March 19

Date Sponsoring Organization

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

3/5 American Bar Association

Conference on the FEC

Washington~ D.C.

Frank P. Reiche, Chairman

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel

3/5 Hope College Washington Honors

Seminar

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens

3/19 National Conference of State

Legislatures

Nashville, Tennessee

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel

Section 9012(f) of the Presidential Election Ca

paign Fund Act permits unauthorized politi

committees to make expenditures of up to $1,0

to further the election of a publicly funded Pre

dential candidate. The FEC had asked the distr

court to uphold the constitutionality of Secti

9012(f)'s expenditure limit as applied to Arne

continu

SUPREME COURT DMDED IN

FEC v, AMERICANS FOR CHANGE

On January 19, 1982, the Supreme Court, in 

4 to 4 split vote, left standing an earlier decisi

by the U.S. District Court for the District 

Columbia in the consolidated cases of FEC 

Americans for Chan e and Common Cause 

Harrison Schmitt U.S. Supreme Court Nos. 8

1067 and 80-847).

THE FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

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

Volume 8~ Number 3

*The policy adopted in 1980 reflected the 1979

amendments to the federal election law. The

Commission originally adopted nonfiler procedures in 1978.

Although unauthorized committees and some

authorized committees will no longer receive

notices, they will continue to be fully liable for

failure to file any report required under the Act.

(See the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C.

S434.) Moreover, the Commission will continue to

send prior notices to all political committees,

informing them of upcoming reporting obligations

in both election and nonelection years. Authorized

candidate committees will also receive prior

notices informing them of their primary election

reporting obligations.

COMMISSION REVISES NONFILBR

PROCEDURES

On January 21~ 1982, the Commission

approved revisions to a policy adopted in July

1980 for notifying authorized and unauthorized

committees of their reporting obligations under

the Act.* (See page 9 of the August 1980 Reeord.)

Under the revised policy, the Commission will

notify the authorized committees of those

candidates that fail to file pre-election and

quarterly reports due just before the election in

which the candidate is running. 2 U.S.C. S437g(b).

The notice will inform them that their reports

have not been received. Under the former policy,

the' Commission had notified all categories of

filers failing to file any report.
2

-_. ------

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent AORs. T

full text of each AOR is available to the public 

the Commission's Office of Public Records.

AOR Subject

1982-2 Trade association's partisan commu

cations to members. (Date made publ

January 22, 1982; Length: 9 pages)

1982-3 Committee formed on behalf of senat

to "test the waters" for possible Pre

dential campaign. (Date made publ

January 27, 1982; Length: 6 pages)

1982-4 Costs of renovating campaign hea

quarters deducted from rent; reportin

(Date made public: February 3, 198

Length: 2 pages)

1982-6 Financing noncampaign, public intere

committee formed by Congressma

(Date made public: February 12, 198

Length: I page)

1982-8 Receipt and disbursement of "cre

units" by PAC established in comme

cial barter industry. (Date ma

publici February 17, 1982;' Length: 

pages, plus supplement)

1982-5 Financing nonfederal expenses of n

tional party conference. (Date ma

publici Feburary 10, 1982; Length: 

pages)

1982-7 Company's computerized recordkeepi

and reporting service for separate se

regated funds. (Date made publ

February 16, 1982; Length: 2 pag

plus supplement)

Period Filing

Month Covered Date

February 1/1 - 1/31 February 20

March 2/1 - 2/28 March 20

April 3/1 - 3/31 April 20

May 4/1 - 4/30 May 20

June 5/1 - 5/31 June 20

July 6/1 - 6/30 JUly 20

August 7/1-7/31 August 20

September 8/1 - 8/31 September 20

October 9/1 - 9/30 October 20

PreElection 10/1 - 10/13 October 21

PostElection 10/14 - 11/22 December 2

Year-End 11/23 - 12/31 January 31, 1983

CORRECTION

The Monthly Reports chart on page 4

of the February Record contained incorrect dates for the periods covered by the

pre-election and post-election reports.

The correct chart appears below.

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Frank P. Reiche, Chairman; Danny Lee McDonald, Vice

Chairman; Joan D. Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; Thomas E. Harris; John Warren McGarry; William F.

Hildenbrand, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., Clerk of the House of

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

Monthly Reports

cans for Change, Americans for an Effective

Presidency and Fund for a Conservative Majority,

three multicandidate political committees that

had planned to spend large sums in support of the

Republican Presidential candidate's general election campaign.

In its opinion of September 30, 1980, a threejudge panel of the district court concluded, however, that the defendants' proposed expenditures

constituted "independent expenditures" which

could not be limited. (For a detailed summary of

the suit, see page 8 of the April 1981 Record.)
ADVISORY OPINIONS:SUMMARIES

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

specific situation described in the AOR. Any

qualified person who has requested an AO and

acts in accordance with the opinion will not be

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Other

persons may rely on the opinion if they are

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

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance for

their own activity, however, should consult the

full text of an AO and not rely only on the

summary given here.

AU 1981-49: Contributions and Expenditures

in State and Loeal Elections by

Holding Company , Great Western Financial Corporation (GWFC), the

parent holding company of Great Western Savings,

a federally chartered savings and loan association

located in California, may make contributions and

expenditures on behalf of candidates for state and

local office in California. (California law permits

corporate and labor contributions in state and

local elections.) GWFC may not, however, use any

revenues derived from Great Western Savings'

assets when it makes such state and local contributions or expenditures.

Although 2 U.S.C. §441b prohibits Great Western

Savings, as a federally chartered corporation,

from making contributions and expenditures in

connection with "any election to any political

office," this ban does not extend to the holding

company since GWFC is not a federally chartered

corporation. Section 441b does, however, prohibit

GWFC, a corporation, from making contributions'

and expenditures in connection with federal elections. (Date issued: January 29, 1982; Length: 3

pages)

AO 1981-51: Volunteer Services Offered

by Foreign Artist to Candidate

Committee

An artist who is a foreign national may not donate

volunteer services to the Metzenbaum for Senate

Committee (the Committee) in order to create

original artworks for the Committee. The Committee had planned to reproduce a limited edition

of the artworks as fundraising items. It had also

planned to absorb all production costs. Section

441e of the Act, however, expressly prohibits

foreign nationals from donating "any contribution

of money or other thing of value" in connection

with any election to any political office. Commissioner Thomas E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion.

(Date issued: January 29, 1982; Length: 3 pages,

including dissenting opinion)

3

AO 1981-52: Trade Association's Solicitation

of its Unincorporated Members

The National Association of Real Estate Invest

ment Trusts, Inc. (NAREIT), a trade association

may solicit contributions to its separate segregat

ed fund (NAREIT-PAC) from member Real Estat

Investment Trusts (REITS) that operate a

unineorporated business trusts or association

under their respective state laws. Contribution

from unincorporated member REITS are attribu

table to both the REIT and each person who has 

beneficial ownership interest in the REIT.

The solicitation is permissible because NAREIT

unincorporated members are materially indistin

guishable from other types of unincorporated

members (e.g., partnerships and sole proprietor

ships) that, under the Act, may be solicited by 

trade association. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(C); II CFR

114.7(c).

In making a contribution to NAREIT-PAC, an

unincorporated REIT may attribute the contribu

tion to each REIT investor in direct proportion to

his/her interest in the REIT, or it may use an

alternative plan agreed on by the investors. 1

CPR IIO.I(e). No portion of the REIT's contribu

tion may, however, be attributed to an investo

who would be prohibited from making a direc

contribution to NAREIT-PAC, l.e., a corporation

labor organization, national bank, governmen

contractor or foreign national. 2 U.S.C. §§44Ib

441c and 441e. (Date issued: January 25, 1982

Length: 4 pages)

AO 1981-55: PAC Solicitation of Members of

Organization Affiliated

with Parent

The American Medical Association Political Ac

tion Committee (AMPAC), the separate segre

gated fund of the American Medical Association

(the AMA), may solicit contributions from the

members of the American Medical Association

Auxiliary, Inc. (the Auxiliary), a nonprofit organi

zation whose membership is limited to spouses o

members of the AMA and of the AMA's state

affiliates. (See 11 CFR 114.5, 114.7 and 114.I(e).)

AMPAC may solicit Auxiliary members and thei

families because the Auxiliary is affiliated with

AMPAC's parent organization, the AMA. II CFR

114.I(e) and 114.8(g). This affiliation is evidenced

by the AMA's continuing control and direction

over the Auxiliary's policies and practices. Fo

example, the AMA governs the Auxiliary's entire

legislative program. 11 CFR 11D.3(a)(I)(iii). (Date

issued: January 25, 1982; Length: 4 pages)

continued
AO 1981-57: Earmarking Contributions

Through Payroll Deduction

Plan Conducted by Union PAC

The Coal Miners Political Action Committee

(COMPAC), the separate segregated fund of the

United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), may

implement a payroll deduction plan that would

allow UMWA members to earmark contributions

for candidates and political committees.

COMPAC would then forward the contributions to

the recipients designated by members. 2 U.S.C.

§§44Ia(a)(8) and 44Ib(b)(5)j 11 CFR 110.6 and

114.5(1). The contributions earmarked for candidates would not count against COMPAC's own

contribution limits, as long as neither UMWA nor

COMPAC exercised any control or direction over

the members' selection of candidate recipients.

This would mean that UMWA and COMPAC would

be bound by a member's selection of recipients

and would not limit the selection to a particular

candidate or group of candidates; and that a

member could revoke his/her designation at any

time.

The Commission expressly conditioned its approval of the plan on COMPACts obligation to report

contributions earmarked for candidates to the

Commission and to the intended recipients, according to the procedures spelled out in Commission Regulations at 11 CFR 102.8 and 110.6.

COMPAC would have to report contributions earmarked for political committees according to the

procedures of 11 CFR 102.8, 104.3(a)(2)(viii) and

104.3(a)(4)(vi). (Date issued: January 27, 1982;

Length: 4 pages)

AO 1981-58: Campaign Funds Used For

Litigation Involving

Congressional

Reapportionment

Congressman Don Edwards (D-CA) may use campaign funds to pay legal fees incurred as a result

of litigation concerning the issue of Congressional

reapportionment in California. Under the Act,

candidates and their principal campaign committees have wide discretion in the use of campaign

funds, provided the funds are used for lawful

purposes.

Litigation related to reapportionment is not considered an election-influencing activity subject to

the Act's requirements. Nevertheless, payments

from Mr. Edwards' campaign funds to cover litigation fees must be reported as disbursements (rather than expenditures) because, under 2 U.S.C.

§434(b) and 11 CFR 104.3(b)(4)(vi), political committees must report all their disbursements.

The Commission expressed no opinion on the application of tax laws or House rules to the litigation payments since they are beyond its jurisdiction. (Date issued: January 25, 1982; Length: 2

pages)

4

AO 1981-59: Procedures for Transferring

Proeeeds ofJoint Fundraisers

by State/Federal PACs

The National Association of Realtors (NAR)

trade association, may use either one of t

procedures proposed by NAR (and modified by t

Commission) to divide and transfer procee

raised through joint fundraisers conducted 

NAR's separate segregated fund, the Realto

PAC (RPAC), together with each of the Sta

PACs connected respectively with NAR's sta

affiliates. The two procedures (described belo

would allow RPAC to receive at least 40 perce

of the joint fundraising proceeds while givi

RPAC the option to receive additional procee

transferred from the State PACs. The additio

transfers would not cause the State PACs 

become political committees under the Act.

Under the first procedure, RPAC would depo

all joint fundraising proceeds in its account a

report the entire amount as contributions. RPA

would notify each contributor that it had charg

his/her contribution against the contributo

$5,000 limit for RPAC. RPAC would then trans

an agreed upon portion of the total contributio

to the State PAC.

The second procedure would allow RPAC and 

State PAC to use an escrow account for t

fundraising proceeds. The original solicitation n

tice would have to:

I. Notify contributors that at least, and possib

more than, 40 percent of each contributi

would be forwarded to RPAC and charg

against the contributor's limit for RPACj a

2. Identify which issue of the state affiliat

magazine would provide information co

cerning the final allocation of contributio

between RPAC and the State PAC.

If, SUbsequent to the fundraiser, RPAC and t

State PAC decided to transfer to RPAC mo

than the 40 percent of the proceeds origina

agreed upon, RPAC would be responsible for 

forming contributors of the reallocation of th

contributions. Acting as an agent of RPAC, t

State PAC could, however, discharge this du

Additionally, RPAC would have to monitor indi

dual contributions. If it found that the additio

transfers caused a contributor to exceed his/h

contribution limit for RPAC, RPAC would have 

exclude the excessive amount by either readju

ing the formula for allocating the proceeds 

refunding the amount in excess of $5,000 to t

State PAC.

Under either procedure, the transmittal and 

porting of proceeds would be subject to FE

regulations. 11 CFR Parts 102, 103 and 104.

The Commission cautioned that this opinion co

cerned future transfers of fundraising proceeds 
RPAC--not transfers of funds currently deposited

in State PAC accounts. (Date issued: February 5,

1982; Length: 5 pages)

AO 198HH: Holding Company's Contributions

to State Party Committee

Since it is a corporation chartered under state

law, Commercial Bankstoek, lne., a one-bank

holding company. may make contributions to the

Arkansas Democratic Party. Its wholly owned

subsidiary. Commercial National Bank, may not.

however, make contributions or expenditures in

connection with any election to any political

office. 2 U.S.C. S441b(a). The holding Company's

contributions are permissible as long as:

1. They do not include funds derived from the

operations of National Commercial Bank; and

2. They are not used in connection with any

federal election. 2 U.S.C. §441b.

The Commission did not express an OpInIOn on

applicable state laws. (Date issued: February 5.

1982;,Length: 2 pages)

AO 1982-1: FlDldsTransferred From 1982

House Campaign to Newly

Registered 1982 Senate Campaign

If Congressman James J. Florio should decide to

terminate his current 1982 House campaign, he

may transfer all the funds of his 1982 House

Committee to his authorized committee for a

1982 Senate campaign (the Senate Committee).

provided the following conditions are met:

1. Congressman Florio is not actively seeking

nomination or election to both the Senate and

the House.

2. The Senate Committee ensures that funds

transferred do not cause a donor to exceed

the donor's limit for the Senate Committee

(i.e., $5,000 for a multicandidate committee

and $1.000 for any other person, including an

individual, partnership or other political

committee). 11 CFR 110.3(a)(2)(v) and

110.1(f). The treasurer may do this by reviewing the transferred funds on a "last in,

first transferred" basis, beginning with the

last contributions received by the House

Committee and working back until the

amount transferred is reached. Should the

review indicate that a contribution made to

the House Committee will cause a donor to

exceed the donor's limit for the Senate

Committee when added to contributions

made by the same donor to the Senate Committee, the amount in excess of the limit

must be excluded from the transfer. 2 U.S.C.

§441a; II CFR 110.3(a)(2)(v)(B).

The House Committee should file a termination

report with the Clerk of the House once it has

liquidated all its debts. II CFR 102.3(b). The

termination report should refer to the impending

5

transfer of funds to the Senate Committee as 

"transfer out." 11 CFR 102.3(b) and 1l0.I(f). 

addition, the Senate Committee should rep

funds received from the House Committee 

contributions from the original contributo

(Date issued: February 5, 1982; Length: 3 pages)

FEC RELEASES FINAL REPORT ON

1980 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

ACTIVITY

Sixteen Presidential contenders raised $10

million and spent $106.5 million in seeking th

parties' 1980 nominations, according to a comp

hensive report released by the FEC on Novem

15, 1981. These figures have been adjusted 

reflect loan repayments, contribution refunds 

rebates and transfers to affiliated committees. 

the 16 candidates, 10 received primary match

funds to help finance their primary campaigns.

The statistical study, 1979-80 FEe Report 

Financial Activity for Presidential Pre-Nomi

tion Campaigns, covers the periOd from Janu

1, 1979, through December 31. 1980. (Informat

on two campaigns active during 1978 is a

ineluded.) The study focuses exclusively on mo

raised and spent by the 16 candidates in th

primary campaigns; no general election inform

tion is provided. The candidates. all of wh

financial activity exceeded $100,000, inclu

four Democrats, nine Republicans, two Liberta

ans and one Socialist Workers Party candidate.

The study shows that 67.7 percent of the mon

raised by' the 16 candidates came from indiv

uals. Contributions from nonparty (noncandida

committees represented only 1.4 percent of to

funds raised. Of the 10 campaigns receiving p

mary matching funds, individual contributions 

presented 64.8 percent of all money raised; n

party committee contributions accounted for o

1.4 percent of funds raised and primary match

funds made up 32.8 percent of the funds th

received.

Chart I on page 6 compares the funding of the 

primary matching fund recipients active in 19

80 with that of the 15 primary matching fu

recipients active in 1975-76. In comparing the t

election cycles, the difference in the number 

campaigns, plus inflation, should be taken i

consideration.

contin
CBARTB

OVERVIEW OF 1979-1980 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ACTIVITY

Nonparty

Adjusted Individual Committee Matching Adjusted

Receipts Contributions Contributions F\Olds Disbursements

Brown(D) $ 2.65* $ 1.71 $ .04 $ .89 $ 2.65

Carter(D) 18.55 12.93 .46 5.05 18.52

Kennedy(D) 12.29 7.75 .23 3.86 12.27

LaRouche(D) 2.14 1.55 .008 .53 2.15

Anderson(R) 6.63 3.91 .02 2.68 6.52

Baker(R) 7.14 4.20 .13 2.64 7.07

Bush(R) 16.71 10.87 .13 5.72 16.71

Crane(R) 5.24 3.47 .002 1. 75 5.22

Dole(R) 1.43 .90 .045 .45 1.39

Reagan(R) 21.39 13.76 .285 7.29 19.82

SUBTOTAL $ 94.17 $61.05 $1.35 $30.86 $ 92.32

Connally(R) $ 12.72 $11.64 $ .205 $ 0 $ 12.62

Fernandez(R) .25 .19 .002 0 .25

Strassen(R) .11 .006 0 0 .12

Clark(L)* * 1.09 .57 0 0 1.02

Hunscherfl.) .15 .01 0 0 .10

Pulley(SWP)* ** .13 .10 0 0 .12

GRAND TOTAL $108.62 $73.57 $1.56 $30.86 $106.55

"'Figures are in millions of dollars.

* *Libertarian Party

* '" *Socialist Workers Party

6

In addition to money spent by the candidates, $2.2

million was spent independently by persons and

political committees to promote the election of

these candidates; just over $.5 million was spent

independently to advocate their defeat.

Corporations and membership organizations reported spending $.6 million to make partisan communications to solicltable individuals in support of

Presidential primary candidates and $.2 million to

oppose them. Approximately $.5 million was spent

to promote the nomination of undeclared Presidential candidates (i.e., draft activities).

Chart II below presents an overview of each

Presidential candidate's financial activity during

the 1979-80 election cycle. The first 10

candidates listed were matching fund recipients.

The matching fund figures represent total

matching funds reported by the candidates'

campaigns through December 31, 1980. The

Commission certified additional funds to Carter,

Crane and Kennedy in 1981, bringing total

matching funds certified to $31.3 billion.

The 1979-80 FEC Regort on Financial Activity for

Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns contains

numerous tables on the financial activity of the

16 candidates. Copies are available for $1.00 each

from the FEC Public Records Office, 1325 K

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

CHART I

ACTIVITY OF 1976 and 1980

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS

RECEMNG MATCHING FUNDS

Presidential Primary

Campaigns

1976 1980

Number of Candidates 15 10

Adjusted Receipts $67.9* $94.2

Individual Contributions 42.5 61.0

Nonparty Contributions .8 1.4

Federal Matching

Funds 24.3 30.9

Adjusted Disbursements 66.9 92.3

*Figures are in millions of dollars.
CHART I

CANDIDATES FOR OR AGAINST WHOM

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES WERE MADE

Expenditures Expenditu

Advocating Advocatin

Candidate Election Defeat

Presidential

Ronald Reagan(R) $12,246,057 $ 47,8

Edward Kennedy(D) 77,189 491,1

Jimmy Carterfu) 45,869 245,6

John Connally(R) 288,032

John Anderson(I) 199,438 2,6

Senate

Frank Church(D-ID) $ 1,945 $ 339,0

John Cu1ver(D-IA) 59,584 186,6

George McGovern

(D-SD) 3,553 222,0

Alan Cranston(D-CA) 2,285 192,0

Birch Bayh(D-IN) 1,027 180,7

Thomas Eagleton

(D-MO) 22,910 101,7

House

Robert Edgar

(D-PA) $ 39,182 $ 

Jack Fields(R-TX) 38,376

Carey Peck(D-CA) 37,734

Harold Sawyer

(R-MI) 14,219 13,9

Charles Grass1ey

(R-lA) 27,799

Harold Volkmer

(D-MO) 26,917

Robert Drinan

(D-MA) 23,1

W.J. IIBillyl1 Tauzin

(D-LA) 22,535

FEC REPORTS ON INDEPENDENT SPENDING

FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR

Independent expenditures made during the

1979-80 election cycle by nonparty (noncandidate)

committees, individuals and other groups topped

$16 million, according to a study released by the

Federal Election Commission on November 29,

1981. Thirty-three individuals spent a total of

$1.2 million in independent expenditures; 105 nonparty committees spent $14.1 million; and 80

other groups spent $.7 million. Under the federal

election law, individuals or groups may spend

unlimited funds advocating the election or defeat

of federal candidates as long as these expenditures are made independently, i.e., without cooperation or consultation with the candidate or

his/her campaign. (See 2 U.S.C. §43I(17) and 11

CFR 100.16 and 109.I(a).)

Out of the $16 million total, $13.7 million was

spent to influence the outcome of Presidential

elections in 1980. (This contrasts with $1.6 million

spent in independent expenditures during the 1976

Presidential elections.) Independent expenditures

made on behalf of Ronald Reagan accounted for

89 percent of the total spent to influence Presidential elections. Only one-fifth of the Presidential expenditures ($2.7 million) were made during

the primary season; the rest of the independent

expenditures were made during the general election period.

Independent expenditures for and against House

candidates totaled $684,727. Spending to influence Senate races totaled $1.7 million. By contrast, independent expenditures on behalf of Congressional candidates in the 1976 elections

amounted to approximately $400,000, split almost

evenly between House and Senate races.

The study shows that $2.2 million was spent

advocating the defeat of 65 candidates. This negative spending represented only 14 percent of the

total spent. However, in the case of Senate campaigns, negative spending amounted to 78 percent

of the independent expenditures made.

Chart I below lists the candidates for or against

whom the most money was spent. Chart IT and

Chart ill (page 8) list those individuals and political committees who made the largest independent expenditures during 1979-80.

7

CHART II

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

BY INDIVIDUALS

Individual

Cecil R. Haden

Stewart Rawlings Mott

Norman Lear

Richard M. DeVos

Jay Van Andel

Theo N. Law

David M. Melville

Henry C. Grover

Michael Rosen

Dwight G. Vedder

Amotmt Sp

$599,3

110,1

108,3

70,5

68,4

66,2

35,1

29,0

25,9

20,0

continu
OFFICIAL BUSINESS

AUDITS RELEASED TO THH PUBLIC

The following is a chronological listing o

audits released by the Commission betwee

January 20 and February 10, 1982. Final audi

reports are available to the general public through

the Office of Public Records.

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

FEC

WASHINGTON, D,C.

PERMIT NO G31

2. Carter/Mondale Re-Election Committee, Inc

(Addendum to the Final Audit Report re

leased February 10, 1982)

I. League of Conservation Voters (Final Audi

Report released January 27, 1982)

~~ - -" -' ~-7 ,,~. - . ~~~- - - - ";". ' "' - ,~ ~-

,

': '. ',,' .' . . ': < -' .~~; ',>~,)~. . 

« " I'

r . .

__'& ~~_~_~

! ~;. _->, <+ _~__• _ __ T~ _~..... • __ _ _ _

MICROFILMED AGENDA ITEMS AVAILABLE

During January 1982, the Commission an

nounced the availability of microfilm cartridge

containing all agenda items discussed in open

sessions from 1975 through 1980. There is a

cartridge for each year, with all sessions arranged

chronologically. Individual agenda items may be

located with the help of a computerized subjec

index.

The microfilmed documents are available for re

view and copying in the FEC's Public Records

Office. For further information, call 523-4181 o

toll free 800/424-9530.

119,891

$4,601,069

3,307,962

2,062,456

1,270,208

711,856

441,891

406,199

314,740

172,397

Political Committee AmolD1t Spent

Congressional Club

National Conservative Political

Action Committee

Fund for a Conservative

Majority

Americans for an Effective

Presidency

Americans for Change

NRA Political Victory Fund

Christian Voice Moral

Government Fund

1980 Republican Presidential

Campaign Committee

American Medical Political

Committee

Gun Owners of America

Campaign Committee

CHARTm

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES BY

POLmCAL COMMITTEES

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20463