Volume 10, Number 

INFORMATION

11 1982 Campaign Statistics on Computer Tap

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

I New Officers Elected

COURT CASES

8 Independent Spending by Committees

Athens Lumber Co v, FEC

800 LINE

7 Treasurer's Responsibilities

PUBLIC FUNDING

6 Primary Matching Funds Certified

4 ADVISORY OPINIONS

REPORTS

I Election Year Reporting

Continued on p.2, Col

STATISTICS

II 1982 Congressional Elections

NEW OFFICERS ELECTED

On December 15, 1983, the Federal Electio

Commission unanimously elected Lee Ann Ellio

as Chairman and Thomas E. Harris as Vice Chai

man to serve one-year terms commencing Janu

ary 1, 1984. Mrs. Elliott succeeded Commission

Danny L. McDonald in the chairmanship. M

Harris succeeded Mrs. Elliott as Vice Chairman.

Mrs. Elliott, a Republican, has been a member o

the Co mmission since December 17, 1981. Prio

to her appointment to the Commission, she w

Vice President of Bishop, Bryant & Associate

Inc. of Washington, D.C. From 1970 to 1979, sh

served as Associate Executive Director of th

American Medical Political Action Committe

1

FEDERAL ELECl"ION COMMISSION

January 1984 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463

ELECTION YEAR REPORTING

The following paragraphs explain the reporting schedule for the various categories of

filers during the 1984 election year.

Note: The FEC's Reports Analysis Division

requests that Presidential committees that

change their reporting schedule during 1984

Continued on p.2, Col. 2

3. Authorized Presidential Filers

Authorized Presidential committees are required to report on either a monthly or quarterly basis during 1984. Committees which

have received contributions or made expenditures aggregating $100,000 or more (or which

anticipate this level of financial activity)

must file monthly reports during 1984. In

November and December 1984 and January

1985, in lieu of the monthly reports, these

Presidential committees must file a pre- and

post-general election report and a year-end

report. Committees with financial activity

under $100,000 file quarterly reports, a preprimary report, pre- and post-general election reports and a year-end report. (For filing

dates of reports, see page 3 below.)

2. Authorized Candidate Committees Not Active in 1984 Elections

Authorized candidate committees that will

not be active in 1984 elections (l.e., com mittees authorized by candidates seeking election in future years or committees which

were active in previous elections and have

outstanding campaign debts) must continue to

report semiannually. (For filing dates of reports, see page 3 below.)

WHEN REPORTS ARE FILED

1. Authorized Candidate Committees Active in

1984 Elections

During 1984, authorized candidate committees active in 1984 elections are required to

file pre-primary and pre- and post-general

election reports, as appropriate. They must

also file quarterly reports. (For filing dates

of reports, see page 3 below.)

•

•

•
2

The Record is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman; Thomas E. Harris, Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens; Danny Lee McDonald; John Warren McGarry; Frank P. Reiche; William F

Hildenbrand, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Benjamin J. Guthrie, Clerk of the House of

Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Volume 10, Numb

Filing with the Federal Government

1. The principal campaign committees of Ho

candidates and committees supporting or 

posing only House candidates file with 

Clerk of the House, Office of Records 

Registration, 1036 Longworth House Of

Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. 104.4(c

and 105.1.

WHERE REPORTS ARE FILED

Committees must file all reports and sta

ments simultaneously with the appropriate fed

and state officials. 108.5

Unauthorized committees which file on 

monthly schedule must file pre- and po

general election reports in lieu of their N

ember and December monthly reports an

year-end report in lieu of the January mon

ly report.

Note: Unauthorized committees that wish 

change their reporting schedule during 1

must notify the Commission of their int

tion by a letter submitted with a report f

under the current filing schedule. Subsequ

reports, then, are filed under the new sch

ule. A committee may not change its fi

frequency more than once during 1984. 

CFR 104.5(c).

notify the Commission of their intention 

writing.

Those committees that choose to file qu

terly must also file a post-general elect

report. In addition, quarterly filers that m

contributions or expenditures to supp

specific candidates in 1984 elections m

also file appropriate pre-election repo

(primary, general or both), if this finan

activity has not been previously disclos

(For filing dates of reports, see below.)

4. Unauthorized Committees

All unauthorized committees (Le., comm

tees not authorized by candidates) are 

quired to file on either a quarterly or mon

ly basis in 1984. (The reporting schedules 

quarterly and monthly filers are detai

below.)

January 1984

Mr. Harris, a Democrat, is one of the original

members of the Commission. He was first appointed to the Commission in January 1975, and,

upon the FEC's reconstitution in May 1976, he

received a three-year appointment. He served as

FEC Chairman between May 1977 and May 1978.

In 1979, President Carter reappointed Mr. Harris

for a second term, which is scheduled to expire on

April 30, 1985.

having served as Assistant Director from 1961 to

1970. Mrs. Elliott has also served on the Board of

Directors of the American Association of Political Consultants and on the Board of the Chicago

Area Public Affairs Group, of which she is a past

president. She has been 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. A native of St. Louis, Missouri, Mrs.

Elliott graduated from the University of Illinois

and the· Northwestern Medical Association

Management Executives Program. Her term as

FEC Commissioner is scheduled to expire on April

30, 1987.

Before serving on the Commission, Mr. Harris was

associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO in

Washington, D.C., from 1955 to 1975. He had held

the same position with the CIO from 1948 until it

merged with the AF·L in 1955. Prior to that, he

was an attorney in private practice and with

various government agencies. A native of Little

Rock and an alumnus of the University of Arkansas, Mr. Harris graduated in 1935 from Columbia

University Law School, where he was on the Law

Review and was a Kent Scholar. After graduation,

he clerked one year for Supreme Court Justice

Harlan F. Stone.
January 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

October 17

October 22

October 25

November 26

December 6

December 6

November 6

Filing Date

(and mailing

date

if sent by

registered or

certified roail)'"

February 20

March 20

April 20

May 20

June 20

July 20

August 20

September 20

October 20

October 25

December 6

January 31, 1985

continued

Filing Date (and

mailing date if

sent by registered

or certified mail)>

April 15

JUly 15

October 15

January 31, 1985

Volume 10, Number 1

Period Covered

1/1 - 1/31

2/1 - 2/29

3/1 - 3/31

4/1 - 4/30

5/1 - 5/31

6/1 - 6/30

7/1-7/31

8/1 - 8/31

9/1 - 9/30

10/1 - 10/17

10/18 - 11/26

11/27 - 12/31

Report

February

March

April

May

June

JUly

August

September

October

Pre-Election'"

Post-Election

Year-End

MONTHLY REPORTS

QUARTERLY REPORTS**

Quarter*"'· Close of Books

First March 31

Second June 30

Third September 30

Fourth December 31

(Year-End)

Date of Election

Pre-Election Report

Closing date of books:

Mailing date:

Filing date:

Post-Election Report

Closing date of books:

Mailing date:

Filing Date:

*Exception: The pre-election report must be

postmarked no later than October 22, 1984 (i.e.,

three days before the filing date). II CFR I04.5

(c)(Z)(ii) and (e).

"Committees may also have to file pre-and

post-election reports. See text above.

*·*Quarteriy Waiver: If a pre-election repor

is due within the period beginning on the 5th day

and ending on the 15th day after the close of a

calendar quarter, the quarterly report is waived.

GENERAL ELECTION

3

Unauthorized committees making contributions or expenditures in connection with

House and Senate races file in the state in

which the candidate seeks election. The law

requires a copy only of that portion of the

report applicable to the candidates being

supported. Committees supporting Presidential candidates must file in the statets) in

which the Presidential committee and donor

committee have their respective headquarters. 108.4

The principal campaign committees of Presidential candidates must file copies of reports

and statements with the Secretary of State

or the appropriate election official of the

state in which the committee makes campaign expenditures. These reports must contain all financial transactions which apply to

that state during the reporting period covered. 108.2

The principal campaign committees of senate

candidates and committees supporting or opposing only senate candidates file with the

Secretary of the Senate, Senate Public

Records, 119 D Street, N.E., Washington,

D.C. 20510. 104.4(c)(2) and 105.2.

HOW TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION

During 1984, reporting forms and additional

information will be sent to all registered committees. Questions and requests for additional forms

should be addressed to the Office of Public Communications, Federal Election Commission, 1325

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

202/523-4068 or toll free 800/424-9530.

DUE DATES FOR 1984 REPORTS

The following charts list filing dates for

reports required during the 1984 election year.

Reporting schedules are provided for pre- and

post-general election reports, as well as monthly,

quarterly and semiannual reports. The reporting

dates for 1984 primary elections will be published

in an upcoming issue of the Record.

3. All other committees, hreluding the principal

campaign committees of Presidential candidates, file with the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20463. 105.3 and 105.4.

Filing with State Governments

1. The principal campaign committees of Congressional candidates must file a copy of

every report and statement with the Secretary of State or the appropriate elections

official of the state in which the candidate

seeks federal office. 108.3

2.

2.

•

•
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

AOR Subject

Volume 10. Num

AO 1983-32: PAC Contribution of

Lottery Prize Paid

by Parent Organization

A local chapter of the National Associatio

Retired Federal Employees (NARFE), an inc

rated membership organization, plans to esta

a lottery for its members. In distributing the 

awards to its members, the local chapter may 

include solicitation information on NARFEts s

rate segregated fund, NARFE-PAC, and may 

ask winners to contribute their prizes to NA

PAC. This proposed method of encouraging 

tributions to NARFE-PAC would, in effect, r

in a prohibited transfer of the local chap

treasury funds to NARFE-PAC. 2 V.S.C. §4

II CFR 114.5(b). NARFE-PAC, in turn, sh

take steps to ensure that it does not know

accept lottery prize money or other local ch

or NARFE treasury funds as contributions.

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the C

mission provides guidance with regard to 

specific situation described in the AOR. 

qualified person who has requested an AO 

acts in accordance with the opinion will no

SUbject to any sanctions under the Act. O

persons may rely on the opinion if they 

involved in a specific activity which is ind

guishable in all material aspects from the act

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidanc

their own activity, however, should consult 

full text of an AO and not rely only on 

sum mary given here.

AO 1983-34: Funds Transferred f~om State

Campaign to U.8. Senate Campa

State Senator Lloyd Doggett's state camp

com mittee accepted contributions from T

professional corporations and state pol

In establishing the lottery, the local chapter 

planned to issue cash prizes of $2.50, consistin

funds generated by its recycling program. 

recycling effort involved collecting used al

num cans and old newspapers for deliver

recycling centers.) Such funds would const

NARFE treasury funds. Although the Act per

NARFE to use its treasury funds to solicit co

butions, the Act specifically prohibits NARF

any of its local chapters from using treasury 

to make direct contributions or expenditur

connection with federal elections. 2 V.S.C. §4

Nor may it use the solicitation process as a m

of exchanging treasury funds for voluntary co

butions. II CFR II4.5(b). (Date issued: Nove

18, 1983j Length: 3 pages)

4

Filing Date (and

mailing date if

sent by registered

or certified mail)

July 31

January 31, 1985

Period Covered

1/1 - 6/30

7/1 - 12/31

January 1984

SEMIANNUAL REPORTS *

Report

First

Second

"Onty those authorized candidate committees that will not be seeking election in 1984 may

file semiannually during the election year.

1983-44 Media corporation's use of FECts candidate mailing list to promote political

advertising in college newspapers. (Date

made public: December 6, 1983; Length:

2 pages)

1983-41 Fundraiser for candidate; transmittal of

funds through nonfederal PAC account.

(Date made public: November 30, 1983;

Length: 2 pages)

1983-43 Voting records and information on candidates' positions prepared and distributed

to general public by nonprofit corporation. (Date made public: December 2,

1983j Length: 7 pages, plus 46-page supplement)

1983-40 PAC funding of ad for Senator published

in party committee directory. (Date

made public: November 23, 1983;

Length: I page)

1983-42 Transfer of undesignated contributions

from labor PAC's federal account to its

state account. (Date made public:

November 30, 1983; Length: 2 pages)

ADVISORY OPINION REQUFSTS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of each

AOR is available to the public in the Commission's Office of Public Records.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1984

action com mittees (state PACs) for his 1982 state

senate campaign. Mr. Doggett's state campaign

committee may not transfer contributions from

the Texas professional corporations to his 1984

campaign for the U.S. Senate (the Senate campaign committee). As "corporations" organized

under Texas law, the professional corporations are

specifically prohibited from making contributions

in connection with federal elections. 2 U.S. C.

§441b. The state campaign committee may, however, transfer up to $1,000 of each contribution it

received from a state PAC. (While permissible,

transfers from state PACs are subject to the

$1,000 per candidate, per election limit. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(l).) Before transferring the state PAC

funds to the Senate campaign committee, the

state campaign committee must, however, review

them. Specifically, a state PAC must be able to

demonstrate that, at the time it had contributed

to the state campaign committee, the state PAC

had sufficient permissible funds to make the contributions. 11 CPR 100.5, I02.5(b) and 102.6(a).

(Date issued: November 23, 1983; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1983-35: Company Solicitation of

StockholderIEmployees

The Texas-New Mexico Power Company (the

Company) may solicit contributions to its separate segregated fund, the Texas-New Mexico

Power Company Responsible Government Association (RGA-PAC), from employees who qualify as

solicitable stockholders as the result of participating in an employee benefit plan (the Thrift

Plan), which the Company offers its employees.

(Corporate PACs may only solicit their stockholders, executive and administrative personnel

and the families of both groups. 2 U.S.C. §441b

(b)(4)(B).)

Under the benefit plan, both the Company and the

employee purchase stock in the Company for the

employee. A trustee for the Thrift Plan credits

dividends earned on the employee's stock to an

account set up for him/her. The employee has the

option of using the funds in the account (i.e.,

stock shares and accrued dividends) to purchase

additional shares of stock or to make certain

other investments. An employee may also obtain a

portion of his/her dividends by making limited

withdrawals from his/her account. In addition, a

participant may withdraw the full value of the

stock purchased for him/her by the Company,

provided the employee has participated in the

plan at least five years.

Under Commission Regulations an employee participating in the company-sponsored stock option

plan is considered a stockholder, eligible to be

solicited by the PAC or parent company, if the

employee has:

5

Volume 10, Number 

1. A vested, beneficial interest in the stock;

2. The power to direct how the stock is voted

and

3. The right to receive dividends. 11 CPR 114.

(h).

Employees participating in the Company's Thrif

Plan meet all these requirements. Although th

plan discourages employees from withdrawin

their accrued investment by placing certain re

strictions on withdrawals, the plan nevertheles

complies with the third requirement because i

does not significantly impair the employee's righ

to receive dividends. As noted above, the em

ployee may make partial withdrawals from his/he

account; may continue making contributions t

the account after a withdrawal; and, after fiv

years of employment, may withdraw all the stoc

purchased for him/her by the Company and stil

continue to work for the Company.

This opinion differs from AO 1983-17, in whic

the Commission concluded that certain employee

participating in a stockholder benefit plan woul

not qualify as solicitable stockholders because o

restrictions placed on their right to receive divi

dends. An employee's contributions to his/he

account, for example, could not be resumed unt

one year after a withdrawal. Moreover, stock pur

chased for the employee by the Company coul

not be withdrawn at all unless the employee lef

the Company. Commissioner Thomas E. Harri

filed a dissent. (Date issued: December 5, 1983

Length: 6 pages, including dissent)

AO 1983-37: State Party's Exempt

Legal Expense Fund

Donations to and disbursements from a separa

legal expense fund established by the Massach

setts Democratic State Committee (the Party

would not be considered "contributions" or "ex

penditures" under the Act, provided the par

adheres to the conditions it set forth for the fun

which are listed below. Accordingly, donations 

the legal expense fund would not be subject to th

prohibitions and limits the Act places on contrib

tions. Nor would any of the fund's receipts an

disbursements have to be reported.

The party has indicated that the fund:

1. Will be used only to defray "costs of defend

ing legal actions brought by candidate

against the party";

2. Will not be used to initiate legal action 

remove an identified candidate from the ba

lot; and

3. Will be maintained apart from any othe

party funds. See also AO 1982-35.

continu
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Amount Certif

$773,274

1,161,223

1,579,344

580,417

552,159

3,125,540

Volume 10, Numb

Other SUbscribers

Record subscribers (who are not poli tical committees), when calling or mailing in

a change of address, are asked to provide

the following information:

1. Name of person to whom the Record is

sent.

2. Old address.

3. New address.

4. Subscription number. The subscription

number is located in the upper left

hand corner of the mailing label. It

consists of three letters and five num-·

bers, Without this number, there is no

guarantee that your subscription can

be located on the computer.

1984. (For a complete explanation of the eligi

ity requirements, consult 26 U.S.C. §9033 

Commission Regulations at 11 CFR 9033 

9036.1.)

Political Committees

Registered political committees are

automatically sent the Record. Any change

of address by a registered committee must,

by law, be made in writing as an amendment to FEC Form I (Statement of Organization) and filed with the Clerk of the

House, the Secretary of the Senate, or the

FEC, as appropriate.

During 1984, an eligible Presidential candid

may submit requests for primary matching fu

on the first and third Mondays of each month. 

Commission will certify a percentage of 

amount requested within one week of receivin

request. (See 26 U.S.C. §§9034 and 9036 and 

CFR 9034 and 9036. Hb) and 2(d).)

The chart below lists those eligible candidate

whom the Commission certified payments, as w

as the amount certified to each candidate:

Candidate

Reubin Askew

Alan Cranston

John Glenn

Gary Hart

Ernest F. Hollings

WaIter F. Mondale

6

January 1984

FEC CERTIFIES PRIMARY MATCHING

FUNDS FOR SIX PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

During December 1983~ the FEC certified a

total of $7,771,960.41 in federal matching funds

for the 1984 primary campaigns of six Presidential candidates. The Commission forwarded the

certifications to the U.S. Treasury, which will

issue payments to the candidates after January 1,

1984. Prior to certifying the funds, the Commission had made separate determinations during

1983 with regard to each candidate's eligibility

for primary matching funds. Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, however,

the Treasury could not begin making actual payments to eligible candidates before January 1,

The Commission expressed no opinion on applicable tax laws because they are not within its

jurisdiction. Commissioner Thomas E. Harris filed

a concurring opinion. (Date issued: November 18~

1983; Length: 3 pages, including concurring opinion)

If Mr. Krueger does not participate in the 1984

general election, these same requirements would

apply to general election contributions redesignated by contributors for 1978 debt retirement.

(Da te issued: December 5, 1983; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1983-39: Contributions to 1984 Runoff

Election/Redesignated for

19'18 Debt Retirement

The Friends of Bob Krueger Committee (the Committee), Mr. Krueger's prineipal campaign committee for his 1984 election campaign, may accept contributions earmarked for a possible runoff

election in 1984, provided the contributions are

lawful under the Act. If no runoff election is held,

contributions earmarked for the runoff may be

used to retire debts of either Mr. Krueger's 1978

primary or general election campaign, provided:

The contributor requests that the Committee

redesignate his/her contribution for retiring

the debts of either the 1978 primary or

general election;

The contributor has not previously exhausted

his/her $1,000 limit for either the 1978 primary or general election; and

The contributions redesignated for debt retirement do not exceed Mr. Krueger's outstanding 1978 debts.

The Committee must refund any redesignated

contributions that do not meet these requirements.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1984

TREASURER'S RESPONSIBILITIES

The Public Communications Office frequently receives questions concerning the responsibilities of the treasurer of a political committee.

What are the treasurer's responsibilities with

regard to the committee's recordkeeping and

reporting requlrements? Who may assume the

treasurer's responsibilities in his/her absence? Is a

treasurer personally liable for a co~mittee's

debts? This article answers those questions and

covers other aspects of a treasurer's duties.

What are the responsibilities of the treasurer of a

politieal committee?

A political committee treasurer must: "

o Deposit receipts in the designated campaign

depository within 10 days;

o Authorize expenditures (or appoint an agent

to do so);

o Keep records;

o Sign all reports and statements; and

o File complete and accurate reports in a timely manner.

What happens if a solicited contribution is received without the required information?

The treasurer must make "best efforts" to

obtain the missing information. This means the

treasurer must make at least one effort by either

a written request or an oral request documented

in writing. The requester should inform the contributor that the requested information is required by law. 104.7(b).

What happens if the treasurer is not supplied with

the information necessary to document hislher

committee's disbUl'Sernents?

If a treasurer fails to receive a receipt,

invoice or canceled check (required for disbursements exceeding $200), he or she must make "best

effort's" to obtain documentation, i.e., at least

one written effort per transaction to obtain a

duplicate copy of the documentation. 102.9(d).

What happens if the treasurer receives a contribution of questionable legality?

Within 10 days, the contribution must either

be deposited and reported or returned. If deposited, the treasurer must make and retain a

written record noting that the legality is in question, and include this statement with the next

report. Best efforts must then be made to determine the legality of the contribution. If the

treasurer cannot determine whether or not the

contribution is legal, he must refund it and report

it accordingly. If the check was never deposited,

no reporting is required. 103.3.

7

Volume 10, Number 

May any officer of a committee designate sg~ts

to make expenditures on behalf of the eommit

tee? "t No. Only the treasurer has the authorl y to

designate others to make committee expendi

tures. l02.7(c).

Must a treasurer's authorization for another to

make expenditures be in writing?

No. An oral authorization is permitted

102.7(c).

May a treasurer also act as "custodian of re

cords"?

Yes.

How long must records be kept?

Records related to a report must be kept for

three years after the report has been filed

102.9(c).

What kinds of records arc required for contribu

tions and disbursements?

Recordkeeping requirements vary depending

on the size of the contribution or disbursemen

and the type of transaction. For specific informa

tion, treasurers should consult the Campaign

Guides and 11 CFR 102.9(8) and (b) and 102.11.

Are the FEe reporting forms compatible with

computers?

In part, yes. The Summary and Detailed Sum

mary Pages for Forms 3 and 3X (~uthorized ~nd

Unauthorized Committees, respectively) are pin

feed forms that can be used in a computer.

Can the treasurer itemize receipts and disburse

ments on computer-based schedules?

The Commission has not prepared computer

based schedules, A committee may, however

develop and use its own computer-based schedule

if it first submits the proposed format for Com

mission approval (attention: Reports Analysis

Division).

How can a committee ensure that the names o

the contributors listed in the committee report

will not be used by other committees for solici

tation purposes?

The use of pseudonyms (fictitious contri

butors) is permitted to guard against this. See

104.3(e) for details.

If the treasurer is temporarily unavailable to

fulf'lll his responsibilities (e.g., sign a report), may

the chairman assume those duties?

No. The only person permitted to assume th

treasurer's responsibilities in his or her absence i

an assistant treasurer who has been designated o

the committee's Statement of Organization. Be

cause all financial activity must cease when th

treasurer is unavailable, the Commission encour

ages the appointment of an assistant treasure
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

*For a summary of AD's 1983-l0 

1983-ll, see p. 2 of the July 1983 Record.

Volume 10, Numb

In FEC v. NCPAC and FCM the U.S. Dis

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani

December 12, 1983, refused to allow the FEC 

implement 26 U.S.C. §9012(f). (Civil Action 

83-2823) The Federal Election Commission 

an appeal with the Supreme Court on Decem

16.

On October 19, 1983, the U.S. District Court 

the District of Columbia issued an order den

the Fund for a Conservative Majority's (FC

petition for further relief in a consolidated 

originally decided by the court in September 1

(Common Cause v. Harrison Schmitt [FEC 

terv.enor]. FEC v. Americans for Chan e; C

Action Nos. 80 1609 and 80-1754. The court 

denied a motion filed by the National Congre

nal Club (NeC) and the National Conserva

Political Action Committee (NCPAC) to 

tervene in FCM's petition and dismissed the 

tition with prejudice.

On January 19, 1982, the Supreme Court vot

to 4 to affirm the D.C. district court's Septem

decision, with Justice Sandra O'Connor not 

ticipating. However, since the high Court's 

on the suit had been equally divided, its aff

ance had no preeedential value. Subsequently, 

FEC issued advisory opinions* to NCPAC 

Baekground

. In its September 1980 ruling, the U.S. 

trict Court for the District of Columbia held 

Section 90 12(f) was unconstitutional as applie

Americans for Change, Americans for an Ef

tive Presidency and FCM, three multicandi

political committees (not affiliated with 

parent organization). They had planned to m

expenditures in excess of $1,000 to support 

Republican Presidential nominee's general e

tion campaign.

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

BY COMMITI'EES ON BEHALF

OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE

In two separate actions during October 

December 1983, U.S. district courts ruled on s

pertaining to 26 U.S.C. §90 12(f). This provisio

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act 

hibits unauthorized committees (Le., those 

authorized by a candidate) from making expe

tures exceeding $1,000 to further the electio

a publicly funded Presidential nominee in 

general election.

8

January 1984

who can immediately assume the treasurer's responsibilities.

Maya committee appoint an assistant treasurer

after it has filed its Statement of Organization?

. Yes. The committee discloses the new appomtment by amending its Statement of Organization (FEC Form I) or by filing a letter containing the new information. The amended form

need only contain the information pertaining to

the assistant treasurer.

May a committee incorporate for liability purposes without affecting its status as a political

committee?

Yes. The ineorpora tion of a committee for

liability purposes only, however, has no effect on

the personal responsibility of the treasurer in the

fulfillment of his or her duties under the Act.

114.12(a).

Is any documentation required if the committee

changes its treasurer?

Yes. Within 10 days, an amended Statement

of Organization (or a letter noting the change)

must be filed. The amended form need only cont~in the new information. It may be signed by

either the out-going or the in-coming treasurer.

102.2.

Is any special training required for becomi~

treasurer?

No, although knowledge of general accounting principles is helpful. Assistance should be

obtained from an accountant or bookkeeper.

May a candidate be the treasurer for his campaign?

Yes.

Is a treasurer personally liable for the COJDmittee's debts?

The Act and Commission Regulations do not

impose a personal liability on the treasurer. The

treasurer is personally responsible only for the

timely, complete and accurate reporting of debts.

"In general, debt claims and liabilities are subject

to relevant State law, and the Committee's

'responsibility' for satisfying the obligations would

have to be determined with reference to those

laws." AO 1975-102.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1984

FCM in which the FEC stated that Section 9012(f)

may be enforced.

FEC v. NCPAC and FCMj DNC v. NCPAC

In an effort to obtain a final ruling by the

high Court on Section 9012(f)'s constitutionality,

the FEC filed a new suit with the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on

June 14, 1983. (FEC v. NCPAC and FCM; Civil

Action No. 83-2823.) This suit was consolidated

with another suit, DNC v. NCPAC, (Civil Action

83-2329), which had been filed on May 1, 1983.

The FEC intervened in that suit as defendants and

argued that the DNC lacked statutory and constitutional standing to bring that action. In these

suits, plaintiffs asked that a three-judge panel of

the court be convened to declare that:

Expenditures (in excess of $1,000) that

NCPAC and FCM each intended to make on

behalf of the publicly funded Republican

Presidential nominee in 1984 would be prohibited by, and in violation of, 26 U.S.C.

S9012(f)(I); and

Section 9012(f)(I), as applied to the defendant committees, was constitutional.

On December 12, 1983, the Pennsylvania district

court refused to allow the FEC to implement

Section 9012(f) and on December 16 the FEC filed

an appeal of this decision with the Supreme

Court. The Pennsylvania district court based its

finding that Section 9012(f) was unconstitutional

on the Buckley v. Valeo opinion. That opinion, the

court said, allows "r estrictlons on true campaign

speech only to prevent corruption or its

appearance," The court concluded that "plaintiffs

have produced virtually no evidence of actual

corruption and little admissible evidence of the

appearance of corruption," The court held the

view that "modest expenditures by political

committees...[such as the defendant committee]

have almost no potential to corrupt or to create

the appearance of corruption....11

FCM v. FEC

On June 16, 1983, FCM filed a petition with

the D.C. district court. (Civil Action No. CA

80-1609) Citing the D.C. district court's 1980

ruling in the first suit, FCM asked the court to:

Order the FEC to dismiss its suit against

NCPAC and FCM in the Pennsylvania district

court;

Prohibit the FEC from filing suits in state

and federal courts which seek to enforce or

to construe Section 9012(f)(I);

Direct the FEC to withdraw an advisory

opinion (AO 1983-1 I) issued to FCM on May

18, 1983, which stated that FCM would be

subject to the $1,000 spending limit imposed

by Section 9012(f)(I) should FCM make expenditures on behalf of the publicly funded

Republican Presidential nominee in 1984; and

9

Volume 10, Number 

Direct the FEC to issue an alternative adv

sory opinion to FCM stating that FCM's pro

posed expenditures would not be subject t

Section 9012(f)(1).

In dismissing FCM's petition, the D.C. distric

court judges found no merit to FCM's contentio

that the FEC could not file suit in the Pennsy

vania district court because the issues raised b

the suit had already been resolved by the D.C

district court's ruling in 1980.* The D.C. distric

court found, to the contrary, that the FEC

second suit raised new issues. "The controversy 

the original suit decided by the [D.C. district

court stemmed from FCM's planned expenditure

for then-Presidential hopeful Reagan's 1980 cam

paign, not from planned expenditures by othe

parties Ii.e., NCPAC] , and not from FCM's plan

ned expenditures for the 1984 presidential ele

tion." The court also cited legal precendent whic

permitted federal agencies "to relitigate substan

tially legal issues raised by different transaction

or events, after adverse decisions elsewhere

(Western Oil and Gas Association v. Environmen

al Protection Agency, 633 F. 2d 803, 808)

Furthermore, the D.C. district court found tha

in filing its second suit with the Pennsylvan

district court, the FEC had not intended to unde

mine the D.C. district court's ruling in the fir

suit. The court conceded that the "constitution

issues remained unsettled" as a result of the hig

Court's evenly divided decision.

Since the high Court has not yet resolved th

constitutionality of Section 9012(f), the D.C. di

trict court asserted that, as the federal agen

charged with enforcing the provision, the "FE

must legitimately be permitted to retry the leg

issue of section 9012(f)'s constitutionality" un

"it is finally settled by the Supreme Court." Th

district court maintained that Congress ha

placed a special importance "on FEC participatio

in actions construing the Fund Act, and on quic

Supreme Court review."

The D.C. district court also found that FCM h

provided no evidence to indicate that the FEC

second suit had caused it "unwarranted inconve

ience or harm." Moreover, the D.C. district cou

held that in attempting to enjoin the FEC fro

seeking a resolution of Section 9012(f)'s constit

tionality in the Pennsylvania district court, FC

should directly petition the Pennsylvania distri

court.

*Under the doctrine of collateral estoppe

when an issue of ultimate fact has been dete

mined by a valid judgment, that issue cannot b

relitigated between the same parties.
January 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ATHENS LUMBER COMPANY v. FEC

On October 24, 1983, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an en

banc opinion in Athens Lumber Company v. FEe

upholding the constitutionality of 2 U.S.C.

§441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act). (Civil Action No. 82-8102.) The court's

decision also reversed an earlier order by the U.S.

District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

which had dismissed the case on grounds that: 1)

plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit under the

Act; and 2) plaintiffs failed to present a justiciable controversy for the federal courts' consideration. The appeals court remanded the case to the

district court for entry of a judgment in favor of

the FEC.

Plaintiffs' Claims

The Athens Lumber Company and its President John P. Bondurant filed the suit with the

Georgia district court on July 27, 1981. Pursuant

to Section 437h(a) of the Act,* plaintiffs asked

the district court to certify their questions concerning the constitutionality of 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(a)

to the en bane appeals court for the Eleventh

Circuit. Plaintiffs claimed that this provision of

the election law abridged First and Fifth Amendment rights by prohibiting corporations, labor

organizations and national banks from making

contributions and expenditures in connection with

federal elections.

Plaintiffs further asked that the FEC be enjoined

from initiating enforcement proceedings against

them if the Athens Lumber Company participated

in federal elections. At the same time, however,

plaintiffs said that the company would not make

expenditures or contributions in connection with

federal elections until either: 1) 2 U.S.C. §441b

was repealed or declared unconstitutional; or 2)

the company obtained an opinion of counsel from

the Commission stating that the proposed expenditures did not violate any federal or state law or

regulation. Plaintiffs further argued that their

uncertainty about a possible violation of the election law had deterred them from exercising their

First and Fifth Amendments rights, thereby causing them irreparable harm.

District Court Decision

In an opinion issued on February 9, 1982, the

Georgia district court dismissed the suit. (Civil

*Section 437h, which provides for an expedited judicial review procedure, notes that certain

designated parties "may institute such actions in

the appropriate district court of the United

States•••to construe the constitutionality" of the

Act. The district court is then directed to certify

appropriate constitutional Questions to the court

of appeals sitting en bane.

10

Volume 10, Numbe

Action No. 81-79-ATH.) The court held t

under Section 437h(a) of the election law, only 

following types of plaintiffs had standing to b

suit: the national committee of a political pa

individuals eligible to vote in Presidential e

tions and the FEC. Consequently, the court fo

that the Athens Lumber Company lacked stand

to bring suit. While the court recognized that 

Bondurant was an eligible voter, he too lac

standing to bring suit since the corporation -- 

Mr. Bondurant -- planned to make the expe

tures.

Moreover, the district court held that plaint

had not presented a justiciable case or con

versy ripe for the court's consideration. The co

concluded that "it is obvious that the stat

under attack in no way interferes with the 

that the plaintiff corporation through its plain

president conducts its corporate affairs•••." S

larly, the court found that Mr. Bondurant had 

presented a justiciable claim because he was "

to independently expend his personal funds 

federal elections], including dividends from 

corporate plaintiff without limitation." Moreo

the court found that Athens Lumber Company 

only seeking an advisory opinion because 

shareholders had not voted to spend any corpo

funds in connection with federal elections as l

as Section 441b remained in force.

Appeals Court Decision

On October 22, 1982, a three-judge pane

the Eleventh Circuit court of appeals reversed 

judgment of the district court, finding that 

Bondurant did have standing to bring suit and 

raise those issues pertaining to Athens Lum

Company's participation in federal electio

Moreover, the court found that the suit rai

justiciable claims because, if Athens Lum

Company were to make contributions and expe

itures in connection with federal elections, b

Mr. Bondurant and the corporation would be s

ject to civil and criminal prosecution. The pa

then certified to the en bane Eleventh Cir

eight constitutional questions adopted from ap

lants' complaint.

In upholding the constitutionality of Section 44

the en bane Eleventh Circuit court of app

stated: nViewing the substantive constitutio

issues as being controlled by the Court's un

mous opinion in Federal Election Commission 

National Right to Work Committee, et al.,

U.S. , 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed. 2d 

(}982), and for the reasons there stated, we 

the limitations and prohibitions of which ap

lants complain to be constitutional." (Fo

summary of the Court's decision in FEC v. NRW

see page 3 of the February 1983 Record.)
Volume 10, Numbe

Congressional campaigns raised a total of $35

million during the 1981-82 election cycle; t

fundraising represented a 42.6 percent increa

over total funds raised for the 1979-80 cycle (i

continu

The 472 successful candidates for u.s. Senate a

House seats received 70 percent (or $58.4 millio

of the $83.7 million contributed by PACs to 19

Congressional campaigns. Senate winners receiv

$15.6 million from PACs while their success

counterparts in the House received $42.7 million

The 439 candidates who won House races sp

$114.7 million on their primary and general el

tions; this spending represented a 47 perc

increase over spending by successful House can

dates during the 1980 election cycle (I.e., fr

$78 million to $114.7 million). Winning Ho

candidates raised a total of $123.1 million 

their campaigns or 43.17 percent more than th

counterparts in 1980 House races.

campaign Activity in AU

1981-82 Congressional campaigns

During the 1981-82 election cycle, to

spending by all 1982 Congressional campaig

(t.e., 283 Senate candidates and 1,957 House c

didates) increased significantly. Congressio

campaigns spent a total of $342.4 million, 

increase of 43.3 percent over the $239 mill

spent on 1980 Congressional races. Total ca

paign costs for House races alone rose 50 perc

between the 1980 and 1982 elections (i.e., fro

$136 million to $204 million). Between 1980 a

1982, Senate campaigns increased their spend

by 34.5 percent (i.e., from $102.9 million 

$138.4 million).

campaign Activity of Successful

1981-82 Congressional Campaigns

During the 1982 Congressional electio

once again spending by candidates increas

According to a final study of the 1981-82 Co

gressional elections released by the FEC 

December 2, 1983, spending by 33 success

Senate candidates on their primary and gene

election campaigns rose 70.5 percent from 19

to 1982 (i.e., from $40 million to $68.2 millio

These same candidates raised a total of $7

million for their campaigns, an increase of 6

percent over total funds raised by their count

parts in 1980 races.

FRC RELEASES FINAL REPORT

ON 1982 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

II

January 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Checks should be made payable to the FEC. For

more information, call the Data Systems Development Division at 202/523-4020 or toll free

800/424-9530.

The tapes may be purchased through the Commission's Data Systems Development Division, 1325 K

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Prices for

individual tapes are listed below:

1981-82 Cam ai n Finance Activit : Senate

and House in ormation, 70; political action

committee information, $70; and political

party committee information, $55.

1979-80 Cam ai n Finance Activit : Senate

and House in ormation, 65; Presidential information, $80; political action committee

information, $70; and political party committee information, $65.

1977 -78 Cam ai n Finance Activit : political

action committee information, 70 and political party committee information, $70.

1982 CAMPAIGN STATISTICS

AVAlLABLE ON COMPUTER TAPES

During December, the Commission announced

the availability of computer tapes containing final

campaign finance information for the 1981-82

election cycle. The tapes cover the campaign

finance activity of 1982 Senate and House candidates, political action committees and Democratic and Republican political party committees.

The Commission made the tapes available for

purchase after it had published printed volumes

covering the same information (i.e., the FEC

Reports on Financial Activit 1981-82 Final Report. Tapes on campaign mance ae IVI y or e

1977-78 and 1979-80 election cycles are also

available.

•

•

•
Open Seat

Challengers

Volume 10, Numbe

FirstClass Mail

Postage & FeesPaid

FEC

Washington, D.C.

PermitNo.G-31

Incumbents

PAC Contributions

..-+- Other Receipts* *

Others

The chart below details receipts for 1982 Co

gressional candidates running in general election

More information may be obtained from FE

Reports on Financial ActiVity, 1981-82, :FT

Re ort: U.S. Senate and House Cam ai s. Cop

a the study may e purchased or 5.00 rom t

FEC's Public Records Office, 1325 K Stre

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Checks should 

made payable to the FEC.

Democrats

.....- .. Republicans

Losers

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Winners

50

150

200

100

OfficialBusiness

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

*Includes receipts for primary and general election campaigns of general election candidates.

**Other campaign receipts include, for example, contributions from individuals, con·tributions fr

candidates to their own campaigns, contributions from other campaigns, loans, refunds, and inter

income earned on investments.

January 1984

$248.8 million). Senate campaigns alone raised

$141.5 million, a 35 percent increase over the

$104.8 million raised for 1980 Senate races. Total

funds - raised for 1982 House campaigns represented a 48 percent increase over 1980 House

fundraising (l.e., from $144 million to $213.2

million).

CAMPAIGN RECEIPTS * OF 1982 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

RUNNING IN GENERAL ELECTIONS

11l/81 - 12/31/82

Receipts