Volume 12, Numb

continued on 

REPORTS

October Reports Due

PUBLICATIONS

9 Order Information

STATISTICS

8 Party Activity Declines

COURT CASES

5 Antosh v. FEC (Sixth Suit)

5 Orloski v. FEC (Second Suit)

6 FEe v. Dramesi for Congress

7 FEG v. Walsh for Congress

7 FEe v. Jimmy Carter Committee

for a Greater America

7 New Litigation

4 FEDERAL REGJSTER NOTICES

1 ADVISORY OPINIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMPLIANCE

II Nonfilers

OCTOBER REPORTING SCHEDULE

The chart and DaragraDhs on pages 2 an

explain the reporting schedule for the vari

types of filers.

10 INDEX

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

September 1986 999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463

AO 1986-19: Primary Contribution Limit for

Unopposed Candidates in States

with No Primaries

Unopposed candidates in Florida and South Carolina do not run in primary elections. They may

nevertheless accept primary election contributions. A separate limit applies, respectively, to

the primary and general elections.

Florida and South Carolina state laws eliminate prIrnar-ies for unopposed candidates in those

states. Under the Act and FEC Regulations, however,candidates have a separate contribution

limit for the primary regardless of whether they

are unopposed and even if they are not involved in

a primary election. 11 CFR 110.1(j)(2). For purposes of the primary limit, the date on which the

primary was originally scheduled is considered the

primary election date. 11 CFR 1l0.1(j)(3). Furthermore, in a recent advisory opinion, the Commission determined that an unopposed primary

candidate had to file a pre-primary report. (For a

summary of this opinion, AO 1985-21, see page 6

of the August 1986 Record.)

Since the advisory opinion request did not

cite specific Florida or South Carolina laws which

prohibit a federal candidate from accepting contributions for a primary election that is not held,

the Commission did not address the issue of

whether the Act preempted SUch laws. The Commission noted, however, that Commission Regulations specifically provide that the Act supersedes

state laws with respect to limits on contributions

to federal candidates and political com mittees.

See 2U,S.C. §453; 11 CFR I08.7{b){3) and Jl2.l(b)."

(Date issued: July 11, 1986; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1986-22: Rebates Offerd by T.V. Station

to Candidates

WREX-TV, an incorporated television station, may

offer rebates (Le., cruise tickets or their cash

equivalent) to political committees who increase

"their advertising spending by a fixed amount over

the previous year. Under the Act and FEC Regulations, goods and services provided by corporations to political committees and candidates are

viewed as prohibited contributions only if they are

continued on p. 4
2

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

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

Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; Thomas E. Harris; Thomas J. Josefiak; Jo-Anne L. Coe,

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

Ex Officio. For more information, ca1l202!376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 12, Numte

WHERE REPORTS ARE FILED

Committees must file all reports and stat

ments simultaneously with the appropriate feder

and state officials. 11 CPR 108.5.

Piling with the Federal Government

o The principal campaign committees of Hou

candidates and committees supporting or op

posing only House candidates file with th

Clerk of the House, Office of Records an

Registration, 1036 Longworth House Offic

Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. 11 CF

104.4(c)(3) and 105.1.

o The principal campaign committees of Sena

candidates and committees supporting or op

posing only Senate candidates file with th

Secretary of the Senate, Senate Public Record

Hart Senate Office Building, Room 232, Was

ington, D.C. 20510. 11 CPR 104.4(C)(2) an

105.2.

o All other committees, including the princip

campaign committees of Presidential cand

dates, file with the Federal Election Com

mission, 999 E Street. N.W., Washington, D.C

20463. 11 CFR 105.3 and 105.4.

Filing with State Governments

a The principal campaign committees of Con

gressional candidates must file a copy of ever

report and statement with the Secretary 

State or the appropriate elections official o

the state in which the candidate seeks feder

office. 11 CFR 108.3. .

o PACs and party com mittees mak ing contribu

tions or expenditures in connection with Hou

and Senate races file in the state in which th

candidate seeks election. The law requires 

copy only of that portion of the report appl

cable to the. candidatees) being supported. Com

mittees supporting Presidential candidates mu

file in the staters) in which the Presidenti

committee and donor committee have the

respective headquarters. See the June 198

Record for the names and addresses of stat

offices.

HOW TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION

Questions and requests for forms should b

addressed to the Information Services Division

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

septemtBr 1986

Change in Piling Prequency

PACs and party committees which plan to

change their reporting schedule (e.g., from quarterly to monthly) must notify the Commission of

their intention. The committee may notify the

Com mission by submitting 11 letter with the next

report due under its current reporting schedule. A

committee may not change its filing frequency

more than once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c). The FEC

requests that Presidential committees also inform

the Commission In writing if they decide to

change their reporting schedule.

Last-Minute Contributions

Any contribution of $1,000 or more received

by a candidate's eommittee between two and 20

days before an election must be reported in

writing by the recipient committee within 48

hours after it is received. 11 CFR 104.5(f).

Last-Minute Independent Expenditures

Any independent expenditures aggregating

$1,000 or more and made between one and 20 days

before an election must be reported within 24

hours after the expenditure is made. II CFR

104.4(b) and (c).

pre-Primary Report

The report is due 12 days before the primary

election and must be complete as of the 20th day

before the election. If sent by registered or

certified mail, the report must be postmarked no

later than the 15th day before the election.

Monthly Report

The monthly report must be filed by October

20. It should cover all activity from September 1

(or from the closing date of the last report filed

in 1986) through September 30.

Pre-General Election Report

Due by October 23, the report should cover

all activity from October 1 (or from the closing

date of the last report filed in 1986) through

October 15.

Quarterly Report

Due by October 15, the report should cover

all activity from July 1 (or from the closing date

of the last report filed in 19&6) through September 30.

OCTOBER REPORTING SCHEDULE
3

YRequired of candidates active in September or October primaries. See pages 2 through 3 of t

January 1986 Record for primary filing deadlines.

YThe pre-general election report must be postmarked no later than October 20, 1986 (t.e., thr

days before the filing date). 11 CFR 104.5(c)(l)(ii) and (e).

;IIAll Presidential committees are required to file on either a monthly or a quarterly basis duri

1986. 11 CFR 104.5(b)(2).

YAH corporate and labor PACs, nonconnected committees and party committees are required 

file on either a monthly or a Quarterly basis in 1986.

YRequired only if the committee makes contributions or expenditures (including independe

expenditures by a PAC) in connection with a primary which have not been previously disclosed.

VRequired only if the committee makes contributions or expenditures in connection with t

general election which have not been prevtousty disclosed. Reportable activity includes independe

expenditures by PACs and coordinated expenditures by party committees.

!..!Report required if aggregate costs (or partisan, internal communications for all 1986 primari

have exceeded $2,000.

x

x§./

x

x

Pre-General

Election!/

October 23

Volume 12, Numb

x

x

Report

x2../

x

x

Pre-Primary.!/ Monthly

October 20

x

x

x

x

x

Quarterly

October 15

FEDERAL ELECTION COMrvllSSION

PAC/Party Committees:

Monthly Filers!/

PAC/Party Committees:

Quarterly Filers

Congressional Candidates

Active in the 1986 Primaries

and General Elections

Presidential Candidate

Committees: Monthly Filersll

Presidential Candidate

Committees: Quarterly Filers

Connected Organizations:

Com municationsY

Congressional Candidates

Active in 1986 Primaries Only

Type of Filer

Septemoor 1986

!L£
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 12, Numm 

AOR Subject

1986-28 Candidate's campaign headquartered 

residence jointly owned with spou

(Date made public: July 28, 19

Length: 1 page)

1986-29 Slate mailing sponsored by House can

date's campaign. (Date made public. A

gust 7, 1986 ; Length: 2 pages, plus 

page supplement)

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Copies of notices are available in the PU

Records Office.

1986-30 Congressmen's reporting requireme

for use of houseboat. (Date made publ

August l l, 1986; Length: 4 pages)

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests 

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of e

AOR is available to the public in the Comm

sion's Office of Public Records.

Notice Title

1986-3 Filing Dates for Hawaii Special Elect

(51 Fed. Reg. 27457, July 31,1986)

1986-4 11 CFR Part 110: Contribution and E

penditure Limits and Prohibitions' N

tice of Proposed Rulernaking (51' F

Reg. 27183, July 30, 1986) -

1986-5 II CFR Part 9001 et al.: Public Fina

ing of Presidential Primary and Gene

Election Candidates and 11 C

100.7(b)(Il) and 100.8(b)(I2): Bank Loa

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (51 F

Reg. 28154, August 5, 1986) -

1986-6 Dates of North Carolina Special El

tions (51 Fed. Reg. 27599j August 

1986)

4

Septemoor 1986

continued from p. 1

offered at less than the Usual and normal charge.

II CFR 100.7(a)(l)(iii)[A). Because WREX-TV will

offer the rebates on the same terms and conditions to both political and nonpolitical advertisers, it is providing the services at the usual and

normal charges. Thus, the rebates would not be

considered prohibited corporate contributions.

Under the Act and FEC rules, WREX-TV will

not be subject to any specific reporting requirements.

The Commission expressed no opinion on the

application of the Communications Act and FCC

rules to the proposed rebate plan because those

issues are beyond its jurisdiction. (Date issued:

July 24, 1986; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1986-28: Use of Candidate's Residence for

Campaign Headquarters

Bob Rya~, a Nevada House candidate, may headquarter his campaign in his horne, which he jointly

owns with his wife; use of the house would not be

subject to contribution limits or reporting requtrements, Mr. Ryan and his wife are using their

residence to provide volunteer services to his

campaign, with Mrs. Ryan acting as both treasurer and bookkeeper for Mr. Ryan's principal

campaign committee, the Committee to Elect

Bob Ryan (the campaign).

Under Commission Regulations, the value of

using the candidate's residence as a campaign

headquarters is considered neither: 1) an in-kind

contribution from Mr. Ryan and his wife to his

campaign nor 2) a campaign expenditure for which

the campaign must reimburse the Ryans. Accordingly, the value of using their residence for campaign activities is not reportable or subject to the

Act's contribution limits.

Commission Regulations provide that a candidate may make unlimited campaign expenditures from personal funds, which include any

shared or exclusive ownership in personal assets

such as real estate holdings. II CFR 110.10. See

AOs 1977-12 and 1984-60. Moreover, both Mr.

Ryan and his wife are using their residence for

volunteering their services to the campaign, and

Commission RegUlations specifically provide that

the value of this use would not result in either a

campaign contribution to or an expenditure on

behalf of his campaign. 11 CFR 100.7(b)(4) and

lOO.8(b)(5). Com missioner Thomas E. Harris filed

a dissent. (Date issued: August 8, 1986j Length: 4

pages, including dissent)
septemoor 1986 ;

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ANTOSH v, FEC (Sixth Suit)

On July 15, 1986, the U.S. District Court for

District of Columbia issued an order which granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment in

Antosh v. FEC and which dismissed with prejudice

plaintiff Edward Antosh's complaint. (Civil Action

No. CA86-179) The court held that, under Article

III of the Constitution, Mr. Antosh lacked standing

to seek judicial review of the FEC's dismissal of

his administrative complaint.

Background

Mr. Antosh filed suit against the FEC on

grounds that, in two complaints, the agency's failure to order refunds of respondents' excessive

contributions was contrary to law. The administrative complaints concerned excessive contributions made respectively by two labor organizations to Senators Edward Kennedy (MUR 1637)

and Paul Sarbanes (MUR 1696) in 1984. The contributing committees were the Engineers Political

Education Committee (EPEC), the Sheet Metal

Workers Interna tional Association Political Action

League (SMWIA) and the American Federation of

Government Employees' Political Action Committee (AFGE). Having found that the respondents

violated the law, the Commission required the

labor organizations to pay civil penalties for their

violations. R~funds by the candidates, however,

were not required,

District Court Ruling

In ruling that Mr. Antosh lacked standing to

seek judicial review of the FECls determination,

the court referred to recent decisions in two

"virtually identical" suits filed by Mr. Antosh, '" In

those rullngs, the court held that Mr. Antosh had

failed to meet the eligibility requirement for

standing under Article III of the Constitution.

Under this requirement, an aggrieved party must

11 'show that he personnally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the respondent...•' n Noting that the excessive contribution alleged in Mr.

Antosh's suit had been made to Senatorial can-.

didates in Massachusetts and Maryland, the court

ItThe district court's decision in one of these

suits (CA No. 85-2036) was summarized on page 8

of the JWle 1986 Record. The court's decision in

the other Antosh suit was issued on May 21, 1986.

In this suit (CA No. 85-1410), Mr. Antosh claimed

that the FEC had arbitrarily dismissed an administrative complaint he had filed conceming excessive contributions EPEe had made to the reelection campaign of Congressman Femand J. St.

Germain of Rhode Island.

5

Vdume 12, Numt

concluded that "plaintiff thus fails to satisfy 

constitutional requisite of 'injury-in-fact.' "

Nor was the court persuaded by plaint

claim that he had suffered "injury-In-fact" 

making contributions to nonconnee ted polit

committees which had, in turn, made expenditu

in connection with the Sarbanes and Kennedy 

election campaigns "because he is not eligible 

vote in either Massachusetts or Maryland,"

ORLOSKI v. FEC (Second Suit)

On July II, 1986, the U.S. Court of App

for the District of Columbia Circuit affirme

district court decision that the Com mission's 

m~ssal of an ad.m.inistrative complaint filed by 

RIchard Or-loski In June 1983 was not arbitrary 

capricious. The district court ruling had b

handed down in December 1984 in Orloski v. F

rcivn Action No. 85-5012).

Background

On June II, 1983, Mr. Orloski filed a c

plaint with the Commission concerning a pi

~ponsored by a seni?r citizens group to allege

mfluence the election of Mr. Orloski's gen

election opponent, Congressman Donald L. Rit

Mr. Orloski claimed that the picnic was a polit

event and thus: 1) corporate funding of the pi

constituted prohibited contributions to Mr. 

ter's reelection campaign and 2) the senior c

zens group's sponsorship of the event caused i

become a political committee subject to the A

The Commission had dismissed a similar c

plaint from Mr. Orloski a year earlier. W

challenging the FEC's dismissal of his first c

plaint in the district court, Mr. Orloski m

factual allegations that were not contained in 

original complaint. Accordingly, in May 1983 

district court issued an order and stipuI~

which dismissed the case but which allowed 

Orloski to file a second complaint with the F

The FEe considered Mr. Orloski's second c

plaint and, on October 4, 1983, once again fo

no reason to believe that the respondents nam

in the complaint had violated the election l

As a result of the FEC's action, Mr. Orl

decided to file a second suit against the Comm

sion. In its December 6, 1984, ruling on 

Orloski's second suit, the district court found 

the FEC's dismissal of Mr. Orloski's adminis

tive complaint was not contrary to law. (Fo

summary of this ruling, see page 5 of the Feb

ary 1985 Record.)

On January 9, 1985, Mr. Orloski appealed 

district court's second ruling on his case.

Appeals Court's Ruling

To determine whether the picnic sponso

by the senior citizens group was a political ev

subject to the prohibitions and requirements 

contin
Septemter 1986 FEDERALELECTION COrvlMISSION

the election taw, the FEC had applied a two-part

test, i.e., 1) whether any communications at the

picnic expressly advocated Representative Ritter's election and 2) whetl1er contributions to

Representative Ritter's campaign were either solicited or accepted at the picnic.

In deferring to the FEC's use of this two-part

test for determining whether such events are

political, the court held that:

o "The FEC's interpretation represents a 'reasonable accommodation! between the Act's objectives and administrative exigencies."

o "The FEC has consistently adhered to this interpretation without Congressional objection,

for at least eight years."

o "The recent history of the Act leads us to

believe that Congress would approve of the line

drawn by the FEC" between political and nonpolitical events. In particular, in amending the

election law in 1979, Congress did not modify

the FEC's interpretation of a campaign-related

event.

The court then affirmed as reasonable the

FEC's use of this two-part test to dismiss Mr.

Orloski's administrative complaint. While noting

that one part of the test (Le, whether contributions were solicited) was not relevant to the

picnic, the court held that the respondents had

"strictly adhered to the FEC's narrow guidelines"

for the second part of the test. None of the

com rnunieations made in conjunction with the

picnic expressly advocated Congressman Ritter's

reelection. Accordingly, since the FEC properly

determined that the picnic was not a political

event, the court also confirmed the FEC's determination that corporate funding of the picnic did

not constitute prohibited contributions to Mr. Ritter's reelection effort.

Finally, the court rejected Mr. Orloski's procedural challenges to the FEC's dismissal of his

COmplaint. Specifically, Mr. Orloski claimed that,

after giving the respondents an opportunity to

reply to the allegation in his administrative complaint, the FEC should either have: 1) allowed Mr.

Orloski to answer the respondents' replies or 2)

made its "reason to believe" determination solely

on the basis of Mr. Orloski's allegations.

The court rejected these procedural challenges on grounds that:

o "Section 437g(a)(l) requires the FEC to notify

parties charged in a complaint and to give them

the opportunity to respond";

o Since none of the facts of the case were in

dispute, the FEC's conclusion would not have

been affected by Mr. Orloski's replies; and

o Finally, before filing his first district court

suit, Mr. Orloski did, in fact, have an opportunity to respond to the respondent's replies concerning the allegations in his administrative

complaint.

6

\blume 12, Numb3

! •

FEC v, DRAMESI FOR CONGRESS COMMITI'EE

On July 25, 1986, the U.S. District Court f

the District of New Jersey granted the FEC

motion for summary judgment in FEC v. John 

Dramesi for Con ress Committee (Civil Actio

No. 85-4039 • The court ound that the John 

Drarnesi for Congress Committee's treasure

Russell E. PaUl, had violated 2 U.S.C. §441a(f) 

knowingly accepting an excessive contributio

from the New Jersey Republican State Comm

tee (the State Committee) and ordered Mr. Pa

to pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the U.S. Tre

surer.* The court had previously entered a $5,00

default judgment against the Dramesi Committe

(For a summary of the court's May 2, 1986, rulin

see page 7 of the July 1986 Record.)

Background

In 1982, when the State Committee made 

$5,000 contribution to the Drarnesi Committe

the State Committee had not achieved multiea

didate.status because it had not yet satisfied th

six-month registration requirement.** Cons

quently, the State Committee was only eligible 

make a contribution of up to $1,000 per electio

to each Republican Congressional candidate 

New Jersey, and the Dramesi Committee cou

legally receive only $1,000 for the primary ele

tion.

On learning of the State Committee's exce

sive contributions to Repubhcan House cand

dates, the FEC initiated enforcement proceedin

against the State Committee. When the Commi

sion failed to reach a settlement with the Dr

mesi Com mittee, the agency filed a suit again

the Committee and its treasurer. (For a summa

of the FEC's complaint, see page 4 of the Novem

ber 1985 Record.)

The Court's Ruling

The court observed that, under the FEC Re

ulations, the treasurer of a political committe

"On June 16, 1986, the U.S. District Court fo

the District of Columbia found that another Ne

Jersey House incumbent campaigning for reele

tion in 1982 had not knowingly accepted an exce

sive contribution from the New Jersey Republica

State Committee. For a summary of that su

(FEe v. Re-Elect Hollenbeck to Con ress Com

mittee; Civil Action No. 85-2239), see page 7 

the August 1986 Record.

."Mu!ticand(date committees may contribu

up to $5,000 per election to a candidate's autho

ized committee(s) or any other political commi

tee. To achieve multicandidate status, a commi

tee must have more than 50 contributors, ha

been registered for at least six months and, wi

the exception of state party committee, hav

made contributions to five or more candidates fo

federal office. 2 V.S.C. section 441 a(a)(4); 1

CFR 100.5(e)(3).
SeptemtBr 1986 , FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \tblume 12, Numt.

has to " 'make his or her best efforts to determine

the legality of a contribution.' n* The court therefore found that "Mr. Paul...had a duty to determine [the contrtbution'sl propriety. Instead, he

merely assumed from the source of the contribution that it was legal."

Nor did the court find any merit to defendant's contention that he had no way of knowing

the contribution was illegal. The court noted that

the defendant could have consulted the Index of

Multicandidate Political Committees, an "exhaustive list of such eligible lmulticandidatel committees, compiled by the FEC, [which] was readily

available to the defendants,"

The court therefore found that "Mr. Paul, as

Treasurer of the Dramesi Committee, acted

intentionally in accepting the $5,000 contribution

in question, and was fUlly aware of the facts

rendering his conduct unlawful." Accordingly, the

court ruled that defendant "knowingly accepted"

the State Committee's excessive contribution, in

violation of 2 U.S.C. §441a(f).

FEC v. WALSH FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE

On July 28, 1986, the U.S. District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an order requiring the Kirk Walsh for

Congress Committee (the Committee) and its

treasurer, Kirk Walsh, to:

o Provide the FEC with accurate reports of campaign finance activity from 1980 through 1986;

and

o Pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasurer; in addition to the $5;000 civil penalty the

court had assessed against the Committee in

September 1985.

The court also ordered the Committee and

Mr. Walsh to comply with its order by August 28,

1986. (Civil Action No. CA84-CV-9802) In the

event that the Committee failed to meet the

deadline, the court would assess a fine of $200 per

day, beginning August 15, 1986, and continuing

until the defendants had fully complied with the

court's order.

The court issued its order after the Committee and Mr. Walsh had failed to comply with the

Court's September 20, 1985, contempt order. This

contempt order resulted from the defendants'

failure to comply with a default judgment entered

against them in April 1985. For a summary of

these district court actions, see page 4 of the

November 1985 Record.

·See 11 CFR 103.3(b)(l).

7

FEC v. JIMMY CARTER COMMfITEE FOR

A GREATER AMERICA

On July 21, 1986, the U.S. District Court 

the Northern District of Georgia approved a c

sent order between the Commission and the J

my Carter Committee for a Greater America

nonconnectsd political committee, and the Co

mittee's treasurer, Chip Carter. The consent 

der provides that defendants violated sect

434(a)(4)(A)(i) and (iii) of the election law dur

the 1983-84 election cycle by failing to meet 

filing deadline for 1984 post-general election 

year-end reports.

Within 30 days of filing the consent ord

the defendants agreed to pay a $250 civil pena

to the U.S. Treasurer.

The consent order concluded a suit filed 

the FEC on April 7, 1986 (CA No. C86-774A).

NEW LITIGATION

FEC v; Campaign Resource Technologies, Ine.

During the 1983-84 Presidential election 

cle, the Bergland for President Committee (

Committee), the principal campaign commi

for David Bergland's 1984 Presidential campai

contracted with Campaign Resources Techno

gies, Inc. (CRT) for certain campaign servic

This company, in turn, subcontracted cert

campaign services to John Kaur, who was do

business as Digitgraph Computer Systems Co

pany (Dlgitgraph),

The FEC asks the court to:

o Declare that Campaign Resource Technolog

Inc. and John Kaur violated section 432(b) 

the election law by failing to forward to 

Cornmitte e's treasurer, within 10 days of th

receipt, approximately $6,000 in campaign c

tribution checks received by CRT and Di

graph on behalf of the Com mittee; and

o Assess a civil penalty against each defend

amounting to the greater of $5,000 or 

percent of the total amount involved in 

alleged violation.

U.S. District Court for the District of A

zona, Tucson Division, CA No. Civ, 86-448 T

ACM, August 7, 1986.

Democratie Congressional Campaign

Committee v, PEC (Second Suit)

The Democratic Congressional Campa

Com mittee (DCCC), a national committee of 

Democratic Party, seeks the court's review of 

FEC determination dismissing an adrn inistrat

complaint which DCCC had filed with the age

on December 20, 1985.

The DCCC claims that, in the administra

complaint, it had asked the FEC to find that 

National Republican Congressional Commi

contin
Septemter 1986 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \.blume 12, Numte

(NRCC), a national committee of the Republican

Party, had violated section 441a(d) of the election

law by failing to allocate to its coordinated

spending limits certain media expenditures critical of Democratic Congressman Fernand St. Germain. (Congressman St. Germain was campaigning

for reelection in Rhode Island.)

The DCCC asks the court to:

o Declare that the FEC's dismissal of its administrative complaint was contrary to law; and

o Direct the FEC to initiate expedited enforcement proceedings concerning the allegations

contained in DCCC·s administrative complaint.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 86-2075, July 29, 1986.

1983-84 PARTY ACTIVITY DECLINES

The financial activity of both major parties

during the current election cycle has declined,

thus reversing the steady increase in each major

party's activity over the past four election cycles.

The activity of all Democratic and Republican

party committees registered with the FEC is depicted in the summary chart below.

Ameritrust Company National

Association v. FEC

The Ameritrust Company National Assoc

tion, a national banking association, and thr

other national banking associations (Bane Ohio N

tional Bank; Bank One, Columbus, NAj and Hu

ington National Bank) state that they made ca

paign loans to the John Glenn Presidential Co

. mittee, Inc. (the Committee), Senator Glen

principal campaign committee for his public

funded Presidential primary campaign in 1984.

In a suit seeking expedited review of th

case, plaintiffs ask the court to declare that t

loans were made to the Committee on a ba

which assured repayment.

U.S. District Court lor the Southern Distr

of Ohio, Eastern Division, CA No. C2-86-084

July 14, 1986.

As an exception to the parties! overall d

cline in activity during the current cycle, t

activity of" several national party committe

increased slightly.

More detailed information on the financ

activity of the major parties may be obtain

from the FEers August 10, 1986, press releas

which is available from the FEC's Public Recor

Office. Call: 376-3140 locally or, toll fre

800/424-9530.

MAJOR PARTY ACTIVITY

January 1985 through June 30, 1986

(figures in millions of dollars)

Election Cycle 197'1-78 19'19-80 1981-82 1983-84 19S5-86

Democratic Party Committees

Raised $ 14.40 $ 17.50 $ 24.80 $ 59.70 $ 35.10

Spent $ 13.60 $ 15.50 $ 24.20 $ 52.10 $ 33.60

Cash-orr-Hand $ 2.00 $ 2.70 $ 3.00 $ 9.80 $ 3.20

Republican Party Committees

Raised $ 49.60 $ 96.10 $161.20 $207.70 $186.10

Spent $ 42.40 $ 83.10 $134.10 $171.10 $158.50

Cash-on-Hand $ 8.50 $ 17.90 $ 33.80 $ 44.60 $ 32.30

8
SeptemOOr" 1986 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 'vblume 12, NumO

FREE PUBLICATIONS

The FEC offers the following free publications. To order, return the completed form below.

Trade Associations

Using FEC Campaign Finance Information

Volunteer Activity

Annual Report

Report to President and Congress, sum

rizing agency's activities, advisory opinions 

litigation; and presenting Commission's legisla

recomrnenda tions.

Please indicate quantity in box to left of each item.

General

congressional Corporatio ns and

Candidates Labor Organization~

Party Committees Nonconnected

Committees

Federal Election Bookkeeping Manual

Campaign Laws for Candidates

FEC Regulations Annual Report

FEC Record

(subscripti 0 n)

Federal Election Cornmlsslon

Inforrnation Services

Washington, D.C, 20463

Toll Free: 800/424,9530

Local: 202/376-3120

Order Form

BrOChures

Campaign Guides

Advisory Opininns Local Party

Activitv

Candidate Political Ads

Registration and SOlicitations

Committee Public Funding of

Treasurers Presidentlal Elections

Contributions State Ele~tions &

Federal Carnpaig n UMt

Corporate/Labor Trade Associations Communications

Corporatel Labor Using FEC Campaign

Facilities Finance Information

FEC and Federal Volunteer A~tivitv Elect ion Law

Independent

Expenditures

Phone:

Mall to:

NAME

-'

STREET

CITY,STATE, ZIP CODE

CONNECTED ORGANIZATION IPHONE (Optional)

9

Brochures

Advisory Opinions

Candidate Registration

Committee Treasurers

Contributions

Corporate/Labor Comrnunicattons

Corporate/Labor Facilities

Independent Expenditures

Local Party Activity

Political Ads and Solicitations

Public Funding of President Elections

State Elections & Federal Campaign Law

House and Senate Bookkeeping Manual

Recommended method of bookkeeping and

reporting for Federal candidates and their committees.

Campaign Guides

Clear explanation and illustration of election

law requirements. Separate Guide for:

Congressional Candidates and Committees

Party Committees

Corporations and Labor Organizations

Nonconnected Political Committees

FEC and Federal Election Law

Brief overview of major prOVISIOns of the

Federal Election Campaign Act and the Commission's role in administering it.

FEC Record

Monthly newsletter covering reporting, advisory opinions, litigation, legislation, statistics,

regUlations, compliance, Federal Register notices,

FEC procedures and staff, and publicatlons.

Federal Election Campaign Laws

Complete compilation of Federal election

campaign laws prepared by FEC.

FEC Regulations (ll CFR)

FEC regulations; subject indexes prepared by

FEC.

Using FEC Campaign Finance Information

Brochure explaining how to gather information on financial activity of political committees

and candidates by using reports and FEC's computer indexes.
SeptemtBr 1986 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 12, Numro 

This cumulative index lists advisory opinions,

court cases and 800 Line articles published in the

Record during 1986. 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

1985-26: Corporation's distribution of employee's poli tical message, 1:7

1985-31: Affiliation between insurance corporation and agencies for purposes of PAC solicitations, 2:2

1985-32: Proceeds of reception beyond Act's

purview, 1:7

1985-33: Personal loans to candidate for campaign, 1:7

1985-34: Nonconnected PAC's use of proceeds

from Ufe insurance policy, 1:8

1985-35: Solicitability of corporate board members, 1:8

1985-37: Affiliation of local Chambers of Commerce with State Chamber, 3:1

1985-38: Committee established by candidate

for state and local candidates, 3:2

1985-39: Bank ad in political journal, 2:2

1985-40: PA C's spending for Presidential

testing-the-waters activities, 3:2

1985-41: Contribution for general election accepted prior to primary, 2:3

1985-42: Campaign funds used to pay candidate's rent, 3:4

1986-1: Vendor's offer to provide free tickets to

committee, 4:6

1986-2: Candidate's sales campaign, 4:6

1986-4: Corporation's program to encourage

employee contributions, 4:6

1986-5: Excess campaign funds transferred

from candidate's federal to local com mittee,

4:7

1986-6: PAC established by Vice President for

party building and candidate support, 5:2

1986-7: Cooperative PAC's shareholder solicitation program, 4:7

1986-8: 1982 contributions refunded by candidate's 1986 campaign, 6:7

1986-9: Candidate's use of 1986 campaign funds

to reimburse himself for legal expenses, 6:7

1986-11: Act's preemption of state election

law, 6:8

1986-12: Excess campaign funds transferred to

1986 exploratory committee, 7:1

1986-13: PAC expenses financed by trade association's corporate members, 7:2

1986-14: Proceeds from sale of committee's

campaign van, 6:8

10

1986-17: State party convention not election;

general election contributions spent before

primary, 8:4

1986-18: Maintaining campaign funds in cash

management account, 8:5

1986-20: Promotion item prepared and distributed by campaign, 8:5

1986-21: Pre-election reporting requirement for

unopposed primary candidate, 8:6

800 LINE

Candidate use of loans and personal assets, 7:5

Designating a principal campaign committe

3:5

Local and state officeholders become feder

candidates, 7:4

Transfer of candidate funds from state to fe

eral committee, 1:8

Using information in FEC reports, 7:3

COURT CASES

Antosh v, FEC, 3:8; 6:8·

Common Cause v; FEC (Third Suit), 8:6; Fourth

Suit, 8:8

John Glenn Presidential Committee, Inc. v,

FEC, 8:8

Alwin E. Hopfmann v, FEC, 2:3; 6:9

FEC v, American International Demograph

Services, Ine., 4:8

FEC v, Beatty for Congress Committee, 6:9

FEC v, Californians for Democratic Represen

tation, 3:8

FEC v, Jimmy Carter Committee for a Greate

America, 6: 10

FEC v. Citizens Party, 3:8

FEC v, Dramesi for Congress, 7:7

FEC v. Eldredge, 1:10

FEC v, Haley, 1:11

FEC v, Maggin for Congress, 5:4

FEC v; MAPAC, 1:10

FEC v, National Congressional Club, 7:7

FEC v, NCPAC (Third Suit), 7:6

FEC v; New Republican Victory Fund, 6: 10; 8:7

FEC v, NRA, 1:11

FEC v, Pryor for Congress Committee, 5:5

FEC v, Re-Elect Hollenbeck to Congress Committee, 8:7

FEC v. Rhoads for Congress Committee, 6:9

FEC v, Rodriguez, 7:8

FEC v, Sailors' Union of the Pacific Fund, 2:3

FEC v, Wolfson, 4:8

FEC v, 1984 Victory Fund (Second Suit), 6:10

Gramm v, FEC; FEe v. Gramm, 1:10
•

Septemoor 1gOO FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 12, Numte

FEC PUBLISHES NONFILERS

During August, the Commission published the

names of two House campaigns (one in Georgia

and one in Tennessee) that had failed to file preprimary reports. The Georgia campaign had failed

to file a report for the Congressional primary held

on August 12. The Tennessee campaign had failed

to file its pre-primary report for the August 7

Congressional primary.

The election law requires the agency to publish the names of nonfiling candidates. Compliance actions against ncnfilers are decided on a

case-by-case basis. The law gives the Commission

broad authority to initiate enforcement actions

resulting from infractions of the law, including

civil court enforcement and imposition of civil

penalties.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Registered political committees are

automatically sent the Record. Any change

Qf 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.

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.

II
SeptemOOr" 1986 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blurm J2,.Numtx

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