• 

• 

• 

THE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

1325 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 

Volume 3, Number 11 

FEC HOLDS HEARINGS 

On September 12, 1977, the Commission held a full day 

of hearings on the issue of candidate debates. The hearings 

were conducted by Chairman Thomas Harris. (For a sum· 

mary of the questions discussed, see the Record, August 

1977, page 2.) The Commissioners heard testimony from 

nine witnesses, including representatives from the League of 

Women Voters and the National Citizens Committee for 

Broadcasting, an attorney for a 1976 independent candi· 

date for President, two 1976 Federal candidates and several 

other individuals with an interest in campaign financing. 

In addition to hearing testimony, the Commission received 

15 written comments. The Commission will review these 

comments and testimony and consider issuing regulations 

on the subject of candidate debates. (All written testimony 

and comments are available to the public by contacting the 

Office of Public Records at the Commission.) 

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT·· 

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES 

On October 18, 1977, the FEC published a notice in the 

Federal Register requesting public comment on the Commission's Regulations governing independent expenditures 

(§109). The notice asks for comment on all aspects of the 

subject of independent expenditures, including responses to 

the following questions: 

- Do the present regulations offer sufficient guidance to 

a person who wishes to know whether a contemplated 

expenditures is independent? 

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

advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

candidate ... ," what types of expenditures constitute 

express advocacy of the election or defeat of a clearly 

identified candidate? 

November 1977 

.. Should factual situations which give rise to the presump· 

tion that an expenditure is not independent include: 

(a) The situation where there has been substantial or 

significant contact between the eXpending person 

and the candidate, committee or agents; or 

(b) The situation where an individual who is, or has been, 

actively participating in the financing or management 

of a candidate's campaign either makes an indepen· 

dent expenditure or is in a decision-making position 

within a committee which makes an independent 

expenditure on behalf of that candidate? 

-- Are there constitutional or other considerations which 

require or allow a distinction between independent 

expenditures made by committees and those made by 

individuals? 

.. Should the definition of "agent" (§109.1 (b)(5)) be ex· 

panded (or narrowed)? If it should be expanded, should 

it include any person who is an agent under the common 

law of agency, including an employee or an independent 

contractor? 

Written comments should be submitted no later than 

November 30, 1977, to the Office of the General Counsel, 

Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20463. Questions should be addressed to 

Walter Moore at 202/523·41 02. Copies of comments 

received will be made available to the public in the Office 

of Public Records. 

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES 

Designated as AO's, Advisory Opinions discuss the appli· 

cation of the Act to specific factual situations. Any quaiified person requesting an advisory opinion who in good 

faith acts in accordance with the opinion will not be 

penalized under the Act. The opinion may also be relied 

on by any other person involved in a specific transaction 

which is indistinguishable in all material aspects from the 

activity discussed in the advisory opinion. 

continued 
AO 1977-35: Limitation on Honoraria 

Even though Senator Robert Dole returns all or a portion 

of some honoraria previously accepted, the honoraria are 

still considered accepted for purposes of the limitations 

contained in the Act. Once an honorarium is "accepted," as 

defined in §110.12(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations, 

the honorarium is charged to the limitations for that calendar year. An honorarium accepted, but then returned, can 

be distinguished from the return of an honorarium received, 

but not actually "accepted." The latter situation is not 

charged against the annual honorarium limit. The applicability of IRS regulations and Senate Rules to Senator 

Dole's sitUation falls outside the Commission's jurisdiction. 

(Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1977-38: Campaign Debt from State Election 

Charles Ravenel, candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1978, 

may simultaneously maintain separate organizations to 

1) support his candidacy for Federal office and 2) retire 

a campaign debt from a prior State election campaign. 

The effort to retire the prior State election debt (which 

will involve separate solicitation materials, and separate 

bank accounts and will focus solely on retiring the State 

election debt) would not be subject to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act since it does not involve activity which 

influences the nomination or election of persons to Federal 

office'. (Length: 2 pages) 

FEC FILES SUITS 

On August 22, 1977, the Commission filed suit in the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the 

Committee for a Constitutional Presidency - McCarthy '76 

(CCP). The suit was filed after efforts to achieve conciliation failed. 

The suit charges that CCP, the principal campaign committee for Eugene McCarthy, violated §434(b) of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act by failing to amend its reports to 

accurately reflect the sources of certain payments. The payments, made by colleges, universities and other groups, 

were for lectures given by Mr. McCarthy, independent candidate for the Presidency in 1976. Contributions to Federal 

candidates from these organizations are prohibited under 

§§441 b and 441 c of the Act. 

The Commission asks in part that CCP be ordered to amend 

its reports to show the payments as contributions from Mr. 

McCarthy to his own campaign, and asks the Court to assess 

a penalty of not more than $5,000 on CCPfor "failing and 

refusing to comply with the Act." 

On September 28, 1977, the FEC filed suit in U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia against the National 

Education Association (NEAl and 18 of its State affiliates. 

The suit was filed after the Commission failed to achieve 

a conciliation agreement with NEA in a compliance matter 

before it. 

The suit charges that N EA's use of a reverse check-off 

procedure for the funding of its political action cOmmittee 

(PAC) violates §441 b(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. The reverse check-off procedure requires 

members to authorize payroll deductions to NEA's PAC; 

the deductions may be retrieved, however, by means of a 

written request from the member. 

The suit asks in part that NEA and its affiliates be enjoined 

from continuing the reverse check·off procedure and from 

continuing to make contributions and expenditures as 

defined in the Act. The suit also asks that a civil penalty be 

assessed of $10,000 or 200 percent of all contributions and 

expenditures made with funds obtained through this procedure. 

NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE v. 

VERNON W. THOMSON, et al. 

PAUL E. CHAMBERLAIN, et al. v. 

VERNON W. THOMSON, et al. (Part IV) 

On September 21, 1977, the Federal Election Commission appealed the U.S. District Court's order in this consolidated case. The Court order required the FEC to take 

final action within 30 days on a complaint filed bythe 

plaintiffs. (For a summary of the original complaint and 

the Court order, see, respectively, the June Record, p. 3 

and the October Record, p. 3.) 

The RECORD is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. 

Commissioners are: Thomas E. Harris, Chairman; Joan D. Aikens, Vice-Chairman; William L. Springer; Neil Staebler; 

Vernon W. Thomson; Roben 0. Tiernan; J.S. Kimmitt, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex Officio. 

For more information, call 5234068 or toll free 800424-9530. 

2 
• 

• 

• 

The Commission subsequently filed on September 30, 

1977, a "stay of order" pending the appeal. The Commis· 

sion's argument stated that a stay of 120 days would give it 

time to attempt to complete consent agreements with two 

of the respondents to the complaint. (Suit has been filed 

against the third respondent after failure to reach conciliation. See COMPLIANCE, p. 2.) The alternative, the Com· 

mission argues, would be the premature filing of a suit by 

the FEC or a private suit by the plaintiffs, precluding any 

possibility of conciliation. 

FEC PUBLIC APPEARANCES 

In keeping with its objective of making informa· 

tion available to the public, the Federal Election 

Commission regularly accepts invitations for its representatives to address public gatherings on the subject 

of campaign finance laws and the Commission itself. 

(For a summary of the Commission's policy on 

accepting invitations see the Record, June 1977, 

p. 6.) This regular column will list scheduled Commis· 

sian appearances, detailing the name of the sponsoring organization, location of the event and the Commission's representative. Any inquiries concerning the 

event should be addressed to the sponsoring organization. 

11/3-4 Southern Political Science Association 

University of Houston 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Gary Greenhalgh, Chief, FEC Clearinghouse 

11/4 National Association of Business Political 

Action Committees 

Washington, D.C. 

Jan Baran, Executive Assistant to Commissioner Joan Aikens 

11/14 United States League of Saving Associations 

San Francisco, California 

Commissioner Joan Aikens 

11/16 The Washington Journalism Center 

Washington, D.C. 

Commissioner Joan Aikens 

Dave Fiske, Press Officer 

11/30 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Seminar Series 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 

Commissioner Joan Aikens 

3 

FEC documents of general applicability are published 

regularly in the Federal Register. The following list identifies all F EC documents appearing in the Federal Register 

between September 16, 1977 and October 18, 1977. 

Federal Register 

Notice Title Publication Date Citation 

197745 Privacy Act - 9/20/77 42 FR 47399 

System of 

Records 

Privacy Act - 9/20/77 42 FR 47506 

Regulations 

197749 AORs 197745, 9/29/77 42 FR 51839 

197746, 197747 

and 1977-48 

1977·50 AOR 197749 10/5/77 42 FR 54333 

1977·51 Request for Com- 10/18/77 42 FR 55622 

ments -- Federal 

Candidates: I ndependent Expenditures 

PARTY SPENDING LIMITS 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, there are 

special limits on expenditures made by political parties on 

behalf of candidates in a general election (2 U.S.C. §441a 

(d)). In 1977, these limitations will be applicable only to 

special general elections conducted during calendar year 

1977, or during calendar year 1978 before figures for 1978 

are published. A new chart containing figures applicable to 

candidates in the 1978 general election will be published in 

the Record in 1978. These special party expenditures 

count neither as contributions to the candidate, nor as 

expenditures by the candidate or the candidate's authorized 

committees. 

National political party committees have separate expen· 

diture limits for Senate and House candidates in the general 

election. 
State political party committees are entitled to separate 

expenditure limits for Senate and House general elections in 

their State. Within a State, all expenditures made on behalf 

of one candidate by the State party committee or any sub· 

ordinate party committees {e.g., county, district, local) are 

subject to one expenditure limit. 

The formulas for the party spending limits in 1977 are 

calculated as follows: 

Senatorial: State Voting Age Population (VAP) x $0.02, 

plus the 1977 increase in the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI) of 15.4 percent or $23,080.00, 

whichever is greater. 

Congressional: 1) $11 ,540.00, for candidates for Represen· 

tative in States with more than one Rep· 

resentative, for Delegate (District of 

Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands) and 

for Resident Commissioner (Puerto 

Rico); or 

2) The Senate limit for the State, for candi· 

dates for Representative in States entitled 

to only one Representative. (See chart 

below.) 

PARTY SPENDING LIMITS 

FOR SENATE CANDIDATES 

The Commission has compiled the following chart for 

1977 limits on party spending for Senate candidates in a 

general election. The figures are based on Voting Age Popu· 

lation estimates from the Department of Commerce and the 

Consumer Price Index increase certified by the Secretary of 

Labor on May 13, 1977. 

In the chart, an asterisk (*) indicates those States having 

only one Representative. In these instances, the Senate 

limit applies instead of the House limitation. This exception 

does not apply to candidates for Delegate (District of 

Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands) or Resident Commissioner 

(Puerto Rico). 

STATE VAP 1977 PARTY 

(in thousands) SPENDING LIMITATIONS 

Alabama 2,501 $57,723.08 

Alaska* 240 23,080.00 

Arizona 1,530 35,312.40 

Arkansas 1,458 33,650.64 

California 15,227 351,439.16 

Colorado 1,786 41,220.88 

Connecticut 2,215 51.122.20 

Delaware* 403 23,080.00 

Florida 6,131 141,503.48 

4 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Illinois 

lndiarla 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada* 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota* 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont* 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming* 

District of 

Columbia 

Guam 

Puerto Rico 

Virgin Islands 

3,363 

603 

553 

7,787 

3,632 

1,997 

1,638 

2,360 

2,531 

739 

2,884 

4,135 

6,192 

2,723 

1,540 

3,368 

512 

1,080 

419 

569 

5,175 

760 

12,881 

3,790 

469 

7,397 

1,949 

1,648 

8,476 

661 

1,917 

469 

2,941 

8,472 

773 

328 

3,516 

2.533 

1,277 

3,176 

266 

510 

52 

1,794 

60 

77,618.04 

23,080.00 

23,080.00 

179,723.96 

83,826.56 

46,090.76 

37,805.04 

54.468.80 

58.415.48 

23,080.00 

66,562.72 

95,435.80 

142,911.36 

62,846.84 

35,543.20 

77,733.44 

23,080.00 

24,926.40 

23,080.00 

23,080.00 

119,439.00 

23,080.00 

297,293.48 

87,473.20 

23,080.00 

170,722.76 

44,982.92 

38,035.84 

195,626.08 

23,080.00 

44,244.36 

23,080.00 

67,878.28 

195,533.76 

23,080.00 

23,080.00 

81.149.28 

58,461.64 

29.473.16 

73,302.08 

23,080.00 

11,540.00 

11,540.00 

11,540.00 

11,540.00 
FEC BUDGET PROCESS 

The Commission recently approved program-based 

budgets for Fiscal Years 1978 and 1979. Using zero-base 

budgeting techniques, the Commission's Budget Task Force 

based its recommendations on program alternatives submitted by division heads in the form of "program pack

ages." The program packages were ranked according to the 

Commission's objectives and priorities (see- the September 

Record, p. 3) _ The following graph compares the proposed 

allocation of resources among each ·of the divisiOns of the 

Commission during Fiscal Years 1977, 1978 and 1979

Fiscal Year 1977 figures are based on estimates from divi

sion heads for the final five months of the fiscal year (May 

through September). The Commission has also instituted 

a work reporting system to help monitor budget outlay

and program results, and to provide more accurate data 

for future budget planning. 

FEC BUDGET ALLOCATION 

PERCENT OF 

TOTAL BUDGET 

OFFICE 

2S 

20 

15 

10 

Commissioners/ Staff 

Director 

Office of 

General Counsel lnformation1 Administration2 Data Systems3 Audit Disclosure 

Key: m FY77 ~FY78 ~~~ FY 79 

Footnotes: 1. Public Information resources include Clearinghouse contraetu31 wsts. 

2, Administration contains resources oot allocated including rent, supplies, reproduction .. rvices, etc. 

3. Oau Systems resources presented include only development.tl programs. All other 

computer cosu (i.e., operating time, contract scr.,.;ce, etc.) hue been allocated to other organizational units. 

INDEX ON CORPORATE-RELATED 

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES 

The Commission recently released an index on the political activity of 450 corporate political action committees 

(PACs) compiled from reports filed during the period 

January 1, 1975, through December 31, 1976. The Index 

consist5 of three parts: a summary of PAC activity, including the receipts and expenditures of 450 PACs; an alphabetical listing of corporations with two or more political 

action committees; and an alphabetical listing of all other 

PACs and their sponsoring organizations. 

Highlights of the Index include: 

5 

-- The nine largest PACs, those with receipts and/or expenditures in excess of $100,000, spent 18.5 percent 

($1 ,074,208) of the total amount spent by all corporate 

PACs ($5,803,415), even though they comprised only 

two percent of the total number of the PACs involved in 

1976 election period. 

- Most of the PACs (42 percent) reported receipts and 

expenditures of less than $9,999. 

-- Of the 450 PACs registered with the Commission, 89 

had registered by January 1, 1975; 208 registered 

between January 1, 1975, and May 10, 1976; and 153 

registered after May 11, 1976, the effective date of the 

1976 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. . 

-- Over 94 percent of the PACs provided the names of 

their affiliated and/or connected organizations. 

continued 
INDEX OF 1976HOUSE CANDIDATES 

The Commission also released an index compiled from 

the reports filed by 860 general election candidates for the 

U.S. House of Representatives in 1976 who received five 

percent or more of the vote. Included in the Index are 433 

Democrats, 390 Republicans and 37 independent or minor 

party candidates. The Index summarizes receipts and ex· 

penditures of each candidate, providing a breakdown of 

candidates by party status, incumbent-challenger-open seat 

and winner-loser. The Index also includes an alphabetical 

listing of contributor data by State, district and candidate. 

Highlights of the Index include: 

- Donations from individuals of $1 00 or less made up 36 

percent of the total {$65, 701 ,942) received by all 860 

candidates. Of these small contributions, $11 ,530,030 

was received by Democratic candidates, $11,978,694 by 

Republican candidates and $149,724 by independent 

or minor party candidates. 

·· Expenditures by Democratic candidates amounted to 

53.2 percent of the total expenditures {$60,741, 111) 

made during the period covered: January 1, 1975, 

through December 31, 1976. Republican candidates 

made 46 percent of all expenditures and independent or 

minor party candidates made the remaining .8 percent. 

·· Winners {62.4 percent) and incumbents {50.2 percent) 

made more expenditures than losers and challengers 

respectively. 

Further information on the indexes may be obtained from 

the Office of Public Records, Federal Election Commission, 

1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 {Toll-free 

telephone: 800/424·9530). 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1325 KSTREET,NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

The Public Communications Office of the Federal Elec

tion Commission receives· numerous calls from the publi

on the toll·free line {800/424·9530). The following is an 

excerpt from the Federal Election Commission Regulation

to help answer one of the most frequently asked questions

"how long must candidates and committees preserve th.ei

records?" 

RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED 

FOR THREE YEARS 

" ... (b) Each candidate, political committee or othe

person required to file any report or statement under [th

F EC Regulations] shall·· 

(1) Maintain records with respect to matter

required to be reported, including vouchers, worksheets

receipts, bills and accounts, which shall provide in sufficien

detail the necessary information and data from which th

filed reports and statements may be verified, explained

clarified, and checked for accuracy and completeness; 

(2) Preserve a copy of each report or statemen

filed; and 

(3) Keep those records and reports availabl

for audit, inspection, or examination by the Commission o

its authorized representatives for a period of not less tha

3 years from the end of the year in which the report o

statement was filed." (§104.12{b)) {Emphasis added) 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID