•

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

December 1985 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 11, Number 12

JANUARY REPORTING SCHEDULE

All registered political committees must file

a year-end report, due January 31, 1986. The

chart below indicates the coverage and filing

dates for the different types of committees. See

page 2 for information on where to file reports.

To obtain more information, contact the FEC's

Information Services by calling 202/523-4068 or

toll free 800/424-9530.

Coverage

Type of Filer Period

Newly Beginning of

Registered Election

Committees* Activity

• through

December 31

Authorized July 1* *

Congressional through

Com mittees/ December 31

Semiannual

Authorized October 1

Presidential through

Committees/ December 31

Quarterly

Authorized December 1

Presidential through

Committees/ December 31

Monthly* **

Unauthorized July 1**

Committees/ through

Semiannual December 31

Unauthorized December 1

Com mit tees/ through

Monthly*** December 31

Filing

Date

January 31

January 31

January 31

January 31

January 31

January 31

NEW FEC HEADQUARTERS

On November 23, 1985, the Commission began moving into its new headquarters at 999 E

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. By the end

of November, the Commissioners, the Deputies to

Ex-Officio Members, the Staff Director, the Data

Division, Administration, Personnel and the FEC

Depository Library had moved to the agency's new

E Street headquarters. By December 9, the Office

of General Counsel, the Audit Division, the Reports Analysis Division and the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration will also have

moved to the new E Street location. Staff of

these offices may be contacted by calling the

main switchboard at the FEC's new E Street

location: 202/376-5140. The remaining offices will

move within the next few months.

Until further notice, the FEC will continue to

receive mail, campaign finance reports and documents at its old headquarters, located at 1325 K

Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20463. The Press

Office, PUblic Records and the Information Sercontinued on p. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS

January Schedule

INFORMATION

1 New FEC Headquarters

2 Fall Conference Series

3 ADVISORY OPINIONS

REGULATIONS

5 Standards of Conduct

800 LINE

5 Use of Pseudonyms

6 Mailing Lists

"'This category applies to any committee

which is filing its first report.

", "'Or from the closing date of the last report

filed.

",,,,,,,Filed in lieu of a monthly report, otherwise

due in January 1986.

COURT CASES

6 Carter/Mondale Presidential

Committee v. FEC

7 "Date of Dismissal" Ruling

8 New Litigation
~mta1985 FEDERAL 8£CllON COMMISSION 'vbIume 11, Numta 

continued from col. I, p. 1

CHANGE IN F'ILING FREQUENCY

Unauthorized committees that plan to change

their reporting schedule (e.g., from semiannually

in 1985 to monthly-rather than quarterly-e-in

1986) must notify the Commission of their intention. The committee may notify the Commission

by submitting a letter with the next report due

under its current reporting schedule. A committee

may not change its filing frequency more than

once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c). The FEC requests

that Presidential committees also inform the

Commission in writing if they decide to change

their reporting schedule.

WHERE REPORTS ARE FILED

Committees must file all reports and statements simultaneously with the appropriate federal

and state officials. 11 CPR 108.5.

Filing with the Federal Govemment

o The principal campaign committees of House

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

Clerk of the House, Office of Records and

Registration, 1036 Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. 11 CFR

104.4(c)(3) and 105.1. .

o 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. 11

CFR l04.4(c)(2) and 105.2.

o All other committees, including the principal

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

20463. 11 CFR 105.3 and 105.4

Filing with State Govenunents

o 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. II CFR 108.3

o 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 candidatels) being supported.

o Committees supporting Presidential candidates

must file in the statels) in which the Presidentialcommittee and donor committee have their

respective headquarters.

2

continued from col. 2, p, I

vices Division may also be contacted at the old 

Street headquarters, as indicated below:

Office Local Toll Free

The Press Office* 523-4065 800/424-95

The Public Records

Office* 523-4181 800/424-95

The Information

Services Division* 523-4068 800/424-95

Beginning on December 12, all FEC meeti

will be held in the 9th floor hearing room at 

FEC's new E Street headquarters.

FEe FALL CONFERENCE SERms

During the Fall, the Commission co-sp

sored conferences on campaign finance laws w

the Massachusetts and Colorado Secretaries 

State•. A.nother conference, sponsored by 

Commission and hosted by George Mason Univ

sity, was held in Northern Virginia. Confere

participants, totalling over 300 for the th

conferences, included PAC representatives pa

officials, campaign workers, educators att~rn

. " campaign consultants and corporate and un

personnel,

The Boston and Denver conferences provi

an overview of federal and state campaign 

nance laws. The Boston conference also inclu

sessions on candidate issues and corporate la

and party involvement in federal electiods. T

Denver conference concentrated more on can

date support and on federal and state report

requirements. Attendees at both conferences 

an opportunity to learn how to use the sta

computers for accessing campaign finance data 

the FEC's computer base. The FEC conference 

George Mason University, largely attended 

individuals based in the Washington, D.C. Me

politan area, focused exclusively on federal el

tion activities of incorporated trade associati

and membership organizations.

The Commission responds to invitations 

present workshops and to develop programs 

particular audiences. In the the coming mon

the Commission will present workshops in Mic

gan, Georgia and Ohio. For more informati

contact Information Services, 800/424-9530. 

"'These phone numbers will be changed wi

coming months. New numbers will be publishe

the Record.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

D::cemter 1985

ADVffiORYOPDUONREQ~

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions (A0Rs). The full text of each

AOR is available to the public in the Com mission's Office of Public Records.

AOR Subject

1985-35 Corporate PAC's solicitation of board

directors who are neither employees nor

stockholders. (Date made public: October 24, 1985; Length: 2 pages)

1985-36 Public media ads advocating incumbents'

defeat prepared independently by partnership and sold to individuals. (Date

made publici October 25, 1985; Length: I

page)

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

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 1985-27: Contribution Limits for Two

Corporate PACs Before and

Mter Their Mf"Iliation

On July 2, 1985, R.J. Reynolds Industries (Reynolds) gained a controlling interest in Nabisco

Brands (Nabisco), thereby causing the corporations' respective separate segregated funds, RJR

Good Government Fund (Reynolds PAC) and Nabisco Brands Inc. Program for Active Citizenship

(Nabisco PAC), to become affiliated committees

for purposes of the Act. Contributions made by

either PAC before they became affiliated were

subject to each PAC's separate contribution lim-

\tJIurne 11, Nummr12

it.* 2 U.S.C. S44Ia(a)(2). After becoming affiliated, however, any contributions made by the

PACs separately or together would be subject to a

single limit for the affiliated committees. 2

U.S.C. S44Ia(a)(5); II CFR 100.5(g)(2) and 110.3

(aXI)(j). To comply with their single contribution

limit, the newly affiliated PACs must be sure that

their contributions, when added to contributions

either PAC made before becoming affiliated, do

not cause them to exceed their combined limit.

The Commission offered the following examples as guidelines for the 1986 election cycle:

o Before the PACs became affiliated, Nabisco

PAC contributed $1,000 to a candidate's general election campaign, while Reynolds PAC

contributed $250 to the same candidate's general election and $750 to his primary. After

becoming affiliated, the PACs' total contributions could not exceed $3,750 for the candidate's general election campaign and $4,250 for

the primary campaign.

o Before the PACs became affiliated, Reynolds

PAC contributed $4,000 to a candidate's primary campaign and $1,000 to the candidate's

general election campaign. After becoming affiliated, the PACs' total contributions to the

same candidate could not exceed $1,000 for the

candidate's primary campaign and $4,000 for

the general election campaign.

Contribution limits would similarly apply to

the PACs' contributions to noncandidate committees. See 2 U.S.C. §S44Ia(a)(2XB) and (C).

The Commission noted that, although Reynolds PAC's amended Statement of Organization

assumed that the PACs became affiliated at the

time the two corporations officially merged (i.e.

September 10, 1985), for purposes of the Act the

PACs became affiliated on July 2, 1985. At that

time, Reynolds gained a controlling interest in

Nabisco by purchasing a majority of Nabisco's

outstanding shares, thereby creating the kind of

parent-subsidiary relationship between the two

corporations that results in affiliation of their

respective PACs. (Date issued: November 4, 1985

Length: 7 pages)

"'Multicandidate PACs may contribute up to

$5,000 per election to each candidate and up to

$5,000 per year to any other nonparty politica

committee.

•

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: John Warren McGarry, Chairman; Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman;

Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; Thomas E. Harris; Thomas J. Josefiak; Jo-Anne L. Coe,

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.

3
December 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \tJlume 11, NumOOr 

AO 1985-28: Candidate's Pundraising

Rebates from Corporation

Friends of Lane Evans (FLE), the principal campaign committee for Congressman Evans, may

conduct a fundraising dinner at the Quad City

Downs racetrack (the Downs). FLE may receive a

rebate from the Downs of $3 for each person who

buys a ticket for dinner and admission. Although

the Downs is a corporation, the rebate would not

be considered a prohibited contribution because

the Downs customarily provides such rebates, in

its ordinary course of business, to all fundraising

organizations, political and nonpolitical. The purchase price of the ticket, set by FLE, would be

considered a contribution to FLE.

FLE will receive and account for the ticket

purchases, pay a set fee to the Downs for a minimum of 60 dinners, and accept a Downs rebate of

$3 for each attendee. FLE should report the

ticket purchases as contributions and the rebates

as an offset to operating expenditures (Line 14,

FEe Form 3). Rebates exceeding $200 must be

itemized on a Schedule A with a brief description.

(Date issued: November 4, 1985; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1985-29: Promissory Notes and Letters of

Credit (Loans) as Contributions

to Candidate

The John Breaux Committee, the principal campaign committee of Congressman John Breaux,

intends to receive interest-bearing promissory

notes from contributors. The notes will be secured

by irrevocable letters of credit issued by the

contributors' banks. The Committee plans to use

the notes, secured by the letters of credit, as

collateral for a bank loan.

The promissory notes, together with the letters of credit, are considered contributions under

the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act)

because:

I. The letters of credit represent funds that the

Committee may use as collateral to obtain its

own bank loans, and any form of loan security is

a contribution under the Act; and

2. As collateral for the bank loan, the notes will

constitute guarantees or endorsements of the

bank loan by the persons who issue the promissory notes. Endorsers or guarantors of bank

loans made in the ordinary course of business

are considered contributors under the Act.

Any interest on the notes, paid by the contributors to the Committee, is also considered a

contribution because the payment would help defray the Committee's financial obligation. Thus,

the combined amount of an outstanding letter of

credit and any interest actually paid on the corresponding prom issory note are considered a contribution and may not exceed the contribution

limit for the contributor ($1,000 from each person, for each of Mr. Breaux's elections, and $5,000

4

from each qualified multicandidate commit

per election).

The Commission noted, however, that it 

not address issues related to the Committee's 

of the promissory notes as collateral for its 

bank loans because: I) the Committee did 

request an opinion on these issues and 2) no b

had provided relevant facts on how the lo

would be negotiated. Nor did the Commis

com ment on sample forms and agreements 

nished with the Committee's request because 

visory opinions do not address general question

interpretation. 2 U.S.C. §437f. (Date made pub

November 4, 1985; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1985-30: Authorized Candidate Committe

Converted to MuIticandidate

Committee

Representative Marjorie Holt, who will not 

running for reelection in 1986, converted her 

campaign committee to a nonconnected multi

didate political committee (i.e., a political ac

committee or PAC) by filing an amended St

ment of Organization with the FEC in Au

1985. The newly formed PAC may use ex

campaign funds of her old principal camp

com mittee to:

o Compensate Representative Holt for her rol

director of the new PAC;

o Make donations to various charitable organ

tions, without establishing additional com

tees for this purpose; and

o Make contributions of up to $5,000 per elec

to a federal committee or candidate, once 

newly formed PAC qualifies as a multica

date committee.

In qualifying as a multicandidate PAC, 

new PAC may date its existence from the dat

registration of the old principal campaign c

mittee. Similarly it may regard, as its own, 

contributions made by and to the former princ

campaign com mittee. See AOs 1982-32 and 1

40. The new PAC may not designate itself as 

candidate's authorized committee.

Although the 1979 amendments to the e

tion law prohibit candidates from converting 

cess campaign funds to personal use (in this c

compensation for directing a PAC), these ame

ments do not apply to individuals, such as Re

sentative Holt, who were members of Congres

January 8, 1980. Similarly, the law expre

sanctions the unlimited donation of excess c

paign funds to qualified charitable organizati

See 2 U.S.C. §439a and II CFR 113.2(b).

The Commission did not address the issu

whether Representative Holt could establish 

ditional com mittees to disburse the excess c

paign funds for other purposes because her a

sory opinion request presented no specific tr

actions. (Date issued: October 24, 1985; Lengt

pages)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

D€ceml::er 1985

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR FEC

COMMISSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

On October 21, 1985, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register which

seeks com ments from the public on proposed rules

implementing the Ethics in Government Act

(I978). See 11 CFR Part 7 in 50 Federal Register

42553. The intent of the proposed rules is to

"facilitate the proper performance of Commission

business and encourage citizen confidence in the

impartiality and integrity of the Commission."

Major provisions of the proposed rules are

highlighted below.

Subpart A: General Provisions

The proposed rules of this subpart:

o Explain the process by which FEC employees

would be notified about the standards of conduct;

o Provide for an Ethics Officer to answer questions regarding any potential conflicts of interest which employees may have; and

o Specify procedures for reporting and handling

alleged violations of the rules.

Subpart B: Conduct and Responsibilities

The proposed rules set forth general guidelines governing standards of conduct for employees and specify restrictions placed on such

employee activities as: accepting gifts and outside employment; maintaining outside financial

interests and association memberships; engaging

in political and outside organization activities;

using government property; making public certain

FEC investigations and ongoing enforcement matters; and, in the case of former employees, representing parties before the Commission.

This subpart spells out procedures for submitting outside employment requests. It also incorporates current FEC procedures that prohibit ex

parte communications, Le., informal communicii=

tions between outside parties and FEC Commissioners or staff concerning pending enforcement

matters. The Commission seeks comments from

the public on whether:

o The FEC's current method for handling ex parte

communications is sufficient; and

o The prohibition should be expanded to include

undisclosed ex parte communications concerning advisory opinions and regulations.

5

Vblume 11, Numt::x3r 12

·Subpart C: Conduct and Responsibilities of

Special Government Employees

This subpart would set forth specific stan

dards for conduct applicable to special Commis

sion employees. Special employees are those

working for the Commission on a temporary basis.

Subpart D: Post Employment Conflicts of

Interest; Proeedures for Administrative

Enforcement Proceedings

The proposed rules of this subpart follow the

procedures approved by the Com mission in 1980

They would ban activities of former FEC employ

ees which might reasonably appear to make unfair

use of their prior FEC employment and affilia

tions. The Ethics Officer would investigate any

alleged violations of these restrictions and submit

an investigatory report to the Commission. If the

Commission then found reasonable cause to be

lieve a former employee had violated the ethics

code, the agency would initiate an administrative

disciplinary proceeding. An impartial examiner

designated by the Ethics Officer would conduc

the proceeding.

USE OF PSEUDONYMS

From time to time, political committees ask

the Commission how they can protect their lists

of individual contributors. The following questions

and answers provide guidance in this area.

How can a political committee be sure that

the names and addresses of its contributors are

not being used (in violation of II CFR 104.15) to

solicit contributions or for commerical purposes

A committee can determine whether the names

and addresses of its contributors are being used illegally by "salting" the reports it files under the

Act. The law permits a committee to include on

its reports ten fictitious names (referred to under

the law as pseudonyms) and addresses. 11 CFR

104.3(e).

This can be done by taking a portion of the

subtotal for unitemized contributions and alloca

ting it, as fictitious itemized contributions

among several fictitious individual contributors

Each of these fictitious individual contributions

would be itemized on a Schedule A. (The committee could assign each fictitious contributor the

real address of a staffer on the com mittee, thereby enabling the committee to learn quickly about

any illegal solicltations.)

At the same time, the committee should

reduce the total amount of its unitemized eontri

continued
D:03moo- 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

buttons (reported on line l la, Detailed Summary

Page) by the total amount of the fictitious contributions. By using this approach, committees can

be sure that the total· amount of contributions

remains unaltered and is accurate.

If a committee uses pseudonyms, must it

report them to the FEC? Yes. A political committee must send its list of pseudonyms, under separate cover, to the Reports Analysis Division,

Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.

20463. The list will be maintained only by the

Commission and will not become part of the

public record. A committee should not file the list

of pseudonyms with the Clerk of the House, the

Secretary of the Senate or the State's Secretary

of State.

What ean a Committee do if one of the

pseudonyms receives a solicitation? If a committee learns that a solicitation has been sent to any

one of the fictitious names listed on its report,

the 'committee will know that someone has misused the committee's report, because the report

was the only place where that name and address

were combined. Should the committee suspect

such a violation, it may file a complaint with the

FEC. The use of pseudonyms enables the committee to protect the privacy of its individual contributors.

MAILING LISTS

The Commission has received questions concerning the use of mailing lists. The following

questions and answers help to clarify this issue.

Maya political committee sell its mailing list

for a profit? The FEC stated in an advisory

opinion that a political com mittee may sell its

contributor list to corporations, unions, candidates and other political committees. A contribution does not result when a mailing list is sold

at the "usual and normal charge.n If a political

committee sells its list at a price greater than the

market value, the difference between the market

value and the sale price represents a contribution

to the committee. Conversely, if a political committee sells its list to a candidate for less than

the market value, this results in a contribution

from the political committee to the candidate.

Payments received from the sale must be reported. AO 1979-19. In another advisory opinion,

the Commission said that a committee could sell

its mailing list (on computer tape) for the "usual

and normal charge" to a corporation without the

receipts being considered a contribution. AO

1981-53.

May political committees exchange mailing

lists? Yes. In Advisory Opinion 1981-46, the Commission said a political committee could exchange

names with another committee, individual, orga6

\blume 11, Numoo

nization or corporation as long as the lists were 

equal value. This transaction did not result i

contribution. In a later advisory opinion, the F

permitted three-way or multiparty exchanges 

mailing lists with corresponding values. For ex

ple, Committee A could give its mailing list 

Committee B who could, in turn, provide Comm

tee C with its mailing list. Committee C w

then give its list to Committee A. AO 1982-41.

Maya candidate give his or her mailing 

to a political party? Yes. In AO 1981-11, 

Commission allowed the principal campaign c

mittee of a presidential candidate to transfer 

mailing list, free of charge, to the national c

mittee of his party. The transfer was no

contribution, but both committees were requ

to report it. The mailing list was the equivalen

the committee's excess campaign funds. Acc

ing to the Act, candidates may transfer unlim

excess campaign funds to the national commi

of their party. 2 U.S.C. §439(a). Excess campa

funds can be "anything of value," including m

ing lists.

'CARTER/MONDALE PRESIDENTIAL

COMMITTEE, INC. v. FEC

On November I, 1985, the U.S. Court 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ru

that the FEC did not abuse its discretion 

declining to reconsider a final determination 

agency had made with regard to the CarterIM

dale Presidential Committee, Inc.ts (the C

mittee's) repayment of nonqualified campaign 

penses to the U.S. Treasury.* CA No. 84-1393 

84-1499 (The Committee was the publicly fun

principal campaign committee for former Pr

dent Carter's 1980 primary campalgn.) The cou

ruling sustained decisions made by the FEC 

July 12 and September 20, 1984, not to recons

its final repayment determination with regard 

the Committee.

Background

On July 6, 1982, the Committee had file

petltlon with the appeals court Which sought 

view of an FEC final determination that 

Committee must repay $104,300.78 to the U

Treasury, an amount equal to those nonquali

*The public funding statutes require Pr

dential candidates to repay the U.S. Treasury 

nonqualified campaign expenses. 26 U.S.C. 9

(b)(4) and 9038(b)(2).
Docemter 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \kJlume 11, Numter12

expenses incurred by the Com mittee during the

1980 primary campaign. (Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee v. FEC; III F.2d 279 [D.C.

Cir, 1983]) The court dismissed the case on

grounds that it had not been filed within the time

frame required by the election law. See 26 U.S.C.

§9041(a).

On August 7, 1984, the Committee filed a

petition, asking the Court to review the decision

that the FEC made on its own initiative not to

reopen its final repayment determination for the

Committee in light of recent decisions made by

the court in two other suits concerning repayments. (In Kennedy for President Committee v.

FEC' and Reagan for President Committee v.

FEC, the court had held that the FEC had exceeded its authority under 26 U.S.C. §9038(b)(2)

when it required repayment of the entire amount

of nonqualifying payments, rather than the portion attributable to the matching payment aecount.) The Committee also asked the FEC to

reconsider its decision (taken in July 1ge4) not to

reopen the Carter/Mondale repayment determinations. The Commission had decided to reconsider

only the repayments by the Kennedy and Reagan

committees, which had been required by the

court. The Commission had taken this position" 'in

the interest of finality in the administrative process, now and in the future.' "•• The Committee

claimed that the FEC's decision disregarded the

principle of equal treatment for all candidates,

which the Committee alleged the agency had

established in reconsidering a final repayment

determination made with regard to John Anderson's. publicly funded campaign. On September 20,

1984, the FEC once again declined to reconsider

the Committee's final repayment determination.

On October 2, 1984, the Committee filed a second

petition with the appeals court. On October 15,

1984, the court consolidated this case with the

Committee's August 1984 case.

Appeals Court's Ruling

The Court rejected the Committee's claim

that the FEC's July determination was unlawful

because it contradicted a precedent established

by the agency's reconsideration of the Anderson

Campaign's repayment requirements: "Far from

establishing any general or even selective practice of reopening final determinations, the record

before us [of the FEC's reconsideration of the

Anderson determination] displays only an isolated

situation in which the facts distinguishable from

those in the case at hand tugged the Commission

away from application of the finality principle."

Nor did the court find merit in the Committee's assertion that the FEC had treated the

"For a summary of this court's opinion, see p,

6 of the July 1984 Record.

""For a summary of the FEC's decision, see

page 4 of the September 1984 Record.

7

Committee unfairly. "No favoritism can be attributed to the FEC when it carries out the letter of

a court's order" to reconsider repayments by the

Kennedy and Reagan committees. Moreover, the

Committee's tardiness in seeking court review of

its own repayment determination contradicts

"'Congress' strong interest in resolving federal

matching fund audits expeditiously.' 711 F.2d at

289 & n.19."

Finally, the court rejected the Committee's

argument that the FEC had failed to give reasons

for refusing to reopen its repayment determination. "[Albsence of an express statement does not

render its action unlawful where reasons for that

action may be gleaned from its [the FEC's] staff's

reports."

DISTRICT COURT RULES ON

"DATE OF DISMISSAL"

On October 23, 1985, the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia ruled on Common

Cause v. FEC. (Civil Action No. 85-968), Golar v.

FEC (Civil Action No. 85-225) and Citizens for

PerCy v. FEC (Civil Action No. 85-763), three

suits which had challenged the FEC's dismissal of

administrative complaints. In denying the FEC's

motions to dismiss the challenges brought by

Common Cause and Simeon Golar, the court found

that plaintiffs had filed their suits within the 60-

day period allowed by the election law. The court

dismissed the suit brought by Citizens for Percy

(the Committee), the principal campaign committee for Senator Percy's 1984 reelection effort,

because the Committee had not filed the suit

within the 60-<lay period. In all three cases, the

court reasoned that the 60-<lay period begins when

"the complainant actually receives notice of dismissal,"

Under the election law, a suit challenging the

dismissal of an administrative complaint must be

filed with a district court within 60 days after it

is dismissed by the FEC. 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A).

The FEC had argued that the 60-<lay period begins

at the time the Commission votes to dismiss an

administrative complaint. The court reasoned,

however, that the 60-<lay period should begin at

the time the Commission actually notifies the

complainant of the FEC's decision. The court

concluded that the 60-<lay period begins when a

complainant actually receives the notice of dismissal.

Based on this ruling, the court dismissed

Citizens for Percy v. FEC because the Committee

had filed its suit more than 60 days after both the

Commission's decision to dismiss the Committee's

administrative complaint and its receipt of the

FEC's notice of dismissal. On the other hand, the

court decided not to dismiss the suits brought by

Common Cause and Mr. Golar because plaintiffs

had filed their respective challenges within 60

days of FEC notification.
r Dn3moor1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume 11, Numoor 

NEW LmGA110N

FEC v. 1985 Victory Fund

The Commission asks the district court to declare that the 1985 Victory Fund, and the Fund's

treasurer, Vincent G. Downing, violated the election law by:

o Failing to file required reports of the Fund's

financial activity during 1983 and 1984 (2

U.S.C. §43Ha)(4)(A)(iv»;

o Failing to properly allocate administrative expenses between the Victory Fund, which is the

'federal account of the Conservative Party of

New York State, and the party's nonfederal

account (11 CFR 106.l(e»; and

o Knowingly accepting corporate and labor contributions from the Conservative Party of New

York State, which contained prohibited corporate and labor funds. (2 U.S.C. §44Ib)

The FEC further asks the court to:

o Assess a civil penalty against the defendants

amounting to the greater of $5,000 or 100

percent of the amount involved in the violations; and

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

o Permanently enjoin the defendants from furt

violations of the election law. 

U.S. District Court for the Southern Dist

of New York, Civil Action No. 85-CIV-83

October 24, 1985.

FEC v; Allen Wolfson

The Commission asks the district court to:

o Declare that Allen Z. Wolfson violated 

election law by making contributions to auth

ized candidate committees which exceeded 

law's monetary limits (2 U.S.C. §44Ia(a)(})(

and which were made in the names of ot

persons (2 U.S.C. §441f);

o Enjoin Mr. Wolfson from further violations 

the law; and

o Assess a $5,000 civil penalty against Mr. W

son or an amount equal to 100 percent of 

amounts involved in the violation.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District 

Florida, Civil Action No. 85-1617-CIV-T

October 8, 1985.

Postage and Fees Paid

Bulk Rate Mail

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31