FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 

• 

May1983 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume9, Number 

COMMISSION ACCEPTS RESIGNATION 

OF STAFF DIRECTOR: 

SEARCH FOR NEW DIRECTOR BEGINS 

On April 19, 1983, the Federal Election Commission accepted the resignation of B. Allen 

Clutter, Staff Director, effective May 15, 1983. 

Mr. Clutter is leaving the Commission in order to 

accept a position in the private sector in Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Commission has begun an extensive search 

for a new Director. A description of the Staff 

Director position, qualifications for the position, 

and application procedures follow. 

Staff Director Position 

The Staff Director, an Executive Level IV 

position in the federal government, receives an 

annual salary of $67,200 per year. As chief oper­ • 

ating officer of a federal agency with 236 employees, the Staff Director reports to and serves 

at the pleasure of a six-member Commission 

appointed by the President. 

The mission of the Federal Election Commission 

is to administer and enforce the campaign finance 

provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 

as amended, and Title 26 of the United States 

Code. 

Qualifications 

The position requires strong administrative 

skills and demonstrated ability to use tact and 

diplomacy to accomplish Commission goals. Applicants should demonstrate meaningful experience: 

Managing and directing budget and financial 

operations, administration, personnel/labor 

relations, EEO, Congressional/legislative liaison, and Automated Data Processing (ADP) 

operations; 

Translating broad policy decisions into specific management objectives and requirements; and 

• 

Effectively directing and supervising a staff 

of senior managers. 

Previous experience working with a board of 

directors is desirable, as is previous experience as 

an adm inistrator in cam paign finance, electio

administration or ethics administration at th

federal, state or local level. 

Application Procedures 

Those interested in the position should subm

a full application by May 23, 1983, to: 

Staff Director Selection Task Force 

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman 

Federal Election Commission 

1325 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Applications should include: 

A resume, preferably accompanied by 

Standard Form 171, and 

At least three references from those wh

have knowledge of the applicant's capabil

ties. 

FEC PRESCRIBES PRIMARY 

MATCHING FUND REGULATIONS 

On April 4, 1983, the Commission prescribe

revised regulations governing the payment 

federal money in the form of primary matchin

funds to eligible Presidential primary candidate

See II CFR Parts 106 and 9031-9039. 

The revised regulations clarify and simpli

administration of the primary matching fund pr

gram. For example, they clarify provisions in th

law which have caused uncertainty in the pas

such as the allocation of campaign expenditur

under the state spending limits. They provide 

fuller explanation of the certification and aud

procedures for publicly funded Presidential pr

mary campaigns. Moreover, they cover aspects 

the P residential primary process not previous

addressed in the FEC's regulations. 

These regulations were published in their entire

in the February 4, 1983, issue of the Feder

Register (48 Fed. Reg. 5224). Highlights of maj

modifications in the regulations appeared in th

March 1983 Record. 

continue
May1g83	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume g,Number

STATUS OF FEC REGULATIONS 

Regulations·	 

Date 

to Congress 

Sent 

Publication 

Federal Register 

by 

Date 

the 

Prescribed·· 

Commission 

11 CFR \l0.11 

Disclaimer Notices 

2/25/83 3/2/83 

48 Fed. Reg. 8809 

11 CFR 110.12(a)(2) - (a)(4) 

Annual Honoraria Limit 

NA 4/8/82 

47 Fed. Reg. 15098 

4/8/82 

11 CFR 114.3 and \l4.4 

Communications by 

Corporations and 

Labor Organizations 

3/1/83 3/4/83 

48 Fed. Reg. 9236 

II CFR 106 and 9031 - 9039 

Presidential Primary 

Matching Fund 

1/24/83 2/4/83 

48 Fed. Reg. 5224 

4/4/83 

*The chart is cwnulative, listing all amendments to the FEC 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, provided neither the House nor the Senate disapproves them during this period. 

PUBLIC FUNDING FOR PRESIDENTIAL 

GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS: 

RULEMAKING NOTICE 

On March 24, 1983, the Commission decided 

to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning revisions to FEC Regulations governing 

the public funding of Presidential general election 

campaigns. (See II CFR Parts 9001 et ~.) The 

FEC notice, which appeared in the April 4, 1983, 

issue of the Federal Register (48 Fed. Reg. 

14532), seeks comments on three major areas of 

proposed revisions to the current regulatlonse 

I.	 Clarification of Current Provisions. The suggested revisions, based on the Commission's 

experience in administering the public 

funding program in 1980, would clarify 

existing rules. For example, they would 

provide a fuller explanation of the FEC's 

procedures for conducting statutorily mandated audits and for preparing audit reports 

for public release. Another suggested revision 

would set forth the requirements pertaining 

to a general election candidate's statement 

of net outstanding qualified campaign expenses. 

2.	 New Provisions. The suggested revisions 

would add new provisions to cover aspects of 

the Presidential general election process not 

previously addressed in the regulations. For 

example, several proposed revisions would 

allow eligible independent Presidential candidates (i.e., candidates with no party aff'iliation) to receive public funding for thei

general election campaigns.* 

3.	 Conforming Amendments. The proposed rev

sions would make the rules governing genera

election campaigns consistent with recen

revisions to the rules governing primary cam

paigns. Affected in this regard, for example

would be the rules governing the allocation o

travel expenses and the sale of asset

acquired for fundraising purposes. 

Com ments or questions on the proposed revision

should be submitted to Ms. Susan E. Propper

Assistant General Counsel, by May 4, 1983. Ms

Propper may be contacted at 202/523-4143 or b

writing to the Commission at 1325 K Street

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. The Commissio

will schedule a public hearing on the propose

revisions at a later date. Those interested i

testifying at the hearing should so indicate i

their written comments. 

* Under the Presidential Election Campaig

Fund Act, candidates who are affiliated with 

new or minor party may become eligible fo

partial public funding after the general election i

they received between 5 and 25 percent of the 

total popular votes cast in 'the election. In 

subsequent Presidential election, they may re

ceive partial public funding prior to the genera

election, provided they meet certain eligibilit

9003, 9004 and 9005. 

requirements. See 26 U.S.C. sections 9002(2)

2 
May 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Numoor

• 

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICFS 

The items below identify FEC documents 

that appeared in the Federal Register during 

March and April 1983. Copies of these notices are 

available in the Public Records Office. 

Notice	 Title 

1983-7	 Rulemaking Petition: Notice of Availability requested by National Council of 

Farmers Cooperatives (NCFC) (48 Fed. 

Reg. 13265, March 30, 1983) 

1983-8	 Presidential Primary Matching Fund 

Regulations: Final Rules (48 Fed. Reg. 

14347, April 4, 1983) 

1983-9	 Presidential Election Campaign Fund: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

PUblicly Funded General Election Campaigns (48 Fed. Reg. 14532, April 4, 

1983) 

• 

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS 

The following chart lists recent requests fo

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of eac

AOR is available to the public in the Commis

sion's Office of Public Records. 

AOR	 Subject 

1983-7	 Exploratory committee established t

test the waters for candidacy for feder

al office. (Date made public: March 10

1983; Length: 2 pages) 

1983-8	 Fund established to purchase offic

space for national party committee

(Date made public: March 16, 1983

Length: 3 pages, plus 8-page supple

ment) 

1983-9	 Primary matching fund eligibility fo

Presidential candidate whose out

standing personal loan to pay fo

testing-the-water activities may ex

ceed $50,000. (Date made public

March 17, 1983; Length: 4 pages) 

1983-10	 Independent expenditures (exceedin

$1,000) made by unauthorized commit

tee on behalf of publicly funded Presi

dential nominee in 1984. (Date mad

publics March 22, 1983; Length: 

pages) 

1983-11	 Independent expenditures (exceedin

$1,000) made by unauthorized commit

tee on behalf of publicly funded Presi

dential nominee in 1984; (Date mad

publics March 22, 1983; Length: 

pages) 

1983-12	 Testimonials for federal officeholder

broadcast by nonconnected politica

committee. (Date made publics Marc

28, 1983; Length: 3 pages) 

continue

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.

3
 
May 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, NumberS 

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 A0 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 

sum mary given here. 

AO 1983-5: Campaign Funds Used to Reward 

Regular Contributors 

The Ronnie G. Flippo Committee (the committee), Mr. Flippo's authorized campaign committee 

in 1982, may use campaign funds to provide 

special recognition to supporters who give the 

committee regular financial support. For example, the committee may sponsor special receptions for the contributors or give them special 

certificates or mementos. Payments the committee makes for these activities and items would be 

considered campaign expenditures, subject to the 

reporting requirements of the Act and Commission Regulations. See 2 U.S.C. §434(b) and II CFR 

104.3(b). Moreover, the expenditures would count 

toward the $5,000 threshold for becoming a candidate in 1984. Once that threshold was exceeded, 

Mr. Flippo would have to register by filing a new 

Statement of Candidacy on FEC Form 2 or by 

letter. 2 U.S.C. §431(2) and II CFR 100.3, 10i.i 

and 102.12. (Date issued: March 10, 1983; Length: 

2 pages) 

AO 1983-6: Settlement of Disputed Bill 

Reached by Hotel Corporation 

and County Party Organization 

The Jacksonville Hilton Hotel (the hotel), which is 

owned by the Hilton Hotel Corporation, recently 

settled a disputed bill with the Duval County 

Democratic Women's Club (the club), an unregistered county party organization. Under the terms 

of the settlement, the hotel repaid a portion of 

the funds which the club had advanced to it for 

catering the club's banquet. (The club claimed 

that it had guaranteed payment for 100 dinners, 

not for the 120 dinners billed by the hotel.) The 

hotel's repayment would not be considered a prohibited corporate contribution to the club because 

the banquet was strictly a social event; it was not 

held in connection with a federal election. 

The Commission noted that this opinion did not 

preclude corporate vendors from making proper 

refunds or rebates to political committees or 

making payments to them to settle disputed bills. 

Such payments, however, had to be made on 

commercially reasonable basis and in the ordinary 

course of business. (Date issued: March 10, 1983

Length: 2 pages) 

INDEPENDENT SPENDING INCREASES 

Independent expenditures made to influence 

the outcome of 1982 Congressional races in

creased 143 percent over independent spending in 

1980 Congressional races. A total of $5.7 million 

was spent independently during 1981-82 on Con

gressional races, while a total of $2.3 million wa

spent during 1979-80. (Under the federal election 

law, an independent expenditure is an expenditure 

for a communication expressly advocating the 

election or defeat of a clearly identified candi

date. The expenditure must be made withou

cooperation or consultation with the candidate o

his/her carnpaign.) 

According to information released by the FEC on 

March 22, 1983, 80 percent of the money spen

independently during 1981-82 advocated the de

feat of 87 House and Senate candidates. During 

1979-80, 59 percent of the money spent independ

ently advocated the defeat of 58 Congressiona

candidates. 

While the amount of money spent independently 

during 1981-82 increased significantly, the num

ber of political action committees (PACs), * indi

viduals and other groups making these expend

itures decreased. During 1981-82, 70 PACs, seven 

individuals and 15 other groups made expenditure

independently of Congressional candidates' cam

paigns. By contrast, during 1979-80, independen

expenditures were made by 105 PACs, 33 individ

uals and 80 other groups. However, the 1980 

expenditures included independent expenditure

made to influence the outcome of Presidentia

elections, as well as Congressional races. 

Although 91 percent (or $5.2 million) of all inde

pendent spending during 1981-82 was by PACs

this spending accounted for only about three per

cent of total PAC spending during the period. 

*pA C is a popular term used to define 

political committee that has not been authorized 

by 0 candidate or political party. The term in

cludes separate segregated funds sponsored b

corporations and labor organizations, as well a

political committees without any sponsorin

organization. 

4 
May 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9,Numoo

• 

Chart I below lists the political committees 

making the largest independent expenditures 

during 1981-82. Chart II lists the candidates for 

or against whom the most money was spent. 

CHART I 

COMMI'ITllllS REPORTING LARGEST 

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES 

Political Committee	 Amount Spent 

This article responds to questions received b

the Public Communications Office on how t

calculate the spending ceilings for: 

l, Campaign expenditures made by publicl

funded Presidential candidates in their pr

mary campaigns; and 

2.	 Special (§44Ia(d)) expenditures which part

committees may make on behalf of feder

candidates in general elections. 

SPENDING LIMITS FOR PUBLICLY 

FUNDED PRESIDENTIAL 

PRIMARY CANDIDATES 

What are the spending limits for Presidenti

candidates who accept public funding for the

primary campaigns? 

Presidential primary candidates who becom

eligible for primary matching funds must comp

with the following spending limits: 

National limit: campaign spending for a

primary elections may not exceed $10 mi

lion, plus the cost-of-living adjustmen

(COLA); 

State limit: campaign spending in each stat

may not exceed $200,000, plus COLA; or 

specified amount based on the number o

voting age individuals in the state (plu

COLA), whichever is greater; and 

Personal limit: spending from personal fund

may not exceed $50,000. 

What was the actual limit in 1980? 

In 1980, the COLA increased the nation

primary spending limit by $4,720,000, bringing 

to $14,720,000. 

Are there any campaign expenditures which ar

exempt from the spending limits? 

Yes, the following expenditures do not cou

against the overall national spending limit: 

Legal and accounting expenditures mad

solely to ensure compliance with the law; an

A limited amount of certain fundraising e

penses (up to 20 percent of the nation

spending limit). 

COORDINATED PARTY 

EXPENDITURE LIMITS 

What are coordinated party expenditures? 

Coordinated party expenditures are limite

special expenditures which party committees ma

make on behalf of their nominees in the gener

elections. 2 U.S.C. §44Ia(d)j II CFR 110.7. The

National Conservative Political 

Action Committee 

Fund for a Conservative Majority 

Citizens Organized to Replace 

Kennedy 

Life Amendment Political 

Action Committee 

NRA Political Victory Fund 

American Medical Association 

Political Action Committee 

Realtors Political Action Committee 

Progressive Political Action 

Committee 

Independent Action, Inc. 

League of Conservation Voters 

$3,177,210 

390,170 

349,199 

255,188 

234,516 

211,624 

188,060 

142,885 

132,920 

129,163 

• CHART II 

CANDIDATES FOR OR AGAINST WHOM MOST 

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES WERE MADE 

Spending Spending 

Candidate For Against 

Senate 

Edward Kennedy (D-MA) $ 1,350 $1,078,434 

Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) 30,351 697,763 

Robert Byrd (D-WV) 

John Melcher (D-MT) 

Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) 

10,034 

40,968 

270,168 

228,°II 

225,119 

Lowell Weicker (R-en 21,248 200,508 

Howard Cannon (D-NV) 192,801 

Edmond Brown (D-CA) 9,482 165,176 

Orrin Hatch (R-trn 22,081 85,964 

Harrison Schmitt (R-NM) 5,682 79,767 

House 

Thomas P. O'Neill (D-MA) $ 301,055 

Jim Wright (D-TX) 217,115 

Jim Jones (D-OK) $13,266 127,029 

Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) 57,507 

Bob Edgar (D-P A) 24,762 8,943 

Jim Dunn (R-MI) 24,013 8,692 

• 

Bill Chappell (D-FL) 

John Kasich (R-OH) 

Jim Coyne (R-PA) 

Edward Weber (R-OH) 

30,332 

27,294 

25,019 

17,442 

1,681 

8,692 

continue

5 
May 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Number 5 

special expenditures count neither as contributions to the candidate nor as expenditures by the 

candidate or the candidate's authorized committees. The party committee may coordinate the 

expenditures with the candidate's campaign, but 

the party committee -- not the candidate -- must 

report them, using Schedule F of FEC Form 3X. 

Moreover, the party committee or organization 

must actually make the expenditure; money given 

directly to a candidate counts as a contribution 

rather than as a coordinated party expenditure. 

Do separate spending ceilings apply to the national and state party committees? 

Yes. The national committee of a political 

party has a separate spending limit for each 

Senate and House candidate in the general election. State party committees are subject to separate spending limits for Senate and House general 

election candidates in their respective states. 

Within a state, all expenditures made on behalf of 

one candidate by the state party committee and 

any subordinate party committee (e.g., county, 

district, local) are subject to one spending limit. 

May national and state party committees also 

make coordinated expenditures to support their 

party's Presidential ticket in the general election? 

In the Presidential elections, only the national committee may make coordinated expenditures 

on behalf of the party's Presidential nominee, 

although any agent, including a state or local 

party committee, may be designated by the national committee to make Presidential coordinated party expenditures. II CFR 110.7(a). A 

separate spending limit applies to the expenditures the national committee makes on behalf of 

the Presidential ticket. If the national committee 

designates a state or subordinate party committee 

to make these expenditures, the national committee nevertheless remains responsible for ensuring 

that the limit is not exceeded. 

What are the spending limits based on? 

The statutory formula for the party spending 

limits is based on yearly adjustments of: 

The voting age population (VAP) for each 

state, supplied by the Department of Commerce; and 

The annual change in the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI), certified by the Secretary of 

Labor, using 1974 as the base year. The CPI, 

in turn, determines the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) used to calculate the spending 

limits. 

For House candidates in states with mor

than one district, $10,000 plus COLA.· 

For House candidates in states entitled to 

only one 

or $.02 x 

representative, 

the state voting 

$20,000 plus COLA

age populatio

(VAP), plus COLA, whichever is greater.
 

For Senate candidates, $20,000 plus COLA

or $.02 x the state voting age populatio

(VAP), plus COLA, whichever is greater.
 

How are the spending limits calculated for party 

spending on behalf of a Presidential nominee? 

A national party committee may spend up to 

$.02 x the national voting age population (VAP)

plus COLA, on behalf of its Presidential nominee 

in the general election. In 1980, the spending limi

for each major party Presidential nominee wa

$4,637,653.76. 

When will the spending limits for the 1984 elec

tions be published? 

The 1984 spending limits will be published in 

the FEC Record during the first quarter of 1984. 

SATELLITE BUSINESS SYSTEMS v. FEe 

for the 

On March 15, 1983, 

District of Columbia 

the U.S. 

granted 

District 

Satellite 

Cour

Business Systems' (SBS's) motion to dismiss, with

out prejudice, its suit against the FEC. 

In its suit, filed in October 1982, SBS had claimed 

that the FEC had misconstrued Section 44Ib(a) of 

the Act in an advisory opinion issued to SBS in 

March 1982. In that opinion (AO 1981-56), the 

Commission had stated that the Act barred SBS (a 

partnership of three corporations) from either 

establishing a separate segregated fund or making 

direct contributions for federal elections. SBS had 

asked the court to declare that: 

1.	 The Commission's decision in AO 1981-56 

was erroneous and tha t SBS should have been 

allowed to participate in federal elections

and 

2.	 Section 44Ib(a), as construed by the Commis

sion in AO 1981-56, had violated SBS's Firs

and Fifth Amendment rights. 

continued 

How are the spending limits for House and Senate 

candidates calculated? *

Party committees may also use this formula 

The national and state party committees may to calculate the spending limits for Delegate 

each spend: candidates from the District of Columbia, Guam 

or 

dent 

the 

Commissioner 

Virgin Islands; or for 

from Puerto Rico. 

candidates for Resi

6
 
May 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COIV1IV1ISSI01\J Volume 9, Number 

• 

SBS and four of its managerial personnel filed the 

motion to dismiss on March 4, 1983, stating that 

SBS was "not now in a position to commit the 

additional personnel and financial resources that 

it currently appears would be necessary to litigate••." the suit. In asking the court to dismiss its 

suit without prejudice, SBS argued that the FEC 

would not "suffer plain legal prejudice other than 

the mere prospect of a second lawsuit." The 

Commission has, however, asked the court for 

attorneys' fees and costs. 

PEC v. NICK MASTORELLI
 

CAMPAIGN PUND
 

On March 28, 1983, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of New Jersey entered a default 

judgment against the defendants in FEC v. Nick 

Mastorelli Cam ai n Fund (Civil Action No. 82­

0774F. The court decreed that the Mastorelli 

Campaign and its treasurer had violated provisions of the election law by: 

1.	 Failing to file reports required for the 1978 

election year on time and by failing to file 

the semiannual reports required for 1980 and 

thereafter (2 U.S. C. §434a); 

2.	 Accepting contributions in 1978 from four 

corporations (2 U.S.C. §441b(a»; 

3.	 Accepting excessive contributions, in the 

form of a loan, from three individuals (2 

U.S.C. §44Ia(f); and 

•	 - 4. Accepting $21,050 in excessive cash contributions in 1978 (2 U.S.C. §441a(f). 

The district court also found that certain contributors to the Mastorelli Campaign had violated the 

election law by: 

1.	 Making cash contributions in excess of $100 

to the campaign (2 U.S.C. §441g); and 

2.	 Making contributions in the name of another 

(2 U.S.C. §441f). 

The court permanently enjoined the defendants 

from any further violations of the election law. 

The court also assessed a $5,000 civil penalty 

against the Mastorelli Campaign and its treasurer 

as well as against each of the individual defendants named in the suit. 

NEW LmGATION 

Common Cause v. FEC 

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8XA), Common Cause, a nonprofit membership organization, 

asks the district court to: 

• 

Declare that, in failing to act on Common 

Cause's complaint within 120 days, the FEC 

acted contrary to law; and 

Issue an order directing the Commission to 

take final action on the complaint within 30 

days. 

7 

Common Cause claims that it had filed an admi

istrative complaint with the FEC on Septemb

26, 1980, alleging that five political committe

were engaged in making independent expenditur

on behalf of the 1980 Republican Presidenti

nominee, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §9012(f).* (Th

provision prohibits unauthorized committees fro

making expenditures exceeding $1,000 to furth

the election of a publicly funded Presidenti

candidate.) In further alleging that the commi

tees were not, in fact, independent of the offici

Reagan campaign, Common Cause claimed th

the committees' activities also resulted in viol

tions of: 

26 U.S.C. §90 12(b)(I), which makes it unlaw

ful for a major party Presidential nomin

who receives public funding to accept priva

contributions; 

26 U.S.C. §90 12(a)(I), which makes it unlaw

ful for a major party Presidential nominee 

incur campaign expenditures in excess of th

amount of public funding he receives; and 

2 U.S.C. §44Ia(a), which prohibits politic

committees from making contributions in e

cess of $5,000, per election, to a feder

candidate. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbi

Docket No. 83-0720, March 14, 1983. 

FEC v. Harvey Purgatch 

The FEC asks the district court to decla

that Mr. Furgatch violated the following prov

sions of the election law: 

I.	 2 U.S.C. §434(c), by failing to report ind

pendent expenditures (of approximate

$25,008). He incurred the expenditures f

two political ads he had placed in The Ne

York Times and The Boston Globe, respe

tively, Which expressly advocated the defe

of President Carter in his 1980 reelectio

bid; and 

continue

*On July 15, 1980, the FEC had filed suit 

the district court against three of the committe

named in Common Cause's complaint. The FE

sought the court's declaratory judgment that th

committees' proposed expenditures were in viol

tion of 26 U.S.C. section 9012(t! and that th

provision was constitutional as applied to th

committees' expenditures. On August 28, 198

the court ruled that section 9012(f) was unconst

tutional as applied to the defendant committee

On January 19, 1982, the Supreme Court voted 

to 4 on the issue. While this split vote left th

district court decision intact, the Court itse

made no ruling on the constitutionality of th

provision. 
May 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Number 5 

2.	 2 U.S.C. S44ld, by failing to include an 

adequate disclaimer notice on the ad he had 

placed in The Boston Globe. 

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

California, Docket No. 83-0596-K(I), March 25, 

1983. 

FEC v. J. David Dominelli 

The FEC asks the district court to declare 

that Mr. Dominelli violated Section 434(c) of the 

election law by failing to report independent 

expenditures he made during 1980, which 

amounted to $8,471. Mr. Dominelli incurred the 

independent expenditures for an ad he had placed 

in a November 1980 issue of The Chica¥o Tribune, 

which expressly advocated the defeat 0 President 

Carter in his reelection bid. 

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

California, Docket No. 83-0595-GT(M), March 25, 

1983. 

FEC TESTIFIES ON FY 1984 BUDGET 

During four Congressional hearings held in 

March and April, FEC Vice Chairman Lee Ann 

Elliott requested a "bare-bones, no-frills budget" 

of $10,343,139 for the Commission during fiscal 

year (FY) 1984. Accompanied by FEC Chairman 

Danny L. McDonald and Commissioner John Warren McGarry, Vice Chairman Elliott testified before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 

Service and General Government of the U.S. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 

1325 K Street, NW.
 

Washington, D.C. 20463
 

Official Business 

Senate Committee on Appropriations; the Senat

Committee on Rules and Administration; th

House Committee on Appropriation's Subcommit

tee 

ernment; 

on Treasury, 

and the 

Postal 

Task 

Service 

Force on 

and 

Elections 

General 

of 

Gov

th

Committee on House Administration. 

Mrs. Elliott explained that, in terms of rea

dollars, the Commission's FY 1984 budget reques

was the third smallest appropriation request i

the Commission's eight-year history. When ad

justed for inflation, the $10.3 million reques

equated to $5,172,500 (based on 1974 dollars)

During the 1980 Presidential election year, th

Commission operated on a $6,077,000 appropria

tion (based on 1974 dollars). 

The Commission believes that, because it ha

instituted a number of economies, the agency wil

be able to carry out its responsibilities at th

$10.3 million level, Mrs. Elliott testified. Econo

mies include: more efficient procedures fo

handling the review of reports and computer entry 

of campaign finance data; revisions to FEC Regu

lations which will help reduce staff time spent o

audits of Presidential campaigns; streamlined pro

cedures for internal operations and more efficien

use of personnel. (During 1980, the Commissio

operated with 271 full-time employees, whereas

in 1984, it plans to operate with the equivalent o

245 full-time employees.) 

Mrs. Elliott explained that "nineteen eighty-fou

is a presidential election year. The Commission 

has special mandated responsibilities during thi

period. Not only will there be many additiona

reports to be disclosed and reviewed, but the 

Commission must act on requests for funds from 

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund for pri

maries, party conventions, and the general elec

tion. There are compulsory certification of public 

funds as well as audit functions in connection with 

Presidential public funding." 

First Class Mail
 

Postage & Fees Paid
 

FEC
 

Washington, D.C.
 

Permit No. G-31
 

8