May 1

Federal Bar Association and the

American Society of Association

Executives

The FEC and the FECA

Washington, D.C.

Kenneth Gross, Associate General

Counsel

Thomas Josefiak, Special Deputy

to the Secretary of the Senate

for the FEC

Hope College Students

The FEC and the FECA

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens

American University Students

The FEC and the Federal Election

Campaign Act (FECA)

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner John Warren

McGarry

Practicing Law Institute

The Corporation in Politics

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel

N. Bradley Litchfield, Assistant

General Counsel

5/25

5/21

5/19

5/13-

14

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Da te Sponsoring Organization

Republican Party committees began the 1979

election cycle with $2 million. They raised 

additional $169.5 million and spent $161.8 mill

Of the total spent, the Republicans contribu

$4.5 million to federal candidates and spent 

additional $12.4 million on their behalf in 

1980 general election. (Under the election law

political party's national and state party comm

contin

THE FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

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

Volume 8, Number 5

The Commission scheduled two additional seminars, which were held in Washington, D.C., on

April 23 and 26.

FEe REPORTS ON 1979-80 ACl1VlTY OF

MAJOR POLmCAL PARTIES

The FEC has released final figures on spending reported by the major political parties during

the 1979-80 election cycle. The FEC study

showed that Republican Party committees at the

national, state and local levels reported spending

almost five times as much, and raising four and

one-half times as much, money as their Democratic counterparts. Spending by Republican Party

committees in 1979-80 was nearly double that of

1977-78.

FEC HOLDS CAMPAIGN FINANCE

SEMINAR IN WASHINGTON

On April 2, 1982, the Commission held an

all-day seminal' on the election law for Senate

and House candidates. Among those attending the

seminar in Washington, D.C., were campaign staff

and consultants, Congressional staff and members

of the press. Subjects discussed at the morning

session, opened by Commission Chairman Frank P.

Reiche, included: campaign support available to

candidates; contribution limits and prohibitions;

reeordkeeping requirements; and procedures for

filling out reports. The afternoon session, opened

by Commissioner John Warren McGarry, focused

on: campaign finance problems to be avoided;

advisory opinions relevant to Congressional campaigns; and complaint, audit and other legal procedures.

•

•
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.

2

1982-23 Remaining funds of terminating com

mittee contributed to party committe

for specific (but unidentified) cand

date. (Date made public: March 2

1982; Length: 1 page)

1982; and 1980 Senate and House campaigns o

March 7, 1982. Prices for the tapes are: par

information, $65; U.S. Senate and House inform

tion, $65; Presidential primary information, $8

and nonparty, noncandidate information, $7

(These fees do not include expedited shippin

charges.)

Potential purchasers unfamiliar with the kinds 

information available on the tapes may first wi

to buy the documentation booklet that accomp

nies each tape. The prices for the booklets ar

$2.85 for U.S. Senate and House informatio

$2.70 for Presidential primary information; an

$2.75 for party and nonparty, noncandidate info

mation. The booklets and tapes may be purchase

through the Commission's Data Systems Develo

ment Division, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washingto

D.C. 20463. Checks should be made payable to th

FEC. For more information, contact the Da

Systems Development Division by calling 202/52

4020 or toll free 800/424-9530.

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests fo

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of eac

AOR is available to the public in the Commi

sion's Office of Public Records.

AOR Subject

1982-21 Contribution by PAC to another PAC 

indicative of affiliation. (Date mad

publici March 16, 1982; Length: 

pages, plus supplement)

1982-22 Single contribution limit for campaign

waged in two Congressional district

(Date made publici March 17, 198

Length: 2 pages)

tees may make limited, coordinated expenditures

on behalf of their candidates in the general election. These expenditures are in addition to contributions allowed for the general election. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d).)

The FEC study showed a significant drop in the

total number of party committees registered with

the FEC, particularly state and local committees.

For example, 585 state and local committees

were registered during 1979-80 as compared with

744 committees registered in 1977-78. The reduction may be attributed, in part, to the 1979

election law amendments, which relaxed registration requirements for state and local party organizations in order to encourage their grassroots

activities.

1980 CAMPAIGN STATISTICS

AVAILABLE ON COMPUTER TAPES

During March, the Commission announced the

availability of computer tapes covering the 1980

campaign finance activities of Presidential primary candidates, candidates for the U.S. Senate and

House, the Democratic and Republican parties,

and nonparty, noncandidate political committees.

The Commission made the tapes available for

purchase after it had published printed volumes

covering the same information (l.e., the 1979-80

Reports on Financial Activity). It had released

final statistics on the 1980 Presidential primary

campaigns on November 15, 1981; party and nonparty, noncandidate activity on February 21,

Beginning the election cycle with $.7 million,

Democratic Party committees raised $37.2 million during 1979-80. They spent $35 million. Of

this total, the Democrats contributed $1.7 million

to candidates' campaigns and spent an additional

$4.9 million on their behalf in the general election.

The Commission's statistical information is based

on the FEC 1979-80 Report on Financial Activity

-- Final Report, a comprehensive, campaign finance study of major party and nonparty, noncandidate committees. The four-volume study is currently out of print but will be available in June

for $5 per volume from the FECls Public Records

Office, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20463. Computer tapes of the study are also

available from the FEC's Data Systems Development Division. See article below.
•

•

AOR Subject

1982-24 Campaign funds raised through sale of

artworks consigned by artists. (Date

made public: March 23, 1982; Length: 1

page)

1982-25 Campaign disbursement made through

electronic transfer of funds from campaign depository to vendor. (Date made

public: March 24, 1982; Length: 1 page)

1982-26 Status of member municipal utilities as

"eorporations" from whom trade asssoelation must obtain prior approval to

solicit their employees. (Date made

public: March 24, 1982; Length: 8

pages)

1982-27 Host city's financing of Presidential

nominating convention from fund containing corporate donations. (Date

made public: March 25, 1982; Length:

12 pages, plus supplement)

1982-28 Status of corporation organized under

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

as "corporation" under the Act. (Date

made public: March 26, 1982; Length:

14 pages)

1982-29 Payroll deduction plan for corporation's

subsidiaries. (Date made publies March

30, 1982; Length: 1 page)

1982-30 Discount coupon books sold by vendor

to campaign as fundraising item. (Date

made publlce April 7, 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 AO and not rely only on the

sum mary given here.

AO 1981-56: PAC Established by Partnership

Of Three Corporations

Satellite Business Systems (SBS), a partnership

composed of three unrelated corporations, may

not defray the expenses of establishing a separate

segregated fund to solicit contributions from its

employees.

3

Under the Act, only a corporation, labor organi

tion, cooperative or a corporation without capi

stock may pay the costs of establishing a separ

segregated fund. SBS does not fall into any 

these categories. Moreover, since SBS's partn

are all corporations, and since partnership con

butions are attributable to each partner, SBS m

not lawfully use its partnership funds to establ

and maintain any type of political committee

U.S.C. §441b(a) and II CFR ue.no.

Each of SBS's corporate partners (or its respect

sponsoring organization) could, however, sponso

separate segregated fund and solicit contributio

from its stockholders, executive and administ

tive personnel and their families. 2 U.S

§44l b(b)(4)(A)-(B). Moreover, SBS's employ

could establish a political committee complet

independent of SBS. Although SBS could not co

tribute to the SBS employees' committee, it co

allow SBS employees to provide free legal a

accounting services to the committee during re

ular work hours, but solely for the purpose 

ensuring the committee's compliance with 

Act. 2 U.S.C. §43I(8)(B)(ix); 11 CFR lOD.7(b)(

and 1l4.l(a)(2)(vii).

The Commission was unable to decide, by 

affirmative vote of four Commissioners, the t

remaining questions posed by SBS:

1. Whether SBS, as a member of a trade asso

a tion, could solicit contributions for 

trade association's separate segregated fu

from all (or a portion) of SBS's employe

and

2. Whether the trade association could soli

SBS's executive and administrative personn

(Date issued: March 15, 1982; Length: 

pages)

AO 1982-2: Trade Association's Partisan

Communications to Members

Partisan communications that the National Rad

Broadcasting Association (NRBA), a trade as

ciation, sends to its members would constitu

neither contributions nor expenditures under t

Act. Accordingly, NRBA would not have 

establish a separate segregated fund to make t

partisan expenditures; nor would they cau

NRBA to become a political committee under t

Act.

NRBA plans to send letters to both its individ

members and the individual representatives of 

corporate members urging them to vote for, a

contribute to, certain federal candidates. T

mailings are permissible under Section l14.3(c)

of Commission Regulations because the letters:

1. Will be produced at NRBA's expense;

2. Will be an expression of NRBA's views rath

than a reproduction of materials produced 

a candidate; and

3. Will not facilitate the making of contrib

tions to candidates endorsed by NRBA.

continu
Moreover, NRBA may send the partisan communications to both its active members (i.e., businesses licensed by the Federal Communications

Commission to operate commercial radio stations)

and its associate members (t.e., entities licensed

to operate noncommercial stations). Both groups

qualify as "members" under Commission Regulations because they have interests and rights in

NRBA, participate in the direction of NRBA and

provide regular financial support to it. 11 CFR

114.I(e). (Date issued: March 26, 1982; Length: 6

pages)

AO 1982-3: Testing-the-Water Activities of

Potential Presidential Candidate

Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) may authorize the

formation of an exploratory committee (the Committee) to evaluate his potential as a 1984 Democratic Presidential candidate. The activities the

Committee plans to undertake (see below) would

constitute testing-the-water activities and, as

such, would be exempted from the Act's definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure." 11 CFR

100.7(b)(l) and 8(bXI).

Senator Cranston will make no decision on his

potential candidacy until the Committee has completed its exploratory work and reported its recommendations to him in late 1982 or early 1983.

The Committee does not intend to purchase general public political advertising (e.g., ads in

newspapers or broadcast media) or to raise any

funds for a future campaign (should the Senator

decide to become a candidate). Under these circumstances, funds raised and spent by the Committee to test the waters would not be considered

contributions or expenditures as long as circumstances indica ted Senator Cranston had not moved

beyond the process of deciding whether or not to

become a candidate and into the process of planning and scheduling public activities designed to,

heighten his political appeal to the electorate. In

this regard, activities conducted over an extended

period might suggest that the candidate had

moved beyond the process of deciding whether or'

not to become a candidate and into active campaigning. (See AO 1981-32.)

The Committee plans the following activities to

test the waters:

I. Travel for the purpose of speaking to groups

on public issues and meeting with opinion

makers to determine whether support exists

for Senator Cranston's candidacy for President.

2. Reimbursement of expenses incurred by the

Senator and others for testing-the-water activities, including expenses that could become contributions to a future campaign

committee if they were not reimbursed.

3. Hiring independent contractors for polling,

political consulting, communications and research related to testing the waters.

4

4. Compiling information on persons who ind

cate an interest in Senator Cranston's cand

dacy.

5. Organizing advisory groups on critical issu

that require expert knowledge. 

Should Senator Cranston decide to become a ca

didate, all receipts and disbursements made by h

exploratory committee for testing-the-water a

tivities would become "contributions" and "expe

ditures'' subject to the reporting requiremen

limits and prohibitions of the Act. 11 CF

100.7(b)(l) and (8)(1); 101.3. Commission

Thomas E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion. (Da

issued: March 15, 1982; Length: 6 pages, includi

dissent)

AO 1982-9: Portion of Honorarium Given to

Charity

Senator Bob Dole may accept $2,000 of a $5,0

honorarium for a speaking engagement and a

the host organization to pay the remaining $3,0

to a charitable organization it selects from a l

of five or more charitable organizations furnishe

by Senator Dole. Since, under the Act, the hon

rarium limitation ($2,000 per appearance) is tri

gered only when an honorarium is actually a

cepted, that portion given to charity would n

count against the limit.

The Commission expressed no opinion on applic

ble Senate rules or tax laws since they are n

within its jurisdiction. (Date issued: March 1

1982; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1982-10: Contributions and Expenditures in

Connection with Nonfederal

Bleetlons by Wholly-owned

Subsidiary of Foreign Corporation

Syntex USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of t

Syntex Corporation (Syntex-Panama), a foreig

corporation, may make contributions and expend

tures in connection with state and local electio

provided:

1. Syntex USA's proposed contributions and e

penditures comply with applicable state an

local laws; and

2. No director or corporate officer of Synt

USA or Syntex-Panama who is a foreig

national participates in decisions regardin

Syntex USA'S contributions and expenditures

Section 441e of the Act prohibits foreign n

tionals from making contributions in connectio

with elections to any political office. This b

would not, however, extend to Syntex USA's pr

posed activities because, as a corporation org

nized under Delaware law with its principal pla

of business in California, Syntex USA is a dome

tic -- rather than a foreign -- corporation. Com

missioner Thomas E. Harris filed a dissentin

opinion. (Date issued: March 24, 1982; Length: 

pages, including dissent)
•

AO 1982-11: Trade Association PAC's Combined

Dues Collection/Political

Contribution Plan

The American Chiropractic Association Political

Action Committee (the Committee), the separate

segregated fund of the American Chiropractic

Assoc. (ACA), may solicit contributions from

ACA members through a combined dues payment/political contribution plan. Under this plan,

members may check a box on their dues statement to designate a voluntary contribution to the

Comittee. The solicitation statement must notify

members that they may contribute more or less

than the suggested amount and that ACA will not

favor or disadvantage any member because of the

amount contributed or a decision not to contribute. The voluntary combined plan is permissible,

provided:

1. No portion of a contributing member's dues is

used directly, or indirectly, as his or her

contribution;

2. Combined dues payments and political contributions from individuals with incorporated

professional practices are drawn on an individual account or on a nonrepayable drawing

account that the individual maintains with

his/her corporation; and

3. Contributions received by ACA are forwarded to the Committee to be recorded and

deposited according to the provisions of 2

U.S.C. §432(b)(2) and 11 CFR 102.8(b)(I).

(Date issued: March 26, 1982; Length: 3

pages)

AO 1982-16: Combined Fundraiser/Author's

Party Financed by Publishing

Corporation

Bantam Books, a publishing corporation, may not

finance a combined fundraiser and author's party

for Mark Green, an unsuccessful Congressional

candidate from New York whose book is being

published by Bantam.

Mr. Green had proposed using proceeds from the

party (raised by charging a $25 admission fee) to

help retire debts remaining from his 1980 Congressional campaign. By paying for the party,

Bantam would have been providing a valuable

service (i.e., contribution) to Mr. Green's campaign. Under the Act, corporations are prohibited

from making contributions in connection with

federal election activity, including campaign debt

retirement aetivtty, 2 U.S.C. §441bla). (Date issued: April 5, 1982; Length: 2 pages)

5

AO 1982-22: Single Contribution Limit for

Campaigns Waged in Two

Congressional Districts

Campaigning for election to the House of R

sentatives, Mr. Steve Bartlett is considered, 

the Act, a primary candidate for one fe

office even though he changed his primary 

paign from Texas' Fifth Congressional Distr

the Third Congressional District during the 

election cycle. This means that Mr. Bartlett 

not have to establish a new campaign comm

but may continue to use the campaign comm

originally designated when he was campaigni

the Fifth Congressional District. Furtherm

contributions to both campaigns are subject 

single per candidate, per election limit. 2 U

§44Ia(a)(l) and (2); 11 CFR 1l0.8(d)(ll).

Mr. Bartlett withdrew his candidacy for ele

from the Fifth Congressional District and 

clared his candidacy for the Third Congress

District as the result of a court-mandated r

tricting plan in Texas. Contributions to 

Bartlett are subject to one election limit bec

1. Neither the Act nor the Commission's R

lations identify Congressional seats as 

arate federal offices (2 U.S.C. §43l(3

CFR 100.4); and

2. Those portions of the U.S. Constitution 

federal law that provide for the electi

U.S. Representatives indicate that each 

gressional seat within a state does not co

tute a separate federal office. Rather, 

define the office of U.S. Representati

terms of the state the office represents

the geographical boundaries of a Con

sional district. (See also 14th Amendme

the Constitution; 2 U.S.C. §§2a, 2b an

and McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 

(l892).) (Date issued: April 5, 1982; Le

4 pages)

The items below identify FEC documents 

appeared in the Federal Register on April 

April 13, 1982. Copies of the notices are ava

in the Public Records Office.

Notice Title

1982-2 11 CFR, Part 110: Honoraria; Rem

of Limitation (Date publlshede Ap

1982; Citation: 47 Fed. Reg. 15098

1982-3 Filing Dates for California Sp

Primary and General Elections 

published: April 13, 1982; Citatio

Fed. Reg. 15898)
BREAD POLfnCAL ACTION COMMI1TEE

Y. FEC

In an opinion issued on March 8, 1982, in

Bread Political Action Committee v. FEC (Supreme Court No. 80-l481) the Supreme Court

ruled that plaintiffs, the National Lumber and

Building Dealers Assoc. and the National Restaurateurs (two trade associations) and the Bread

Political Action Committee, the Restaurateurs

Political Action Committee and the Lumber Dealers Political Action Committee (three separate

segregated funds), lacked standing to bring suit

under 2 U.S.C. §437h, which allows for expedited

handling of constitutional challenges to the Act

and a right of direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court remanded the suit to the appeals court

without ruling on the plaintiffs' constitutional

challenges to 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(4)(D), a provision

of the election law requiring trade associations to

obtain the prior approval of their member corporations to solicit the corporations' stockholders,

executive and administrative personnel and their

families. The Court's ruling overturned a decision

by the appeals court for the Seventh Circuit while

upholding an earlier decision by the Northern

Illinois district court.*

The Court ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to

bring suit under Section 437h because they did not

fall within the three categories of qualified plaintiffs enumerated in the provision: i.e., the national committee of a' political party, individuals

eligible to vote in Presidential elections and the

FEC. The Court held that lithe plain language of

§437h controls its construction, at least in the

absence of 'clear evidence/•••of a 'clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary••••m

The Court concluded that "the appellants, however, fall far short of providing 'clear evidence' of

a 'clearly expressed legislative intention' that the

unique expedited procedures of §437h be afforded

to parties other than those belonging to the three

listed categories."

Nor did the Court find merit to plaintiffs' argument that, since Congress had expressly extended

the judicial review procedures of §437h to cover

all constitutional questions about any provision of

the Act, Congress had also intended to broaden

the categories of plaintiffs eligible to file suit

under §437h.

*Subsequent to ruling that plaintiffs had

standing to bring suit, the appeals court upheld

the constitutionality of 2 V.S.C. §44lb(b)(4)(D)

against plaintiffs' challenges, an issue not

addressed by the Supreme Court. See summary on

p, 6 of the May 1981 Record.

6

Moreover, the Court refuted plaintiffs' contention

that, while Congress had specified three eligible

classes of plaintiffs to remove any doubts abou

their standing to bring suit, it had not intended to

exclude other classes of plaintiffs. To the con

trary, the Court concluded that congress "went to

the trouble of specifying that only two precisely

defined types of artificial entity and one class of

natural persons could bring these actions." The

Court noted, however, that its ruling did no

affect the right of parties involved in FEC enforcement actions to challenge, under 2 V.S.C.

§437g, the constitutionality of any provision of

the Act and to be afforded expedited review.

DOLBEARE, ET AL. Y. FEC .

On March 11, 1982, the U.S. District Cour

for the Southern District of New York issued a

ruling granting a preliminary injunction to the

plaintiffs in Dolbeare, et al. v. FEC (Civil Action

No. 4468-CLB).

Plaintiffs' suit challenged pending FEC investigations of various activities with respect to the

Citizens for LaRouche Committee (the LaRouche

campaign), Lyndon H. LaRouche's principal campaign committee for the 1980 Presidential primaries. The LaRouche campaign claimed that the

statutory provision authorizing the investigations

(2 V.S.C. §437g(a)(2» was unconstitutional as applied to the LaRouche campaign because it placed

no limits on the time for completing the investigations. Moreover, the LaRouche campaign alleged that the FEC had undertaken the investigations to harass the campaign. Furthermore, the

investigations had had a chilling effect on the

free association rights of the campaign's contributors. The LaRouche campaign also claimed

that, in conducting its investigations, the FEC had

gone beyond the prescribed scope for FEC investigations.

The FEC sought dismissal of the suit on jurisdictional grounds. Primarily, the FEC claimed that

the suit was not justiciable because, under 2

V.S.C. §437g(a), an agency has the discretion to

decide whether there is "reason to believe" the

Act has been violated and whether an alleged

violation should be investigated. The FEC also

argued that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's

decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Standard

Oil of California, such initial agency determinations are not final and thus not ripe for judicial

review in a federal court. Moreover, the FEC said

that §437h provides jurisdiction only for claims of

statutory unconstitutionality, not for claims that

a statute is unconstitutional as applied. Furthermore, the FEC argued that the LaRouche campaign's claim that the FEC's investigations would

have a long-term chilling effect on their political

activities did not meet the test for immediate

injunctive relief--evidence of "specific present

objective harm or a threat of specific future

harm•••" (Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14

(1971». The FEC further argued that the
•

LaRouche campaign had failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of

succeeding with its case on the merits.

In granting a preliminary injunction, the court

found that it did have jurisdiction over the claims

raised in the suit and that §437h could be used to

challenge the constitutionality of the Act, as

applied. The court also held that it did not have to

certify the campaign's constitutional questions to

the appeals court, pursuant to §437h, but could

itself take primary jurisdiction over them. The

court reasoned that the campaign would be caused

"irreparable harm" as a result of substantial legal

fees and the depletion of volunteer staff resources required to defend the campaign against

the FEC's ongoing investigations. The court therefore barred the FEC from:

1. Initiating any more investigations into the

LaRouche campaign's 1980 Presidential primary activities until the pending enforcement actions were concluded; and

2. AUditing, or issuing depositions to, LaRouche

campaign contributors unless the FEC simultaneously notified the LaRouche campaign of

such actions.

Moreover, the court ordered the FEC to complete

its enforcement actions promptly and to treat the

LaRouche campaign as a respondent to all pending

investigations involving the campaign's 1980 Presidential primary activities. The court also ordered

the FEC to furnish copies of depositions taken

with regard to any of the pending investigations,

if requested by the LaRouche campaign. The

court, however, conditioned its enforcement of

the injunction on:

1. Plaintiffs' agreement to waive certain legal

claims with respect to time limits for the

FEC enforcement actions; and

2. Plaintiffs' full cooperation with the FEC in

completing the pending enforcement matters.

NEW LITIGATION

FEe v. Rohert Earl Short

The FEC asks the district court to declare

that defendants (Employees of Bob Short Companies Committee, treasurer Larry J. Weisgram,

Just a Bunch of Plain DFL Folks Who Want

Common Sense Government and Walter E.

Riordan) violated the election law by:

I. Failing to report disbursements as in-kind

contributions to, rather than as independent

expenditures on behalf of, the Short for Senate Committee of Volunteers (2 U.S.C. §434

(1976»); and

2. Making disbursements exceeding the $1,000

per candidate, per election, contribution limit (2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1 )(A)).

Alternatively, if the court finds that the defendants' disbursements were independent expenditures, rather than in-kind contributions, the FEC

asks the court to declare that Just a Bunch of

7

Plain DFL Folks Who Want Common Sense 

ernment and Walter E. Riordan violated the 

by failing to promptly report these expendit

which were made just before the 1978 Minn

general election (2 U.S.C §§434(b)(9) and (b

(1976) and II CFR 109.2(a)(1> and (c)(l977».

The FEC also asks the court to:

1. Declare Robert Earl Short, Short for Se

Committee of Volunteers and Robert J. 

ter violated the Act by failing to repor

Short committee's receipt of in-kind co

butions from Employees of Bob Short C

panies Committee and Just A Bunch of 

DFL Folks Who Want Common Sense Go

ment (2 U.S.C. 5434(1976».

2. Order the defendant committees to am

their reports to reflect these transaction

not found to be independent expenditure

in-kind contributions and expenditures.

3. Enjoin the defendants from any further v

tions of the election law.

(FEC v. Robert Earl Short, U.S. District Cou

the District of Minnesota, Docket No. 3-82 

192, March 1, 1982)

TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO

HONORARIA LIMIT

On April 1, 1982, the Commission appr

technical amendments to its regulations, re

ting Congress' repeal of 2 U.S.C. §44li(a)(2

provision of the election law that had place

overall $25,000 annual limit on honoraria th

federal officeholder or employee could accep

speeches, appearances and articles. The tech

amendments deleted Il CFR IIO.12(a)(2), 

annual honoraria limit. The amendments also 

leted sections 110.12(a)(3) and (4) of the re

tions, which had included guidelines for d

mining the calendar year in which honoraria 

considered to have been accepted for purpos

the annual limit.

Since the technical conforming amendments 

not a SUbstantive rule representing an FEC p

decision, they were not submitted for Con

sional review but became effective upon p

cation in the Federal Register on April 8, 198

Fed. Reg. 15098).

• Congress repealed the annual honorar

mit on October 1, 1981, as an amendment 

continuing resolution for federal agency appr

ations (Pub. L. 97-51). The President signed 

bill the same day.
FEe PUBLISHES THE NAMES OF

ILLINOIS NONFILERS

On March 12, 1982, the Commission published

the names of two Illinois House campaigns that

had failed to file their pre-primary reports, due

12 days before the March 16 Illinois primary. The

campaigns' pre-primary reports should have covered campaign finance activity from January 1 (or

from the date of candidacy) through February 24,

1982.

On February 8, 1982, the Commission had notified

the committees of all candidates participating in

the Illinois primary of their potential reporting

requirements. Subsequently, the commission notified those committees failing to file timely reports that their names would be published if they

did not respond to the FEC's notice within four

business days.

Other political committees (not authorized by

candidates) that supported candidates in the Illinois. primary were also required to file pre-primary reports, unless they had been reporting on a

monthly basis. The 1979 amendments to the election law do not, however, require the Commission

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20463

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

to publish the names of these unauthorized com

mittees. .

Further Commission action against committee

that fail to file reports required during the 1982

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

basis. The Act gives the Commission broad au

thority to initiate enforcement actions agains

any nonfiler, including civil enforcement and the

imposition of civil penalties.

AUDITS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC

The following is a chronological listing of

audits released by the Commission between Feb

ruary 25 and March 22, 1982. Final audit reports

are available to the general public in the Public

Records Office.

1. South Carolina Republican Party Campaign

180 Fund (Final Audit Report released Febru

ary 25, 1982)

2. Outdoor Advertising Political Action Committee (Final Audit Report released March

22, 1982)

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FE ES PAID

FEe

WASHINGTON, D.C.

PE RMIT NO. G·31