Volume 10, Num

STATISl1CS

10 Presidential Primary Activity

II Chart I: Presidential Support

12 Chart IT: Presidential Spending

COMPLIANCE

8 Nonfilers Published

9 Summary of MURS

3 ADVISORY OPINIONS

COURT CASES

6 Kennedy for President Committee v. FE

7 FEC v. LaRouche

7 FEC v. Gus Savage for Congress '82

Committee

8 New Litigation

PRIMARY MATCmNG

FUND PAYMENTS

On June 20, 1984, the Federal Election 

mission certified primary matching fund pay

for four Presidential candidates, bringing 

funds certified to 10 Presidential candida

con

for staff time devoted to duplicating inform

made available under the FOIA.

REGULATIONS

I Access to FEC Information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRESIDENTIAL ELEC110NS

I Primary Matching Fund Payments

2 Jackson's Matching Fund Eligibility

Copies of the FEC's notice of proposed rul

ing are available from the Public Communic

Office, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, 

20463 or by calling: 202/523-4068 or tol

800/424-9530.

July 1984 1325 K Street NW

ACCESS TO FEC INFORMATION:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

PUBLlSHED

In May, the Commission published a notice of

proposed rulemaking concerning amendments to

FEC Regulations governing information made

available to the public by the FEC's Public

Records Office or through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The notice, which appeared in

the May 29, 1984, issue of the Federal Register

(49 Fed. Reg. 22335), sought comments on three

topics.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Billing Procedure for Microfilm

and Computer Tape Requests

The Commission receives numerous requests

for information contained on microfilm and computer tape. In response, the Commission pays

outside firms to duplicate microfilm and computer tape because the FEC does not have the

facilities to perform this service. Since, by statute, federal agencies may only accept Congressionally appropriated funds, a requester's fee for

the duplicating service (paid to the FEC) must be

returned to the U.S. Treasury. The FEC then pays

the outside firm from its Congressional appropriation.

Updated Fee Schedule

The proposed rules would update current fee

_ schedules to reflect the actual costs of documents

the FEC makes available under the,FOIA rules (II

CFR Part 4) or the Access to Public Disclosure

Documents rules rn CFR Part 5). In addition, to

allow for pricing of new publications or increased

fees for expanded publica.tions, the fee schedule

would generally describe the costs of reproducing

documents rather than listing a specific fee for

each document.

Under the amended rule, the requester would pay

the outside firm directly, thereby eliminating the

need for the FEC to debit its Congressional

•

appropriation for the duplicating costs.

Technical Amendment to FOIA Rules

A proposed amendment to the FOIA rules

would make clear that the FEC does not charge

•
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.

Volume 10, Number 

Presidential primary campaign's c

version of credit card contributions 

matchable contributions. (Date ma

public: May 22, 1984; Length: 3 page

plus 5-page supplement)

Endorsement of President included 

House candidate's direct mail adve

tising. (Date made public: May 3

1984; Length: 1 page)

Travel and subsistence, associated w

Senator's honorarium, extended to fam

ily members. (Date made public: M

30, 1984; Length: I page)

AOR Subject

1984-28

1984-29

1984-26 Contributions to Senate candidate fro

individuals assoeia ted with his state o

fice duties. (Date made public: May 2

1984; Length: 2 pages)

votes." The candidate may, however, reestabli

eligibility for public funds by receiving at least 

percent of the total votes in a primary electi

held SUbsequent to the one in which he or s

became ineligible. See II CFR 9033.5(b) a

9033.6(b).

1984-27

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests f

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of ea

AOR is available to the public in the Comm

sion's Office of Public Records•

*Ineligible candidates may continue to r

ceive primary matching funds to retire outstan

ing campaign debts incurred before the last da

of ineligibility and to pay for costs of windin

down their campaigns.

$ 897,533.71

1,780,553.57

3,001,951.00

4,194,803.21

821,599.85

1,913,097.95

453,586.62

505,108.70

7,254,252.33

10,100,000.00

Total Amount of

Funds Certified

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

7

13

11

14

9

9

5

6

17

7

July 1984

$30,922,486.94. President Reagan's campaign received $59, II 0.92, bringing its total matching

fund receipts to $10,100,000, the maximum entitlement available to publicly funded Presidential

primary campaigns during 1984.

*As of June 20, 1984.

**lncludes requests made after the candidate's

initial request for matching fund eligibility.

A candidate becomes ineligible for primary

matching funds on the 30th day following the date

of the second consecutive primary in which he/she

receives less than I°percent of the total popular

FEC REAFFIRMS JACKSON'S

MATCHING FUND ELiGmILITY

On June 14, 1984, the Commission determined that Reverend Jesse Jackson had reestablished his eligibility for primary matching funds

under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment

Account by receiving at least 20 percent of the

votes cast in the June 5 New Jersey primary. The

Commission's action superseded a May 21 determination that, as of June 21, 1984, Rev. Jackson

would no longer be eligible for public funds because he received less than 10 percent of the

total popular votes cast in consecutive May primaries: the May 15 Nebraska and Oregan primaries and the May 22 Idaho primary.

Prim81'Y Matching Fund

Certification Activity.

Name of Number of

candidate Requests··

Askew, Reubin

Cranston, Alan

Glenn, John

Hart, Gary

Hollings, Ernest F.

Jackson, Jesse

LaRouche, Lyndon H. .McGovern, George

. Mondale, Walter F.

Reagan, Ronald
July 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ALTERNATED~PO~ON

•

OF ADVISORY OPINION REQUFSI'

-- AOR 1984-20 (Executive's leave of absence

to work on Presidential campaign) was withdrawn by its requester on May 22, 1984.

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIE;

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the Commission provides guidance with regard to the

specific situation described in the AOR. Any

qualified person who has requested an AO and

acts in accordance with the opinion will not be

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Other

persons may rely on the opinion if they are

involved in a specific activity which is indistinguishable in all material aspects from the activity

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance for

their own activity, however, should consult the

full text of an AO and not rely only on the

summary given here.

AO 1984-12: Noneonnected PAC Established

by Board Members of

Nonprofit Corporation

Acting in an unofficial capacity, members of the

Board of Regents of the American College of

Allergists, Inc. (the College), a nonprofit corpora-

_

t ion, may establish a nonconnected political committee, the Independent Allergists Political Action Committee (IAPAC), which will be operated

and governed independently of the College.

lAPAC may obtain administrative support from a

management firm used by the College, but that

use must be consistent with the firm's relations

with other client organizations. lAP AC will pay

for the firm's services exclusively with its contributed funds. Since FEC Regulations do not

prohibit individuals associated with a membership

organization from establishing a nonconnected

political committee and since the College will

provide no direct or indirect financial support to

IAPAC, the College will not be considered

IAPAC's "connected organization." IAPAC will,

therefore, be subject to FEC rules governing

nonconnected political committees rather than

the rules governing separate segregated funds

(i.e., political committees established and administered by a corporation, labor organization or

incorporated membership organization). Accordingly, lAP AC may solicit any individual, group or

committee for contributions. IAPAC may not accept administrative support from the College because it is a corporation, prohibited by the election law from making contributions of anything of

value.

•

The Commission noted several factors indicating

that IAPAC will operate independently of the

College:

All IAPAC's operational expenses will be paid

exclusively from IAPAC contributions.

3

Volume 10, Num

The College's certified public accountan

review the financial records of the Co

and of IAPAC to ensure that IAPAC 

nancially independent of the College.

IAPAC's organizational structure ensur

operational independence from the Co

For example, IAPAC's bylaws provide 

IAPAC contributors (including nonmem

of the College) will elect a governing 

whose membership does not have to in

members of the College's board.

To ensure that the College does not be

IAPAC's connected organization, the Colleg

lAP AC must satisfy the following condition

CFR 100.6(a) and (c) and 114.l(b»:

Since those individuals responsible for IA

also hold positions of responsibility with 

College, the College must exercise ext

caution not to make direct or indirect co

butions (Le., provide anything of valu

IAPAC.

To avoid receiving administrative su

from the College, IAPAC must pay the 

agement firm the "normal and usual ch

for the use of office facilities and serv

11 CFR 100.7(a)(l)(iii)(B); 114.9(c) and 

Moreover, in utilizing the firm's personn

support services, IAPAC must pay 

"com mercially reasonable" fees. The 

should not be affected by the fact tha

College retains the same firm for si

services.

The College may not favor or appear to 

IAPAC's solicitation activities by, for e

ple, allowing lAPAC to use the Col

letterhead for solicitation and' administr

purposes.

If lAP AC's Board of Directors fails to d

op a diverse membership which includes 

viduals who are not the College's mem

the relationship between IAPAC and the 

lege (i.e., whether the College is the 

nected organlzatton'') would be subje

reexamination.

If a political committee wishes to adopt IAP

title or acronym, neither lAP AC nor the Co

may assert a proprietary interest in the no

nected political committee's title. The Act 

~ommission Regulations govern only the of

title of a separate segregated fund which 

. ' include the full name of the sponsoring cor

tion or labor organization.

The Commission did not address the situati

which individuals who are associated with a 

poration, labor organization, cooperative or 

stock corporation seek to establish a no

nected political committee which might s

members or employees of the organization

conti
July 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

did the Commission express any opinion on how

IAPAC's organization and operation would be affected by the College's tax-exempt status under

IRS rules. (Date issued: May 31, 1984; Length: 4

pages)

AD 1984-13: Partisan Candidate Appearances

Cosponsored by Tr-ade Association

In August 1984, at the same time the Republican

Party will hold its Presidential nominating convention in Dallas, the National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), an incorporated trade association, and the Dallas Study Group (DSG), an

unincorporated membership group for public

affairs professionals, plan to cosponsor a public

affairs conference in Dallas. Whether the conference is sponsored solely by NAM or jointly by

NAM and DSG, the appearances of Republican

Congressional candidates at the conference would

mean that the event involved partisan communications. Accordingly, the speeches may only be

delivered to a limited audience at the conference

consisting of: NAM members and their families; a

limited number of invited guests and observers;

representatives of the news media; and NAM

employees (outside NAM's restricted class") who

are necessary to administer the meeting. If the

audience included members of the general public,

the candidates' appearances would result in NAM's

making 8 corporate contribution prohibited by

Section 441b of the election law.

Commission Regulations specify that a trade association may not sponsor federal electionrelated, partisan com rnunieations that are

directed to the general public. Trade associations

may, however, invite party representatives or

candidates to make partisan appearances before

the limited audience described above. See 11 CFR

114.3(c)(2).

Although NAM and DSG will neither endorse nor

support candidates appearing at the conference

and although the candidates will not solicit campaign assistance, the NAM/DSG conference may

be characterized as a partisan event because of

its timing and purpose. Specifically, the conference will be held a few weeks before the 1984

general election and shortly before the primary

elections for Congressional candidates in many

states. Furthermore, NAM and DSG plan to invite

certain individuals to speak solely because they

are Congressional candidates and to solicit assistance from the Republican party committees in

obtaining such speakers. (If the audience includes

potential voters from a speaker's Congressional

district, the partisan nature of the conferences

'"A trade association's restricted class includes its members, executive and administrative

personnel and their families.

4

Volume 10, Numbe

would be reinforced.) Under these circumstanc

the Republican candidates' participation in t

conference would inevitably be partisan commu

cations subject to FEC Regulations. See 11 CF

114.3.

The Commission distinguished this advisory op

Ion from earlier opinions in which candidate a

pearances were not considered partisan commu

cations because they did not serve an electio

influencing purpose. See AOs 1978-4, 1978-

1980-16, 1980-22 and 1983-23. Chairman Lee A

Elliott filed a concurring opinion. (Date issue

May 17, 1984; Length: 9 pages, including concu

rence)

AD 1984-14: Voter Guides and Voting Records

Prepared and Distributed

by Nonprofit Corporation;

SUpplemental Request

to AD 1983-43

This opimon reaffirms the Commission's conc

sion in AO 1983-43. On March 29, 1984, after t

F EC had prescribed revised regulations governi

partisan and nonpartisan communications by co

porations and labor organizations, the Unit

States Defense Committee (USDC), a nonpro

membership corporation, requested this adviso

opinion, which concerns USDC's plans for n

partisan com munication activities. Two mont

earlier., before the r~vi.sed regulations becam

effective, the Commission had issued anoth

advisory opinion (AO 1983-43) to USDC based 

the old rules. (For a summary of AO 1983-43, s

page 5 of the March 1984 Record.) In this seco

opinion, based on the revised rules, the Comm

sion reiterated the conclusions it had reached 

AO 1983-43 with regard to USDC's nonpartis

communications.

Voter Guides

Since USDC is a nonprofit, tax-exempt o

ganization, its voter guides do not have to comp

with the criteria for determining whether guid

prepared and distributed by profit corporatio

and labor organizations are nonpartisan. Und

the revised rules, USDC's voter guides may n

however, "favor one candidate or political par

over another." 11 CFR 114.4(b)(5)(i) and (ii), 

this opinion the Com mission reaffirmed its de

sion in AO 1983-43 that, while some of USD

voter guides are permissible because they do n

se~ve an election-influencing purpose, oth

guides prepared by USDC do not qualify for t

nonpartisan communications exemption becau

they favor particular candidates.

Voting Records 

~he ~evised regulations permit incorporat

organizations, such as USDC, to prepare and d

tribute voting records of Members of Congress 

the general public, provided the records do n
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Expenses for the ads would be considered coordina ted party expenditures even if the ads were

aired before the Presidential nominations because

nothing in the Act, its legislative history, Commission Regulations or court cases restricts the

•

time period for making coordinated party expenditures.

If the RNC's ad referred to all Democratic Presidential candida tes without singling out one candiThe proposed RNC ads, to be televised both

ebefore and after the nomination of the Democra tic Presidential nominee, feature a current

Democratic Presidential candidate, challenge the

candidate's position and record, and conclude with

the statement, "Vote Republican." Since the clear

purpose of the ads is to diminish support for any

Democratic Presidential nominee and favor the

choice of the eventual Republican Presidential

candida te in the general election, the expenditures for the ad benefit the Republian nominee.

Therefore, the expenditures would be in-kind contributions to that candidate for the 1984 general

election (limited to $5,000) or coordinated party

expenditures. (The national party committee may

make coordinated party expenditures, which are

limited, on behalf of its Presidential nominee in

the general election. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d) (2).) If the

Republican nominee accepts public funding, the

expenditures would be coordina ted party expenditures since publicly funded Presidential nominees

are not permitted to accept campaign contributions. 26 U.S.C. §9003(b)(2); 11 CFR 9003.2(a)(2).

Volume 10, Num

AO 1984-18: Plan for Member Participation

in Partnership Contributions

A plan proposed by the law partnership of H

& Park (the partnership) to facilitate mem

participation in contributions by the partn

to federal candida tes would not cause the 

nership to become a polit teal committee 

the Act.

Under the Act and Com mission Regulations, 

nerships do not become political committe

virtue of contributing to federal candida tes, 

nerships may make contributions as long 

they do not exceed the contribution lim

persons ($1,000 per candidate, per election) 

they attribute their contributions to bot

partnership and the individual partners. 11 

110. He).

Under the proposed plan, the partnership 

meet these requirements. Additionally, 

would be no separate fund established to c

contributions from members for transmit

federal candidates. The plan would not r

members to designate any specific amount 

contribute to any particular candidate or cl

cand idates, The incidental expenditures for 

menting the plan -- less than $1,000 -- wo

considered part of the partnership's effo

con

Under the plan, several members of the pa

ship would provide an information clearing

that catalogued and distributed solicitatio

ters received in connection with campaign

federal office. The group would encourage 

ners to designate a total annual amount 

intended to contribute to federal candidate

partnership would keep records of member

wished to participate in partnership contribu

including the amount a partner wished to 

nate to a particular candidate. When the pa

ship made a contribution to a campaign co

tee, it would send a partnership check w

cover letter ltemiaing each member's share 

contribution. The account of each member p

ipating in that contribution would then be ch

for his/her share of the contribution.

date, the expenditures for the ad would 

benefit the eventual Republican candidate 

general election. However, if the ad referr

all Democratic candidates generally, w

identifying a specific candidate or office

expenditures would not be attributable to 

candidate or campaign but, rather, would be 

sidered RNC operating expenditures. 11 

106.Hc). Commissioners Lee Ann Elliott and 

D. Aikens voted against this opinion and wi

dissenting opinions at a later date. (Date i

May 31, 1984; Length: 7 pages)

5

July 1984

AO 1984-15: National Party Committee

Expenditures for T.V. Ads

Expenditures by the Republican National Committee (RNC) for proposed national television ads

advocating the defeat of Democratic Presidential

candidates would be in-kind contributions or coordinated party expenditures on behalf of the eventual Republican Presidential candidate in the

general election. If the Republican nominee accepts publie funding and is therefore prohibited

from accepting contributions, the expenditures

would be regarded as coordinated party expenditures, even if the RNC televises the ads before

the Presidential nominations take place. Coordinated party expenditures are not restricted to the

time period between the nomination and the general election.

serve an election-influencing purpose. See new 11

CFR 114.4(b)(4). The Commission reaffirmed the

conclusion it had reached in AO 1983-43. None of

USDC1s proposed voting records are permissible

because they serve an election-influencing purpose. Commissioner Joan D. Aikens filed a concurring opinion. (Date issued: May 25, 1984j

Length: 7 pages, including concurrence)

•
FEDERAL ELECTION COMrvllSSION

In its December 21, 1983, petition to have th

court review the FEe's repayment determinatio

the Kennedy campaign had not challenged th

Volume 10, Number 

KENNEDY FOR PRESIDENT COMMITI'EE

v. FEe

On May 15, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appea

for the District of Columbia Circuit issued 

opinion in Kenned for President Committee 

FEC (Civil Action No. 83-1521 , which reversed 

repayment determination that the FEC had ma

with regard to the Kennedy for President Com

mittee. The committee was established by Sen

tor Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) as his princip

campaign committee for the 1980 President

primaries. On the same day, for reasons set for

in the Kennedy opinion, the court also vaca ted 

FEC repayment determination with regard to t

Reagan for President Committee, Preside

Reagan's principal campaign committee for h

1980 Presidential primary campaign. The Reag

campaign had challenged an $87,708 repayme

determination made by the FEC in June 198

(Reagan for President Committee v. FEC; Ci

Action No. 83-1666) The appeals court then r

manded both cases to the Commission for furth

proceedings consistent with its opinion in t

Kennedy case. 

~c~wOOto~eCourt~R~ng on the Kennedy Case

On April 14, 1983, based on findings of stat

torily man~at~d audits of the Kennedy campaig

the CommISSIOn determined that the campai

had exceeded the 1980 state-by-state spendi

limits for publicly funded candidates'" by $14 8

in New Hampshire and by $40,611 in Iowa. FE

Regula tions require publicly funded Presidenti

primary candidates to repay to the U.S. Treasu

nonqualified expenditures** that are made wi

primary matching funds or private contribution

II CFR 9038.2(b) exo, Consequently, the Com

mission determined that the Kennedy campai

had to repay the full amount of nonqualifi

campaign expenditures incurred by the campai

(i.e., $55,5 DO).

+Presidential primary campaigns that recei

public funds must agree to limit spending to bo

a national limit and a separate limit for ea

state.

·+Nonqualified campaign expenditures inc

noncampaign-related expenses, certain expend

tures made before or after candidacy and expen

itures exceeding the limits for publicly funde

Presidential primary campaigns.

6

July 1984

obtain the consent of members who wished to

share in a partnership contribution.

The situation and Commission's response described in this opinion were virtually identical to those

presented in AO 1981-50. Commissioner Frank P.

Reiche filed a concurring opinion. (Date issued:

May 25, 1984; Length: 5 pages, including concurrence)

AO 1984-19: Mock Convention to Nominate

Fictitious Presidential Ticket

Promotion of a fictional Presidential candidate by

the Macklin/Clemens Corporation to pursue educational and fundraising goals of the corporation

does not fall within the purview of the federal

election law. The nonprofit, educational corporation plans to sponsor a mock convention to nominate a fictitious candidate (l.e., Mark Twain) for

the Presidency and distribute related campaign

items. Proceeds received and disbursements made

in connection with this activity are not subject to

the election law, as long as the corpora tion does

not attempt to influence the election or defeat of

an actual person to federal office. (Date issued:

May 25,1984; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1984-25: Matching Funds for Presidential

Primary candidate of Several

Nonmajor Political Parties;

Ballot Access Fees

Ms. Sonia Johnson is seeking the Presidential

nomination of a national political party, the Citizens Party, and two state political parties the

California Peace and Freedom Party and' the

Consumers Party in Pennsylvania. Each party

plans to hold a separate convention. Assuming Ms.

Johnson becomes eligible for primary matching

funds in 1984, her matching payment period could

end on the date of the last convention held by the

three political parties (i.e., the mid-August convention of the California Peace and Freedom

Party), provided this convention is held no later

than the last day of the last major party's nominating convention. 26 U.S.C. §9032(6}; II CFR

9032.6. Ms. Johnson may pay for general election

ballot access fees with primary matching funds,

as long as the fees are incurred no later than the

last day of her matching payment period. (See AO

1984-11, summarized on p. 6 of the June 1984

Reeord.l (Date issued: May 25, 1984; Length: 4

pages)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Appeals Court Ruling

The appeals court noted that Section 9038(b)

(2) of the Presidential Primary Matching Payment

Account Act did not provide a specific formula

for determining repayments resulting from nonqualified campaign expenditures. Nevertheless,

the court held that "the statute gives rise to a

repayment obligation only when the FEC determines that federal matching funds were used for

nonqualified purposes." The court reasoned that

"if Congress had intended the total amount of a every unqualified expenditure to be repaid, the

• statute would not have expressly limited the repayment obligation to unqualified expenditures

paid out of matching fund sources." The court

maintained, however, that the FEC should not be

bound by the Kennedy campaign's proposed repayment formula but should have discretion "in formulating a proper method for calculating the

amount of unqualified campaign expenditures

attributable to matching fund sources."

The court noted that, in promulgating the repayment regulation that implements the statutory

provision, the FEC had reasoned that "if a candidate spends private campaign contributions ••• on

nonqualified campaign expenditures, those private

funds would obviously not be available to defray

the candidate's qualified campaign expenditures.

The net result would be that the candidate would

subsequently require more public funding to meet

his or her qualified expenses. In essence, this

additional public funding would restore private

campaign funds diverted by the candidate to nonqualified campaign purposes." The court maintained, however, that the "Commission's regulation ...indulges the unreasonable presumption

that all 'unqualified expenditures are paid out of

federal matching funds." The court concluded that

•

"the true 'net result' of the depletion of the

overall campaign fund will be either an increase

in the campaign'S final deficit or a decrease in the

campaign's final surplus, In the case of a deficit,

the total federal funds would have been spent

Volume 10, Num

The court further ordered the Savage campa

file all reports due in the future and asse

$5,000 civil penalty against the campaign.

con

regardless of the unqualified expenditures. 

case of a surplus, the government is entit

recover only its pro rata share of the final 

paign surplus."

Pursuant to the FEC's petition for a decla

judgment, the court ordered the Savage cam

to file, within 30 days, the following r

required by the election law:

The July and October quarterly report

pre- and post-general election report

the year-end report required during th

election year (see 2 U.S.C. S434(a)(2)

(ii); and

The mid-year report required during th

nonelection year (see U.S.C. S434(a)(2)(B

FEC V. GUS SAVAGE FOR CONGRESS

'82 COMMITTEE

On June 8, 1984, the U.S. District Cou

the Northern District of Illinois entered a d

Judgment against Gus Savage for Congress '8

principal campaign committee of Congre

Gus Savage (D-IL), and Thomas J. Savag

campaign's treasurer. The Savage campaig

failed to answer the FEC's suit against the 

paign (FEC v. Gus Savage for Congress '82 

mittee; Civil Action No. 84-CI076j Janu

1984).

FEC v, LAROUCHE

On May 8, 1984, the Commission entere

a stipulation dismissing with prejudice FE

LaRouche (Civil Action No. 83-3743), a sui

the FEC had brought in the U.S. District 

for the District of Columbia against Lynd

LaRouche, Jr., a candidate for the Demo

Party's Presidential nomination in 1980, and 

zens for LaRouehe, his principal campaign 

mittee. In its suit, filed on December 15, 

the FEC had sought a court ruling that 

require the LaRouche campaign to repay $

in primary matching funds to the U.S. Tre

as determined by the Commission on Dec

16, 1982. Since the LaRouche campaign 

sequently made the repayment during April 

the Commission filed the stipulation dism

the case as moot.

7

July 1984

FEC's determination with regard to the amount of

nonqualified expenditures the campaign had incurred. Rather, the Kennedy campaign contended

that the repayment formula spelled out in the

FEC's Regulations exceeded the Commission's

statutory authority because it required the repayment of the entire amount of nonqualified expenditures. The Kennedy campaign ar-gued that

the election law required publicly funded campaigns to repay only the portion of their nonqualified expenditures made with primary matching

funds. As an alternative to the FEC's repayment

formula, the Kennedy campaign proposed that its

repayment be calculated by "multiplying the total

amount of [non] qualified expenditures by the proportion of matching funds to total campaign

funds."

•
July 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION

NEW LmGATION

FEC v. Tom Anderson For Senator Committee

The FEC seeks action against the Tom

Anderson for Senator Committee (the Anderson

campaign); the Pennsylvania Service Station Dealers Association (the Association), an incorporated

trade association; and the wife of the Senate

candidate, Mrs. Mary Anderson.

Specifically, the FEC asks the court to declare

that:

By paying Association employees approximately $4,300 in wages for services they

provided to the Anderson campaign, the Association made a prohibited in-kind contribution to the campaign, in violation of 2 U.S.C.

S441b(a).

By cosigning a $50,000 campaign loan with

Tom Anderson, Mrs. Mary Anderson made a

$25,000 contribution to his Senate campaign,

thus exceeding the $1,000 contribution limit,

in violation of 2 U.S.C. S44Ia(a)(l)(A).

By knowingly accepting these unlawful contributions from the Association and Mrs.

Anderson, the Anderson campaign violated 2

U.S.C. S441a(f).

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, May 7, 1984, Docket No. 84-2180.

Antosh v. FEC

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. S437(g)(a)(8), Edward

Antosh of Oklahoma asks the district court to:

Declare that the FEC's failure to act on his

adm inistrative complaint within 120 days after he had filed the complaint is contrary to

law; and

Issue an order directing the FEC to proceed

with an investigation into the complaint

within 30 days.

Plaintiff filed the administrative complaint

against the separate segregated fund of the

AFL-CIO, an international labor organization, and

against the three separate segregated funds of

international/national unions allegedly affiliated

with the AFL-CIO. Plaintiff alleged that, as affiliated committees within the meaning of 2 U.S.C.

S441a(5), the respondents had violated the election law by failing to:

Disclose their affiliation on their respective

Statements of Organization; and

Comply with a single contribution limit on

contributions they made to each of 17 federal

candidates.

Furthermore, plaintiff's complaint claimed that

the election law and FEC Regulations recognize

automatic affiliation between business federations and their members, on the one hand, while

only a discretionary affiliation between a labor

8

Volume 10, Numbe

federation and its members, on the other. Plai

tiff alleged that this was discriminatory trea

ment in violation of the First and Fifth Amen

ments.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbi

Docket No. 84-1552, May 17, 1984.

Simeon Golar v. FEC

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8), Mr. Gol

asks the district court to review an FEC decisio

dis missing an administrative complaint he file

on January 4, 1984. In the complaint, plainti

alleged that fundraising services provided by th

personnel of two corporations constituted illeg

contributions by the two individuals and the

respective corporations to Congressman Joseph 

Addabbo, Mr. Golar's opponent in the 1982 Ne

York democratic primary.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbi

Docket No. 84-1659, May 29, 1984.

FEe

On

PUBLISHES

June 1, 1984, as

NONFILERS

required by the electio

law, the Commission published the names of tw

Presidential campaigns (one authorized by 

Presidential candidate, the other by 

Vice-Presidential candidate) that had failed 

file their May monthly report, due May 20. T

report should have covered each committee

financial activity for April.

Also on June 1, the Commission published t

names of four House campaigns (two in Ca

fornia, one in Iowa and one in New Jersey) th

had failed to file the pre-primary report requir

for the June 5 Congressional primary electio

held in those states. Due by May 24 (or by May 

if sent by certified mail), the pre-primary repo

should have covered activity from April 1 throu

May 16.

On June 8, the Commission published the name 

one House campaign (South Carolina) that h

failed to file its pre-primary report for the Ju

12 Congressional primary. The report, coveri

financial activity from April 1 through May 2

was due by May 31 (or May 28 if sent by certifi

mail).

Commission compliance actions against nonf

are decided on a case-by-case basis. The electio

law gives the Commission broad authority 

initiate enforcement actions resulting fro
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

9

Volume 10, Num

to include a required notice in its solici

tations;

The treasurer of the committee had fail

sign all reports in violation of 2 U.S.C. 

(a)(1) and had failed to indicate the nam

the committee's connected organization;

The incorporated media firm was eithe

connected organization of a POlitical 

mittee or, if it was not, it had viola

U.S.C. §441b(a) by subsidizing the com

tee's overhead expenses and extending i

dit for the rental of mail lists;

If the corporation was not the conn

organization of the committee, then i

rector had violated 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(

consenting to the subsidization of the 

mittee's overhead and the extension of 

to the com mittee; and

An individual had signed the commi

report when he was not the treasurer or, 

was the treasurer, had failed to amen

committee's Statement of Organizatio

disclose that he was treasurer.

2.

The General Counsel refuted this argument, 

evidence that the relationship between the 

entities was not a bona fide vendor/Vendee 

tion. First, the extension of credit appeared 

outside the ordinary course of the media 

business. Second, the political committee di

come to the firm to procure its services 

arm's length basis; rather, firm officials app

to have established and controlled the comm

Third, the investigation suggested that the 

firm was formed to help certain political g

reduce their direct mail costs, again not a fe

of the nor~al vendor/vendee relationship. Fi

the authority exercised by the firm ove

political committee resulted in the commi

failure to repay in full a $12,000 debt to the 

. 

which had been outstanding over a year. Th

con

General Counsel's Report

An FEC investigation revealed that an i

porated media firm had extended a large am

of credit (approximately $14,000) for ser

rendered to a political committee; that the 

tical committee shared office space with 

firm; that the political committee solicited 

tributions from individuals outside of the 

citable class of the media firm; that the 

firm made all the decisions concerning the p

cal committee; and that the employees o

corporation operated the committee on a da

d~y basis. Respondents acknowledged tha

firm rendered services to the political comm

but contended that the relationship betwee

two entities was that of vendor/vendee r

than that of connected organization/sep

segregated fund.

4.

3.

5.

MUR 1363: Corporate Solicitations Beyond

Solicitable Class and Failure

to Identify Connected OrganiMtion

On September 23, 1983, the Commission entered

into a conciliation agreement with a media firm

(the corporation) and a political committee in

which both parties agreed that they had violated

the election law by soliciting contributions on

behalf of the committee from unsolieitable persons (l.e., persons other than the corporation's

executive and administrative personnel and its

stockholders, and their respective families); by

failing to disclose on the committee's Statement

of Organization that the corporation was the

~ommittee's connected organization; by failing to

include the corporation's name in the committee's

name; and by failing to amend, in a timely way,

the committee's Statement of Organization to

reflect a new treasurer.

Complaint

On January 15, 1981, three affiliated national

party committees filed a complaint alleging that:

1. The registered political committee had:

Violated 2 U.S.C. §433(bX2) by failing to

report its connected organization on its

Statement of Organization (FEe Form

1);

Violated 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(4)(A)(i) by soliciting contributions from persons other

than the executive and administrative

personnel and stockholders (and their

families) of the connected organization;

Violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(l) by submitting reports signed by someone other

than the committee treasurer; and

Violated 2 U.S.C. S44Id(aX3) by failing

This article does not summarize every stage in

the compliance process. Rather, the summaries

provide only enough background to make clear the

Commission's final determination. Note that the

Commission's actions are not necessarily based

on, or in agreement with, the General Counsel's

analysis. The full text of these MURs is available

for review and purchase in the Commission's

Public Records Office.

July1984

infractions of the law, including civil court

enforcement and imposition of civil penalties.

SUMMARY OF MURs

The Act gives the F EC exclusive jurisdiction

for its civil enforcement. Potential violations are

assigned case numbers by the Office of General

Counsel and become "Matters Under Review"

(MURs). All MUR investigations are kept confidential by the Commission, as required by the

Act. (For a summary of compliance procedures,

see 2 U.S.C. §§437g and 437(d)(a) and 11 CPR

Part i n.)

•

•
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Chart I provides information on the sources 

campaign support provided to each campai

through February 1984. Chart TI, on the last pag

details how each campaign spent its funds.

Volume 10, Numbe

The Interim Reports include 19 financial tabl

and graphs that show the sources of funds, th

distribution of large and small contributions fro

individuals, the types of PAC money, when th

funds were contributed, the spending allocated 

individual states, independent expenditures an

expenditures for communications made by indivi

uals, PACs, corporations, unions, and delega

committees for and against the Presidential pr

mary candidates. Other charts show the net fina

cial activity of individual campaigns for ea

reporting period throughout the campaign.

Copies of the FEC Reports on Financial Activit

1983-1984, Interim Report No.3, Presidenti

Pre-Nomination campai~S are available f

$1.00 per copy from the Ee's Office of Publ

Records, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.

20463. Checks for the report should be ma

payable to the Federal Election Commission.

Interim Reports on Presidential

Campaigns Available

The FEC report, entitled FEe Reports 

FinaMial A~tivity! 1983-1984, Interim Report N

3, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns, is t

third in a series on the financial activity of a

Presidential campaigns with activity exceedi

$100,000. The Commission will continue to iss

the Interim Reports periodically during the 19

Presidential election year. A final report will 

issued in early 1985, covering activity from t

start of each Presidential campaign through D

cember 31, 1984.

1984 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS

Financial Activity of 1984

Presidential Primary Campaigns

During the period through February 29, 198

13 Presidential primary campaigns raised a tot

of $53.4 million and spent $46.2 million. Th

information was contained in an FEC study, r

leased June 13, 1984. The study provides cam

paign finance information on the 13 President

primary earnpalgns whose activity exceed

$100,000.

10

July1984

was not typical of the normal vendor/vendee

situation.

The General Counsel said that these circumstances led to two possible results: either the

media firm was the connected organization of the

political committee or it had made corporate

expenditures in connection with federal elections

by SUbsidizing the political committee. The counsel recommended, therefore, that the Commission

find probable cause to believe that:

.Tne media firm and the political committee

had violated 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(4)(A)(i) by

making solicitations beyond the restricted

class of the corporationj and

The political committee had violated 2

U.S.C. §433(b)(2) for its failure to list the

media firm as its connected organization and

2 V.S.C. §432(e)(5) for its failure to include

the name of the firm in its name; or

In the alternative, both the firm and the

committee had violated 2 U.S.C. S441b(a) by,

respectively, extending and knowingly accepting corporate credit;

The president of the media firm had violated

2 U.S.C. S441b(a) by consenting to the firm's

extension of credit to the committee; and

The Committee had Violated 2 V.S.C" S433(c)

by failing to amend its Statement of Organization to list a new treasurer.

Commission Determination

On July 14, 1981, the Commission adopted

the General Counsel's recommendations and found

probable cause to believe that the corporation,

the committee and the corporation's president had

violated the Act. The agency entered into a

conciliation agreement with the firm and the

political committee on September 23, 1983. They

agreed that;

The corporation had violated 2 U.S.C. S441b

(b)(4)(A)(i) by soliciting contributions on behalf of the committee from unsolicitable

persons (Le., persons other than the executive and administrative personnel and its

stockholders and their families);

The committee had violated 2 U.S.C. S§433

(b)(2), 432(e)(5) and 441b(bX4)(A)(i) by failing

to report that the corporation was the connected organization of the committee, by

failing to include the name of the corporation

in its name and by soliciting contributions

from persons other than the solicitable class;

The committee had violated 2 U.S.C. §433(c)

by failing to amend its Statement of Organization in a timely manner to list a new

treasurer;

Respondents would pay a $1,000 civil penalty

to the U.S. Treasurer, and

The committee would change its name to

include the name of the corporation.
\ \

Volume 10, Num

_ Loam

Received

r·········l Federal ~~~~tt Matching Funds

mR Individual ma Contributions

• other Receipts

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

illl

July 1984

*The Cranston for President Committee has not identified all the sources of funds received d

1984. The committee had received approximately $1.7 million in federal matching funds th

February 29, 1984•

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

all

....

0

:g 10

0

5 9 ::!

8

e 7

6

5

4

3

2

1

•

e C HART I

RECEIPTS OF

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES THROUGH 2/29/84
*Includes total reported disbursements minus transfers among authorized committees of the

same campaign. The total excludes refunas, rebates, loan repayments and refWlded contributions. *'" Does not include certain expenditures for campaign fundraising and compliance costs that

are exempt from each publicly fWlded candidate's overall spending limit and his/her state-bystate spending limits.

**"'Debts owed by the Cranston for President Committee include only outstanding loans and do

not inClude debts owed to vendors.

Adjusted EKpenditures Latest Debts

Campaign Subject Cash Owed By

candidate Total· to Limit·* on Hand campaign

Askew $ 2,447,826 $ 1,769,500 $ 37,269 $ 91,526

Cranston 5,114,398 3,437,935 47,944 45,300* II< *

Glenn 10,268,061 8,694,833 738,680 2,729,083

Hart 3,010,777 2,251,781 -3,726 1,209,964

Hollings 2,123,521 1,899,811 75,984 82,207

Hubbard 169,045 ° 3,308 56,325

Jackson 1,326,860 1,305,748 -84,687 237,506

LaRouche 599,961 529,906 98,789 94,946

McGovern 404,259 251,163 329,260 358,496

Mondale 15,489,933 10,448,711 650,172 583,445

Willis 126,731 0 21 112,742

Reagan 5,028,877 3,153,518 5,565,345

Bergland 92,978 0 56,003

°

°

Dem. Subtotal 41,081,372 30,589,388 1,893,014 5,601,540

Rep. Subtotal 5,028,877 3,153,518 5,565,345

Other Subtotal 92,978

°

° 56,003 °

GRAND TOTAL $46,203,227 $33,'142,906 $7,514,362 $5,601,540

Volume 10, Numbe

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOI\J

CHARTU

DISBURSEMENTS OF

PRFSIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDAT~ THROUGH 2/29/84

Official Business

FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

July 1984