August 198

that these entitles have differing structures and purpose

and that they therefore may require different forms o

regulation in order to protect the integrity of the politica

process."

NEW CAMPAIGN GUIDE

FOR PARTY COMMITTEES

The Commission recently published a Campaign

Guide for Party Committees to help state and local

party committees comply with the Act and Commission Regulations. The Party Guide focuses on provisions of the Act and Regulations specifically governing state and local party committee activities, as well

as the standard requirements, such as registration and

recordkeeping, reporting and termination procedures.

It includes, for example, discussion of special "coordinated" party expenditures on behalf of federal candidates and allocation of operating expenses between

federal and nonfederal party accounts.

The Party Guide is unique in the Campaign Guide

series because it includes an appendix on how to

fill out forms. Sample forms are completed and

cross referenced to explanations in the text.

The PartY Guide, which is printed as a binder insert,

has been sent to all registered party committees. The

Guide may also be useful to local party organizations

which are not currently registered with the Commission but which anticipate supporting federal candidates. Single copies of the Party Guide are available

free of charge by contacting: Office of Public Cornmunications, Federal Election Commission, 1325

K Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20463; or call

202/523.4068 or toll free 800/424·9530.

* 2 U.S.C. §437h allows for expedited handling of constitutiona

challenges to the Act and a right of direct appeal to the Suprem

Court.

The Court found no merit, however, to the FEC's claim

that the appellants' direct appeal to the Court (pursuant to

Section 437h of the Act) * was inappropriate because a

continue

THE FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

1325 KStreet NW., Washington, D.C. 20463

Volume 7, Number 8

The Supreme Court also upheld the appeals court's ruling

that §441 a(a)(1 HC) did not violate appellants' equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment. Appellants had

unsuccessfully claimed that the provision allowed corporations and labor organizations to make unlimited contributions to their separate segregated funds while limiting to

$5,000 a year the contributions an unincorporated association could make to the multicandidate committee it established. The Court held, however, that no equal protection

violation existed. The Court stated, "Appellants' contention ignores the fact that the Act as a whole imposes

far fewer restrictions on individuals and unincorporated

associations than it does on corporations and unions. The

differing restrictions placed on individuals and unincorporated associations, on the one hand, and on corporations

and unions, on the other, reflect a congressional judgment

In its opinion, the Court upheld the constitutionality of 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1 )(C), which limits contributions to a

political committee to $5,000 per year, per contributor.

The Court concluded that the chsllenged provision oio not

violate the First Amendment rights of appellants because it

was an appropriate means by which Congress could seek to

protect the integrity of the contribution restrictions upheld

uvBucklev v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1 (1976)). The Court said,

"If First Amendment rights of a contributor are not

infringed by limitations an the amount he may contribute

to a campaign organization which advocates the views and

candidacy of a particular candidate, the rights of a contributor are similarly not impaired by limits on the amount he

may give to a multicandidate political committee, such as

CALPAC, which advocates the views and candidacies of a

number of candidates."

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v, FEC

On June 26, 1981, the Supreme Court handed down a

decision in California Medical Association, et al. v. FEC,

et al. (Civil Action No. 79-1952) that affirmed an earlier

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Appellants were the California Medical Association (CMA),

an unincorporated association, and CALPAC, a rnulticandidate committee formed by CMA.
The RECORD is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Com

missioners are: John Warren McGarry, Chairman; Frank P. Reiche, Vice Chairman; Joan D. Aikens, Thomas E. Harris

Vernon vv. Thomson; Robert O. Tieman: William F. Hikienbrsnd, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L

Henshew,-Jr., Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex Otticio. For more information, call 202/523·4068 or toll-fre

800/424·9530.

FEC enforcement proceeding was pending against appellants (pursuant to Section 437g of the Act!. The Court

found that neither the legislative history nor the statutory

language of Sections 437g and 437h indicated that a direct

appeal should be limited to situations where no enforcement proceeding was pending. (For a detailed summary of

the suit, see the April 1981 Record.}

FEC v. DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL

CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

On March· 2, 1981, the Supreme Court granted the

Commission's petition for a writ of certiorari in FEC v,

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (Civil Action

No. 80·939), The Court also granted a petition for a writ of

certiorari filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) (National Republican Senatorial Committee

v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Civil

Action No. 80-1129) and consolidated the cases for oral

argument. The Commission's petition seeks review of a

judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit, which held that the FEC's dismissal of an

administrative complaint filed by the Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee (OSCe) was contrary to law.

Complaint

In Its administrative complaint, filed May 9, 1980. DSCC

alleged that NRSC had violated the Act by making special

"coordinated" expenditures l2 U.S.C. §441a(dH3)) as an

agent for certain state Republican Party committees. Based

on written agreements with the state party committees, the

NRSC had made the expenditures to support the general

election campaigns of various Senatorial candidates in

1978. NRSC's expenditures were within the limits prescribed by §441a(dH3) for special party expenditures that

a state party committee may make on behalf of its Senate

candidate (Le., $20,000 or 2 cents multiplied by the voting

age population ofthe stateI. On July 11, 1980, the Commission unanimously determined that there was "no reason to

believe" that NRSC had violated the Act. This action was

consistent with the Commission's determinations in two

prior enforcement actions, Matter Under Review lMUR)

780 and MUR 820. "

District Court Ruling

In a petition filed with the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia on July 30, 1980 (Democratic Senatorial Campaign~Committee v, FEC, Civil Action No.

80-1903), Dsec sought a declaration from the court that

the FEC's determination was contrary to taw and an order

directing the Commission to comply with the declaration

Within 30 days. On August 28, 1980, the district court

affirmed the Commission's determination and lnterpretation of §441a(d)(3l, concluding that the dismissal of

DSee's complaint was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion or otherwise contrary to law.

Appeals Court Ruling

DSCe appealed the district court's order on Sept

3, 1980. On October 9, 1980, in a per curiem opinio

appeals court reversed the district court's judgmen

declared the Commission's determination contrary t

Finding that the Commission had presented no rea

explanation for its determination on the adminis

complaint, the court decided the issue de novo. The 

determined that neither the language of the statute n

legislative history could support the Commission's int

tation of §441a(dH3), i.e., that Congress had not int

to prohibit intraparty agency agreements, such as 

used by the Republican Party committees. According

appeals court held that, in the absence of an e

statutory authorization, the agreements between NRS

the state Republican Party committees violated S

441 a(dH3}. It issued a mandate directing the Comm

to conform with its decision.

On October 10, 1980, while the Commission was att

ing to comply with the court's decision, intervenor 

filed an application to recall the mandate and a petiti

an en bene rehearing of the case. The appeals court d

both motions on October 11, 1980. Then, in respon

request from NRSC, the Chief Justice of the Su

Court issued a stay of the appeals court's judgment, 

ing the Court's decision on NRSC's petition for a w

certiorari.

FEe Files Supreme Court Brief

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Apr

19B1, the Commission argued that its decision to d

DSCC's administrative complaint was based on a reaso

interpretation of the Act and should be affirmed

Commission contended that, by substituting its jud

for that of the FEC, the appeals court had interfered 

the Commission's exclusive role as the expert body 

blished by Congress to administer, enforce and interpr

Act. Moreover, in reversing the FEC's consistent con

tion of §441 a(d)(3l, the appeals court had ignored 

dent in the District of Columbia circuit, which gave ju

deference to the Commission's interpretations of th

The Commission also asserted that the appeels c

decision required it to develop a new ru Ie of law or st

ry interpretation In the context of an enforcement pro

ing. This requirement was contrary to the statutory 

date that such rules and interpretations be made th

advisory opinions and rulernakinq,

Furthermore, the Commission argued that its interpre

of 2 U,S.C. §441a(d)(3) was not contrary to law. R

the Commission's interpretation was consistent 

statutory language, Commission regulations and ad

opinions and legislative history. A contrary interpre

would conflict with the clear Congressional inte

encourage a close working relationship among the v
party committees. For example, under the Act, funds may

be transferred without limit between political committees

of the same party, 2 U.S.C, §441a(a)(4l. The Commission

asserted that Congress recognized the Act did not prohibit

such intraparty arrangements when it rejected an amendment to the Act that would have prohibited NRSC from

transferring funds to the state party committees for the

purpose of making §441a(d) expenditures. The Commission therefore argued that its interpretation of §441 aid) (3)

was entitled to deference by the appeals court.

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

Advisory Opinion Requests (AORs) pose questions on

the application of the Act or Commission Regulations to

specific factual situations described in the AOR. The following chart lists recent AO Rs with a brief description of

the subject matter, the date the requests were made public

and the number of pages of each request. The full text of

each AOR is available to the public in the Commission's

Office of Publ ic Records.

Date Made No. of

AOR Subject Public Pages

1981-28 State court decision requiring 7/7/81 22

campaign manager's and

treasurer's assumption of

campaign debts.

1981-29 Status of New Mexico 717181

pre-primary convention

as an election for purposes

of the contribution limits.

1981-JO Relationship bet.....een new 719/81 2

political committee (new

partyt and old political

committee (new party)

with similarnamesand

common leadership.

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION OF

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

AOR 1981-24 (Act's preemption of city charter's ban on

employee contributions) was withdrawn by its requester

on June 25, 1981.

AOR 1981·28 [see above) was withdrawn by its requester

on July 20,1981.

3

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion lAO) issued by the Commis

provides guidance with regard to the specific situa

described in the AOR. Any qualified person who 

requested an AO and acts in accordance with the opin

will not be subject to any sanctions under the Act, O

persons may rely on the opinion if they are involved 

specific activity which is indistinguishable in all mate

aspects from the activity discussed in the AO. Those s

ing guidance for their own activity, however, should con

the full text of an AO and not rely only on the summ

given here.

AO 1981·23: Cooperative's Solicitation of Individual

Members of Member Associations

Land O'Lakes, an incorporated agricultural cooperat

may not solicit contributions to its separate segregated f

from the lndlvldual members (or stockholders) of 

member cooperatives.

Land O'Lakes may solicit individuals who are, themsel

direct members of Land 0' Lakes as long as they satisfy 

requirements for membership in the cooperative. 2 U.

§441b(b)(4)(C) and 11 CFR 114,He) and 114.7. It m

not, however, solicit individuals who are members of co

eratives belonging to Land 0' Lakes because these indi

uals do not meet the membership criteria required 

solicitation. [See also AO 1980-4&.} The rights and obl

tions possessed by these individuals vis-a-vis Land O'La

are indirect, at best. For example, the member coopera

- not Land Q'Lakes - may impose financial obligation

its individual members. Furthermore, individual member

member cooperatives have no direct voting rights in L

Q'Lakes affairs, as do the direct individual members 

cooperative members of Land O'lakes.

The Commission noted that, although Commission Reg

tions permit trade associations to solicit the stockhol

and executive and administrative personnel of their co

rate members, the regulations give no parallel solicita

rights to incorporated cooperatives - such as Land 

Lakes. Nor do the Regulations extend to member

associations (in general) the exemption that permits nat

al or international labor organizations to solicit the indi

ual members of local unions affiliated with labor organ

tions. 11 CF R 114.He). (Date issued: June 29, 1

Length: 5 pages)

AD 1981-25: Excess Funds Used to Pay Travel Expens

of Congressman's Wife

Congressman William E. Dannemeyer may use ex

campaign funds (not designated for particular camp

purposes] to pay the travel expenses of his wife when 

accompanies him to and from his California Congressi

District, Mr. Dannemeyer's request does not specific

indicate whether the purpose of these trips is related to 

duties as a federal officeholder, his 1982 campaign 

his personal use. In this particular case, however, all th

contin
purposes are permissible under the Act. Although the 1979

Amendments prohibit using excess funds for personal use,

the prohibition does not apply to Mr. Dannemeyer because

he was a member of Congress on January 8, 1980.

If the travel of Mr. Dannemeyer's wife is intended to

influence Mr. Dannemevsr's reelection to Congress, it

would constitute a campaign "expenditure." In that case,

the costs of the trips would have to be reported by Mr.

Dannernever's campaign committee as "expenditures."

The Commission expressed no opinion on the application

of tax laws or House rules to the trips since these provisions

are outside its jurisdiction. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche

filed a concurring opinion. (Date issued: July 1, 1981;

Length: 5 pages, including concurring opinion)

AO 1981·26; Social Event Held on Behalf of

Incumbent Who is Not a Candidate

Costs of a party to be held for Congressman Charles E.

Bennett would not have to be reported by the host or by

Congressman Bennett's 1980 campaign committee.

Although Mr. Bennett's 1980 principal campaign committee has not yet terminated, the costs would not have to be

reported because the party would be "purely a social event"

and would not be held to influence the results of a federal

election. No campaign funds would be raised on Mr.

Bennett's behalf; nor would his reelection be advocated.

Moreover, Mr. Bennett has not filed a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2) for 1982; nor does his campaign

committee's most recent report show that any funds have

been raised or spent for a future election campaign. (Under

the Act and Commission RegUlations, an individual, regardless of Whether he or she has publ icly announced as a

candidate, must register and report with the Commission

only When funds received or spent to advance his/her

candidacy exceed $5,000. 2 U.S.C. §431(2) and 11 CFR

100.3(b),)

The Commission expressed no opinion on the application

of House rules to the proposed party, since they are not

within its jurisdiction. (Date issued: June 26, 1981; Length:

2 pages)

AD 1981-27: Act's Preemption of Houston Ordinance

for Political Advertising

Federal-election-related campaign materials that are placed,

posted or erected in Houston, Texas, do not have to include

the antil ittering warning required by a Houston ordinance

because the Act preempts and supersedes the local ordinance.

Among the provisions of the Act and Commission Regula·

tions that "supersede and preempt any provision of state

law with respect to election to federal office" are those that

govern reporting and disclosure of political contributions

and expenditures. 2 U.S.C. §453 and 11 CFR 108.7{b).

The Houston ordinance exceeds the Act's disclosure requ irements. Therefore, any notice included on political advertising in Houston that advocates the election or defeat of a

clearly identified federal candidate need only identify the

persons who paid for or authorized the communication on

4

behalf of the candidate. 2 U.S.C. §441d and 11 

110.11. (See also Advisory Opinions 1978·24 and 198

The Commission noted, however, that the actual plac

of any federal-erection-related campaign materials in v

locations throughout Houston would be subject to 

Houston ordinances. Regulating where political ad

located is beyond the purview of the Act. 2 U.S.C_ 

{Date issued: July 2, 1981; Length: 4 pages}

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITY ON BEHALF

OF A CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN

Mayan individual volunteer his/her personal servi

behalf of a campaign?

Yes. An individual may volunteer any persona! s

provided he or she is not compensated for the serv

any other committee, individual or organization. 1

100.7 (b}(3).

Do these services count as a contribution to the cam

No, although expenses connected with some vol

activities and services may become contributions, sub

the per election limits, if they exceed certain amount

below.]

Mayan individual use his/her home for volunteer a

on behalf of a candidate?

Yes. An individual may provide the use of his/her 

or the recreation room of his/her residential com

provided that the room is available without rega

political affiliation. These services (including any n

fee paid for a recreation room I are not considered i

contributions to a candidate's campaign. 11 CFR 

(b)(4).

Note: If the volunteer activity is not conducted 

individual's home or in a church or community 

donations of food and beverage are considered i

contributions subject to the limits. 2 U.S.C. §44

Mayan individual also use a church or community roo

volunteer activities?

Yes. provided that the room is used regularly by 

bers of the community. without regard to political 

tlon, for noncommercial purposes. 11 CFR 100.7(b)(4

(5).

Would a fee paid by the volunteer for the public 

count as a contribution to the campaign?

No. Any nominal fee paid by the volunteer for t

of church or community rooms is not considered a con

tion. 11 CFR 100.7(bH4l.
Representatives or the FEC, as appropriate, and with th

appropriate state office. 11 CFR 101.1(b}, Part 105 an

108.1.

Date Made

Public

6/18/81

6/18/81

6/18/81

6/2/81

5/13181

2. Realtors Political Action Committee 5/13181

Audit

6. Citizens Committee for the Democratic

National Convention, Inc.

3. Machinists Non-Partisan

Political League

1. Civic Host Committee for the 1980

Republican National Convention

5. The Committee for Good Government

(a separate segregated fund

of the United Auto Workers!

4. UAW-Voluntary Community

Action Program (a separate segregated

fund of the United Auto Workersl

AUDITS RELEASED

TO THE PUBLIC

The Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (th

Act) gives the Commission authority to audit campaigns o

all Presidential candidates who receive public funds and th

campaigns of other political committees. Final audit report

are available to the press through the Press Office and to

the general public through the Office of Public Records

The following is a chronological listing of audits released

between May 13 and Ju ne 18, 1981.

Note: A political committee must report all disbursement

it makes, regardless of whether they are intended for

federal or nonfederal election activity.

Should a candidate's authorized committee(sl repor

donations it makes to candidates for state or local office

Yes. Disbursements to state and local candidates must b

itemized, as appropriate, on Schedule B, and total dona

tions made to state and local candidates must be included

in the figure entered on Line 21 of Form 3.

Once registered, where should an authorized candidate

committee (other than the principal campaign committee

file its campaign finance reports?

The authorized committee must file its reports with the

candidate's principal campaign committee. The principa

campaign committee, in turn, files the reports (togethe

with its own reports) with the appropriate state and federal

bodies. In addition, the principal campaign committee file

an FEC Form 32, consolidating its own receipts and

disbursements with those reported by any authorized

cornmltteets}. 11 CFR 104.3(f) and 108.1.

5

May a volunteer pay subsistence costs [i.e., food and

lodging expenses) incurred while campaigning for a candidate?

Yes. These costs are not considered contributions. 11

CFR 100.7(b}(8).

How does a committee authorized by a candidate (other

than the candidate's principal campaign committee) go

about registering with the FEe?

Registration of an authorized committee involves three

distinct steps:

1. Action by Candidate. The candidate designates the

authorized committee by filing a written statement with

the principal campaign committee. This designation may

be made by letter or hy fiHing in the appropriate Jines

on the Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2). 11 CFR

101.1 (b f.

2. Action by Authorized Committee. Within 10 days after

being designated, the authorized committee must file a

Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1) with the

principal campaign committee of the candidate it

supports. 11 CF R 102.1(b}.

3. Action by Principal Campaign Committee. The principal

campaign committee, in turn, files both the Statement

of Candidacy (FEC Form 2) and the authorized committee's Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1) with the

Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House of

6 This exemption applies exclusivelv to vendors - and not to

indiViduals or other groups.

Maya vendor sell food and beverage to a campaign at cost?

Yes. A vendor," whether or not incorporated, may sell

to a candidate's campaign, at cost, food and beverage to be

used in connection with the campaign, as long as the

cumulative value of the discounts (i.e., the difference

between the cost and the normal commercial rate! does not

exceed $1,000 per candidate, per election. 11 CFR 100.7

(b)(71.

Mayan individual donate food and beverage in connection

with campaign volunteer activity?

Yes - but these donations are subject to certain limits.

An individual may spend up to $1,000 per candidate, per

election, for food, beverage and invitations in connection

with campaign-related activity conducted in his/her home

or in a church or community room. In addition, the volunteer may spend up to $2,000 per calendar year on behalf of

all political committees affiliated with his/her political

party. Any donations in excess of these limits, however, are

considered in-kind contributions subject to monetary

limits. 11 CFR tOO.7(b)(6).

Maya volunteer pay for the personal transportation costs

incurred while campaigning for a candidate?

Yes. A volunteer may spend up to $1,000 per candidate,

per election, for his/her own transportation expenses

related to the campaign. 11 CFR 100.7(b)[8l. Any transportation costs that exceed this amount are considered

in-kind contributions subject to the $1,000 per election

limit.

AUTHORIZED CANDIDATE COMMITTEES
SUBseR IPTIONS

Election Law Updates is a quarterly series which summarizes all new state and federal election legislation.

$11.00 per year.

Election Case Law is a quarterly series which summarizes

recent state and federal litigation relating to election

matters. $10.00 per year,

You may order these subscriptions by mail from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402. Identify report title. Enclose a

check or money order for subscription price lsi payable to

Superintendent of Documents.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 KSTREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20463

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Political Committees

Registered political committees are automaticall

sent the Record. Any change of address by a regi

tered committee must, by law, be made in writing a

an amendment to FEC Form i (Statement of Organ

zation) and filed with the Clerk of the House, th

Secretary of the senate or the FEC, as appropriate.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers (who are not political commi

tees), when calling or mailing in a change of address

are asked to provide the following information:

1. Name of person to whom the Record issent,

2. Old address.

3. New address.

4. Subscription number. The subscription number 

located in the upper left hand corner of the mai

ing label. It consists of three letters and five num

bers. Without this number, there is no guarante

that your subscription can be located on th

computer.

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

FEC

WASHINGTON, D.C.

PERMIT NO, G·31