FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Volume 8, Number 12 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 December 19

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

12/8 National Association of Manufacturer

5th National Public Affairs Conferenc

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

The Twentieth Century Fund

Task Force on Political Committees

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

Commissioner Thomas E. Harris

12/8

12/2 American Association of Political

Consultants

Post-election Conference

Washir:Jgton, D.C.

Kent Cooper, Assistant Staff Directo

Public Disclosure

The FEe study also showed a variation in 

sources of support provided to the two ma

parties. For example, PACt:* contributio

amounted to 8.5 percent ($2.12 million) of Dem

cratic party committees' total receipts ($24

million). PAC contributions to Republican pa

committees, on the other hand, constituted o

.6 percent ($.93 million) of their total recei

($161.2 million).

Single contributions of $500 or more from indi

duals constituted 19.8 percent of the Democra

party's total receipts (or $4.9 million), while th

constituted 15.9 percent of the Republican part

total receipts (or $25.7 million).

More detailed information may be obtained fr

the four-volume study, FEe Reports on Financ

Activit: 1981-82 Interim Re ort No.2 Part a

Non-Party Political Committees. T e study m

be purchased ($5.00 per volume) from the FE

Public Records Office, 1325 K Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20463. Cheeks should be ma

payable to the FEC.

continued on p

uPAC is a popular term used to define a

political committee that has not been authoriz

by a candidate or political party. The term 

cludes a separate segregated fund connected to 

corporation or labor organization as well as 

political committee without any connected or

nization (i.e., corpora te or labor sponsor).

Republican party committees also made more

coordinated party expenditures" in support of

federal candidates in the general election than did

Democratic party committees. Through June 30,

1982, Republican party committees spent $.83

million in special coordinated expenditures on

behalf of their candidates. Democratic party

committees made special coordinated expenditures totaling $.43 million on behalf of their

candidates. Slnee, however, these expenditures

may only be made on behalf of general election

candidates, most of the major party committees'

spending occuJr'ed after June 30, 1982, and was

not reflected in the Interim Report.

*These limited expenditures are separate

from contributions made by party committees to

candidates and therefore do not count against

contribution limits. They are, however, subject to

separate expenditure limits. See 2 U.S.C. §441a(d)

and 11 C.F.R. 110.7.

FINANCIAL AcrIVITY OF

PARTY COMMlTTEES

During the first 18 months of the 1981-82

election cycle, Republican party committees at

the national, state and local levels spent five and

one-half times as much as their Democratic

counterparts and contributed three and one-half

times more funds to federal candidates. Of the

$134.1 million they spent, Republican party committees contributed 2 percent ($2.68 million) to

federal candidates. Democratic party committees, on the other hand, contributed 3 percent

($.76 million) of the total amount they spent

($24.2 million).

The information released by the FEC on October

7, 1982, is based on a four-volume study, FEC

Reports on Financial Activity: 1981-82 InterIm

Report No.2, Party and Non-Party Political Committees. The study also showed that from January

1, 1981, through June 30, 1982, Republican party

committees raised a total of $161.2 million and

had a cash-on-hand balance of $33.8 million at the

close of the period. By contrast, Democratic

party committees raised a total of $24.8 million

and had a remaining cash-on-hand balance of $3

million.

•
Decemt.er 1982 FEDERAL ELECTION CDMMISSION Volume 8, Numt.er 

2

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

D.C. 204M. 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.

''''''~~-~ ... ~.---, -- - - - --- -,..---- , .-

• / • " I r .e- ,- n

? < " 2 • J !, :,'~ J _'\ " > • ~-

~-...~_~ _ ...._ ••_~ ~"'""'-'-.._M_ ~,"'i. o"c _-'" ~J _'_ ,_-'_~_

ADVISORY OPINION REQt>£STS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of each

AOR is available to the public in the Commission's Office of PUblic Records.

AOR Subject

1982-57 Congressman-elect's use of excess

campaign funds for interim activities;

fundraisers for these activities. (Date

made public: November 8, 1982;

Length: 1 page)

1982-58 Independent magazine's publication of

unauthorized solicitation of contributions to PAC. (Date made public: November 8, 1982; Length: 1 page)

1982-59 Transfer of defeated incumbent's campaign funds to committee supporting

unidentified candidate for incumbent's

seat in 1984. (Date made public:

November 9, 1982; Length: 1 page)

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 AD and not rely only on the

summary given here.

AO 1982-54: Corporate Member Approvals

Sought by Assoeiation PAC for 

Solicitations in Following Year'" 

Public Securities Association Political Acti

Committee (PSA-PAC), the separate segregat

fund of a trade association called the Pub

Securities Association (PSA), may send mailin

to PSA's corporate members during the last thr

months of 1982 to request their approval to solic

their sollcltable personnel during 1983. The A

and Commission Regulations state that a corp

rate member's prior approval of solicitations f

the separate segregated fund is valid only for th

calendar year in which the approval is obtaine

The regulations do not specify, however, wh

the trade association or its separate segregat

fund must request the approval for such solicit

tions. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b) (4){D); 11 CFR 114.8{d){

Re: AOR 1976-113.

The Commission cautioned that PSA-PAC mu

receive the approvals after December 31, 1982, 

order to conduct solicitations in 1983. Commi

sioners Lee Ann Elliott and Joan D. Aikens file

dissenting opinions. (Date issued: November 

1982; Length: 6 pages, including dissents)

*On November 18, 1982, the Commissi

voted to endorse a new regulation which wou

permit trade associations to seek and receiv

corporate approval of soliclttl.tions to take plac

in the following year. The regulation has not y

been sent to Congress, which has the authority 

disapprove Commission regulations. See Agen

Document No. 82-166.

AO 1982-55: COmbined Payment of Membershi

Dues and PAC Contributions to

Association's Trust ACOOlDlt

The Prince George's County Board of Realtor

Inc. (the Board) may solicit contributions to i

political fund, the Realtors Political Action Com

mittee (RPAC), by using a combined dues pa

ment/contribution plan. Moreover, the Board m

establish a special trust account to separate tw

types of payments made by two types of payer

separation of dues payments by individuals fro

their contributions to Innuenee federal election

on the one hand; and separation of dues paymen

by member corporations from their contribution

for Maryland's state and local elections, on th

other.
Decemoor 1982 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 8, Numoor

Under the plan, the Board will send individual and

corporate members a statement billing them for

both membership dues and a contribution, payable

by one check for the total amount. The billing

statement, as proposed by the Board, will indicate

that the Board's contribution guidelines are merely suggestions, that the contributor may give

more or less than the suggested amount and that,

if a member does not wish to make 8 contribution,

the member should deduct the suggested

contribution amount from the total shown on the

billing statement. This proposed billing notice is

permissible under the Act provided it is modified

to indicate that a. member will not be favored or

disadvantaged by the amount of a contribution or

a decision not to contribute. II CFR 114.5(8)(7);

AO 1982-11.

The Board's use of a separate trust account is

consistent with the established purpose of a transmittal account, that is, to separate membership

dues from contributions. (See AO's 1978-42 and

1979-19.) Moreover, the trust account may be

used to transmit corporate contributions not

permissible in federal elections to a separate

account for state and local elections. Section

I02.5(a}(I) of Commission Regulations specifically

permits a political committee financing activity

in connection with both federal and nonfederal

elections to establish a separate account solely

for federal election activity. By using the trust

account to separate contributions permissible under the Act from impermissible contributions

(i.e., contributions from corporate members), the

Board can ensure that no impermissible

contributions are forwarded to RPAC's federal

account. (Date issued: October 29, 1982; Length:

4 pages)

AO 1982-56: Congressional Candidate's

Endorsement of Local Candidate

in Local candidate's T.V. Ad

Congressman Andrew Jacobs (n-tne.) appeared in

a television ad sporsored by the campaign committee tor Ann Delaney, a Democratic candidate

for county prosecutor. His appearance did not,

however, result in an in-kind contribution to Congressman Jacobs' reelection campaign because the

ad did not endorse or seek to influence Congressman Jacobs' reelection. Rather, the 30-second ad

was limited to advocating Ms. Delaney's election.

The ad did not mention Congressman Jacobs'

candidacy or advocate his opponent's defeat; nor

did it solicit contributions to his campaign. Consequently, the payments made by the Delaney

campaign in connection with Congressman Jacobs'

appearance in the t.v, ad are not reportable by his

campaign committee.

3

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) expresse

no opinion on the applleation of the Communic

tions Act or Federal Communications Commissio

regulations to the ad because they are outside th

FEC's jurisdiction. (Date issued: October 2

1982; Length: 3 pages)

In recent weeks, the Public Communication

Office has received inquiries from candidates wh

wish to conduct concert fundraisers in order 

retire debts of their primary and/or genera.l ele

tion campaigns. The following article is offered 

response to these questions. For further inform

tion, call the Commission at 202/523-4068 or to

free 800/424-9530. See also advisory opinion

1977-22 and 1980-42.

CONCERT FUNDRAmERS

May an entertainer vol1Dlteer his or her servic

for 8 fundraising concert held to retire debts of 

eandidate's primary or gener81 election campaign

Yes. However, to qualify as a volunteer, th

entertainer may not accept any compensation f

the services he or she provides. 2 U.S.C

§43l(8}(B}. (For full details, see AO's 1977 -22...fl.

19~5-6i) 51..-'S \

What steps should the candidate's campaign com

mittee take to ensure that the support servic

provided in eoniunetion with the concert do n

result in excessive or prohibited contributions 

the candidate?

The campaign committee must reimburse th

entertainer, and any other individuals and ve

dors, for the support services and materials the

pay for in connection with the fundraising co

cert. For example, if the entertainer pays for th

services of a lighting crew and back-up band o

for stage props, these production expenses mu

be reimbursed by the committee, or else they w

be regarded as contributions to the candidate.

However, individuals other than the entertaine

may also volunteer their services (but not goods

that is, provide them without any compensatio

from anyone. As such, these services are no

contributions.

continu
December 1982 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 8, Numoo

Is the full price of a ticket for the eoneert

flUldraiser considered a contribution to the candidate's campaign?

Yes. Ticket purchases are considered contributions in the full amount of the purchase price.

Any purchases, therefore, are subject to the Act's

prohibitions and contribution limits (i.e., the limits for a primary, runoff, specialor general election campaign). 11 CPR 100.7(a)(2).

What controls should the eandidate's campaign

committee establish to ensure that ticket purchases do not result in prohibited or excessive

contributions to the campaign?

In AD 1980-42, the Commission said that

advance publicity and notices at sales locations

(e.g., flyers, posters and handbills) must inform

potential ticket purchasers that the concert will

benetlt the candidate's campaign. These signs

must also advise purchasers of the Act's limits

and prohibitions on contributions. To avoid receiving anonymous contributions exceeding $50

(which cannot be used in federal elections), the

committee might also require that ticket purchases of $50 or more either be paid by check or

be paid in cash and accompanied by a statement

identifying the donor's name and address. II CFR

1IO.4(c)(3).

Does a disclaimer notice have to be used for

newspaper ads or radio and t.v. spots adVertising

the fundrais~concert?

Yes. A public political ad promoting the

concert must include an authorization notice:

I1Paid for by for Congress

Committee," 2 U.S.C. §44Id; 11 CFR 1I0.ll.

Does any special disclaimer notice have to appear

on concert tickets?

It depends on the size of the ticket. If the

tickets are the usual size of concert tickets, a

disclaimer notice is not required. 11 CFR

110.ll(a)(2).

Since ticket proceeds are treated as contributions

to the candidate's campaign committee, what

controls should the committee establish to ensure

compliance with the Act's recordkeeping requirements1

Records must be kept of total concert proceeds. In addition, the name and address of the

purchaser must be obtained when his/her ticket

purchases exceed $50 at the same selling location.

When ticket purchases by one person exceed $200,

records must also identify the purchaser's (Le.,

contributor's) occupation and the name of his/her

employer. In addition, detailed records must be

kept of any political committee purchasing tickets, regardless of the amount of the committee's

purchase. 2 U.S.C. §432(b); II CPR 102.9.

4

How should the candidate's campaign commit

report ticket proceeds? 

The committee must follow the same pro

dures in reporting ticket proceeds that it uses 

reporting contributions. This means that: 1) 

purchases of $200 or less must be lumped toget

and reported as part of the total figure 

unitemized contributions on Form 3, Detai

Summary Page; and 2) Any ticket purchase 

ceeding $200 from the same purchaser, or 

ceeding $200 when added to other contributi

the purchaser has made to the candidate's ca

paign during the year, must be itemized on Sch

ule A. Tickets purchased by political committe

regardless of amount, must also be itemized 

Schedule A. 11 CFR l04.3(a)(i), 104.3(a)(4)(1) a

104.8.

How should the candidate's campaign commit

report payments for concert expenses?

Any payments the committee makes for c

cert expenses must be reported as operating 

penditures and, if the combined total of payme

exceeds $200 to the same payee, they must 

itemized on Schedule B. 11 CFR 102.9(b) a

104.3(b)(4)(i).

Maya candidate's eampaign committee contr

with a promoter to handle concert arrangement

Yes, provided the promoter's fee represe

the usual and normal Charge for his or her s

vices at the time the contract is signed. 11 C

100.7(a)(l)(iii) and IOO.8(a)(I)(iv). (For details

on one such arrangement, see AO 1980-42.)

contin

FEDERAL RHGlSTER soncas

The item below identifies an FEC docum

that appeared in the Federal Register on Octo

1, 1982. Copies of this notice are available in 

Public Records Office.

Notice Title

1982-8 11 CFR, Parts 106 and 9031 throu

9039; Presidential Primary Match

Fund -- extension of deadline for co

ments on notice of proposed rulernak

(47 Fed. Reg. 43392) 
Decemter 1982 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 8, Numt:e

What types of concert arrangements may the

promoter handle?

As long as the promoter is acting as the

authorized agent of the candidate's campaign

committee, he or she may handle all concert

arrangements for the campaign, including: advance publicity, concert hall rental, ticket sales

and promotion arrangements. The promoter may

also handle ticket proceeds and pay concert expenses. All these activities are, however, subject

to the requirements of the Act and Commission

Regula.tions,

Under the eontractual arrangements, may ticket

sales be made at outlets normally used for commericial coocerts?

Yes, assuming this sales arrangement meets

all statutory and regulatory requirements. Moreover, the candidate's campaign committee must

establish controls at each ticket sales outlet to

ensure compliance with the Act's recordkeeping

requirements. (See above.)

May ticket purchasers make Uleir cheeks payable

to either the promoter or the ticket sales outlet?

Yes, although it is preferable to have checks

made payable to the candidate's earnpaign committee. Any checks that are not made payable to

the candida te's campaign committee must, however, be deposited in a special account established

for the fundraiser. 2 U.S.C. §432(b)(3); 11 CPR

102.15.

Bow does the special. account work?

The campaign committee must designate the

bank where the special account is established as

an official campaign depository by amending its

Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1).

Moreover, since the ticket proceeds are to be

treated as "contributions," the promoter must

deposit them in the special account within 10 days

of their receipt. 11 CFR 103.3(a).

May the promoter pay concert expenses dire<!tly

from the special aecount?

Yes. The promoter may pay these expenses

by using checks drawn on the special account. 2

U.S.C. §432(h)(l); 11 CPR 102.10 and 103.3.

May the promoter pay any concert expenses from

his own checking account?

No. The promoter must pay all concert expenses from the special account designated by the

candidate's campaign committee.

Must the promoter keep records of all proceeds

deposited in the special account, as well as expenditures made from it?

Yes. 2 U.S.C. §432; 11 CPR 102.9. Using

these records, the candidate's campaign commit5

tee must then disclose the information on its n

regularly scheduled report. (See reporting requ

ments above.)

If the candidate's campaign committee pays f

portion of the concert expenses directly from 

campaign 8OOOoot, how should it report them?

The same reporting procedures apply to c

cert expenses that are paid directly from 

campaign committee's account or from the 

cial account established for the fundraiser, 

above.)

How should the committee report the promo

fees?

If total payments to the promoter exc

$200 during the year, they must be itemized a

operating expenditure on Schedule B, with 

promoter identified as the payee. If less 

$200, the payments would be reported as par

the total figure for disbursements on Form 

Detailed Summary Page. 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(4) 

(b)(5)(A); 11 CPR 104.3(b)(4).

After all eoncert expenses (inclUding the 

moter's fees) have been paid, may the balanc

the proceeds be trWlSferred to the general 

count of the campaign committee?

Yes.

Aunrrs RELEASED TO TIlE PUBLIC

The following is a chronological listing 

audits released by the Commission between 

tember 23 and October I, 1982. The audit rep

are available to the general public in the Pu

Records Office.

1. Reagan Bush Committee, Reagan Bush C

pliance Fund and Democrats for Reagan 

dendum to final audit report for the gen

election campaign, released September 

1982)

2. Democratic Executive Committee of Flo

(final audit report, released October 1, 19

3. Citizens for LaRouche (addendum to 

audit report for the primary campaign, 

leased October 1, 1982)
C6:emoor 1982 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 8, Numter 1

NEW LITIGATION

Satellite BlBiness Systems v. FEe

Satellite Business Systems (SBS), a partnership composed of three unaffiliated corporations,

claims that the FEC misconstrued Section 44lb(a)

of the Act in an advisory opinion issued to plaintiff on March 15, 1982. (In AO 1981-56, the

Commission stated that the Act barred SBS from

either establishing a separate segregated fund or

making direct contributions for federal elections.)

SBS therefore asks the court to declare that:

1. The Commission's decision in AO 1981-56

was erroneous and SBS should, therefore, be

allowed to participate in federal electionsr

and

2. Section 441b(a), as construed by the Commission in AO 1981-56, violates plaintiff's First

and Fifth Amendment rights.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,

Civil Action No. 82-2900, October 12, 1~82.

FEe PUBLISHES THE NAMES OF NONFILERS

On October 29, 1982, the Commission published separate listings of authorized candidate

committees that had failed to file either their

third quarterly or their pre-general election reports. In accordance with the federal election

law, the Commission published the names of five

House campaigns which had failed to file their

third quarterly report, due by October 15. During

1982, a quarterly report is required of all authorized candidate committees active in the 1982

elections, as well as of all authorized Presidential

committees and all unauthorized committees that

choose to file on a quarterly (rather than a

monthly) basis. Prior to this publication, the campaigns had received mailgrams notifying them of

their failure to file the report.

On October 29, the Commission also published the

names of 21 House campaigns and one Senate

campaign in 14 different states which had failed

to file their pre-general election reports, due 12

days before the November 2 general election.

Other political committees not authorized by can

didates (i.e., noncandidate committees) were als

required to file the pre-general election report i

they had made contributions, coordinated part

(S441a(d)) expenditures or independent expendi

tures in connection with the general election.

Further Commission actions against committee

that failed to file reports required during the 198

election year will be decided on a case-by-cas

basis. The Act gives the Commission broad au

thority to initiate enforcement actions agains

any nonfiIer, including civil enforcement and th

imposition of civil penalties.

FEC COMMENTS ON FCC'S

PROPOSED RKllITERPRETATION OF RULES

GOVERNING CANDIDATE DEBATES

On October 14, 1982, the FEC submitte

comments to the Federal Communications Com

mission (FCC) concerning the FCC's propose

reinterpretation of equal opportunity rules gov

erning candidate debates sponsored by broadcas

licensees. Under the proposed reinterpretation o

Section 315(a)(4) of the Communications Act, th

broadcasting of candidate debates sponsored b

broadcasters would be considered "on-the-spo

coverage of bona fide news events" exempt from

the equal opportunity rules. (Under the curren

rules, broadcasters sponsoring candida te debate

must provide equal opportunities for all legall

qualified candidates to air their political views.*

The FCC had sought comments on the reinterpre

tation of the equal opportunity rules in a notic

published in the Federal Register September 20

1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 41421).

*A candidate debate may be exempted from

the equal opportunities rules, however, if it is

arranged and sponsored by a party other than th

broadeaster; broadcast in its entirety, live or n

later than the day following the event; and cov

ered because of the broadcaster's reasonable

good faith judgment that the debate is newswor

thy and not for the purpose of giving a politica

advantage to any candidate.
~moor1982 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 8. Numbe

CHART I

CAMPAlGN RECEIPTS OF 1982

CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

1/1/81 - 6/30/82

Democratic Republican

o Other Receipts:l:

• Party Committee

contributions· :I:

E2l PAC Contributions

*Other campaign receipts include, for exa

ple, contributions from individuals, contributio

from candidates to their own campaigns, transf

among authorized committees of the sa

candidate, loans, refunds, and interest inco

earned on investments.

**Party contributions include contributio

from national, state and local party committe

registered with the PEC. These figures do 

include coordinated party expenditures made 

national and state party committees on behalf 

federal candidates in general elections. 2 U.S

§441a(d); 11 CPR 110.7. Nor do the figu

include disbursements by state and local pa

committees that benefit federal candidates 

are exempt from the definitions of contribut

and expenditure. 2 U.S.C. §§43H8)(B)(v), (x), a

(xii); 11 CPR 100.7(b)(9} and 100.8(b)(l0).

continu

-

- : : : : " ., "

: : : $69.7 :: : : : :: - : " : ..... ::.;: ~; ::: : :: ::: : :: : : $6

:

IIII - :::::::;::~:::::::::: ~:: ;: : :: : : : : - :,., : : : ::: : : : : : : :: : "

- :: : : : : : :: : : : : : ,', : :: :

- : : : : ::::: :

: :: :: :; :

:

: :: ::

:: :;::: : : : : : : ; : : : : : ::: :

- ;

:: :: ; : :~ ~: . : : : ; : :,'. : : : : : ; ; : : : :: : ::-:: : :::

:

:

:::::;:; : : :

- - $ 7 .'. " : . -$2

- $20.0 $1

100

90

80 i 70

o 60

"S 50

8 40

=:1 30

i 20

10

7

*PAC is a popular term used to define any

political committee that has not been authorized

by a candidate or a political party. The term

includes a separate segregated fund connected to

a corporation or labor organization as well as a

political committee without any connected organization (Le., corporate orlabor sponsor).

The information released by the FEe on October

6, 1982, is based on an interim study, FEC Reports on Financial Activity: 198H12 U.S. Senate

and House Campai~s. The study showed that

from January 1, 181, through June 30, 1982,

Congressional candidates raised a total of $175.6

million for their campaigns. Of this amount, $34.6

million (or 20 percent) was contributed by PACs.*

During the same period in 1979-80, Congressional

candidates had raised $125.8 million, of which

$20.8 million (or 16.5 percent) came from PACs.

Receipts for 1977-78 campaigns totaled $93.6

million, with PACs having contributed $10.7 million (or 11 percent) of this amount. The charts

below detail contributions made to 1982 Congressional candidates by the various categories of

con tributors.

More detailed information may be obtained from

FEe Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-82 -- Interim Re ort No.1: Senate and House Cam ai s.

The study may be purchased or 5.00 rom the

FEC's Public Records Office, 1325 K Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Cheeks should be

made payable to the FEC.

1982 CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS

SPEND RECORD AMOUNT

During the tirst 18 months of the 1982 e1Mtion CYCle, campaign spending by 2,020 House and

Senate candidates reached $133.6 million, an

amount $30.6 million higher than spending by

2,184 candidates during the same period in the

1980 elections and $53 million higher than spending by 1,812 candidates in the 1978 elections.

continued from p, 1

·e
CHARTU

PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 1982

HOUSE AND SENATE CANDIDATES

1/1/81 - 6/30/82

DEn3mber 1982 FEDERAL ELECTION COtvlMISSION Volume 8, Numoor 

8

7

6

5

o

'0 4

8

3

2

Type

of

PAC

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463·

Official Business

O Contributions to

Democratic candidates

Contributions to

I:f.2I Republican candidates

FirstClass Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

FEe

Washington, D.C.

Permit No. G-31