THE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION

• 

1325 KStreet N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 

Volume 6, Number 9 

J 

NEW PUBLICATIONS FOR 

CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES 

AND PARTY ORGANIZATIONS 

During August 1980, the Commission distributed three 

new publications designed to assist Congressional candidate 

committees and party organizations in complying with the 

Act. All three publications reflect the 1979 Amendments to 

the Act. 

• 

1. A Record Supplement for State and Local Party Organizations was sent to all registered party committees. It 

provides general information on sections of the Act 

which directly affect party political committees and 

other party organizations. The Supplement covers such 

activities by state and local parties as: coordinated party 

expenditures (expenditures covered by 2 U.S.C. §441a 

(dl): activities that benefit candidates for federal office 

but which are exempt from the definition of "contribution" and "expenditure"; volunteer activity; and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The Supplement is 

not, however, comprehensive. 

2. A revised edition	 of the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees was distributed to 

the authorized campaign committees of all Congressional 

candidates registered with the Commission. The Guide 

focuses on those requ irements affecting candidates for 

the U.S. House and Senate, their principal campaign 

committees and any other authorized committees. The 

revised Guide, printed as a binder insert, covers inforrnation needed by these committees to understand the 

definition of "contribution" and "expenditure" under 

the Act, to start their campaigns, to conduct their 

campaigns, to keep records, to file reports and to wind 

down their campaigns. Appendices provide additional 

information on contribution limits, independent expenditures, earmarked contributions and assistance provided 

September 19

sian. The Manual provides information on unifo

methods of bookkeeping and reporting to assist Cong

sional candidates and their authorized committee

keeping records and preparing reports required under 

Act. 

Additional copies of these publications are available fre

charge through the FEC's Office of Public Commun

tions, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; o

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

FEC APPOINTS 

NEW STAFF DIRECTOR 

On August 21, 1980, the Commission unanimou

named B. Allen Clutter, III, as FEC Staff Director. 

Clutter, who is currently serving as Executive Directo

the Minnesota Ethical Practices Board, will assume 

position in mid-September. 

Mr. Clutter has served as Executive Director of the Min

sota Ethical Practices Board since January 1976. He 

prior experience as an Assistant Professor at the U.S. 

Force Academy and with the Air Force Administra

Units in Thailand and California. He has also worked w

the World Press Institute, Macalester College, St. P

Minnesota. 

A native of Oskaloosa, Iowa, he holds a graduate degre

geography from Eastern Michigan University, and 

attended business administration courses at the Univer

• 

by the Commission.	 of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Mr. Clutter, who was li

3. A revised Bookkeeping Manual for Congressional Candi­ among the Outstanding Young Men in America in 19

dates was also distributed to all authorized committees currently serves as a faculty member of Hamline Univer

of Congressional candidates registered with the Comrnis- Law School, Continuing Legal Education Program. 
J
 

MONTHLY FILING 

During October 1980, political committees reporting on 

a monthly basis must file a 12-day pre-general election 

report in addition to a monthly report covering September 

activity. These committees are not required to file monthly 

reports for November and December 1~80, and January 

1981. The filing schedule for October 1980 through January 1981 is: 

Coverage Dates 

Report Due Filing Date 1980 

October 20 Month Iy October 20, 1980 9/1 - 9/30 

12 Day Pre-General October 23, 1980 1011 - 10/15 

30 Day Post-General December 4, 1980 10/16 -11/24 

Year End January 31, 1981 11/25 -12/31 

vA'6VISORY OPINION REQUESTS 

Advisory Opinion Requests (AOR's) pose questions on 

the application of the Act or Commission Regulations to 

specific factual situations described in the AOR. The following chart lists recent AOR's with a brief description of 

the subject matter, the date the requests were made public 

and the number of pages of each request. The full text of 

each AOR is available to the public in the Commission's 

Office of Public Records. 

Date Made No. of 

AOR Subject Public Pages 

1980-87 Expenditures by subordinate party 

committee for 1980 Republican 

Presidential ticket. 

7/22/80 

1980-88 Personal services donated to 

Presidential campaign committee. 

7/24/80 

1980-89 Beverages and food donated to 

Congressman's district office 

receptions. 

7/29/80 

1980-90 Presidential candidates' partlclpation in televised public affairs 

program produced and distributed 

by corporation. 

7/31/80 5 

Date Made No. o

AOR Subject Public Page

1980-91	 Combined billing notice and con- 8/1/80 2 

tribution solicitation of separate 

segregated fund of membership 

1980-92	 

organization. 

Corporate and foundation support 8/7/80 24
 

for nonprofit, nonpartisan oraaniaatlon's voter registration drives.
 

1980-93	 Candidate's distribution of coin 8/13/80
 

as campaign item.
 

1980-94	 Essay contest sponsored by cendi- 8/13/80
 

date's campaign committee.
 

1980-95	 National bank's contribution to 8/13/80 19
 

fund supporting amendments to
 

state constitution.
 

1980-96	 Post-election public funding for 8/13/80 52
 

independent Presidential candidate.
 

1980·97	 Pre-election donations to Presl- 8/18/80 5
 

dential transition committee.
 

1980-98	 Name of national bank's separate 8/19/80 20
 

segregated fund.
 

1980-99	 Reporting multiple contributions 8/19/80 2
 

from one contributor.
 

1980-100 Separate segregated fund for 8/20/80 4
 

corporation wholly owned by
 

/ foreign nationals. 

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION OF
 

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS
 

In response to AOR 1980-66 (voter registration activitie

conducted by a nonpartisan, nonprofit association and 

corporation), the General Counsel informed the request

er in a letter issued July 3, 1980, that the Commissio

had failed to approve an advisory opinion by the requ

site four-vote majority. 

AOR 1980·73 was withdrawn by its requester on Augus

20,1980. 

missioners are: Max 

The RECORD Is published 

L. Friedersdorf, Chairman; John 

by the Federal Election Commission, 

Warren McGarry; Vice Chairman; Joan D. 

1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. ComAikens; Thomas E. 

Harris; Frank P. Reiche; Robert O. Tiernan; J.S. Klmmltt, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Hensh

Jr., Clerk 

9530.
 

of the House of Representatives, Ex Officio. For 

2 

more Information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424­
•• 

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES \-AO 1980-50: Corporate Payment of Expenses
 

An Advisory Opinion (AD) issued by the Commission in Connection with Separate
 

• 

provides guidance with regard to the specific situation 

described in the AOR's. Any qualified person who has 

requested an AD and acts in accordence 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 1980-33 and Supplement: Trade Association's 

Nonpartisan Voter Drive 

The ·!rilirtlo'nal AssoCiation of Realtors '(the Association). 

a nonprofit, incorporated trade association, may finance 

voter registration and get-out-the-vote programs directed 

to both Association members and the general pubt ie. 

Program for Members. The Association may make either 

partisan or nonpartisan communications to its members 

through phone banks. 11 CFR 114.3(c)(3), 114.7(h) and 

114.8(h). It may also distribute voting materials prepared 

by election officials. 11 CFR 114.4{c)(2). 

Program for General Public. With regard to four radio 

announcements submitted for Commission approval, the 

Association may transmit three to the general public. 

These three transcripts, which urge voter registration, 

satisfy the criteria that the Commission applied to a newspaper advertisement in AO 1980-20: 

1. The communications lack any suggestion that a person 

designate a political party preference when registering to 

vote; 

2.	 The communications do not appeal to any identifiable 

group to ensure their political well-being; and 

3.	 8y appealing to the general public in a radio broadcast, 

the Association has not tried to determine the political 

preference of the audience. 

The fourth communication (considered in the Supplement 

to AD 1980-33) also satisfies the nonpartisan criteria, but 

differs from the other three in its suggestion that the public 

obtain registration information at the real estate offices of 

certain Association members. The Association may use this 

transcript in communications with the general public, 

provided the information supplied by the realtors is prepared by local election officials for distribution to the 

general public and is distributed in a nonpartisan.manner, 

without endorsing, supporting or promoting registration 

with a particular party. 11 CFR 114.4(c)(2). 

Eight proposed get-out-the·vote announcements, encouraging voting rather than registration, also meet the three 

nonpartisan criteria set out in AD 1980-20 and summarized 

above. One of these announcements, however, which suggests that the public obtain absentee voting information at 

realtor offices, may be used only if it also complies with the 

provisions of 11 CFR 114.4{c)(2). 

Commissioners Robert O. Tiernan and Thomas E. Harris 

filed dissenting opinions. (Opinion/Date Issued: June 2, 

1980; 'Length: 8 pages, including dJsse~ting .. op[rio.QS; 

Segregated Fund 

The United Merchants and Manufacturers, Inc. (the Cor

-ration) may pay for certain expenses relating to a mee

that would introduce executive and administrative pers

nel to the Corporation's separate segregated fund (UM

PAC). 

At the proposed breakfast or luncheon meeting, theJ,JM&

PAC. directors would discuss the PAC's structure. philo

phy and purpose, and would explain the contribut

mechanisms available to solicitable employees, tho

contributions would not be collected at the meeting. 

cost of food and transportation to the meeting would ra

from $9 to $22 per employee. The corporation may 

these expenses since they are incurred in establish

administering and soliciting contributions to a sepa

segregated fund. 11 CFR 114.1 (b). 8ecause the mee

would not impart a prize or entertainment benefit to 

employee, UM&M PAC need not reimburse the corporat

for the meeting's expenses. 

The Commission could not reach agreement on the q

tion of whether the Corporation's payment of empio

salaries for time spent traveling to and attending the m

ing would be considered a cost of establishing, admi

tering and soliciting contributions to a separate segreg

fund, or whether the payment would constitute a pro

ited corporate expenditure. If UM&M PAC were to hold 

meeting on a non-working day, however, the ques

would not arise. Commissioner J~__Aikens. file

dissenting.opinion. (Date Issued: July 11, 1980; Len

5 pages) 

J ·'AO 1980-59: Corporate Funds Donated to Defray, 

Administrative Costs of Trade Association

Separate Segregated Fund 

TheLawyers Title Insurance Company (LTIC), a corpo

tion, "may donatefunds to' an account 'maintained by 

American Land Title Association (ALTA), a trade asso

tlon, to defray the administrative and solicitation expen

of ALTA's separate segregated fund. the Titl.e_lndu

Political Action Committee. Because the Act exem

a-d"ministrative and solicitation expenses from the definit

of "contribution" or "expenditure," LTIC may make 

donation to ALTA (in addition to its membership du

without violating the Act's prohibition on corpo

contributions. 2 U.S.C. §441 (b)(2)(C) and §431(8)(B)

and 9(B)(v). Commissioners Thomas E. Harris and Rob

O. Tiernan filed a dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: July 

1980; Length: 3 pages, including di~nting.".l'l~ionL

v<\01980·65: Solicitation Authorization Published 

in Trade Association Magazine 

The National Tire _Dealers and Retreaders Associa

(NTORA) may publish an authorization form in its 

monthly magazine, Dealer News, which requests author

tion from member corporations to solicit their person

The form proposed by NTORA must, however, be rev

to adequately explain the purpose and use of the form. 

Although the Dealer News is distributed to both NTO

members and nonmembers (nonmembers may not 

Supplement/Oate Issued: August 6, 1980; Length: 6 pages) contin

3 
solicited under the Act), an authorization request could be 

published because it would not be considered a solicitation 

for contributions. Instead, the publication of the request 

form would be considered a method of obtaining approval 

from NTDRA's corporate members to solicit their stockholders, executive and administrative personnel and their 

families. 

However, the authorization request, as proposed, is not 

sufficiently specific in stating its purpose. To meet the 

requirements of FEC Regulations and to avoid an improper 

solicitation of nonmembers, the form must make clear that: 

1) only corporate members of NTDRA may approve the 

solicitation; 2) approval may not be given if the corporation has already approved a solicitation by another trade 

association during the year; and 3) a corporation which is 

not already a member will not become a member by signing 

and returning the authorization form. 11 CFR 114.8(d)(3). 

(Date Issued: July 29, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

0'0 1980-67: Notices on Invitations; 

Contributions by Spouses 

AuthorizationlNonauthorization Notice. Invitations to 

receptions hosted n half of th<trussex ~. Long C"ojij? 

m do not require a ISC airner notice 

stating who authorized and paid for the invitations. Although the primary purpose of the receptions is to gain 

support for Senator Long's campaign for the Senate, and 

those invited may be solicited for contributions at the 

reception, a disclaimer notice is not required because 

the invitations will not include any statement which expressly advocates the election of<.Senator Long,or any 

statement which specifically solicits contributions (or 

mentions the possibility of soliciting contributions) to his 

campaign. 

Contributions by Spouses. If a check contributed to the 

Committee is to count as a contribution from husband and 

wife, both individuals must sign either the check or an 

accompanying letter which specifies what portion of the 

contribution is to be attributed to each. 11 CFR 100.7(c) 

and 104.8(d). If not so attributed, the entire amount of the 

check is considered a contribution from the person signing 

the check. This requirement applies regardless of the 

property laws of the state where the contributors reside. 

A portion of a contribution drawn on a partnership account 

may not be attributed to a spouse of a partner, unless the 

spouse is also a member of the partnership. (Date Issued: 

J
August 12, 1980; Length: 5 pages)
 

AO 1980-68: Contributions to Runoff 

ai	 n 

The ell Miller for U.S. Senate ommittee the Committee) 

may, before the primary election takes place, establish an 

escrow account (or authorize a separate campaign committee) to accept contributions for a possible runoff election in 

Georgia. Moreover, the Committee may accept contributions for the runoff election from persons who have contributed up to $1,000 to r. Miller's primary campaign. 

However, these contributioris s e returned to the 

donors if Mr. Miller does not run in the primary runoff. 11 

CF R 102.9(e). 

The Commission did not express an opinion on the Co

1

i tee's acceptance of post-dated checks. (Date Issu

J y 11, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

o 1980-69: Solicitation Form Used by Labor 

Union's Separate Segregated Fund 

The 101 Political Fund he.£und).,-th~paLal~ segregat

und of the Hoist," and Portable Engineers_~~~~ Uni

hOI the nlon) may use a solicitation form thal,wn

{Signed by aunio member, authorizes the Fund to deduc

portion of the member's Vacation Fund. The Vacati

Fund consists of payments made by the member's e

ployer. 

In a previous advisory opinion requested by the Fund 

the permissibility of this solicitation system (AO 1979-6

the Commission concluded that the Vacation Fund cou

be used as a source of voluntary contributions to the Fu

because it was maintained as an escrow account separ

from the Union's treasury funds. Modified to reflect th

advisory opinion, the new authorization form states th

the amount to be deducted from the Vacation Fund (f

cents per hour worked) is only a suggested amount and th

a member may authorize an amount more or less than f

cents per hour. Further, the revised form states that t

Union will not favor or discriminate against a memb

based on the amount contributed to the Fund or based on 

decision not to contribute. 11 CFR 114.5(a)(2). (Da

lssued: July 24, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1980-70: Purchase of Materials from 

Independent Expenditure Committee 

The Committee for Independent Expenditures for Repub

cans (the Committee) is a political" committee whi

intends to make independent expenditures on behalf 

several federal candidates during the 1980 general election

The Committee may sell campaign materials it produces 

an individual who intends to use the materials to make 

own independent expenditures. The individual mu

observe the following guidelines: 

1.	 The individual may publish advertisements purchas

from the Committee without disclosing the name of t

Committee. These advertisements must, however, d

close the individual's full name as well as a stateme

that the advertisement is not authorized by any can

date or candidate's committee. 2 U.S.C. §441d. 

2. The individual may make contributions of up to $5,0

to the Committee during 1980.2 U.S.C. §441a(a)

{C). However, funds spent to purchase campaign ma

rials from the Committee are considered contributio

to the Committee and count against the $5,000 limit. 

In addition, the individual may make independent expen

tures in his own name {from personal funds) while acting 

an officer of the Committee. (Date Issued: August 

1980; Length: 4 pages) 

4 
~980-71: Notices Required for Corporate AO 1980-72: Law Partnership's 

Employee Solicitations Political Contribution Plan 

• 

The Oak Industries, Inc. Political Action Association (the 

Assoclallon), the separate segregated fund·oi Oak t'ndus· 

tries, Inc., is not required to include a disclaimer notice on 

literature used to solicit contributions from the corporation's stockholders and their families and its executive or 

administrative personnel and their families. Since the 

disclaimer notice is required only for communications 

directed to the general public, and since Commission 

Regulations prohibit corporate separate segregated funds 

from soliciting the general public, the disclaimer notice 

would not apply to the Association's solicitation literature. 

2 U.S.C. §441d and §441b(b)(4)(A)(i). 

Although the 1979 Amendments to the Act repealed the 

requirement for a notice stating that a copy of a separate 

segregated fund's report was available for purchase from the 

FEC, the Association may continue to use the notice if it so 

desires. (Date Issued: July 29, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

STATUS OF FEe REGULATIONS 

• 

The law firm of Kilpatrick and Cody (the Partnership) m

pay costs of establishing and operating a voluntary politic

contribution plan for its members without registering a

reporting as a political committee provided the partnersh

does not spend in excess of $1,000 to undertake certa

activities that would "influence federal elections." Und

the proposed contribution plan, each member of t

partnership who wished to contribute to candidates f

public office would establish a special bookkeeping accou

with the partnership. By writing a personal check, t

partner could withdraw personal tunds from this account 

make contributions to the candidate or political committ

of his/her choice. Any special account funds not contr

uted would be refunded at the end of the year to t

individual who had set the funds aside. The partnershi

bookkeeper would maintain records of the special accoun

as well as any contributions from the accounts, at a neg

gible cost to the partnership. 

The costs incurred by the partnership in establishing a

maintaining the contribution plan would not constitu

"expenditures" because their purpose is not to influen

federal elections. Rather, the purpose of the plan is 

"facilitate the management of personal funds of particip

ing partners." Moreover, the partnership indicates 

continu

Regulations'" 

Date Sent 

to Congress 

Federal Register 

Publication 

Date Prescribed* * 

by the Commission 

11 CFR 9033.9 

Suspension of Primary 

Matching Fund Payments 

4/10/80 4/15/80 

(45 FR 25378) 

7/3/80 

11 CFR Part 4 

Public Records and the 

Freedom of Information Act 

Not applicable 5/13/80 

(45 FR 31291) 

6/12/80 

11 CFR Part 5 

Access to Public Disclosure 

Division Documents 

Not applicable 5/13/80 

(45 FR 31292) 

6/12/80 

11 CFR, Parts 100 and 110 

Contributions to and 

Expenditures by Delegates 

to National Nominating 

Conventions 

5/14/80 5/23/80 

(45 FR 34865) 

8/7/80 

11 CFR, Parts 100, 106, 

110,140-146 and 9001-9007 

Public Financing of Presidential General Election 

Campaign 

6/13/80 6/27/80 

(45 FR 43371) 

Congressional 

approval pending 

·The chart is cumulative, listing all amendments to tile FEC Regulations proposed after the 1980 edition of 11 CFR was published, inctud

any technical amendments. 

uThe Commission may Prescribe its regulations 30 legislative davs after it has transmitted them to Congress, provided neither the House 

the Senate disapproves thern during this period. 

5 
intention to create a political committee since the member's decision to contribute funds to a candidate would be 

an individual, not a group, decision. 

The proposed contribution program would become. a 

political committee, however, if the partnership spent more 

than $1,000 to influence federal elections. An attempt to 

influence elections would occur if: 

1. The partnership distributed information within the firm 

which identified partners participating in the plan, the 

amounts of their contributions and the candidates to 

whom they contributed. 

2. Participation in the plan was conditioned on a formal or 

informal agreement to make, or to refrain from making, 

contributions to any particular candidate or class of 

candidates. 

3. The program included any arrangement whereby several 

contributions for the same candidate would be accumulated and collectively forwarded to the candidate. (Date 

Issued: August 12, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1980·74:	 Labor Organization's 

Membership Solicitation Program 

Operating EngiQ~ers Local E (Local 37) may use a proP"lrsed solicitation plan, provided that Local 37 modifies its 

contribution authorization form to indicate how the 

member can contribute an amount other than that suggested by the union. Under the proposed solicitation 

program, a member of the Local voluntarily signs an 

authorization card permitting the deduction and transfer of 

funds from his or her Vacation Fund to the separate 

segregated funds established, respectively, by the national 

labor organization of which Local 37 is a member and by a 

labor federation with which the national labor organization 

is affiliated. The Vacation Fund is a permissible source of.; 

voluntary contributions because it consists of funds earned; 

by union members and does not include funds commingled i 

. with union treasury monies or funds required as a condition 

of employment or union membership. .~

\ 

The proposed deduction authorization/card is acceptable 

because it contains a clear statement informing contributors 

of the political purpose of the funds and assurances that the 

contribution guidetines are merely suggestions and the 

union will not penalize anyone because his/her contribution 

is too small or because he/she decides not to contribute at 

all. However, the form must be revised to indicate the 

contributor can contribute an amount other than that 

suggested by the authorization form. 

The Commission noted that Commission Regulations 

governing joint fundraising and tranfers of contributions 

between affiliated committees also apply to the solicitation 

program. 11 CFR 102.6, 102.8 and 103.3. IDate Issued: 

August 12, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

. AO 1980-75: National Trade Association's \ Solicitation of "Designated" Members 

The National Restaurant Association (N RA), a national 

tracre association, must obtain written approval from its 

member corporations before soliciting contributions to its 

separate segregated fund from employees who have been 

designated by these corporations as individual N RA members.: 

Under NRA's membership policy, a member organizati

may designate its executive and administrative employees 

individual members of NRA. The corporate member "tran

fers portions of its membership rights" to the individual 

designates as a member. It may also pay the annual NR

dues of the designated member. While the individu

designated as NRA members are entitled to all the rig

and benefits accorded to individuals who obtain memb

ship by initiating their own application, the designat

members enjoy these rights and benefits solely by virtue 

their employers' membership in NRA. In effect, the des

nated member acts as a representative of his or her e

ployer in the exercise of membership rights. N RA wou

therefore, be precluded from soliciting these individu

without prior' approval by their corporate employers. 

CFR 114.8. 8y contrast, under 11 CFR 114.7, NRAcou

directly solicit noncorporate individual members who h

independently applied for membership. Commission

Joan D. Aikens and Chairman Max L. Friedersdorf filed 

dissenting opinion. (Date Issued: August 18, 1980; Lengt

8 pages, includinq dissenting opiniQ.~)

" AO 1980·76: Fees for Regular Radio and v Television Appearances 

Fees received by Senator William Proxmire for regul

appearances on a monthly radio program and a week

television program do not count against his $25,000 p

year honorarium limit. The fees are considered "stipend

under Commission Regulations - as distinct from "honor

ria" - because they constitute "payment for services on 

continuing basis, including a salary or other compensati

paid by news media for commentary on events other th

the campaign of the individual compensated." 11 CF

110.12(c)(3). 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the applicati

of tax laws and Senate rules to the stipends. (Date Issue

August 1, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-78:	 Use of Campaign Finance
 

Information in Candidate's ­


Solicitation Letter
 

Using information obtained from disclosure reports fil

with the FEC, Senate candidate Don L. Richardson ma

in a solicitation letter, publish the total disbursemen

made by candidates in previous elections. Since the lett

would not disclose the identity of contributors, use of th

information would not be prohibited by 2 U.S.C. §438(

(4) or 11 CFR 104.15. (Dated Issued: August 12, 198

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1980-79:	 Name of Independent Expenditure
 

Committee Advocating Presidential
 

Candidate's Defeat
 

'Mr. Brad Sherman may not use the name "America

. Against Reagan" for a proposed political committee whic

would be "totally independent of any other politic

committee, candidate or political party" and which wou

advocate the defeat of the Republican nominee in th

general election. Under the Act and Commission Regu

tions, any political committee which is not authorized by 

candidate may not include the name of any candidate in 

title. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(4) and 1J. CFR 102.14(a). (Da

Issued: August 1, 1980; Length: 2 pages) 

6 
~1980'80: Separate Campaign Committees a single purchase of advertising space as well as a series 

for Special and Primary Elections advertisements and solicitations by a full-fledged politic

• 

Mr. George W. Crockett may use the principal campaign 

committee establ~for his Congressional primary 

election to campaign in a special election held on the same 

date to fill the same Congressional seat. Since the two 

campaigns would be for different terms of the same office, 

Mr. Crockett would not be subject to 11 CFR 110.8(d)(I), 

'which requires a candidate to designate separate campaign 

committees when running "for more than one Federal 

office." (Date Issued: July 11,1980; Length: 2 pages) 

JDISTRICT COURT DISMISSES 

V MOTT VS. FEC 

On June 30, 1980, the United States District Court for 

the District of Columbia dismissed a suit in which Stewart 

R. Mott, Rhonda K, Stahlman and the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) had sought 

declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEe. In its 

motion to dismiss the suit (Mott et aJ. v. FEC, Civil Action 

No. 79·3375), the FEC argued that some of the claims 

presented in the suit were not ripe for consideration by the 

Court while others failed to state a claim on which relief 

could be granted. In its role as amicus curiae, Common 

•	 Cause had also filed a brief arguing dismissal of the suit. 

Plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of provisions 

of the Act, FEC Regulations, advisory opinions and other 

written interpretations which regulate independent political 

activity by prescribing limits on contributions from individuals, groups and political committees to other individuals, 

groups and political committees which make independent 

expenditures. Plaintiffs claimed that these provisions define 

the terms "contribution" and "expenditure" in overly 

broad and vague language. 

Mr. Matt proposed that, together with other "Hke-minded 

individuals," he would purchase advertising space in The 

New York Times to express his views on political issues and 

expressly advocate the election or defeat of several clearly 

identified federal candidates. Specifically, he claimed that 

the First Amendment rights of those purchasing the ad 

would be restricted by provisions of the Act illegally requiring that: 

1. This group of individuals register with the FEC as a 

political committee when their expenditures for the 

advertisinq exceed $1,000; and 

2.	 The amount spent in the joint advertising purchase 

count against the limits imposed on individual contributions to political committees. 

•
 

The District Court determined that the constitutional
 

issues raised by Mr. Mott were not ripe for judicial decision
 

.in the absence of a more fully developed factual record.
 

The claim that Mr. Matt wished to "join with others" in
 

purchasing the advertising was broad enough to encompass
 

committee. Further, the Court noted that Mr. Mott shou

have requested an advisory opinion from the FEC on th

application of the Act to this proposed activity before see

ing a review by the Court. 

Both NCPAC and Ms. Stahlman challenged the constit

tionality of limits on contributions by individuals 

political committees which make independent expend

tures. Ms. Stahlman's and NCPAC's claims raised thr

constitutional issues: 

1. Whether	 the definition of "contribution" in 2 U.S.C

§43H8) abridges First Amendment rights since it limi

contributions which individuals may make to politic

committees undertaking independent expenditures; 

2. Whether 2 U.S.C.	 §441ala)(3), which limits total co

tributions by an individual within any calendar year 

$25,000, is unconstitutional under the First and Fif

Amendments; and 

3. Whether 2 U.S.C.	 §441a(a)(I)(cl, which iimits contrib

tions by a person to a political committee to $5,000 

any calendar year, is unconstitutional under the Fir

and Fifth Amendments. 

The District Court pointed out that, in the Buck/ey 

Va/eo decision, the Supreme Court had upheld the constit

tionalitv of the contribution limits. (Buckley v. Va/eo, 42

U.S. 1 at 38 (1976)). The District Court said that, althoug

the Supreme Court had not specifically addressed th

$5,000 limit on individual contributions to political cor

mittees, its "reasoning ... clearly indicated that the restri

tion is constitutional." The Supreme Court had reasone

that a limit on contributions infringed far less on Fir

Amendment rights than did a limit on expenditures, b

cause' the contribution limits involved restrictions o

indirect, rather than direct, political expression. Furthe

whatever infringement did occur was justified by the nee

to curb the "actuality and appearance of corruption" flow

ing from large individual contributions. (Buck/ey v, vete

424 U.S. 1 at 26 (1976)) continue

~EC PUBLIC APPEARANCES 

In keeping with its objective of making information available to the public, the Commission regularly 

accepts invitations to address public gatherings. This 

column lists upcoming scheduled Commission appearances, the name of the sponsoring organization, the 

location of the event and the name of the Commission's speaker. For additional information on any 

scheduled appearance, please contact the sponsoring 

orqanization. 

9/5	 Pennsylvania Election Officials
 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
 

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens
 

9/24	 Northeast City and Town Clerks
 

Chatham, Massachusetts
 

Vice Chairman John Warren McGarry
 

7 
/ FELICE M. GELMAN AND CITIZENS ment from the Court that, to the extent the 

FOR LAROUCHE, INC. VS. FEC Fund does not provide post-election funding 

On July 22, 1980, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion affirming 

the FEC's determination that Lyndon H. LaRouche had 

failed to reestablish his eligibility for primary matching 

funds in the Democratic Presidential primary held in 

Michigan on May 20. 1980. In its May 28,1980, ruling, the 

Commission found that Mr. LaRouche had failed to receive 

at least 20 percent of all votes cast for Democratic contenders in the Presidential primary, the minimal amount 

necessary to reestablish eligibility. 

Felice M. Gelman and Citizens for LaRouche, Inc. had filed 

a petition on June 11, 1980, contending that the Commission should have applied the definition of "candidate" provided by 26 U.S.C. §9033(2) in determining whether Mr. 

LaRouche had reestablished his eligibility for primary 

matching funds. That provision stipulates that, for purposes 

of establishing initial eligibility for primary matching funds, 

a Presidential primary candidate must be "actively conducting campaigns in more than one State." In calculating total 

votes in the Michigan Democratic primary, Mr. LaRouche 

argued, this definition of "candidate" would have excluded 

votes cast for a candidate who had ceased to campaign 

actively in more than one state and votes cast for "uncommitted" delegates (i.e., those not pledged to any specific 

candidate). The FEC argued that the provisions of 26 

U.S.C. §9033(c)(4)(B) required the Commission to count 

total votes cast for all Presidential primary candidates in a 

particular primary - including all votes cast for inactive or 

write-in candidates or "uncommitted" delegates. 

In upholding the FEC's method of determining Mr. LaRouche's reeligibility for primary matching funds, the 

Court maintained n .•. petitioners' narrow focus on the 

word 'candidate', to the exclusion of the phrase within 

which that word appears, results in a strained and artificial 

construction that is at odds with the Act's underlying 

concern that federal matching funds should go only to 

those candidates who have demonstrated at least minimal 

public support for their candidacies." 

~ITIGATION STATUS INFORMATION 

The following is a list of new litigation involving the 

Commission, together with the date the suit was filed, the 

court involved, the docket number and a brief description 

of the major issuelsl involved in the case. Persons seeking 

additional information on a particular case should contact r court where the suit is filed or the Commission. 

JJohn B. Anderson et al. v. FEe. U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, Docket No. 80-1911. July 31, 1980. 

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9011lb)(2), plaintiffs 

seek prompt convening of a three-judge court 

to rule that John B. Anderson is entitled to the 

same post-election public funding for the 1980 

Presidential general election as that provided 

Presidential candidates of "new parties" by the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (the 

Fund). Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgfor independent candidates, the Fund violates 

First and Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs 

further seek an injunction requiring the FEC to 

grant post-election public funding to Mr. 

and 

Anderson, 

certifications 

provided 

required 

he submits 

under 

the 

the Federal 

agreements 

I Election Campaign Act and receives five percent or more of the popular vote in the 1980 Vl'_ Presidential general election. 

Common Cause et al, v. Harrison Schmitt et at and Fede

Election Commission (Intervening Defendant). U.S. Distr

Court for the District of Columbia, Docket No. 80-160

FEC Motion to Intervene (July 11,1980); FEC Motion 

Dismiss (July 21,1980).
 

On July 1, 1980. Common Cause and others 

filed suit against Americans for Change (an independent expenditure committee), Harrison 

Schmitt (committee chairman) and Carl T. 

Curtis (committee treasurer). Common Cause 

alleged defendants had made (or were about to 

make) independent and coordinated expenditures in violation of 26 U.S.C. §9012(f), which 

prohibits expenditures by unauthorized political committees in excess of $1,000 on behalf of 

a publicly funded Presidential nominee of a 

major party. 

On July 11, 1980. the FEC filed a motion to 

intervene as defendant in Common Cause et at. 

v, Harrison Schmitt et al. (Civil Action No. 80­

1609). FEC sought dismissal of the suit on 

grounds 

civil enforcement 

that it had 

of 

exclusive 

violations 

jurisdiction 

alleged in 

over 

the 

suit (2 U.S.C. §§437c(b)(11 and 437g) and 

that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. On 

August 5, 1980, the Court granted the FEC's 

motion to intervene. 

On July 15, 1980, the FEC filed its own suit 

/ against Americans for Change and two other 

~r:1 political committees (see below).
 

FEC v. Americans for Change, Americans for an Effecti

Presidency and Fund for a Conservative Majority, U.S. D

trict Court for the District of Columbia, Docket No. 8

1754, July 15, 1980.
 

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § §9011 (bj(2) and
 

9010(c), FEC seeks expedited review by a
 

',~~ree·judge district court of certain provisions
 

o'f the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
 

Act. Specifically, the FEC seeks the Court's 

decl~ratory judgment that: 1) expenditures 

defendants propose to make on behalf of a 

publicly funded Presidential nominee of a 

rnaior party are in violation of 26 U.S.C. 

§9012(f)(1) and 2) 26 U.S.C. §9012(f)(1), 

which limits expenditures made by unauthorized political committees on behalf of a Presidential nominee receiving public funds, is contures. 

stitutional as applied to defendants' expendi­

8 
L, Mo ;00 Committee Inc, et al, v, '''. Volunteering his or her services (not compensated 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, anyone) to the candidate's campaign or to the can

• 

Docket No. 80·1842, July 24,1980. 

Plaintiffs sought a stay from the Appeals Court 

that would prevent FEC certification of the 

Republican Presidential nominee's eligibility for 

public funds pending resolution of an administrative complaint filed by plaintiffs against the 

nominee and other parties. On July 24, 1980, 

the Appeals Court denied plaintiffs' motion for 

a stay. 

SUPPORT FOR PUBLICLY FUNDED 

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 

The Office of Public Communications has received many 

inquiries about how individuals, political parties, corporations and unions may support Presidential candidates who 

accept public financing for their general election campaigns. 

The following information responds to some of these 

questions. 

•

What mayan individual do to support the Presidential 

.candidate of his or her choice? 

Individuals may not make direct contributions to major 

party candidates who accept public funding. They may, 

however, make direct contributions of up to $1,000 to any 

,other type of Presidential candidate, including a minor or 

new party candidate who accepts partiai or retroactive 

public funding. In addition, an individual may support the 

Presidential candidate of his or her choice by: 

- Contributing up to $1,000 to the candidate's compliance 

turd." 

Contributing up to $5,000 to a state or local party committee which may, in turn, make certain disbursements 

that may benefit the Presidential nominee. 

Contributing up to $20,000 to the national committee 

of the candidate's political party,** which may, in turn, 

make "coordinated party expenditures" on behalf of the 

Presidential nominee. 

Making his or her own independent expenditures to 

advocate the candidate's election (or to oppose the 

election of another Presidential candidate), provided the 

expenditures are not made "with the cooperation or 

with the prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at 

the request or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or 

authorized committee of such candidate:' 11 CFR 

109.Ha). The individual making "independent expenditures" must report them when they exceed $250 per 

calendar year. 11 CFR 109.2(a). 

date's political party. 11 CFR 100.7(bl(3). 

Conducting a campaign activity on behalf of the nom

nee in his/her home, or in a church or community roo

used on a regular basis by members of the commun

for noncommercial purposes. Costs of invitations, fo

and beverages provided by the volunteer may not, ho

ever, exceed $1,000.11 CFR 100.7(b)(5) and (8),100

(b)(6l and (71. 

Traveling on behalf of the candidate, provided the co

for travel do not exceed $1,000. 11 CFR 100.7(b)

and (9). 

What role may a Presidential candidate's political par

play in supporting the candidate if he or she accepts pub

funding? 

The National 'Party committee or its agents "may ma

special "coordinated party expenditures" to promote t

election of its Presidential nominee in the general electio

These expenditures are subject to a spending limit based 

the national voting age population ($4,637,853.78 

19801. Although these expenditures may be made in coo

eration with the candidate, the party committee - not t

candidate - is responsible for actually making and repo

ing them. (See 11 CFR 110.7.) 

The state and local party committees may engage in certa

activities that also benefit the Presidential nominee. Th

may, for example, produce certain campaign materials (e

pins and bumper stickers) which are used in connecti

with volunteer activities. Or, they may distribute a samp

ballot identifying the nominee and conduct voter regist

tion and get-out-the-vote drives on behalf of the nomin

All such activities are subject to specific provisions of t

Act and FEC Regulations. 11 CFR 100.7(bl(9) and (15). 

May corporations and labor organizations issue communi

tions that support Presidential candidates in the gene

election? 

Yes. Corporations and labor organizations may engage 

certain partisan and nonpartisan communication activit

which support Presidential candidates - regardless 

whether the candidates accept public funding for th

general election campaigns. These activities are subject 

the specific requirements of Commission Regulations. (S

11 CFR Part 114.) 

Partisan Communications. Corporations and labor organiz

tions may expressly advocate the election or defeat 

Presidential candidates, for example, by publishing print

materials or setting up a phone bank on behalf of a can

date. In the case of a corporation, these communicatio

must be limited to the corporation's stockholders, exec

tive and administrative personnel and their families. In t

case of labor organizations, partisan communications mu

be limited to the labor organization's membership and th

families. 11 CFR 114.3. Moreover, expenditures for the

• 

internal communications may be reportable. 11 CF

lilA publicly funded Presidential candidate may establish a separate 100.8(b)(4). 

Legal and Accounting Compliance Fund to pay costs of complying with the Act. Contributions to the fund are subject to the Nonpartisan Communications. Corporations and labor 

limits and prohibitions of the Act. See 11 CFR 9003.3(al.
 

....Total contributions by individuals in connection with federal
 ganizations may also sponsor certain nonpartisan commu

elections may not exceed $25,000 per year. continu

9 
cations made to the general public, provided these communications meet the requirements of Commission Regulations. 11 CFR '14.4. For example, in assisting a nonpartisan civic or nonprofit organization, a corporation or labor 

organization may jointly sponsor nonpartisan registration 

and get-out-the-vote drives directed to the general public. 

May corporations or labor organizations pay for legal and 

accounting services rendered to a Presidential campaign? 

Yes. Corporations and labor organizations (as well as 

partnerships) may pay for legal and accounting services 

rendered by their regular employees to Presidential candidate committees, provided the services are rendered solely 

to ensure compliance with the Act. Costs incurred by the 

regular employer for these services must be reported by the 

committee in accordance with 11 CFR 104.3(h). 11 CFR 

100.7(bH14). 

For a summary of recent revisions to the regulations 

governing public financing of Presidential general elections, 

see the August 1980 Record, page 1. 

JFEC CERTIFIES R"UBLICAN 

GENERAL ELECTION FUNDS 

On July 24, 1980, the Commission approved payment of 

$29,440,000 in federai funds for the general election campaign of Republican Presidential nominee Ronald Reagan 

and his Vice Presidential running mate, George Bush. Mssrs. 

Reagan and Bush had requested the funding in a July 18th 

letter to the Commission. In that letter, the candidates 

agreed to abide by the overall spending limit, to use only 

public funds for the campaign and to comply with other 

legal requirements. They designated the Reagan for President General Election Committee, based in Arlington, 

Virginia, as the recipient of the funds. 

By law, the Presidential nominee of each major party is 

entitled to full public financing of the general election 

campaign ($20 million plus a cost-of-livinq adjustment). 

Major party candidates accepting public financing for their 

general election campaigns are subject to a spending limit of 

$29,440,000 (the amount of the grant). In addition, the use 

of the nominees' personai funds is limited to $50,000. (All 

expenditures made by or on behalf of a Vice Presidential 

candidate are considered to be made on behalf of the 

Presidential candldate.) Private funds, subject to contribution limits, may be raised and spent for legal and accounting costs solely to ensure compliance with the Act. 

TWO NEW INDEPENDENT
 

EXPENDITURE INDEXES AVAILABLE
 

Two new FEC computer indexes provide detailed i

formation on independent expenditures advocating th

election or defeat of federal candidates. Initiated on Jul

14, 1980, both indexes are produced on a monthly bas

and cover the periods 1977·78 and 1979-80.
 

One index, a more efficient version of the previous ind

pendent expenditure index, indicates on a candidate-by

candidate basis the details of independent expenditure

made for or against a candidate as reported by politica

committees and persons making the independent expend

tures. Total independent expenditures for or against eac

candidate are also shown as well as grand totals for all can

didates..
 

The second index of independent expenditures is com

pletely new. It organizes information on a filer-by-file

basis. For each political committee or person makin

independent expenditures, the index lists the candidate

supported and opposed. This new index is available in tw

versions: in the summary version, aggregate amounts spen

for or against a candidate are shown; in the detailed version

the particulars of each expenditure are displayed. Tota

figures are also included.
 

The monthly independent expenditures indexes are avai

able for review in the FEC's Public Records Office. Copie

are available at five cents per page. For further information

contact: Office of Public Records, Federal Election Com

mission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 o

telephone 202/523·4181 or toll free, 800/424·9530. 

i REPORTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY 

OF PRESIl)ENTlAL PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS 

The FEC released summary figures on July 29, 1980, o

funds raised and spent by 16 Presidential contenders from 

the start of their campaigns through May 31, 1980. Each o

these campaigns had topped the $100,000 mark in tota

receipts and expenditures. The figures were part of an on

going study on the 1980 Presidential primaries entitle

Reports on Financial Activity; Presidential Pre-Nominatio

Campaigns. Interim Report No.7, the most recent instal

ment of the study, indicated that the Presidential cand

dates had collectively raised $1 15.6 million in their primar

campaigns and spent $111.4 million. Funds raised for thei

campaigns came from the following sources: 

As of July 24, 1980, the Commission had also certified
 

$8,832,000 in Presidential nominating convention pay­ $67.2 million (58 percent) from private (individua

ments to the Democratic and Republican National Commit­ contributions;
 

tees ($4,416,000 each), and $2!j,624,936.78 in Presidential $25.1 million (22 percent) from federal matching fund

dates. 

primary matching funds to ten Presidential primary candi­ $1.3 

mittees; 

million (one percent) from nonparty political com

10 
$.5 million (.4 percent) from candidates' personal funds 

and $.8 million (.7 percent) in loans from candidates to 

their campaigns; and 

$15.4 million (13 percent) in other loans. 

•	 Some of the information contained in the study is presented in the chart below. In those instances where no 

figures appear, available figures were of minimal value or 

unverified. 

PRIMARY ELECTION CAMPAIGNS* 

.'
 

Copies of Nos. 1-7 of the Reports on Financial Activity f

selected 19BO Presidential candidates are available for p

chase ($1.00 per report) from the Public Records Office 

the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20463; or call 202/523-41Bl locally 

toll-free 800/424-9530. 

Total Matching Expenditure

Net Individual "PAC" Funds Certified Net Subject to 

Candidate Receipts Contributions Contributions as of 5/31/80 Disbursements limits** 

DEMOCRATS 

Brown $ 3.0 $1.7 $ .03 $ .B $ 2.9 $ 2.0 

Carter 16.5 11.8 .43 3.6 16.3 12.1 

Kennedy 13.6 6.3 .11 2.9 13.2 8.7 

LaRouche 1.6 1.1 --­ .5 1.6 1.5 

REPUBLICANS 

Anderson 7.0 3.9 .02 2.7 6.5 5.8 

Baker 7.9 3.B .11 2.1 7.8 3.2 

Bush 20.5 10.0 .12 5.3 20.4 12.8 

Connally 13.0 10.7 .20 0 12.8 N/A 

Crane 5.2 3.5 ._­ 1.6 5.2 4.2 

Dole 1.5 .9 .04 .4 1.5 1.2 

Fernandez .2 .2 .002 0 .2 N/A 

Reagan 24.5 13.0 .20 5.2 22.0 12.6 

Stassen .1 --­ 0 0 .1 N/A 

LI BERTARIANS 

Clark .7 .3 0 0 .7 N/A 

Hunscher .2 --­ 0 0 .1 N/A 

SOCIALIST WORKERS 

Pulley .1 .06 0 0 .1 N/A 

TOTAL $115.6 $67.2 $1.3 $25.1 $111.4 $64.1 

• *Figures given in the chart represent millions of dollars.
 

**Presidential primary candidates who accept matching funds are SUbject to both national and state-by-state spending limits. See FEC Regu

tlons at 11 CFR 9035.1.
 

11 
j FECTESTIFIES 

ON BILINGUAL STUDY 

On July 30, 1980, FEC Chairman Ma" L. Friedersdorf 

testified before the House Subcommittee on Civil and 

Constitutional Rights on the Bilingual Election Services 

study, a multiyear study of bilingual election practices 

conducted by the University of Mexico under contract to 

the FEe's Clearinghouse on Election Administration. (See 

the June 1980 Record for a detailed description of the 

study.) 

Chairman Friedersdorf explained that the primary purpose 

of the study was to provide local election officials with a 

broad range of ideas and suggestions for designing programs 

to administer bilingual elections. The study did not, however, attempt to assess the need for or success of the bilingual provisions of the 1975 Voting Rights Act, nor did it 

measure the effectiveness of such programs. 

Volumes I and III of Bilingual Election Services are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. 

Dept. of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Hd., Springfield, VA 

22161. Identify report numbers (Vol. I, No. PB300432AS, 

$7.00; Vol. III, No. PB300433AS, $11.00) and enclose a 

check or money order payable to National Technical 

Information Service. 

Volume II of Bilingual Election Services is available fr

the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Pr

ing .Office, Washington, D.C_ 20404. Identify report t

and GPO stock number (052-006-00007-4), Enclos

check or money order for $3.50, payable to Superintend

of Documents. 

/ SUBSCRIPTIONS TO 

THE ELECTION LAW UPDATES 

AND THE ELECTION CASE LAW SERIES 

The following publications from the FEC's Cleari

house are now available on a subscription basis from 

Government Printing Office: 

- Election Law Updates is a quarterly series which su

marizes all new state and federal election legislation. T

series is cumulative through the year, culminating in 

annual summary. It is indexed by topic and state. S

scription price: $11.00 per year. 

EtectionCese Law is a quarterly serieswhich summari

recent state and federal litigation relating to elect

matters. The series is cumulative through the ye

culminating in an annual summary. It is indexed 

topic and case. Subscription price: $10.00 per year. 

You may order these subscriptions by mail from: Super

tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Off

Washington, D.C. 20402. Identify report title. Enclos

check or money order for subscription price(s) payable 

Superintendent of Documents. Please do not send checks 

money orders to the Federal Election Commission. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1325 K STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

FIRST CLASS MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

FEe
 

WASHINGTON. D.C.
 

PERM IT NO. G·31
 

12