..Iuti1983

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 9,Numt:e

•

•

REPORTS DUE IN JUL Y

During July, all registered political committees are required to file semiannual, quarterly or

monthly reports, depending on the type of committee they are. The following paragraphs explain

the reporting schedule for the various categories

of filers.

Semiannual Filers

The following committees must file a semiannual report by JUly 31, covering activity from

the last report filed or the date of registration,

whichever is later, through June 30, 1983:

All committees authorized by candidates for

Congress; and

All com mittees not authorized by candidates

(t.e., unauthorized committees) which have

chosen to file on a semiannual (rather than a

monthly) basis.

Note that committees active in the California and

Illinois special elections may not have to file a

semiannual report. (See below.)

Quarterly Filers

Committees authorized by Presidential candidates that have chosen to file on a quarterly

(rather than a monthly) basis are required to file a

quarterly report by July 15. The report should

cover all activity from the closing date of the last

report filed or from the date of registration,

Whichever is later, through June 30, 1982.

Monthly Filers

Unauthorized committees and authorized

Presidential committees which have chosen to file

on a monthly basis must file their July monthly

report by July 20. The report should cover all

activity from the closing date of the last report

filed or from the date of registration, whichever

is later, through June 30.

Change in Filing Frequency

Unauthorized committees that plan to change

their reporting schedule (from monthly to quarterly or from quarterly to monthly) must notify

the Commission of their intention. The committee

may notify the Commission by SUbmitting a letter

with the next report due under the old reporting

schedule. A committee may not change its fili

frequency more than once a year. 11 CFR 104

(c). The FEC requests that Presidential co

mittees also inform the Commission in writing 

they decide to change their reporting schedule.

Special Election Filers: California and Dlinois

The semiannual reporting schedule has be

modified for political committees (both candida

and noncandidate) active in the special electio

held in California and Illinois. These com mitte

should consult the special notices prepared by t

Commission and the article in the June Recor

page 1.

Forms and Information

Reporting forms and additional informati

have been sent to all registered committee

alerting them to their reporting requiremen

Questions and requests for additional forms shou

be addressed to the Office of Public Communie

Hans, Federal Election Commission, 1325 

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or c

202/523-4068 or toll free 800/424-9530.

SPENDING LIMITS FOR PARTY

COMMITTEESIN ILLINOIS

SPECIAL ELECI'ION

National and state party committees m

make limited, coordinated expenditures on beh

of their Congressional candidates in the Illin

special general election, Which will be held 

August 23, 1983. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d); 11 CFR 110

The national committee of a party may ma

expenditures of up to $19,570 in support of 

candidate. In addition, the state party committe

together with any subordinate party committe

(e.g., county, district and local), may make co

bined eoord ina ted expenditures that are subject 

a single limit of $19,57O.

Special coordinated party expenditures count n

ther as contributions to a candidate nor as expe

ditures by the candidate or the candidate's a

thorized committees. The expenditures mu

however, be reported; the party committee d

closes them on Schedule F, FEC Form 3X. T

FEC has sent informational notices to party co

mittees in Illinois. For further information, co

tact the Commission at 202/523-4068 or toll fr

800/424-9530.
July 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Num

ADVlSORY 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

1983-16 Coordinated party (§441a(d» expenditures made in special election with possible runoff. (Date made public: June

10, 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 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 1982-64: Campaign's Assumption of

Candidate's Outstanding

Personal Loan

Mr. Ron Hein, a Congressional candidate during

1978, obtained two loans in 1978 to pay for

personal living expenses incurred during his primary campaign and to consolidate personal debts

prior to the campaign. If his principal campaign

committee for the 1978 primary, Ron Hein for

Congress (the Committee), solicits contributions

to retire that portion of the loan used for his

living expenses, the contributions will be subject

to the limits for the 1978 primary, as well as the

prohibitions and other requirements of the Act

and FEC Regulations,

Under Com mission Regulations, living expenses

which a candidate pays from personal funds are

not considered campaign "expenditures" and are

not, therefore, subject to the election law. 

if Mr. Hein were to repay the loan with per

funds, the payment would not come within 

purview of the Act. If, however, he assign

loan to his Committee and the Committee r

funds to retire the loan, then both the loan 

the funds raised to liquidate the loan be

subject to the Act's requirements. 11 CFR 

(a)(4)(iv), 104.3(d), et al, The Committee w

report the loan on its next report. It would 

have to amend past reports unless it had r

funds for retiring the debt during a past repo

period. Nor would the Committee have to r

Mr. Rein as its creditor. See also AO's 197

and 1977-58; AO's 1976-70, 1976-84 and 197

(Date issued: February 10, 1983; Length: 5 pa

AO 1983-1: Portion of Congressman's

Rent Paid by Campaign

Committee

The principal campaign committee of Cong

man Lawrence Coughlin may pay one-third o

rent on a three-room residence retained by 

Congressman in his district. One of the room

the residence is used to store campaign sup

(Including furniture and equipment used at 

paign headquarters). The committee must re

the rental payments as expenditures. pursua

2 U.S.C. §434 and 11 CFR 104.3(b).

Under the election law and Commission Re

tions. a candidate and his or her campaign 

mittee have wide discretion in making exp

tures to influence the candidate's electio

U.S.C. §43l(a). (Date issued: February 10. 

Length: 2 pages)

AO 1983-10: $1,000 Limit on Spending by

AO 1983-11: Unauthorized Committees on

Behalf of Publicly Funded

Presidential Nominee

The National Conservative Political Action C

mittee and the Fund For A Conservative Maj

(the Committees), two multlcandidate pol

committees not authorized by any candi

could each spend up to $1,000 on behalf of P

dent Reagan's 1984 general election camp

should he seek reelection as a publicly fu

candidate. (Since the committees' requests 

advisory opinions presented materially ind

conti

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 o

Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

2
July 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Number7

•

•

guishable circumstances, the Com mission issued

substantively identical opinions to them.)

Section 9012(f) of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act imposes a $1,000 limit on expenditures made by an unauthorized committee to

further the election of a publicly funded Presidential nominee. This provision applies when expenditures are made to benefit an "eligible candidate, n that is, someone who has met the conditions for eligibility for public funds and who has

received his party's nomination for President.

The Com mission noted that an August 28, 1981,

ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia in FEC v. Americans for Chan e did

not affect the application of the 1,000 spending

limit to the committees' proposed expenditures. In

that ruling, the district court held that Section

9012(f)'s prohibition on expenditures in excess of

$1,000 was unconstitutional On January 19, 1982,

however, the Supreme Court voted 4 to 4 on the

ease, While the Court's split vote left the district

court decision intact, the Court's equally divided

affirmance of that ruling left the issue of the

constitutionality of Section 9012<0 unresolved.

Moreover, since the Court's affirmance of the

district court's decision was equally divided, it

had no precedential effect. Commissioner Lee

Ann Elliott filed a concurring opinion. (Date

issued: May 18, 1983; Length: 8 pages, including

concurring opinion)

GOVERNOR ASKEW ELIGIBLE FOR

PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS

On May 19, 1983, the Commission determined

that Governor Reubin Askew, a Democratic candidate for President, was eligible to receive federal matching funds for his 1984 primary campaign. (For a complete explanation of the eligibility requirements, consult 26 U.S.C. §9033 and

Commission Regulations at 11 CFR 9033 and

9036.1.)

Under the election law, Presidential candidates

may begin seeking eligibility for primary matching funds after January 1, 1983. However, the

U.S. Treasury may not make actual pay ments

before January 1, 1984. The maximum amount of

matching funds an eligible candidate may receive

during 1984 is equal to half the overall spending

limit established by law for each puhlicly funded

Presidential primary candidate ($10 million, plus a

cost-of'-Ilvlng adjustment).

3

SUMMARY OF MUBs

The Act gives the FEC exclusive jurisdictio

for its civil enforcement. Potential violations ar

assigned case numbers by the Office of Genera

Counsel and become "Matters Under Review

(MURs). All MUR investigations are kept conf

dential by the Commission, as required by th

Act. (For a summary of compliance procedures

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

Part i n.)

This article does not summarize every stage i

the compliance process. Rather, the summar

provides only enough background to make clea

the Commission's final determination. Note tha

the Commission's actions are not necessaril

based on, or in agreement with, the Genera

Counsel's analysis. The full text of this MUR 

available for review and purchase in the Commi

sion's Public Records Office.

MUR 1038: Draft Committees

In Presidential Election

On December 9, 1982, the Commission voted t

take no further action with regard to allege

violations of the election law and Commissio

Regulations by 11 "draft committees" and othe

parties that had actively promoted the Presiden

tial candidacy of a Democratic Senator durin

1979. The Commission's decision to terminate it

investigation was precipitated by rulings of U.S

appeals courts during 1981 and 1982. The court

declined to enforce certain Commission subpoena

on the ground that committees organized to draf

individuals for federal office were not politica

committees within the purview of the electio

law and were not, therefore, subject to the Com

mission's investigatory authority. Since the Com

mission was unable to obtain the evidence i

sought pertaining to the allegations, it voted t

close the file on the case.

Complaint: On October 4, 1979, the authorize

campaign committee of the Democratic Presi

dent, who was seeking reelection in 1980 (th

Presidential Committee) filed a complaint agains

"draft committees" which had been engaged i

promoting the Presidential candidacy of a Demo

cratic Senator during 1979. In its complaint, th

Committee also named as respondents the sepa

rate segregated fund of an international labo

organization and certain individuals. The Presi

dential Committee alleged that:

The draft committees had failed to disclos

their affiliation (in violation of 2 U.S.C

S433(b)(2»).

continue
July 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Num

As affiliated committees subject to a single

$5,000 contribution limit, the draft committees had accepted excessive contributions

from the international labor organization's

PAC and from certain individuals (in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441a(r»,

The international labor organization's PAC

and the individuals, in turn, had viola ted the

election law by making excessive contributions to the draft committees (2 U.S.C.

§§44la(a)(l)(C) and (2) (C».

Two of the draft committees had failed to

register and report to the Commission as

political committees (in violation of 2 U.S.C.

§§433 and 434).

On November 2, 1979, the Presidential Committee filed an amendment to its original complaint

in which it identified additional parties who allegedly either failed to report their affiliation with

the draft committees or made excessive contributions to the committees. The complainant also

claimed that the Senator had become a candidate

one month earlier than the date he filed a Statement of Candidacy (in violation of 2 U.S.C. §432).

General Counsel's Report: The General Counsel

noted that the complainant had presented evidence which, on its face, demonstrated that the

draft committees may have been part of a coordinated national effort to defeat the renomination

of the incumbent President and to promote the

nomination of the Democratic Senator instead.

The General Counsel's analysis regarding each

allegation is detailed below:

Failure to Re ort Affiliation. Under the Federal

Election Campaign Act i.e, the election law),

political committees are required to report their

affiliation on their Statements of Organization

(FEC Form 1) if the committees have been

"established, financed, maintained, or controlled

by the same corporation, labor organization, person or group of persons...."2 U.S.C. §44la(a)(5).

Commission regulations spell out several different

criteria for determining whether committees are

affiliated. See 11 CFR 100.14(c)(i)(E). The General Counsel observed that, in this case, the draft

committees appeared to be affiliated for the

following reasons:

1. The draft committees seemed to have been

established and financed by a common group

of persons. For example, one or more officials of the international labor organization

appeared to have acted as a founding member

or organizer of each one of the draft committees. Moreover, reports filed with the

Commission showed that the union had provided a substantial portion of the initial financing for four draft committees. Reports

also indicated that the same major donors

4

made contributions to a number of the 

mittees.

2. The draft committees seemed to have 

maintained and controlled by a com

group of persons. The common mainten

and control of the draft committees took 

form of extensive communioattons, stra

coordination, transfers of funds among 

committees, sharing of personnel, exch

of political intelligence and similar ac

ties. These activities appeared to have 

coordinated mainly by officials of the i

national labor organization, a political 

sultant for the draft committees and on

the Washington-based draft groups. FEC 

ports also indicated that some of the 

mittees had used the same consultant or 

contracted with the same vendors.

With regard to common financial control

evidence showed a pattern wherein the 

committees solicited and then transferre

acted as a conduit for, contributions to 

committees in the states with early prim

or caucuses.

Excessive Contributions. Based on his belief 

the draft committees were affiliated, the Ge

Counsel concluded that there was reason to 

lieve the international labor organization's 

and certain individuals violated the election 

by making excessive contributions to the 

committees. The draft committees, in turn

peared to have violated the election law by 

cepting the contributions. (Under the ele

law, affiliated Committees are subject to a s

$5,000 limit on both contributions they rec

and contributions they make. 2 U.S.C. §441a(

AO's 1976-104 and 1978-39.) The General Co

cited reports filed by the labor PAC, which 

closed contributions of $5,000 made to eac

four draft committees.

Failure to Register Bno R~T)ort. Under the 

tion law, a committee, club, association or 

group is required to register and report 

political committee when the group receives 

tributions or makes expenditures which, in 

aggregate, exceed $1,000 during the year. 

General Counsel cited evidence supporting 

complainant's allegation that two of the 

committees (one based in California, the oth

Washington, D.C.) qualified as "political com

tees" because they had each made expendi

exceeding $1,000 to promote the Senator's c

dacy.

Senator's Failure to Disclose Candidacy on T

The General Counsel recommended that the 

mission find no reason to believe that the Se
JUty1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

had failed to file a Statement of Candidacy on

time (in violation of 2 U.S.C. §432). Although the

Presidential Committee claimed that the Senator

and agents of his campaign had informally consented to expenditures by certain draft committees several weeks prior to the date he filed his

Statement of Candidacy, the Senator had filed a

statement with the Commission disavowing any

activities undertaken on his behalf by the draft

committees. The General Counsel believed that

the Presidential Committee had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the Senator's disavowal

of the draft committees' activities.

Reason to Believe Finding. Based on the evidence

available, the General Counsel recom mended that

the Commission find reason to believe that:

The draft com rnittees had failed to report

their affiliation, in violation of 2 U.S.C.

§433(b)(2) and 11 CFR 102.2(a)(2).

One of the draft committees had failed to

report a membership organization as its connected organization, in violation of 2 U.S.C.

§432(b)(2) and 11 CFR 102.2(a)(2).

The PAC of an international labor organization and several individuals had each exceeded the $5,000 limit on total contributions

each contributor could make to these draft

committees, in violation of 2 U.S.C. §441a

(a)( I)(C)-(2)( C).

Those draft committees which received a

contribution from the PAC of the international labor organization had jointly accepted

an excessive contribution in violation of 2

U.S.C. §441a(f).

Those draft com mittees which received contributions from certain individuals had jointly

accepted excessive contributions in violation

of 2 U.S.C. §441a(f).

The General Counsel recommended that the Commission take no further action with regard to the

Senator's failure to file a timely Statement of

Candidacy.

On October 16 and November 14, 1979, the Commission voted on the General Counsel's recommendations, adopting them with the following

exceptions:

The Commission voted to take no further

action on claims pertaining to excessive contributions from those individuals named in

the complaint; and

The Commission found reason to believe that

the Senator may have failed to file a timely

Statement of Candidacy.

Court Actions. Several of the respondent committees and the union PAC refused to comply with

the FEC's SUbpoenas for documents. Consequently, the Commission filed five separate suits in

5

Volume 9, Numte

u.S. district courts seeking enforcement of doc

ment subpoenas issued to four of the draft com

mittees and to the union PAC. In all cases, th

district courts ordered enforcement of the su

poenas. The courts maintained that the subpoen

met the guidelines for enforceability and we

within the authority of the FEC.

The international labor organization's PAC a

two of the draft committees challenged the d

trict courts' SUbpoena enforcement orders in U

appeals courts in the District of Columbia a

Florida. (One of the draft committees and t

international labor organization's PAC compli

with the SUbpoenas while appealing the distri

courts' rulings, However, the Florida committ

obtained an order from the appeals court su

pending enforcement of the FEC's subpoenas un

the appeals court issued its decision.)

In decisions issued by the appeals courts in 19

and 1982, the courts reversed the lower cou

decisions. The appeals courts reasoned that dra

committees were not "political committees" wit

in the purview of the election law and were no

therefore, SUbject to the Commission's investig

tory authority. The courts also held that even t

election law's reporting provisions did not apply 

draft activities undertaken prior to the 19

amendments to the law. (As a result of the 19

amendments, draft committees must now comp

with the election law's reporting requirements.)

Because of these court rulings, the General Cou

sel recommended that the Commission take 

further action against the respondents and clo

the file on the complaint. Since the Florida com

mittee had not complied with the FEC's subpoen

and since the Florida committee's draft effor

were among the earliest and the most SUbstanti

the General Counsel concluded that he could n

prove whether or not the draft committees we

affiliated.

Commission Determination: On December 

1982, the Commission voted to take no furth

action on the matter and closed the file on t

case.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Volume 9, Num0

od. For more information, contact the PU

Records Office at 523-4181 or toll free 800/4

9530.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers (who are not politi

cal committees), when calling or mailing in

a change of address, are asked to provide

the following information:

1 Name of person to whom the Record i

sent.

2. Old address.

3. New address.

4. SUbscription number. The subscription

number is located in the upper lef

hand corner of the mailing label I

consists of three letters and five num

bers. Without this number, there is n

guarantee that your subscription can

be located on the computer.

Political Committees

Registered political committees are

automatically sent the Record. Any change

of address by a registered committee must

by law, be made in writing as an amend

ment to FEC Form 1 (Statement of Organi

zation) and filed with the Clerk of the

House, the Secretary of the Senate, or the

FEC, as appropriate.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

1982 ANNUAL REPORT AVAILABLE

The Commission submitted its Annual Re

1982 to the President and Congress on Jun

1983. The Report describes the Commission's 

ministration of the election law during 1

including preparations for the 1984 Presiden

elections. The Report also presents campaign 

nance statistics for the 1982 elections and s

marizes significant issues addressed in advi

opinions and litigation. A separate chapter co

the Commission's legislative recommendati

based on the agency's experience in administe

four Congressional and two Presidential electio

6

July1983

Based on a computerized information system developed by the FEC, the MUR Index enables one

to identify closed compliance cases related to a

particular subject, to a provision of the election

law or to a group or individual involved in a

compliance action. The MUR Index includes four

parts:

Part I, MUR Summary Reports, contains a

brief report on each MUR. Organized by

MUR number, each report states: the date

the MUR was opened; the date the FEC took

final action; the exact location of the MUR

on FEC microfilm; the names of any complainants and respondents; legal citations to

alleged violations; and a reference to the

subject(s) investigated.

Part n, the Complainant/Respondent Index,

lists each MUR by its number and alphabetically by the person who either filed the

complaint or was named as a respondent in

the compliance action.

Part Ill, the Citation Index, cites all compliance cases pertaining to a particular section of the election law and FEC Regulations.

Part IV, the Subject Index, identifies MURs

by key words and phrases.

FEC MURINDEX AVAILABLE

During June, the Commission announced the

availability of the FEC MUR Index, a computerized document summarizing information on

compliance cases (matters under review or MURs)

which have been concluded by the Commission.

The MUR Index, which includes closed MURs from

1975 to the present, will be updated periodically

as additional MURs are placed on the public

record. (Under the election law, a compliance

case must be kept confidential until the Commission reaches a final determination and closes the

file. SUbsequently, the MUR is placed on the

public reeord.)

The FEC MUR Index may be reviewed in the

FEC's Public Records Office, located at 1325 K

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

may order the entire MUR Index for $115.00 or

each section, separately as follows:

Part I (MURSummary Re,orts) - $100.

Part II (the Complainant Respondent Index)

$5.00.

Part III (the Citation Index) - $7.50.

Part IV (the Subject IndeXf- $2.50.

Checks, made payable in advance to the FEC,

should be sent care of the Public Records Office.

Purchasers should expect a 30-day delivery peri-
Volume 9, Numoor7

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colum

bia Circuit, Docket No.8 3-1521, May 13, 1983.

paign committee, ask the appeals court to review

and set aside a final determination made by th

FEC on April 4, 1983. The FEe's determinatio

required the Kennedy campaign to repay

$55,500.33 in primary matching funds to the U.S

Treasury. (The FEC had certified the funds t

Senator Kennedy for his 1980 primary electio

carnpaign.)

7

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

"'The chart is cumulative, 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.

Kennedy for President Committee

and Edward Kennedy v. FEC

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9041, Senator Edward

M. Kennedy, a candidate for the Democratic

Party's Presidential nomination in 1980, and Kennedy for President Committee, his principal camJuty 1983

STATUS OF FEC REGULATIONS SENT TO CONGRESS

Date Sent Federal Register Date Prescribed"''''

Regulations'" to Congress Publication by the Commission

11 CPR IOO.7(a)(IXi)(C), 4/22/83 4/27/83

IOO.7(bXII), 100.8(bXI2), 48 Fed. Reg. 19019

IIO.IO(b) and 9003.2(cX3)

Candidate's Use of Property

in Which Spouse Has an Interest

II CPR 102.6 and 102.17 6/2/83 6/7 /83

Transfer of Funds; 48 Fed. Reg. 26296

Collecting Agents, Joint

Fundraising

II CPR I10.11 2/25/83 3/2/83 5/13/83

Disclaimer Notices 48 Fed. Reg. 8809

II CFR II0.12(a)(2) - (a)(4) NA 4/8/82 4/8/82

Annual Honoraria Lim it 47 Fed. Reg. 15098

• II CPR 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)

II CFR 106 and 9031 - 9039 1/24/83 2/4/83 4/4/83

Presidential Primary 48 Fed. Reg. 5224

Matching Fund

•

•
8

Volume 9, Num

First Class Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

FEC

Washington, D.C.

Permit No. G-31

~uIy1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.20463

Official Business

Notice Title

1983-16 11 CFR Part 102: Transfer of Funds;

Collecting Agents, Joint Fundraising

(Transmittal of Regulations to Congress) (48 Fed. Reg. 26296, June 7,

1983)

FEDERAL REGISTER N<YrICES

The item below identifies an FEC document

that 'appeared in the Federal Register on June 7,

1983. Copies of this notice are available in the

PUblic Records Office.