Attachment as stated

January 21, 1981

BOB COSTA

PUBLIC ISS RCE OF FIRAL AUDIT

REPORT-CARTER/MORDALE PRESIDERTIAL

COMMITTEE, IRC.

JOE STOLTZ

FRED ElLARD

PRESS OFPICE

•

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. D.C. Z04ft)

Informational copies of the report have been received

by all parties involved and this report may be released to

the public as of today, January 21, 1981.

cc: FEC Library

RAD

~lic Record

Attached· please find a copy of the final audit report

of the carter/Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc., which

was approved by the Commission on January 19, 1981.

FROlia

SUBJECT a

'1'01

THROUGH I

IIEIIORARDUII
Date Released

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

W...SHINGTO.... DC 204&3

A review_was .made to determine the accuracy of the

Committee's reported net outstanding campaign obligations

and qualified campaign expenditures as of September 28, 1980.

1/

REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION

ON

THE CARTER/MONDALE PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE, INC. _ --- -

A. Overview

The Committee registered with the Federal Election

Commission as the principal campaign committee for President

James E. Carter on March 16, 1979. The Committee maintains

its headquarters in Washington, D.C•

. The audit covered the period from October 1, 1979

through August 31, 1980, the final coverage date of the last

report filed at the time of. the audit. 1/ The Committee reported

a beginning cash balance of $867,934.82; total receipts fo~ the

period of $16,524,673.86, total expenditures for the period of

$17,336,473.23 and a closing cash balance on August 31, 1980 of

$56,135.45. As of September 30, 1980 the Committee reported i

expenditures of $13,749',225.45 subject to the overall 1imitation.j

1. Background

This report is based on an audit of the Carter/

Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc. ("the Committee"), to

_a thorough examination and audit of the qualified campaign expenses,

In addition, Section 9039(b) of Title 26 of the United

States Code, and Section 9038.l(b) of Title 11 of the Code

'of Federal Regulations state that the Commission may conduct _other examinations and audits from time to time as it deems.

necessaryto.carry out the provisions of this subchapter.

•
." -2-

B. Rey Personnel

The principal officers of the Committee during the

period audited were: Mr. Evan S. Dobelle, Chairman, from

October 1, 1979 to December 1, 1979; and Mr. Robert S. Strauss

.. t.., ......_ .• f{qJ11,..np"qeI1lb~r.... :Ir,.,~ J;2'J. t;.o-tP.e§L.pJ;~~~fl.~;.. __~~!l~ ,~;._~q~n H._:__P.f.lto~_ .. Treasurer from October 1, 1 /9 to November 15, 197'§; and~ --_.... _.-_.----

Mr. S. Lee Rling from November 15, 1979 to the present.

C. Scope

•• • , . The audit included such tests as verification of total

reported receipts and expenditures and individual transactions:

review of required supporting documentation and analysis of

Committee debts and obligations; review of contribution and

expenditure limitations; and such other audit procedures_~s

deemed necessary under the circumstances.

II. Audit Findings and Recommendations

Relating to Title 2 of the United States Code

On November 7, 1980, the Committee received the interim

post-primary audit report requiring either a 15 or 30 day response

as specified in the recommendation section for each finding.

Committee personnel met with Commission staff within the 15 day

period as required. The response to the remaining findings was

due on December 8, but the Committee responded on December 11.

A. Allocation of Expenditures to States

'..

Sections 441a(b) (1) (A) and 441a(c) of Title 2 of the

United States Code provides, in part, that no candidate for the

office of President of the United States who is eligible to

receive and has received matching funds may make expenditures

in anyone state aggregating in excess of the greater of 16 cents

multiplied by the state voting age population or $200,000.00,

adjusted by the Consumer Price Index.

Section 106.2(a) of Title 11 of the Code of Federal

Regulations states, in part, that expenditures made by a

candidate's authorized committee(s) which seek to influence the

nomination of that candidate for the Office of President of the

United States with respect to a particular State shall be allocated

to that State.
..

-.; ... ,

c:

-3-

In addition, Section l06.2(b) and (c) of Title 11 of

the Code of Federal Regulations states, in part, that expenditures

for staff, media, printing and other services used in a campaign in a specific state shall be attributed to that State, and that

expenditures by a Presidential Candidate for use in two (2) or

more States, shall be attributed to each State based on the voting

age population in each state which can reasonably be expected to .. be influenced by such expenditures.

During the-threshold audit, the Committee was made

aware of several areas (media allocation, and national staff

payroll allocation) which appeared to pose future allocation

problems. Through statistical sampling and other review procedures during the post primary audit, these and additional areas were

identified as containing State expenditure allocation errors. Since

only the limitations relating to the States of Iowa, Maine, end New

Hampshire were approached by the Committee, an extensive review

was made of allocations to these States.

1. Media Expense Allocations

The Committee did not allocate by voting age

population various media charges such as freight, buttons and

bumper stickers. The review also determined that the Committee

had recently received amended allocation statements from the . advertising firm which had not been reflected in the Committee's

state allocation totals.

These media allocation adjustments require that an

additional $783.09 be allocated to Iowa, $15,717.08 be allocated to

Maine, and $157.15 be allocated to New Hampshire.

In its December 11, 1980 response, the Committee

adjusted the state expenditure totals for Iowa, Maine, and New

Hampshire to include the media allocation adjustments noted above.

2. Travel Expense Reimbursements

A review of the Committee's payments to individuals

for travel expenses identified $10,214.82 in payments relating to

Iowa, $7,453.70 relating to Maine, and $5,505.03 relating to New

Hampshire which had not been allocated as required. Generally, the payments consisted of reimbursements for lodging, car rental,

and per diem for individuals doing advance and scheduling work

in those states. .

In its December 11, 1980 response, the Committee did

not contest the Audit staff's allocations relating to travel expense

reimbursements, and adjusted the state totals accordingly.
3. Outstanding Debt

.' '_-._'" ""''' _ .... ,••'-a·-. ~,,;#v»\ir..of•.~p~,.•,CP'pqn.-\t:\~e.~S. ..§.~_ilt~me~t-_9.tl N.!_~ Out-__ _.-i standing Campaign Obligations filed as of September 28, 1.980 _.... ':

identified outstanding debts totaling $3,068.25 which were related . to the Committee's campaign in Iowa, $1,869.98 which related to

Maine, and $1,188.56 which related to New Hampshire. As payments

are made on.these.debts, the expenditures will pe required to be

allocated •.

-4-

Our review determined that an additional $7,862.28

should be allocated to Iowa, $4,388.35 should be allocated to

Maine, and $2,185.86 to New Hampshire.

Pavments to the United States Treasurer· c 5.

On December 11, 1980, the Committee in its response

stated that the Audit staff had erroneously allocated to Iowa

$1,700 of interstate travel to Illinois and Nebraska. The Audit

staff allocated the flights in question to Iowa after review of the

itineraries for each trip. On two occasions, the Vice President

while campaigning in Iowa, used airports outside Iowa, and then

immediately returned to Iowa to continue campaigning~ The

itineraries indicated no campaign activity in Illinois or Nebraska.

It should also be noted that amounts allocated by the Audit

staff were invoiced to the Committee by the Office of the Vice

President as intrastate travel related to Iowa.

The Committee did not allocate intrastate travel

connected with the use of Air Force II by the Vice President

and the First Lady. In addition, several payments for the cost

of White House luncheons for "State delegates" or "constituents"

had not been allocated as required.

In its December 11,,1980 response, the Committee

did not contest these allocations, and adjusted the state totals

accordingly.

In its December 11, 1980 response, the Committee did

not contest the outstanding debt allocations noted above, and

adjusted the state totals accordingly.

4. Other Vendor Payments

Analysis of payments from the headquarter's

operating accounts to vendors for telephone, car rental, postage,

etc., revealed that additional payments totaling $8,145.27 should

be allocated to Iowa, $29,902.65 to Maine, and $7,909.08 to New

,Hampshire.

,.... c.••"
-- ,

r.··

-5-

The Committee also stated in its response that the

delegate luncheons which the Audit staff had allocated to Iowa and

New Hampshire were held after the date of the primaries in those

states, and should not therefore be allocated to Iowa or New

Hampshire •.

The Audit staff allocated these costs because

11 C.F.R. Section 1~6.2(a) requires that expenditures made with

respect to a particular state shall be allocated to that state . made prior to or after the date of the primary. In addition, the

Committee should note that according to White House invoices, the

New Hampshire luncheon took place between February'1-14, 1980" prior

to. the New Hampshire primary. ' ..

6. Long Distance Telephone Calls . Our review determined that the Committee deleted

telephone calls made from Iowa and New Hampshire to locations

outside of those states.

Allocation of these calls to Iowa and New Hampshire

increases each'state's total expenditures by $21,881.20 and

$18,595.37 respectively.

In the Committee's December 11, 1980, response, the

Committee argued that interstate communication is a "necessary

ingredient" of a national campaign, and as with interstate travel, . should not be allocable. Therefore, as previously done in Iowa

and New Hampshire, amendments filed with the response deleted an

additional $7,962.05 in interstate telephone calls from Maine.

. The Audit staff allocated the interstate phone calls

noted above because the.. Regulations. require that expenditures for

services used in a campaign in a specific state shall be attributed

to that state and because telephone calls are not one of those

specific expenditures exempted by the regulations from state alloca-.. tions.

7. Miscellaneous

Various tests including a review of the Committee's

draft.allocation system, the allocation of payroll for headquarter's

staff when traveling, Committee clerical errors and other tests of

expenditures, identified $1,852.81 which should be allocated to

Iowa, an over-allocation of $700.27 to Maine, and $9,350.22 which

should be allocated to New Hampshire.
-6-

Recommendation

In amendments filed with its December 11, 1980

response, the Committee used these estimated state expenditure

limitations to calculate the value of excessive expenditures in

Iowa, Maine, and New Hampshire. On January 13, 1981, the Commission

reaffirmed their determination that the actual state limitations

must be used to determine the total expenditure figure for each state.

••

The expenditure limitations for Maine and New Hampshire are not"

affected by the Voting Age Population, and the cost of living

factor was, available shortly after the Committee made their

calculation. -

!:-/

The Committee has complied with the Audit staff's recommendation!

for A.l,2,3 and 4~ therefore, no further action is recommended. In

its response to the interim audit report the Committee contested the

recommendations in items A.5 - A.7. On January 13, 1981, the

Commission considered the arguments contained in the Committee

response, and reaffirmed their initial determination that the . allocations and resulting amended reports are required. Since, this

allocation results in a matching fund repayment determination (see

Section III.B.3 below), pursuant to 11 C.F.R. Section 9038.2(b) the

candidate may. submit additional legal or factual materials to demonstrate that the allocations are not required within 30 days of

receipt of this report.

8. Availability of State Expenditures Limitations

, ,. In addition, in its response, the Committee

reiterated their position that in order to effectively campaign'

in the early primaries, actual campaigning was necessar~severa1

months prior to the publication of the state expenditure 1imita-'

tions. Therefore, in order to comply with the spirit of the law,

a Committee consultant from Peat, Harwick and Mitchell on February.

1, 1980, estimated the state limitations by using the 1978 voting

act population figures, and the 1979 inflation factor or 13.3%.

The Committee's estimates were higher than the actual limitations,

and if considered, would reduce the excessive. total of expenditures

by $13,759.72. 2/

In its December 11, 1980 response the committee

-stated .that travel by national headquarters staff to a particular

state is not justification for allocating a portion of their

salaries to that state. According to the committee, national er;r-le~:~_'\~ "',tll\o -'"bcll'~~l-ar.e-j.J'lv.~lV'Gd·.w:i,t.lu·.not.i.Gnac].. -eaI!l~ai<}R ..ac.tivity. __ ...... _.,_ even when traveling from state to state. However, the Audit staff

allocated a portion of these salaries since it is reasonable to . assume that travel of headquarters staff to a particular state

would involve work related to that state • •

;"" ...

-

•

•
r-

-7-

B. Excessive Contributions From Registered Committees

Section 44la(a) (1) (A) of Title 2 of the United States

Code states that no person shall make contributions to any

candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to

any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed

$1,000. Section 431(11) in part, defines the term person to

include a partnersh~, committee, association, corporation, or

any other organization or group of persons.

In reviewing contributions received by the committee

from other committees, the Audit staff identified three (3)

contributions in excess of $1,000 which according to the

Commission's Reports Analysis Division, were from committees that

were not qualified as multi-candidate committees under Section

44la(a) (4). The Committee was notified, and refunded the excessive

portion of 2 contributions totaling $4,000. At the final date of

fieldwork, the excessive portion ($1,000) of the remaining

contribution had not been refunded.

The Committee_has stated that upon receipt of these

transfers, inquiry was made to the Commission's Office of Public

Records as to the status of the transferring committees, and were

informed that they were qualified as multi-candidate committees,

which would allow the receipt of contributions up to $5,000 from

these Committees.

The Audit staff recommended that the committee refund

the excessive portion of the remaining contribution from the

unqualified committee, and provide copies of the cancelled check

(front and back) for verification.

On December 11, 1980, the Committee responded that a

form signed by the unqualified committee allowing for the transfer

of the excessive portion of the contribution from the primary

committee to the General Election Compliance Fund had been

misplaced. Pending receipt of a duplicate copy of that letter,

the Committee reported the excessive contribution as a debt owed

to the unqualified Committee.

Recommendation

The Audit staff recommends no further action on this matter.

C. Disclosure of Earmarked Contributions

Section 434(b) (3) of Title 2 of the United States Code

states, in part, that each report under this section shall disclose

the identification of each person who makes a contribution to

the Committee during the reporting period, whose contributions

have an aggregate amount or value in excess of $200 within the

calendar year, together with the date and amount of any such

contribution.
-8-

Section 104.3(a) (3)(iv) & (4) (iii) of Title 11 of the

Code of Federal Regulations states, in part, that an authorized

committee of a candidate for.Federal office shall report the total

amount of receipts received during the reporting period and during

the calendar year from committees. For all committees which make

contributions to the reporting committee during the reporting

period, the report shall identify the committee, the aggregate year-to-date total for such contribution, and the date of receipt

and amount of the contribution.

The Audit staff recommends no further action.

D. Itemization of Transfers

In reviewing-transfers made to the Committee, the

Audit staff identified. 31 transfers totaling $27,911 which were

reported by the transferring committees but not disclosed on

committee reports. The Committee was provided with a list of.

these transfers, and submitted documentation showing that some

Section 434(b) (2) (D) and 434(b) (3) (B) of Title 2 of the

United States Code states in part, that each report shall disclose the total amount of contributions from other political

committees, together with the identification of each political

committee which makes a contribution to the reporting committee

during the reporting period, including the date and amount of

any such contribution. .

Recommendation'

. ..

The Audit staff recommended that the Committee file an

amendment to the appropriate reports, itemizing the contributions

as, required.

On December 11, 1980, the Committee filed amended reports

properly reporting the noted earmarked contributions.

The Committee stated that many of the earmarked

contributions had been received without being noted by the con- . duits as being earmarked. -'

1'~ ..,',:

.....

_.

.. '~.

Section 110.6(c) (3) of Title 11 of the Code of Federal

Regulations states that the intended recipient of an earmarked

contribution shall disclose, on his next report, each conduit

through which an earmarked contribution passed •

•.t.-._." ....... ,- .·A..··reT~E!~--~-r-ept)r"'"~··ttl'e-ct7~!th~··'thlc:t~aera1.:··net:tlorc-':'----- ---_:

Commission by Committees reporting passage of earmarked contributions to this Committee identified 37 earmarked contributions

in excess of $200 which were required to be itemized with the

name of the conduit on the Committee reports. Of these contributions; 23 were not found itemized, and 13 were itemized without

being designated as earmarked, or identifying the conduit. - .
•

-

c'

--....,.

. 0.

-9-

had been reported erroneously as contributions under the treasurer's

name, some had been reported as earmarked contributions, and others

had not been received by the committee and were being referred to

the transferring committee for .a letter of explanation. At the

final date of fieldwork, two (2) transfers totaling $1,100 had not . been explained and were still being researched by the committee. ~~.

The Audit ~taff recommended that the committee amend

their reports to properly itemize the noted transfers. .

On December 11,1980, the Committee filed amended ScheduleA's to correctly disclose those transfers received.

Recommendation

The Audit staff .~ recommends no further action•

. E•.... Itemization of Expenditures:

. Section 434Cb) (5) CA) of Title 2 of the United State~

Code states, in part, that each report under this section shall

disclose the name and address of each person to whom anexpenditure in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $200 within

:the calendar year is made to meet a committee operating expense,'

together with the date, amount,. and purpose of such operating

expenditure•.

A review of Committee expenditures from the operating

and payroll accounts identified nine (9) expenditures totaling $125,105.40 which were not itemized on Committee reports. Seven

(7) of the expenditures were required to be itemized in the 1979

year-end report, and appear to have resulted from Schedule B-P

programming errors. Five (5) .of.theexpenditures were for with~

holding taxes related to legal and accounting payroll. Two (2)

were payments to a hotel for fundraising activities, and theremaining two (2)'were for hotel. and equipment rental. during the

convention. '.

Three (3) additional expenditures totaling $17,456.92

were incorrectly itemized .under a different vendor name.

Due to the programing errors identified ..wi th' the 1979

year-end report~ the Audit staff recommended that the Committee file

an amended 1979 year-end Schedule B-P, and an amendment itemizing

the two (2) convention related expenditures omitted from the

September, 1980 monthly report.

On December 11, 1980, the Committee filed an amendment

itemizing the noted expenditures~ The Committee did not file an

amended 1979 year-end Schedule B-P in its entirety as requested,

due to the computer costs involved with producing the expenditure

schedules.
•

,..~ P

~,

, "'.

-10-

Recommendation

It is the opinion of the Audit staff that the Committee has

materially complied with the Audit staff's recommendation, therefore, the Audit staff recommends no further action. .. ..... ......, .. ,- •._-..--• ... 'l·"P.- _..-.a - _-t--. __._ ...----_a__.__ ~_" '1.•"''':__' ,_ ~-._.:.. --'1-' .. :

F. Matters Referred to the Office of General Counsel

'Certain other matters noted during the audit were

referreQ to the Commission's Office of General Counsel for

consideration on 6ctober 3 and December lS; 1980. . , - -, - - .

III. Findings Related to Title 26 of the United States'Code

Determination of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations

and Repayment to the u.s. Treasury

A. Determination of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations

Section 9034.5(a) (1) and (b) of Title 11, Code of Federal ., Regulations requires that the candidate submit a statement of . net outstanding campaign obligations (NOCO) which contains, among

other items, the total of all outstanding obligations for qualified , campaign expenses and an estimate of necessary winding down costs

within 15 days of the candidate's date of ineligibility.

'Section 9038(b) (1) of Title 26 of the United States

Code provides that if the Commission determines that any portion of the payments made to a candidate from the matching payment··· . account was in excess of the aggregate amount of payments to .. which such candidate was entitled under Section 9034, it shall.

notify the candidate~ .andthe candidate shall pay to the Secretary

an amount equal to the amount of· the excess payments.

On August 13, 1980, President James.E. Carter's candidacy

.terminated for the purpose of incurring qualified campaign

expenses. ~/

Commission regulations at 11 C.F.R. Section 9032.6 provide

that the date on which a party nominates its candidate for

president is the end of the. matching payment period for a

candidate seeking the presidential nomination of that party.

11 C.F.R. Section 9033.5(c) provides that the last day of the

matching payment period is the date'ofineligibility for . candidates who have not previously been determined ineligible

pursuant to 11 C.F.R. Sections 9033.5(a) or (b). Since President

Carter was nominated as.the Democratic. Party's presidential - candidate at its national convention on August 13, 1980i that

date is the date of President Carter's ineligibility.
,~ .

.. '

.-.

-11-

At the final date of audit fieldwork, the Committee

had fiied statements of net outstanding campaign obligations

,from August 15, 1980 through September 28, 1980. During the

course of the audit, the Audit staff made necessary adjustments"

to the NOCO statement to reflect the candidate's cash position

as of September 28, 1980, and other adjustments to correct misstatements of the accounts receivable, accounts payable and

winding down costs (see Attachment 1).

The Committee represented its outstanding debts as

stated in the September monthly report to be the amount of outstanding accounts payable at September 28, 1980. Our audit of the

NOCO statement indicated that the accounts payable at September 28,

1980 was mis-stated partly as a result of the inaccurate disclosure

,of campaign debts on the September 30,,1980 Schedule C-P.September

monthly report. .

,As of September 28,' 1980,' the Commit tee's reported net

outstanding campaign obligations, as adjusted, totaled

$756,589.20. Based on--this outstanding debt, the Committee

received matching fund payments of $208,638.32. Therefore, as of

that time the Candidate has received no matchingfund,payments in

excess of his entitlement.

On November 6, 1980, the Commission determined that no . payments in excess of'the candidate's entitlement had been made.

B. "Apparent Unqualified Campaign Expenses

Section 9038(b) (2) of Title 26 of the United States

Code provides that if the Commission determines that any amount

of any payment made to a candidate from the matching payment

account was used for any purpose other than: to defray the

qualified campaign expenses with respect to which such payment

was made: or to repay loans the proceeds of which 'were used, or

otherwise to restore funds (other than contributions to defray

qualified campaign expenses which were received and expended)

which were used, to defray qualified campaign expenses: it shall

notify such candidate of the amount so used, and the candidate

shall pay to the Secr~tary an amouritequal to such amount.

Section 9032(9) (A) and (B) of Title 26 of the United

States Code defines a. qualified campaign expense as a purchase,

payment, distribution, loan advance, deposit, or gift of money

or of anything of value incurred by a candidate, or by his

authorized committee, in connection with his campaign for nomination or election: and neither the incurring or payment of which

constitutes a violation of any law of'the United States or the

statein'which the expense is incurred or paid.
-12-

•

...... " -

section 9038.2(b) of Title 11 of the Code of Federal

Regulations states that if the candidate deputes the Commission's

determination that a repayment is required, he or she shall be

given an opportunity to submit in writing, within 30 days of

'" ~e~.-:i;.~!- .o.! _~~e, ~2~~,..si~p~,~q~ti.r~t, .1.e.9t.~~~ ~~S- ~crac;';.~!_,~~~rial~. .. , _.. .. eo denlons~raee tna~ a repazlUen 1D no r~qu1re.

1. Payment of General Election Expenses By The

Primary Election Committee .

Section 9003.4(b) (4) (i) of Title li of the

Code of Federal Regulations states in part, that a candidate who

has received federal funding may borrow from his or her primary.

'election campaign an amount not to exceed the residual balance

projected to remain in the candidates primary account.

Prior to the candidate's nomination on August 13,

1980, the Committee made 12 expenditures totaling $5,947.82 for

'lodging, transportation, and other payments to individuals relating

to the General Election campaign. As evidenced by the Statement of

Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations filed as of September 28, 1980

(see Attachment 1), no residual existed from which funds could be

borrowed by the General Election Committee.

The Committee also made an additional 36 expenditures

totaling $21,183.73 which related to, or a portion of which related

to the General Election Campaign during the period 8/14/80 through

9/28/80. These expenditures were frequently identified in Committee

records as General Election related and consisted of consulting

fees, expense reimbursements, equipment rental, and advertising •

In lieu of repayment to the U. S. Treasury, the

Committee expressed a willingness to refund the $27,131.55 to

the primary campaign.

The Audit staff recommended that the Commission

determine that the $21,183.73. in general election expenses after,

the candidates date of ineligibility be considered non-qualified

campaign expenses, and that an equal amount be deducted from the

candidates remaining entitlement.

The Audit staff recommended that the Commission

determine that the $5,947.82 in General Election expenses prior

to the date of nomination are non-qualified campaign expenses, and

that an equal amount be repayable to the Secretary of the United

States Treasury~

!I Section 9003.4(b) (4) (i) was pending before Congress at the

time of the transactions and became effective on September 6, 1980.
-13-

On December 11, 1980,

written response to finding III.B.l.

following objections (summarized) to

tions:

the Committee presented a

in which they stated the

the Audit staff's recommenda- " "

• 1/1,.

-;. .

(..,

. ,

, Because the. General Election Regulations were

not effective until.September 6, 1980, the Committee was unable to

get definitive guidance from the Commission on possible funding of

General Election start-up expenses via primary funds. :

At the timethe.non-qualified expenditures

were made, the Committee was not in a position to accurately project

its residual net assets•

.The general election""expenditures made by the

primary committee represents loans that were substantially in

compliance with the regulations, with the exception that the

general election committee did not reimburse the primary." committee

'within the required 15 days• ---.. .

., ' - . The Commission's recommendation regarding these

expenditures is inconsistent with their treatment of the Ford

Committee in 1976 regarding legal services, when the Commission.

allowed reimbursement of the Ford Committee account by the . Compliance Fund.

.- , If the Commission does require relief, the "Committee urges that no distinction be made between pre- and post~·

nomination expenditures, and a reduction be made in matching fund'

entitlement for the entire amount of the unqualified campaign

expenses rather than require a repayment of $5,947.82 to the

Treasury.

Recommendation

On January 13, 1980, the Commission determined that the . $21,183.73 in general electioriexpenses after the candidate's date

of ineligibility are non-qualified campaign expenses, and that an,

equal amount will be deducted from the candidate's remaining

entitlement. '

On January 13, 1980, the Commission determined that the

$5,947.82 in General Election expenses prior to the date of nomination are non~qualified campaign expenses and that an equal amount is

repayable to the United States Treasury.

2. Payment of Parking Violations

The Audit staff identified Committee payments totaling $255.00 for parking tickets received during the campaign.
-14-

Recommendation

Repayment Summary

60.00

123,435.88

$129,443.70 ~/

••

~/ This amount is subject to change pending the disposition of

matters noted in II F above.

Total Repayment

Finding III B3 Expenditures In Excess of State

Limitation

Finding III B2 Payment 6f Parking Violations (pre ineligibility)

Finding III Bl General Election Expenses Paid By The

Primary Election Committee (pre ineligibility) $ 5,947.82

3. Expenditures In Excess of State Limitation

On January 13, 1980, the Commission determined that these

expenditures totaling $123,435.88 are non-qualified campaign

expenses, and that the amount be repaid in full to the United

States Treasury.

The Audit staff reviewed the Committee response

to the interim report on December 11, 1980, and did not find any

evidence that these expenditures totaling $123,435.88 should be

allocated other than. as determined by the Audit staff.

The Audit staff identified expenditures in excess

of the state limitations for Iowa totaling $53,477.12, for Maine

totaling $35,781.49, and for New Hampshire totaling $34,177.27 •.

(see Attachment 2)

On January 13, 1980, the Commission determined that the $255.00

in parki7_g citations are non-qualified campaign expenses, of which

$60.00 in tickets paid prior to the date of ineligibility is

repayable to the United States Treasury and $195 paid after the

date of ineligibility will be deducted from the candidat~'s

remaining entitlement.

Recommendation .

"" , ...... ,. • -~ ._-••'l'he-.eemmi..~tee.did-' no, ··.i:n«1.ucie--in-41is;-D~~8mber---l1,--_... _. 1980, response any evidence that the $255.00 in parking citations

are qualified campaign expenses.

Payments to a limousine service hired during the week of the

convention accounted for $195.00 of this amount. Of the tickets

·received, $60.00 was paid prior to the date of ineligibility and

$195.00 was paid after the date of ineligibility.

~.

Attachment 2

Expenditure Limitation State Allocation Summary

1/ No adjustment is necessary in the Maine expenditure total since the amount

- discussed in Finding II.A.6. is included in the original. Committee allocated

total above.

r· C (: (; ~. .;

'. .,

·Maine New Hampshire

original Committee $489,551.00 $271,550.00 -$283,686.00

Allocated Total

U.S. Treasurer 7,862.28 4,388.35. 2,185.86

Telephone 21,881. 20 -0- !/ 18,595.37

Media 783.09 15,7l7! 08 .. 157.15

Travel Expense 10,214.82 7,453.70 5,505.03

Reimbursements

Outstanding Debt 3,068.25 1,869.98 1,188.56

Other Vendors 8,145.27 29,902.65 7,909.08

Miscellaneous 1,852.81 ( 700.27) 9,350.22

Adjusted Total 543,~58.72 330,181.49 328,577.27

State Limitatipn 489,881. 60 294,400.00 294,400.00

Amount In Excess of $ 53,477.12 $ 35,781. 49 $34,177.27

Limit

Total In Excess Per FEC $123,435.88

•

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 II; SIRElY ~.w.

WASHINGTO~.D.c. lO4&j

...

•.

.,

....

."

l~ •

•

A1J)rrDJW. INRRUD:If BEGAlDlNG '1BIS 0lG6.NIZATIC.tI

!flY 1£ IDeATED IN A aJI'IZ1ED aHLWIZ AerIal

FJLE mJW§'D BY 'D1E AND MAlE PUBLIC IN

'DE PDBLIC J!XXlIS OFFICE. rca 'D1IS PABrIaUR

OlG6.NIZATIC.tI'S CDI'LElED CXHUARZ AC'rBB FILE

./J../ SDRY ISK IOl 'DE PlESS SIHMY (R Hlli /~~/O . l...x J

'DE PlESS stHUY WIlL P1IJVIIE A !lIEF RIsmRY OF

'D1E CASE AND A SIHMY (IF 'DE ACrICR; TAlCm. IF 1Bl•

• FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

\\'ASHI~GTON. 0 C 204&3

November 9, 1981

MEMORANDUM

Attached please find a copy of an Addendum to the Audit

Report of the Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc.,

which was approved by the Commission on October 22, 1981.

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

FRED EILAND

PRESS OFFICE

BOB COSTA -~~ PUBLIC ISSUANCE OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE

REPORT ON THE CARTER/MONDALE PRESIDENTIAL

COMMITTEE, INC.

i

I

I

i

!

t

Informational copies of the report have been received, and

this Addendum may be released to the public as of today, November

9, 1981.

,~ Attachment as stated

cc: FEC Library

RAD

/ Public Record

•
..

t-1El,,10RANDUM

TO:

THROUGH:

FR01-1:

SUBJECT:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

\\',"SHI'CTO~. 0 C 204&3

October 19. 1981

THE CO~n4ISSIONERS

B. ALLEN CLUTTER

STAFF DIRECTOR

BOB COSTA ~~

CARTER/I·10NDALE PRESIDENTIAL CO~U-1ITTEE, INC.

TELEPHONE ALLOCATION

. \.

I. Summary of Issues and Recommendation

On August 14, 1981 the Audit Division received from the

Carter/l·1ondale Presidential COr.'.mit tee, Inc. (" the Committee"),

documentation relating to long distance telephone calls made

from Iowa, :'1aine and new H&1\pshire to national headquarters

totalling $23,944. This documentation reduces the Committee's repai~ent for expenditures in excess of state limitations from

$122,236.96 1/ to $98,292.96. The Audit staff recommends that

the Co~ission approve the revised repayment amount, and send

the attached letter notifying the Committee of the Commission's

determination.

Further, it is recommended that this document be placed on

the public record as an addendum to the publicly released final

audit report.

II. Background

In response to the final audit report, the Committee

questioned the reasonableness of including as allocable to

state expenditure limitations, long distance telephone calls

made from a state to the national headquarters. On June 9, 1981

the Co~~ission reconsidered its previous determination, and dete~.ined that expenditures for calls emanating from a state

office ~o the national headquarters did not require allocation

!/ ~he final audit report contained a re?ayment amount for

expenditures in excess of state limitations of $123,435.88.

On ~une 9, 1981, the Co~~ission determined that national

staff pay~oll ~as exem?t from state allocation. Therefore,

the ~ou~t in excess of state limitations was reduced by $1,198.92 ~o $122,236.96.
...--------------------------------

•

r "

MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMISSIONERS

Page 2

to that state. On July 2, 1981, affected committees were info~(

by letter of the Commission decision, and provided 30 days in

which to submit an amended state allocation schedule along with

documentation supportinq the change in allocations. On July 29,

1981, the Committee requested and received an extension of time

to submit the material. On Auqust 14, 1981 the Committee provid'

the documentation for Audit staff review.

III. Support For The Recommendation

The Committee provided an amended state allocation schedule

copies of summary bills produced by the C&P Telephone Company,

and adding machine tapes (by telephone number) identifying i~dividual telephone calls to be exempted from allocation to the

states of Iowa, Maine, and New Hampshire. For verification, the

Committee provided Audit staff access to the original telephone

billings. The Audit staff sampled the material provided, and

found no material errors in the Committee's amended allocations.

Therefore, in the opinion of the Audit staff, the amount in

excess of. 'state expenditure limitations, and repayable to the U.

Treasury; should be reduced by $23,944.00, to $98,292.96 (see

Attachment 1).

IV. Staff Coordination

tr ..

•

A. Office of General Counsel

Review by the Office of General Counsel is not require
• ....

I 1 . ...., ,1 ., I t.. • . , Attachment •

I

Expenditure Limitation State Allocation Summary

(as of September 28, 1980)

Iowa Maine New Hampshire

Original Committee $489,551.00 $271,550.00 $283,686.00

ALlocated Total

u.s. 'l'rC:lsurcr 7,862.28 1.,388.35 2,185.86

Telephone 14,669.20 (7,579.00) 9,442.37

~Icdi.a 783.09 15,717.08 157.15

Travel 1~xpcn8e

Reimbursements 10,214.82 7,453.70 5,505.03

Outstanding Debt 3,068.25 1,869.98 1,188.56

Other Vendors 8,145.27 29,902.65 7,909.08

Miscellaneous 1,101.61 (827.83) 9.030.06

Adjusted Total $535,395.52 $322,474.93 $319,104.11

State Limitation 489,881.60 294,400.00 294,400.00

Amount In Excess of

Limit $ 45.513.92 $ 28,074.93 $ 24,704.11

- "

Total In Excess Per FEe $ 98,292.96
......'t.-04lV"'-~.....-.~

0° °0 (> 0 0 0

'0

o cI

0 0

" (JC 0"

0 0

,......--~--~''""'"'v--~.........-w-..-..~_~_~ __"' 00

o 0 Q()

o 0

o

,,'b 0

,-...--~-~-....,._~

:&1

o 0

> 0'

°0

0

0

'0

0 0

0

0

"0

"'0 0Q 0

00

o '6

'"" 0

0

~EC

l) DOCUMENT

SEPARATOR

o 0

0 0

o 0

o G'

O~j./ 0 0

o 0°

o