The Congressman, therefore, 

is not required to file any reports to the FEC on the 

activities of such a noncampaign fundraising plan. 

The Commission emphasized, however, that this 

opinion "should not be construed as Commission 

endorsement or approval of the plan ..." Moreover, other laws outside the Commission's jurisdiction, such as Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Federal 

tax laws and rules of the House of Representatives, 

may apply to its operation. 

The Commission also stressed the importance of 

the officeholder's commitment not to use any personal funds (once the plan was in operation) to 

influence his own future election. Further, the 

Commission noted, the Congressman could not 

assume any liability for a loan obtained by or on 

behalf of an authorized campaign committee to 

defray costs of a past or future campaign. 

Re: AOR 1977-8: joint Fundraising by 

Federal Candidates 

The Sasser for Senate Committee may accept its 

agreed pro rata share of the net proceeds from a 

joint fundraising event held in conjunction with 

the Rowland for Congress Committee, provided 

reporting requirements and contribution limits 

are observed. This opinion is based on the fact that 

the committees had entered into an agreement 

before the event and both candidates appeared at 

the event. The pro rata share of each contribution, 

based on the gross amount of the ticket purchase 

price, may be accepted only to the extent the 

amount, when aggregated with previous contributions to candidate Sasser by the same donor, does 

not exceed the contribution limitations. 

The total pro rata proceeds should be reported by 

the Sasser Committee as a transfer from the 

Rowland Committee provided all receipts are 

reported by the Rowland Committee. In addition, 

the Sasser Committee must itemize its pro rata 

share of all contributions from political committees and its pro rata share of any individual contribution which, when added to previous contributions to the Sasser Committee from the same 

donor, exceeds $100. 

AO 1977-9: Separation of Federal and 

Non-Federal Funds 

In two specific factual situations, the Santa Clara 

County Democratic Central Committee (SCDC) 

may transfer specific sums of money from its 

account for local and State elections to its Federal 

Funds Committee (FFC), a separate committee 

(with separate account) supporting Federal candidates. In the first case, the transfer is permissible 

because the money was originally contributed by 

other "political committees," as defined in the 

Act. Under the regulations, a "political committee" may accept contributions from another 

"political committee," but not from a committee 

which is not organized and operated according to 

the Act and FEC regulations. In the second in-
59 

stance, SCDC may transfer to the FFC funds erroneously deposited in the account for local and 

State elections since they were expressly solicited 

for use in Federal elections only. 

AO 1977-10: Computerized Voters List As Gift 

by State Committee to Candidate 

A computerized voters list given by the 

Oklahoma Republican State Committee to Senators Dewey F. Bartlett and Henry L. Bellman would 

not be considered a campaign contribution if it 

were given exclusively for the purpose of aiding 

the Senators' communications with their constituents under the congressional franking privilege, 

and not for the purpose of influencing a Federal 

election. 

AO 1977-11: Criteria for Candidacy 

Regardless of whether a Member of Congress 

has "officially" declared his or her candidacy for 

reelection, when he or she or an authorized committee accepts contributions for a "campaign account" or makes campaign-related expenditures 

from it, the Member is considered a candidate for 

a future Federal election. (Note one exception: 

Funds accepted and spent only to retire a past 

campaign debt do not trigger candidacy for a 

future election.) 

Once a Member thus becomes a candidate for the 

1978 elections, he or she must file a Statement of 

Candidate (FEC Form 2), designating a principal 

campaign committee and a campaign depository 

and begin filing reports of receipts and expenditures required under the Act. The Member may 

utilize the same principal campaign committee he 

or she used in the 1976 campaign by redesignating 

it on FEC Form 2. 

The Act does not restrict the types of expenditures 

which a candidate may make from the campaign 

account. Funds may be used, for example, to 

defray the costs of services which are "quasipolitical in nature," such as expenses related to 

travel within the District to address a political party 

meeting or flowers sent to constituents for anniversaries, funerals, etc. 

The advisory opinion notes, however, that noncampaign expenditures made from a campaign 

account may be subject to the rules of the House 

of Representatives and Federal tax laws. 

AO 1977-12: Place of Work Used as 

Campaign Office 

Federal candidate Donald Meyer may use the 

place of business he personally owns and his business telephone for campaign purposes, but must 

report their use as campaign expenditures. To 

assure accurate reporting of these campaign expenditures, a reasonable allocation of office 

expenses must be made between those expenses 

incurred for business and those for campaign purposes. The campaign's telephone costs must be a 

proportionate share of the monthly base charge 

plus long distance fees incurred for campaign purposes. Part of the total overhead costs, proportionate to the percentage of time the office is used for 

campaign purposes, must be counted as campaign 

office expenses and, accordingly, be reported as 

campaign expenditures. Computation of overhead 

expenses must include utilities and the fair market 

rental value of the space to be utilized. 

AO 1977-13: High School Intern Program* 

Sponsored by Member of Congress 

Representative Newton I. Steers, Jr. may sponsor a 1977 summer intern program for high school 

students within his district, selected by an Intern 

Selection Committee (the Committee) without 

regard to party preference. The Committee may 

raise donations from individuals to defray expenses of the intern program. The Committee's 

funding appears not to involve any contributions 

or expenditures made to influence Steers' future 

nomination or election. Thus, the Committee 

would not be considered a political committee 

subject to the Act's reporting requirements and 

contribution limits. 

However, since Steers is initiating, sponsoring and 

apparently organizing significant parts of the program "as constituent service" to his district, donations to the Committee are regarded as funds to 

support Steers' activities as a Federal officeholder. 

As such, they are subject to the disclosure requirements for officeholders under 2 U.S.C. 439a and 

section 113.4 of the regulations. 

The Commission notes that these circumstances 

are distinguishable from the situation where an 

officeholder merely meets with constituents and 

participates in activities initiated and funded by 

them for their own benefit. In that case, no reporting obligations arise. 

AO 1977-14: joint Fundraising by Three Former 

Presidential Candidates 

The campaign committees of former Presidential candidates Birch Bayh, Fred R. Harris and 

Sargent Shriver may create a "Special Committee" 

to jointly raise funds to retire their respective 

*Superceded in part by AO 1977-27, decided in February 1978. 
60 

Presidential campaign debts. Authorized by each 

candidate, the Special Committee must designate 

its own depository, which must also serve as a 

depository for each participating campaign. The 

Special Committee is subject to all requirements 

of the Act and regulations, and all persons contributing to it will be regarded as making a contribution to the participating Presidential campaigns. 

The Special Committee and the participating campaigns are all responsible for establishing an appropriate accounting system to ensure compliance 

with contribution limits. For each contribution 

transferred to the candidate, the participating 

campaign must disclose the same contributor information required for contributions made directly to a candidate. A person who has "used up" 

his limit with respect to one of the participating 

Presidential campaigns must allocate his contribution among the other candidates to whom he has 

not yet contributed the maximum amount 'All 

solicitations by the Special Committee must 

inform potential contributors about the applicability of contribution limits and methods for allocating contributions among the participating 

campaigns. 

Contributions to the Special Committee may be 

distributed among the three participating candidates according to a formula based on their 

respective outstanding campaign debts, to the extent contributors are not required to make allocations to particular candidates. This same formula 

must be used to allocate the Special Committee's 

fundraising expenses among the three candidates. 

The Special Committee may also participate as a 

beneficiary in a fundraising dinner given by the 

Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees (Campaign Committees) if each 

contributor purchasing tickets from the Special 

Committee is informed of the distribution formula 

to be utilized and given an option to allocate his or 

her contribution (i.e., purchase price of ticket) 

among the participating campaigns of the Special 

Committee. To avoid making contributions to or 

receiving contributions from the Special Committee, the Campaign Committees must bear a 

proportionate share of the dinner expenses and 

must divide any advance expenses with the Special 

Committee according to the ratio of tickets issued 

to each committee. 

AO 1977-15: Application of Contribution Limits to 

Members of Candidate's Immediate 

Family 

Federal ca.ndidate Caputo, who received a 

$2,000 contribution from both his father and 

brother prior to the Supreme Court's Buckley v. 

Va/eo decision (January 30, 1976), may accept additional post-election contributions from them. The 

candidate may receive, to the extent of remaining 

indebtedness, the maximum contribution of 

$1,000 per election from each one because 

contributions made by members of a candidate's 

immediate family before the Buckley decision are 

neither required to be reported nor regarded as 

having "used up" the candidate contribution 

limit. All contributions relating to a 1976 election 

are, however, subject to the $25,000 annual (1976) 

limit applicable to all individuals, regardless of 

when the contributions are made. 

AO 1977-16: Search Committee 

The Iowa 1980 U.S. Senate Committee (the 

Commitee) may operate initially as a political committee formed to select a Republican candidate 

for the 1980 Senate election in Iowa by raising 

money, conducting surveys and identifying campaign workers and volunteers. During this. time, 

the Committee may also voluntarily observe the 

limitations applicable to contributions made to a 

principal campaign committee, even though no 

candidate has yet been selected. If these limitations are observed, the candidate eventually 

selected by the Committee may designate it retroactively as his or her principal campaign committee. The Committee's accumulated contributions, 

available for the candidate's use in the campaign, 

would not be regarded as a contribution from the 

Committee to the candidate selected. 

The Commission based its opinion on the following additional conditions: 

-Once the Committee selects a candidate (and 

provided the candidate authorizes the Committee as his or her principal campaign committee), any previous contributions received by the 

Committee will be regarded as having been accepted by the principal campaign committee of 

the candidate. 

-All contributions previously made to the Committee and all contributions made directly to or 

for the candidate before his or her selection 

must be aggregated by donor and reviewed to 

ensure that no contributors have exceeded 

their limitation. Refunds must be made to those 

contributors who are determined to have contributed in excess of their limits. 

-The Committee's Statement of Organization 

must be amended at the time of the candidate's 

selection and the candidate must authorize the 

Committee as his or her principal campaign 

committee. 
61 

Chairman Thomas Harris and Commissioner Neil 

Staebler dissented from the majority opinion's 

conclusion. 

AO 1977-17: Definition of Membership 

of a Membership Organization 

Commodity representatives of the Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange (the Exchange), a nonprofit 

membership organization, are not (for purposes of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended) 

considered "members" of the Exchange since they 

do not have the same status within the Exchange as 

that enjoyed by full members. For example, commodity representatives may not trade, vote or 

serve as officers of the Exchange. Consequently, 

the Commodity Futures Political Fund, a political 

action committee established by the Exchange, 

may not solicit voluntary contributions from the 

commodity representatives. 

AO 1977-18: Solicitation by Trade Association 

The Proprietary Industry Political Action Committee (PIPAC) may not solicit the Board of Directors of its sponsoring trade association, the Proprietary Association (the Association), because they 

are not stockholders or executive or administrative 

personnel of the Association. However, since the 

Board consists of executive and administrative 

personnel of the corporate members of the Association, PIPAC may solicit members of the Board 

under the FEC's trade association regulations (11 

CFR §114.8). These regulations require that the 

corporate member give prior approval to a solicitation by a trade association and limit such 

approval to only one trade association in any 

calendar year. Those Board members who are 

employed by a corporation which has not consented to a PIPAC solicitation or which has consented to a solicitation by another trade association could not be solicited by PIPAC. 

AO 1977-19: Taxes on Interest Earned 

Texaco may not use treasury funds to pay taxes 

on the interest income earned on unused contributions which were placed by-Texaco's separate 

segregated fund (Texaco Employees Political Involvement Committee) in an interest-bearing 

account. The tax obligation is not considered an 

"administrative" cost because it was not incurred 

in the establishment of, the administration of, or 

the solicitation of contributions to the separate 

segregated fund. Rather, the tax was the result of 

the production of income to the separate 

segregated fund. 

AO 1977-20: Joint Fundraising by Federal 

and Non-Federal Committees 

The National Association of Realtors Political 

Action Committee (RPAC), established by the 

National Association of Realtors (a trade association) to support Federal candidates, may follow 

procedures it proposed to the FEC for receiving · 

and allocating funds donated for both Federal and 

non-Federal elections. Under the proposed procedures, funds would be collected jointly by RPAC 

and State political action committees which are 

established by State associations of realtors which, 

in turn, are affiliated with the National Association of Realtors. These funds would be deposited 

in a special account established in a bank which 

would have escrow instructions directing the bank 

to allocate the contributions between the State 

political action committees and RPAC on a 60-40 

percent basis. Contributors would be fully advised 

of the allocation ratio and, according to the proposed plan, RPAC would report to the FEC the 

names of contributors and the amount of contributions (40 percent of the total contributions). 

Commission approval of this proposal was conditioned on RPAC's complying with the following 

additional requirements of the Act: 

-The solicitation materials must also inform the 

contributor that the Federal portion of the contribution is charged against applicable contribution limitations of the Act. 

-The special bank accounts must be designated 

on RPAC's Statement of Organization as campaign depositories. 

-All joint contributions deposited into the special accounts including the portion intended for 

the State committees must be otherwise lawful 

under the Act. Contributions from national 

banks, corporations, labor organizations, Government contractors and foreign nationals are 

prohibited altogether. Joint contributions would 

be subject to contribution limitations only to 

the extent of RPAC's 40 percent share of the 

contribution. 

-contributions are deemed "received" by RPAC 

at the time they are delivered to the treasurer of 

RPAC or the RPAC representative functioning 

in each State (i.e., the bank), rather than when 

RPAC receives a bank transfer from a State 

escrow accqunt. The State RPAC representative 

must supply RPAC with all information necessary to comply with its recordkeeping and 

reporting obligations under the Act. 
62 

AO 1977-21: Transfers Between Affiliated 

Committees 

Realtors Political Action Committee and the 

California Realtors Political Action Committee/ 

Federal are two affiliated political action committees (connected to two trade associations, the 

National Association of Realtors and the California 

Association of Realtors, respectively). Therefore, 

both committees are regarded as a "single political 

committee" for purposes of applying the Act's 

contribution limits to their contributions to 

Federal candidates and other political committees. 

Transfers of funds between them, however, are 

considered intracommittee transactions and not, 

therefore, subject to contribution limits. Nevertheless, the two affiliated committees must each 

file separate reports which reflect, among other 

transactions, transfers made and transfers received.· 

AO 1977-22: Fundraising Concert 

In connection with a fundraising concert, the 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 

(the Committee) may rent amphitheater facilities 

from Universal City Studios, Inc. (a corporation) 

for a fee of $5,000 if this fee is the normal and usual 

rental charge for the use ot equivalent facilities at 

the time the event is held. With regard to recordkeeping and reporting, the full amount of a ticket 

purchase is regarded as a contribution. Recordkeeping requirements are triggered if the total 

amount paid for any number of tickets purchased 

by the same individual exceeds $50. The Committee must report total proceeds and must 

itemize any ticket purchase which exceeds $100 (in 

a calendar year) when combined with other contributions from the same person. 

AO 1977-23: Joint Fundraising 

Congressman Newton Steers and 10 other 

Members of Congress may participate in a joint 

fundraising effort conducted by the Civic Development Group (CDG), a fundraising firm authorized by the Members. In the proposed plan for 

reporting, all contributions and expenditures will· 

be divided equally among the 11 Congressmen. 

Each Member's principal campaign committee will 

report its share of expenditures and contributions. 

Commission approval of this proposal was conditioned on the following additional requirements: 

-The principal campaign committee of each participating Member must designate the account 

used by CDG for the collection of contributions as an additional depository on its Statement of Organization. 

-Solicitation materials must dearly indicate the 

pro rata distribution of contributions so contributors will know how their contribution 

limits are affected with respect to each 

candidate. 

-The two notices required on all solicitation 

materials must be modified to identify all the 

participating campaign committees. (See 2 

u.s.c. §§435, 441d.) 

AO 1977-24: Termination of 1976 Campaign 

Committee and Establishment 

of 1978 Campaign Committee 

The Commission regards Congressman John 

Duncan's 1976 campaign committee as a continuing political committee until it is terminated (see 2 

U.S.C. §433(d)). The committee may terminate 

when it no longer has debts or obligations. Alternatively, the Congressman could designate the 

committee as his 1978 principal campaign committee by amending the committee's 1976 Statement of Organization. 

Surplus campaign funds from the 1976 committee 

may be transferred to the 1978 campaign committee of the Congressman. (See §110.3(a)(2)(iv).) 

These transfers are not subject to the 1978 contribution limitations, as long as they consist of contributions received prior to the 1976 general 

election. 

Contributors who gave up to their limit in 1976 

may contribute in 1977 to the Congressman's 1978 

campaign. These contributions will count against 

the limitations for the 1978 election. 

AO 1977-25: Notices for Radio Advertising 

The Lowenstein '76 Committee must include 

the notice specified in 2 U.S.C. §435(b) in a series 

of radio advertisments to publicize a fundraising 

concert. An appropriate wording would be: "Paid 

for by the Lowenstein '76 Committee. A copy of 

our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the 

Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C." 

The broadcasts are considered solicitations because the advertisements would urge contributors 

to attend and make ticket purchases which would 

be contributions. The opinion also referred the 

Lowenstein '76 Committee to the Federal Communications Commission for information on 

sponsorship identification requirements which 

may be prescribed for broadcast stations by that 

agency. 
63 

AO 1977-26: Voter Registration Activity 

Any compensation or reimbursement by the 

State Democratic Party of Pennsylvania/Voters 

Registration Drive Committee ("VRC") to William 

j. Green for voter registration promotional activities, conducted during the 1976 election campaign, would be a contribution to Mr. Green and 

would be subject to limitations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. This 

opinion is based on the fact that Mr. Green was 

actively campaigning for the Pennsylvania U.S. 

Senate seat in 1976 at the same time he performed 

voter registration activities for the VRC throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

opinion concludes that, while FEC regulations 

allow a political party to reimburse a candidate for 

"party-building activity," it would be impossible 

to distinguish Mr. Green's party-building activity 

from activities directly related to his campaign. In 

addition, the constituency to be r,eached by the 

voter registration activity was identical to Mr. 

Green's constituency for election to the Senate. 

AO 1977-29: Return of Deposit 

Congressman Richardson Preyer may personally accept the return of a deposit, with accrued 

interest, from Piedmont Airlines. Because the 

deposit was originally made in a commercial transaction to secure campaign transportation in Congressman Preyer's 1964 gubernatorial campaign 

and from funds provided for that purpose by a 

family member, its return would not constitute a 

contribution under the Federal Election Campaign 

Act. 

The Congressman may also have the deposit paid 

directly to his current congressional campaign 

committee. The return of the deposit would be 

reported as a "miscellaneous receipt" rather than 

a contribution since the return was not made to 

·influence the Congressman's nomination or election to Federal office. The report should contain 

an explanatory footnote indicating the specifics of 

the situation. Tax ramifications of this deposit fall 

outside the Commission's jurisdiction. 

AO 1977-30: Acceptance of Honoraria* 

Senator Robert Dole will be considered to have 

accepted an honorarium if he directs or states a 

preference that an organization (before which he 

makes an appearance or speech) make a donation 

to one or more charities on a list provided by the 

Senator. FEC regulations state an honorarium will 

not be considered to have been accepted if the 

organization itself selects the charity (§110.12(b)(5)). 

AO 1977-31: In-Kind Contributions 

Public service messages recorded by Mr. Leo 

Berman, a candidate for Federal office, and paid 

for by his employer, Western Company of North 

America, would constitute a contribution in-kind 

by the corporation to Mr. Berman. The opinion 

concludes that "recitation of [Mr. Berman's] name 

twice in the body of these public service radio 

messages would provide value to [Mr. Berman) as 

a candidate." Therefore, the payment by Western 

Company of North America for the production 

and airing of the messages would constitute a 

prohibited corporate contribution in-kind. 

AO 1977-32: Trade Association Solicitations of 

Municipal Corporations 

APTA-PAC is a political committee established 

by the American Public Transit Association 

(APTA), a trade association representing the urban 

transit industry. It must obtain specific solicitation 

approval from its municipal corporate members 

(as well as other corporate members) before 

soliciting those members' executive and administrative personnel. 

AO 1977-35: Limitation on Honoraria* 

Even though Senator Robert Dole returns all or 

a portion of some honoraria previously accepted, 

the honoraria are still . considered accepted for 

purposes of the limitations contained in the Act. 

Once an honorarium is "accepted," as defined in 

§110.12(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations, the 

honorarium is charged to the limitations for that 

calendar year. An honorarium accepted, but then 

returned, can be distinguished from the return of 

an honorarium received, but not actually "accepted." The latter situation is not charged against 

the annual honorarium limit. The applicability of 

IRS regulations and Senate Rules to Senator Dole's 

situation falls outside the Commission's jurisdiction. 

AO 1977-38: Campaign Debt from State Election 

Charles Ravenel, candidate for the U.S. Senate 

in 1978, may simultaneously maintain separate 

organizations to 1) support his candidacy for Federal office and 2) retire a campaign debt from a 

prior State election campaign. The effort to retire 

the prior State election debt (which will involve 

separate solicitation materials and separate bank 

accounts and will focus solely on retiring the State 

election debt) would not be subject to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act since it does not involve 

*Superceded by 1977 amendment to 2 U.S.C. §441i. *Superceded by 1977 amendment to 2 U.S.C. §441i. 
64 

activity which influences the nomination or election of persons to Federal office. 

AO 1977-39: Payment of Legal Fees 

Congressman William l. Clay may use excess 

campaign funds to pay legal fees incurred in connection with a grand jury investigation, provided 

no other Federal or State law is violated by such 

payments. The disbursement should be reported 

by the committee which makes the payment. The 

applicability of IRS regulations and House rules to 

this transaction falls outside the Commission's 

jurisdiction. 

AO 1977-41: Retirement of Prior Campaign Debt 

Samuel H. Young, congressional candidate in 

1976, may use excess campaign funds received 

before the date of the 1976 general election to 

retire all or a portion of a campaign debt from a 

1969 Congressional campaign. The Act permits the 

use of excess campaign funds for supporting activities of a Federal officeholder, charitable purposes, 

and "any other lawful purpose." 2 U.S.C. §439a. 

The use of excess 1976 campaign funds by Mr. 

Young to repay a loan incurred during the course 

of a 1969 campaign would be a "lawful purpose" 

p·rovided no State or Federal law outside the FEC's 

jurisdiction prohibits such use. Payments for this 

purpose must be disclosed by the Young for 

Congress Committee-1976. The application of 

IRS Regulations to such payments falls outside the 

jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. 

AO 1977-43: Receiving Contributions After 

Termination Reports 

The Glenn Brown for Congress Committee (the 

Committee) may not receive contributions or 

make expenditures after it has filed a valid Termination Report. The Committee may not be reactivated solely for the purpose of accepting a contri- · 

bution designated to retire a 1976 election debt 

which the Committee previously owed to the candidate, but which the candidate subsequently forgave in order to permit the Committee to 

terminate. 

AO 1977-45: Use of Credit Received 

Mr. Terry Martin, candidate for the U.S. House 

of Representatives, may use credit from an advertising publication, received as compensation for 

his professional services, to purchase campaign 

advertising space in the same publication. The 

credit would be considered personal funds of Mr. 

Martin, rather than an in-kind contribution, 

provided: 

1. The credit is the result of bona fide employment of Mr. Martin; and 

2. The compensation does not exceed the fair 

market value of the services performed, when 

compared to similar work performed by others. 

Actual use of the credit to purchase advertising 

space in the publication would be an expenditure 

by the candidate's principal campaign committee. 

The committee should report the credit actually 

used both as an expenditure by the committee 

and as an in-kind contribution from the candidate. The committee should also maintain a record 

of the unused amount of compensation available 

to avoid expenditures in excess of that amount. 

The application of IRS Regulations to this transaction falls outside the jurisdiction of the Federal 

Election Commission. 

AO 1977-46: Receiving Honoraria* 

Congre~sman Guy Vander Jagt may count 

honoraria received in 1977 for speeches given in 

1976 against his 1976 calendar year limitations on 

honoraria. An honorarium is considered "accepted," and therefore counted against the limitations, when the officeholder delivers a speech or 

makes an appearance to earn the honorarium, 

which may or may not be when the honorarium is· 

actually received. The application of House Rules 

or IRS Regulations is not within the jurisdiction of 

the Federal Election Commission. 

AO 1977-47: Use of Surplus Campaign Funds 

Senator Clifford P. Hansen may use surplus 

campaign funds from hi~ 1972 election campaign 

to pay expenses incurred in connection with his 

duties as a Federal officeholder, such as entertainment of constituents or travel to and from Wyoming. The Senator's campaign committee may 

remain in operation to make these disbursements, 

in which case the committee continues to have a 

reporting obligation under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. Alternatively, since Senator Hansen 

is retiring and will not be a candidate for reelection and since the committee has no outstanding 

debts or obligations, the committee may file a 

termination report. If, upon termination, the 

surplus funds are transferred to an office account 

(11 CFR §113.1(b)), a reporting obligation under 

Part 113 of the Commission's Regulations would be 

incurred. The applicability of Senate Rules or IRS 

Regulations to this situation is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. 

•superceded by 1977 amendment to 2 U.S.C. §441i. 
65 

AO 1977-48: Use of Excess Campaign Funds 

Marvin Durning, congressional candidate in 

Washington State's 1977 special election, may use 

excess campaign funds from this campaign to 

retire debts from a 1976 gubernatorial campaign. 

The Act permits the use of excess campaign funds 

for supporting activities of a Federal officeholder, 

charitable purposes and "any other lawful purpose." 2 U.S.C. §439a. The use of excess campaign 

funds by Mr. Durning to pay debts from a 1976 

gubernatorial campaign would be a "lawful purpose" provided no State or Federal law outside the 

FEC's jurisdiction prohibits such use. Any possible 

application of IRS Regulations to such payments 

falls outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Election 

Commission. 

AO 1977-50: Officeholder Expenses Paid 

by the National Republican 

Senatorial Committee 

Certain payments made by the Natidnal Repub: 

lican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) on behalf of 

particular Senators would not be contributions or 

expenditures unless the payments were made for 

the purpose of influencing their nomination or 

election to Federal office. With regard to a specific list of different types of payments submitted 

by NRSC for Commission approval, the Commission said it could not determine whether the payment was a contribution or expenditure without 

evaluating all the circumstances and facts in the 

situation where a particular payment was contemplated. (The list of payments included, among 

others, travel for official business, entertainment 

of constituents and staff salaries.) 

If the payments were contributions or expenditures, they would have to be reported by both 

NRSC and the candidate benefitting from the payment. Even if the payments did not entail the 

making of contributions or expenditures, NRSC 

would nevertheless be required to report them as 

disbursements. Furthermore, the Senator on 

whose behalf an NRSC payment was made would 

have to report the payments as receipts and corresponding disbursements under 11 CFR 113.1(a) 

dealing with "funds donated" to a Federal officeholder ". . . for the purpose of supporting the 

activities of a Federal ... officeholder." This language would cover circumstances where NRSC 

made payments to vendors to provide materials or 

services to participating Senators. 

AO 1977-51: Gifts to Congressional Members 

Congressman Cecil Heftel may give gifts of 

macadamia nuts to other Members of Congress 

without incurring a reporting obligation and without making a contribution under the Federal Election Campaign Act. The gifts, purchased by the 

Congressman or received from corporations, 

trade associations or individuals, would not be 

subject to the Act. The application of House Rules 

to this activity is not within the jurisdiction of the 

Federal Election Commission. 

AO 1977-56: Preserving Anonymity for 

Contributors to Separate Segregated 

Funds 

The custodian of employees' contributions 

solicited (under the twice yearly provisions of 2 

U.S.C. §441b) by SAFEPAC, the political action 

committee of the Western Company of North 

America, may also be the treasurer of SAFEPAC 

provided he/she preserves the anonymity of contributors and files the required reports. A custodian who serves as treasurer is subject to all the 

responsibilities of a treasurer under the Act and 

may not participate in the decision-making 

process whereby the separate segregated fund 

makes contributions and expenditures. 

The treasurer-custodian may not disclose to a 

company accountant or an outside auditing firm 

the records of persons making a single contribution of $50 or less or multiple contributions aggregating $100 or less in a calendar year. The 

custodian-treasurer could, however, disclose to 

either a company accountant or outside auditing 

firm those records required with respect to single 

contributions exceeding $50 in a calendar year or 

contributions from an individual which aggregate 

over $100 in a calendar year. 

AO 1977-59: Assistant Treasurer May Assume 

Treasurer's Duties 

The treasurer of AICPA Effective legislation 

Committee (the Committee) may designate an 

assistant treasurer to serve in his absence provided 

the Committee first files an amendment to its 

Statement of Organization identifying the assistant 

treasurer. In this case, the assistant treasurer may 

assume all the duties and responsibilities of the 

treasurer, including the duty to sign required 

reports. 

AO 1977-60: Purchase of Greeting Cards 

Congressman leo C. Zeferetti may regard the 

purchase of Christmas greeting cards with campaign funds as an expenditure by his principal 

campaign committee under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. The greeting cards would not have 

to contain the statement of authorization or notice 

of filed reports (2 U.S.C. §§435 and 441d) required 

by the Act, provided the cards do not expressly advocate the Congressman's election or solicit funds 

for his campaign. 
-- -

- -- -- ... ···- .... ~·. ·-

66 

Public Financing Activity 

Chart 1: Matching Fund Activity as of 12/31/77* 

Candidate 

Amount Certified 

1976 

Amount Certified 

1977 

Amount Repaid 

(to date) 

Total Public 

Funds Received 

1. Bayh, Birch $ 469,199.54 $ 76,510.85 - $ 545,710.39 

2. Bentsen, Lloyd 511,022.61 - - 511,022.61 

3. Brown, Jerry 580,629.65 19,573.89 306.00 599,897.54 . 

4. Carter, jimmy 3,465,584.89 206,936.80 126,515.00 3,600,006.69 

5. Church, Frank 622,747.04 17,921.50 - 640,668.54 

. 6. Ford~ Gerald 4,657,007.&2 - - 4,657,007.82 

7. Harris, Frank 633,099.05 5,913.48 - 639,012.53 

. B. Jackson, Henry 1,980,554.95 - 17,603.78 1,962,951.17 

9. McCormack, Ellen 244,125.40 3,094.97 - 247,220.37 

10. Reagan, Ronald 5,088,910.66 - 611,141.89 4,477,768.77 

11. Sanford, Terry 246,388.32 - 48.04 246,340.28 

12. Shapp, Milton 299,066.21 - 299,066.21 -0-

13. Shriver, Sargent 285,069.74 10,642.00 - 295,711.74 

14. Udall, Morris 1,898,686.96 121,570.99 - 2,020,257.95 

15. Wallace, George 3,291,308.81 - - 3,291,308.81 

TOTALS $24,273,401.65 $516,164.48 $1,054,680.92 $23,734,885.21 

*For 1976 Presidential primary election candidates. Does not include public funds paid to general election candidates. 

Chart II: Convention Fund Activity as of 12/31/n 

Cumulative 

Certifications 

Repayments 

to Date 

Total Public 

Funds Received 

Democratic National Committee $2,185,829.73 $170,093.06 $2,015,736.67 

Republican National Committee $1,963,800.00 $382,135.52 $1,581,664.48 

TOTAL $4,149,629.73 $552,228.58 $3,597,401.15 
67 

Chart Ill: Receipts and Disbursements from the Presidential Election Campaign fund 

(in millions of dollars) .. . . . 

Deposits to Presidential Election Campaign Fund from income tax check-off 

(as of 12/31/76) · $95.9 

Less certifications for Primary Matching Funds, Convention Funds and 

1976 General Election Funds -72.6 

(Balance) $23.3 

Plus repayments received from Matching Fund Certifications and Convention 

Fund Certifications; and + 1.6 

Plus new deposits to Presidential Election Campaign Fund from income tax check-off 

(between January 1977 and November 1977) +36.6 

TOTAL PUBLIC FUNDS AVAILABLE (as of 11/77) $61.5 
68 

Summary of Disclosure Files 

. 

Total Filers Fliers Continu- Number of Gross 

Filers Termi- Waived ing Filers Reports and Gross ExpendiExisting nating as of as of Statements Receipts tures 

in 1977 in 1977 12/31/77 12/31/77 in 1977 in 1977 in 1977 

.Presidential 584 $2,031,683 $3,735,625 

Can.didates 102 87 10 5 

Committees 163 80 0 83 

Office Accounts 0 0 0 0 

Senate, 1,515 $9,224,388 $7,236,048 

Candidates 300 154 109 37 

Committees 333 129 0 204 

Office Accounts 23 6 0 17 

Houle 8,953 $12,130,816 $11,459,643 

Cand_idates 1,756 780 804 172 

Committees 1,853 678 0 1,175 

Office Accounts 120 32 0 88 

Party 

National Level 

2,496 $52,480,643 $48,342,397 

Committees 57 16 0 41 

State Level Committees 151 53 '() 98 

Local Level Committees 457 202 0 255 

Convention Committees 8 6 0 2 

Delegates 5 4 0 1 5 $992 $1,862 

Nonparty 8,044 $24,056,023 $15,366,138 

Labor Committees 236 {\' 20 0 216 

Corporate Committees 

Membership, Trade & 

552 14 0 538 

Other Committees 

Corporate Debt 

601 57 0 544 

Settlements 

Communication Cost 

1 ) NA 0 NA 

Filers i Independent ExpenditUres 

by Persons Other Than 

8 NA 0 NA 16 0 $405,565 

Political Comrtli~~ ··- --

31 18 0 13 80 10,090 $ 16,809 

TOTAL 6,757 2,335 923 3,489 21,693 $99,974,635 $86,564,087 
69 

Computer Indexes Available 

A Index - Names and Addresses of Candidates 

sorted by type of office sought (President, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative), and alphabetically by last name 

or by State/congressional district. 

8 Index - Names and Addresses of Committees, 

including name of connected organization, name of treasurer, committee 

ID number, notation if it is "qualified" 

as multicandidate committee, and 

filing frequency. This index can be 

sorted alphabetically by committee 

name, by committee ID number, and 

by type (Presidential, Senate, House, 

Party, Non-Party). 

C Index - Disclosure Documents Filed by Political Committees- Includes, for each 

committee, its name, ID number, list 

of each document filed (name of report, period receipts, period expenditures, coverage dates, number of 

pages, and microfilm location), total 

gross receipts and expenditures, and 

number of pages. 

D Index -.Index of Candidates Supported by 

Committees - Includes, for each 

committee, its name, ID number, 

name of connected organization, notation if it is "qualified" for higher 

contribution limits, and a listing of all 

Federal candidates supported, together with total aggregate contributions to or expenditures on behalf of 

each candidate (1972-78). In the case 

of party committees, §441a(d) expenditures are listed in place of independent expenditures. 

E Index -Index of Candidates and Supporting 

Committees- Includes for each candidate the following: 

1. Candidate name, district/State, party affiliation and candidate I D 

number. 

2. Listing of all documents filed by the 

candidate (type, coverage dates, 

period receipts, period expenditures, number of pages, microfilm 

location). 

3. Listing of all documents filed by the 

principal campaign committee (See 

C Index for explanation). 

4. Listing of all documents filed by 

other authorized committees of the 

candidate. 

5. listing of all committees (other than 

those authorized by the candidate) 

forwarding contributions to the 

candidate, the principal campaign 

committee, or an authorized committee, and the aggregate total of 

such contributions given to date. 

This listing also identifies committees making expenditures on behalf 

of the candidate or party committees making §441a{d) expenditures, 

including the aggregate total spent 

to date. 

6. listing of all persons or unauthorized single candidate committees 

filing reports indicating they made 

independent expenditures on behalf of the candidate. 

7. listing of all persons or committees 

filing unauthorized delegate reports. 

8. Listing of all corporations or labor 

unions filing reports of communication costs on behalf of the 

candidate. 
70 

G Index - Index of Contributions is an alphabetical listing of individuals contributing 

over $100 in a single contribution 

during 1977-1978. 

Every contribution of more than $100 

is a separate entry and includes the 

name of contributor, street address 

city~ state, zip code, principal place of 

busmess, date of contribution, amount 

of contribution, name of report in 

which contribution was indicated, and 

its microfilm location. 

Y Index -Special Inquiry. This immediate access 

sy~tem permits direct video display or 

pnntout of selected information in the 

Disclosure Information System. It 

consists of between 40-50 separate 

programs to locate, retrieve and dtsplay individual items or groups. 
71 

p d 8 

Audit Statistics 

Chart 1: Total* Audits by Category as of 12/31/77 

(Figures in parentheses indicate status of audits as of 2/28/78.) 

.. -

Category 

Field Work 

in Process 

Field Work 

Completed; 

Reports in 

Progress 

Final 

Report Pending 

Committee 

Amendment 

Final Report 

Forwarded to 

the Commission 

Total Audits 

Instituted, 

Completed 

or in Process 

Title 26 

Presidential 

Primary 0 7(5) 0(2) 9 16 

General 0 2(1) 0 0(1). 2 

Convention & 

Host Cmtes. 1 0 0 3 4 

Minor Party 

Presidential 1 2 0 0 3 

Senate 6(2) 0(4) 2(1) 0(1) 8 

House 10(6) 48(21) 19(27) 23(46) 100 

Multicandidate 

Labor 0 2 0 3 5 

Corporation 0 0 0 1 1 

Trade Assoc. 0 0 0 1 1 

Other 0 2 1 0 3 

Party Committees 0 5(8) 4(0) 2(3) 11 

TOTAL 18(10) 68(45) 26(31) 42(68) 154 

*Figures do not reflect ongoing process of audits and are accurate only for date noted. 
72 

Chart II: Audits Released to the Public as of 2/15/78 

Organizations Date of FEC Release 

1. UniteB Federation Teachers Committee on Political Education 10/5/76 

2. Voice of Teachers for Education Committee on Political Education 10/5/76 

3. The Sanford for President Committee 10/14/76 

4. United Steelworkers of America Political Action Fund 10/28/76 

5. United Technologies Corporation Political Action Committee 3/24/77 

6. Trust for Special Political Agricultural Community Education 7/12/77 

7. Church for President Committee, Inc. 7/18/77 

8. The Pro-Life Action Committee-McCormack 8/24/77 

9. The Bentsen in '76 Committee 8/29/77 

10. Brown for President Committee 9/28/77 

11. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 12/12/77 

12. Democratic National Congressional Committee 12/12/77 

13. Jamie Whitten/Committee to Re-Elect Jamie Whitten 12/13/77 

14. Richardson Preyer/Preyer for Congress Committee 12/14/77 

15. Citizens Committee for the Democratic National Convention, Inc. 

• 16. 1976 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc. 

12/20/77 

12/20/77 

17. Dave Obey/Citizens for Dave Obey 1/5/78 

18. Frank Savino/Savino for Congress 1/5/78 

19. Ray Roberts Campaign Committee 1/19/78 

20. Glenn for Congress Committee 1/19/78 

21. Jack Brooks Campaign Committee 1119/78 

22. Henry M. Jackson/Jackson for President Committee 1/25/78 

23. Caldwell Butler/Butler '76 Committee 2/1/78 

24. Warren D. Saunders/Saunders for Congress. Campaign Committee J25. Bill Frenzel/Frenzel Volunteer C6mmittee 

2/1/78 

2/3/78 

26. Jerome Coughlin/Coughlin for Congress Committee 2/3/78 

27. Lynn Greer/Lynn Greer for Congress Committee 2/3/78 

28. jules Machen/Machen for Congress Committee 2/3/78 

29. Robert C. McEwen/Citizens for McEwen Committee 2/9/78 

30. Bobby Richardson/Richardson for Congress Committee 2/9/78 

31. Larry Pressler/Pressler for Congress Committee 2/9/76 

32. Robert Cornell/Cornell for Congress Committee 2/9/76 

33. Berkley W. Bedeii/The People to Re-Elect Bedell Committee 219/76 

34. Norma Bartle/Norma Bartle for Congress Committee 2/14/76 
73 

FEC Publications and 

Clearinghouse Studies 

FEC Publications 

Federal Election Campaign Laws 

(June 1976) 

This volume is a complete compilation of Federal election campaign laws. It consists of three 

sections: The text of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as codified in Titles 2 and 26 of the U.S. 

Code; the text of additional statutory provisions 

which are not under the Commission's jurisdiction but are relevant to persons involved in Federal elections; and a subject index of Title 2 relating to disclosure and contribution limits. 

federal Election Commission Regulations 

(April 1977) 

This volume is a complete compilation of the 

FEC Regulations prescribed on April 13,1977. It includes two indexes: one covering general regulatory provisions related to contribution limits, registration, recordkeeping and reporting (Parts 100-

115) and a second covering the public financing 

provisions (Parts 120-125, 130-134 and 140-146). 

The FEC Record 

Published as a four- to eight-page binder insert, 

the newsletter serves as the primary means of informing candidates, political committees, parties 

and other persons interested in Federal elections 

about Commission activity. During 1977, twelve 

issues covered the following major topics: 

-Reports Due 

-Advisory Opinions 

-Statistics 

-Regulations 

-Compliance Matters 

-Litigation 

-legislation 

-FEC Procedures and Staff 

-Federal Register Notices 

-Publications 

An index to the 1977 Record (Volume 3) was published in February 1978. · 

Campaign Guide Series 

Several color-coded pamphlets comprise the 

Federal Election Commission's Campaign Guide 

series, a reference tool prepared by the FEC to 

assist candidates and political committees in complying with the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

Each guide, prepared as a binder insert, has a distinct focus as described below: 

1. Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates 

and Their Committees (February 1978) 

This Guide, substituting for three Guides 

written in 1976, focuses exclusively on the concerns of congressional candidates and their committees. It includes a thorough explanation of contributions and expenditures, as well as an examination of other sources of campaign support such 

as volunteer activity, independent expenditure 

activity and party activity. The Guide also contains 

a comprehensive explanation of registration, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

2. Campaign Guide for the Nonelection Year 

(Jtily 1977) 

This Guide presents issues of special importance during the years in which no regutarly 

scheduled Federal elections are held. It explains 

how contribution limits and reporting require-
74 

ments apply during the nonelection year. It offers 

guidelines on debt retirement, the use of surplus 

campaign funds and the termination of reporting 

obligations, and outlines registration requirements for candidates and committees. 

3. Campaign Guide for State and Subordinate 

Party Committees (September 1976). 

This pamphlet explores the role that party committees play in financing Federal campaigns. 

Topics include: committee registration requirements, contributions to candidates, allocable and 

nonallocable expenditures for congressional and 

Presidential campaigns, and a checklist of "do's 

and don'ts" for party committees. 

Annual Report 1976 

(March 1977) 

The second Annual Report to the President and 

Congress provides a comprehensive review of the 

Commission's activities during the 1976 election 

year, including public financing certifications, 

legislative recommendations, policy decisions and 

new procedures. Statistical data is provided in the 

Appendices. 

Bookkeeping and Reporting Manual 

This booklet presents a recommended method 

of bookkeeping to assist Federal candidates and 

political committees in maintaining records required by the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

Disclosure Series 

The Disclosure Series, prepared by the Disclosure Division, consolidates and summarizes data 

taken from the financial disclosure reeorts of the 

1976 campaign. For summaries of the individual 

Disclosure Series, see Chapter on Disclosure. The 

following reports had been issued by the end of 

the year: 

1. Presidential Pre-Nomination Receipts and Expenditures-1976 Campaign 

2. Contributions of $500 or More From Individuals 

to Major Party Presidential Candidates (Ford 

and Carter)-1976 Campaign (Currently being 

revised) 

3. Index of Independent Expenditures by Individuals and Receipts and -Expenditures by Unauthorized Delegates-1976 Campaign 

4. National Political Party Committee Receipts 

and Expenditures 

5. Index of Communications Costs by Corporations, Labor Organizations, Membership Organizations and Trade Associations 

6. 1976 Senatorial Campaigns Receipts and Expenditures 

7. A Study of the 1976 Presidential Campaigns Receipts and Expenditures 

8. A Study of the 1976 Corporate-Related Committees Receipts and Expenditures 

9. A Study of the 1976 House Campaigns Rece!Jlts 

and Expenditures · · 

With the exception of the Disclosure Series, all 

publications listed above are available free from 

the Public Communications Office of the FEC. The 

Disclosure Series is available from the Public 

Records Office. 

Clearinghouse Research 

Studies-Completed 

Voting Systems 

Three volumes: These studies describe in detail 

the voting equipment currently on the market, 

recommend local procurement procedures, provide legal memoranda of State voting equipment 

laws for 24 representative States, and offer guidelines for changing relevant State laws. 

Reducing Voter Waiting Time: How to Allocate 

Voting Machines to the Polls 

This public:oation provides a worksheet with an 

explanation and a running example for determining the number of voting machines required at 

the polls in order to achieve a selected level of 

service. 

Election Law Updates 

This quarterly report compiles and summarizes 

all Federal and State legislation and litigation relating to elections. Each volume contains a Stateby-State 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. 
75 

Campaign Finance laws 1977 

Two volumes: 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 50 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 laws, including 

the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. 

Handbook of State Election Agencies 

and Election Officials (August 1976) 

This report, which will be updated periodically, 

provides a comprehensive State-by-State synopsis 

of which State election officials perform what 

election functions, a tabular presentation of these 

officials and functions, and a telephone and mailing address list of all key State and local election 

officials. 

·An Analysis of laws and Procedures Governing 

Absentee Registration and Absentee Voting 

in the United States (June 1975) 

Two volumes: Volume I analyzes absentee registration and absentee voting in the 50 States. Volume II provides legal memoranda of each State's 

absentee voting system and gives State code 

citations. 

State and local Government Expenditures 

for Election Administration: Fiscal Years 

1970 to 1973 (July 1975) 

The work compiles State and national expenditures for administration of elections. 

Effective Use of Computer Technology in 

Vote Tallying (March 1975) 

The report describes computer hardware, software, and administrative problems encountered 

in 14 electronically computed elections. The report suggests methods of ensuring greater accuracy and security in the vote-tallying process. 

Clearinghouse Research 

Studies-Currently 

Underway 

Ballot Access: An Analysis of laws and Procedures 

in the United States 

This study will provide a comprehensive 

analysis of the varying State laws and procedures 

relating to candidate certification. 

Voter Registration: An Analysis of the 

Implementation of State-Wide and State 

Mail Registration 

This two-part project is designed to review the 

experiences of States which have adopted Statewide or mail registration systems. The study seeks 

to identify problems encountered in certain legal, 

structural and socioeconomic settings. The research will result in technical guidelines for implementing State-wide and State mail registration 

. systems. 

Contested Elections and Recounts: An Analysis of 

laws and Procedures in the United States 

This project will examine and compare State 

legislation, regulations, standards, procedures and 

guidelines related to election recounts. 

Bilingual Election Services 

The purpose of this study is to pull together the 

experiences of States and local jurisdictions 

affected by the bilingual amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The comprehensive report 

will be supplemented by an analysis of Federal financial and informational resources available to 

State and local election administrators for implementing the bilingual amendments. 

Election Planning, Management and Budgeting for 

local Election Offices 

This project will provide management guidelines to State and local election officials for the 

planning, budgeting and financial monitoring of 

election systems. 
76 

pend 10 

FEC Library: Summary 

of Collection 

The FEC library is located in the Office of General Counsel and, although primarily used by the 

legal staff, serves all divisions of the Federal Election Commission. The library is also open to the 

public on weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 

p.m. The legal collection includes basic legal research-tools with an emphasis on materials dealing 

with political campaign financing, corporate _and 

labor political activity, and election and campaign 

reform. 

Functions of the library 

The library serves as the central reference and 

research center for the Commission. It is part of a 

nationwide interlibrary loan system designed to 

quickly provide staff members with items not 

readily available within the Commission. As a 

designated limited depository, the library also 

receives selected Government documents and 

other items from the Government Printing Office 

on a regular basis, including the Feder~l Register; 

Congressional Record, Code of Federal Regulations, and U.S. Supreme Court Slip Opinions. 

Resources of the library 

Outlined below is a brief explanation and description of each resource area contained in the 

FEC library. 

1. General Reference Section 

This section contains reference tools frequently 

used by all divisions of the Commission including 

topical encyclopedias, dictionaries, directories, 

atlases, manuals, almanacs and a current set of the 

Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. 

2. Federal Election Commission Materials 

and Publications 

This section includes material generated by the 

Commission as well as legislative material bearing 

on the establishment and operation of the Commission and the regulations governing Federal 

election campaigns. Materials include bound legisla'i:ive histories of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act of 1971 and all subsequent amendments; transcripts of FEC hearings on regulations; Advisory 

Opinions and Advisory Opinion Requests; Opinions of Counsel; Federal Register Notices; FEC 

Meeting Minutes; FEC ,Record; FEC Campaign 

Guide Series; Task Force Reports; Audit Reports; 

and Disclosure Reports. 

3. Case Material File 

For cases directly involving the Federal Election 

Commission in litigation, the case material file 

contains available briefs and records and copies of 

judicial decisions rendered. In addition, the case 

material file contains briefs and slip opinions for 

relevant court cases. 

4. Journal Article File 

A journal article file contains photocopies of 

pertinent law review articles and library of Congress Congressional Research Service reports 

devoted to discussions of the Federal Election 

Commission, election reform, campaign finance, 

congressional ethics, corporations and potitics, 
77 

labor and politics, the Privacy Act, the Freedom of 

Information Act and the Sunshine Act. Materials 

dealing specifically with election administration 

and State election legislation are located in the 

Clearinghouse Document Center. (See Chapter 

on Clearinghouse.) 

5. Periodical and Journal Collection 

The library maintains subscriptions of periodicals which are considered helpful to the work of 

the Commission including, Campaign Practices 

Reports, Access Reports, Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Reports, National Journal Reports, Election Administration Reports and the Harvard Law 

·Review. 

6. Looseleaf Service 

The two most important looseleaf services 

housed in the library are United States Law Week, 

published by the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), 

which includes coverage of recent Supreme Court 

decisions and lower court decisions; and the Federal Election Campaign Finance Guide, published 

by Commerce Clearing House (CCH). Other 

services housed in the library include: Standard 

Federal Tax Reporter (CCH); Congressional Index 

(CCH); and Fair Employment Practice Service 

(BNA). 

7. Book Collection 

The book collection contains election-related 

monographs and legal treatises with an emphasis 

on Federal civil procedure and administrative law, 

as well as legal research sets such as American 

Jurisprudence 2d, and American Law Reports 2d 

and 3d. 

8. Code Section 

This section contains major code materials 

required by the legal staff, including the United 

· States Code and United States Code Annotated; 

United States Code Congressional and Administrative News; Code of Federal Regulations; Daily 

Federal Register and State election law material. 

9. Reporter Section 

The collection of law reporters includes the U.S. 

Supreme Court Reports (Official and West 

editions); Federal Reporter 2d, Modern Federal 

Practice Digest; Federal Practice Digest 2d; Supreme Court Digest (lawyers edition); Federal 

Rules Decisions; and the slip opinions of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

10. Card Catalog 

Primary access to the library collection is 

through the card catalog. It is divided into two sections: one section containing items in the book 

collection, and the second section containing 

items found in the journal article file. 

11. Indexes 

The library maintains several index services to 

aid library users in their research. 

a. Opinion Index 

The library indexes FEC opinions by subject, 

requestor and U.S. Code. The index is published regularly in the Federal Register. 

b. Index to OGC Research Memos 

The library is currently indexing all Office of 

General Counsel research memos by author, 

date distributed, and subject area to assist staff 

members in retrieving information contained in 

the memos. 

c. Commercially Published Indexes 

The library maintains various commercially 

published indexes, including the Congressional 

Index, published by Commerce Clearing House; 

and the Index to Legal Periodicals, published by 

H.W. Wilson Company. 
78 

A n ix 1 

Campaign Finance Survey: 

Synopsis 

A Study of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

on the 1976 Elections, a 240-page survey, was 

released by the Commission on April28, 1977. The 

following synopsis of the survey findings was 

prepared by the Decision Making Information, 

Inc. and Hart Research Associates. 

It is important to remember that the people 

who ran for congressiqnal office and were 

covered by the FECA do not conform to most 

people's stereotypes of who the candidates were. 

For example, 13 percent of the candidates were 

Independents, (as used in this report, Independents included candidates running without a party, 

or as minor party candidates), and the remaining 

candidates did not split equally between Republicans and Democrats: Democratic candidates outnumbered Republicans by 50 percent to 37 percent. There was not an equal number of winners 

and losers-only 29 percent of all candidates who 

ran won the seat for which they competed. Most 

(71 percent) were losers, and many (29 percent) 

did not even get to the general election. In 1976, 

incumbents won (93 percent), challengers lost (92 

percent), and just 31 percent of those who competed for an open seat won. Ten percent of the 

candidates were women, but just three peicent of 

the House and Senate is comprised of women; 90 

percent of the candidates who ran competed for 

the House of Representatives, but 81 percent of 

the legislative seats are in the House. Thus, the 

candidates differed in many respects from both 

the Congressional membership and the typical 

picture of candidates. lnevaluating this survey and 

the FECA, it is important to remember these 

differences. 

Probably the most important difference to keep in 

mind is that most campaigns spend very little 

money by modern-day political standards. For example, the median amount of money reportedly 

spent by these respondents on a political campaign in 1976 was $24,000. In fact 43 percent of all 

congressional campaigns in this survey reported 

that they spent under $15,000; fully 93 percent of 

the. Independents spent less than that amount. For 

House and Senate general election winners, the 

median amount spent on a campaign was about 

$86,000. More than half of all funds spent in the 

1976 congressional campaigns was spent by fewer 

than 10 percent of the candidates. Given this fact, 

it is not surprising that few campaigns (27 percent) 

had paid campaign managers. Only 11 percent had 

professional accounting help; six percent had professional treasurer and/or lawyer service. 

A major strength of this survey is that it examines 

the 1976 campaign in the context of the candidates 

who ran and what kind of campaign they waged. 

This helps to set the stage for the attitudinal information which follows. This survey of the 1976 campaign demonstrates that most of the participants 

were losers, and most of them spent relatively little 

money on their election bids. 

Despite this fact, two-thirds of all candidates who 

ran expressed total or general satisfaction with 

their campaigns. Furthermore, when they viewed 

their campaigns in terms of 19 basic elements that 

are involved in running for office, these campaigns did not single out the federal campaign 

laws as a liability any more often than they did 

such traditional factors as coverage by the media, 

ability to raise funds both locally and nationally, 

coordination with national, state and local party 

organizations, and assistance from Presidential 

candidates. Overall, in responding to questions 

about the things which were least helpful to the 

campaign, only five percent of the respondents 

named compliance with the federal campaign 

laws. Additionally, the federal campaign laws were 

not seen as a factor giving the opposition competitive advantage, nor were the laws perceived as 

causing the greatest adjustment from previous 

campaigns. The laws were a complicating factor, 

but they did not dominate the candidates' retrospective view of 1976. 
79 

When the perspective is shifted from the entire 

1976 campaign to the FECA specifically, a greater 

percentage of campaigns felt that the federal 

campaign laws had had some impact on their campaigns. The impact in one respect was clearly positive: a majority felt the FECA was an asset in the 

goal of public disclosure. The FECA was clearly 

perceived as a negative factor in another instance: 

a majority felt it had hindered fundraising. For 

other items such as voter registration drives, the 

role of political action committees, volunteer 

activity, getting more candidates to run, and outside independent activity, a majority of campaigns 

said either that the FECA had no effect or that they 

did not know what effect it had. At the same time, 

it is important to point out that more campaigns 

said that the Act had hindered each of these activities rather than improved them. 

Fundraising was the one area where candidates 

and their representatives were most likely to see 

the law as having a negative effect. Given the low 

/eve/ of spending, it is not surprising that a 

majority of all respondents said they found fundraising difficult and more time consuming than 

expected. 

Yet, the reason that fundraising was more difficult 

had less to do with the Act than with the traditional problems that campaigns have always faced: 

50 percent said that public perception of the candidate as a certain winner or loser made fundraising difficult; 39 percent said it was because people 

were turned off by politics because of scandals; 

an'd 38 percent cited the nation's economic condition; Items directly related to the Act, such as 

limitations on individual contributions (29 percent), limitations on political action committees 

(20 percent), and requirements of public disclosure (17 percent), were selected less frequently as 

reasons making fundraising difficult. 

While respondents agreed by 48 percent to 34 percent that the advantage of a detailed public 

accounting outweighed the additional time and 

personnel it required, and agreed by 68 percent to 

20 percent that the Act helped to reduce the influence of major contributors, there were negative 

feelings that the Act made it necessary for the 

campaign to spend too much time raising money 

(46 percent to 22 percent), and that the Act did not 

encourage more people to donate (62 percent to 

16 percent). Finally, 34 percent felt disclosure of 

contributors caused some persons to shy away 

from giving. 

If there was some uniformity of opinion about 

how the Act affected the fundraising process, candidates and their representatives were divided in 

their opinions on how much the Act affected _the 

political parties. One out of three respondents felt 

it created an unnecessary barrier between congressional and Presidential campaigns. Some 27 

percent agreed that the political parties were substantially strengthened by the Act, but 34 percent 

disagreed. (Democrats disagreed 29 percent to 26 

percent, and Republicans disagreed by a 41 percent to 22 percent margin.) Sixty-three percent 

rejected the idea that the FECA encouraged more 

people to run by putting all candidates on a more 

equal footing. More than two-thirds said it gave an 

advantage to candidates with access to political 

action committees and other special interest 

groups. Finally, 51 percent agreed that the FECA 

put Independents at a greater disadvantage than 

ever before. The Act thus was not perceived as a 

political "equalizer. n 

While there was discontent with some aspects and 

effects of the FECA, in general, the performance of 

the Federal Election Commission in administering 

the law was rated positively. Most campaigns (62 

percent) learned about the FECA primarily 

through the Commission. The campaigns found 

the FEC material helpful, especially the handbooks 

and pamphlets (71 percent) and newsletters (57 

percent). Two out of three campaigns used the 

FEC telephone hotline to contact the Commission. 

Fully 83 percent of all campaigns contacted the 

Commission at least once. Of those persons, 36 

percent said the Commission was a great help, and 

another 43 percent found them to be of some 

help. Only 20 percent found it to be of little or no 

help. 

Nonetheless, two out of three campaigns reported 

some difficulty dealing with the Act. The most frequently mentioned difficulty was keeping records 

and filing reports. Similarly, when it came to 

assessing how the Act hurt the political process, the 

most frequently volunteered comment was that it 

required too many and too complex reports. Independents and candidates spending little money 

were especially likely to voice this complaint. 

The most frequently volunteered way in which the 

FECA improved the campaign process was public 

disclosure (12 percent of responses), contribution 

limitations (nine percent), and making campaigns 

more open and encouraging honesty (four 

percent). However, more than one-third of all 

respondents (37 percent) volunteered against the 

grain of the question that the FECA did not improve the political process. 

Finally, when asked to rate the law's effect on 

various aspects of the campaign process, respondents gave it a very positive rating on public disclosure; less positive ratings on its treatment of 

political action committees, contribution limits, 
80 

use of volunteers, and penalties for violations; and 

relatively neutral ratings on reporting requirements, individual contribution limits, restrictions 

on in-kind services, fundraising restrictions, and 

independent expenditures. 

On the very basic question of whether the FECA 

helped more than it hurt, respondents were 

deeply divided: 36 percent said it helped more 

than it hurt, 36 percent said it hurt more than it 

helped, and 24 percent said it basically made little 

difference. A plurality of Democrats said it helped, 

a plurality of Republicans said it hurt, and a majority of Independents said that it hurt. 

In contrast, only five percent of respondents said 

that the FECA should be kept in its present form. 

Nine out of ten said that some type of change 

should be made in the federal campaign laws. 

About one-third (35 percent) wanted slight modifications in the FECA; 36 percent wanted major 

modifications; 18 percent wanted the FECA abolished and a return to the pre-19711aw. By a45 percent to 35 percent margin, Democrats wanted 

slight rather than major modifications, while by a 

42 percent to 29 percent margin, Republicans 

wanted major rather than slight modifications; 51 

percent of the Independents wanted the FECA 

abolished. 

Public disclosure was heavily singled out as the 

major aspect of the Act worth retaining. The one 

major change most often volunteered was simplification of reporting procedures. 

There was no consensus on other changes. There 

was some support for public financing of congressional elections (eight percent), and for allowing 

larger campaign contributions to be made by individuals (eight percent). Some respondents 

wanted political action committee contributions 

abolished (five percent); others wanted those 

committees to be allowed to contribute more (two 

percent). Support was volunteered for stricter 

limitations on expenditures and in-kind contributions (five percent), and for elimination of disclosure for small contributors (three percent). There 

was substantial difference of opinion among various subgroups of respondents. While respondents 

were almost unanimous in the feeling that some 

change was needed, they were far from united on 

the question of what form such change should 

take. 
81 

ppend 

FEC Federal Register Notices, .1.977 

Federal Register 

Notice Title Publication Date Citation 

1977-1 Establishment of Clearinghouse Advisory Committee 1-12-77 42 FR 2624 

1977-2 Privacy Act: OMB Grant of Waiver 1-19-77 42 FR 3812 

1977-3 Index of Advisory Opinions, 1975-1976 1-21-77 42 FR 4040 

1977-4 Advisory Opinion Requests 1976-116 through 1977-1 1-19-77 42 FR 3812 

1977-5 Sunshine Act Regulations Proposed 1-19-77 42 FR 3810 

1977-6 Charter of Clearinghouse 1-27-77 42 FR 5339 

1977-7 Advisory Opinion Requests 1976-119 and 1977-2 1-27-77 42 FR 5338 

1977-8 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-3 1-28-77 42 FR 5395 

1977-9 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-4 and 1977-5 2-16-77 42 FR 9507 

1977-10 Privacy Act: System of Records 2-23-77 42 FR 10722 

1977-11 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-6 through 1977-8 3-3-77 42 FR 12379 

1977-12 Government in the Sunshine: Final Regulations : 3-9-77 42 FR 13202 

1977-13 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-9 3-18-77 42 FR 15207 

1977-14 Regulations Interpreting FECA: Transmittal to Congress 3-18-77 42 FR 15206 

1977-15 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-10 3-16-77 42 FR 14841 

1977-16 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-11 3-17-77 42 FR 14900 

1977-17 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-12 3-21-77 42 FR 15362 

1977-18 Clearinghouse Advisory Panel Review Notice 3-28-77 42 FR 16468 

1977-19 Advisory Opinion· Request 1977-13 3-30-77 42 FR 16848 

1977-20 Candidate and Committee Index of Filers-1975 & 1976 4-14-77 42 FR 19615 

1977-21 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-14 4-5-77 42 FR 18243 

1977-22 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-15 4-6-77 42 FR 18303 

1977-23 Promulgation of Regulations Implementing FECA of 4-13-77 42 FR 19324 

1971, as amended 

1977-24 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-16 4-12-77 42 FR 19313 

1977-25 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-17! 4-21-77 42 FR 20773. 
82 

Notice Title Publication Date Citation 

1977-26 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-18 and 1977-19 4-27-77 42 FR 21597 

1977-27 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-20 5-3-77 42 FR 22513 

1977-28 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-21 5-6-77 42 FR 23193 

1977-29 Not Published 

1977-30 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-22 5-23-77 42 FR 26349 

1977-31 Request for Comments on Proposed Regulations 5-26-77 42 FR 26990 

1977-32 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-23 6-7-77 42 FR 29289 

1977-33 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-24 6-17-77 42 FR 30897 

1977-34 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-25 and 1977-26 6-20-77 42 FR 31303 

1977-35 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-27 6-28-77 42 FR 32903 

1977-36 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-28, 1977-29 and 1977-30 6-30-77 42 FR 33054 

1977-37 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-31 7-13-77 42 FR 36011 

1977-38 Request for Comments on Proposed Regulations 7-12-77 42 FR 35856 

1977-39 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-32 7-21-77 42 FR 37439 

1977-40 Cfearinghouse Advisory Panel Meeting 7-21-77 42 FR 37439 

1977-41 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-33 7-26-77 42 FR 38549 

1977-42 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-34, 1977-35 and 1977-36 8-8-77 42 FR 40102 

1977-43 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-37 8-8-77 42 FR 40102 

1977-44 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-38 and 1977-39 8-17-77 42 FR 41473 

1977-45 Privacy Act-System of Records 9-20-77 42 FR 47399 

Privacy Act-Regulations 9-20-77 42 FR 47506 

1977-:-46 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-40 8-30-77 42 FR 43664 

1977-47 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-41 9-14-77 42 FR 46077 

1977-48 Not Published 

1977-49 Advisory Opinion Requests 1977-45, 1977-46, 1977-47 9-29-77 42 FR 51839 

and 1977-48 

1977-50 Advisory Opinion Request 1977-49 10-5-77 42 FR 54333 

1977-51 Request for Comments-Federal Candidates: 10-18-77 42 FR 55622 

Independent Expenditures 

1977-52 Publication of Advisory Opinion Requests Discontinued 11-10-77 42 FR 58567 

1977-53 Opinion and Regulation Index: Availability 11-15-77 42 FR 59110 

1977-54 Freedom of Information Act Regulations 11-22-77 42 FR 59944 

.1977-55 Clearinghouse on Election Administration Advisory 12-14-77 42 FR 62974 

Panel Meeting 

Federal Register 
83 

~ 

p IX 

Privacy and · Freedom 

of Information Acts 

Privacy Act 

The stated purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974 

(P.L. 93-579) is to safeguard individuals agains~ an 

invasion of privacy by Federal Governm~nt 

agencies. Under the provisions of this Act, the 

Commission is required to develop and publish its 

Systems of Records, and to publish regulations 

which outline procedures whereby individuals can 

determine whether a system of records contains 

information about them and h9w they 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 indiv~dual. 

. The Commissio.J1 initially published its Systems of 

Records in the Federal Register on August 22, 1975 

(40 f.R. 36875). The Commission, upon further 

review, revised and updated its systems, in order 

to incorporate larger categories of individuals, 

changes in equipment and information collected, 

as well as amendments to the Act which occurred 

in May 1976. The following systems of records are 

maintained by the Commission: 

1. Requests for opinions and responses. 

2. Audits and investigations. 

3. Compliance actions. 

4. Public information mailing list. 

5. Personnel and travel. 

6. Candidate reports and designations. 

· 7. Certification for primacy matching funds and 

general election campaign funds. 

8. Payroll records. 

The Commission's regulations outlining procedures for individuals to review their records were 

published initially on August 22, 1975, for comment (40 F.R. 36872). They were published in final 

on September 29, 1976 (41 F.R. 43064), and became 

effective on October 29, 1976. 

Information in the FEC records systems is regularly 

open for public review and examination, with the 

exception of information contained in compliance, audit and investigation files, personnel files 

and payroll records. There is, therefore, little need 

for the public to invoke the formal Privacy Act 

procedures to review records. 

Freedom of Information Act 

On November 22, 1977, the Commission published for comment in the!Federal Register its proposed regulations for the implementation of the 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. §552, the Freedom of Information Act. This Act requires that Federal 

executive agencies make available for public review and dissemination certain information about 

their operations and decisions. The Act exempts 

nine specific categories of information frorinhis 

disclosure. Much of the information maintained 

by the Commission is already subject to public review by statute or policy: 

By Statute 

-Campaign finance disclosure reports filed by 

candidates, committees and others. 

-Advisory Opinion Requests, Advisory Opinions 

and an lpdex thereto. 

-Compliance Actions, including conciliation attempts, conciliation agreements entered into 

and determinations by the Commission that no 

violations of the Act have occurred. 

By Policy 

-Commission documents: press releases, memoranda, agendas, agenda items and minutes of 

Commission meetings. ·. 

-Comments on Advisory Opinion Requests. 
84 

-Reports on compliance actions prepared by the 

Office of General Counsel at the conclusion of 

a case. 

-Proposed regulations and comments thereto. 

-Completed audits. 

Exceptions to this policy include only pending 

audits, pending compliance cases and personnel 

matters. 

Because of the openness of this agency, requests 

under the Freedom of Information Act have been 

minimal. On March 17,1977, the Commission sent 

to Congress a report on its 1976 activities under 

the Act, which included only 11 formal requests 

for information not already available. During 1977, 

there were 22 such requests. The Commission has 

appointed a Freedom of Information Act officer to 

coordinate all requests.