•

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

June 1985 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 11, Numbe

COMPLIANCE

1 FEC Takes Steps to Shorten Enforcement

COURT CASES

3 FCM v. FEC

3 FEC v. Gus Savage for Congress '82

3 FEC v. Kirk Walsh for Congress Committee

4 New Litigation

continu

4 ADVISORY OPINIONS

INPORMATION

7 Information Division Reorganized

7 Computer Access in Rhode Island

PUBLICATIONS

7 FEC Publishes Ten Year Report

7 New Brochures for States

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

6 McGovern Campaign Challenges

FEC Repayment Determination

LEGISLATION

6 FEC Testifies on FY 1986 Budget

5 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reason to Believe Finding and

Investigation

The basic procedures for deciding when 

investigate a compliance matter remain u

changed. If, by an affirmative vote of four Co

missioners, the Commission decides that there 

"reason to believe" a violation of the Act h

occurred, the Office of General Counsel will op

an investigation into the matter. During t

investigation, the Commission may subpoena do

uments, subpoena individuals to appear for depo

tion and order answers to interrogatories. Wit

40 days after the General Counsel's Office h

initiated an investigation, the staff must prep

a First General Counsel's Report on the investi

tion.

To decrease delays in the investigation-

example, those caused by the complexity of t

legal issues Or deadline extensions granted 

respondents-the agency revised its investigato

procedures in several ways.

PEC TAKES STEPS TO SHORTHN

HNPORCEMHNTPROCE~

On April 18, 1985, the Commission approved

revisions to the agency's enforcement procedures,

i.e., the procedures for handling Matters Under

Review (MURs). The revised procedures are intended to expedite the flow of work, focus issues

arising from compliance cases more clearly and

obtain more timely responses from respondents.

(See agenda document 85-51.) The General Counsel noted, however, that because of statutory requirements for handling compliance matters (e.g.,

investigations and respondents' rights to extend

investigations) the compliance process will contlrne to be time consuming despite changes in

procedures. (See 2 U.S.C. S437g.) The revisions,

highlighted below, mark the first change in the

agency's enforcement procedures since 1982.

Prom Receipt of Complaint to "Reason

to Believe" Finding

The FEC will continue to follow current

procedures for receiving complaints and notifying

respondents. Specifically, once the General Counsel's Office has received a complaint and assigned

it a MUR number, the Office will send copies of

the complaint to the respondenf(s) and provide

them with 15 days to demonstrate, in writing,

that no action should be taken against them. At

the end of the 15 days, the General Counsel's

Office will prepare a report within 12 days, based

on a preliminary legal and factual analysis of the

complaint and any subm issions made by the respondentfs), Copies of respondents' submissions

will be attached to the l2-day report.

In order to minimize unnecessary delays in

preparing the 12-day report, the agency modified

the procedures for preparing the report by: 1) requiring staff to present more specific plans for

the initial phase of discovery; 2) revising the

format of the report to make it more concise and

issue oriented; and 3) establishing a 72-hour comment period for staff review of the report. Moreover, the General Counsel's Office will waive the

_ 12-day report in routine late-filer complaints,
June 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \.t>lume 11, Numter6

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

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

Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; Thomas E. Harris; Frank P. Reiche; Jo-Anne L. Coe,

Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Benjamin J. Guthrie, Clerk of the House of Representatives,

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

Revised Format for the First General Counsel's Report. The report will contain a more

concise, focused analysis of the legal issues involved in a complaint. Delays in gathering necessary information will presumably be eliminated by

more timely responses from respondents (see below).

More Rigorous standards for Granting Deadline Extensions to Respondents. Without Commission approval, the General Counsel will not grant

deadline extensions to respondents that exceed 20

days. In requesting an extension, a respondent will

have to fully explain, in writing, the merits of a

request and submit the request five days before

the original deadline. Moreover, when a respondent fails to reply to FEC requests for information,

the agency will use compulsory measures (e.g.,

subpoena enforcement actions) more frequently

and earlier in the investigation.

Fewer Comprehensive Investigative Reports.

Under the old procedures, during the investigation, the General Counsel's Office submitted comprehensive reports to the Commission every 90

days. Under the revised procedures, the staff will

prepare fewer comprehensive reports. Instead,

the General Counsel will use other means to

apprise the Commission of recent actions taken

on MURs (e.g., more detailed MUR status sheets

and other periodic reports on actions taken with

regard to specific MURs).

More Careful Monitoring of Progress. The

General Counsel's Office is establishing a more

stringent and flexible system for monitoring the

progress of an investigation, allowing for expedited handling of easier cases. Moreover, the

General Counsel's Office is establishing formal

procedures for evaluating the investigation and

notifying the Commission of its completion.

Probable Cause Finding

As in the past, if the investigation warrants

further action, the Office of General Counsel

must notify the respondent(s) of its intent to

recommend that the Commission find "probable

cause to believe" the Act has been violated. The

notice must include a brief, detailing the General

Counsel's analysis of the legal and factual issues

of the case. Within 15 days of receiving the brief,

the respondent(s) may present their positions.

The Commission must consider both briefs before

taking further action.

Under the new procedures, the General Counsel's Office will grant requests by respondents for •

deadline extensions only when necessary. (See

revised policy above.)

Conciliation Process

Pre-Probable Cause Conciliation. If, during

the investigation, the respondentls) indicate a

desire to enter into a conciliation agreement, the

General Counsel's staff may begin a pre-probable

cause conciliation process. Any agreement must

be adopted by an affirmative vote of four Commissioners before it becomes final.

Under the revised procedures, the Commission will advise respondents of this option at the

initial stage of its investigation. The agency will

make clear, however, that in some cases it may

not be able to initiate a conciliation agreement

until the agency concludes its investigation.

Moreover, if the General Counsel's Office has already submitted its briefs on a MUR to the

Commission, the agency will not consider requests

for pre-probable cause conciliation.

Post-Probable Cause Conciliation. If the

Commission determines by an affirmative vote of

four Commissioners that there is "probable cause

to believe" the Act has been violated, formal

conciliation must be undertaken for at least 30 •

days, but no longer than 90 days. If informal

conciliation fails, the General Counsel's Office

may recommend that the Commission file a civil

suit against the respondentfs) to enforce the Act.

If, on the other hand, an agreement is reached, it

will be made public by the Commission.

The revised procedures ensure that the

agency does not waste time on unfruitful conciliation efforts. In the case of respondents who reject

the FEC's conciliation proposals, but do not present counter-proposals, the agency will notify the

respondents that it considers continued conciliation efforts inappropriate. Before the conciliation

period ends, the Comm ission may also advise

uncooperative respondents that the FEC may file

suit against them if an agreement is not reached

after 30 days. Finally, the agency will enforce

more rigorous standards for granting deadline

extensions to respondents. (See above.)

•

2
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \rt>Iume 11 ,Numoor 6

FEC v. KIRK WALSH FOR CONGRESS

COMMITI'EE

On April 17, 1985, the U.S. District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued a default judgment against the Kirk

Walsh for Congress Committee (the Committee),

Mr. Walsh's principal campaign committee for his

1980 House campaign. (Civil Action No. 84-CV9892-PH) In filing suit on July 26, 1984, the FEC

had asked the court to take action against the

Committee for failing to file required reports

between 1980 and 1983.

The court ordered the Committee to take the

following actions within 30 days:

o File a 30-day post-general election report for

1980 and mid-year and year-end reports for

1981, 1982 and 1983;

o Pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury;

and

o Pay court costs incurred by the FEC in pursuing

the action.

FEC v. GUS SAVAGE FOR CONGRESS '82

On April 12, 1985, the U.S. District Court,

Northern District of illinois, Eastern Division

denied the Commission's petition to hold in civil

and criminal contempt Gus Savage for Congress

'82 (the Committee), the principal campaign committee for Congressman Gus Savage's 1982 reelection campaign, and Thomas Savage, the Committee's treasurer. The court found that, after the

Comm ission's filing of the contempt petition, the

Committee had brought itself into compliance

with a default jUdgment entered against it on

June 8, 1984. Specifically, the Committee had

filed the reports required by the default judgment

and had established a satisfactory schedule for

repaying the $5,000 civil penalty imposed by the

default judgment.

The FEC had also invoked section 552(b)(7)(E)

of the FOIA to justify withholding portions of

agency documents pertaining to the compliance

thresholds FCM had failed to meet. This provision

exempts 11 'investigatory records compiled for law

enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that

the production of such records would•.•disclose

investigative techniques.'" The court found that

the information withheld by the FEC met the

requirements of this exemption, specifically, the

information: I) constituted an "'investigative

record' " and 2) had been "'compiled for law enforcement purposes.'" Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d

408, 413 (D.C. Cir. 1982). The Court pointed out

that the federal election law specifically requires

the Commission to review Committee reports.

June 1985

FCM v. FEC

On February 26, 1985, the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia granted summary

judgment to the FEC in Fund for a Conservative

Majority v. FEC. (Civil Action No. 84-1342) The

court held that the Commission was justified in

refusing to disclose documents pertaining to the

agency's audit and review procedures, which FCM

sought under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA). (FCM is a nonconnected political committee, which the FEC had proposed to audit based

on the Commission's review of FCM's reports and

its determination that FCM had not met the

agency's requirements for substantial compliance

with the law's reporting provlsions.)

In its suit, FCM challenged the FEC's refusal

to disclose documents setting forth the agency's

threshold requirements for aUditing committees,

as well as FEC staff recommendations detailing

FCM's failure to meet them. In upholding the

FEC's action, the court noted that the agency had

justifiably withheld information exempt under

section 552(b)(2) of the FOIA. Under this provision, "matters that are•••related solely to internal

personnel rules and practices" may be exempted

from disclosure. The FEC's action met the

standards for applying this exemption, which were

set forth in Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms. (670 F~2d 1051, D.C. Cir.

1981) First, the undisclosed information was "predominantly internal, rr and did not constitute

"secret law," In this regard, the court noted lithe

Commission's threshold requirements are not

secret law because they made 'no attempt to

modify or regulate public behavior-only to observe it for illegal activity.'" Id, at 1075. "The

information at issue here is simply used to review

Com mission reports for substantial compliance

with [the reporting] rules" published in the U.S.

Code and accompanying regulations. "The plaintiff's argument that it is 'in the dark' as to how to

pass that review is especially weak in light of the

many letters it has received from the Comm ission, adVising and pointing out apparent reporting

inconsistencies and irregularities."

Under the second standard for applying the

exemption for internal practices, the disclosed

information must "significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes." (See

Crooker at 1074.) In this instance, the court

agreed with the Commission that disclosure of the

threshold requirements "would enable unscrupulous political committees to tailor their reports to

avoid being audited, and ignore statutory reporting requirements that are not central to the

internal review procedures,"

•

3
June 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMfVlISSION

NEW LITIGATION

Common Cause Y. FEe

Comrnon Cause seeks review of the FEC's

dismissal of an administrative complaint it filed

with the agency on November 22, 1983. In the

complaint, Common Cause had alleged that the

Republican National Independent Expenditure

Committee (RNIEC) was affiliated with the

National Republican Senatorial Committee and

established by the Republican Party. Consequently, expenditures RNIEC made in support of Senator Daniel Evans' special general election campaign violated the Act's spending limits, when

combined with special expenditures made by the

National RepUblican Senatorial Committee on behalf of Senator Evans. See 2 U.S.C. S441a(d)(3)

(A)(i).

Common Cause asks the court to:

o Declare that the FEC's February 12, 1985, dismissal of the complaint was contrary to law;

and

o Issue an order directing the FEC to act on the

complaint in conformity with the Court's decision within 30 days of the decision.

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, Civil Action No. 85-1130, April 10,

1985.

FEe Y. American International

Demographic Services, Inc.

The FEC asks the court to declare that

American International Demographic Services,

Inc. and its Vice President Ernest Halter violated

2 U.S.C. S438(a)(4) by using information on reports filed with the FEC for commercial purposes.

Specifically, defendants used FEC information to:

a) prepare contributor listings they rented to various organizations through brokers and b) increase

the commercial value of contributor listings they

already had.

The FEC further asks the court to:

o Assess a $5,000 civil penalty against the defendants; and

o Permanently enjoin them from further violations of the Act.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District

of Virginia, Civil Action No. 85-0437-A, April 10,

1985.

4

\blume11, Numoor 6

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

1985-15 Nonfederal account established by nonconnected PAC. (Date made public:

April 19, 1985; Length: 2 pages)

1985-16 FEC contributor information used to improve broker's contributor list. (Date

made public: April 19, 1985; Length: 1

page)

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

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

specific situation described in the AOR. Any

qualified person who has requested an AO and

acts in accordance with the opinion will not be

SUbject to any sanctions under the Act. Other

persons may rely on the opinion if they are

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

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance for

their own activity, however, should consult the

full text of an AO and not rely only on the

summary given here.

AO 198~11: Trade Association's "Personal

Members" Not Solieitable

The Private Truck Council of America (the

Council), a trade association with voting organization members, may not solicit contributions to

its separate segregated fund from a proposed

class of "personal members." Under the election

law, the personal members would not qualify as

solieltable Council members because, even though

they would pay dues to the Council, they would

lack sufficient rights to govern the Council.

Since the Commission determined that the

Council's personal members could not be solicited,

the Commission did not address the related issue

of whether an organizational member could pay

the annual dues of an employee who became a

personal member. The Commission noted, however, that regardless of who paid their Council

dues, the executive and administrative employees

of corporate members could be solicited, provided

the Council obtained prior approval for the solicitations from the member corporations. 11 CFR

114.7(c).

•

•
FEDERAL ELECTION COIV1IV1ISSI01'J \blume 11 ,NumOOr" 6

Collecting Agent's Responsibilities

While the collecting agent has no reporting

responsibility, it must comply with FEC regulations in retaining records of AHCA-PAC contributions and transmitting contributor information to

AHCA-PAC. See 11 CFR 102.6(c)(5) and (6).

Moreover, checks combining AHCA dues payments and AHCA-PAC contributions must comply

with FEC rules, regardless of whether the checks

are signed by noncorporate members or the solicitable personnel of corporate members. Specifically, the checks must be drawn on an individual's nonrepayable drawing account or personal

account. See II CFR 102.6(c) (3).

AHCA-PAC's Responsibilities

AHCA-PAC must ensure that the requirements for collecting agents are met (see above).

In addition, AHCA-PAC must keep records of all

contributions transmitted from a collecting agent

and report the contributions as received from the

original contributor. See II CFR 102.6(c)(7),

102.8, 104.3(a) and ne.ue).

All contributions solicited to AHCA-PAC,

including those transmitted by its collecting

agents, would be subject to the limits and prohibitions of the Act. See 2 U.S.C. §§44Ic, 441e and

441f. (Date issued: April 26, 1985; Length: 7

pages)

Solicitation Requirements

All solicitations conducted by AHCA, AHCAPAC or a state association acting as AHCA's

collecting agent must meet the requirements

spelled out in FEC rules. See 11 CFR 114.5(a),

114.7(g), 114.8(e)(4) and 102.6 (c)(2). The proposed

solicitation message, to be printed on the combined dues/solicitation statement to noncorporate

members, meets the requirements of Commission

Regulations. See 11 CFR 114.5(a). This statement

must also appear on the solicitations made to the

solicitable personnel of AHCA's corporate members. 11 CFR 114.8(e) (4).

1985-4 11 CFR Parts 110.1 and 110.2: Contribution and Expenditure Limits and Prohibitions; Contributions by Persons and

Multicandidate Political Committees;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (50 Fed.

15169, April 17, 1985) --

Notice Title

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Copies of this notice are available in the

Public Records Office.

5

June 1985

AO 1985-12: Collecting Agents Used by

National Trade Association

The American Health Care Association (AHCA), a

trade association for licensed nursing homes and

allied long-term health care facilities, proposes to

combine the approval, solicitation and collection

of contributions to its separate segregated fund,

AHCA-PAC, with the billing and collection of

AHCA membership dues conducted by AHCA's

state associations or their respective political

action committees (PACs). AHCA's state associations and their respective PACs are sufficiently

related to AHCA and AHCA-PAC to act as collecting agents for contributions which AHCAPAC solicits from AHCA's noncorporate members

(i.e., unincorporated proprietary and nonproprietary health care facilities). See 11 CFR 102.6(b)

(1) and 102.6(c)(2). Although a state association or

its PAC, functioning as the collecting agent, may

not use a combined membership dues/solicitation

sta tement to solicit AHCA's corporate members

(because corporations may not make contributions), the collecting agent may include an authorization form on the dues statement to corporate members, requesting their written approval to solicit their solicitable personnel, provided

the authorization form meets the requirements of

FEC rules. See 11 CFR 114.7(b) and (c) and

114.8(b) and (c). Once a corporate member approves the solicitation authorization, AHCA-PAC

or one of its collecting agents may solicit the

corporate member's stockholders, executive and

administrative personnel and their respective

families, provided the corporation does not facilitate the collecting of contributions by either: 1) a

payroll deduction or checkoff plan or 2) a system

for reimbursing contributors to AHCA-PAC.

Com mission Regulations define a trade association's members as "all persons who are currently satisfying the requirements for membership" in

the organization. 11 CFR 114.l(e). The Commisslon has interpreted this to mean that "members

must have specific obligations to and rights in the

organizat ion," including the right to govern the

organization.

Under the Council's proposal, personal members would not meet these membership requirements and would not, therefore, be eligible for

Council solicitations. Specifically, the personal

members would have no rights in Council affairs.

Through their exclusive voting rights, organizational members control the management of the

Council. Moreover, although personal members

could be elected as Council directors, no provision

in the Council's constitution assures them of effective representation in such positions. (Date

issued: April 26, 1985; Length: 4 pages)

•
June 1985 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION \.blume 11, Numoor 6

FEC HEARS PRESENTATION BY McGOVERN

CAMPAIGN ON REPAYMENT DETERMINATION

At an open meeting on April 24, the Commission provided former Senator George S. McGovern, a publicly funded Presidential candidate

in the 1984 primaries, with an opportunity to

make an oral presentation concerning an FEC

repayment determination. The Commission had

determined that the McGovem campaign must

repay the portion of public funds it had spent on

Senator McGovem's salary during the campaign;"

After hearing the McGovem campaign's testimony, the Commission agreed to review additional written testimony, to be submitted by May

10, in support of the campaign's position.

The oral presentation grew out of an FEC

audit report of the McGovern campaign, released

on February 11, 1985, in which the Commission

determined that the campaign must repay $25,105

in nonqualified campaign expenses to the U.S.

Treasury.·· At the presentation, the McGovern

campaign disputed the FEC's determination that

salary payments oC $50,000 to Mr. McGovem

constituted nonqualified campaign expenses and

that a pro-rata portion of the salary (i.e.,

$13,549.35) had to be repaid to the U.S. Treasury.··· In support of its position, the McGovern

campaign contended that the salary payment constituted a qualified campaign expense under FEC

Regulations. 11 CFR 9032.9(a) and 9033.5. "The

payment was incurred during the candidate's eligibility period. Senator McGovern's personal financial situation is such that he would not have been

able to run for the Presidency without the payments....Finally•••the payments to Senator McGovern [didl not constitute a violation of any

other law." The McGovem campaign further argued that Congress had "consciously made

thedetermination, in the Federal Election Campaign Act, to leave the decision how to spend

money in a political campaign to the candidates

themselves, not to the Commission or its staff. II

....The FEC had canceled a hearing on proposed revisions to the Sl.D1Shine Regulations,

scheduled for the same day, because the agency

receiwd no requests to testify.

.... ....The public frmding statutes require Presidential candidates to repay the U.S. Treasury for

nonqualified campaign expenses. 26 US.C. 9038

(b) (2).

.... ** Under proposed Commission rules submitted

to Congress on March 5, 1985, when a campaign

incurs nonqualified expenses, the Committee must

make a repayment based on the ratio of federal

flDlds to total flDlds receiwd by the candidate

(both private and federal fWlds). 11 CFR 9038.

6

Under FEC Regulations, the Commission may

grant a request from a publicly funded candidate • for an opportunity to address the Commission

regarding a repayment determination, but only

after the campaign has submitted legal and

factual materials supporting its position. 11 CFR

9038.2(c)(2) and (3). The McGovern campaign submitted a written response to the audit report on

March 5, 1985.

FEC TESTIFIES ON FY 1986 BUDGET

During four Congressional hearings held between March 19 and May 2, 1985, FEC Vice

Chairman Joan D. Aikens requested a $12.756

million budget for the Commission for fiscal year

(FY) 1986. Accompanied by FEC Chairman John

Warren McGarry, FEC Staff Director John Surina

and General Counsel Charles Steele, Mrs. Aikens

testified before four Congressional Committees:

the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and

General Government of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations; the Senate Committee on

Rules and Administration; the House Committee _

on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Treasury,

Postal Service and General Government; and the

Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on

House Administration.

Vice Chairman Aikens testified that the

FEC's FY 1986 budget request represented the

base necessary for "steady-state" maintenance of

Commission operations through the 1986 elect ions. Of the $12.756 million requested, the

agency would allocate a portion to carrying out

its responsibilities under the Voting Accessibility

for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. This law

requires chief state election officers to report to

the FEC for the next five election cycles on the

accessibility of polling places within their respective states. Beginning in 1987, the Commission

must compile the information and report to Congress by April 30 of each year following an election. "The Commission views its obligations under

the Handicapped Access Act very seriously and

intends to give it priority attention," the Vice

Chairman stated.

Mrs. Aikens noted that the FEe's current

operating budget represented only a tiny portion

of the federal government's total operating budget, Le., one one-thousandth of one percent.

"Humbling as this reality may be," she said, "it

does not diminish the critical role the Commission _ plays in the American political process and the

intense scrutiny to which our actions are subjected by the press, the regulated community and

the Congress. II Mrs. Aikens noted, for example,
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

June 1985

that since the Commission had first opened for

business 10 years ago, the volume of campaign

finance activity monitored by the agency over

five Congressional election cycles had tripled.

Moreover, "the FEC had administered the public

funding program for three Presidential elections,

assuring proper accountability for more than $300

million in public money." The agency had also

handled an explosive increase in demand for information from the press and public.

In favorably reporting a $12.745 million budget authorization for the FEC in March, the

Committee on House Administration noted that

the agency had "exercised rigorous control over

its budget," The Committee stated that the FEC

should "be commended for its excellent efforts in

exercising its many responsibilities with a spartan

budget and staff. TT

IMFORMATION DMSION REORGANIZED

On April 4, 1985, the Commission reorganized the Information Services Division under the

new direction of Louise Wides, who previously

served as Deputy Assistant Staff Director for

Information and Chief of Publications. Mrs. Wides

succeeds Gary Greenhalgh, who left the Commission in January to pursue a career in the private

sector.

Under the new organization, the Commission

created two new independent offices, both of

which had previously functioned as part of the

Information Divisioru the Press Office and the

National Clearinghouse for Election Administration. Fred Eiland, who has served as the agency's

press officer since 1979, will continue to direct

the Press Office. William Kimberling, former

Deputy Director of the Clearinghouse, currently

serves as the Acting Director of the Clearinghouse.

Under the new plan, the Information Division

will focus on explaining the law to those who must

comply (i.e., political committees and candidates)

as part of the agency's effort to promote voluntary compliance with the election law. To this

end, the division will continue to field questions

on the toll-free line, publish the Record and other

materials that explain the law in layman's terms,

and conduct workshops and seminars that help

political committees understand their responsibilities under the law.

7

\bIume 11, Numt:er 6

RHODE ISLAND PROVIDES DffiECT ACCESS

TO FEC COMPUTER INFORMA'nON

On May 13, 1985, the Commission and Rhode

Island Secretary of State Susan Farmer inaugurated a special program which provides the Rhode

Island state office with direct computer access to

FEC campaign finance information. Other participants in the FEC computer access program

include the campaign records offices for

Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, illinois,

Massachusetts and Washington.

Each of the state offices has a computer

terminal which is linked, via a national telecommunciations system, to the FEC's campaign

finance data base. While all state election offices

maintain copies of reports filed by political committees active in federal elections in their respective states, those offices with computer

access to the FEC enable researchers to gather

current information about all political committees active in federal elections throughout the

country. For more information on the program's

capabilities, see page 6 of the April 1985 Record

or contact the FEC.

FEC PUBLlSHESTEN-YEAR REPORT

During May, the Commission published The

First Ten Years, a special report marking the

FEC's tenth year of operations. The report includes 18 graphs displaying campaign finance statistics for federal election cycles since 1978; a

short history of federal election laws from 1907

to the present; a description of the Comm isslon's

major functions; charts depicting the law's contribution limits and Presidential spending limits; and

a list of the Commissioners and statutory officers

who have served the FEC since its inception.

The First Ten Years will soon be sent automatically to every registered committee and

every subscriber to the Record. Additional copies

are available free of charge. Contact the FEC's

Office of Public Communications, 1325 K Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or call 202/523-

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

NEW BROCHURES FOR STATES

The FEC recently published two brochures

that may be of interest to state election offices.

o State and Local Elections and the Federal Campaign Law defines the boundaries between state

and federal election laws. The brochure explains how the Federal Election Campaign Act

applies to state and local election activities.

continued
Jure 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Additionally, the brochure defines the areas in

which the federal election law supercedes state

and local election laws.

o State Computer Access to FEC Data describes

a pilot project that provides state election

offices with direct computer access to FEC

campaign finance information. This computerized information, once available only from

the FEC in Washington, D.C., is offered through

a cooperative effort between state election

officials and the Commission. The brochure

explains how researchers may obtain computerized campaign finance information at state

offices; describes the types of computer

printouts available; and lists those state elections offices that provide direct computer access to FEC campaign finance information.

Copies of these brochures are available free

of charge. Contact the Office of Public Communications, FEC, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463j or call 202/523-4068 or, toll

free, 800/424-9530.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 KStreet, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

\bIume 11, NumOOr" 6

RECORD MAILING LIST UPDATE

The Record is automatically sent to

the treasurers of all political committees

registered under the election law.

In addition, the FEC sends free copies

to anyone who requests a subscription. To

save taxpayers' money, we will soon update

this portion of our mailing list. In the next

month, we will mail renewal notices to

some of these subscribers. IC you receive

the notice and wish to continue your subscription, you need only complete the postcard enclosed with the mailing and return

it to us. If you don't receive the renewal

notice, your subscription to the Record will

continue automatically. (The treasurers of

all political committees will continue to

receive the Record.)

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

•