•

August1983

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 9, Numbe

•

COMMISSION APPOINTS

NEWSTAFF DIRECTOR

On July 19, 1983, the Commission announced

that it had named John C. Surina as its new Staff

Director. In assuming the statutorily mandated

position on July 25, Mr. Surina succeeded B. Allen

Clutter, who resigned in May to assume an executive position in Cleveland, Ohio.

Since 1980, Mr. Surina had been Assistant

Managing Director of the Interstate Commerce

Commission. He served the agency in other capacities between 1973 and 1979. Recently, Mr.

Surina was detailed to the "Re form 8811 program

at the Office of Management and Budget. In that

role, he worked on projects to reform administrative management within the federal government.

A native of Alexandria, Virginia, Mr. Surina holds

a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from

Georgetown University. He also attended East

Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina,

and American University in Washington, D.C.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED RULES

POR CORPORATE/LABOR COMMUNICAnONS

On August 9 and 10, 1983, the Commission

will hold a second round of public hearings* on

proposed revisions to FEC rules governing communications by corporations and labor organizations. The proposed rules were published in the

Federal Register on March 4, 1983. 48 Fed. Reg.

9236.

Parties who wish to testify at the hearings have

been asked to submit a written request by Juiy 29,

1983. They should also submit a statement regarding the SUbstance of their testimony on or

*The Commission announced the hearings in

the July 14, 1983, issue of the Federal Register.

48 Fed. Reg. 32321.

before August 2, 1983. The requests and sta

ments should be submitted to Ms. Susan 

Propper, Assistant General Counsel, FEC, 1325 

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

The Commission held its first public hearings 

proposed revisions to these regulations on Octob

26, 1981. A copy of the proposed rules is availab

upon request from the Public Communicatio

Office. Gall 202/523-4068 or, toll free, 800/42

9530.

RULES ON COLLECTING AGENTS AND

JOINT FUNDRAISING SENT TO Co.NGRESS

On June 7, 1983, the Commission transmitt

to Congress revised regulations governing tran

fers of funds, collecting agents and joint fun

raising. The Commission prescribes regulations 

legislative days after they have been transmitt

to Congress.

The proposed revisions make a distincti

between two situations: joint fundraising, i.

election-related fundraising conducted by two 

more committees, and collecting agents, i.

organizations which collect and transfer contrib

tions to separate segregated funds. To emphasi

this distinction, the proposed regulations chan

the title of the current II CFR 102.6 fro

"Transfers of Funds; Joint Fundraising" to "Tra

fers of Funds; Collecting Agents" and create 

new section, "Joint Fundraising by Committe

Other Than Separate Segregated Funds," at 

CFR 102.17. The proposed regulations addre

issues raised in advisory opinions and provide 

complete set of procedures for both situation

The following paragraphs highlight the major pr

visions. Readers should not rely solely on th

summary. Instead, they should consult the f

text of the proposed changes, published in t

Federal Re ister on June 7, 1983 (48 Fed. Re

26296 and available from the Commission's 0 

flee of Public Communications, 1325 K Stre

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 (phone: 202/52

4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530).

Tr8J1Sfers of Fw1ds

The proposed regulations, following curre

regulations, state that transfers between affi

ated committees and between party committe

of the same political party are not limited. T

continu
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Danny Lee McDonald, Chairman; Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman;

Joan D. Aikens; Thomas E. Harris; 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.

2

August 1983

new rules add a provision (reflecting 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(5)(A)) permitting participants in joint

fundraising to transfer proceeds without limit as

long as no committee receives more than its

allocated share. The revisions also clarify that

transfers must be made from funds which are

permissible under the Act.

Although, as in current regulations, the proposed

rules state that transfers of funds may trigger

political com mittee status for an unregistered

organization, an exception is made for transfers

of contributions made by a collecting agent to a

separate segregated fund (see below).

Collecting Agents

This new section in the proposed rules clarifies the application of the Act to fundraising on

behalf of separate segregated funds. Under these

rules, an unregistered organization acting as a

collecting agent does not have to register as a

political committee or file reports.

Definition of Collecting Agent. The new regulations define a collecting agent as an organization

or committee which collects and transmits contributions to a separate segregated fund (SSF). A

collecting agent must be connected to or affiliated with the separate segregated fund and may

be:

The SSF's connected organization (Le., the

corporation or labor organization which

established the SSF);

A parent, subsidiary, branch or local unit of

the SSF's connected organization;

A local, national or international union collecting contributions on behalf of the SSF of

any federation with which the union is affiliated; or

An affiliate of the SSF - either a registered

political committee or an unregistered organization, such as a nonfederal PAC.

The proposed rules specify that neither a fundraising firm nor an individual who collects contributions for an SSF is considered a collecting

agent.

If an SSF uses a collecting agent, the SSF is

responsible for ensuring that the collecting agent

observes requirements for keeping records and

transmitting funds.

Volume 9,Numoo

Soliciting Contributions. Under the propo

rules, a collecting agent may only solicit th

individuals eligible for solicitation under 11 C

Part 114 (i.e., the SSF's "restricted class") 

must comply with the other requirements 

soliciting voluntary contributions to an SSF 

CFR 114.5).

The suggested regulations allow a collecting ag

to pay for all the costs of soliciting and transm

ting contributions to the SSF. These payments 

not considered contributions or expenditures 

do not trigger political committee status for 

unregistered collecting agent, such as a n

federal PAC. If the SSF pays solicitation co

which the collecting agent could have paid, as 

administrative expense, the collecting agent m

reimburse the SSF, but it must do so within 

days.

The proposed rules also permit a collecting ag

to include solicitations for SSF contributions 

bills for membership dues or other fees. Similar

a contributor may write one check represent

both a contribution to the SSF and a payment 

the collecting agent.

Transmitting Contributions. Collecting age

must forward contributions to the SSF within 

time periods specified in II CFR 102.8 (contri

tions of $50 or less within 30 days, larger con

butions within 10 days). Although checks made 

to the SSF must be forwarded directly to the S

the suggested regulations provide the collect

agent with several options for depositing 

transmitting other forms of contributions 

cluding checks combined with payments to 

collecting agent). The collecting agent may use

A transmittal account, used solely for con

butions to the SSF;

The collecting agent's own account, althou

the agent must keep separate records on 

receipts and deposits which represent con

butions to the SSF;

An account used for state and local elect

activity, if separate records are kept of S

receipts and deposits; and

In the case of cash contributions, mo

orders or cashiers checks.

Forwarding Contributor Information. Under 

proposed rules, the collecting agent must forw
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

August 1983

to the SSF the information on contributors specified in 11 CFR 102.8. However, if contributions of

$50 or less are received at a mass collection, the

collecting agent need only forward a record of the

name of the function, the date and the total

amount collected.

Recordkeeping and Reporting. The collecting

agent, under the suggested regulations, must keep

records of all contribution deposits and transmittals for 3 years and must make the records

available to the Commission upon request. The

SSF must also keep records of all transmittals of

contributions received from the collecting agent

for 3 years.

Only the SSF - not the collecting agent - reports

contributions collected through the agent. The

funds are reported as contributions from the original donors rather than as a transfer-in from the

collecting agent.

Joint Fundraising

The suggested regulations create a new section setting forth the basic rules for conducting

joint fundraising activities.

Who Must Observe Joint Fundraising Rules.* The

proposed rules apply to political committees engaged in joint fundraising with other political

committees and with unregistered committees

and organizations. However, the proposed rules do

not pertain to collecting agents and separate

segregated funds.

*The Explanation and Justification accompanying the proposed Joint fundraising regulations

states that, if all furtdraising participants are

party committees of the same political party,

they do not have to adhere to the joint fundraising

requirements. Because such committees are

allowed to make un[imited transfers among one

another (2 V.S.C. Section 44Ia(a)(4)), there is no

need to have a prearranged formula for allocating

joint fundraising proceeds (discussed above). Even

if the party committees use an allocation formula, they do not have to publicize the formula, as

required under the joint furtdraising roles. The

party committees would, however, have to follow

the notice requirements of II CFR 102.5 if the

activity were conducted in connection with both

federal and nonfederal elections. If the party

committees do not give public notice of an allocation formula, contributions received at the fundraiser would count toward the contributor's limit

for the party committee sponsoring the event,

i.e., the national committee or state committee

running the fundraiser.

3

Volume 9, Number 8

Fundraising Representative. Joint fundraising

participants must either establish a separat

political committee or select a participatin

political committee to act as the fundraising

representative. This committee is responsible fo

collecting proceeds, paying the expenses of th

fundraiser and distributing proceeds to partici

pants. The proposed regulations make clear that

although participants may hire a commercial firm

or agent to assist in the joint fundraiser, they are

still required to select or establish a politica

committee, as defined in 11 CFR 100.5, as th

fundraising representative.

Start-Up Costs. Participants may advance money

for the start-up costs of the fundraiser in propor

tion to the allocation formula, i.e., the formula by

which participants agree to allocate joint fund

raising proceeds and expenses. The suggested

regulations state that if a committee advance

more than its proportionate share, the exces

amount is an in-kind contribution to the othe

participants and may not exceed the amount a

participant may legally contribute to othe

participants,

If, however, all the participants are affiliated

committees or if all are party committees of th

same political party, unlimited amounts may b

advanced since there are no limits on transfer

between affiliated committees and between party

committees.

Written Agreement. All joint fundraising partici

pants must enter into a written agreement which

identifies the fundraising representative and

states the allocation formula. The fundraising

representative must keep a copy of the agreemen

for 3 years and make it available to the Commis

sion upon request.

Joint Fundraising Notice. In addition to the dis

cl81mer notice reqUlred in 11 CFR 110.11, the

suggested rules require each solicitation to con

tain a notice providing specific details about the

joint fundraising activity:

The names of all participants, including un

registered organizations;

The allocation formula;

A statement informing contributors that they

may designate contributions for a particula

participant; and

A statement that the allocation formula may

change if any contributor makes a contribu

tion which exceeds the amount he or she may

lawfully give to a participant.

In two situations, the joint fundraising notice

requires additional information. First, if any

participant is engaging in the joint fundraiser only

to payoff debts, the notice must inform contribu

continue
Augusl1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

tors that the allocation formula may change once

the participant raises enough funds to pay its

debts. Second, if any of the unregistered participants are permitted, under state law, to receive

prohibited contributions, the notice must say that

such contributions will be given only to participants that may legally accept them.

Separate Depository. The suggested regulations

require participants to establish a separate depository account used solely for the receipt and

disbursement of joint fundraising proceeds. The

fundraising representative must deposit contributions into the account within 10 days, although it

may delay distributing proceeds to the participants until the joint fundraiser is over and all

expenses are paid.

Prohibited contributions acceptable by unregistered organizations under state law must be

either deposited in a second account or transferred directly to the unregistered participants.

Recordkeeping. The fundraising representative

and participating committees must screen contributions to ensure that they are neither prohibited

under the Act nor in excess of contribution limits.

(The proposed regulations permit a contributor to

donate up to the total amount which he or she

could give to all participants, subject to the

contribution limits.) To facilitate screening, participants must make their contributor records

available to the fundraising representative.

The fundraising representative must collect the

contributor information specified in II CFR

102.8, later forwarding the records to the participants for reporting purposes. Additionally, the

proposed rules require the fundraising representative to keep a record of the total amount of

prohibited contributions received and of transfers

of these funds to participants that may accept

them. Records of disbursements must also be

maintained by the fundraising representative in

accordance with II CFR 102.9.

Allocating Gross Proceeds. Under the proposed

rules, gross proceeds are allocated according to

the formula stated in the fundraising agreement.

The fundraising formula may change, however, if

allocation under the formula results in:

An excessive contribution from a contributor

to any participating political committee; or

A surplus of proceeds for a committee that

participates in the fundraiser solely to retire

debts.

Reallocation in either circumstance must be

based on the other participants' proportionate

shares under the allocation formula. (Designated

or earmarked contributions which exceed the contributor's limit for a participant may not be

4

Volume 9, Num

reallocated without the written consent of 

eontrlbutor.) If reallocation results in a cont

tor's exceeding the contribution limit, the f

raising representative must return the ex

amount to the contributor.

The fundraising representative must distri

prohibited contributions only to the unregis

participants which may lawfully accept t

they do not have to be distributed accordin

the allocation formula.

Allocating Expenses and Distributing Net 

ceeds. The suggested regulations require the f

raising representative to calculate each par

pant's share of expenses based on its alloc

share of gross proceeds. (Prohibited contribu

need not be included.) To determine the am

of net proceeds each participant receives, 

fundraising representative subtracts the par

pant's share of expenses from the amount it 

allocated in gross proceeds.

A participant may pay for the expenses of o

participants, but such payments are considere

kind contributions, subject to the limits. How

if any participants are affiliated committee

party committees of the same political p

fundraising expenses need not be allocated am

those participants since the Act permits unlim

transfers between affiliated committees and 

tween party committees; no in-kind contribu

results if, for example, a party committee 

the expenses of another party committee.

Reporting. The fundraising representative, u

the suggested rules, reports all contribution

the reporting period in which they are recei

The representative is also responsible for 

porting disbursements for the fundraiser in 

reporting period in which they are made.

After the distribution of net proceeds, each 

ticipant reports its net proceeds as a transfe

from the fundraising representative. At the s

time, the participating committee files a m

Schedule A itemizing, as necessary, its shar

gross receipts as contributions from the orig

donors.
STATUS OF FEC REGULATIONS SENT TO CONGRESS

Date Sent Federal Register Date Prescribed ** Regulations* to Congress Publication by the Commission

II CFR 100.7(0)(IXiXC), 4/22/83 4/27/83 7/1/83

100.7(bXI I), IOO.8(bX12), 48 Fed. Reg. 19019

110. IO(b) and 9003.2(cX3)

Candidate's Use of Property

in Which Spouse Has an Interest

11 CFR 102.6 and 102.17 6/2/83 6/7/83

Transfer of Funds; 48 Fed. Reg. 26296

• Collecting Agents, Joint

Fundraising

11 CFR ne.n 2/25/83 3/2/83 5/13/83

Disclaimer Notices 48 Fed. Reg. 8809

II CFR IIO.12(0)(2) - (a){4) NA 4/8/82 4/8/82

Annual Honoraria Limit 47 Fed. Reg. 15098

11 CFR 114.3 and 114.4 3/1/83 3/4/83

Communications by (Withdrawn to 48 Fed. Reg. 9236;

Corporations and obtain further 4/22/83

Labor Organizations public comment, 48 Fed. Reg. 17567

4/22/83)

11 cPR 106 and 9031 - 9039 1/24/83 2/4/83 4/4/83

Presidential Primary 48 Fed. Reg. 5224

Matching Fund

11 CFR 9001 et seq. 7/1/83 7/11/83

General Election Campaign 48 Fed. Reg. 31822

Fund

II CFR Pert 9008 NA 7/21/83 7/21/83

Fund for Presidential 48 Fed. Reg. 33244

Nominating Conventions

*The chart is cumulative, listing all amendments to the FEe Regulations proposed after the

•

1981 edition of II CFR was published, including any technical amendments•

**The Commission may prescribe its regulations 30 legislative days after it has transmitted

them to Congress.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

August 1983

FRC PRESCRmES RULES

ON CANDIDATE'S USE OF PROPERTY

IN wmCH SPOUSE HAS INTEREST

On July I, 1983, the Commission prescribed

revised regulations governing a candidate's use of

property jointly owned with a spouse or property

in which the spouse has some other legal interest.

The revised rules address two circumstances involving joint ownership of financial assets by a

candidate and his/her spouse:

Loans requiring a spouse's signature; and

A candidate's access to jointly owned personal assets.

5

Volume 9, Numoo

The revised rules affect the following sections 

Commission Regulations: II CFR 100.7(a)(O

(C)-(E), 100.7(b)(lI), 100.8(b)(I2), 1l0.10(

1l0.10(b)(l), 1l0.10(b)(3) and 9003.2(c)(3). Hi

lights of major modifications in the regulatio

appeared on page 3 of the June 1983 Record. T

full text of the proposed rules was published 

the Federal Register on April 27, 1983 (48 F

Reg. 19019). Copies of the notice may be obtain

by writing the FEC's Public CommuniC!ati

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

20463 or by calling: 202/523-4068 or toll f

800/424-9530.
August 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of each

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

AOR Subject

1983-17 Corporate PAC's payroll deduction plan

for employees who are stockholders.

(Date made public: June 14, 1983;

Length: 2 pages, plus 14-page supplement)

1983-18 Contributions earmarked, through trade

association PAC, to other trade association PACs. (Date made public: June

21, 1983; Length: 2 pages)

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 f!lay rely on the opinion if they are

Involved In a specific activity which is indisting~ishable i!1 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 1983-12: Multicandidate Committee's

Expenditures for Constituent

Congratulations Program

Payments made by the National Conservative

Political Action Committee (NCPAC), a multicandidate political committee, to produce and

broadcast a series of television messages intended

to congratulate incumbent Senators on their job in

office would constitute expenditures made to influence the Senators' reelection campaigns. As

such, they would be reportable by NCPAC. To the

extent that NCPAC coordinates the production of

the television messages with the Senators or their

agents, payments for them would be considered

in-kind contributions to the Senators' campaigns

which would be subject to the limits and othe;

requirements of the election law. 2 U.S.C. §441a

(a)(7)(B).

NCPAC plans to broadcast the 30-second television messages (i.e., the Constituent Congratula6

Volume 9,Numoo

tions Program) during 1983 and 1984. Desp

NCPA~'s contention that the messages would 

run WIthout regard to the incumbent Senat

reelection campaigns, the Commission assum

based on information received from NCPAC, t

the Senators featured in the proposed broadca

would be candidates" under the election law. 

the following reasons, the Commission conclud

that NCPAC's payments to produce and broadc

the television messages would be for the purp

of influencing their reelection:

1. NCPAC's status as a "political committ

under the election law and its status as 

"political organization" for federal inco

tax purposes support the inference that 

Constituent CongratUlations Program 

been designed to influence the 1984 Sen

races.

2. The content of the proposed messages in

cates that an election-influencing purp

underlies the program. For example ea

television message refers to a Senator 

name, identifies the home state and the d

of the last election, and mentions the Se

tor's commendable service to the state. T

frequency of these references is in mark

contrast to the cryptic, generalized ment

of issues in each message.

3. NCPAC plans to broadcast the messa

during the eighteen months prior to the 1

general election.

4. -r:he . program does not appear to have a

significant content unrelated to electio

influencing activity. This contrasts w

situations in previous opinions where p

ments made by nonpolitical organizations 

sponsor candidate appearances and activit

did not constitute expenditures because th

primary purpose was not to influence fede

elections. See, for example, AO's 1977-

1978-88 and 1981-37. (Date issued: June 

1983; Length: 6 pages)

AO 1983-14: candidate Committee's Disposal

of Excess Campaign Funds

The Congressional Boosters for Don Clausen (

Boosters), Mr. Clausen's principal campaign co

mittee for his unsuccessful 1982 reelection ca

paign, may not contribute all its excess campa

funds to the 1984 campaign of the Republi

candidate (as yet unidentified) who will campa

for the seat formerly held by Mr. Clausen. T

Boosters may, however, contribute up to $1,0

per election to the 1984 candidate's campaign a

up to $5,000 per year to any multicandid

*Of the 33 Senators who are up for reel

tion in 1984, two have publicly announced th

they will not be seeking reelection. The remain

31 currently qualify as candidates under the el

tion law.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

August 1983

committee (other than a party committee, which

could accept unlimited funds). 2 U.S.C. §§441a(a)

(I) and (I)(C); 11 CPR 110.1 and 1I0.Hc).

Although, under Commission Regulations, t~e

Boosters could transfer an unlimited amount of Its

excess funds to any local, state or national party

committee, transfers to nonparty committees are

considered contributions, subject to the Act's

limits. 2 U.S.C. S439a; II CPR 113.2. Also, if the

Boosters qualified as a rnulticandidata committee,

they could contribute up to $5,000 (rather than

$1,000) to a federal candidate, per election. See 2

U.S.C. §§44Ia(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) and 11 CFR

100.5(c)(3). Alternatively, the Boosters could

donate some, or all, of their excess funds to a

charitable organization. (Date issued: June 14,

1983; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1983-15: State Funds Deposited

in State Party's Account

Under Virginia law, a taxpayer receiving an income tax refund may opt to check off $2.00 of

the refund for the qualified state political party

of his or her choice. The state treasurer then

disburses the funds to those parties designated by

the taxpayers. The state party receiving checkoff funds may deposit them in its federal account;

the funds would be considered contributions from

the taxpayers. Since these contributions ($2.00

each) would be too small to trigger the detailed

reporting (and recordkeeping) requirements for

larger contributions, * the recipient par~y c?mmittee would disclose the funds as unitemized

contributions. In preparing the federal account's

reports, therefore, the party committee would

disclose the total amount of check-off funds

received during the reporting period as a memo

entry on line 1Ha) of FEe Form 3X. Althoug~ not

required to do so by the Act or FEC Regul8:tlons,

it would be helpful if the party also noted In the

memo entry that the funds were derived fr~m the

state's voluntary check-off plan. (Date Issued:

July 1, 1983; Length: 4 pages)

"see 2 U.S.C. Sections 434(b)(3)(A) and

432(c)(2)-(c)(3): 11 CFR l02.9(a)(2), 104.3(a)(4)

and 11O.4(c)(3).

7

Volume 9, Numo

FINANCIAL ACTIVITY

OF PARTY COMMITTEES

During the 1981-82 election cycle, Rep

can party committees at the national, state 

local levels spent more than five times as muc

their Democratic counterparts and contrib

three times more funds to federal candidates.

Information released by the FEC showed tha

the $214 million they spent, Republican p

committees contributed 2.6 percent ($5.6 mil

to federal candidates. They also made sp

coordinated party expenditures* on .behal

their candidates in the general election, W

amounted to 6.7 percent (or $14.3 million) of 

total they spent. By contrast, of the $40 mi

the Democratic party spent, 4.3 percent (~r 

million) was contributed to federal candid

The Democratic party committees made sp

coordinated expenditures amounting to 8.2 

cent (or $3.3 million) of their total disburseme

The FEC study showed a significant increas

spending by both parties during the 1981-82 e

tion cycle. Total spending by Republican p

committees represented a 32.1 percent Incr

over their spending during the 1979-80 P~esi

tial election cycle, and a 149 percent. Incr

over 1977-78. Democratic party committees

the other hand, spent only 14 percent more du

the 1981-82 election cycle than they had du

1979-80. However, the Democratic commit

spending during 1981-82 represented a 50 per

increase over their spending during 1977-78.

Republican party committees began the 198

election cycle with $6.7 million cash-on-h

They raised an additional $214.9 million** 

had a cash-on-hand balance of $7.4 million at 

close of December 1982. They had debts tota

$5.3 million. By contrast, Democratic pB:rty c

mittees started the cycle with $2.5 million c

on-hand. They raised a total of $39 million 

had a remaining cash-on-hand balance of 

million. Their debts at the end of 1982 tot

$4.1 million.

contin

'*These limited expenditures are sepa

from contributions made by national and s

party committees to candidates and therefore 

not count against contribution limit~. The~ 

however, SUbject to separate e.rpendtture hm

See 2 U.S.C. Section 44la(d) and II CFR llO.7

**Receipt figures have been adjusted 

transfers between committees of the same po

cal party.
August 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

The receipt figures for the two major parties

showed a variation in their sources of support. For

example, PAC contributions amounted to 7.8 percent (or $3.1 million) of Democratic party committees' total receipts ($39.0 million). PAC contributions to Republican party committees, on the

other hand, constituted only 0.5 percent (or $1.1

million) of their total receipts ($214.9 million).

More detailed information on party activity may

be obtained from the study, FEC Reports on

Financial Activity: 1981-82 Interim Report No.4,

Part and Non-Part Political Committees: Volumes I and 2. The study may be purchased 5.00

per volume) from the FEC's Public Records Office, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20463. Checks should be made payable to the

FEC.

1"; • -. + _.. -0

- - - .",' ,

.'

" . , .

FEC CERTIFIES CONVENTION FUNDING FOR

MAJOR PARTlES

On June 23, 1983, the Commission determined that the Republican and Democratic

parties were each eligible to receive a public

grant for their national Presidential nominating

conventions in 1984. During July, the two major

parties' convention committees each received a

payment of $5,871,000 from the Secretary of the

U.S. Treasury, based on the FEC's certification of

the payments to the Secretary.

Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund

Act, each major party is entitled to $3 million

(plus a cost-of-living adjustment) to finance its

Presidential nominating convention. 26 U.S.C.

§9008(b). Since each party's convention committee is eligible to receive its grant in the year

preceding its convention, the Commission's certifications were based on the 1982 cost-of-living

adjustment. During 1984, when· figures become

available on the 1983 cost-of-living adjustment,* the Commission will certify additional funds for

each convention committee.

To establish eligibility for a convention grant, the

national committee of each major party must file

an application statement with the FEC and register a convention committee. Each party's convention committee and its national committee must

also agree to comply with certain requirements of

the federal election law and Commission Regulations. See Part 9008 of Commission Regulations.

*The cost-or-living adjustment (COLA) is

calculated annually by the Secretary of Labor,

using 1974 as the base year•.

8

Volume 9, NumOOr"

COMMON CAUSE v: FEC

On June 10, 1983, the U.S. District Court fo

the District of Columbia approved dismissal o

Common Cause's suit against the FEC (Civil Ac

tion No. 83-0720). Common Cause requested th

dismissal because, on May 23, 1983, the FEC ha

taken final action on the administrative complain

which had precipitated the suit.

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A), Commo

Cause had asked the district court to issue a

order directing the Commission to take fina

action, within 30 days, on a complaint Commo

Cause had filed on September 26, 1980. In it

administrative complaint, Common Cause had al

leged that five political committees had mad

expenditures on behalf of the 198Q Republica

Presidential nominee which were in violation o

26 U.S.C. §9012(f). (This provision prohibits un

authorized com mittees from making expenditure

exceeding $1,000 to further the election of 

publicly funded Presidential nominee.) For furthe

details on Comrnon Cause's suit, see page 7 of th

May 1983 Record.

CARTER!MONDALE PRESIDENTIAL

COMMITTEE, INC. v, FEC

On June 24, 1983, the U.S. Court of Appeal

for the District of Columbia ruled that, since th

Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee (th

Committee) had failed to file its petition fo

review of certain final FEC repayment determi

nations within 30 days after the FEC had mad

them, the court had no jurisdiction over th

petition. Filed on July 6, 1982, the Committee

petition concerned certain final Commissio

determinations with regard to the FEC's audit* o

the Committee's publicly funded primary cam

paign in 1980.

Since it dismissed the suit on jurisdictiona

grounds, the court did not address the issue o

whether the FEC could require the Committee to

Repay federal matching funds in an amoun

equal to total federal and private funds use

for nonqualified campaign expenses; or

Repay only the portion of nonqualified ex

penses that were paid with federal funds.

continue

*Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 9038~ the

Commission is required to audit the campaign o

any primary candidate who receives publi

matching fWldS.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

August 1983

NEW LmGATION

FRC v. NCPAC and FCM

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§901l(b) and 9010(c),

the FEC asks a three-judge district court to

declare that:

Expenditures (in excess of $1,000) that the

National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) and Fund for a Conservative

Majority (FCM) each intend to make on behalf of the publicly funded Republican Presidential nominee in 1984 would be prohibited

by, and in violation of, 26 U.S.C. S9012(O(I);

and

Section 9012(fX1), as applied to the defendant committees, is constitutional.

NCPAC and FCM are both multicandidate political committees not authorized by any candidate.

Under Section 9012(f)(I) of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, unauthorized political

committees (I.e., those not authorized by a candidate) may not make expenditures exceeding

$1,000 to further the election of a publicly funded

Presidential nominee.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, Docket No. 83-2823, June 14, 1983.

Democratic Party of the United States v.

NCPAC and FEC (Intervening Defendant>

On May 16, 1983, the Democratic Party of

the United States and others filed suit against the

National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) and Fund for a Conservative Majority (FCM). The Democratic Party alleged that the

defendant political committees have made and

were making expenditures in violation of 26

U.S.C. S9012(f), which prohibits expenditures by

unauthorized political committees in excess of

$1,000 on behalf of a major party's publicly

funded Presidential nominee.

On June 3, 19B3, the FEC filed a motion to

intervene as defendant in the suit. The Commission then sought dismissal of the action on

grounds that it had exclusive primary jurisdiction

over civil enforcement of violations alleged in the

suit and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring

suit. On June 22, 1983, the district court granted

the FEC's motion to intervene and consolidated

the suit with the suit the FEC had filed against

NCPAC and FCM. (See FEC v. NCPAC and FCM

abovs.) The FEC's motion to dismiss the Democratic Party's suit is now pending before the

court.

9

Volume 9, Numbe

COmmon cause v. Harrison Schmitt (FEC

Intervenor); FEC v. Americans tor Change

On June 16, 1983, the Fund for a Conser

tive Majority (FCM) filed a petition with the U

District Court for the District of Colum

seeking a declaratory order from the court th

would give "force and effect" to the cour

September 30, 1980, decision in the consolida

cases of Common Cause v. Harrison Schmitt a

FEC v. Americans for Change. In that ruling, t

district court held that Section 9012(0 was unco

stitutional as applied to Americans for Chan

Americans for an Effective Presidency and Fu

for a Conservative Majority, three muIticandid

political committees that had planned to ma

expenditures in excess of $1,000 in support of t

Republican Presidential candidate's general ele

tion campaign. On January 19, 1982, the Supre

Court voted 4 to 4 to affirm the lower cour

decision, with Justice Sandra O'Connor not part

ipating.

Based on the district court's 1980 ruling, FC

asks the court to:

Order the FEC to dismiss its suit agai

NCPAC and FCM, pertaining to enforcem

of Section 9012(0 (see FEC v. NCPAC a

FCM above);

Prohibit the FEC from filing suits in sta

and federal courts which seek to enforce 

to construe Section 9012(0(1);

Direct the FEC to withdraw an adviso

opinion (AO 1983-11) issued to FCM on M

18, 1983, which stated that FCM would 

subject to the $1,000 spending limit impos

by Section 9012(f)(I) should FCM make e

penditures on behalf of the publicly fund

Republican Presidential nominee in 1984; an

Direct the FEC to issue an alternative ad

sory opinion to FCM stating that FCM's p

posed expenditures would not be subject 

Section 90l2(f)(I).

U.S. District Court for the District of Columb

Docket No. CA 80-1609, June 16, 1983.

Congressman Charles R. Rose v. FEC

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. SS437g(a)(8)(A) and (

Congressman Charles E. Rose (D-NC) asks 

district court to:

Declare that, in failing to act on Congre

man Rose's administrative complaint wit

120 days, the FEC acted contrary to law; a

Issue an order directing the Commission 

take final action on this complaint within 

days.

In his suit, Mr. Rose stated that he had filed 

administrative complaint with the FEC alleg

that:

contin
August 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

A marketing company had contributed to his

opponent in the Democratic primary (in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441b and II CFR 114.2).

The primary opponent had paid for political

broadcasting time with a personal check (in

violation of 2 U.S.C. §432(h)(I) and II CFR

102.10).

The principal campaign committee of Mr.

Rose's primary election opponent had made

excessive in-kind contributions to the general

election campaign of the Republican candidate opposing Mr. Rose (in violation of 2

U.S.C. §§44Ia(a)(l)(A) and 441b; and 11 CFR

110.1(a) and 114.2).

The Congressional Club, which owned the

marketing company (cited above), had failed

to report the election activities of the company (in violation of 2 U.S.C. §§434(b), 441a

and 441b; and 11 CFR 104.3, 110 and 114.2).

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,

Docket No. 83-1687, June 13, 1983.

Reagan for President Committee Y. PEC

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9041(a), the Reagan

for President Committee, Mr. Reagan's principal

campaign committee in 1980, asks the appeals

court to review a final determination made by the

FEC on June 3, 1983. The FEC's determination

required the Reagan campaign to repay

$87,707.90 in primary matching funds (plus interest) to the U.S. Treasury. (The FEC had certified

the funds to President Reagan for his 1980 primary eampaign.)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Docket No. 83-1666, June 16, 1983.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.20463

Official Business

Volume 9, Numoo

:',::;" X,J'":'-,:;~:-{ ":~:;' ;-~

,;:~-.~ _::..__.; _._ ... .-.<_ .-:.-""._",,~ ..... _---:<:._.J:..-"-.~ r :-'-~_,--....... ",",, __ • _~~_. ••• '" 

PEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

The item below identifies an FEC docum

that appeared in the Federal Register during J

1983. Copies of this notice are available in 

Public Records Office.

Notice Title

1983-17 11 CFR Parts 100, 110 and 9003: C

didate's Use of Property in Wh

Spouse Has an Interest; Announcem

of Effective Date (48 Fed. Reg. 303

July I, 1983)

1983-18 11 CFR Parts 9001-9007 and 90

Presidential Election Campaign Fu

Transmittal of Regulations to Congr

(48 Fed. Reg. 31822, July 11, 1983)

1983-19 II CFR Part 114: Communications 

Corporations and Labor Organizatio

Announcement of Second Hearing 

Fed. Reg. 32321, JUly 14, 1983)

1983-20 11 CFR Part 9008: Presidential El

tion Campaign Fund: Federal Financ

of Presidential Nominating Conv

tions; Final Rule: Technical Ame

ments (48 Fed. Reg. 33244, July 

1983)

First Class Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

FEC

Washington, D.C.

Permit No. G-31