Federal 

Election 

Commission 

Annua1Report1983 

Federal Election Commission 

1325 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 
• 

Commissioners 

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman 

Thomas E. Harris, Vice Chairman 

Joan D. Aikens 

Danny L. McDonald 

John Warren McGarry 

Frank P. Reiche 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Benjamin J. Guthrie, Clerk of the House 

William F. Hildenbrand, Secretary of the Senate 

Statutory Officers 

John C. Surina, Staff Director 

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel 

The Annual Report 1983 was written and published by the Commission's Office of Publications. 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

June 1, 1984 

The President of the United States 

The u.s. Senate 

The u.s. House of Representatives 

Dear Sirs: 

We submit for your consideration the ninth 

annual report for the Federal Election 

Commission, as required by the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. 

The Annual Report 1983 describes the 

activities performed by the Commission in 

carrying out its duties under the Act. It 

also includes a number of legislative recommendations adopted by the Commission in 

March 1984. 

Respectfully, 

Chairman nb.t~ 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Introduction 1 

Chapter 1 

Presidential Public Funding 3 

Primary Matching Fund Program 3 

Convention Funding 5 

General Election Financing 5 

Disclosure 7 

Chapter 2 

Administration of the Election Law 9 

Assisting Committees 9 

Disclosing Information 10 

Clarifying the Law 18 

Monitoring the Law 24 

Enforcing the Law 24 

Clearinghouse Activities 26 

Chapter 3 

The Commission 27 

Commissioners and Staff Director 27 

Budget 27 

Internal Audits 29 

Personnel and Labor Relations 29 

Chapter 4 

Legislative Recommendations 31 

Appendices 

1. Biographical Data on Commissioners and 

Statutory Officers 43 

2. FEC Organization Chart 47 

3. Chronology of Events, 1983 49 

4. The FEC's Budget 53 

5. Statistics on Commission Operations 55 

6. Summaries of New Regulations 59 

7. Computer Indexes 69 

8. FEC Information Services 73 

9. Clearinghouse Studies 77 

10. FEC Federal Register Notices, 1983 79 
Introduction 

Four years after the passage of major amendments to 

the election law (in late 1979), the Federal Election Commission has entered into a period of stabilization. The 

Commission implemented the amendments through 

comprehensive regulations prescribed in 1980. During 

the past year, the agency has further refined its regulations and operating procedures to reflect the experience 

of two election cycles. The Federal election law has. thus 

become an accepted part of our political process and, in 

turn, the Commission is recognized as playing a necessary and continuing role in overseeing that law. During 

1983, this stable climate permitted the agency to give 

more attention to the informational needs of the public, 

while placing the final touches on preparations for another Presidential election. As a result, the Commission 

anticipates that its administration of the 1984 elections 

will be the smoothest thus far. This report describes 

those preparations, the agency's outreach efforts and its 

ongoing administration of the election law in 1983. 

In the area of public funding for the 1984 elections, 

the Commission revised its regulations and internal procedures, instituted an outreach program for Presidential 

campaigns, certified candidates' eligibility for primary 

matching funds, developed a computer index on major 

Presidential candidates and clarified its position on related legal matters. These are the developments reported in Chapter 1 ; revised public funding regulations 

and other new regulations are summarized in Appendix 

6. 

Chapter 2 examines the Commission's overall administration of the election law, including its outreach efforts, 

revisions to non-Presidential regulations, statistics on the 

1980 Congressional elections and legal issues that 

arose dt,.~ring 1983. 

Internal administration is the subject of Chapter 3. 

Here the report discusses budgetary matters, staffing 

trends, internal audits and the Equal Employment Opportunity program. Biographies of the Commissioners 

and statutory officers (Appendix 1), charts on the agency's budget (Appendix 4) and statistics on each division's 

operations (Appendix 5) supplement the material in 

Chapter 3. 

The Commission's recommendations for legislative 

change are listed in Chapter 4. 
3 

Chapter 1 

Presidential Public Funding 

During 1983, the Commission completed preparations 

for the 1984 Presidential elections. The agency had begun to refine the public funding program in 1982, when 

it prepared revisions to regulations on the primary 

matching fund process, expanded its publications for 

Presidential primary candidates and approved new Presidential reporting forms. 

Continuing these efforts in 1983, the agency adopted 

revisions to regulations on general election financing, 

updated rules on the funding of national nominating conventions and made other, smaller adjustments to finetune the 1984 public funding program. 

With procedures in place, the Commission began to 

implement the program, approving candidates' eligibility 

to receive primary matching funds. At the same time, the 

Commission dealt with two issues which had emerged 

from the 1980 Presidential elections: independent expenditures and the repayment of public funds to the U.S. 

Treasury. 

Primary Matching Fund Program 

Revised Regulations 

On January 24, 1983, the Commission forwarded to 

Congress revisions to regulations governing the payment 

of public money in the form of matching funds to Presidential primary candidates. 1 The revised regulations clarified and simplified administration of the primary 

matching fund program. The Commission had drafted 

the revisions with three purposes in mind: to clarify provisions which had caused uncertainty in the past; to 

provide a fuller explanation of certification, audit and repayment procedures; and to cover other aspects of the 

Presidential primary process not previously addressed 

in the regulations. (Major provisions of the regulations 

are summarized in Appendix 6.) The proposed rules 

were published in the Federal Register on February 4, 

1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 5224) and prescribed by the Commission on April 4, 1983. 

' Partial public funding is available to qualified Presidential 

primary candidates in the form of matching funds. Up to $250 of an 

individual's contribution(s) may be matched with Federal funds. 
4 

Outreach 

During 1983, the Commission initiated an outreach program to assist Presidential primary candidates in complying with the election law. Similar to a program 

successfully conducted in 1980, the outreach effort centered around two publications developed and revised by 

the Commission's audit staff. The Guideline for Presentation in Good Order explained the entire matching fund 

process, providing step-by-step instructions for preparing 

matching fund submissions.2 The Financial Control and 

Compliance Manual offered comprehensive guidelines 

for accounting, budgetary and reporting systems (see 

the Annual Report 1982, pages 23-24). 

Supplementing these aids, the auditors - each assigned to work with a particular campaign - answered 

questions on the telephone, met with campaign representatives to advise them on Commission procedures 

and were generally available to assist campaign staff in 

complying with statutory requirements. By encouraging 

sound recordkeeping systems early in the election cycle, 

the agency hoped to smooth the way for Commission 

audits, which are statutorily required of all publicly funded 

campaigns. 

Certification of Matching Funds 

Democrats Alan Cranston and Walter Mondale were the 

first Presidential candidates who established eligibility to 

receive matching funds for their 1984 primary campaigns. The Commission approved their eligibility in April 

1983, after auditors had thoroughly reviewed the 

"threshold submissions" made by the candidates in January. (The Commission had decided, in February, to 

postpone taking action on requests for matching funds 

until after the revised primary regulations had become 

effective.) Later in the year, Reubin Askew, Gary Hart, 

John Glenn and Ernest Hollings also became eligible for 

matching funds. 

Under the election law, a candidate may submit documentation to establish his or her eligibility for matching 

funds (i.e., a "threshold submission") the year before the 

primaries are held. The threshold submission shows that 

2 These submissions are requests for matching funds; they 

contain lists of contributors with accompanying documentation to 

demonstrate that the contributions qualify for matching payments 

from the U.S. Treasury. 

the candidate has satisfied the requirements for eligibility. To be eligible to receive matching funds, a candidate 

must first raise in excess of $5,000 in each of 20 States 

(i.e., over $100,000 in contributions). Only contributions 

from individuals apply toward this threshold. Although an 

individual may contribute up to $1 ,000 to the candidate, 

only a maximum of $250 counts as a matchable contribution, applicable to the $5,000 threshold. To be eligible 

for matching funds, the candidate must also agree to 

comply with the provisions of the election law, including 

the limits set on campaign spending. 

Once their eligibility had been established, 1984 candidates continued making matching fund submissions for 

Commission review. Audit staff evaluated the submissions, using statistical sampling techniques to see if the 

requests contained proper documentation. Auditors 

found that the 1983 submissions had a very small percentage of errors, only 1.1 percent overall. The Commission attributed the low error rate to both its successful 

outreach program and the knowledge which campaign 

staffs had gained from past elections. 

In December 1983, the Commission certified matching 

fund payments totaling $7,n1 ,960.41 to six eligible candidates. Because, under the election law, candidates 

may not receive actual payment from the U.S. Treasury 

until after the election year begins, the six candidates 

received their funds on January 3, the first working day 

of 1984. 

The table below lists the eligible candidates and the 

amount of matching funds certified to each during December 1983. 

Amount 

Certified in 

Candidate 1983 

Reubin Askew $ 773,274.96 

Alan Cranston 1,161,223.55 

John Glenn 1,579,344. 75 

Gary Hart 580,417.18 

Ernest Hollings 552,159.11 

Walter Mondale 3,125,540.86 
5 

Repayment of 1980 Matching Funds 

The election law requires the Commission to audit all 

publicly funded campaigns to ensure that they have 

complied with the law's provisions. Based on audit findings, the Commission may determine that a campaign 

must repay public funds. For example, a campaign must 

repay public funds if it exceeds a State spending limit. 

Insufficient documentation for expenditures and unlawful 

use of public funds may also cause the Commission to 

require repayments. 

Several 1980 campaigns filed suits challenging the 

Commission's repayment determinations. The Carter/ 

Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc. asked the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review 

the Commission's decision requiring the Committee to 

repay funds. (Under the election law, committees seek 

judicial review of agency actions related to their public 

funding by filing a petition with the District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals within 30 days after the Commission's 

disputed action. 26 U.S.C. Section 9041(a).) The court 

ruled, however, that because the Carter/Mondale Committee had filed its petition late, i.e., after the 30-day 

period, the court had no jurisdiction over the petition. 

Therefore, it dismissed the case on June 24, 1983, without addressing an issue raised by the Committee. The 

Committee had challenged the Commission's view that 

26 U.S.C. Section 9038(b)(2) requires a campaign to 

repay 100 percent of any funds used for nonqualified 

campaign expenses. 

The campaign committees of President Reagan, Edward Kennedy and Lyndon LaRouche also asked the 

D.C. appeals court to review the Commission's decisions 

requiring the repayment of 1980 matching funds. Those 

suits, filed during 1983, had not been resolved at the 

year's end. 

In the case of John Anderson's 1980 primary campaign, however, the Commission decided to return funds 

previously repaid by the campaign. Basing its decision 

on several repayment determinations made with respect 

to President Reagan's campaign, the agency concluded 

that it had required the Anderson campaign to repay an 

excessive amount. The Commission therefore certified 

$44,485.65 to the campaign on September 29, 1983, 

bringing Mr. Anderson's total public funding for the primary campaign to $2,320,809.48. 

Convention Funding 

The Commission certified public funds for the 1984 Presidential nominating conventions of the major parties and 

made technical revisions to the regulations on convention financing. 

In July 1983, the Republican and Democratic parties 

each received a public grant of $5,871 ,000 for their convention committees. The payments consisted of a $3 

million entitlement adjusted to include the cost-of-living 

increase calculated from the base year, 1974. Because 

a convention committee may receive public funds in the 

year preceding the convention, the Commission's certifications reflected the 1982 cost-of-living adjustment. 

The agency planned to certify additional funds in 1984, 

once figures became available for the 1983 cost-of-living 

adjustment. 

The convention committee entitlement was increased 

from $2 million to $3 million (plus cost-of-living adjustment) by the 1979 amendments to the election law. The 

Commission's technical revisions to its convention regulations, prescribed on July 21, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 

33244), included this change as well as a recordkeeping 

modification stipulated in the 1979 amendments. (Appendix 6 contains a summary of these changes.) 

General Election Financing 

Revised Regulations 

Once the Commission completed work on the rules for 

primary election funding, it turned its attention to the area 

of general election funding and, in April 1983, published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register seeking comments on the drafted changes. In response to suggestions received from the public, the 

agency modified the proposed rules, which were then 

transmitted to Congress on July 1 and published in the 

Federal Register on July 11 ( 48 Fed. Reg. 31822). 

Like the new rules governing primary matching funds, 

the general election regulations contained revisions 

prompted by the Commission's past experience in administering the 1980 public funding program. The new 

rules incorporated three major areas of change. 

First, they clarified existing rules. For example, the 

revisions spelled out in detail the types of expenditures 
6 

that would be considered qualified or nonqualified campaign expenses. (Campaigns accepting Federal funds 

must use them exclusively for qualified campaign expenses.) 

Second, the new rules contained procedures which, 

while not previously stipulated in the regulations, had 

guided Commission operations in past Presidential elections. One such example was the new section that fully 

explained procedures for conducting the statutorily mandated audits of publicly funded campaigns and for preparing audit reports for public release. 

Third, the new rules incorporated changes made to 

the primary matching fund regulations in order to ensure 

consistent procedures under both types of public funding. For example, the general election rules stipulated 

that the Commission could grant an oral hearing to campaigns contesting a repayment determination - an addition based on the primary regulations. 

The Commission prescribed the new general election 

regulations on October 27, 1983. (Major provisions are 

highlighted in Appendix 6.) 

Independent Expenditures 

At issue in a number of 1983 court cases and advisory 

opinions3 was the provision in the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund Act - Section 9012(f) - which places 

a $1 ,000 limit on spending by political committees to 

further the election of a Presidential nominee receiving 

public funding in the general election. The constitutionality of the $1 ,000 limit, as applied to independent expenditures by political committees,4 had been tested in 

the courts in 1980, when the consolidated cases Common Cause v. Harrison Schmitt and FEC v. Americans 

for Change were filed. In September 1980, the district 

court had ruled that Section 9012(f) was unconstitutional 

as applied to the activities of three committees - Americans for Change, Americans for an Effective Presidency 

•For an explanation of the term "advisory opinion," see footnote 

16 on page 20. 

•An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a 

communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 

clearly identified candidate that is not made with the cooperation or 

prior consent of, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or 

his authorized committees or agents. Independent expenditures, 

except those that come under Section 9012(f), may be made in 

unlimited amounts. 

and Fund for a Conservative Majority. The committees 

had planned to spend large sums making independent 

expenditures in support of then Presidential candidate 

Ronald Reagan. 

The Commission appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which, in January 1982, voted 4 to 4, thus 

affirming the district court decision, with Justice Sandra 

O'Connor not participating.s However, since a matter decided by an equally divided Court has no precedential 

value, the constitutionality of Section 9012(f) remained 

unresolved. 

1983 Advisory Opinions. With the approach of the 1984 

Presidential general election, the Fund for a Conservative Majority (FCM) and the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) asked the Commission 

in advisory opinion requests whether they could spend 

over $1 ,000 in independent expenditures to support 

President Reagan's general election campaign, assuming he would be the Republican nominee and would 

receive public funding. 

In Advisory Opinions (AOs) 1983-10 and 1983-11 

(identical opinions since the committees' requests were 

the same), the Commission ruled that the limit imposed 

by Section 9012(f) would apply to the proposed expenditures. 

The opinions cited the actual language of the provision, which states that: "it shall be unlawful for any political committee which is not an authorized committee 

with respect to the eligible candidates [i.e., eligible to 

receive public funds] of a political party for President and 

Vice President...knowingly and willfully to incur expenditures to further the election of such candidates, which 

would constitute qualified campaign expenses if incurred 

by an authorized committee of such candidates, in an 

aggregate amount exceeding $1,000." 

The Commission reached its conclusion by applying 

the terms "eligible candidate" and "qualified campaign 

expense" to the committees' proposed independent expenditures, as described in their requests. Because the 

expenditures would further the election of an eligible 

Presidential candidate (if President Reagan were the Re-

•26 U.S.C. Section 9011 (b) p·rovides for expedited handling of 

constitutional challenges to the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund Act and a right of direct appeal to the Supreme Court. 
7 

publican nominee and received public funds), and because the proposed expenditures would constitute 

qualified campaign expenditures if made by the Reagan 

campaign, the expenditures would be subject to Section 

9012(f) and the $1 ,000 limit. 

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens dissented to AOs 1983-

10 and 1983-11 , stating that she did not believe the 

provisions of 9012(f) applied to political committees making independent expenditures. She supported her opinion with references to court cases, legislative history and 

past Commission documents. 

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott concurred in AOs 1983-

10 and 1983-11. She stated that, although in her opinion 

"9012(f) is an unconstitutional restriction upon the political committee's First Amendment right of free speech ...! 

am required to defer to the plain meaning of the statute 

and agree with the conclusion reached by the majority 

of the Commission ...." 

In another request, NCPAC asked the Commission 

whether the committee could exceed the 9012(f) limit if 

its proposed independent expenditures were made to 

oppose the 1984 Democratic nominee. In its response, 

AO 1983-20, the Commission said that expenditures 

made to defeat the Democratic nominee would necessarily further the election of the Republican nominee. 

The proposed negative expenditures would, under Section 9012(1), be limited to $1 ,000 if the Republican nominee accepted public funds. 

1983 Litigation. The debate over Section 9012(f) was 

resumed in the courts as well. On May 16, 1983, the 

Democratic Party of the United States filed suit against 

NCPAC and FCM in the U.S. District Court for the Eastem District of Pennsylvania. The Democratic Party alleged that the defendant committees had made, and 

intended to make, expenditures in violation of Section 

9012(1). The Commission then intervened, seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that the agency had 

exclusive primary jurisdiction over civil enforcement and 

that the Democratic Party lacked standing to bring suit. 

At the same time, the Commission filed its own suit, 

FEC v. NCPAC and FCM, asking a three-judge panel of 

the Pennsylvania district court to declare that the independent expenditures exceeding $1 ,000 which NCPAC 

and FCM planned to make on behalf of the Republican 

nominee would be prohibited by Section 9012(f). The 

Commission also asked the court to rule that Section 

9012(f) is constitutional. On June 22, the three-judge 

court consolidated the two cases. 

In response to the FEC's filing, FCM filed a petition on 

June 16 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to give "force and effect" to its 

1980 ruling (see above) that Section 9012(f) was unconstitutional. FCM wanted the court to order the Commission to drop its suit against FCM and NCPAC in the 

Pennsylvania court, to withdraw AO 1983-11 (discussed 

above) and to issue a new opinion approving FCM's 

proposed independent expenditures in excess of $1 ,000. 

On October 19, the D.C. district court denied FCM's 

petition and dismissed it with prejudice. The court stated 

that, because the constitutional issue of Section 9012(f) 

remained unresolved as a result of the Supreme Court's 

equally divided 1982 decision, the Commission must "retry the legal issue" until "it is finally settled by the Supreme Court." 

A few months later, the three-judge district court in 

Pennsylvania issued a decision in the consolidated Democratic Party and FEC cases. On December 12, 1983, 

the court ruled that the Commission could not enforce 

Section 9012(1), basing its decision on the Supreme 

Court's 1976 opinion in Buckley v. Valeo (which dealt 

with various constitutional challenges to key provisions 

in the Federal election laws). The Pennsylvania court 

said the Buckley opinion allowed "restrictions on true 

campaign speech only to prevent corruption or its appearance." The court, however, concluded that "plaintiffs 

had produced virtually no evidence of actual corruption 

and little admissible evidence of the appearance of corruption." In the court's view, "modest expenditures by 

political committees [such as the defendant committee]...have almost no potential to corrupt or to create the 

appearance of corruption .... " The Commission immediately asked the Supreme Court to review the decision. 

Disclosure 

New Presidential Computer Index 

In November 1983, the Commission introduced a new 

computer index that provided a concise summary of the 
8 

financial activity of major Presidential campaigns. The 

1984 Presidential Campaign Summary Report was designed to extract information from reports filed by Presidential campaigns and to adjust numbers to reflect 

actual amounts raised and spent. For example, the index 

listed total contributions from individuals, minus any refunds made to those contributors, and total operating 

expenditures, minus any refunds or rebates. Although 

researchers could still refer to the Presidential reports if 

they wanted information on specific contributors or vendors, they would no longer have to leaf through reports, 

calculating offsets to gross totals. 

Presenting totals on a campaign-to-date, rather than 

a year-to-date basis, the index listed additional data, including total matching funds received, amounts spent on 

exempt legal and accounting services and total campaign expenditures subject to the overall spending limit. 

The Commission planned to update the index after 

campaigns filed their 1983 year-end reports in January, 

and to continue revising it as campaigns filed the required monthly reports during 1984. Moreover, the 

agency expected to release more extensive data on 

Presidential candidates as part of its Reports on Financial Activity - the series of statistical studies issued 

periodically during an election cycle. The Presidential 

Reports would be released monthly beginning early in 

1984 and would not only provide cumulative totals, but 

would also present data by reporting period to show the 

progress of Presidential campaigns through the election 

year. 

Nonfilers 

The Commission amended its policy for sending mailgrams to committees which fail to file reports. The revised Directive No. 1, effective April 21 , 1983, clarified 

existing wording and included new language to cover 

Presidential committees. (All political committees receive 

prior notices reminding them of upcoming reporting 

deadlines; however, only the principal campaign committees of candidates receive mailgrams if they fail to file 

reports.) 

The Directive stipulated that, during an election year, 

only those Presidential principal campaign committees 

which are required to file on a monthly basis (i.e., those 

with financial activity exceeding $100,000) would receive 

nonfiler mailgrams if they failed to file monthly, pre-election or post-election reports. 
9 

Chapter 2 

Administration of 

the Election Law 

This chapter discusses new developments in the Commission's administration of the election law in areas other 

than public funding. Opening with a description of the 

agency's regional conferences and other outreach efforts, the chapter continues with details on the public 

disclosure program, including statistics on the 1982 Congressional elections. Next, the chapter reports on new 

regulations and advisory opinions, which helped to clarify 

the law, and proceeds with a summary of the agency's 

work in monitoring the law. After examining the agency's 

enforcement activities and legal issues arising from litigation and compliance cases, the chapter closes with an 

overview of activity in the Commission's Clearinghouse 

on Election Administration. 

Assisting Committees 

The Commission intensified its outreach efforts in 1983 

in anticipation of the increased activity during a Presidential election cycle. Five regional conferences spearheaded the outreach program, supplemented with new 

publications and staff appearances at other functions. 

Supporting this effort, the Commission continued to provide immediate assistance to candidates and committees by responding to information calls on its toll-free 

telephone lines. 

1983 Regional Conferences 

In cooperation with State and local election jurisdictions, 

the FEC cosponsored five regional conferences attended by more than 2,000 people. Held between September and December in major cities across the country, 

the conferences featured a wide range of workshops 

under two major categories - campaign finance and 

election administration. The conferences achieved a 

number of Commission goals. 

First, the Commission was able to provide technical 

assistance and information to a significant number of 

people involved in campaign finance and election administration. By keeping them informed, the Commission 

hoped to promote voluntary compliance with the election 

law. Moreover, the conferences afforded the Commission an opportunity to brief participants on the extensive 

1983 changes to regulations (see pages 18 and 59). 

Second, recogn~zrng that people who live outside 

Washington are unfamiliar with the Commission's information services, the agency used the conferences to 

publicize the assistance it offers to candidates, committees, researchers and those in election administration. 

In addition to informing conference participants about the 

toll-free information number, publications and other services, the conferences educated people throughout the 

country on the use of the Commission's public records 

facility and the diverse computer indexes on campaign 

finance information. In conjunction with the conferences, 

twenty Secretaries of State each received a computer 

printout itemizing Federal activity within their respective 

States. 

Finally, the conferences gave Commissioners and 

staff the chance to learn first-hand about the needs and 

problems of those affected by the law. Using this experience, the Commission could reevaluate programs and 

provide better, more responsive services. 

The 1983 conferences were a cooperative effort between the Commission and State and local election 

boards. Responsible for administering the conferences, 

State and local election officials arranged hotel accommodations, meals and entertainment; selected banquet 

speakers; handled registration; and individualized the 

workshop schedule for those attending the conferences. 

The Commission, on the other hand, was primarily 

responsible for the conference workshops. Commission 

staff developed and presented 40 workshops, each supplemented by a variety of materials, including Commission publications prepared over the three years since the 

election law underwent major revision. 

Assisting Commission staff in teaching workshops 

were election officials from throughout the United States 

as well as representatives from several Federal agencies: the Justice Department, the Census Bureau, "the 

U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Defense Voting Assistance Task Force. 

Each of the two-day conferences offered participants 

a host of workshops from which to choose. Since up to 

four workshops were held simultaneously, the Commission scheduled repeats of several sessions. In some 

cases, the Commission conducted a series of three or 

four related workshops - called tracks - to enable 

participants to probe one topic in depth. For example, 
10 

the Corporate/Labor Track opened with a workshop on 

basics for newcomers, went on to cover communications 

and facilities - a workshop that included information on 

new regulations - then continued with a third workshop 

on raising money for PACs, and ended with a problemsolving workshop in which the audience actively participated. 

In addition to providing separate tracks of workshops 

for party committees, candidate committees and nonconnected committees (i.e., committees not established 

by any candidate, party or corporate/labor group), the 

conferences offered single workshops, including: Developing Standards for Voting Equipment, Federal/State 

Campaign Finance Issues, Use of Public Records, Election Case Law, Managing the Polls on Election Day and 

Providing Voter Information Services. Most participants 

selected workshops in both the campaign finance and 

election administration categories. 

The regional conferences were held in the following 

cities: 

• Midwest Regional 

Itasca, Illinois (Chicago area) 

• Northeast Regional 

Albany, New York 

• Southern Regional 

Charleston, South Carolina 

• Southwest Regional 

Tulsa, Oklahoma 

• Far West Regional 

Los Angeles, California 

Workshop evaluation forms completed by participants 

showed a decidedly favorable response to the conferences. This positive reception prompted the Commission 

to organize several State and local workshops for 1984. 

Though narrower in scope than the regional conferences, these State workshops would utilize FEC publications and programs initially developed for the regional 

conferences. Moreover, they would easily mesh with the 

agency's continuing speakers program. In 1983 alone, 

Commissioners and staff spoke on the campaign finance 

·law at some 65 meetings and functions held by a variety 

of organizations. 

Materials and Services 

The Commission introduced several publications in 

1983. In Election Results for the U.S. Senate and the 

U.S. House of Representatives, the agency published 

State-by-State voting results for the 1982 Congressional 

general elections, which were based on official figures 

from State election officers. Looking ahead to upcoming 

elections, the Commission compiled a list of Presidential 

and Congressional primary dates for 1984, also obtained 

from Secretaries of State. The list included filing deadlines for primary candidates seeking ballot access. 

In the area of the election law, the Commission expanded its Campaign Guide series with the 1983 publication of the Campaign Guide for Nonconnected 

Committees, directed toward political committees which 

are not affiliated with any candidate, party or corporate/ 

labor organization. The agency also added a new title to 

its brochure series, Public Funding of Presidential Elections. Designed for students, reporters and other m.embers of the general public, the brochure explained the 

basics of the public funtling system. Another new brochure, Free Publications, described the Commission's 

publications and included a mail-in form to order documents. 

Even while Commission regulations underwent major 

changes throughout the year, the agency continued to 

provide current regulations to all interested persons. Together with copies of published regulations,6 the Commission distributed a supplement which contained the 

most recent regulations. 

Disclosing Information 

Facilitating Disclosure 

Although 1983 was an off-election year, the public continued to show an active interest in campaign data, as 

evidenced by calendar-year totals for disclosure activity 

in 1983. For example, the agency filled 14,971 requests 

for campaign data, compared to 12,230 requests filled in 

1981, the previous nonelection year. The Commission 

also processed 480,449 pages of disclosure documents 

during 1983. The agency's press officers answered 

•Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations (11 CFR), 

published by the Federal Register, National Archives. 
11 

8,674 phone inquiries in 1983, significantly higher than 

the 6,161 calls received in 1981. The number of requests 

for information received under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which are handled through the Press 

Office, also demonstrated a continuing public interest in 

election-related activity. The office received 1 00 FOIA 

requests in 1983, second only to the 116 requests received in 1981. 

The number of reporters visiting the Press Office in 

1983 set a new record - 1,073 newsmen, well above 

the previous high of 858 set in 1981. This was partly due 

to the relocation of the Press Office to the street level, 

where reporters had easy access to Commission press 

staff as well as to the Public Records Office located 

across the hall. 

To provide better service to the public, the Commission purchased new equipment in 1983. The new stateof-the-art microfilm reader/printers - machines used to 

view and make copies of campaign finance reports and 

other microfilmed documents - were a considerable 

improvement over the old models. The agency also replaced photocopy machines used by the public and staff, 

and installed new computer terminals with high-quality 

printers that produced more legible statistical indexes 

than the old machines. 

Campaign Finance Statistics 

Beginning in 1981, the Commission periodically released 

statistics on the financing of the 1982 elections as new 

information was reported by political committees. 

In April 1983, only three months after committees had 

filed their year-end reports for 1982, the Commission 

issued statistics covering the entire 1981-82 election 

cycle in an interim Reports on Financial Activity (RFA). 

(The Commission publishes an RFA series for each twoyear election cycle; the series presents detailed statistics 

based on computer data entered from the financial reports filed by committees.) The April publication included 

data taken from committees' 1982 year-end reports, due 

January 31, 1983, and represented the earliest release 

of information on a complete election cycle ever provided 

by the Commission. While the interim RFA did not reflect 

all adjustments made by committees in their amendments to 1982 reports, the publication responded to the 

public's demand for a timely, comprehensive view of the 

1982 elections. 

After releasing the interim study, the Commission continued to revise its data base as it received committees' 

amendments to 1982 reports. These final changes were 

included in the RFA released in November 1983. (For 

the 1980 elections, the final RFA was not published until 

January 1982.) The companion computer tapes for the 

1982 elections, containing the same data as the final 

RFA, were available for purchase in December 1983. 

The statistics below are based on press releases 

which highlighted data taken from the final RFA for the 

1981-82 cycle and from an index summarizing independent expenditure activity for the cycle. 

Congressional Campaigns. 7 Following the pattern of 

previous elections, 1982 candidates outspent their 1980 

counterparts. In particular, winners in the general election raised and spent more than the 1980 winners. 

The 33 successful Senate candidates spent $68.2 million on their primary and general election campaigns, a 

70.5 percent increase over the $40 million spent by 1980 

Senate winners. The 1982 candidates gaining Senate 

seats raised a total of $70.7 million for their campaigns, 

an increase of 69.5 percent over total funds raised by 

their counterparts in the 1980 races. 

The House winners, 439 candidates, spent $114.7 

million on their primary and general elections, representing a 47 percent increase over the $78 million spent by 

successful House candidates during the 1980 cycle. 

Winning 1982 House candidates raised $123.1 million 

for their campaigns, 43.17 percent more than their counterparts in 1980 House races. 

The 472 successful candidates for Senate and House 

seats received more money from PACSS than losing candidates - 70 percent (or $58.4 million) of the $83.6 

million contributed by PACs went to the winners. Senate 

'Source: FEC press release of December 2, 1983. 

•PAC (political action committee) is a popular term used to 

define any political committee that has not been authorized by a 

candidate or party. The term includes a separate segregated fund 

sponsored by a corporation or labor union as well as a committee 

without a corporate or labor sponsor (i.e., a nonconnected 

committee). 
12 

winners received $15.6 million and House winners $42.7 

million. 

Moreover, total money raised and spent by all 1982 

Congressional campaigns (283 Senate candidates and 

1 ,957 House candidates) increased significantly over the 

1980 elections. Congressional campaigns raised a total 

of $354.7 million during the 1981-82 election cycle; this 

fundraising represented a 42.6 percent increase over 

funds raised for the 1979-80 cycle ($248.8 million). During 1981-82, Congressional campaigns spent $342.4 

million, an increase of 43.3 percent over the $239 million 

spent by 1980 Congressional campaigns. 

Campaign Receipts* 

of 1982 Congressional Candidates 

Running in General Elections 

1981-82 

Other Receipts** 

PAC Contributions 

Receipts 

.,

... 

8 

.!! 

0 

! 

~ 

i 

Winners 

Incumbents 

Democrats 

150 Republicans 

100 

Losers 

50 

Total money raised by 1982 House campaigns rose 

48 percent (from $144 million to $213.2 million), while 

their spending increased by 50 percent (from $136 million to $204 million). Senate campaigns increased their 

receipts by 35.1 percent (from $104.8 million to $141.5 

million), while their spending increased by 34.5 percent 

(from $102.9 million to $138.4 million). 

The graph below details receipts for the primary and 

general election campaigns of 1982 Congressional candidates running in general elections. 

Source: FEC press release of December 2, 1983. 

·Includes receipts for primary and general election campaigns of general election candidates received between January 1981 and 

December 1982. 

·•other campaign receipts include, for example, contributions from individuals, contributions from candidates to their own campaigns, 

contributions from other campaigns, loans, refunds and interest earned on investments. 
13 

Party Committees. 9 During the 1981-82 election cycle, 

Republican Party committees at the national, State and 

local levels raised and spent more than five times as 

much as Democratic Party committees and contributed 

three times more funds to Federal candidates. 

Of the $214 million spent by Republican committees, 

$5.6 million (or 2.6 percent) went for contributions to 

Federal candidates and $14.3 million (6.7 percent) was 

spent on coordinated party expenditures to benefit their 

nominees. 10 

By contrast, Democratic Party committees spent a 

total of $40.1 million, including $1.8 million (4.5 percent) 

in contributions and $3.3 million (8.2 percent) in coordinated expenditures. 

In comparing party activity over three election cycles, 

the Republicans showed substantially greater increases 

than the Democrats. The Republican Party raised $215 

million and spent $214 million during the 1981-82 election cycle - about a 30 percent increase over their 

activity during the 1979-80 cycle, which included Presidential activity. Democrats, on the other hand, raised 

$39.3 million, a 6 percent increase over the previous 

election cycle, and spent $40.1 million, a 14.5 percent 

increase. Contrasting money raised and spent during the 

1981-82 election cycle with 1977-78 election activity, Republican Party committees showed a 150 percent increase, whereas Democratic Party activity rose 49 

percent. 

Republican committees began the 1981-82 cycle (on 

January 1, 1981) with $6.7 million cash on hand and 

ended the cycle (on December 31, 1982) showing $7.5 

million cash on hand with outstanding debts of $5.3 million. Democratic committees started the cycle with $2.5 

million cash on hand and closed the cycle with a remaining cash balance of $1.5 million, with debts totaling $4.1 

million. 

PACs. 11 PACs contributed $83.6 million to 1982 Congressional primary and general election campaigns, a 

51.4 percent increase over the $55.2 million contributed 

to 1980 Congressional races. FEC figures showed that 

1982 Democratic Congressional candidates received a 

higher percentage of contributions from PACs than previously- 54.3 percent (or $45.4 million) of total PAC 

contributions compared with the 52.3 percent of total 

PAC contributions given to 1980 Democratic campaigns 

($28.9 million). 

By contrast, the percentage of PAC contributions given 

to the 1982 Republican candidates decreased. They received 46 percent ($38.2 million) of PAC contributions, 

whereas 47.5 percent of PAC contributions went to Republican Congressional candidates in the 1980 elections 

($26.2 million). 

The proportion of PAC contributions going to incumbents also increased when compared with previous elections. PACs gave incumbents campaigning for 1982 

reelection almost three and one-half times more money 

than challengers. Incumbents received 65.8 percent 

($55 million) of total PAC contributions to 1982 Congressional races, while challengers received 19.4 percent 

($16.2 million). The remaining 14.8 percent ($12.4 million) went to open-seat races. A comparable breakdown 

for the 1980 Congressional races showed that incumbents received 60.7 percent ($33.5 million) of total PAC 

contributions for Congressional elections; challengers, 

26.3 percent ($14.5 million); open-seat candidates, 13 

percent ($7.2 million). 

PACs raised $199.5 million during 1981-82, a marked 

increase over the $137.7 million raised during the 1979-

80 election cycle, which included a Presidential election. 

Total PAC spending also increased, from $131.1 million 

to $190.2 million. The 1981-82 total for PAC spending 

included $4 million given to Federal candidates to retire 

debts from previous campaigns or to defray expenses of 

future races and $6 million given to political parties. 

PACs opened the 1981-82 election cycle with $22.2 

million cash on hand and ended the cycle with a cash 

•source: FEC press release of December 3, 1983. balance of $31.5 million and outstanding debts of just 

•0 These expenditures, although made on behalf of candidates, 

do not count against contribution limits. They are, however, subject 

to spending limits. Both national party committees and State party 

committees are authorized to make coordinated expenditures for 

their Congressional candidates in general elections. 

"Source: FEC press release of November 29, 1983. (The term 

PAC is defined in footnote 8 on page 11.) 
14 

over $5.2 million. PACs closed the 1979-80 cycle with 

$22 million cash on hand and $2.3 million in debts. 

Tables 1 and 2 below list the PACs which raised the 

most money and made the most contributions to Federal 

candidates during the 1981-82 election cycle. The bar 

graph summarizes the financial activity of PACs during 

the period. 

Table 1 

Top 10 PAC Money Raisers 

1981-82 

Political Action Committee• Amount 

Raised 

1/81-12182 

National Conservative Political 

Action Committee $10,000,931 

National Congressional Club 9,742,494 

Realtors Political Action Committee 

(National Association of Realtors) 2,991,732 

Fund for a Conservative Majority 2,945,874 

American Medical Association 

Political Action Committee (AMA) 2,466,425 

National Committee for an Effective 

Congress 2,434,356 

Citizens for the Republic 2,415,720 

Committee for the Survival of a 

Free Congress 2,339,401 

Fund for a Democratic Majority 2,307,605 

Committee for the Future of America, Inc. 2,190,264 

Source: FEC press release of November 29, 1983. 

*The connected organization (i.e., sponsor) of a separate 

segregated fund is indicated in parentheses. 

Table 2 

Top 10 PAC Contributors to 

All Federal Candidates* 

1981-82 

Political Action Committee** Amount 

Contributed 

1/81-12182 

Realtors Political Action Committee 

(National Association of Realtors) 

American Medical Association Political 

Action Committee (AMA) 

United Auto Workers Voluntary Community 

Action Program (UAW) 

Machinists Non-Partisan Political 

League (International Association 

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) 

National Education Association 

Political Action Committee (NEA) 

Build Political Action Committee 

(National Association of Home 

Builders) 

Committee for Thorough Agricultural 

Political Education (Associated 

Milk Producers, Inc.) 

BANKPAC (American Bankers Association) 

Automobile and Truck Dealers Election 

Action Committee (Automobile Dealers 

Association) 

AFL -CIO COPE Political Contributions 

Committee (AFL-CIO) 

$2,115,135 

1,737,090 

1,628,347 

1,445,459 

1,183,215 

1,006,628 

962,450 

947,460 

917,295 

906,425 

Source: FEC Press Release of November 29, 1983. 

*Contribution figures do not include totals for independent 

expenditures made for or against candidates. See "Independent 

Expenditures," below. 

**The connected organization (i.e., sponsor) of a separate 

segregated fund is indicated in parentheses. 
Financial Activity of PACs 

1981-82 

Organizations 

Total Number of 1,557 420 915 669 51 110

Committees*** 

Number of Committees 1,317 293 407 524 46 78

Making Contributions 

----

50 ---------------------------

45 --------------------------

------- ------------

5-------------

Receipts*

Disbursements*

Contributions** 

Cash-on-Hand 

65 

&o--

55 ----

40 -- -..... 

35 

ao25 -------

20 --------

15 -------

10-------

o-----• 

ship/Health 

15 

Source: FEC press release of November 29, 1983. 

*Receipts and disbursements do not include funds transferred between affiliated committees. 

**Includes contributions to committees of 1982 House and Senate candidates as well as all Federal candidates (for House, Senate and 

Presidency) campaigning in future elections or retiring debts of former campaigns. 

***Includes total number of PACs active in Federal elections sometime between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1982. Since some 

committees terminated during the 1981-82 cycle, this figure does not represent total committees active as of December 31, 1982. 
16 

PAC Growth. 12 Although growing at a slower rate than in 

past years, the number of PACs continued to increase

during 1983. By January 1 , 1984, there were 3,525

PACs, an increase of 4.5 percent over the 3,371 PACs 

existing on January 1 , 1983. Commission figures

showed that yearly increases in PAC growth from January 1 , 1975, through January 1, 1984, averaged 22.3 

percent. However, between January 1975 and January 

1977, the number of PACs grew by 88 percent (from 608 

to 1 ,146). 

The graph below plots the growth of the different types 

of PACs between January 1 , 1975 and January 1 , 1984. 

•2 Source: FEC press release of January 20, 1984. The graph does not reflect the financial activity of PACs. 

Number of PACS PAC Growth* 

2000 

1000 

Nonconnected** 

500 

• • • • • Other*** 

1975 1976 19n 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 

Source: FEC press release of January 20, 1984. 

•The term PAC (political action committee) includes political committees not authorized by a Federal candidate or established by a 

political party . 

..From January 1975 through December 1976, the FEC did not identify categories of PACs other than corporate and labor PACs. 

Therefore, numbers are not available for Trade/Membership/Health PACs or Nonconnected PACs. 

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

PACs from January 1975 through December 1976. 
17 

Independent Expenditures. 13 Independent expenditures 

made to influence the outcome of 1982 Congressional 

races increased 146 percent over independent spending 

in 1980 Congressional races. A total of $5.75 million was 

spent independently on Congressional campaigns during 

1981-82, 14 while $2.3 million was spent during 1979-80. 

(Under the Federal election law, an independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication expressly 

advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

candidate. The expenditure must be made without cooperation or consultation with the candidate or his/her 

campaign.) 

More money was spent to defeat Congressional candidates (negative expenditures) in the 1981-82 election 

cycle than in the previous cycle. According to FEC data, 

80 percent (or $4.6 million) of money spent independently for 1982 Congressional elections advocated the 

defeat of some 90 House and Senate candidates, while 

20 percent was spent to support candidates. During the 

1979-80 cycle, 59 percent (or $1.4 million) of independent spending on Congressional campaigns went for negative expenditures against candidates. 

The total number of PACs, individuals and other 

groups making independent expenditures in the 1981-82 

cycle decreased. Altogether, 70 PACs, 7 individuals and 

17 groups reported independent spending. By contrast, 

during the 1980 elections, the breakdown for independent spending was 1OS PACs, 33 individuals and 80 other 

groups. However, most 1980 independent spending was 

made to influence the Presidential elections. 

Table 3 lists the political committees making the largest independent expenditures during 1981-82. Table 4 

shows the candidates for or against whom most money 

was spent. 

Table 3 

Committees Reporting Largest 

Independent Expenditures 

1981-82 

Political Committee• Spending 

For 

Candidates 

Spending 

Against 

Candidates 

Total 

Independent 

Spending 

National Conservative 

Political Action Committee 

Citizens Organized to 

$137,724 $3,039,490 $3,177,214 

Replace Kennedy 

Fund for a Conservative 

0 416,678 416,678 

Majority 

Life Amendment Political 

0 388,399 388,399 

Action Committee 

National Rifle Association 

Political Victory Fund 

36,455 219,055 255,510 

(NRA) 

American Medical 

Association 

Political Action Committee 

232,350 4n 232,827 

(AMA) 

Realtors Political Action 

Committee (National 

211,624 0 211,624 

Association of Realtors) 

Progressive Political Action 

188,060 0 188,060 

Committee 8,090 134,795 142,885 

Independent Action, Inc. 

League of Conservative 

0 132,920 132,920 

Voters 129,163 0 129,163 

Sources: 1981-82 FEC Index of Independent Expenditures 

and FEC press release of October 14, 1983. 

•The connected organization (i.e., sponsor) of a separate 

segregated fund is indicated in parentheses. 

13 Source: FEC press release of October 14, 1983. 

"A small portion of this spending was on 1980 races. These 

expenditures were included in the figures for 1981-82 because they 

were reported during that period. 
18 

Table4 

Candidates For or Against Whom Most 

Independent Expenditures Were Made 

1981-82 

Candidate Spending Spending Total 

For Against Independent 

Candldete candidete Spending 

Senate 

Edward Kennedy (0-MA) $ 500 $1,146,135 $1,146,635 

Paul Sarbanes (0-MD) 29,501 697,763 727,264 

Robert Byrd (0-WV) 9,184 270,749 279,933 

John Melcher (0-MT) 40,118 228,011 268,129 

Lloyd Bentsen (0-TX) 0 226,662 226,662 

Lowell Weicker (R-CT) 21,248 200,508 221,756 

Howard Cannon (0-NV) 0 192,801 192,801 

Edmond Brown (D-CA) 7,632 146,346 153,978 

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 22,081 82,772 104,853 

Harrison Schmitt (R-NM) 5,682 76,575 82,257 

House 

Thomas O'Neill (0-MA) 0 318,114 318,114 

Jim Wright (0-TX) 0 217,115 217,115 

Jim Jones (0-0K) 13,266 127,029 140,295 

Dan Rostenkowski (O-IL) 0 57,507 57,507 

Bob Edgar (0-PA) 24,762 8,943 33,705 

Bill Chappell (0-FL) 30,332 0 30,332 

Jim Dunn (R-MI) 24,013 5,500 29,513 

John Kasich (R-OH) 27,294 0 27,294 

Jim Coyne (R-PA) 25,019 1,681 26,700 

Edward Weber (R-OH) 17,442 5,500 22,942 

Sources: 1981-82 FEC Index of Independent Expendttures 

and FEC press release of October 14, 1983. 

Clarifying the Law 

Regulations 

The year 1983 saw the culmination of work on Commission regulations, which began two years ago. During 

1981 and 1982, the Commission had published Notices 

of Proposed Rulemaking, held hearings on certain regulations and, after considering suggestions from the public and Commission staff, refined and clarified drafted 

rules. 

With this preliminary, but time-consuming work completed, the Commission voted final approval of proposed 

regulations at the end of 1982 and during 1983. Once 

the 98th Congress had convened in 1983, the Commission began to submit rules for Congressional review. By 

the end of the year, the Commission had prescribed 

most of these regulatory changes. 

The first section below describes FEC procedures for 

prescribing regulations, as affected by a 1983 landmark 

decision by the Supreme Court. Subsequent paragraphs 

summarize regulatory changes approved or prescribed 

in 1983. (Rules related to public funding, however, are 

discussed in Chapter 1.) For a more detailed summary 

of the new regulations, see Appendix 6. 

Procedures for Prescribing Regulations. In response to 

the Supreme Court's June 23, 1983, decision in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 15 the 

Commission adopted a recommendation by the General 

Counsel regarding the agency's procedures for prescribing new regulations. (The Federal election law provides 

that the Commission must submit proposed rules to Congress and may prescribe them 30 legislative days later if 

neither the House nor the Senate disapproves them by 

a legislative veto.) On June 30, the Commission decided 

to continue to submit its regulations to Congress for review and to wait 30 legislative days before prescribing 

them. The General Counsel pointed out that the election 

law's provisions for prescribing regulations survived as a 

"workable administrative mechanism without the oneHouse veto." 

Advertising Notices. Approved in November 1982, pro-

"The Court held that the legislative veto provision in the 

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 was unconstitutional. 
19 

posed rules governing the notices required for publicly 

advertised political communications (Section 110.11 of 

the regulations) were transmitted to Congress on February 25, 1983, and prescribed by the Commission on 

May 13. The revisions clarified existing language and 

added new language to reflect situations not addressed 

in the previous rules. For example, they made clear that 

corporate and labor PAC solicitations are exempt from 

the notice requirements, which apply only to general 

public communications. (Corporate and labor PACs are 

not permitted to solicit the general public; they may seek 

contributions only from certain classes of individuals 

within the sponsoring organization.) The full text of the 

new regulations was published in the Federal Register 

on March 2, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 8809). 

Jointly Owned Property. In November 1982, the Commission voted to approve revised rules which addressed 

the issue of property and other financial assets jointly 

owned with a spouse or in which the spouse has some 

other legal interest under applicable State law. To the 

extent possible under the present election law, the new 

regulations relaxed previous rules which had created 

barriers against the use of assets held jointly with a 

spouse as security for a campaign loan. In addition, the 

revisions clarified rules with respect to community property States to ensure that assets are equally available 

for use in community property States and non-community property States. These new rules were transmitted 

to Congress on April 22, 1983, published in the Federal 

Register on April 27 (48 Fed. Reg. 19019) and prescribed on July 1. 

Transfers; Collecting Agents; Joint Fundraising. On 

June 2, 1983, the Commission transmitted to Congress 

revised rules governing transfers of funds, collecting 

agents and joint fundraising (Sections 102.6 and 102.17 

of Commission regulations). The revisions, prescribed on 

August 22, clarified the previous rules by making a distinction between two types of fundraising: joint fundraising - that is, election-related fundraising conducted by 

two or more committees - and fundraising by collecting 

agents- that is, fundraising by an organization (e.g., a 

corporation or union) on behalf of its affiliated separate 

segregated fund. 

The new rules provided a complete set of procedures 

for both kinds of fundraising. The Commission published 

the full text of these rules in the Federal Register on 

June 7 (48 Fed. Reg. 26296). 

Corporate/Labor Communications. In December 1982, 

the Commission had approved revised regulations on 

partisan and nonpartisan communications by corporations and labor organizations (Sections 114.3 and 114.4 

of Commission rules). The revisions were transmitted to 

Congress in March 1983, but the agency withdrew them 

in April to obtain further public comment. After receiving 

numerous written comments, the Commission held public hearings in August, at which 17 witnesses presented 

testimony. (This was the second set of public hearings 

on the communications rules; the first were held in 

1981.) 

The Commission then modified portions of the revised 

rules to incorporate these public comments and resubmitted the regulations to Congress on October 27, 1983. 

The revised rules were published in the Federal Register 

on November 2, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 50502) and prescribed on March 5, 1984. 

The revisions expanded previous rules by allowing 

corporations and labor organizations to distribute certain 

nonpartisan communications to the general public, including voting records of Members of Congress and 

voter guides describing candidates' positions on issues. 

The revised regulations also eased some of the requirements imposed on corporations and labor organizations 

when making partisan communications to their restricted 

class (i.e., those individuals within a corporation or labor 

organization who may receive partisan communications 

and solicitations to contribute to the organization's PAC). 

This was particularly true of the revised section on partisan appearances by candidates. 

Trade Association Solicitations. Under the election law, 

an incorporated trade association must obtain a written 

authorization from a corporate member before it may 

solicit the member's executive and administrative personnel and stockholders. The Commission, on October 

17, 1983, submitted to Congress new rules governing 

the solicitation authorization (Section 114.8 of the regulations). Under the previous regulations, a trade associ-
20 

ation had to receive approval from a member corporation 

every year. The new rules allowed a corporate member 

to authorize solicitations for several years in advance; a 

separate approval document was required, however, for 

each year approved. The Commission published the 

new regulations in the Federal Register on October 20, 

1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 48650) and prescribed them on 

February 9, 1984. 

Honoraria. On July 30, 1983, President Reagan approved an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (2 U.S.C. Section 441 i(b)) which had been included 

in legislation providing fiscal year 1983 supplemental appropriations for Federal agencies. Section 441 i prohibits 

Federal officers and employees from accepting more 

than $2,000 for an honorarium. The newly amended subsection exempted an honorarium, or any portion of it, 

from the $2,000 limit if the person receiving it, or the 

organization paying for it, donated the funds to charity. 

Under the former provision, the exemption applied only 

if the organization paying the honorarium gave it to a 

charitable organization selected from a list of at least five 

organizations submitted by the honorarium recipient. 

The Commission approved a technical amendment to 

its regulations on honoraria (Section 110.12(b)(5)), which 

embodied the legislative change. Since the conforming 

amendment was not a rule representing a Commission 

policy interpretation, it was not published for public comment but became effective on November 21 , 1983, when 

it was published in the Federal Register (48 Fed. Reg. 

52567). 

Advisory Opinions 

The Commission issued 44 advisory opinions (A0s)16 

during calendar year 1983 in its continuing effort to clarify the law through the advisory opinion process. Summarized below are several 1983 opinions which 

addressed new issues. 

Definition of Stockholder. The Commission issued two 

opinions in 1983 that provided guidelines for interpreting 

the term "stockholder" as defined in Commission regulations. Under the election law, a corporation and its PAC 

may solicit corporate executive and administrative personnel (and their families) and stockholders (and their 

families) as often as desired. Corporate employees who 

are not considered executive or administrative personnel 

may be solicited only twice a year; moreover, significant 

restrictions apply to these twice-yearly solicitations. The 

question raised by AOs 1983-17 and 1983-35 was 

whether employees, otherwise not solicitable as executives, could qualify as solicitable stockholders if they participated in a company stock ownership plan. 

In AO 1983-17, requested by the Idaho Power Company, the Commission said that certain employees participating in one of the company's stockholder benefit 

plans did meet the definition of stockholder, while other 

participants did not. All participating employees satisfied 

two of the criteria for stockholder status: they all had a 

vested, beneficial interest in the stock and the power to 

direct how the stock would be voted. However, only 

some employees fulfilled a third requirement: the right to 

receive dividends. 

Under the various benefit plans, the company automatically reinvested an employee's dividends in more 

shares. In order to receive dividends, an employee had 

to withdraw stock. The Commission concluded that unless participants in the company's plans actually withdrew stock, in spite of the restrictions, or had an 

unrestricted option to withdraw stock after satisfying the 

plan's requirements, the employees did not have access 

to dividends and therefore could not be solicited as 

stockholders. 

Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a concurring opinion to AO 1983-17 in which he stated that, while he 

agreed with the conclusion that employees eligible to 

withdraw shares were solicitable stockholders, he believed the AO should have extended the definition of 

stockholder to all employees participating in the plans. 

He argued: "Clearly, the right of these employees to 

receive dividends is irrevocably established as the stock 

•• Advisory opinions are issued to persons who raise questions 

about the application of the law or Commission regulations to a 

specific transaction that the requesting person proposes to 

undertake or continue. Any person who requests an advisory 

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

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

upon by another person involved in a specific transaction 

"indistinguishable in all its material aspects" from the activity or 

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

437f(c). 
21 

is set aside for them under either of these Plans. The 

only right which is withheld from them is the right to 

receive dividends as they are declared. Any dividends 

so declared will eventually be paid over to the employeestockholders...." 

In her dissenting opinion, Commissioner Joan D. Aikens also argued that all employees who participated in 

the company's plans satisfied the definition of stockholder. Citing the legislative history of the 1974 amendments to the election law, Mrs. Aikens contended that 

Senate conferees rejected an attempt to define the term 

stockholder, leaving the matter to the normal concepts 

of corporate law. Stating that participants in stock option 

plans qualified as stockholders under corporate law, the 

Commissioner further maintained that participants were 

"considered stockholders by the rules and regulations of 

other agencies," specifically the Internal Revenue Service. She concluded that the Commission's interpretation 

"relegates ... participants to the status of second-class 

stockholders," which was, in Mrs. Aikens' view, specifically contrary to Congressional intent. 

The other 1983 opinion on employee stock ownership 

plans, AO 1983-35, was requested by the Texas-New 

Mexico Power Company. The Commission decided that, 

under this company's plan, all participating employees 

would qualify as solicitable stockholders since, in contrast to the plans discussed above, the plan did not significantly impair an employee's right to receive dividends. 

Under the plan, although dividends were automatically 

reinvested, an employee could make partial withdrawals 

from his or her account, could continue making contributions after a withdrawal, and could withdraw all stock 

purchased for him or her by the company without having 

to terminate employment. 

Commissioner Thomas E. . Harris filed a dissenting 

opinion to AO 1983-35. He said that, although voting to 

approve AO 1983-17 (the Idaho Power opinion discussed above), "I now believe that to have been an 

erroneous course....[E]mployees who participate in an 

employee stock ownership plan are 'stockholders'...only 

if, inter alia, they have the right to receive dividends 

directly. Employees do not have that right, in my mind, if 

(1) the plan requires that dividends automatically be 

credited toward their account and reinvested in additional 

company stock and (2) they must withdraw stock...in 

order to receive dividends." He quoted from the legislative history of the 1976 amendments to the election law 

to establish his point that Congress did not intend "employees who are relatively restricted in terms of their 

rights and benefits vis a vis other stockholders to be 

within the permissible solicitable class." In Mr. Harris' 

view, Congress conferred upon such employees "a benefit under federal election law - freedom from real or 

potential employer coercion. It did this by exempting 

them from the solicitable class ...unless they meet certain 

definable criteria which place them on a par with regular 

stockholders." 

Bequest to Union PAC. In AO 1983-13, the Commission 

decided that the PAC sponsored by the National Maritime Union could accept a bequest of approximately 

$20,500 from a member who had died. Because the 

member's estate was considered his alter ego for the 

purpose of making contributions, the estate was subject 

to the same prohibitions and limits as the member's contributions would have been. Therefore, .the Commission 

said that the PAC could withdraw up to $5,000 a year 

(the maximum amount the member could have annually 

contributed) from the interest-bearing escrow account 

established by the PAC to hold the bequest. 

In his concurring opinion, Commissioner Reiche said 

that he agreed with the result reached by the Commission but did not agree with the reasoning behind the 

conclusion. He stated that the $20,500 gift exceeded the 

contribution limits of the election law: "The mere fact that 

the recipient of such contributions promises not to siphon 

off more than $5,000 in any calendar quarter does not 

mean that the value of this irrevocable gift did not exceed 

$5,000 at the time of the transfer." 

Mr. Reiche was also concerned about "the very real 

risk that deceased persons ...might play a significant role 

in future political campaigns .... The potential for solicitation of bequests and other forms of testamentary gifts is 

frightening in terms of permitting those who no longer 

have the capacity for analyzing political issues and candidates to have a meaningful voice in the process." 

In his last paragraph, the Commissioner reiterated his 

agreement with the conclusion reached in the opinion 

and stated that he did not think the political system would 
22 

be "greatly harmed by permitting the administration of 

the bequest" as described in the opinion. 

Commissioner Harris filed a dissenting opinion stating: 

"I agree with the views set forth in the concurring opinion 

of Commissioner Reiche - up to the final paragraph. 

However, it appears to me that his argumentation leads 

irresistibly to the conclusion that only $5,000 of the bequest may legally be received by the National Maritime 

Union's separate segregated fund." 

Disaffiliation Between PACs. The California Savings and 

Loan League asked the Commission whether its PAC 

could revoke its affiliated status with the PAC of the U.S. 

League of Savings Associations. (Under the election law, 

political committees established by a federation of trade 

associations, like the National League, and by its regional, State and local affiliates are considered affiliated 

committees. Affiliated committees share one contribution limit on contributions received and on contributions 

made.} 

The California League claimed that it was not an affiliated organization of the National League because its 

relationship with the organization was informal, its rules 

and policies were not affected by the National League 

and membership in one organization was independent 

of membership in the other. 

The Commission, however, concluded in AO 1983-28 

that the California League was one of the National League's officially recognized State affiliates and, as a result, 

their respective PACs were affiliated. The Commission 

based its decision on certain facts concerning the two 

organizations. The National League's constitution entitled the California League (and other recognized State 

leagues} to vote on issues and nominations at national 

meetings. Additionally, State leagues had special nomination rights to the National League's executive committee and board of directors. The Commission also pointed 

out that, when the criteria for affiliation exist and are 

applicable, affiliation between two committees is mandatory, not discretionary. 

Expenditures. In two 1983 advisory opinion requests, 

the National Conservative Political Action Committee 

(NCPAC} asked the Commission for guidance concerning the status of its payments for proposed activities. 

NCPAC first asked about the Constituent Congratulation Program it intended to produce and broadcast - a 

series of 30-second television messages congratulating 

certain incumbent Senators on their accomplishments in 

office. The Commission, in AO 1983-12, assumed that 

the featured Senators would be 1984 "candidates" under 

the election law. Although NCPAC contended themessages would be aired without regard to the Senators' 

reelection campaigns, the Commission advised that 

NCPAC's payments for the program would constitute expenditures made to influence elections. If coordinated 

with the Senators or their campaign agents, the payments would be in-kind contributions subject to the limits 

and other requirements of the election law. 

In support of its view that the payments were electionrelated expenditures, the Commission noted that: 

• NCPAC's status as a "political committee" under 

the election law and as a "political organization" for 

Federal income tax purposes supported the inference that the Congratulation Program was designed to influence 1984 Senate races; 

• NCPAC planned to air the messages during the 18 

months preceding the 1984 general election; 

• The content of the messages indicated that an election-influencing purpose predominated; and 

• The program did not appear to have any significant 

content that would distinguish it from election-influencing activity, such as content related to the duties 

of the officeholders. 

In a later request for an advisory opinion, NCPAC 

asked whether its planned expenditures on behalf of a 

Senate candidate would be considered independent 

expenditures17 if NCPAC and the Senate campaign both 

used the volunteer services of the same singer. The 

singer was to volunteer first for NCPAC fundraisers and 

later for the Senate campaign. 

In AO 1983-26, the Commission decided that 

NCPAC's proposed expenditures for the Senate candidate could still qualify as being independent as long as 

1} the singer's appearances at NCPAC fundraisers were 

not made in cooperation with, or with the prior consent 

of, the Senate candidate or his campaign; and 2} the 

11 The term independent expenditure is defined in footnote 4, 

page6. 
23 

artist received no form of compensation from the Senate 

campaign and had no other involvement with it. 

Commissioner Reiche filed a concurring opinion to 

state that his agreement with AO 1983-26 "should not 

be construed to reflect any change in my position 

on...appearances by entertainers in political campaigns. 

It remains my firm and unshakable belief that the volunteer services exception [contained in the election law] 

was not intended to cover a professional entertainer giving a performance and therefore that such a performance constitutes a contribution .... " (Mr. Reiche's 

previous dissents to advisory opinions concerning services volunteered by professional entertainers and artists are briefly summarized in the Annual Report 1980, 

page 35.) 

Reporting Payments Made by Contractor. In its request 

for an advisory opinion, Walter Mondale's campaign 

committee, Mondale for President, Inc., explained that it 

intended to engage in a contract with Consultants '84, 

Inc. for media-related services such as production of 

campaign advertising and the purchase of television and 

radio time and newspaper space. The Mondale Committee proposed reporting payments made to Consultants 

'84 as expenditures to a vendor, without further disclosing the payments made by Consultants '84 in its performance of the contract (for example, its payments to radio 

and television stations, newspapers, production studios). 

To fulfill its recordkeeping obligations under the law, the 

Mondale Committee planned to retain the contractor's 

invoices and the Committee's canceled checks made in 

payment of the bills. 

In AO 1983-25, the Commission said the Committee's 

reporting and recordkeeping plan satisfied the election 

law's requirements. Although the Committee did not 

have to report the contractor's individual payments for 

services or products, the Commission noted that the 

Committee had to include an adequate description of the 

purpose of its expenditures to the contractor. 

The following facts supported the Commission's view 

that Consultants '84 was a vendor: 

• Consultants '84 had a legal existence that was separate and distinct from the Committee; its principals 

were not members of the Mondale campaign staff. 

• The Committee was conducting arms-length contract negotiations with Consultants '84. 

• Consultants '84 expected to have three or four media contracts with other entities. 

Commissioner Reiche wrote a dissenting opinion to 

AO 1983-25. Commissioner Harris concurred in Mr. 

Reiche's dissent, which stated that: "As a consequence 

of the Commission's decision, it is entirely possible that 

substantial sums, including public monies, will be spent 

by candidates and reported only as a brief entry ...." Noting that the General Counsel had suggested requiring 

candidates to disclose the identity of the person who 

provides goods and services to a campaign, Mr. Reiche 

went on to say that he agreed with this suggestion "since 

the absence of such descriptive information means that 

disclosure is minimal at best." Furthermore, in his view, 

one could not "reasonably conclude" that Consultants 

'84 was the actual provider of goods and services. Mr. 

Reiche also contended that the advisory opinion "emphasize[d] expediency and convenience at the expense 

of the public's right to know." 

In response to this dissenting opinion, the four Commissioners who voted to approve AO 1983-25 - Commissioners Aikens, Elliott, McDonald and McGarry -

filed a statement in which they said that their decision 

was based strictly on the reporting requirements of the 

election law. The Commissioners maintained that only 

the agency's recordkeeping regulations, as opposed to 

those on reporting, define the term "payee" as the person who provides the goods and services to a committee. Futhermore, "the majority of the Commission felt 

that based on the facts included in the advisory opinion 

request, Consultants '84 Inc. was, in this case, the provider of goods and services to Mondale for President...." 

In closing, the Commissioners stated: "We wholeheartedly agree that there are excellent policy arguments 

to consider which would favor requiring more detailed 

reporting for publicly funded Presidential candidates. In 

our opinion, however, those stricter requirements do not 

presently appear in either the statute or the regulations." 

Sale of Campaign Assets. In AO 1983-2, the Commission explained when proceeds from the sale of a campaign's assets would be contributions to the campaign, 

and when they would not. The Citizens for Emery Com-
24 

mittee requested the Commission's opinion concerning 

its plan to pay off campaign debts by selling computer 

services. The Commission concluded that the proceeds 

collected would be considered contributions, subject to 

the election law's limits and prohibitions. The Commission contrasted this opinion with several others in which 

the agency had allowed campaigns to sell leftover assets 

to retire debts without the proceeds counting as contributions. The Emery Committee, by contrast, did not view 

the computer equipment as a leftover asset which it intended to sell outright to retire debts. Instead, it proposed 

to use the equipment in a continuing venture to raise 

funds. 

State Tax Checkoff. AO 1983-15 concerned funds collected by means of a voluntary checkoff designation on 

Virginia income tax forms. Under Virginia law, a taxpayer 

entitled to a refund may opt to check off $2 of the refund 

for either the Democratic or Republican State party committee. The State treasurer distributes the funds to the 

parties. The Commission held that the checkoff funds 

would constitute contributions made by individual taxpayers if the party deposited the money in a Federal account 

used for Federal election activity. 

In previous advisory opinions, the Commission had 

ruled that tax checkoff funds in other States were not 

contributions because the taxpayers did not increase 

their tax liability or reduce their refunds. However, by 

choosing to donate $2 to a party, a Virginia taxpayer 

reduces his or her refund by the same amount and thus 

would make a $2 contribution. 

Monitoring the Law 

In 1983, the Commission's team of reports analysts continued to monitor the financial reports submitted by committees. The analyst's role, as in past years, was to make 

sure committees adequately disclosed information in 

their reports or corrected misinformation in order to 

maintain the accuracy and integrity of the public record. 

Additionally, reports analysts promoted voluntary compliance with the law by assisting committee treasurers 

with their reporting questions. Over the years, analysts 

had encouraged committees to call them for guidance 

and, as a result, had developed good working relationships with committee personnel. During 1983, analysts 

met personally or spoke by phone with some 4,000 committee staff members. 

Enforcing the Law 

MURs and Litigation 

The Commission enforces the election law through two 

legal procedures: compliance matters - Matters Under 

Review (MURs)- and litigation. (A MUR is a possible 

violation of the election law brought to the Commission's 

attention by agency staff, through their normal monitoring duties; by a member of the public who has filed a 

formal complaint with the agency; or by a referral from 

another government agency. By statute, a compliance 

matter remains confidential until the case is resolved. 

The MUR is then put on the public record.) 

Beginning in June 1983, research on MURs benefited 

from the creation of the FEC MUR Index. Available to 

staff and public alike, the Index was a computerized 

document summarizing information on all closed MURs. 

Divided into four parts, the MUR Index grouped MURs 

according to topic, to statutory provision, and to individuals involved in compliance actions - as either complainants or respondents. (Complainants are those who 

file complaints; respondents are those alleged to have 

violated the law.) The fourth part of the Index provided 

summary information on each MUR. The Commission 

planned to update the MUR Index periodically. 

While the number of the MURs closed in 1983 did not 

increase, as compared with previous years, the cases 

were of a greater complexity and generally dealt with 

more substantive issues. With regard to litigation, many 

of the suits filed by the Commission in 1983 originated 

as MURs. The agency brought suit when it was unable 

to reach a conciliation agreement with the respondent. 

On the other hand, a few complainants sued the Commission, seeking judicial review of the Commission's actions in compliance cases. 

Apart from these compliance-related suits, the Commission also defended the constitutionality of the law. In 

one case closed during 1983, the Commission defended 

the constitutionality of the law's restrictions on corporate 

activity. (See summary of Athens Lumber v. FEC, be-
25 

low.) In another, the Commission itself asked the courts 

to uphold the constitutionality of the law's restriction on 

committee expenditures on behalf of publicly funded 

Presidential nominees in the general election. (See summary of FEC v. National Conservative Political Action 

Committee and Fund for a Conservative Majority, page 

7.) 

Legal Issues 

Summarized below are selected compliance actions and 

court cases. One involved a constitutional challenge to 

the election law; the remaining cases concerned the 

agency's enforcement of the law's prohibitions and limits 

on contributions. 

Constitutional Issue. In a direct challenge to the prohibitions on corporate contributions contained in the law (2 

U.S.C. Section 441 b(a)), Athens Lumber Co., a corporation, and its president, John P. Bondurant, filed suit in 

July 1981. Claiming the provision abridged the corporation's First and Fifth Amendment rights, plaintiffs asked 

a U.S. district court in Georgia to certify their constitutional questions on Section 441 b. Although the district 

court dismissed the suit in February 1982, holding that 

Athens Lumber and Mr. Bondurant lacked standing to 

bring suit, a three-judge panel of the court of appeals 

reversed that decision and certified eight constitutional 

questions to the en bane U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit. The suit was decided on October 24 

1983, when the en bane court upheld the constitution~ ality of Section 441 b's corporate restrictions. In its opinion, the court said that the constitutional issues had 

already been resolved by the Supreme Court in another 

case concerning Section 441 b, FEC v. National Right to 

Work Committee (summarized in the Annual Report 

1982 on pages 14-15). Therefore, for the reasons stated 

in the high Court's opinion, the en bane court found "the 

limitations and prohibitions of which appellants complain 

to be constitutional." 

Other Corporate Activity. In addition to defending the 

constitutionality of corporate restrictions, the Commission also enforced them during 1983 in several compliance actions. One of the compliance cases, MUR 1445, 

was noteworthy in that the respondents themselves notified the Commission that they had violated the law. An 

agent of a Canadian insurance company had obtained 

advice from a political "expert" about making political 

contributions. The expert had suggested that corporate 

employees could make contributions using "bonuses" 

from the corporation. Contributions totaling $75,000 were 

m~de_ this way. The Canadian company loaned money 

to 1ts Incorporated U.S. agents, which used the funds to 

reimburse individuals who had made contributions. 

Although the Canadian company satisfied the Commission that it had made the loans without knowledge of 

their intended use, the Commission found that the incorpora~e? U.S. agents had violated the law by making 

proh1b1ted corporate contributions and, along with the 

individual contributors, had also violated the provision 

which prohibits contributions made in the name of another. Civil penalties for these violations amounted to 

$29,900. 

In another compliance case closed during 1983, MUR 

1363, a complainant alleged that a political committee 

had received support from a corporation but had not 

disclosed the corporation as its sponsor on the form used 

by committees to register with the Commission. The 

complainant contended that, if the committee was not 

the corporation's PAC, it had received prohibited corporate contributions. On the other hand, if it was a corporate PAC, then it had made illegal solicitations, according 

to the complainant, by seeking contributions from persons who were not corporate personnel or stockholders. 

The ensuing Commission investigation revealed that 

the corporation had provided the committee with facilities, clerical support, the services of an officer during 

co~pany time, office supplies and postage. The corporation and committee maintained that the time spent by 

corporate employees was "incidental" and within the limits esta?lished for this kind of volunteer activity. They 

also cla1med that the corporation had billed the committee for the supplies. However, the Commission found 

that, nine months after disclosing this $14,000 debt, the 

committee had paid less than half. 

!he Commission concluded that, because the corporation had advanced administration costs to the committee and because certain key principals of the corporation 

were actively involved in the committee's affairs, the corporation appeared to be the sponsoring organization of 
26 

the committee. The agency therefore determined that 

the corporation and its PAC had violated the law's solicitation provisions, as alleged. The conciliation agreement 

included a $1 ,000 civil penalty. 

Contribution Limits. Through compliance actions and litigation, the agency enforced the election law's contribution limits, prohibitions and reporting requirements. 

In FEC v. Nick Mastorelli Campaign Fund, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a 

default judgment against the Campaign Fund and its 

treasurer. (The default judgment resulted from defendants' failure to appear in court.) Affirming the Commission's claims against the Campaign Fund, the court 

decreed that the Mastorelli Campaign and its treasurer 

had violated the election law by: 

• Accepting excessive contributions in the form of a 

loan from three individuals; 

• Accepting $21 ,050 in excessive cash contributions; 

• Accepting contributions from corporations in 1978; 

and 

• Failing to file timely reports for the 1978 election 

year and failing to report at all during 1980 and 

thereafter. 

The court enjoined the defendants from any further 

violation of the election law and assessed a $5,000 civil 

penalty against the Mastorelli Campaign and its treasurer. 

In MUR 1414, a compliance case which focused on 

both excessive contributions and prohibited corporate 

contributions, an individual formed a political committee 

to make independent expenditures18 in the form of ads 

supporting the election of two Federal candidates. Using 

funds from his solely-owned corporation, the individual 

made a $19,882 advance payment to a media firm for 

the ads. Later, he and four other individuals each contributed $5,000 to the committee, which used the contributions to repay the corporate loan. The Commission found 

that the advance of corporate funds was a prohibited 

contribution. The Commission also determined that the 

contributions exceeded the law's limits. Although the 

committee qualified as a multicandidate committee 

(which could normally accept up to $5,000 per year from 

a contributor), the individuals' contributions were subject 

to the lower limit that applies to contributions to a candidate because the contributors knew that a substantial 

portion of their contributions would be expended on behalf of a certain candidate. Civil penalties for these violations totaled $2,500. 

Clearinghouse Activities 

The Commission's National Clearinghouse on Election 

Administration continued its research on the Congressionally mandated study to assess the need for, and the 

feasibility and cost of, developing voluntary standards 

for voting equipment used in the United States. The preliminary report, sent to Congress in early 1984, supported the need to develop voluntary standards for all 

voting equipment. The report proposed developing 

standards for three components of voting equipment: 

computerized hardware, computerized software and 

management of the equipment. The Clearinghouse 

planned to begin work in 1984 on the first phase of a 

project to develop standards, using a contractor to formulate standards on hardware and drawing on the expertise of in-house staff to prepare the management 

standards. 

The voting equipment study was one of several topics 

discussed at the Clearinghouse Advisory Panel meeting 

held in April1983. The 17-member panel, composed of 

State and local election officials, also discussed future 

Clearinghouse research projects and the regional conferences (discussed on page 9), which opened in the fall 

of 1983. 

The Clearinghouse also played a leading role in the 

development and planning of the conferences. The office 

selected the five conference sites, coordinated efforts 

between the Commission and the State and local cosponsors, publicized the events and organized the 17 

workshops on election administration, conducted at all of 

the conferences. •• The term independent expenditure is defined in footnote 4 on 

page 6. 
27 

Chapter 3 

The Commission 

Commissioners and Staff Director 

On December 16, 1982, the Commission unanimously 

elected Danny L. McDonald as Chairman and Lee Ann 

Elliott as Vice Chairman.19 Both served one-year terms 

as Commission officers beginning January 1983. 

Two Commissioners also received reappointments extending their terms to April 1989. Nominated by President Reagan on June 10, 1983, Commissioners Joan D. 

Aikens and John Warren McGarry appeared at Senate 

confirmation hearings on July 14. The Senate unanimously confirmed their six-year appointments on July 29. 

July also saw the appointment of a new Commission 

Staff Director, John C. Surina. He assumed his position, 

the highest management position in the agency, on July 

25. Mr. Surina succeeded B. Allen Clutter, who had resigned in May to accept a position in the private sector. 

The Commission elected officers for 1984 on December 15, 1983. Commissioner Elliott was elected Chairman and Commissioner Thomas E. Harris, Vice 

Chairman. Both began their one-year terms as Commission officers on January 1, 1984. 

Budget 

Rscal Year 1983 

The Commission's total funding for fiscal year 198320 

amounted to $9,897,000. The funds consisted of 

$9,700,000 which Congress appropriated to the agency 

in two continuing resolutions, and a supplemental appropriation of $197,000 to cover a portion of the OctOber 

1982 pay raise received by agency employees. 

Although the Commission did not continue the partial 

hiring freeze of fiscal year 1982, the staff level did not 

substantially increase during fiscal year 1983 partly because of the agency's uncertainty over the amount of its 

final funding. The Commission used the savings in personnel costs to replace certain inadequate equipmentprimarily the microfilm reader/printers used by the public. 

It was imperative for the agency to replace these rnachines as they were so old the Commission could not 

renew a maintenance contract for them. 

Although the Commission did not increase overall staff 

as originally planned, it filled several auditor positions to 

enable the Audit Division to carry the increased workload 

of Presidential elections. Because the division participates extensively in the public funding program, its workload fluctuates with the Presidential election cycles. Staff 

levels change accordingly. Once the bulk of the 1980 

Presidential activity was completed, for example, the division was reduced by 16 positions. The fiscal year 1983 

appointments replaced some, but not all, of these positions. Remaining staff needs were to be met in new 

ways. The Commission intended, in fiscal year 1984, to 

supplement the permanent staff with temporary personnel and with auditors on temporary assignment from the 

General Accounting Office. In this way, the Commission 

planned to match or exceed its 1980 performance in the 

public funding program while keeping its in-house staffing at a minimum. 

The cyclical nature of Commission programing was 

again demonstrated in the agency's commitment of resources to the regional conference program (see page 

9). Similar to the seminar program staged four years 

eartier, the conferences provided t~nical assistance to 

committees in anticipation of their heightened activity in 

a Presidential election year. 

In terms of its internal operations, two areas continued 

to show increased productivity, as they had over the 

previous two fiscal years. The reports review function 

substantia11y reduced production costs in spite of an increased workload. For example, the number of reports 

reviewed increased 55 percent from fiscal year 1982 to 

fiscal year 1983, while the average cost to review a 

report dropped 32 percent. As in the past, this productivity was attributed to a comprehensive reports review 

policy and a more experienced staff. 

Data coding and entry functions also showed increases in the number of documents proeessed with an 

overall dectine in production costs. In the Pass I entry 

program,21 for example, 17 percent more documents 

,. Biographical sketches of the Commissioners and statutory 

officers appear in Appendix 1. 

20 See also Appendix 4. 

21 Computer coding and entry of campaign finance information 

occur in two phases. In the first phase, Pass I, summary information 

is coded and entered into the computer. During the second phase, 

Pass Ill, itemized information is coded and entered. 
28 

were processed than in the previous fiscal year, with a 

41 percent decrease in the cost per document. This rise 

in productivity in the coding and entry of computer data 

could be attributed to refinements made to internal coding procedures and to the partial phase-in of a contractor 

to enter Pass Ill data. The Commission planned to turn 

over a major portion of Pass Ill entry functions to the 

contractor in fiscal year 1984 in an effort to stabilize the 

in-house data entry staff level. The contract avoided the 

need to increase and decrease in-house staff during 

peak and slack periods. At the same time, it increased 

productivity. 

Fiscal Year 1984 

FEC Request for Funds. During four Congressional 

hearings held in March and April, Commission Vice 

Chairman Lee Ann Elliott requested a "bare-bones, nofrills budget" of $10,343,139 for fiscal year 1984. The 

Commissioner, accompanied by Chairman Danny L. 

McDonald and Commissioner John Warren McGarry, 

testified before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 

Service and General Government of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; the Senate Committee on 

Rules and Administration; the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service 

and General Government; and the Task Force on Elections of the Committee on House Administration. 

Commissioner Elliott explained that, in terms of real 

dollars, the Commission's fiscal year 1984 budget request was the third smallest appropriation request in the 

agency's eight-year history. When adjusted for inflation, 

the $10.3 million request equated to $5,172,500 (based 

on 1974 dollars). During the 1980 Presidential election 

year, the Commission operated on a $6,0n,ooo appropriation (based on 1974 dollars). 

Because the Commission instituted a number of economies, Mrs. Elliott testified, the agency would be able to 

carry out its responsibilities at the $10.3 million level of 

funding. But she also pointed out that, since 1984 was a 

Presidential election year, the Commission would have 

additional responsibilities mandated by the election law. 

Congressional Authorization. After hearing Commissioner Elliott's testimony, the Committee on House 

Administration unanimously endorsed a fiscal year 1984 

authorization of $10,849,139 - over $500,000 more 

than the Commission's request. In a Report issued on 

April 20, the Committee explained that it recommended 

the higher figure because Congress had adopted new 

legislation imposing higher personnel costs (e.g., Medicare, Social Security) after the Commission had submitted its budget request. Secondly, the Committee 

recognized that the agency needed money for upgrading 

equipment since shrinking funds had required the 

agency to delay investing money in this area. Finally, as 

Commissioner Elliott had pointed out, the Committee 

realized that the Commission's request was austere 

compared with its 1980 budget. The Report stated: "If 

the Commission were requesting for fiscal 1984 the 

budget they had, in real terms, in the last Presidential 

election year, the Commission would be requesting 

$12.154 million." 

The Report also said that "it is to the Commission's 

credit that they have been able to reduce their budgetary 

needs rather substantially. The Committee appreciates 

the Commission's efforts .... " 

Later that April, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that would authorize the full $10.849 

million in funding. The Senate Rules Committee recommended the same level of funding in a May 16 Report. 

In a May letter to the subcommittees on Treasury, 

Postal Service and General Government of the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Commission urged support for the full amount of funding, rather 

than its original request, stating that ''these additional 

funds would help meet pressing equipment needs, particularly for computer services" and "would directly aid 

the Commission in its campaign finance disclosure activities...." 

Final Appropriation. On October 1, 1983, the first day of 

fiscal year 1984, Congress provided a $10,000,000 interim funding level for the Commission in a continuing 

resolution extending through November 1 0, 1983. In a 

second continuing resolution, enacted on November 14, 

Congress appropriated funding for the agency through 

the entire fiscal year at a level of $1 0,649,000. 
29 

Internal Audits 

The Commission established a formal internal audit program on October 26, 1983. The program was designed 

to help the agency monitor finances in areas such as 

contract administration, small purchases, procurement 

and collection of fees. The Commission assigned the 

Audit Division the responsibility of developing procedures, targeting specific activities and conducting the 

internal reviews on an unannounced basis throughout 

the agency. The internal audit program provided for a 

continuing critical review of the agency's financial control 

system. 

Personnel and Labor Relations 

During 1983, the Commission adopted formal directives 

setting policies and procedures for hiring, promotions 

and other internal personnel matters affecting nonbargaining unit staff members. In addition, preparations 

were under way for collective bargaining under a reopener clause in the current labor contract with the National 

Treasury Employees Union. Other projects initiated in 

1983 included the planning of a recruitment/career development program and increased emphasis on technical and managerial training. 

Moreover, the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program, under the direction of a new 

officer appointed in late 1982, underwent considerable 

revision in 1983. The agency developed and approved a 

multiyear affirmative action plan, covering 1983-85, 

which projected goals for full compliance with the guidelines for employment of women and minority groups established by the EEO Commission. The agency also 

streamlined and updated its internal procedures for filing 

EEO complaints and held training sessions for managers 

and staff on the problem of sexual harrassment. Taking 

advantage of the 1983 regional conferences, Commission attorneys participating in the conferences held recruiting sessions at Jaw schools, located in the 

conference cities, which enrolled a significant percentage 

of women and minority groups. 
31 

Chapter 4 

Legislative 

Recommendations 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires the Commission to transmit each year to the President and Congress "anyrecommendations for any legislative or other 

action the Commission considers appropriate...." 2 

U.S.C. Section 438(a)(9). The following legislative recommendations were approved by the Commission on 

March 1, 1984. Unless otherwise noted, each of these 

19 recommendations was previously submitted to the 

President and Congress in 1982 and 1983. 

Definitions 

Draft Committees22 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§431 (8)(A)(i), 431 (9)(A)(i), 441 a(a)(1) 

and 441b(b) 

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Commission 

Recommendation: Congress should consider the following amendments to the Act in order to prevent a proliferation of "draft" committees and to reaffirm 

Congressional intent that draft committees are "political 

committees" subject to the Act's provisions. 

1. Bring Funds Raised and Spent for Undeclared but 

Clearly Identified Candidates Within the Acts Purview. 

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

definition of "contribution" funds contributed by persons 

"for the purpose of influencing a clearly identified individual to seek nomination for election or election to Federal office .... " Section 431 (9)(A)(i) should be similarly 

amended to include within the definition of "expenditure" 

funds expended by persons on behalf of such "a clearly 

identified individual." 

2. Restrict Corporate and Labor Organization Support 

for Undeclared but Clearly Identified Candidates. Section 441b(b) should be revised to expressly state that 

corporations, labor organizations and national banks are 

prohibited from making contributions or expenditures "for 

the purpose of influencing a clearly identified individual 

to seek nomination for election or election..." to Federal 

office. 

3. Limit Contributions to Draft Committees. The law 

should include explicit language stating that no person 

shall make contributions to any committee (including a 

draft committee) established to influence the nomination 

or election of a clearly identified individual for any Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed that person's 

contribution limit, per candidate, per election. 

Explanation: These proposed amendments were 

prompted by the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit in FEC v. Machinists 

Non-Partisan Political League and FEC v. Citizens for 

Democratic Alternatives in 1980 and the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in FEC v. Florida for 

Kennedy Committee. The District of Columbia Circuit 

held that the Act, as amended in 1979, regulated only 

the reporting requirements of draft committees. The 

Commission sought review of this decision by the Supreme Court, but the Court declined to hear the case. 

Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit found that "committees 

organized to 'draft' a person for federal office" are not 

"political committees" within the Commission's investigative authority. The Commission believes that the appeals court rulings create a serious imbalance in the 

election law and the political process because any group 

organized to gain grass roots support for an undeclared 

candidate can operate completely outside the strictures 

of the Federal Election Campaign Act. However, any 

group organized to support a declared candidate is subject to the Act's registration and reporting requirements 

and contribution limitations. Therefore, the potential exists for funneling large aggregations of money, both corporate and private, into the Federal electoral process 

through unlimited contributions made to draft committees that support undeclared candidates. These recommendations seek to avert that possibility. 

"Previously submitted in 1981, 1982 and 1983. 
32 

Volunteer Activit~ 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(8) 

Beneficiary of Change: Public 

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider 

whether the exemption for volunteer activity, contained 

in 2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(B)(i), was meant to include professional services donated primarily for fundraising purposes rather than for actual campaigning. 

Explanation: The Act places no limit on the services that 

a professional may donate to a candidate. For example, 

a professional entertainer may participate in a concert 

for the benefit of a candidate without the proceeds of 

that concert counting toward the entertainer's contribution limitations. Similarly, an artist may create artwork for 

a campaign to be used for fundraising or to be disposed 

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

of which greatly exceeds the amount of the contributions 

which that individual could otherwise make under the 

law. 

Registration and Reporting 

Commission as Sole Point of Entry 

for Disclosure Documents24 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §432(g) 

Beneficiary of Change: Political Committees, Commission, Public 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that it 

be the sole point of entry for all disclosure documents 

filed by Federal candidates and political committees. 

Explanation: A single point of entry for all disclosure 

documents filed by political committees would eliminate 

any confusion about where candidates and committees 

are to file their reports. It would assist committee treasurers by having one office where they would file reports, 

address correspondence and ask questions. At present, 

conflicts may arise when more than one office sends out 

materials, makes requests for additional information and 

answers questions relating to the interpretation of the 

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

to the Federal government of maintaining three different 

offices, especially in the areas of personnel, equipment 

and data processing. 

The Commission has authority to prepare and publish 

lists of nonfilers. It is extremely difficult to ascertain who 

has and who has not filed when reports may have been 

filed at or are in transit between two different offices. 

Separate points of entry also make it difficult for the 

Commission to track responses to compliance notices. 

Many responses and/or amendments may not be received by the Commission in a timely manner, even 

though they were sent on time by the candidate or committee. The delay in transmittal between two offices 

sometimes leads the Commission to believe that candidates and committees are not in compliance. A single 

point of entry would eliminate this confusion. If the Commission received all documents, it would transmit on a 

daily basis file copies to the Secretary of the Senate and 

the Clerk of the House, as appropriate. The Commission 

notes that the report of the Institute of Politics of the 

John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, An Analysis of the Impact of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act, 1972-78, prepared for the House Administration Committee, recommends that all reports be filed 

directly with the Commission (Committee Print, 96th 

Gong., 1st Sess., at 122 (1979)). 

Waiver Authorityzs 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434 

Beneficiary of Change: Public 

Recommendation: Congress should give the Commission authority to grant general waivers or exemptions 

from the reporting requirements of the Act for dassifications and categories of political committees. 

Explanation: In cases where reporting requirements are 

excessive or unnecessary, it would be helpful if the Commission had authority to suspend the reporting require- 23 A similar recommendation was submitted in 1981, 1982 and 

1983. 

"Previously submitted in 1981, 1982 and 1983. 25 Previously submitted in 1983. 
33 

ments of the Act. For example, during the past election 

cycle, the Commission encountered several problems 

relating to the reporting requirements of authorized committees whose respective candidates were not on the 

election ballot. The Commission had to consider whether 

the election-year reporting requirements were fully applicable to candidate committees operating under one of 

the following circumstances: 

• The candidate withdraws from nomination prior to 

having his or her name placed on the ballot. 

• The candidate loses the primary and therefore is 

not on the general election ballot. 

• The candidate is unchallenged and his or her name 

does not appear on the election ballot. 

Moreover, a Presidential primary candidate who has 

triggered the $100,000 threshold but who is no longer 

actively seeking nomination should be able to reduce 

reporting from a monthly to a quarterly schedule. 

In some instances, the reporting problems reflect the 

unique features of certain State election procedures. A 

waiver authority would enable the Commission to respond flexibly and fairly in these situations. 

In the 1979 Amendments to the Act, Congress repealed 2 U.S.C. §436, which had provided the Commission with a limited waiver authority. There remains, 

however, a need for a waiver authority. It would enable 

the Commission to reduce needlessly burdensome disclosure requirements. 

Monthly Reporting for Congressional Candidates 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(2) 

Beneficiary of Change: House and Senate Candidates 

Recommendation: The principal campaign committee of 

a Congressional candidate should have the option of 

filing monthly reports in lieu of quarterly reports. 

Explanation: Political committees, other than principal 

campaign committees, may choose under the Act to file 

either monthly or quarterly reports during an election 

year. Committees choose this option when they have a 

high volume of activity. Under those circumstances, accounting and reporting are easier on a monthly basis 

because fewer transactions have taken place during that 

time. Consequently, the committee's reports will be more 

accurate. 

Principal campaign committees can also have a large 

volume of receipts and expenditures. This is particularly 

true with Senatorial campaigns. These committees 

should be able to choose a more frequent filing schedule 

so that their reporting covers less activity and is easier 

to do. 

Verifying Multicandidate Committee Status 

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

441a(a)(4) 

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Multicandidate Political Committees, Commission 

Recommendation: Congress should consider modifying 

those provisions of the Act relating to multicandidate 

committees in order to reduce the problems encountered 

by contributor committees in reporting their multicandidate committee status, and by candidate committees 

and the Commission in verifying the multicandidate committee status of contributor committees. In this regard, 

Congress might consider requiring political committees 

to notify the Commission once they have satisfied the 

three criteria for becoming a multicandidate committee, 

namely, once a political committee has been registered 

for not less than 6 months, has received contributions 

from more than 50 persons and has contributed to at 

least 5 candidates for Federal office. 

Explanation: Under the current statute, political committees may not contribute more than $1 ,000 to each candidate, per election, until they qualify as a multicandidate 

committee, at which point they may contribute up to 

$5,000 per candidate, per election. To qualify for this 

special status, a committee must meet three standards: 

• support five or more Federal candidates; 

• receive contributions from more than 50 contributors; and 

• have been registered as a political committee for at 

least six months. 

The Commission is statutorily responsible for maintaining an index of committees that have qualified as 

multicandidate committees. The index enables recipient 

candidate committees to determine whether a given con-
34 

tributor has in fact qualified as a multicandidate committee and therefore is entitled to contribute up to the higher 

limit. The Commission's Multicandidate Index, however, 

is not current because it depends upon information filed 

periodically by political committees. Committees inform 

the Commission that they have qualified as multicandidate committees by checking the appropriate box on 

their regularly scheduled report. If, however, they qualify 

shortly after they have filed their report, several months 

may elapse before they disclose their new status on the 

next report. With semiannual reporting in a nonelection 

year, for example, a committee may become a multicandidate committee in August, but the Commission's Index 

will not reveal this until after the January 31 report has 

been filed, coded and entered into the Commission's 

computer. 

Because candidate committees cannot totally rely on 

the Commission's Multicandidate Index for current information, they sometimes ask the contributing committee 

directly whether the committee is a multicandidate committee. Contributing committees, however, are not always clear as to what it means to be a multicandidate 

committee. Some committees erroneously believe that 

they qualify as a multicandidate committee merely because they have contributed to more than one Federal 

candidate. They are not aware that they must have contributed to five or more Federal candidates and also have 

more than 50 contributors and have been registered for 

at least six months. 

Insolvency of Political Committeesa 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §433(d) 

Beneficiary of Change: Political Committees, Commission, Public 

Recommendation: The Commission requests that Congress clarify its intention as to whether the Commission 

has a role in the determination of insolvency and liquidation of insolvent political committees. 2 U.S.C. §433(d) 

was amended in 1980 to read: "Nothing in this subsection may be construed to eliminate or limit the authority 

of the Commission to establish procedures for-(A) the 

determination of insolvency with respect to any political 

committee; (B) the orderly liquidation of an insolvent political committee, and the orderly application of its assets 

for the reduction of outstanding debts; and (C) the termination of an insolvent political committee after such 

liquidation and application of assets." The phrasing of 

this provision ("Nothing...may be construed to...limit") 

suggests that the Commission has such authority in 

some other provision of the Act, but the Act contains no 

such provision. If Congress intended the Commission to 

have a role in determining the insolvency of political committees and the liquidation of their assets, Congress 

should clarify the nature and scope of this authority. 

Explanation: Under 2 U.S.C. §433(d)(1 ), a political committee may terminate only when it certifies in writing that 

it will no longer receive any contributions or make any 

disbursements and that the committee has no outstanding debts or obligations. The FECA Amendments of 

1979 added a provision to the law (2 U.S.C. §433(d)(2)) 

possibly permitting the Commission to establish procedures for determining insolvency with respect to political 

committees, as well as the orderly liquidation and termination of insolvent committees. In 1980, the Commission 

promulgated the "administrative termination" regulations 

at 11 CFR 102.4 after enactment of the 1979 Amendments, in response to 2 U.S.C. §433(d)(2). However, 

these procedures do not concern liquidation or application of assets of insolvent political committees. 

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

proposed debt settlements in order to determine whether 

the settlement will result in a potential violation of the 

Act. If it does not appear that such a violation will occur, 

the Commission permits the committee to cease reporting that debt once the settlement and payment are reported. The Commission believes this authority derives 

from 2 U.S.C. §434 and from its authority to correct and 

prevent violations of the Act, but it does not appear as a 

grant of authority beyond a review of the specific debt 

settlement request, to order application of committee 

assets. 

It has been suggested that approval by the Commission of the settlement of debts owed by political committees at less than face value may lead to the • A similar recommendation was included in the legislative 

recommendations submitted to Congress and the President in 1982. 
35 

circumvention of the limitations on contributions specified 

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

are frequently substantial, and the creditors are often 

corporate entities. Concern has also been expressed regarding the possibility that committees could incur further debts after settling some, or that a committee could 

pay off one creditor at less than the dollar value owed 

and subsequently raise additional funds to pay off a 

"friendly" creditor at full value. 

When clarifying the nature and scope of the Commission's authority to determine the insolvency of political 

committees, Congress should consider the impact on 

the Commission's operations. An expanded role in this 

area might increase the Commission's workload, thus 

requiring additional staff and funds. 

Local Party Activity 

Separate §441a(d) Limit for Local Party Committees 

in Presidential Elections 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441a(d) 

Beneficiary of Change: Local Party Committees 

Recommendation:27 Congress should amend the statute 

to provide a separate limit, under §441 a( d), on expenditures made by local party committees in the Presidential 

elections. 

Explanation: Local party committees share the State 

party's §441a(d) limit for Congressional elections but 

have no statutory role under that section for Presidential 

27 Commissioners McDonald and Harris filed the following 

dissent: The Commission's legislative recommendation of a 

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

would further expand "party building'' loopholes already carved by 

Congress and certain rulings of the Commission. The Commission's 

recommendation would provide a local party with a small limit of its 

own in Presidential elections. 

This recommendation has nothing to do with the real activities 

of local parties. I strongly support local parties and will work for any 

proposal that enhances their efforts to increase participation. This 

recommendation will only provide a means of circumventing the 

Presidential expenditure limits. 

Presently a local party may make expenditures for get-out-thevote activities involving volunteers in a Presidential campaign. The 

action our colleagues have taken will in no way build up these local 

parties and will quite likely make these committees merely another 

elections. The 1979 Amendments to the Act did establish 

certain exemptions for State and local party committees, 

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

the Presidential election. The exemptions, however, are 

limited to activities involving volunteers. Payments for 

general public political advertising do not qualify under 

these provisions. Therefore, under the present statute, a 

local party which wants to purchase a newspaper ad on 

behalf of the party's Presidential nominee may make 

such an expenditure only when authorized to do so under the national party's §441 a( d) limit. 

Many local committees are unaware of this restriction 

and make minor expenditures on behalf of the party's 

Presidential nominee, which are difficult for the national 

committee to track. It would be preferable for the local 

committees to have a small Presidential spending limit 

of their own (in addition to the Presidential spending limit 

given to the national party committees). This would aid 

national committees in administering their own 441 a( d) 

limit for Presidential elections and avoid unnecessary 

compliance actions, while still ensuring that local parties 

do not introduce significant amounts of unreported (and 

possibly prohibited) funds into the Presidential election 

paper entity, existing only in a bank account, for their national party 

and its Presidential nominee. Section 441 a(a)(4) of the FECA allows 

unlimited transfers between national, State and local committees of 

a political party. No definition of local party. exists in the statute. 

Each precinct could form as many paper committees to receive 

national money as the national party desires. If the Commission's 

recommendation is enacted, an unlimited number of local 

committees could be formed and the national party could transfer 

the local limit to each local entity. This process could provided 

unlimited funds to a Presidential candidate in whatever locale 

desired, completely undermining the delicate balance constructed 

by Congress to provide each major party candidate for President 

with an equal amount of public funds. Under the present system, 

each party has ample ability to participate in the Presidential 

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

limit (which is spent in local communities around the country 

selected by the national party). Local party headquarters are run on 

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

efforts. Already corporate and labor funds are contributed to State 

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

get-out-the-vote efforts in areas which are critical to the Federal 

candidates. Why do we need yet another loophole to give the 

Presidential campaigns unlimited spending power? 

If the Congress enacts this proposal, it will not increase activity 

at the local level, it will only increase the ability to circumvent the 

process at the national level. This result will limit participation in 

Presidential campaigns rather than broaden it. 
36 

process. (It is assumed that the national committee 

would delegate its authority with respect to spending by 

State party committees in Presidential elections.) 

If Congress were to consider this recommendation, it 

would be necessary for Congress to define, with some 

degree of precision, "local party committee." 

Enforcement 

Modifying "Reason to Believe" Finding 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §437g 

Beneficiary of Change: Respondents, Press, Public 

Recommendation: Congress should consider modifying 

the language pertaining to "reason to believe," contained 

in 2 U.S.C. §437g, in order to reduce the confusion 

sometimes experienced by respondents, the press and 

the public. One possible approach would be to change 

the statutory language from "the Commission finds reason to believe a violation of the Act has occurred" to "the 

Commission finds reason to believe a violation of the Act 

may have occurred." Or Congress may wish to use some 

other less invidious language. 

Explanation: Under the present statute, the Commission 

is required to make a finding that there is "reason to 

believe a violation has occurred" before it may investigate. Only then may the Commission request specific 

information from a respondent to determine whether, in 

fact, a violation has occurred. The statutory phrase "reason to believe" is misleading and does a disservice to 

both the Commission and the respondent. It implies that 

the Commission has evaluated the evidence and concluded that the respondent has violated the Act. In fact, 

however, a "reason to believe" finding simply means that 

the Commission believes a violation may have occurred 

if the facts as described in the complaint are true. An 

investigation permits the Commission to evaluate the 

validity of the facts as alleged. 

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

helpful to substitute words that sound less accusatory 

and that more accurately reflect what, in fact, the Commission is doing at this early phase of enforcement. 

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

violated the law every time it finds "reason to believe," 

the statute should be amended. 

Public Financing 

Repeal the State Expenditure Limitations 

for Publicly Financed Presidential Campaigns 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 a 

Beneficiary of Change: Presidential Candidate Committees, Commission 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that 

the State-by-State limitations on expenditures for publicly 

financed Presidential primary candidates be eliminated. 

Explanation: The Commission has now seen two Presidential elections under the State expenditure limitations. 

Based on our experience, we believe that the limitations 

could be removed with no material impact o.n the process. 

Our experience has shown that the limitations have 

little impact on campaign spending in a given State, with 

the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire. In most other 

States, campaigns are unable or do not wish to expend 

an amount equal to the limitation. In effect, then, the 

administration of the entire program results in limiting 

disbursements in these two primaries alone. If the limitations were removed, the level of disbursements in 

these States would obviously increase. With an increasing number of primaries vying for a campaign's limited 

resources, however, it would not be possible to spend 

very large amounts in these early primaries and still have 

adequate funds available for the later primaries. Thus, 

the overall national limit would serve as a constraint on 

State spending, even in the early primaries. At the same 

time, candidates would have broader discretion in the 

running of their campaigns. 

Our experience has also shown that the limitations 

have been only partially successful in limiting expenditures in the early primary States. The use of the fundraising limitation, the compliance cost exemption, the 

volunteer service provisions, the unreimbursed person-
37 

nel travel expense provisions, the use of a personal residence in volunteer activity exemption, and a complex 

series of allocation schemes have developed into an art 

which when skillfully practiced can partially circumvent 

the State limit-ations. 

Finally, the allocation of expenditures to the States has 

proven a significant accounting burden for campaigns 

and an equally difficult audit and enforcement task for 

the Commission. 

Given our experience to date, we believe that this 

change to the Act would be of substantial benefit to all 

parties concerned. 

Fundraising Limitation for Publicly Financed 

Presidential Primary Campaigns 

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

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Commission 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that 

the separate fundraising limitation provided to publicly 

financed Presidential primary campaigns be combined 

with the overall limit. Thus, instead of a candidate's having a $1 0 million (plus COLA28) limit for campaign expenditures and a $2 million (plus COLA) limit for 

fundraising (20 percent of overall limit), each candidate 

would have one $12 million (plus COLA) limit for all 

campaign expenditures. 

Explanation: Campaigns that have sufficient funds to 

spend up to the overall limit usually allocate some of 

their expenditures to the fundraising category. These 

campaigns come close to spending the maximum permitted under both their overall limit and their special 

tundraising limit. Hence, by combining the two limits, 

Congress would not substantially alter spending 

amounts or patterns. For those campaigns which do not 

spend up to the overall expenditure limit, the separate 

fundraising limit is meaningless. Many smaller campaigns do not even bother to use it, except in one or two 

States where the expenditure limit is low, e.g., Iowa and 

New Hampshire. Assuming that the State limitations are 

eliminated or appropriately adjusted, this recommendation would have little impact on the election process. 

The advantages of the recommendation, however, are 

substantial. They include a reduction in accounting burdens and a simplification in reporting requirements for 

campaigns, and a reduction in the Commission's auditing 

task. 

Expenditure Limits 

Certification of Voting Age Population Figures 

and Cost-of-Living Adjustmenta 

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

Beneficiary of Change: Secretary of Commerce, Commission, Party Committees, Candidates 

Recommendation: Congress should consider removing 

the requirement that the Secretary of Commerce certify 

to the Commission the voting age population of each 

Congressional district. At the same time, Congress 

should establish a deadline of February 15 for supplying 

the Commission with the remaining information concerning the voting age population for the nation as a whole 

and for each State. In addition, the same deadline should 

apply to the Secretary of Labor, who is required under 

the Act to provide the Commission with figures on the 

annual adjustment to the cost-of-living index. 

Explanation: In order for the Commission to compute the 

coordinated party expenditure limits and the State-byState expenditure limits for Presidential candidates, the 

Secretary of Commerce certifies the voting age population of the United States and of each State. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(e). The certification for each Congressional district, also required under this provision, is not needed. 

In addition, under 2 U.S.C. §441 a(c), the Secretary of 

Labor is required to certify the annual adjustment in the 

cost-of-living index. In both instances, the timely receipt 

of these figures would enable the Commission to inform 

political committees of their spending limits early in the 

campaign cycle. Under present circumstances, where no 

deadline exists, the Commission has sometimes been 

unable to release the spending limit figures before June . 

.. Spending limits are increased by the cost-of-living adjustment 

(COLA), which the Department of Labor calculates annually. ,. Previously submitted in 1983. 
38 

Contributions 

Application of Contribution Limitations 

to Family Members30 

Section: 2 U.S. C. §441 a 

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Commission 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that 

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

Explanation: Under the current posture of the law, a 

family member is limited tocontributing $1,000 per election to a candidate. This limitation applies to spouses 

and parents, as well as other immediate family members. 

(SeeS. Cont. Rep. No. 93-1237, 93rd Gong., 2nd Sess., 

58 (1974) and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 51 (footnote 

57) (1976).) This limitation has caused the Commission 

substantial problems in attempting to implement and enforce the contribution limitations.31 

Problems have arisen in enforcing the limitations 

where a candidate uses assets belonging to a parent. In 

some cases, a parent has made a substantial gift to his 

or her candidate-child while cautioning the candidate that 

this may well decrease the amount which the candidate 

would otherwise inherit upon the death of the parent. 

The Commission recommends that Congress consider the difficulties arising from application of the contribution limitations to immediate family members. 

Foreign Nationals 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441e 

Beneficiary of Change: Foreign Nationals, Candidates 

Recommendation: Congress should define the extent to 

which foreign nationals may participate, if at all, in connection with elections to any political office. 

Explanation: This question has presented problems for 

the Commission and candidates, particularly since the 

legislative history is unclear in this area. 

Several issues have arisen during the Commission's 

administration of this provision. First, the law, as interpreted by Commission Advisory Opinions, permits an 

American subsidiary of a foreign-registered corporation 

to form a separate segregated fund (SSF) provided foreign nationals neither contribute to the SSF nor control 

the SSF's expenditures. At the same time, the Commission has, in another Advisory Opinion, interpreted the 

Act to mean that a foreign national may not volunteer his 

services to a campaign. The standard under Section 

441 e bars contributions by a foreign national that are "in 

connection with" (rather than "for the purpose of influencing") a Federal election. It is unclear whether this 

distinction is intended to create a broader prohibition in 

the case of foreign nationals than for other activities under the Act. 

Since this is a provision which relates to State and 

local as well as Federal elections, its clarification would 

aid many candidates and political committees. 

Acceptance of Cash Contributions 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441g 

Beneficiary of Change: Committees, Commission 

Recommendation: Congress may wish to modify the 

statute to make the treatment of 2 U.S.C. §441g, concerning cash contributions, consistent with other provisions of the Act. As currently drafted, 2 U.S.C. §441g 

prohibits only the making of cash contributions which, in 

the aggregate, exceed $100 per candidate, per election. 

It does not address the issue of accepting cash contributions. Moreover, the current statutory language does 

not plainly prohibit cash contributions in excess of $1 00 

to political committees other than authorized committees 

of a candidate. 

Explanation: Currently this provision focuses only on persons making the cash contributions. However, these 

cases generally come to light when a committee has 

accepted these funds. Yet the Commission has no recourse to the committee in such cases. This can be a 

problem, particularly where primary matching funds are 

received on the basis of such contributions. 

"'A similar recommendation was submitted in 1982 and 1983. 

., While the Commission has attempted through regulations to 

present an equitable solution to some of these problems (see 48 

Fed. Reg. 19019 (April27, 1983) as prescribed by the Commission 

on July 1, 1983), statutory resolution is required in this area. 
39 

While the Commission, in its regulations at 11 CFR 

110.4(c)(2), has included a provision requiring a committee receiving such a cash contribution to promptly return 

the excess over $100, the statute does not explicitly 

make acceptance of these cash contributions a violation. 

The other sections of the Act dealing with prohibited 

contributions (i.e., sections 441b on corporate and labor 

union contributions, 441 c on contributions by government contractors, 441 e on contributions by foreign nationals, and 441 f on contributions in the name of another) 

all prohibit both the making and accepting of such contributions. 

Secondly, the statutory text seems to suggest that the 

prohibition contained in §441 g applies only to those contributions given to candidate committees. This language 

is at apparent odds with the Commission's understanding of the Congressional purpose to prohibit any cash 

contributions which exceed $100 in Federal elections. 

Fraudulent Misrepresentation 

Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441 h 

Beneficiary of Change: Political Candidates, Parties, 

Contributors 

Recommendation: The current 441 h prohibits fraudulent 

misrepresentation such as speaking, writing or acting on 

behalf of a candidate or committee on a matter which is 

damaging to such candidate or committee. It does not, 

however, prohibit persons from fraudulently soliciting 

contributions. A provision should be added to this section 

prohibiting persons from fraudulently misrepresenting 

themselves as representatives of candidates or political 

parties for the purpose of soliciting contributions which 

are not forwarded to or used by or on behalf of the 

candidate or party. 

Explanation: The Commission has received a number of 

complaints charging that substantial amounts of money 

were raised fraudulently by persons or committees purporting to act on behalf of candidates. Candidates have 

complained that contributions which people believed 

were going for the benefit of the candidate were diverted 

for other purposes. Both the candidates and the contributors were harmed by such diversion. The candidates 

received less money because people desirous of contributing believed they had already done so, and the contributors' funds had been misused in a manner in which 

they did not intend. The Commission has been unable 

to take any action on these matters because the statute 

gives it no authority in this area. 

Fundraising Projects Operated 

by Unauthorized Committees32 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(4) 

Beneficiary of Change: Candidates, Public 

Recommendation:33 Congress may wish to consider 

amending the statute, at 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(4), to clarify 

that a political committee that is not an authorized committee of any candidate may not use the name of a 

candidate in the name of any "project" or other fundraising activity of such committee. 

Explanation: The statute now reads that a political committee that is not an authorized committee "shall not 

indude the name of any candidate in its name [emphasis 

added]." In certain situations presented to the Commission the political committee in question has not included 

the name of any candidate in its official name as registered with the Commission, but has nonetheless carried . 

out "projects" in support of a particular candidate using 

the name of the candidate in the letterhead and text of 

its materials. The likely result has been that recipients of 

communications from such political committees were led 

to believe that the committees were in fact authorized by 

the candidate whose name was used. The requirement 

that committees include a disclaimer regarding nonauthorization (2 U.S.C. §441 d) has not proven adequate 

under these circumstances. 

32 This recommendation is being submitted for the first time. 

33 Commissioner Elliott filed the following dissent: I support the 

policy underlying this legislative recommendation and recognize the 

seriousness of the problem necessitating such a recommendation. 

However, the scope of the recommendation is far too broad and 

inflexible given the traditional fundraising events, especially those 

held by political parties and some unauthorized political committees. 

(continued) 
40 

The Commission believes that the intent behind the 

current provision is circumvented by the foregoing practice. Accordingly, the statute should be revised to clarify 

that the use of the name of a candidate in the name of 

any "project" is also prohibited. 

Honoraria 

Technical Amendments 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §§431 (8)(B)(xiv) and 441 i 

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

Recommendation: The Commission offers two suggestions concerning honoraria. 

1. Section 441 i should be placed under the Ethics in 

Government Act. 

2. As technical amendments, Sections 441i(c) and (d), 

which pertain to the annual limit on receiving honoraria 

(now repealed), should be repealed. Additionally, 2 

U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(xiv), which refers to the definition of 

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

Explanation: Congress eliminated the $25,000 annual 

limit on the amount of honoraria that could be accepted, 

but it did not take out these two sections, which only 

apply to the $25,000 limit. This clarification would eliminate confusion for officeholders and thereby help the 

Commission in its administration of the Act. 

Commission Information Services 

Budget Reimbursement Fund 

Section: 2 U.S.C. §438 

Beneficiary of Change: Public, Commission 

Recommendation: 

1. The Commission recommends that Congress establish a reimbursement account for the Commission so 

that expenses incurred in preparing copies of documents, publications and computer tapes sold to the public are recovered by the Commission. Similarly, costs 

awarded to the Commission in litigation (e.g., printing, 

but not civil penalties) and payments for Commission 

expenses incurred in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests should be payable to the reimbursement fund. The Commission should be able to use such 

reimbursements to cover its costs for these services, 

without fiscal year limitation, and without a reduction in 

the Commission's appropriation: 

2. The Commission recommends that costs be recovered for FEC Clearinghouse seminars, workshops, 

research materials and other services, and that reimbursements be used to cover some of the costs of these 

activities, including. costs of development, production, 

overhead and other related expenses. 

Explanation: At the present time, copies of reports, microfilm, and computer tapes are sold to the public at the 

Commission's cost. However, instead of the funds being 

used to reimburse the Commission for its expenses in 

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

Treasury. The effect on the Commission of selling materials is thus the same as if the materials had been 

given away. The Commission absorbs the entire cost. In 

FY 1982, in return for services and materials it offered 

the public, the FEC collected and transferred $61,144 in 

miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury. In FY 1983, the 

amount was $91 ,969, and during the first three months 

(continued from page 39) 

Party committees are not authorized committees and therefore 

would come under the general prohibitions included in the 

recommendation, precluding the use of a candidate's name for any 

activity of a party committee. Oftentimes, however, fundraising 

events conducted by a party committee incorporate the name of a 

well-known member of Congress as a fundraising tool. Typically, the 

fundraising contributions are made in the form of checks made 

payable to the name of the event, e.g., "Happy Birthday, Senator 

Smith"; "Mike's Annual Barbecue"; "Sail With Senator Sanford"; 

"Roast Roberts." 1 do not believe Congress intends to preclude the 

use of the candidates' names in such activities, especially when the 

candidate is not only aware that his/her name is being used but 

approves and is actively participating in the event. 

1 would propose that the candidate be entitled to authorize the 

use of his or her name for such an event or activity provided the 

authorization is written. Again, I recognize the seriousness and the 

need to address this issue; however, Congress should not exclude 

fundraising tools which have been traditionally used by political 

committees. 

Further, the impact of this recommendation has not been 

evaluated in the context of our brand-new joint fundraising 

regulations. 
41 

of FY 1984, $24,916 was transferred to the Treasury. 

Establishment of a reimbursement fund, into which fees 

for such materials would be paid, would permit this 

money to be applied to further dissemination of information. Note, however, that a reimbursement fund would 

not be applied to the distribution of FEC informational 

materials to candidates and registered political committees. They would continue to receive free publications 

that help them comply with the Federal election laws. 

There is also the possibility that the Commission could 

recover costs of FEC Clearinghouse workshops and 

seminars, research materials, and reports that are now 

sold by the Government Printing Office and National 

Technical Information Service. Approximately $15,000 

was collected in FY 1981 by GPO and NTIS on account 

of sales of Clearinghouse documents. 

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

of having funds lapse. 
43 

Appendix 1 

Biographical Data on 

Commissioners and 

Statutory Officers 

Commissioners 

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman 

April 30, 1987-'4 

Before his appointment to the Commission in December 

1981 , Mr. McDonald served as general administrator of 

the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. In this position, 

assumed in 1979, he was responsible for the management of 10 regulatory divisions. He was secretary of the 

Tulsa County Election Board from 1974 to 1979 and 

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

served as a member of the Advisory Panel to the FEC's 

National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. A native of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, Mr. McDonald holds a 

B.A. from Oklahoma State University and attended the 

John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman 

April 30, 1987 

Before her appointment to the Commission in December 

1981, Mrs. Elliott served as vice president of Bishop, 

Bryant & Associates, Inc., of Washington, D.C. From 

1970 to 1979, Mrs. Elliott was associate executive director of the American Medical Political Action Committee, 

having served as assistant director from 1961 to 1970. 

Mrs. Elliott also served on the board of directors of the 

American Association of Political Consultants and of the 

Chicago Area Public Affairs Group, of which she is a 

past president. She was a member of the Public Affairs 

Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United 

States. In 1979, she received the Award for Excellence 

in Serving Corporate Public Affairs from the National 

Association of Manufacturers. Mrs. Elliott, a native of St. 

Louis, Missouri, holds a B.A. from the University of Illinois and completed the Medical Association Management Executives Program at Northwestern University. In 

December 1983, Mrs. Elliott was elected to serve as 

Commission Chairman during 1984. 

Joan D. Aikens 

April 30, 1989 

Mrs. Aikens served as Commission Chairman between 

May 1978 and May 1979. She was formerly vice president of Lew Hodges/Communications, a public relations 

firm located in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. From 1972 

until1974, she was president of the Pennsylvania Council of Republican Women and served on the board of 

directors of the National Federation of Republican 

Women. A native of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 

Mrs. Aikens has been active in a variety of volunteer 

organizations. She received her B.A. and honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Ursinus College, Collegeville, 

Pennsylvania. 

Commissioner Aikens' original appointment to the 

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

reappointed for five years when the FEC was reconstituted and, when that term expired in April 1981, continued to serve until receiving a recess appointment from 

President Reagan. On December 17, 1981, the President named Mrs. Aikens to complete the term of former 

Commissioner Max Friedersdorf, who resigned in December 1980. (During 1981, Commissioner Vernon 

Thomson, serving as an interim appointee, had held Mr. 

Friedersdorf's seat.) In 1983, President Reagan again 

reappointed Mrs. Aikens, this time for a six-year term. 

Thomas E. Harris 

April 30, 1985 

Mr. Harris was Commission Chairman between May 

1977 and May 1978. Before serving on the Commission, 

he was associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO in 

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

same position with the CIO from 1948 until it merged 

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

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

University of Arkansas, Mr. Harris is a 1935 graduate of 

Columbia University Law School. After graduation, he 

clerked one year for Supreme Court Justice Harlan F. 

Stone. 

Mr. Harris was originally appointed to the Commission 

for a four-year term and upon reconstitution received a 

three-year appointment. In 1979, President Carter reappointed him and, on June 19, 1979, the U.S. Senate "Term expiration date. 
44 

reconfirmed Mr. Harris for a six-year term. In December 

1983, he was elected to serve as Commission Vice 

Chairman during 1984. 

John Warren McGarry 

April 30, 1989 

Mr. McGarry, a native of Massachusetts, graduated cum 

laude from Holy Cross College in 1952. He subsequently 

did graduate work at Boston University and obtained a 

Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown Law Center in 

1956. Mr. McGarry served as assistant attorney general 

of Massachusetts from 1959 through 1962. In that capacity he served as both trial counsel and appellate advocate. Following his tenure in office, he combined 

private law practice with service as chief counsel for the 

Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of the U.S. House of Representatives. This committee was created by special resolution every election 

year through 1972 in order to oversee House elections. 

From 1973 until his appointment to the Commission on 

October 25, 1978, Mr. McGarry served as special counsel on elections to the Committee on House Administration of the U.S. Congress. In 1980, he was elected to 

serve as Chairman of the Commission during 1981. 

In 1983, President Reagan named Mr. McGarry to 

serve a second term as Commissioner. 

Frank P. Reiche 

April30, 1985 

Before his appointment to the Commission in July 1979, 

Mr. Reiche served as Chairman of the first New Jersey 

Election Law Enforcement Commission for six years. 

Prior to that, Mr. Reiche served in a variety of Republican 

Party positions, including eight years as a Republican 

County Committeeman. As an attorney specializing in 

tax law, Mr. Reiche graduated from Columbia University 

Law School in 1959 and received a Master of Laws 

Degree in Taxation from New York University in 1966. 

Prior to that, he received his A.B. from Williams College 

in 1951 and a Masters Degree in Foreign Affairs from 

George Washington University in 1959. He also served 

as a member of New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill's 

blue ribbon Tax Policy Committee from 1970 to 1972. 

Mr. Reiche was a partner in the Princeton law firm of 

Smith, Stratton, Wise and Heher from 1964 until his 

appointment to the Commission. He served as Commission Chairman in 1982. 

Ex Officio Commissioners 

Benjamin J. Guthrie 

Mr. Guthrie, an Ex Officio Member of the Commission, 

was elected Clerk of the House of Representatives on 

January 3, 1983. He had previously served as Sergeant 

at Arms of the House, from 1980 to 1982, and as printing 

clerk and director in the House Legislative Processes 

office, from 1957 to 1980. He joined the House staff after 

11 years with the U.S. Government Printing Office. A 

World War II veteran, Mr. Guthrie served with the U.S. 

Army Signal Corps from 1942 to 1946, after graduating 

from the Maryland State Teachers College in Salisbury, 

Maryland. 

Douglas Patton, attorney, continued to serve at the 

Commission as Special Deputy to the Clerk of the 

House. 

William F. Hildenbrand 

Mr. Hildenbrand, an Ex Officio Member of the Commission, was elected Secretary of the Senate in January 

1981, after serving as Secretary for the Minority sinee 

1974. A native of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, Mr. Hildenbrand began his government service in 1957 as assistant to Congressman Harry G. Haskeii,·Jr. From 1959 to 

1960, he served as Congressional liaison officer for the 

former Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 

He then became legislative assistant to Senator J. Caleb 

Boggs of Delaware. From 1969 to 1974, he served as 

administrative assistant to Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, the former Senate Republican Minority Leader. 

Thomas J. Josefiak, attorney, continued to serve at 

the Commission as Special Deputy to the Secretary of 

the Senate. 
45 

Statutory Officers 

John C. Surina, Staff Director'5 

Before joining the Commission in July 1983, Mr. Surina 

was Assistant Managing Director of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), where he was detailed to the 

"Reform 88" program at the Office of Management and 

Budget. In that role, he worked on projects to reform 

administrative management within the Federal government. From 1973 to 1980, Mr. Surina served the ICC in 

other capacities. During 1972 to 1973, he was an expertconsultant to the Office of Control and Operations, EOPCost of Living Council-Pay Board. Before that, he was 

on the technical staff of the Computer Sciences Corporation. Mr. Surina joined the U.S. Army in 1966, completing his service in 1970 as Executive Officer of the 

Special Security Office. As Executive Officer, he sup30 The former Staff Director, B. Allen Clutter, resigned in May 

1983 to accept a position in the private sector. 

ported senior U.S. Delegates to NATO's civil headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. 

A native of Alexandria, Virginia, Mr. Surina holds a 

Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University. He also attended East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina, and American 

University in Washington, D.C. 

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel 

Mr. Steele became General Counsel in December 1979, 

after serving as acting General Counsel during November 1979. Before this, he was Associate General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation from April 1977 

through October 1979. Mr. Steele received an A.B. from 

Harvard College in 1960 and an LL.B. from Harvard Law 

School in 1965. Prior to joining the Commission in January 1976, Mr. Steele was a staff attorney with the appellate court branch of the National Labor Relations 

Board. 
Appendix 2 

FEC Organization Chart 

The Commissioners 

Danny L McDonald, Chainnan 

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chainnan* 

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner 

Thomas E. Harris, Commissioner** 

John Warren McGarry, Commissioner 

Frank P. Reiche, Commissioner 

Benjamin J. Guthrie, Ex Officio/House 

William F. Hildenbrand, Ex Officio/Senate 

I l 

Commission 

General Counsel Staff Director Secretary 

I Congressional 

and lntergovemmental Affairs - Deputy Staff 

Director for 

Management Personnel and L... Labor/Manage- Advisory ment Relations t- Audit Opinions 

1-

j~·<~:-. 1- ·.-_,; ,- .. 

Enforcement 1- lnfonnation - f- 1- .. /. 

~ 

.·~"'" 1- ' 

Litigation 1-- Public Disclosure 

1-

Reports Regulations 1-- L... 

Analysis 

Administration 

Data Systems 

Development 

Planning and 

Management 

• ~d· i ' . 

47 

*Commissioner Elliott was elected to serve a one-year term as Commission Chairman beginning January 1, 1984. 

**Commissioner Harris was elected to serve a one-year term as Commission Vice Chairman beginning January 1, 1984. 
49 

Appendix 3 

Chronology of Events, 1983 

January 

1--Commissioners Danny L. McDonald and Lee Ann 

Elliott begin serving one-year terms as Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively. 

7-Commission releases preliminary figures on financial activity of Congressional campaigns from 

1981 through November 1982. 

14-Commission releases updated figures on growth 

of political action committees (PACs). 

24-Commission transmits to Congress revised primary matching fund regulations. 

28--Commission releases preliminary figures on financial activity of national party committees and 

political action committees (PACs) from 1981 

through November 1982. 

31-1982 year-end report due. 

February 

1o-commission decides to postpone official action 

on contributions submitted for primary matching 

funds until corresponding revised regulations are 

prescribed. 

12-Texas holds special election in 6th Congressional 

District. 

16-Commission makes available revised Presidential 

reporting form (FEC Form 3P). 

25--Commission transmits to Congress revised regulations on use of disclaimer notices on political 

advertisements and solicitations. 

March 

1--Commission transmits to Congress revised regulations on communications by corporations and 

labor organizations (later withdrawn; see April22, 

below). 

-New York holds special election in 7th Congressional District. 

8--Commission approves revised edition of Financial Control and Compliance Manual for Presidential Primary Candidates Receiving Public 

Funds. 

1~U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in 

Satellite Business Systems (SBS) v. FEC, grants 

plaintiffs' motion to dismiss suit challenging Commission advisory opinion which prohibited SBS, a 

partnership composed of corporate members, 

from either making contributions or establishing a 

separate segregated fund. 

-Commission testifies on fiscal year 1984 budget 

before Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. 

22-Commission releases preliminary figures on independent expenditures made during 1981-82 

election cycle. 

28-2~Advisory Panel of Commission's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration meets in 

Washington, D.C. 

29-Colorado holds special election in 6th Congressional District. 

31--Commission submits 1983 recommendations for 

legislative change to the President and Congress. 

April 

4-Commission prescribes revised primary matching 

fund regulations. 

6--Commission testifies on fiscal year 1984 budget 

before Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 

12--Commission testifies on fiscal year 1984 budget 

before House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. 

13--Commission testifies on fiscal year 1984 budget 

before House Administration Committee's Task 

Force on Elections. 

14-Commission determines Democratic Presidential 

candidates Walter Mondale and Alan Cranston 

eligible to receive primary matching funds. 

22-Commission transmits to Congress revised regulations on candidate's use of property in which 

spouse has interest. 

-Commission withdraws from Congressional review revised regulations on communications by 

corporations and labor organizations (later resubmitted to Congress; see August 9-1 0 and October 27, below). 

2~ommission releases statistics on party committees based on interim FEC Reports on Financial 
50 

Activity, 1981-1982: Party and Non-Party Political Committees. 

29--Commission releases statistics on political action 

committees (PACs) based on interim FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-1982: Party and 

Non-Party Political Committees. 

May 

2-Commission releases statistics based on interim 

FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-1982: 

U.S. Senate and House Campaigns. 

13-Commission prescribes revised regulations on 

use of disclaimer notices on political advertisements and solicitations. 

15-Commission Staff Director B. Allen Clutter resigns. 

19--Commission determines Democratic Presidential 

candidate Reubin Askew eligible to receive primary matching funds. 

June 

1-Commission submits Annual Report 1982 to the 

President and Congress. 

2-Commission transmits to Congress revised regulations governing transfers of funds, collecting 

agents and joint fundraising. 

&-Commission introduces computerized FEC MUR 

Index, which presents information on publicly released compliance cases. 

10--President Reagan nominates Commissioners 

Joan D. Aikens and John Warren McGarry for 

six-year reappointments as Commissioners. 

-U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in 

Common Cause v. FEC, approves plaintiffs request to dismiss suit since Commission had 

taken final action on complaint which had precipitated the suit. 

21--Califomia holds special election in 5th Congressional District. 

23-Commission certifies $5,871 ,000 in public funds 

to both the Republican and Democratic parties 

for their 1984 national Presidential nominating 

conventions. 

-supreme Court, in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, holds that legislative veto 

provision in Immigration and Naturalization Act is 

unconstitutional (see also June 30, below). 

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

in Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee v. 

FEC, rules it has no jurisdiction over Committee's 

petition for review of Commission determination 

concerning repayment of 1980 public funds since 

petition was filed late. 

26-Commission testifies at oversight hearing held by 

House Administration Committee's Task Force on 

Elections. 

-Illinois holds special primary election in 1st Congressional District. 

30--Commission, in response to Chadha opinion (see 

June 23, above), decides to continue submitting 

new regulations to Congress for review. 

July 

1-Commission prescribes revised regulations on 

candidate's use of property in which spouse has 

interest. 

-Commission transmits to Congress revised regulations on public funding of Presidential general 

elections. 

19-John C. Surina is appointed Commission Staff 

Director. 

21-Commission prescribes technical conforming 

amendments to regulations on public funding of 

Presidential nominating conventions. 

28--Commission releases updated figures on growth 

of political action committees (PACs). 

29-U.S. Senate unanimously confirms six-year reappointments of Commissioners Joan D. Aikens 

and John Warren McGarry. 

30-President Reagan approves P.L. 98-63, which includes an amendment to election law's provision 

on honoraria and a $197,000 supplemental appropriation to Commission to cover a portion of 

October 1982 cost-of-living pay raise. 

31-8emiannual report due. 

August 

1-Commission issues Directive 48 describing internal procedures for releasing closed compliance 

cases (Matters Under Review or MURs) to public. 
51 

-Commission makes available brochure, Free 

Publications. 

9-1(}--Commission holds second round of public hearings on proposed revisions to regulations on communications by corporations and labor 

organizations. 

18-Commission determines Democratic Presidential 

candidate Gary Hart eligible to receive primary 

matching funds. 

19-Commission publishes new brochure, Public 

Funding of Presidential Elections. 

22-Commission prescribes revised regulations on 

transfers of funds, collecting agents and joint 

fundraising. 

23-lllinois holds special election in 1st Congressional 

District. 

September 

6-8-Commission cosponsors Midwest Regional Conference in Itasca, Illinois (suburb of Chicago). 

7-Commission releases statistics based on FEC Index of Communication Costs for 1982. 

9-Commission publishes Election Results for the 

U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives (1982 general elections). 

25-27-Commission cosponsors Northeast Regional 

Conference in Albany, New York. 

29-Commission certifies additional $44,485.65 in primary matching funds to John Anderson's 1980 

Presidential campaign. 

paign. 

October 

1-President Reagan approves P.L. 98-107, which 

appropriates $10,000,000 fiscal-year 1984 interim funding level for Commission in continuing 

resolution ending November 10, 1983. 

6-Commission determines Democratic candidate 

John Glenn eligible to receive primary matching 

funds. 

11-Commission publishes new Campaign Guide for 

Nonconnected Political Committees. 

-Washington holds special primary election for 

Senate seat. 

13-Commission determines Democratic candidate 

Ernest Hollings eligible to receive primary matching funds. 

14-Commission releases statistics based on 1981-

82 FEC Index of Independent Expenditures. 

17-Commission transmits to Congress revised regulations on corporate authorization of trade association solicitations. 

18--Georgia holds special election in 7th Congressional District. 

19---U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in 

Fund for a Conservative Majority v. FEC, dismisses with prejudice plaintiff's petition that court 

enjoin Commission from filing suits to enforce or 

construe 26 U.S.C. Section 9012(f), which limits 

spending by political committees on behalf of 

publicly funded Presidential nominees. 

23-25-Commission cosponsors Southern Regional 

Conference in Charleston, South Carolina. 

24-U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, ln 

Athens Lumber Company v. FEC, upholds constitutionality of election law's prohibitions on corporate contributions. 

27-Commission prescribes revised regulations on 

public funding of Presidential general elections. 

-Commission resubmits to Congress revised regulations on communications by corporations and 

labor organizations. 

November 

4-Commission introduces computer index, 1984 

Presidential Campaign Summary Report. 

&-Washington holds special general election for 

Senate seat. 

-Georgia holds special runoff election in 7th Congressional District. 

13-15-Commission cosponsors Southwest Regional 

Conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 

14-President Reagan approves P.L. 98-151, which 

appropriates $1 0,649,000 fiscal-year 1984 funding level for Commission in continuing resolution 

ending September 30, 1984. 

21-Commission prescribes technical conforming 

amendment to regulations on honoraria (see July 

30, above). 
52 

29-Commission releases statistics on political action 

committees (PACs) based on FEC Reports on 

Financial Activity, 1981-1982, Final Report: Party 

and Non-Party Political Committees. 

December 

2-Commission releases statistics based on FEC 

Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-1982, Final 

Report: U.S. Senate and House Campaigns. 

3--Commission releases statistics on party committees based on FEC Reports on Financial Activity, 

1981-1982, Final Report: Party and Non-Party 

Political Committees. 

~mmission cosponsors Far West Regional Conference in Los Angeles, California. 

9--Commission releases computer tapes containing 

final campaign finance information on 1981-82 

election cycle. 

12-U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, in FEC v. National Conservative 

Political Action Committee and Fund for a Conservative Majority, rules that Commission may 

not enforce 26 U.S.C. Section 9012(f), which limits spending by political committees on behalf of 

publicly funded Presidential nominees. 

15--Commission certifies a total of $6,776,289 in primary matching funds to six eligible candidates -

the first public funds certified for 1984 Presidential candidates. 

-Commission unanimously elects Commissioners 

Lee Ann Elliott and Thomas E. Harris as 1984 

Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively. 

2o-commission certifies an additional $995,671 in 

primary matching funds to three 1984 Presidential candidates. 
53 

Appendix 4 

The FEC's Budget 

The table and graph below compare budget allocations, 

by function and division, for fiscal years 1982 and 1983. 

In fiscal year 1982, the Commission's funding totaled 

$9.174 million, provided through a series of continuing 

resolutions totaling $8.990 million plus a supplemental 

appropriation of $184,000 to cover 50 percent of the 

October 1981 cost-of-living salary increase. 

The Commission received $9.897 million in funding for 

fiscal year 1983. Congress appropriated $9.700 million 

through two continuing resolutions and an additional 

$197,000 to cover a portion oi ihe October 1982 pay 

raise. 

FEC Budget 

Functional Allocation 

FY82* FY83 

Personnel Compensation, 

Including Benefits $6,884,573 $7,194,703 

Travel 

Transportation and 

43,985 112,770 

Motor Pool 4,969 7,329 

Commercial Space 10,982 13,179 

Equipment Rental 147,135 179,639 

Printing 149,987 260,231 

Contracts 633,383 727,101 

Administrative Expenses 49,338 56,912 

Supplies 87,364 86,954 

Library Materials 31,526 41,494 

Telephone, Telegraph 169,282 232,440 

Postage 74,733 54,933 

Space Rental 572,171 574,961 

Equipment Purchases 59,964 220,456 

Training 6,929 27,349 

GSA, Services, Other 247,679 61,031 

Total $9,174,000 $9,851,482** 

*Fiscal year 1982 figures differ from those published in 

Appendix 4 of the Annual Report 1982 because more definitive data 

were available in 1983. 

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

Divisional Allocation 

Percent of 

Total Budget 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

of 

General house Systems 

Counsel Development 

- FY82** 

DFY83 

*Administration budget includes rent, supplies, reproduction services, etc., for the entire Commission. 

**Fiscal year 1982 percentages differ from those presented in Appendix 4 of the Annual Report 1982 because more definitive data 

were available in 1983. 
55 

Appendix 5 

Statistics on Commission 

Operations 

Summary Of Disclosure Files 

Total 

Fliers 

Existing In 

1983* 

Fliers 

Terminated 

as of 

12131/83 

Fliers 

Waived 

as of 

12/31/83 

Continuing 

Filers 

as of 

12131/83 

Number of 

Reports and 

Statements 

in 1983 

Gross Receipts 

in 1983 

Gross 

Expenditures 

in 1983 

Presidential 

Candidates 

Committees 

537 $ 34,063,902 $ 31,646,782 

204 

166 

19 

12 

0 

0 

185 

154 

Senate 

Candidates 

Committees 

680 $ 55,360,458 $ 35,533,214 

600 

395 

39 

61 

25 

1 

536 

333 

House 

Candidates 

Committees 

2,829 $ 50,190,573 $ 39,358,318 

2,568 

1,690 

191 

312 

0 

2 

2,377 

1,376 

Party 365 13 18 334 665 $243,392,381 $219,248,542 

National Level Committees 30 2 1 27 

State Level Committees 139 2 4 133 

Local Level Committees 190 9 13 168 

Convention Committees 6 0 0 6 

Delegates 5 0 0 5 1 $ 0 $ 12 

Nonparty 3,745 220 0 3,525 10,815 $110,464,730 $ 75,883,692 

Labor Committees 403 25 0 378 

Corporate Committees 1,606 70 0 1,536 

Membership, Trade & Other 

Committees 

1,736 125 0 1,611 

Communication Cost Filers 74 N/A N/A N/A 29 N/A $ 55,189 

Independent Expenditures 

By Persons Other Than 

Political Committees 

89 N/A N/A N/A 38 N!A $ 333,592 

*In this column, figures may be less than those which appeared in the "Continuing Filers" column of the Annual Report 1982, page 

55, because of technical adjustments to the data base. 
56 

Divisional Statistics* 

Reports Analysis Division 

Documents processed 43,382 

Reports reviewed 38,426 

Requests for additional information 4,633 

Names of candidate committees published 

for failure to file reports 28 

Compliance matters referred to the Office 

of General Counsel or Audit Division 178 

Data Systems Development Division 

Documents receiving Pass I** coding 52,582 

Documents receiving Pass Ill** coding 25,906 

Documents receiving Pass I entry 52,835 

Documents receiving Pass Ill entry 24,547 

Transactions receiving Pass Ill entry••• 213,317 

Audits Completed by Audit Division, 

1975-1983 

Presidential 44 

Presidential Joint Fundraising 6 

Senate 12 

House 103 

Party (National) 37 

Party (Other) 87 

Nonparty 50 

Total 339 

*Figures represent f1scal year, rather than calendar year, 

totals. 

··computer coding and entry of campaign finance 

information occurs in two phases. In the first phase, Pass I, 

summary information is coded and entered into the computer within 

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

second phase, Pass Ill, itemized information is coded and entered. 

***Pass Ill transactions are itemized transactions including 

contributions of $500 or more by individuals, as well as contributions, 

transfers and expenditures of any amount by various committees 

and other filers. 

Public Records Office 

Campaign finance material processed 

(total pages) 692,925 

Responses to requests for campaign 

finance reports 7,355 

Visitors served 7,616 

Total people served 14,971 

Informational calls 10,023 

Total income (transmitted to U.S. 

Treasury) $60,072 

Cumulative total pages of documents 

available for review 4,543,158 

Information Services Division 

Telephone inquiries 50,142 

General information letters 177 

Distribution of FEC materials 8,229 

Prior notices (sent to inform filers 

of reporting deadlines) 19,519 

Visitors 142 

Public appearances by Commissioners 

and FEC staff 72 

Press releases 142 

Telephone inquiries from press 9,378 

Visitors to press office 945 

Freedom of Information Act requests 109 

Number of publications 22 

Assistance to Secretaries of State (State 

election offices) 2,717 

Notices of failure to file with State 

election offiCeS 623 

Regional conferences (in cooperation with 

Clearinghouse) 5 

Clearinghouse on Election Administration 

Telephone inquiries 2,340 

Information letters 495 

Visitors 91 

Workshops 5 

Regional conferences (in cooperation with 

Information Services) 5 
57 

Office of General Counsel 

Fiscal Year 

1983 

Advisory Opinions 

Requests pending at beginning of FY 83 

Requests received in FY 83 

Issued, closed or withdrawn in FY 83 

Pending at close of FY 83 

5 

43 

38* 

10 

Compliance Csses** 

Pending at beginning of FY 83 80 

Opened during FY 83 127 

Closed during FY 83 130 

Pending at close of FY 83 77 

Litigation 

Pending at beginning of FY 83 21 

Opened during FY 83 17 

Closed during FY 83 19 

Pending at close of FY 83 19 

Number of cases won 13 

Number of cases lost 2 

Voluntary dismissals 3 

Dismissed as moot 1 

Law library 

Telephone inquiries 2,009 

Visitors served 760 

*35 opinions were 1ssued; 3 op1n1on requests were 

withdrawn or closed without issuance of an opinion. 

**Compliance cases, referred to as MURs (Matters Under 

Review), stem from possible violations of the election law which 

come to the Commission's attention either through formal complaints 

filed with the Commission or as a result of the Commission's own 

internal monitoring procedures. The election law requires that 

investigations remain confidential until the Commission makes a 

final determination and the case is closed. At that point, the case file 

(including the complaint, the findings of the General Counsel's Office 

and the Commission's action) is made available to the public. 
59 

Appendix 6 

Summaries of New 

Regulations 

This appendix summarizes major provisions of Commission regulations prescribed during 1983 and early 1984. 

Summaries of public funding regulations appear first, followed by highlights of regulations not specifically related 

to public funding. A technical amendment to regulations 

on honoraria is discussed on page 20 . 

Primary Matching Fund 

State-by-State Allocations 

Under the election law, Presidential primary campaigns 

receiving public funds must agree to limit spending to 

both a national limit and a separate limit for each State.36 

The previous regulations provided few guidelines for allocating expenditures under the State limits. By contrast, 

the new revisions set out definite procedures for allocating particular types of expenditures. For example, they 

include specific methods for allocating media expenditures within a State (e.g., newspaper and t.v. political 

ads) and overhead expenses involving campaign activity 

in several States (e.g., costs of telephone calls between 

States or opinion polls conducted in two or more States). 

Moreover, the revised regulations establish "testingthe-water" disbursements as a category of allocable expenditures. Under a new provision, if an individual makes 

disbursements to test the waters for a potential Presidential candidacy and subsequently becomes a candidate, those payments become campaign expenditures 

subject to the spending limits. 

Exemptions to State-By-State Spending Limits 

Other provisions allow campaigns to automatically exclude certain expenditures from the State spending limits. For example, one provision allows campaigns to 

exclude from the State spending limit up to 10 percent of 

overhead expenditures and campaign workers' salaries 

in a particular State. These are considered exempt compliance costs (i.e., expenditures to ensure compliance 

with the election law). Another 10 percent may be automatically applied toward the limited exemption for fundraising. Codifying a previous Commission policy, the new 

rules also exclude exempt compliance and fundraising 

costs from the national spending limit. 

As under the previous rules, expenditures for national 

campaign headquarter operations do not have to be allocated to the State spending limits. The revised regulations add another category of national campaign 

expenditures which need not be allocated, namely, expenditures for national advertising and opinion polls. The 

revisions also specifically identify other types of expenditures which are not subject to the campaign's State-byState spending limits, such as the salaries of campaign 

staff working in a State for four consecutive days or less 

or disbursements for producing media ads or for providing transportation and other services to media representatives. These expenditures are, however, subject to the 

campaign's national spending limit. 

Submissions and Certifications 

The new rules more closely reflect actual procedures 

followed in past elections for the submission and resubmission of contributions to be matched and for the Commission's certification of matching fund payments. 

Moreover, all requirements for matching fund submissions are now consolidated under one section of the 

regulations. 

One new provision, for example, allows a campaign to 

submit requests for matching funds by letter rather than 

a full matching fund submission.37 The letter request 

must specify the amount of matchable contributions a 

campaign received subsequent to its last submission 

and must be accompanied by supporting bank documentation, such as validated deposit slips. 

The campaign's next submission must be a fully documented submission covering the letter request and the 

current submission. The Commission anticipated that 

this change would almost halve the number of matching 

fund submissions prepared by campaigns while still providing for twice-monthly matching fund payments. Under 

36 The national spending limit is $1 0 million plus a Cost of Living 

Adjustment (COLA). (The COLA brought the 1984 national spending 

limit to $20,200,000.) The State limit is based on the following 

formula: $200,000 plus COLA or 16 cents (plus COLA) x the State 

Voting Age Population, whichever is greater. 

37 A full matching fund submission contains a list of matchable 

contributions and includes each contributor's address and the 

amount of each contribu1ion. The submission also includes a 

photocopy of each contributor check (or other written instrument) 

and supporting bank documentation showing that the funds were 

deposited. These contributions must be submitted in accordance 

with the Commission's Guideline for Presentation in Good Order. 
60 

another new provision, a campaign is no longer required 

to alphabetize the backup documentation (i.e., copies of 

all contributor checks) included with each submission 

made after its threshold submission. Instead, the checks 

may be presented in the order in which they are deposited with a reference on the contributor list to indicate the 

exact location of each check. 

Matchable Contributions 

The rules answer a number of questions raised during 

the 1980 election cycle concerning the matchability of 

certain types of contributions. For example, a new provision establishes procedures whereby campaigns can 

request matching funds for contributions collected 

through joint fundraising with other candidates or committees. (Although the Commission had matched joint 

fundraising proceeds in the 1980 Presidential election, it 

had never codified the rule.) 

In a change from 1980 policy, the new regulations 

provide that the full price for admission to a fundraising 

event, such as a concert, may be a matchable contribution if it otherwise meets the requirements. Contributions 

received when an individual tests the waters for a potential Presidential candidacy may also be matched, according to the revised rules, once the individual declares his/ 

her candidacy and if the contributions meet the standards for matchability. 

Sale of Assets 

The revised regulations address the issue of whether 

campaigns may sell fundraising items either donated to 

or purchased by the campaign, such as artwork. One 

provision permits campaigns to sell such assets, though 

the amount paid is considered a contribution subject to 

the law's limits and prohibitions. However, the provision 

includes an exception for campaigns whose outstanding 

debts exceed their cash on hand at the end of the matching payment period. These campaigns may sell assets 

acquired for fundraising purposes to a wholesaler or 

other intermediary, who may, in tum, sell the assets to 

the public. The rules specify that, in this case, the sale 

proceeds do not count as campaign contributions from 

either the wholesaler or the purchaser. 

Review and Investigative Authority 

The new rules clarify the Commission's statutorily mandated authority to conduct audits of campaigns receiving 

matching funds. They fully describe the audit process, 

including audit fieldwork and the preparation, content 

and public release of audit reports. 

Repayments 

The revised rules add a new provision to the section 

which explains the candidate's obligation to repay matching funds under certain circumstances. Under the new 

provision, campaigns that submit written statements 

contesting a repayment determination can also be 

granted an oral hearing upon an affirmative vote of four 

Commissioners. 

Public Funding of Presidential 

Nominating Conventions 

To conform with 1979 amendments to the election law, 

the modified rules: 

• Increase the amount of convention financing available to major and minor political parties from $2 

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

• Modify the convention committee's requirements for 

documenting expenditures so that the requirements 

apply only to those expenditures exceeding $200 

(formerly $100) and not to aggregate expenditures 

to the same payee (as formerly required). 

Moreover, the amended rules incorporate, where appropriate, the new term used by the Office of Management and Budget to define a metropolitan area, that is, 

"metropolitan statistical area" (formerly "standard metropolitan statistical area"). 

Public Funding of Presidential 

General Elections 

Candidate Eligibility: Candidate Agreements and 

Certifications 

The revised rules consolidate under one section of the 

regulations all those conditions to which a candidate and 

his/her authorized committee(s) must agree in order to 

be eligible for public funds. Consistent with the revisions 
61 

to the primary matching fund regulations, the rules also 

add new provisions under which a candidate must agree 

that: 

• The candidate has the burden of proving that disbursements made by his/her campaign are qualified 

campaign expenses; 

• The candidate and his/her authorized committee(s) 

will comply with the documentation requirements; 

and 

• The candidate and his/her authorized committee(s) 

will provide any other explanations needed to determine the connection between the campaign and 

disbursements made by the candidate or his/her 

authorized committee(s). 

Certification Of Payments 

To Minor and New Party Candidates 

Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (the 

Fund Act), new or minor party candidates may become 

eligible for partial public funding after the general election 

if they received between 5 and 25 percent of the total 

popular votes cast in the election.38 In a subsequent 

Presidential election, they may receive partial public 

funding prior to the general election, provided they meet 

certain eligibility requirements. The revised rules clarify 

the eligibility requirements for minor and new party candidates who seek public funding (before or after the general election) and spell out procedures for certifying 

payments. 

Qualified vs. Nonqualified 

Campaign Expenses 

Under the election law, candidates who accept a public 

grant for their election campaigns must use the Federal 

funds exclusively for qualified campaign expenses. They 

must also limit spending to the amount of the grant ($20 

million, plus a cost-of-living adjustment).39 The revisions 

clarify the types of winding-down expenses that are considered qualified campaign expenses and more clearly 

describe the categories of nonqualified campaign expenses. 

Expenses for Secret Service 

and Other Security Personnel 

Government regulations (other than Commission rules) 

govern payment of expenses incurred by Secret Service 

or other authorized personnel who must, for national 

security reasons, travel with a campaign. The revised 

general election rules therefore delete provisions governing the campaign's payment of these expenses and subsequent reimbursement for them. 

Campaign's Use of Government 

Transportation 

The rules modify the method of allocating travel costs 

incurred by candidates who use government transportation. For example, rather than paying the actual cost of 

using a government aircraft (e.g., Air Force 1), the candidate must instead pay the equivalent of first-class commercial fare or commercial charter fare. 

Legal and Accounting Compliance Fund 

Although a publicly funded major party candidate may 

not, under the law, use private contributions to defray 

qualified campaign expenses, the candidate may accept 

private contributions and place them in a separate fund 

(i.e., compliance fund) used solely to ensure that the 

campaign complies with the law and Commission regulations. (Disbursements from the compliance fund are 

exempt from the spending limit, provided they are used 

solely for compliance-related costs.) Under the new 

rules, publicly funded minor and new party candidates 

are not required to establish a separate compliance fund. 

Instead, they may combine in one account public funds 

and private contributions used to defray both qualified 

campaign expenses and compliance activities. 

The regulations also stipulate the rules governing 

compliance funds established by publicly funded candidates of major parties. The new rules clarify the types of 

receipts that may be deposited in a compliance fund and 

the types of payments that may be made from the fund. 

Exempt Administrative Expenses 

Following the primary matching fund regulations, the revised rules specify that major party candidates receiving 

31 Note that, since minor or new party candidates may receive 

partial public funding, the law permits them to supplement public 

funds with private contributions. Those candidates, however, are 

otherwise subject to the same requirements, including spending 

limits, which apply to major party candidates. 

30 The cost-of-living adjustment brought the 1984 public funding 

grant for a major party nominee to $40,400,000. 
62 

public funds may exclude a portion of their operating 

expenditures from the spending limit. A campaign may 

allocate a portion of these operating expenditures (e.g., 

payroll and overhead costs) to exempt compliance costs 

and pay for them from the compliance fund. Similarly, 

publicly funded campaigns of minor or new party candidates may allocate a portion of their operating expenditures to exempt compliance costs and to the limited 

exemption for fundraising costs. 

Candidate's Withdrawal 

from the Campaign 

Like the previous regulations, the new rules specify that 

candidates who withdraw from active campaigning must 

file a statement of withdrawal. However, the revisions 

shortened the filing deadline from 60 to 30 days. 

Candidate's Statement 

of Net Outstanding 

Qualified Campaign Expenses 

Consistent with past Commission practice, a new provision spells out the requirements for filing statements for 

net outstanding qualified campaign expenses once the 

campaign is over. Special filing deadlines are set for 

candidates who withdraw from active campaigning or 

seek post-election public funding. 

Audit Authority 

Consistent with revisions to the primary matching fund 

regulations, the new rules for general election campaigns 

clarify the Commission's statutorily mandated authority 

to conduct audits of publicly funded campaigns. They 

describe the audit process, including audit fieldwork and 

the preparation, content and public release of audit reports. 

Repayments 

Again following the primary matching fund regulations, 

the revised rules stipulate that campaigns submitting 

written statements to contest a repayment determination 

may also be granted an oral hearing upon an affirmative 

vote of four Commissioners. 

Unauthorized Expenditures 

and Contributions 

Several new provisions describe transactions that are 

unlawful under Section 9012 of the Fund Act. For example, they stipulate that publicly funded Presidential 

candidates and nominating conventions may not knowingly and willfully: exceed their respective spending limits; accept private contributions (if specifically prohibited); 

use public funds for nonqualified expenses; falsify campaign or convention records or fail to furnish records if 

requested by the Commission. Finally, the new rules 

impose a $1,000 limit on expenditures made by an unauthorized committee to further the election of a publicly 

funded Presidential nominee. However, the provision 

specifically exempts from the $1 ,000 limit news stories 

and editorials produced by news media and partisan 

communications made by tax-exempt corporations to 

their members. 

Notices for Political Ads and 

Solicitations 

The new revisions clarify the disclaimer notice requirements for the following types of political communications: 

• Solicitations made to the general public for contributions to a political committee which is not authorized by a . candidate must include a disclaimer 

notice. The notice need only state the full name of 

the person sponsoring the solicitation. (Illustration: 

Paid for by the XYZ Committee.) On the other hand, 

separate segregated funds do not have to include 

a disclaimer notice on their solicitations since they 

direct their solicitations to their own personnel, not 

the general public. 

• Posters and yard signs that carry political ads must 

bear a disclaimer notice. The revisions exempt, 

however, those communications on which it would 

be impracticable to include a disclaimer notice as, 

for example, an ad placed on a watertower or displayed through skywriting. 
63 

• Political communications printed on one side (e.g., 

a political ad or solicitation placed on a billboard) 

must include the disclaimer notice on the front side. 

If, however, a political ad or solicitation has more 

than one page, the disclaimer may be displayed 

clearly and conspicuously within the communication. 

Candidate's Use of Property 

in Which Spouse Has an Interest 

Loans Requiring Spouse's Signature 

Previous regulations viewed all loan endorsers and guarantors as contributors to the campaign. Thus, if a candidate's spouse was required to cosign a loan, he or she 

became a contributor to the campaign. Under the new 

revisions, a spouse who cosigns a loan is not considered 

a contributor if the candidate's share of the assets used 

as collateral equals or exceeds the amount of the loan 

used for the campaign. For example, Sam Jones obtains 

a $5,000 bank loan for his campaign by using, as collateral, property that is jointly owned with his wife. Jones 

and his wife cosign the loan. If Jones' interest in the 

property is $5,000 or more, his wife would not be considered a contributor to the campaign. 

Candidate's Access to Jointly 

Owned Personal Assets 

As under previous regulations, the new rules allow a 

candidate to contribute an unlimited amount of "personal 

funds" to his or her campaign. However, the revised 

regulations permit a candidate to use, as personal funds, 

his or her portion of assets jointly owned with a spouse. 

In cases where the candidate's financial interest in jointly 

owned assets is not specified (e.g., proceeds from the 

sale of jointly owned stock), the Commission assumes 

that the candidate's share of the assets is 50 percent of 

their total value. The new rules also clarify the right to 

the use of property in a community property State to 

ensure that assets are equally available for use in community property States and non-community property 

States. 

The revised rules additionally clarify the definition of 

"personal funds." Under the new regulations, the term 

"personal funds" includes a) funds to which the candidate has legal title, and b) funds in which the candidate 

has an equitable interest. In both of these cases, as a 

prerequisite to claiming these assets as personal funds, 

the candidate must have a legal right of access to or 

control over the funds. A third category of personal funds 

includes income the candidate has earned from employment. 

Collecting Agents and 

Joint Fundraising 

The new regulations make a distinction between two 

situations: joint fundraising, i.e., election-related fundraising conducted by two or more committees, and collecting agents, i.e., organizations which collect and transfer 

contributions to separate segregated funds. To emphasize this distinction, the Commission changed the title of 

11 CFR 102.6 from "Transfers of Funds; Joint Fundraising" to "Transfers of Funds; Collecting Agents" and created a new section, "Joint Fundraising by Committees 

Other Than Separate Segregated Funds," at 11 CFR 

102.17. The regulations provide a complete set of procedures for both situations. 

Transfers of Funds 

The new regulations, following previous regulations, 

state that transfers between affiliated committees and 

between party committees of the same political party 

are not limited. The new rules add a provision permitting 

participants in joint fundraising to transfer proceeds without limit as long as no committee receives more than its 

allocated share. The revisions also make clear that 

transfers must be made from funds which are permissible under the election law. 

Although, as in previous regulations, the revisions 

state that transfers of funds may trigger political committee status for an unregistered organization, an exception 

was made for transfers of contributions made by a collecting agent to a separate segregated fund (see below). 

Collecting Agents 

This new section in the rules clarifies the application of 

the election law to fundraising on behalf of separate segregated funds. Under these rules, an unregistered orga-
64 

nization acting as a collecting agent does not have to 

register as a political committee or file reports. 

Definition of Collecting Agent. The new regulations define a collecting agent as an organization or committee 

which collects and transmits contributions to a separate 

segregated fund (SSF). A collecting agent must be connected to or affiliated with the separate segregated fund 

and may be: 

• The SSF's connected organization (i.e., the corporation or labor organization which established the 

SSF); 

• A parent, subsidiary, branch or local unit of the 

SSF's connected organization; 

• A local, national or international union collecting 

contributions on behalf of the SSF of any federation 

with which the union is affiliated; or 

• An affiliate of the SSF- either a registered political 

committee or an unregistered organization, such as 

a non-Federal PAC. 

Soliciting Contributions. Under the new rules, a collecting agent may only solicit those individuals eligible for 

solicitation under 11 CFR Part 114 (i.e., the SSF's "restricted class") and must comply with the other requirements for soliciting voluntary contributions to an SSF. 

The revised regulations allow a collecting agent to pay 

for all the costs of soliciting and transmitting contributions 

to the SSF. These payments are not considered contributions or expenditures and do not trigger political committee status for an unregistered collecting agent, such 

as a non-Federal PAC. If the SSF pays solicitation or 

other administrative costs which the collecting agent 

could have paid, as an administrative expense, the collecting agent may reimburse the SSF, but it must do so 

within 30 days. 

The new rules also permit a collecting agent to include 

solicitations for SSF contributions in bills for membership 

dues or other fees. Similarly, a contributor may write one 

check representing both a contribution to the SSF and a 

payment to the collecting agent, provided the check is 

written on an account containing only funds permissible 

under the election law. 

Transmitting Contributions. Collecting agents must forward contributions to the SSF within the time periods 

specified in 11 CFR 102.8 (contributions of $50 or less 

within 30 days, larger contributions within 10 days). Although checks made out to the SSF must be forwarded 

directly to the SSF, the revised regulations provide the 

collecting agent with several options for depositing and 

transmitting other forms of contributions (including 

checks combined with payments to the collecting agent). 

Special rules are set forth for transmitting cash contributions. 

Forwarding Contributor Information. Under the revised 

rules, the collecting agent must forward to the SSF the 

information on contributors specified in 11 CFR 1 02.8. 

However, if contributions of $50 or less are received at a 

mass collection, the collecting agent need only forward 

a record of the name of the function, the date and the 

total amount collected. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting. The collecting agent, 

under the revised regulations, must keep records of all 

contribution deposits and transmittals for 3 years and 

must make the records available to the Commission 

upon request. The SSF must also keep records of all 

transmittals of contributions received from the collecting 

agent for 3 years. 

Only the SSF - not the collecting agent - reports 

contributions collected through the agent. The funds are 

reported as contributions from the original donors rather 

than as a transfer-in from the collecting agent. 

Joint Fundraising 

The revised regulations create a new section setting 

forth the basic rules for conducting joint fundraising activities. 
65 

Who Must Observe Joint Fund raising Rules. 40 The revised rules apply to political committees engaged in joint 

fundraising with other political committees and with unregistered committees and organizations. However, the 

rules do not pertain to collecting agents and separate 

segregated funds. 

Fundraising Representative. Joint fundraising participants must either establish a separate political committee or select a participating political committee to act as 

the fundraising representative. This committee is responsible for collecting proceeds, paying the expenses 

of the fundraiser and distributing proceeds to participants. The regulations make clear that, although participants may hire a commercial firm or agent to assist in 

the joint fundraiser, they are still required to select or 

establish a political committee, as defined in 11 CFR 

1 00.5, as the fundraising representative. 

Start-Up Costs. Participants may advance money for the 

start-up costs of the fundraiser in proportion to the allocation formula, i.e., the formula by which participants 

agree to allocate joint fundraising proceeds and expenses. The regulations state that if a committee advances more than its proportionate share, the excess 

amount is an in-kind contribution to the other participants. 

If, however, all the participants are affiliated committees or if all are party committees of the same political 

party, unlimited amounts may be advanced since there 

are no limits on transfers between affiliated committees 

and between party committees. 

Written Agreement. All joint fundraising participants must 

enter into a written agreement which identifies the fundraising representative and states the allocation formula. 

Joint Fundraising Notice. In addition to the disclaimer 

notice required in 11 CFR 110.11, the rules require each 

solicitation to contain a notice providing specific details 

about the joint fundraising activity: 

• The names of all participants; 

• The allocation formula; 

• A statement informing contributors that they may 

designate contributions for a particular participant; 

and 

• A statement that the allocation formula may change 

if any contributor makes a contribu tion which exceeds the amount he or she may lawfully give to a 

participant. 

The joint fundraising notice requires additional information if any participant is paying off debts and if an 

unregistered participant is permitted, under State law, to 

receive prohibited contributions. 

Separate Depository. The revised regulations require 

participants to establish a separate depository account 

used solely for the receipt and disbursement of joint 

fundraising proceeds. The fundraising representative 

must deposit contributions into the account within 10 

days, although it may delay distributing proceeds to the 

participants until the joint fundraiser is over and all expenses are paid. 

Prohibited contributions acceptable by unregistered 

organizations under State law must be either deposited 

in a second account or transferred directly to the unregistered participants. 

Recordkeeping. The fundraising representative and participating committees must screen contributions to ensure that they are neither prohibited under the election 

law nor in excess of contribution limits. The fundraising 

representative must also collect the contributor information specified in 11 CFR 1 02.8, later forwarding the records to the participants for reporting purposes. 

Allocating Gross Proceeds. Under the new rules, gross 

proceeds are allocated according to the formula stated 

in the fundraising agreement. A change in the formula 

and a reallocation of proceeds may occur, however, if 

allocation under the original formula results in: 

••The Explanation and Justification accompanying the 

regulations states that, if all fundraising participants are party 

committees of the same political party, they do not have to adhere 

to the joint fundraising requirements. Party committees do, however, 

have to follow the notice requirements of 11 CFR 102.5 if the activity 

is conducted in connection with both Federal and non-Federal 

elections. If the party committees do not give public notice of an 

allocation formula, contributions received at the fundraiser count 

toward the contributor's limit for the particular party committee 

sponsoring the event. 
66 

• An excessive contribution from a contributor to any 

participating political committee; or 

• A surplus of proceeds for a committee that participates in the fundraiser solely to retire debts. 

Allocating Expenses and Distributing Net Proceeds. 

The revised regulations require the fundraising representative to calculate each participant's share of expenses based on its allocated share of gross proceeds. 

To determine the amount of net proceeds each participant receives, the fundraising representative subtracts 

the participant's share of expenses from the amount it 

was allocated in gross proceeds. 

Reporting. The fundraising representative reports all 

contributions in the reporting period in which they are 

received. The representative is also responsible for reporting disbursements for the fundraiser in the reporting 

period in which they are made. 

After the distribution of net proceeds, each participant 

reports its net proceeds as a transfer-in from the fundraising representative. At the same time, the participating 

committee files a memo Schedule A itemizing, as necessary, its share of gross receipts as contributions from 

the original donors. 

Corporate/Labor Communications 

Parties Affected 

The revised regulations make clear that incorporated 

membership organizations, incorporated trade associations, incorporated cooperatives and corporations without capital stock are among the types of corporations 

that are subject to the rules governing partisan and nonpartisan communications. Moreover, the revisions expand the restricted class of personnel who may receive 

partisan communications (or nonpartisan communications if the organization so chooses). Under the amendments: 

• An incorporated membership organization, a cooperative and a corporation without stock may address partisan communications to the families of its 

members, in addition to its members. 

• A labor organization may make partisan communications to its executive and administrative personnel 

and their families, as well as to its members and 

their families. 

Partisan Printed Materials 

As under the previous regulations, the revised rules permit a corporation or labor organization to produce and 

distribute printed materials of a partisan nature only to 

its restricted class.41 The material must convey the views 

of the organization and may not simply be a republication 

of candidate-prepared material. Under the new rules, 

however, a corporation or labor organization, in expressing its own views, may use brief quotations from candidates' speeches and other candidate-prepared 

materials. 

Partisan Candidate and Party Appearances 

The revised regulations allow a corporation or labor organization to schedule appearances by candidates, their 

representatives and representatives of a political party 

at any meeting, convention or other function of the organization attended by the organization's restricted 

class. (Under previous regulations, partisan candidate 

and party appearances were limited to a regularly scheduled event that the organization held for primarily nonpolitical purposes.) Moreover, under the revisions, 

certain individuals outside the restricted class may also 

be present- specifically, employees who are necessary 

to administer the meeting, news media representatives 

and limited invited guests and observers. Incidental solicitation of these individuals would not be a violation of 

the law's solicitation provisions. 

Nonpartisan Communications 

The new revisions expand the categories of nonpartisan 

publications which a corporation or labor organization 

may distribute to the general public. They also permit the 

organization to include its logo on the publications or 

otherwise identify itself as the sponsor. 

Voter Ads. Under the revisions, a corporation or labor 

organization may make nonpartisan voter registration 

and get-out-the-vote communications to the general pub-

•• Those individuals within an organization who may be solicited 

at any time for contributions to the organization's separate 

segregated fund and who may receive partisan communications 

from the organization. · 
67 

lie such as the message, "Please register to vote." The 

organization may communicate the message through 

posters, billboards, broadcasting media, newspapers, 

newsletters, brochures and similar means of communication. (Under previous regulations, such communications were limited to the employees of the corporation or 

labor organization.) Moreover, the revised regulations 

state that a nonpartisan communication must, among 

several factors, either name all candidates for a particular office, without favoritism, or make no mention of any 

candidate. 

Voter Materials Prepared by Bection Officials. A corporation or labor organization may set up a table or rack on 

its own premises for distributing official voter information 

to the public, and the organization's employees or members may help in the distribution. The distribution must, 

however, be carried out in a nonpartisan manner, and 

the organization may not endorse or support a candidate 

or party in connection with the distribution. Alternatively, 

a corporation or labor organization may donate funds to 

State or local election administrators to help defray their 

costs in printing and distributing official registration and 

voting information and forms. 

Voting Records. Under one new provision, a corporation 

or labor organization may prepare and publicly distribute 

nonpartisan voting records of Members of Congress, 

provided this activity is not undertaken to influence Federal elections. Furthermore, the explanation and justification accompanying the rules make clear that, in the 

voting record, an organization may score or index an 

incumbent's votes on specific issues rather than publishing the incumbent's actual votes. The indexes or scores 

must, however, be based on the incumbent's votes on 

bills or other legislative measures. 

Voter Guides. Under another new provision, a corporation or labor organization may prepare and publicly distribute voter guides describing candidates' positions on 

issues. (A voter guide consists of questions posed to 

candidates concerning their positions on campaign issues and the candidates' responses to those questions.) 

The. revised rules identify specific criteria the Commission may consider when evaluating whether a guide is 

nonpartisan. 

As under the previous rules, a corporation or labor 

organization may also distribute voter guides obtained 

from tax-exempt organizations, provided the tax-exempt 

organization does not support, endorse or oppose any 

candidate or political party. Voter guides obtained from 

tax-exempt organizations may not favor one candidate 

or political party over another. 

Nonpartisan Candidate and Party Appearances 

Under the revised regulations, a corporation or labor organization may permit candidates, their representatives 

and party representatives to address the organization's 

employees and their families at a meeting, convention or 

other function of the organization held on the organization's premises or anywhere else. (Under previous regulations, such appearances could only take place on the 

organization's premises.) 

In addition, to reduce the burden on the sponsoring 

organization, the rules for ensuring that such activities 

are nonpartisan were modified to limit the category of 

Presidential candidates who may request to appear at 

the meeting. 

Nonpartisan Voter Drives and Education 

The new regulations expand the scope of permissible 

activities which a corporation or labor organization may 

undertake in connection with voter drives and voter education programs directed to the general public. The new 

regulations also allow an organization to include its logo 

on such communications or otherwise identify itself as 

the sponsor. 

Voter Drives by Corporations and Labor Organizations. 

Under the previous rules, a corporation or labor organization could jointly sponsor a nonpartisan voter registration or get-out-the-vote drive only with a nonpartisan, 

nonprofit organization. The new rules also allow a State 

or local agency responsible for administering elections 

to act as cosponsor. While preserving the requirements 

for this activity specified in the previous regulations, the 

new rules also require that all voter drive materials prepared for distribution to the general public include the full 

name of all sponsors. 

\ 

' 

\ 

\ ·.

\ \

'
68 

Voter Drives by Nonprofit Corporation. The revised regulations permit incorporated nonprofit tax-exempt organizations that do not support or oppose any candidate 

or party to conduct nonpartisan voter registration and 

get-out-the-vote drives on their own, without a cosponsor. 

Trade Association Authorizations 

The Commission revised these regulations in response 

to difficulties encountered by trade associations, under 

previous agency rules, in obtaining solicitation approvals 

from their corporate members. 

Under the revisions, a corporate member may grant 

its approval of a trade association solicitation, and a trade 

association may receive that approval, prior to the calendar year in which the trade association conducts the 

solicitation(s). Further, the revisions permit trade associations to obtain corporate approval for several years at 

a time. However, the corporate member must submit a 

separate document for each year approved for solicitations. Under previous rules, a corporate member's approval had to be received by the trade association during 

the calendar year in which the trade association actually 

conducted the solicitation. This meant that trade associations had to renew their requests for corporate approvals each year. 

The new rules also specify that a trade association 

must keep an authorization for three years after it conducts the solicitation, rather than three years after the 

corporation approves the authorization. 
69 

Appendix 7 

Computer Indexes 

The Public Records Office, using the Commission's 

computer system, produces printouts of the following 

major disclosure indexes: 

Committee Names and Addresses 

The B Index includes the name and address of each 

committee, the name of the treasurer, the committee ID 

number, the name of the connected organization (if any) 

and a notation if the committee is a "qualified" multicandidate committee. There is a separate list for PACg42 and 

party committees. Another listing arranges these committees in order by their State address. 

Candidate Names and Addresses 

The A Index is sorted by type of office sought (President, 

U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative) and lists alphabetically each candidate who has something on file relating 

to him/her in the current election cycle. The printout includes the candidate ID number, candidate name and 

address, year of election and party affiliation. 

Current Election Candidate Names and Addresses 

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

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

Candidate Committees 

The Report 93 is a printout of Presidential, Senate and 

House candidates, which lists the candidates in alphabetical order and includes, for each candidate, the ID 

number, address and party designation. Also listed is the 

name, address, ID number and treasurer's name of the 

candidate's principal campaign committee and other authorized committees. 

Key Word in Committee Name 

The TEXT capability permits the computer to search and 

list all committee titles that include a word or phrase 

designated by the user. 

•• PAC (political action committee) is a popular term used to 

define any political committee that has not been authorized by a 

candidate or political party. The term includes a separate segregated 

fund connected to a corporation or labor organization as well as a 

political committee without any connected organization (i.e., without 

a corporate or labor sponsor). 
70 

Treasurer's Name 

The computer searches and lists all committee treasurers with the same last name (designated by the user), 

the names of their committees and the committee 10 

numbers. 

Multicandidate Committee Index 

This index lists those political committees which have 

qualified as multicandidate committees and are thus permitted to contribute higher amounts to Federal candidates.· Arranged in alphabetical order by name of 

committee, the list includes each committee's 10 number, the date it qualified as a multicandidate committee 

and the name of its connected organization, if any. 

Chronology of New Committee Registrations 

The 3Y Index lists in chronological order the names of 

committees which have registered in the current election 

cycle. It includes the date of registration, the committee 

name, 10 number, address and the committee's connected organization, if any. 

Recently Registered Committees 

The NULIST, printed weekly, lists the name, 10 number, 

address and connected organization, if any, of committees which have registered during the previous week. 

Names of PACs and Their Sponsors 

The 35c Committee/Sponsor Index lists in alphabetical 

order the names of committees along with their 10 numbers and the names of their sponsoring or connected 

organizations. 

Names of Organizations and Their PACs 

The 35o Sponsor/Committee Index lists in alphabetical 

order the names of organizations along with the names 

and 10 numbers of their PACs. 

Categories of PACs 

The Report 140 lists PACs by the category they selected 

on their registration statement. Categories include Corporation, Labor Organization, Membership Organization, 

Trade Association, Cooperative and Corporation Without 

Capital Stock. The listing includes the name of the PAC, 

its 10 number and the name of its connected organization. 

Committee Disclosure Documents 

The C Index includes, for each committee, its name, 10 

number, list of each document filed (name of report, 

period receipts, period disbursements, coverage dates, 

number of pages and microfilm location), total gross receipts and disbursements and number of pages. 

Committee Ranking by Gross Receipts or 

Expenditures 

The Report 933 provides a listing of the names of committees ranked in order of the highest gross receipts 

total. Note, however, that some committees report 

monthly and some quarterly, so totals may represent 

different time periods. 

candidate campaign Documents 

The E Index includes for a candidate the following: 

1. Candidate name, State/district, party affiliation and 

candidate 10 number. 

2. Listing of all documents filed by the candidate 

(statement of candidacy, etc.). 

3. Listing of all documents filed by the principal campaign committee (report type, coverage dates, period 

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

4. Listing of all documents filed by other authorized 

committees of the candidate. 

5. Listing of all PACs and party committees forwarding 

contributions to the candidate's principal campaign committee and other authorized committees, and the aggregate total of all such contributions given to date. The 

listing includes the name of the connected or sponsoring 

organization of a contributing PAC. This listing also identifies committees making expenditures on behalf of the 

candidate or party committees making coordinated 

party expenditures (Section 441a(d)), including the aggregate total spent to date. 

6. Listing of all persons and unauthorized single candidate committees filing reports indicating they made 

independent expenditures on behalf of the candidate. 

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

8. Listing of all corporations and labor organizations 

filing reports of communication costs on behalf of the 

candidate. 
71 

9. Listing of all unauthorized single candidate committees supporting or opposing a candidate. The listing also 

identifies the committee's receipts and disbursements for 

the report period covered. 

Presidential Candidates 

The H Index for Presidential campaigns is similar to the 

E Index (above), but lists party and PAC contributions as 

reported by the Presidential candidates' authorized campaign committees. 

Itemized Receipts 

The G Index identifies individual contributions of $500 or 

more received by a committee, the report on which the 

transactions were disclosed and the microfilm location of 

the transactions. 

Individual Contributors 

The Name Search capability permits a person to request 

a computer search for a specific last name in the national 

alphabetical listing of contributors. The printout lists all 

persons with that same last name, including full name, 

address, occupation, date of contribution, amount of contribution, to whom it was given and the microfilm location 

of the reported entry. There is a substantial charge for 

this type of index. However, the national listing of contributors is periodically made available on microfilm in the 

Public Records Office. It is available for review at no 

charge. 

Committee Contributions to Candidates 

The D Index includes, for each committee, its name, 10 

number, name of connected organization, notation if it is 

"qualified" as a multicandidate committee, and a listing 

of all Federal candidates supported, together with total 

aggregate contributions to, or expenditures on behalf of 

or against, each candidate during a particular election 

cycle. In the case of party committees, coordinated 

party expenditures (Section 441 a( d)) are listed in place 

of independent expenditures. 

Dates of Specific Contributions/Expenditures 

The Detailed D Index itemizes the information on the D 

index (above). It lists in chronological order each contribution and expenditure made on behalf of a Federal 

candidate, along with the date, amount and microfilm 

location of each reported transaction. It can also search 

for specific candidates. 

Total Contributions to Candidates 

by Selected Committees 

The Combined D Index permits a person to select a 

group of committees for research. The computer will add 

together all of their contributions to candidates and print 

them out in one list identifying the total amount contributed to each candidate by the group of committees. 

Other Indexes 

In addition to the above indexes, the Commission produces other types of computer indexes on a periodic 

basis (e.g., an index of communication costs). These 

periodic indexes are available in the Public Records Office for inspection and copying. 
73 

Appendix 8 

FEC Information Services 

Public Records Office 

• How much did Federal candidates spend in the last 

election? 

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

• How much money did a political committee (e.g., a 

PAC) give to a candidate? 

These are the types of questions fielded by the FEC's 

Public Records Office, which provides information on the 

campaign finance activities of political committees and 

candidates involved in Federal elections. Located on the 

street floor of the Federal Election Commission, the Public Records Office is open for public use weekdays from 

9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and evenings and weekends during 

heavy reporting periods. The office is a library facility 

with ample work space and a knowledgeable staff to help 

locate documents. The FEC encourages the public to 

review the many documents which are available: 

• Reports and statements filed by Federal candidates 

and committees (1972-present}43 

• FEC Reports on Financial Activity and Disclosure 

Series (published indexes that consolidate and 

summarize data taken from financial disclosure reports} 

• Daily updated computer printouts of various FEC 

indexes, as available (see Appendix 7) 

• Advisory opinion requests and advisory opinions 

• Index to Advisory Opinions 

• Campaign Finance and Federal Elections Bibliography 

• MURs (closed compliance actions and index} 

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

• Court cases 

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

matching funds 

• Presidential matching fund certifications 

• Presidential and Vice Presidential personal financial 

disclosure statements filed under the Ethics in Government Act 

• General information (newspaper articles, studies on 

campaign finance by other organizations, informational handouts} 

• Commission information (Commission memoranda, 

Commission meeting agendas and agenda items, 

minutes of meetings, directives, bulletins, certifications of closed meetings, general distribution memoranda} 

Those outside the Washington area may request documents by phone or mail. When identifying the documents you want, indicate the full name of the political 

committee reporting, the date or type of report or document desired, and your address and telephone number. 

The Commission charges 5 cents per page for copies 

from paper files and 10 cents per page for copies made 

from microfilm. 

Sometimes a preliminary phone call can help you pinpoint your request and thereby expedite the Commission's response. Call the Public Records Office at 202/ 

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

the toll-free number, please ask specifically for the Public 

Records Office. 

Public Communications 

• How much money may a PAC contribute to a Federal candidate? 

• Should a political committee, authorized by a Congressional candidate, file its termination report with 

the Clerk of the House of Representatives or with 

the candidate's principal campaign committee? 

• When does our committee have to file its next report? 

• May an employee's immediate supervisor solicit the 

employee for political contributions to the company's PAC? 

• Has the Commission issued an advisory opinion on 

topic x during the last six months? 

These questions about the election law's requirements 

are among the many the Commission receives daily on 

its toll-free (800} phone line. Five information specialists, 

located in the Public Communications Office, respond to 

such questions immediately. The information specialists 

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

election law's requirement that any information copied from reports 

and statements may not be sold or used for any commercial 

purpose, other than using the name and address ~f any political 

committee to solicit contributions from such a comm1ttee. 2 U.S.C. 

Section 438(a)(4). 
74 

are not attorneys and cannot, by law, give opinions of an 

advisory nature.44 They can, however, help candidates 

and political committees understand, and voluntarily 

comply with, the Federal election law. They also assist 

others who are interested or involved in Federal elections. For example, information specialists will: 

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

complaint with the FEC or for registering a political 

committee); 

• Recommend appropriate publications and reporting 

forms; 

• Research advisory opinions and statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to a specific question; 

and 

• Refer callers to the appropriate agency when the 

requests pertain to topics outside the Commission's 

jurisdiction (e.g., tax issues, ballot questions or vote 

issues). 

Information specialists also supply this same kind of 

information in letters responding to written inquiries. In 

addition, they accept public speaking engagements; participate in seminars on campaign finance and the election law that are sponsored by the FEC and other 

organizations; and speak informally to groups visiting the 

Commission. 

The Public Communications Office is open to the public weekdays from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. The office may be 

contacted by writing the FEC at 1325 K Street, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20463; or by calling 2021523-4068 or 

toll free 800/424-9530. 

Advisory Opinions 

For questions relating to the application of the law to a 

specific, factual situation, any person may request an 

advisory opinion in writing. The Commission issues an 

advisory opinion once it has been approved by at least 

four Commissioners. Every advisory opinion is summarized in the Commission's newsletter, the Record, and 

copies of the requests and opinions are available from 

the Public Records Office. When the person who requested the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with 

the advisory opinion, he or she is not subject to any 

penalties with regard to the activity in question. 2 U.S.C. 

Section 437f(c)(2). 

Publications 

The FEC's Publications Office produces materials to help 

candidates, political committees and other interested individuals understand and comply with the election law. 

Free copies of the publications listed below may be obtained by contacting the Public Communications Office 

at 2021523-4068 or toll free 800/424-9530. 

• Federal Election Campaign Act 

• FEC Regulations 

• Registration Forms 

• Reporting Forms 

• Record, a monthly newsletter 

• Annual Report 

• Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates 

and Committees 

• Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations 

• Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees 

• Campaign Guide for Party Committees 

• House and Senate Bookkeeping Manual 

• Brochure Series: 

Advisory Opinions 

Candidate Registration 

Contributions 

Corporate/Labor Communications 

Corporate/Labor Facilities 

Free Publications 

Independent Expenditures 

Local Party Activity 

Political Ads and Solicitations 

Public Funding of Presidential Elections 

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law 

Using FEC Campaign Finance Information 

Volunteer Activity 

Reports Analysis Division 

The Reports Analysis Division (RAD) reviews the campaign finance reports filed by political committees and 

assists filers in complying with the election law's disclosure requirements. 

.. Commission staff may not grant approval or disapproval of a 

specific campaign activity. Individuals seeking FEC sanction for a 

specific activity must request an advisory opinion from the 

Commission. See 11 CFR Part 112. 
75 

Each political committee registered with the FEC is 

assigned to one of approximately 20 reports analysts, 

who review committee reports and statements in order 

to detect reporting problems, monitor individual contribution limits and track those committees which fail to file 

reports. In reviewing a committee's reports, the analyst 

becomes familiar with reporting problems the committee 

may be having. An analyst notifies a committee of a 

reporting error or omission (or an apparent violation of 

the election law detected in the report) by sending the 

committee a request for additional information (RFAI). A 

committee receiving such a request should contact the 

analyst identified in the letter by calling 2021523-4048 or 

toll free 800/424-9530. 

Press Office 

Staff of the Press Office are the Commission's official 

media spokespersons. In addition to publicizing Commission decisions, policies and actions, they respond to 

all inquiries from representatives of the print and broadcast media concerning the Federal election law, Commission actions and the campaign finance data filed with 

the FEC by political committees. The office also handles 

requests under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Media representatives should direct their inquiries to 

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

of the Commission, is open weekdays from 9 a.m. to 

5:30 p.m. Press may contact the office at 2021523-4065 

or toll-free 800/424-9530. When calling the toll-free number, please ask specifically for the Press Office. 

Clearinghouse 

The FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration provides information to the public on the electoral process. The Clearinghouse also conducts regional 

seminars and publishes studies on election administration. Clearinghouse reports on election administration 

are available to the public at cost. See Appendix 9 for a 

list of Clearinghouse publications. For further information, contact the Clearinghouse at 2021523-4183 or toll 

free 800/424-9530. When calling the toll-free number, 

please ask specifically for the Clearinghouse. 

Commission Library 

The Commission law library, part of the Office of General 

Counsel, is open to the public. The collection includes 

basic legal research tools plus materials dealing with 

political campaign finance, corporate and labor political 

activity and campaign finance reform. The library staff 

prepares an Index to Advisory Opinions and a Campaign Finance and Federal Elections Bibliography, both 

available for purchase from the Public Records Office 

(see above). 
77 

Appendix 9 

Clearinghouse Studies 

Listed below are Clearinghouse research projects; the 

publications - available at cost to the public - include 

both recent studies and the final products of past projects. 

Periodic Reports 

Because of budgetary constraints, the Commission discontinued publication of the following periodic reports: 

Election Law Updates and Election Case Law. 

The periodic report entitled Campaign Finance Law, 

although suspended for two years, will be published in 

the spring of 1984. This report summarizes campaign 

finance laws in each of the States and provides a convenient chart summary of State requirements. 

The Election Directory, suspended during 1981, resumed publication in 1982 as a biennial in-house project. 

The Directory lists names, addresses and telephone 

numbers of Federal and State election officials. 

Reports Underway in 1983 

Designing Effective Voter Information Programs, the first 

volume of the Voter Information and Education Programs series, suggests inexpensive but effective ways 

whereby election officials can convey essential registration and election information to the public. 

Maintaining Registration Files suggests techniques 

and procedures for maintaining a clean and accurate 

registration file of voters. 

Training Election Officials discusses effective, inexpensive methods for training all election workers as well 

as temporary office staff. 

Previously Completed Reports 

The following publications, listed in previous annual reports, remain available. 

Education Programs in the Schools, the second volume of a series entitled Voter Information and Education 

Programs, suggests various ways in which election officials can develop, in cooperation with educators, good 

voter education programs in the schools. 

Statewide Registration Systems I and II is a report on 

computerized statewide voter registration systems. Volume I examines problems involved in implementing a 

statewide system and offers suggestions for overcoming 

them. Volume II describes in detail the forms, proce-
78 

dures, outputs and variations on the basic statewide 

computerized system. 

Contested Elections and Recounts is a three-volume 

analysis of the laws and procedures governing contested 

elections and recounts for Federal offices. Volume I examines those issues and functions within the Federal 

government's purview and makes recommendations for 

improving the handling of contested elections at the Federal level. Volume II examines State issues and options 

and makes recommendations for improving the State 

handling of such cases. Volume Ill summarizes laws 

related to contested elections in each of the States and 

at the Federal level. 

Ballot Access is a four-volume report on how candidates gain access to the ballot for Federal office in each 

of the States. Volume I identifies central administrative 

issues and problems and makes recommendations for 

improving the process. Volume II describes the administrative process in each State. Volume Ill details State 

legal memoranda and makes recommendations for improving the legal process. Volume IV briefly summarizes 

ballot access requirements for Federal office in each 

State. 

Mail Registration Systems discusses problems involved in implementing a mail registration system. In 

addition to a general description of how mail registration 

systems operate, the report offers practical suggestions 

for overcoming difficulties. 

Bilingual Election Services is a three-volume report 

on providing election services in languages other than 

English. Volume I summarizes such services since 1975. 

Volume II provides a glossary of common election terms 

in English along with their Spanish and dialectal equivalents. Volume Ill is a manual for local election officials. It 

offers practical advice on ways to identify the language 

problems in a jurisdiction and provide bilingual registration and balloting services. 

Election Administration is a four-volume set introducing program planning, management and financial control 

concepts into local election administration. Volume I provides an overview of election functions and tasks and 

introduces the notion of a management cycle. Volume II 

focuses on planning, provides detailed task/activity 

checklists and flow diagrams, and demonstrates how 

tasks can be assigned. Volume Ill introduces a chart of 

accounts and demonstrates how budgets can be prepared and costs monitored by applying the chart to each 

election function. Volume IV is a set of legal memoranda 

summarizing State code processes with regard to administrative and budgeting responsibilities. 
79 

Appendix 10 

FEC Federal Register 

Notices, 1983 

Notice* Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1983-1 Filing Dates for 1/17/83 48Fed.Reg. 

Texas Special 

Election 

2067 

1983-2 Filing Dates for 1/24/83 48Fed. Reg. 

Colorado Special 

Election 

3047 

1983-3 11 CFR Parts 1 06 and 2/4/83 48Fed. Reg. 

9031-9039; Presidential Primary Matching Fund; Transmittal 

of Regulations to 

Congress 

5224 

1983-4 Filing Dates for 1/31/83 48Fed. Reg. 

New York Special 

Election 

4320 

1983-5 11 CFR 110.11; Dis- 3/2/83 48Fed. Reg. 

claimer Notices; 

Transmittal of Regulations to Congress 

8809 

1983-6 11 CFR Part 114; 3/4/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

Communications by 

Corporations and 

Labor Organizations; 

Transmittal of Regulations to Congress 

9236 

1983-7 Notice of Availabil- 3130/83 48Fed. Reg. 

ity; Rulemaking 

Petition Requested 

by National 

Council of 

Farmers Cooperatives 

13265 

Notice Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1983-8 11 CFR Parts 106 and 4/4183 48Fed,Reg. 

9031-9039; 

Presidential Primary 

Matching Fund; 

Final Rules; 

Announcement of 

Effective Date 

14347 

1983-9 11 CFR Parts 9001- 4/4/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

9007 and 9012; Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund; 

Notice of Proposed 

Aulemaking 

14532 

1983-10 11 CFR Part 114; 4/22/83 48Fed. Reg. 

Communications by 

Corporations and 

Labor Organizations; 

Withdrawal of Regulations from Congress 

17566 

1983-11 11 CFR Part 114; 4/22183 48 Fed. Reg. 

Communications by 

Corporations and 

Labor Organizations; 

Second Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

17567 

1983-12 11 CFR Parts 1 00, 4/27/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

11 0 and 9003; Candidate's Use of Property in Which Spouse 

Has an Interest; 

Transmittal of Regulations to Congress 

19019 

*This appendix does not include Federal Register notices 

of Commission meetings published under the Government in the 

Sunshine Act. 
80 

Notice Title Federal

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation

1983-13 Filing Dates for 

California Special 

Election 

514/83 48Fed. Reg. 

20136 

1983-14 11 CFR 11 0.11 ; Disclaimer Notices; Final Rules; Announcement of Effective 

Date 

5/13/83 48Fed. Reg. 

21553 

1983-15 Filing Dates for 

Illinois Special 

Election 

5/23/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

22991 

1983-16 11 CFR Part 102; 

Transfers of Funds, 

Collecting Agents, 

Joint Fundraising; 

Transmittal of Regulations to Congress 

617/83 48Fed. Reg. 

26296 

1983-17 11 CFR Parts 100, 

11 0 and 9003; Candidate's Use of Property in Which Spouse 

Has an Interest; Final Rules; Announcement of Effective 

Date 

7/1/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

30351 

1983-18 11 CFR Parts 9001-

9007 and 9012; Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund; Transmittal of Regulations 

to Congress 

7/11/83 48Fed. Reg. 

31822 

1983-19 11 CFR Part 114; 

Communications by 

Corporations and 

Labor Organizations; 

Announcement of 

Second Hearing 

7/14/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

32321 

Notice Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1983-20 11 CFR Part 9008; 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund; 

Financing of Nominating Conventions; Final Rules; Technical 

Amendments 

7121/83 48Fed. Reg. 

33244 

1983-21 11 CFR Part 1 02; 

Transfers of Funds, 

Collecting Agents, 

Joint Fundraising; 

Final Rules; Announcement of Effective Date 

8/22/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

37921 

1983-22 Notice of Availability; Rulemaking Petition Requested by National Taxpayer's 

Legal Fund 

8/30/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

39295 

1983-23 11 CFR Part 1 02; 

Transfers of Funds, 

Collecting Agents, 

Joint Fundraising; 

Final Rules; 

Announcement of 

Effective Date; 

Correction 

9/23/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

43292 

1983-24 Filing Dates for 

Washington Special 

Primary and General 

Elections 

9/23/83 48Fed. Reg. 

43405 

1983-25 Filing Dates for 

Georgia Special 

Election and Special 

Runoff Election 

9/23/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

43404 
81 

Notice Title Federal 

Register 

Publication 

Date 

Citation 

1983-26 11 CFR Part 114; 

Trade Association 

Solicitation Authorizations; Transmital 

of Regulations 

to Congress 

10/20/83 48Fed.Reg. 

48650 

1983-27 11 CFR Parts 9001-

9007 and 9012; 

Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund; Final 

Rules; Announcement 

of Effective Date 

10/27/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

49653 

1983-28 11 CFR Part 114; 

Communications by 

Corporations and 

Labor Organizations; 

Transmittal of Regulations to Congress 

11/2/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

50502 

1983-29 11 CFR Part 11 O; 

Honoraria; Final 

Rule; Technical 

Amendment 

11/21/83 48 Fed. Reg. 

52567 

*GPO 1984 0 - 442-167 QL 3