Only “gifts of money” to a candidate of up to $250
per individual are eligible for Federal matching
payments.

in addition, the Commission to date has certified
$1,610,000.00 in Nominating Convention payments, in-
cluding $860,000.00 to the Democratic National Com-
mittee and $750,000.00 to the Republican National
Committee.

Clearinghouse Advisory Panel Activities

The FEC Clearinghouse Advisory Panel Charter
originally called for 19 members to be appointed by the
FEC, three of whom were State Governors. However,
after receipt of the Commission’s invitation for Panel
membership, the three Governors felt that the Panel
was more appropriate for State and local election ad-
ministrators—rather than for State executives. As a re-
sult, the Commission has approved modification of the
Clearinghouse Advisory Panel Charter by 1) eliminat-
ing the three gubernatorial positions; 2) increasing the
size of the Panel by one (to a total of 20); and 3) ap-
pointing two additional State legislative representa-
tives and two local election administrators.

The Commission also gave the go-ahead on three
projects proposed by the Clearinghouse. These proj-
ects are to:

1. Produce a complete directory of State election-
related offices and agencies (addresses, tele-
phone numbers, present staff heads) with a
structural-functional description of each State
administrative system;

2. Develop a formula for local election officials to
ensure that 90% of the voters will vote within a

given number of minutes after arriving at the
polls, thereby avoiding lower turnout because of
delays;

3. Establish an advisory board to review the history
of contested elections and recounts, analyze cur-
rent techniques of administering such elections
and recommend a model process which could be
adopted by the States.

New Non-Party Multi-Candidate Committee Registra-
tions

This regular feature of FEC Notes is being discon-
tinued. During the months of February and March the
Commission received over 150 registrations, making it
impossible to include a comprehensive list in the
limited space of The Record. All reports of registered
committees are available, as always, in the Office of
Public Records.

MATERIALS AVAILABLE

Federal Register Reprints
FEC Record, Vol. 1, Nos. 1-4
Special Year-End Supplement
Vol. 2, Nos. 1-3
1976 First-Quarter Index
Index of Reports and Statements
1976 Calendar of Pre-/Post-Election Filing
Deadlines for Federal Elections
Volunteer’s Guide
Fundraiser’s Guide
Candidate’s Guide
Contributions and Expenditures Guide
Delegate Selection Guideline
Revised Edition of the Federal Election Cam-
paign Act (ist ed., April 1975)

eorcee

Published by THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Commissioners
are: THOMAS B. CURTIS, Chairman; NEIL STAEBLER, Vice-Chairman; JOAN D. AIKENS; THOMAS E. HARRIS;
VERNON W. THOMSON; ROBERT O, TIERNAN; FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary of the Senate, Ex-Officio; EDMUND L.
HENSHAW, JR., Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex-Officio.

Staff Director - Orlando B. Potter; General Counsel - John G. Murphy, Jr.; Asst. Staff Director for Administra-
tion - Robert Baker; Asst. Staff Director for Disclosure and Compliance - Drew McKay; Asst. Staff Director for Infor-
mation Services - Herb Koster; Editor - Carolyn L. Tillotson.

New Toll-Free Number: 800-424-9530. Press Information Phone No. - (202) 382-4112. Public Information Phone
No. - (202) 382-4733. The Record Phone No. - (202) 382-6644.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
1325 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20463

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

GPO 905-167

2

—
U.S.MAIL
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID —



THE FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

=COMRID

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

Volume 2, No. 4

1976

THE CONTINUING ROLE
OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the case of Buckley v. Valeo, 423 U.S.___, 96 S. Ct. 612 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since a
majority of the voting Commissioners on the Federal Election Commission were nominated either by the House or
Senate and approved by both Houses of Congress—instead of by the President with Senate contirmation—the
Commission lacked the constitutional authority to exercise certain powers in administering the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended.

The Court stayed its judgment for 30 days—allow-
ing the FEC to continue without interruption until
Feb. 29—while Congress had the opportunity to take
legislative action to re-establish the Commissioners as
appointees of the President.

Recognizing that the Congress was on the verge of
passing a bill re-establishing the Commission, the
Supreme Court on Feb. 27 extended the stay through
March 22 to give both Houses an opportunity to
compromise their separate proposals into a single bill
which the President hopefully would sign into law.

However, as legislation was not enacted by the time
the stay had expired, at midnight on March 22, the
Federal Election Commission officially, if only tem-
porarily, lost some of the powers granted it under the
Act.

The essential powers which the Commission cannot
exercise as a result of the Buckley ruling include:

1. rendering Advisory Opinions;

. promulgating regulations;

. processing complaints;

. initiating civil enforcement actions;

. certifying candidates for Presidential primary
matching funds; and

. certifying payments to national parties for Presi-
dential nominating conventions.

@ ARON

POLITICAL COMMITTEES
—INCLUDING PACs—
TAKE NOTE

Under the requirement of 2 U.S.C. §435(b):
“Each political committee shall include on the
face or front page of all literature and advertisements
soliciting contributions the following notice: ‘A copy
of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commis-
sion and is available for purchase from the Federal
Election Commission, Washington, D.C.’”

Under the residual and continuing authority left to
the Commission by the Court’s decision, the following
functions will continue:

1. The Commission will continue to receive dis-
closure reports filed with it in compliance with
the Federal Election Campaign Act and will con-
tinue to make such reports promptly available for
public inspection in its Public Records Section.

2. The Commission will continue to examine all
such reports filed with it and to notify the filing
candidates or committees of apparent errors and
omissions, and to invite them to correct the rec-
ord.

3. The Commission will continue to conduct all ap-
propriate audits and investigations for the pur-
pose of assuring the integrity of the information
contained in the reports.

4. The Commission will continue to offer informa-
tion relating to the requirements of the Act, as
modified by the Court's decision and to advise
persons how to proceed with its disclosure re-
quirements. The informational process will in-
clude the answering of routine inquiries to the
information Office as well as specific questions
addressed to the Office of the General Counsel.

5. The Commission will continue to receive sub-
missions from Presidential primary candidates
seeking matching funds and, while no formal
certification for payment can be made by the
Commission, the staff will continue with pre-
liminary processing of such submissions during
the interim period so that any backlog of re-
quests can be promptly certified at such time as
the Commission’s authority to do so may be re-
stored.

6. The Commission’s legal staff will continue in-
formally to do preparatory research and editorial
revisions on proposed regulations in anticipation
of statutory requirements to transmit such ma-

terial promptly to the Congress.
(Continued, p. 2)



ADVISORY OPINIONS

The Commission has determined that it will not
render any Advisory Opinions pursuant to the provi-
sions of 2 U.S.C. §434f until legislation has been
enacted re-establishing the Commission. Under the
statute, Federal officeholders, candidates for Federal
office, and political committees could request and the
Commission could render an Advisory Opinion with
respect to whether any specific transaction or activity
by such persons would constitute a violation of the
Federal election laws. Furthermore, any person who
acted in good faith in accordance with the provisions
and findings of such an Advisory Opinion was pre-
sumed to be in compliance with the provisions of the
Federal election laws touched upon by the Opinion.

In the Buckley case, however, the Supreme Court
ruled that because of its composition, the Commission
lacked constitutional authority to continue rendering
Advisory Opinions pursuant to the statute. All Advisory
Opinions which were rendered by the Commission
before the date of the Court’s decision were, neverthe-
less, accorded de facto validity by the Court.

The General Counsel of the Commission, John G.
Murphy, Jr., issued several Opinions of Counsel be-
tween Jan. 30 and March 22. The Commission will
continue to accept requests for Opinions but until the
Commission has been re-established, persons re-
questing either Advisory Opinions or Opinions of
Counsel will be provided only with prior decisions of
the Commission.

AUDITS

The 1976 General Audit Schedule, as approved by
the Commission, will make it possible to monitor the
accuracy of financial reports filed on the public record
by various categories of candidates and political com-
mittees.

The Audit and Investigation Division will conduct a
limited audit series of the 42 multi-candidate non-
party committees which received or expended in ex-
cess of $100,000 during 1975.

The 1974 Amendments have caused considerable
problems for multi-candidate committees as they at-
tempt to comply with the Act. The Commission hopes
that information gathered during the course of the new
audit schedule will enable it to identify general prob-
lem areas and ways to resolve them.

* * *

On Wednesday, March 24, 1976, the Senate passed,
by a vote of 55-28, S. 3065—a bill re-establishing the
Commission and making other changes in the
Act.

On Thursday, April 1, 1976, the House passed a
similar piece of legislation by a vote of 241-155,

*
MATCHING FUNDS
AND CANDIDATE WITHDRAWALS

Candidates for the Presidential nomination who
qualify for primary matching funds remain eligible by
statutory provision for these funds until they withdraw
as candidates.

Terry Sanford, Sargent Shriver, Milton Shapp,
Senators Lloyd Bentsen and Birch Bayh have publicly
stated that they are no longer “active” candidates, but

until they finally disavow candidacy, they are eligible
to receive matching funds.

Funds received can only be used for qualified
campaign expenses or they must be repaid. After all
debts and obligations have been paid, the candidate
must repay to the Treasury that portion of leftover
funds representing matching funds (see 26 U.S.C.
§9038(b)). *

The Federal Election Commission is required to
conduct an audit of each candidate who received
matching funds after the end of the matching payment
period, i.e., after the national nominating conventions.
Re-payments—of both a proportion of leftover funds
and for non-qualified campaign expenses—are made
on the basis of that audit. The candidate is allowed a
six-month period after a national convention in which
to pay debts and obligations, and to then repay a por-
tion of the remaining funds.

The Commission’s Policy Statement of Withdrawal
of Presidential Candidates provides that when a candi-
date withdraws, thereby becoming ineligible for
matching funds, the Commission will commence an
audit within 30 days of withdrawal, or later if the candi-
date has not completed winding up activities.

*

PREEMPTION OF STATE ELECTION LAWS

A matter of significant concern to Federal candi-
dates and political committees is the extent to which
Federal law preempts any conflicting State election
laws. Prior to the special effective date of the Act’s pre-
emption provision (Oct. 15, 1974), candidates and
committees could generally rely on the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution in cases of conflict
between Federal and State law, but they never could be
certain that such reliance was justified in their specific
factual circumstances. The passage of the 1974 Act did
much to diminish this uncertainty.

To begin with, under 2 U.S.C. §453, any conflicting
State disclosure provisions are preempted by the Act’s
reporting requirements. During its consideration of the
1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign
Act, Congress explicitly stated that this Act was in-
tended to supersede State law with respect to the re-
porting and disclosure of campaign finances of candi-
dates for Federal office and their supporting com-
mittees. Federal reporting requirements are intended
to be the only reporting requirements for Federal
candidates. States cannot impose additional reporting
obligations upon candidates for Federal office.

The Act was also intended to clearly occupy the
field with respect to criminal sanctions relating to limi-
tations on campaign expenditures, the sources of
campaign funds in Federal races, the conduct of Fed-
eral campaigns, and similar offenses. The Act does not
affect a State’s right to prohibit false registration,
voting fraud, theft of ballots, and similar offenses
under State law. Similarly, the Act supersedes a State’s
right to initiate investigations or legal proceedings
when there is cause to believe that a Federal candidate
or political committee has violated any disclosure or
criminal provision of the Act. The Act provides clearly
that Federal law is intended to be the sole source of
criminal sanctions for offenses involving political ac-
tivities in connection with a Federal election.

In passing the Act, Congress further has stated that
its specific intent was to supersede and preempt any



conflicting law enacted by a political subdivision of a
State, as well as those enacted directly by a State.

{t should be noted that nowhere in the Supreme
Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo are the preemption
provisions questioned; nor is Congress currently
considering any proposed legislation which would
directly modify these provisions.

*

FEC REGIONAL SEMINAR PROGRAM -
PROGRESS REPORT

In February and March, the Federal Election
Commission conducted 18 regional seminars in
various cities around the country, including Washing-
ton, D.C.—where there were four—and in Baltimore,
Richmond, Chicago, Cincinnati, Philadelphis, Salt
Lake City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, St.
Louis, Detroit, Memphis, Atlanta, New York and
Boston. The purpose of the seminar program was to
provide people with a first-hand opportunity to learn
about the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as
amended, as well as a forum in which to ask questions
about their own political problems.

Each seminar was attended by at least one FEC
Commissioner, a member of the legal staff, a member
of the audit and investigation staff, a member of the
public communications staff, and a member of the
press staff. Each staff member presented a short
discussion of one portion of the law and then re-
sponded to questions from the audience. Staff also
were available during breaks and following each
seminar for individual consultation.

Members of the local press were informally briefed
and given the opportunity to interview the FEC
Commissioner present. Local coverage of each
seminar generally included media coverage from
nearby cities as well. (For instance, the Chicago
seminar was attended by representatives of WLS,
WMAGQ, and WNIS radio stations, WMAQ-TV, and the
Sun Times and City News.) Individual Commissioners
also appeared on various programs whenever possible
prior to and following each seminar.

Attendance varied from seminar to seminar, with
145 persons attending the House of Representatives
seminar in Washington, D.C.; 80 persons in Chicago;
60 in Philadelphia; 85 in Los Angeles; and 70 in Detroit.
Participants ranged from a_ minor-party Presidential
candidate to workers on a local campaign, from incum-
bent Congressmen to corporate and union political ac-
tion committee representatives.

Questions asked at the seminars also were ex-
tremely varied. Following is a short listing of the most
frequently asked questions together with their an-
swers:

* WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH ANONYMOUS
CASH CONTRIBUTIONS?

Contributions under $10 do not trigger the re-
cordkeeping requirement and thus may be ac-
cepted. With those from $10.01 to $100, an at-
tempt must be made to trace the source in order
to satisfy the reporting requirement. If the source
cannot be traced, the money may be used for any
lawful purpose other than in the campaign.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO “PASS THE HAT” AT CAM-
PAIGN RALLIES?

Yes, provided that 1) some kind of card is made
available for people to list their names and ad-
dresses if they are contributing more than $10,

and 2) the audience is reminded that cash con-
tributions over $100 are prohibited.
* HOW DOES ONE DETERMINE WHETHER A
CORPORATE EXECUTIVE WORKING ON A CAM-
PAIGN IS VOLUNTEERING HIS/HER OWN TIME,
OR WORKING ON COMPANY TIME, THE LAT-
TER BEING AN ILLEGAL IN-KIND CONTRIBU-
TION?
A person is deemed to be volunteering his/her
time as long as 1) those normal responsibilities
to his/her employer are fulfilled, and 2) there is
no compensation to the person for the cam-
paign work.
WHAT STEPS MUST BE TAKEN BY A MULTI-
CANDIDATE COMMITTEE TO QUALIFY FOR THE
$5,000 CONTRIBUTION LIMITATION?
1. Register with the Commission, for a period
of six months;
2. Accept funds from more than 50 contributors;
3. Contribute to five or more Federal candidates

(only State party committees are exempt from

this five-candidate requirement).

DOES THE $500 EXEMPTION FOR FOOD AND
BEVERAGES AT A PARTY IN ONE’S OWN HOME
APPLY TO HUSBAND AND WIFE SEPARATELY
OR TOGETHER?

Each spouse is entitled to a separate $500 allow-
ance. In addition, each is entitled to a separate
$500 travel allowance.

A packet of information was distributed to all at-
tending the seminars; each included a copy of the law,
reporting forms for candidates and committees,
various Federal Register reprints containing proposed
Commission regulations and Interim Guidelines,
copies of the FEC newsletter (The Record), and an
order form for further questions or requests.

Due to the favorable response to the seminars pre-
sented so far, the Commission is planning a new round
of seminars beginning . Any-
one wishing to comment on the content of the present
seminars, or to request that additional information be
included in future seminars, should contact Daryl
Babitz, Special Projects Coordinator, at the Federal
Election Commission, or call toll-free 800/424-9530.

FEC NOTES

Matching Funds Certification

The FEC has to date certified a total of
$12,618,240.88 in Presidential primary matching funds
for 14 candidates. The certifications, broken down by
candidates, are as follows:

Amount of
Matching Funds Received
Birch Bayh $438,506.35
Lloyd Bentsen $511,022.61
Jimmy Carter $1,078,467.75
Frank Church $231,380.78
Gerald Ford $1,952,615.68
Fred Harris $493,278.50
Henry Jackson $1 559,637.18
Ellen McCormack $169,043.90
Ronald Reagan $1,679,124.19
Terry Sanford $246,388.32
Milton Shapp $278,010.60
Sargent Shriver $264,582.74
Morris Udall $930,986.25
George Wallace $2,785,196.03