FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 13, Numb

COURT CASES

6 Glenn Committee v. FEC

6 FEC v. Louis Rocha, Jr.

6 FEC v. Citizens Party

6 Common Cause v. FEC (Suit Six)

8 FEe v. CRT

8 New Litigation

3 ADVISORY OPINIONS

REPORTS

2 Connecticut Special Election

2 October Report Due

2 New Pin-Feed Forms

800 LINE

9 New Committee Treasurers

INFORMATION

8 FEe Reactivates State Access Program

REGULATIONS

I Public Funding: Final Rules

5 Conferences

II INDEX

PUBLIC FUNDING

10 Parties Receive Convention Funding

CLEARINGHOUSE

10 J oornal Published

10 Advisory Panel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMISSIONERS

I Senate Confirms Reappointments

Sepfember 1987

SENATE CONFIRMS SECOND TERMS

FOR TWO COMMlSSIONERS

On July 24, 1987, the Senate confirmed Lee

Ann Elliott and Danny Lee McDonald to serve

their second six-year terms (through April 30,

1993) as FEC Commissioners. Commissioners are

appointed by the President and confirmed by the

Senate. Both Mrs. Elliott and Mr. MoDonald were

first appointed to the Commission in December

1981.

PUBLIC FINANCING REGULATIONS:

FINAL RULES PRESCRIBED

On August 12, 1987, the Commission approved the publication of a. Federal Register notice announcing the effective date of amended

FEC Regulations governing publicly financed

Presidential candidates in both primary and general elections. The regulations implement the

. Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26

U.S.C. §§9001-9012, and the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C.

§'§9031-9042. The regulations became effective

on August 18, 1987. See 52 Fed. Re.&:. 30904.

(August 18, 1987).

For a summary of the amended regulations,

see pages 9-10 of the July 1987 Record. The

regulations and the Explanation and Justification

were published in the Federal Re ister on June 3,

1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 20B64 , and will be included in

the 1987 edition of the 11 CFR. An announcement will appear in the Record when the new

edition of the Commission's Regulations is available.
8eptemOOr 1987 FEDERAL ELEC-1l0N COMMISSION \bIume 13, NumOOr" 

CONNECTICUT SPECIAL ELECTION

REPORTS DUE

For those committees involved in the Connecticut special election which was held August

18, 1987, post-general election reports are due

September 17. Political committees authOrized

by candidates (candidate committees) who participated in the special election must file the postelection report. Other political committees Which

supported candidates in the special election (and

which do not report on a monthly basis) must also

file the post-election report. If you have

questions, call the Commission's Information Services Division, toll free, 800/424-9530 (or locally,

in Washington, D.C., 202/3.16-3120).

NEW PIN-FEED FORMS

New pin-feed versions of the Summary and

Detailed Summary pages of FEe Forms 3 and 3X

will be available from the Commission this autumn. The new forms, which are designed to

facilitate computerized filings, incorporate the

stylistic changes made to Forms 3 and 3X in April

1987. Committees Wishing to request copies of

the new pin-feed Summary and Detailed Summary

forms may write the Information Services Division or call, toll free, 800/424-9530. The forms

will be sent as soon as they are available from the

printer.

In addition to using the Commission's pinfeed Summary and Detailed Summary forms, committees may, with prior approval, use computerproduced Schedules A and B to report itemized

receipts and disbursements. The Commission's Reports Analysis Division will review proposed formats to ensure that they contain complete information, conform to the format of Schedules A

(itemized receipts) and B (itemized disbursements), and can be legibly photocopied or microfilmed. Requests for approval, accompanied by

sample formats, should be submitted to the Federal Election Commission, Reports Analysis Division, 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463.

2

REPORTS DUE IN OCTOBER

The following paragraphs explain the repor

ing schedule for the various categories of repor

ing committees whose reports are due in Octobe

Note that, during this nonelection year, commi

tees authorized by candidates for Congress ar

only required to report semlsnnuallyr July 3

1987, and January 31, 198B. Similarly, commi

tees not authorized by candidates, which have no

notified the FEe of their intent to file monthly

submit their reports semtannualty,

Presidential Quarterly FUers

Authorized Presidential committees whic

have chosen to file on a quarterly (rather than 

monthly) basis are required to file a quarterl

report by October 15. The report should cover a

activity from the closing date of the last repo

filed or from the date of .registration,* whicheve

is later, through September 30, 1987.

All Monthly FUers

Unauthorized committees (i.e., committee

not authorized by candidates) and, authorize

Presidential committees which file on a monthl

schedule are required to file reports by the 20t

of each month. The report should cover all finan

cial activity of the previous month. For exampl

the October monthly report should be filed b

October 20 and should cover all activity from th

closing date of the last report filed or from th

date of registration,* whichever is later, throug

September 30, 1987.

Questions on reporting procedures and reques

for additional forms should be addressed to th

Information Services Division, Federal Electio

Commission, 999 E Street, N. W., Washingto

D.C. 20463; or call 202/376-3120 or toll fre

800/424-9530.

·The first report filed by a committee mus

include all flUlds received or disbursed prior t

becoming a political committee, even if th

transaction did not occur during the reportin

period covered by the report. 11 CFR 104.3(a) an

(b).
Septemm 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \kJume 13, Numoo

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions. The full text of each AOR is

available to the public in the Commission's Offic"e

of Public Records.

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 1987-12: Transfer of Funds from State

Campaign Committee to Federal

Campaign Committee

The Committee to Elect Jerry Costello (the st

committee), a committee organized under 

laws of Illinois as Mr. Costello's campa

committee for local office, may transfer $155,

to the Costello for Congress Committee 

federal committee) for the 1988 election cy

provided that: 1) the transferred funds come fr

sources which are"permissible under the Act 

2) both the state committee and the fed

committee comply with the Act's registration 

reporting requirements,

Because the two committees are contro

by Mr. Costello for campaign-related purpo

they are regarded as being affiliated for purpo

of making the proposed transfer. Therefore, 

transfer of funds from the state committee to 

federal committee would not be subject to 

Act's contribution limits at 2 U.S.C. §441a

See AO 1984-46. The state committee m

exclude any contributions not permissible un

the Act from the funds to be transferred. See 

CFR 104.12 and AOs 1984-46, 1984-3, 1983

1982-52 and 1980-117.

The amount transferred would apply towa

the threshold for determining whether the st

committee is a "political committee" as defi

at 11 CFR 100.5. See 11 CPR 102.6(80)(2). If 

state committee transfers more than $1,000 

the federal committee, the state commi

would become a federal committee. See 2 U.S

S431(4)(A)j 11 CFR 100.5(a) and l02.6(a). 

~tate committee would .t~en be required to r

ister and report as a polltlcal committee, disc

ing on its first report the sources of the fund

its account. See 11 CPR 104.12. The st

committee's cash on hand would be presumed 

be composed of the contributions it had most 

cently received, and the state committee wo

be required to itemize such contributions to 

extent required by the Act and Commission 

gulations. See 2 U.S,C. §434(b); 11 CFR 104.3

The state committee's report of the transfer m

also serve as the state committee's termina

report. See 11 CPR 102.3.

The Commission noted that, because 

funds included in the transfer were contributed 

the state committee before the 1986 gen

election, in which Mr. Costello ran for lo

office, they would not have to be aggregated w

later contributions for the 1988 election cy

from the same donors. See AOs 1987-4 and 19

52.

Tl1e Commission expressed no opinion c

cerning the application of any Illinois law t

may govern disposition of the state committ

funds. (Date issued: June l2 t 1987; Length

pages)

3

Foreign national's volunteer activity

in presidential campaign. (Date

made public: July 30, 1987j Length:

1 page)

Hotel corporation's provision of discounted and complimentary items to

candidates. (Date made public: July

23, 1987; Length: 2 pages)

Federal PAC's acceptance of contributions from state committee partially funded by union dues. (Date

made puolies July 11, 1987; Length:

2 pages pius 19-page supplement)

Data provided to candidates by corporate pollster. (Date made publler

JUly 14, 1987; Length: 10 pages plus

8-page supplement)

Subject

1987-25

1987-23

1981-24

AOR

1987-22
8eptembar 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 'vbIume 13, Number 

4

The Record is published by the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Scott E. Thomas, Chairman; Thomas J. Josefiak, Vice Chairman;

Joan Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; John Warren McGarry; Walter J. Stewart,

Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of Representatives,

Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530. (TDD For Hearing

Impaired 202/376-3136)

AO 1987-15: Relationship between Presidential

Candidate's Authorized Committee

and Delegate Committees

Representative Jack F. Kemp, a 1988 Presidential

candidate, has designated a principal campaign

committee, the Kemp for President Committee

(the Committee). In response to the Committee's

request for an advisory opinion, the Commission

addressed two separate issues concerning the relationship between the Committee and groups who

seek selection as delegates to the 1988 Republican national nominating convention (delegate

com mittees). .

Use of Candidate's Name by

Delegate Committees

Mr. Kemp has no legal authority for refusing

an "unauthortzed" delegate committee the "right"

to use his name or for requiring any delegate

committee to state that it is "unauthorized."

Under the Commission's Regulations, a delegate

committee is required to use the word "delegate"

in its name and may, whether or not it is authorized to do so, include the name of the Presidential

candidate it supports in its committee name. 11

CPR I02.14(b)(l). The Commission noted that

delegate committees' expenditures for public

communications may be SUbject to the disclaimer

requirements under the Commission's Regulations,

and the receipts and disbursements of delegate

committees may also be subject to the disclosure

requirements. See 2 U.S.C. S441d,-1l CPR no.u

and 11 CFR 110.l4(e).

Providing Mailing Lists to

Delegate Committees

If the Committee were to provide mailing

lists to delegate committees, those delegate committees would be precluded from making independent expenditures on behalf of Mr. Kemp's Presidential candidacy. In providing such lists (regardless of whether the lists were part of a "fair

exchange" of mailing lists), the Committee would

be coordinating with and assisting the delegate

committees' fundraising efforts undertaken to finance the expenditures on Mr. Kemp's behalf.

Any rasulting expenditures would not qualify as

independent expenditures because they would be

made ".••with the cooperation or with the prior

consent of, or in consultation with, or at the

request or suggestion of, the presidential candidate or authorized committee of such candidate,"

11 CPR 110.14(d)(2)(ii)(B).

The Commission was unable to reach a dec

sion, by the requisite four-vote majority, concer

ing: 1) whether a delegate committee that r

quests and receives Mr. Kemp's authorization 

use his name in its committee title could ma

independent expenditures on Mr. Kemp's beha

and 2) whether Mr. Kemp's approval or certific

tion of favored delegates, in states which requi

the candidate to approve a list of delegate

would preclude those delegates from forming 

delegate committee and making independent e

penditures on Mr. Kemp's behalf. (Date issue

August 12, 1987; Length: 4 pages)

AO 1987-21: Effect of Corporate Reor&anizatio

on PAC's Contribution Limits and

Affiliation with Proposed New PAC

Separate segregated funds established, respe

tively, by the Diamond Shamrock Corporati

(DSC) and its spin-off, Diamond Shamrock R&

Inc. (R&M), would be affiliated political comm

tees by virtue of the relationship between the tw

sponsoring organizations. For purposes of t

Act's contribution limits, all separate segregat

funds established by R&M or DSC would 

treated as a single fund.

On February 2. 1987. the Board of Directo

of DSC, now known as MAXUS Energy Corpor

tion (MAXUS), adopted a corporate reorganizati

plan, prompted at least in part by several host

takeover attempts by outside investors. T

reoganization featured a tax-free spin-off, to t

holders of DSC common stock, of the comm

stock of R&M, previously a wholly-owned subsi

iary of DSC. DSC had sponsored a separa

segregated fund since 1978 and recently chang

the name of the fund to MAXUS Employee

Political Action Committee (MAXUS PAC). R&

planned to form a separate segregated fund soon

If R&M were a wholly-owned subsidiary 

DSC, as was true before the spin-off, the tw

organizations would automatically be affiliat

under the election law. See 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)

11 CPR 110.3(a)(l)(ii)(A) and AO 1985-27. Abse

that relationship, the Commission had to consid

criteria in the Regulations to determine wheth

the two corporations were affiliated. 11 CP

110.3(a)(I)(iii)(A), (B) and (C). Commission Reg

lations offer the following indicia of affiliati
~tem~r1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Vdume 13, Numb

between two entities:

o ownership of a controlling interest in voting

shares or securities;

o provisions (of by-laws or constitutions) which

give one entity the authority, power or ability

to direct another entity; and

o the authority, power or ability to hire, appoint,

discipline, discharge, demote, remove or otherwise influence the decision of the officers of an

entity.

While acknowledging that the relationship between DSC and R&M may change in the future,

the Commission concluded, on the basis of these

criteria, that the two organizations are now affiliated. It offered several reasons:

o Although MAXUS does not own any stock in

R&M, both corporations had, at the time of the

spin-off, identical stockholder bases, and stock

ownership has not yet significantly diverged.

Further, for the transaction to have qualified as

a tax-free spin-off under the Federal tax code,

the original stockholders of DSC had to have a

substantial "continuity of interest" in both DSC

and R&M.

o DSC appointed R&Mts Board of Directors.

o DSC established R&M in a manner that makes

it difficult to replace the board appointed by

DSC without the new board's permission.

o Although the same majority may not necessarily control both corporations, significant

overlap exists in the personnel and organizational structures of both corporations.

Because DSC and R&M are affiliated, all

separate segregated funds established by DSC

(now MAXUS) or R&:M would be treated as 8.

single fund for purposes of the Act's contribution

limits. 2 U.S.C. §44Ia(a)(5).

The Commission noted that the facts presentedIn this request are substantially the same

as those in AO 1986-42, in which the Commission

found that, for purposes of the Act and the

Commission's Regulations, the original corporation and the spun-off corporation were affiliated.

(Date issued: July 24, 1987; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1981-23: Federal PAC's Acceptance of

Contributions trom State

Committee

The Electro Political Action Committee 323

(Electro PAC), a multicandidate committee sponsored by .the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, may not accept contributions from

the Lake Worth Fire Fighters Campaign Fund

(Campaign Fund), a state committee whose receipts include union dues monies.

The Campaign Fund is a Committee of Continuous Existence (CCE) organized under the

Florida Election Code. Under the Florida Election Code, a CCE must derive at least 25 percent

5

of its income from "dues or assessments pay

on a regular basis by its membership pursuan

provisions contained in the charter or byla

Each month the Lake Worth Fire Fighters, L

2817, a labor organization, gives the Camp

Fund $10 on behalf of each member of the L

These funds come from union dues.

The Act prohibits a labor organizatio

corporation from making any contribution or 

penditure whatsoever in connection with a fed

election. 2 U.S.C. S441b; see also 11 CFR 1

(b). The Act expressly prohibits the use of l

organization dues to make contributions or ex

ditures in connection with, or to influence, 

federal election. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2). More

Commission Regulations state that a sepa

segregated fund may not utilize dues or o

monies required as a condition of membership 

labor organization to make contributions or 

penditures in connection with a federal elec

11 CPR 114.5(8)(1). See also AOs 1980-133 

1980-27. The Campaign Fund, therefore, may 

make any contribution to Electro PAC, nor 

Electro PAC accept such a contribution in 

nection with any federal election. (Date iss

August 14, 1987; Lengths 2 pages)

CONFERENCE SERmS REMINDER

The three fall conferences on electio

laws are proceeding on schedule. For mor

information on the series, contact th

FEC's Information Services Division at

202/376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

Conference Schedule

September -- 16-18 * Burlington, Vermont

FEe and Vermont

Secretary of State

October 15-16 ,. Madison, Wisconsin

FEC and Wisconsin

State Election Board

November 15-17* Austin, Texas

FEC and Texas

Secretary of State

*The first day of the conference is fo

registration and, in some cases, a recep

tion.
Septemter 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION corvnvlIssloN \.blUTm 13, Numte

JOHN GLENN PRESIDENTIAL

COMMITTEE. INC. v. FEC

On June 23 t 1987 t in CA No. 86-1348 t the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the FECTs final repayment

determination of May 15, 1986, with respect to

the John Glenn Presidential Committee, Inc. (the

Committee), the principal campaign committee

for Senator Glenn's publicly funded 1984 Presidential primary campaign.

Background

The Committee had asked the appeals court

to review the repayment deterrnmatton, which

found that the Committee had made nonqualified

campaign expenses (amounting to $248,004.62) as

a result of exceeding its spending limits for the

Iowa and New Hampshire prlmaries, and which

required the Committee to repay $74,955.62 to

the U.S. Treasury.*

The Committee had asserted that the state

expenditure limits in 2 U.S.C. §44Ia(b)(I)(A) were

unconstitutional. The Committee had also contested the FEG's determination in three specific

areas, involving the FEC's allocation of the Committee's expenditures for telephone calls, public

opinion polls, and buttons and bumper stickers.

Courtts Ruling

The court found no constitutional infirmity in

the FEe's actions taken under 26 U.S.C.

§9038(b)(2), the provision of the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act which authorizes the recoupment of federal funds. The

court noted that 26 U.S.C. S9038(b) allows the

recoupment of public monies only.

Regarding the FEC's application of its Regu-.

lations concerning the allocation of expenditures

in three specific areas, the court found that the

FEe ruled rationally and had not abused its authority.

*The public funding statutes require Presidential primary candidates to repay the U.S. Treasury

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

Section 9038(b)(2). Un.der the statute, spending tn

excess of the state-by-state spending limits is

considered one type of nonqualified expense.

When a campaign incurs nonqllalified expenses,

the campaign must repay that portion of the

nonqu.alified expense which represents public

matching fWlds.

6

FEC v. LOUIS ROCHA, JR.

On June 29, 1987, the United States Distr

Court, Middle District of Florida, approved 

consent order between the Commission and t

defendant in FEG v. Louis Rocha. Jr. (Civil A

tion No. 86-1203-Civ-T-lOC).

Background

On March 31, 1986t the Commission enter

into a conciliation agreement with Louis Roc

Jr., in which Mr. Rocha agreed to pay a $3,0

civil penalty for knowingly accepting contrib

tions made by one person in the name of anoth

person. See 2 U.S.C. §44lf. Although Mr. Roc

agreed to pay the penalty in 12 equal month

installments, he had not paid any portion of t

penalty by August 20, 1986, when the FEC fil

suit.

Consent Order

The consent order states that, in light of t

defendant's present compliance with the terms 

the conciliation agreement, the Commiss

agrees to the dismissal of the action, with

prejudice to renew should the defend.ant viol

the conciliation agreement in the future.

FEe v, CITIZENS PARTY

On July 31t 1987, the U.S. District Court 

the District of Columbia entered a default ju

ment against the Citizens Party, a political pa

committee, and the party's acting treasurer, K

by Edmonds, for the respondents' failure to tim

pay in full a previously agreed upon civil penal

in violation of the terms of a conciliation agr

ment they had entered into with the FEe 

March 20, 1986. (FEC v. Citizens Party et 

Civil Action No. 86-3113 (OG).)

The court also: 1) ordered the defendents 

pay interest on the $1,250 unpaid balance of 

civil penalty for the period from June 18, 1986

December 8, 1986, and 2) permanently enjoin

the defendants from further violations of 

agreement.

COMMON CAUSE v. FEC (Suit Six)

On August 3, 1987t the U.S. District Co

for the District of Columbia issued an order wh

granted the FEG's motion for summary judgm

on all issues in this case except one: the allo

tion, between the federal and nonfederal accou

of state party committees, of expenses of cert

specified activities (e.g., voter registration, "

out the vote" efforts, and campaign materi

used in connection with volunteer activitie

(Common Cause et al. v. FEC, Civil Action N

86-1838.) For reconsideration of that issue, 

court remanded to the FEC Common Caus
8eptemoor 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Numbe

petition for rulemaking concerning the use of

"soft money'!" in federal elections. (For summaries of the petition and the FEC's actions, see the

January 1986 FEC Record, p, 6, and the June 1986

FEC Record, p. 6.)

BackgroWld

Common Cause filed its petition for rulernaking on November 7t 1984. The FEC published a

notice of availability in the Federal Register, sent

copies of the petition to a number of organizations and received five comments. On December

5, 1985t the FEC's general counsel recommended

that the Commission seek information and comments on "soft money" issues. The FEC then

scheduled two days of public hearings, published a

notice of inquiry on the matter in the Federal

Register, sent the notice to 77 organizations and

considered the 15 comments it received in response. The Commission also received testimony

from Common Cause, the Center for Responsive

Politics and the Republican National Committee.

On April 29, 1986, the FEC denied Common

Cause's petition for rulemaking (see 51 Fed. r.eg.

15915). On June 30, 1986, Common cause lIed

this court action pursuant to the Administrative

Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. §706, which provides

that agency action that is "not in accordance with

the law" must be set aside by the reviewing court.

In its motion for summary judgment, Common Cause argued that the FEC:

a improperly construed the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) by a) improperly considering "intent" as a requisite factor when it

concluded that nonfederal funds had not been

transferred to the state and local level with the

intent to influence federal elections and b)

allowing the allocation of expenditures made in

connection with federal and nonfederal elections;

o inadequately regulated the allocation of federal

and nonfederal funds, thereby creating a loophole through which "soft money" could be used

in connection with federal elections; and

o acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the

petition for rulernaking, given ample evidence

to justify a rulemaking.

Court Ruling

The court noted that, in 1979, Congress

amended the Act to permit state and local party

committees to spend money in federal elections

*In its complaint, Common Cause defined the

term IIsoft money" as "fWlds from sources prohibited WIder the FECA that are given to political

committees and party organizations ostensibly for

use at the state and local level, but which are

actually used in connection with and to influence

federal elections in violation ofthe FECA.'I

7

for voter registration, "get out the vote" acti

ties, and campaign materials used in connect

with volunteer activities. 2 U.S.C. §§431 (8)

(x), 431(8)(B)(xii), 43l(9)(B)(viii) and 431(9) (B)(

Under the Act, only monies that are SUbject 

the provisions of the Act may be used for th

activities. 2 U.S.C. §§43l(8)(B)(x)(2), 43I(8)

(xii)(2), 43I(9)(B)(viii)(2) and 43l(9)(B)(ix) (2). U

der the Commission's Regulations at 11 C

102.5 and 106.1, when financing these politi

activities in connection with both federal 

nonfederal elections, state and local party co

mittees may spend money from both their fede

and nonfederal accounts, allocating "on a reas

able basis."

In reviewing the FEC's denial of the ru

making petition, the court rejected plainti

argument that the FEC improperly conside

intent as a requisite element. The court fou

that the question of intent was not crucial or e

relevant in the FEe's denial of the rutemaki

Instead, the court said, the FEC had found t

there was inadequate evidence to conclude t

any "soft money" had been used in the w

Common Cause alleged in its petition.

The court also rejected Common Cause's c

tention that no allocation method is permissi

under the Act, noting that lithe FECA regula

federal elections only," and that "Congress wo

have had to have spoken much more clearly in 

amendments at issue to contradict" this limit 

the FECA's reach. The court further noted t

"the plain meaning of the Act is that any 

proper allocation of nonfederal funds by a st

committee would be a violation of the FECA."

The court maintained, however, that 

Commission's Regulations provide II nO guida

whatsoever on what allocation methods a state 

local party committee may use," and thus fou

that a revision of the Commission's Regulati

was warranted with respect to this one issue 

remanded the matter to the Commission.

Finally, the court found that it was 

arbitrary and capricious for the Commission 

decline to initiate a rulemaking based on 

evidence before it, except with respect to 

allocation issue discussed above. The court 

served, "The Commission opened its doors 

comments from each of the fifty state elect

finance agencies, as well as both major par

and various other groups interested in the issue 

campaign financing. Only fifteen responses w

received, some of which adamantly stated t

there were no abuses of the type alleged 

Common Cause. Indeed, there was testimony t

some of the anecdotes submitted by Comm

Cause were factually erroneous." In conclusi

the court granted the FEC's motion for summ

judgment affirming its decision to deny the ru

making petition with respect to all issues exc

that of allocation.
SeptemOOr" 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION CONIIVlISSION Volume 13, Numb

FEC v. CAMPAIGN RESOURCE

TBCHNOLOGIES. INC. ET AL.

On August 3, 1987, the U.S. District Court

for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division, approved a final consent order and [udgment between the Commission and defendants Campaign

Resource Technologies, me. (CRT) and John Kaur

(No. CIV 86-448 TUC ACM).

During the 1983-84 Presidential election cycle, the Bergland for President Committee (the

Committee), the principal campaign committee

for David Bergland's 1984 Presidential campaign,

contracted with CRT for certain campaign services. CRT, in turn, subcontracted certain services to John Kaur, who was doing business as

Digitgraph Computer Systems Company (Digitgraph).

In the consent order, defendants CRT and

John Kaur agree that they violated 2 U.S.C. §

432(b) by failing to forward to the Committee's

treasurer, within 10 days, approximately $6,000 in

campaign contribution checks received by CRT

and Digitgraph on behalf of the Committee.

The court imposed a $5,000 civil penalty,

which the defendants agreed to pay within 30 days

of filing the consent order. The court also

permanently enjoined the defendant from future

similar violations of the Act.

NEW LITIGATION

Congressman Stark v, FEC, et al, (Suit Two)

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C.§437g(a)(8)(A), Congressman Fortney H. (Pete) Stark asks the court

to declare that the FEC acted contrary to law in

dismissing his administrative complaint on June 9,

1987. In a complaint filed in October 1986. Congressman Stark alleged, among other things, that

certain excessive contributions made to David M.

Williams' 1986 Congressional campaign by the

American Medical Association Political Action

Committee (AMPAC), the separate segregated

fund of the American Medical Association, resulted in violations of the election law by both

parties.

Congressman Stark further asks the court to:

o Issue an order directing the defendants to pro-

,,' eeed in conformity with the provisions of 2

U.S.C. 5437g within 30 days;

o Declare that Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

should recuse herself from any further participation in the FEC's consideration of the complaint, consistent with Canons 3 and 5 of the

Code of Judicial Conduct; and,

o Retain jurisdiction over the suit so that, if the

FEe fails to act, Congressman Stark could

proceed under 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(C) to remedy the violation.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 87-1700, June 22, 1987.

8

FEC REACTIVATES STATE COMPUTER

ACCESS TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE DATA

The Commission has reactivated its prog

to provide state direct computer access to fed

campaign finance information and plans to o

the program in 25 states before the 1988 elec

The state offices will make data available to 

public.

The cooperative effort between the FEC 

various state offices (such as Secretaries of S

State Boards of Elections and other state com

sions) is part of the agency's continuing effo

broaden public access to federal campaign fin

information. This information is centralized in 

FEG's Public Records Office in Washington.

Nine states were "on-line" in the State 

cess Program before the FEC curtailed the 

vice in 1986 because of Congressionally-mand

budget cuts. (For a summary of the budget c

see page I of the February 1986 Record.) T

were: Georgia, California, Alabama, Massa

setts, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, Colorado 

Rhode Island. In addition, six other states w

testing the system at that time: New Jer

Connecticut, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee 

Iowa. States to be added this fall incl

Florida, Hawaii, Louislana and Vermont. 

. Under the revived program, the Commis

will make available the following types of data

o Indexes providing descriptive information o

registered political committees, such as t

sponsoring organization, frequency of f

reports, and multicandidate committee statu

o Indexes showing the total receipts and 

bursements of committees; and

o Listings of all PAC contributions to fed

candidates.

An index listing individuals who contrib

$500 or more to candidates and political com

tees will become available later.
SeptemOOr" 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Numw

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

9/8 The Academy for State

and Local Government

Washington, D.C.

Vice Chairman Thomas J.

Josefiak

Second Friday Group

Los Angeles, California

Commissioner Lee Ann

Elliott

9/18

9/27-30 "Council on Governmental

Ethics Laws

Quebec City, Canada

Chairman Scott E. Thomas

Commissioner John Warren

McGarry

John Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence Noble, Acting General

Counsel

Kent Cooper, Assistant Staff

Director for Public Disclosure

Louise Widest Assistant Staff

Director for Information

Services

9/22-25 Business Industry Political

Action Committee

New York, New York

Atlanta, Georgia

Dallas, Texas

Commissioner Lee Ann

Elliott

How does a committee name an assist

treasurer? By filing an amendment to the Sta

ment of Organization (following the same pro

dures described above). Note that your comm

tee may name an assistant treasurer at any tim

If you have any questions, call the FEC's Inf

mation Services Division, toll free, on 800/4

9530 (or locally, in Washington, D.C., 202/3

3120).

Why does the FEe recommend that comm

tees also designate an assistant treasurer on t

Statement of Organization? To ensure continu

even if the treasurer is unavailable. Under t

law, a political committee must have a treasur

when it conducts financial transactions. Ho

ever, an assistant treasurer who has been des

nated on the Statement may assume the trea

urer's responsibilities in case the treasurer 

absent or resigns unexpectedly. The assist

treasurer, for example, could sign a committe

reports. Moreover, with an assistant treasurer

committee could continue to accept contributio

and make expenditures even if the office 

treasurer were vacant.

9

NEW TREASURER

Committtes frequently ask the FEC what

they should do when they have a new treasurer.

This brief article is designed to explain the Act's

reporting requirements concerning changes in officers.

What should our committee do if we have a

new treasurer? A new treasurer (and any other

change in the information disclosed on the Statement of Organization) must be reported within 10

days after the change takes place.

How should we report the change? By filing

an amended Statement of Organization (FEC

Form 1) or a signed letter. The amendment need

contain only the committee's name, its identification number (assigned by the FEC when the Statement was originally filed) and the name of the

new treasurer.

Must the treasurer be involved with the committee's day-to-day operations? No. The treasurer

is responsible for seeing that certain activities

are carried out, but other individuals (such as

committee support staff or professional consultants) may actually perform the duties. However,

the treasurer (or a properly designated assistant

treasurer) must actually sign all reports. For

example, an accountant or bookkeeper could handle the recordkeeping and reporting duties, and

the treasurer would sign the report. Even if other

individuals perform these duties, however, the

treasurer remains responsible for the committee's

compliance with campaign finance laws. For more

information about the treasurer's responsibilities,

see the FEC's brochure "Committee Treasurer."

Could we notify the Commission simply by

having the new treasurer sign the next report

(FEC Form '3 or 3X)? No. The change in the

position of treasurer must be reported separately-

-either in a letter or on an amended Statement of

Organization (FEC Form 1).

I! I don't have my committee's identification

number, how can I get it? By calling the FEe's

PUblic Records Office, toll free, 800/424-9530 (or

locally, in Washington, D.C., 202/376-3140).

Who should sign the amendment to the Statement of Organization? Either the outgoing or the

incoming treasurer may sign.
FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlrvllSSION \bIume 12, Numbe

10

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 amendment to FEe Form 1

(Statement of Organization) and filed with the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, or

the FEC, as appropriate.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers (who are not political 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 is sent.

2. Old address.

3. New address.

4. SUbscription number. The SUbscription number is located in the upper left hand corner of the

mailing label. It consists of three letters and five numbers. Without this number, there is no

guarantee that your subscription can be located on the computer.

PARTIES APPROVED FOR

CONVENTION FUNDING

Each of the two major political parties has

received $8,892,000 from the U.S. Treasury for

planning and conducting their 1988 Presidential

nominating conventions. The Commission agreed

that the parties had satisfied all the eligibility

requirements for public funds and, accordingly, on

July 6, asked the Secretary of the Treasury to

make the payments.

Under federal election law, the national committees of major and minor parties may receive

public funds to defray the expenses of their

nominating conventions. The monies come from

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which is

financed through dollars voluntarily checked off

by taxpayers on their federal income tax returns.

The parties may receive convention payments any

time after July 1 of the year preceding the

convention.

Each convention committee is entitled to

receive $4 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment

(COLA). The figure currently stands at

$8,892,000. This amount will be adjusted early in

the spring of 1988 when updated COLA figures

become available.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

THE FEe JOURNAL ON

ELECTION ADMINlSTRATION

The National Clearinghouse on Election A

ministration recently published Volume 14 of T

FEC Journal of Election Administration. The is

focuses on the use of mail in elections. Artic

discuss expediting official election mailings, 

Federal Voting Assistance Program and electio

conducted entirely by mail. The Journal also 

ports the status of a number of Clearinghou

projects of special interest to election admi

strators. For more information, call the Cle

inghouse, toll free, 800/424-9530 (or locally, 

Washington, D.C., 202/376-5670).

ADVISORY PANEL

The Clearinghouse will hold its annual me

ing of the Advisory Panel and Voting Syste

Standards Committee December 8-10 at 

Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C. 

interested persons are welcome.

To fill vacancies, the Commission has 

pointed two new individuals to the 16-mem

Advisory Panel. They are Douglas Jernig

Supervisor of Elections, Montgomery Coun

Maryland; and Anita Rodeheaver, Harris Coun

Clerk, Houston, Texas.
,~~1 Septemoor 1~ '( FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 12, Numte

This cumulative index lists advisory opinions,

court cases and 800 Line articles published in the

Record during 1987. The first number in the

citation refers to the "number" (month) of the

Record issue; the second number, following the

colon, indicates the page number in that issue.

OPINIONS

1986-37: Presidential candidate appearances at

convention of nonprofitcorporation, 1:6

1986-38: Individual's financing of media ads to

promote conservative candidates, 1:7

1986-39: Excess campaign funds used to establish

trust fund for minor, 2:3 f1986-40: Corporate donations to state party

committee's building fund, 2:3

1986-41: Trade association's plan to compensate

employees who make contributions, 2:4

1986-42: Effect of corporate reorganization on

PACs, 3:4

1986-44: Contributions to PAC matched with corporate donations to charity, 3:4

1986-45: Interest payments by his committee to

candidate, 4:4

1987-1: Campaign's compensation of lost wages to

..., candidate prohibited, 4:5

.,.~-1987-2: Campaign's purchase of car for candidate's reelection and official duties, 4:5

1987-3: Refund for terminated Presidential campaign, 4:6

1987-4: Excess campaign funds transferred from

individual's 1986 to his 1984 campaign, 5:4

1987-5: Solicitability of membership organization's members, 5:5

1987-6: Trade association PAC's combined dues

payment/solicitation plan prohibited, 5:5

1987-7: Voter guides distributed to public by

nonprofit corporation, 6:3

1987-8: Multimedia presentation of Presidential

interviews and profiles, 6:4

1987-11: Use of excess campaign funds, 8:2

1987-12: Transfer of funds from state campaign

committee to federal campaign committee, 9:3

1987-13: Trade association's solicitation of contributions, 8:2

1987-14: National Bank's SSP supporting only

state and local candidates, 8:3

1987-15: Relationship between authorized Presidential committee and delegate committees, 9:4

1987-16: Transfers from state campaign committee to federal campaign committee, 8:3

1987-11: Combined membership dues and contribution on billing statement, 8:3

1987-18: PAC matches employee contributions .., with commodity charitable donations, 8:4

.11

1987-21: Effect of corporate reorganization 

PAC and proposed new PAC, 9:4

1987-22: PAC's acceptance of contributions fro

state committee, 9:5

COURT CASES

FEC v. Americans for Jesse Jackson, 2:9; 8:9

FEe v, Bank One, 7:5

FEe v, Beatty for Congress Committee, 3:6

FEC v, Campaign Resource Technologies, Inc., 9

FEC v, Citizens for the President '84, 6:6

FEC v; Citizens Party, 1:8; 2:8, 9:6

FEC v, Congressman Charles E. Rose, 2:7

FEC v: Ernest Halter and AIDS, 4:7

FEC v. Furgatch; FEC v, Domlnelli, 3:5; 6:6

FEC v. John R. Clark, sr.; 2:8;

FEC v. Jolyn Robichaux, et a1.t 2:9

FEC v. Louis Rocha, Jr., 9:6

FEC v, Mark Barry, 4:7

FEC v, MCFL, 2:4

FEC v, NCPAC, 7:5

FEC v, Pryor for Congress Committee, 6:6

FEe v. Ted Haley Congressional Committee, 5:6

FEC v. 1984 Victory Fund, 3:6

Common Cause v, FEC, fourth suit, 2:6; fif

suit, 2:9; sixth suit, 9:6

Congressman Stark v. FEC, 6:6; second suit, 9:8

Furgatch v, FEC (second suit), 6:6

John Glenn Presidential Committee, Inc., v.

FEC, 9:6

800 LINE

After the election: winding down, 3:9

Personal financial reports, 5:7

Honoraria, 8:9

Reporting a new treasurer, 9:9
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume 12, Numb

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street,NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G~31