Volume 11 , Numbe

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS

1 Texas Special Elections

2 July Reporting Schedule

5 ADVISORY OPINIONS

COURT CASES

7 Alwin Hopfmann v. FEC

7 New Litigation

EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TES'nNG THE

WATERS RULES

On June 21, the Commission published 

notice in the Federal Register announcing th

the revised rules governing "testing-the-water

activities will become effective on July 1, 19

These rules permit an individual to test the fea

bility of a campaign for federal office witho

becoming a candidate under the election law. S

11 CFR IOO.7(b)(l), IOO.8(b)(l) and 101.3. Und

the revised rules, however, the contribution lim

and prohibitions of the Act will apply to fun

used for testing the waters. (For a summary 

these rules, see page 3 of the April 1985 Reeord

In the Federal Register notice, the Comm

sion stated that, to ensure a smooth transition 

monitoring testing-the-waters activities under t

new rules, the agency had decided that:

o After July 1, an individual may not acce

unlawful (prohibited and excessive) contrib

tions for testlng-the-waters activities.

continued on p

REGULATIONS

1 Effective Date for Testing-the-waters

Rules

4 Comments Sought on Enforcement

Rules

Filing

Date

7/31/85

7/29/85

6/17/85

Mailing

Date

7/29/85

7/31/85

6/14/85

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street NW washington DC 20463

6/9/85

6/30/85

7/19/85

Report

Pre-election

Post-election

semiannual

TEXAS SPECIAL ELECTIONS

On June 29, 1985, Texas held a special election in its Ist Congressional district to fill the

seat vacated by Representative Sam B. Hall, Jr.

If none of the candidates obtain a majority of the

votes, a second special election will be held

within the timeframe specified by Texas law.

Reporting requirements will depend on the

outcome of the election (not known at the time of

publication). If one candidate wins a majority of

the votes and thus only the first special election

is held, the principal campaign committees of

candidates participating in the election must file

pre- and post-elections reports. The semiannual

report, normally due on July 31, is waived.

If no one receives a majority of the votes

cast in the special election (and thus a runoff

election is to be held), the post-election report

for the first special election is not required.

Instead, authorized committees should file the

pre-election report for the first special election

and a semiannual report. Authorized committees

of candidates participating in a runoff election

must file pre- and post-election reports for the

runoff, in addition to the other required reports

(see sentence above). (Once the date for the

runoff has been established, the FEC will send

notices on reporting requirements to participating

authorized eommittees.)

Note that all other political committees

which participate in the special electionfs) (and

which do not report on a monthly basis) must also

follow this reporting schedule, as appropriate.

Filing deadlines are detailed in the chart below.

Closing

Date of

Books

•

July 1985

•

The FEC will send notices on reporting r~

quirements and filing dates to individuals known

to be actively pursuing election to this House

seat. All other committees supporting candidates

in the special elections should contact the Commission for more information on required reports.

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

continued on p. 2

STATJS'I1CS

8 Financial Activity of 1984

Congressional Races

10 Financial ActiVity of Major

Parties

11 INDEX
July 1985 'vblume 11, Numo

continued from p. 1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

JULY REPORTING SCHEDULE

The following chart and paragraphs in pages 2 and 3 explain the July reporting schedule for 

various categories of filers.

Report

Quarterly Monthly Semiannual

Type of Filer July 15 July 20 July 31

Authorized Congressional Committees X

Authorized Presidential Committees/

Quarterly!/ X

Authorized Presidential Committees/

Monthly!/ X

Unauthorized Committees/SemiannualY X

Unauthorized Committees/Monthly!/ X

National Party Convention.

and Host Committe~/ X

1All authorized Presidential committees are required to file on either a monthly or quarterly b

during 1985. 11 CFR 104.5(b)(2).

2AU unauthorized committees (i.e., committees not authorized by candidates) are required to 

on either a monthly or semiannual ba3is in 1985. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

3The quarterly report is due July 10. National party convention and host committees must conti

reporting WItH their financial activity ceases. 11 CFR 9008.12(b)(2)(ii).

4Committees supporting candidates in the special election in Texas should consult the article o

1 for more information on the semiannual reporting schedule.

2
July 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 11, Numte

Quarterly Report

•

The report should cover all activity from

April 1 (or from the closing date of the last report

filed in 1985) through June 30. It is due July 15.

Monthly Report

The monthly report must be filed by JUly 20.

It should cover all activity from June 1 or from

the date of registration, whichever is later,

through June 30.

Semiannual Report

The semiannual report is due July 31. Political com mittees that have not previously filed a

report during 1984 should report all financial

activity through June 30. All other committees

should disclose financial activity from the last

report filed through June 30.*

Change in Filing Frequency

Unauthorized committees that plan to change

their reporting schedule (from monthly to semiannually or from semiannually to monthly) must

notify the Commission of their intention. The

committee may notify the Commission by submitting a 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.

WHERE REPORTS ARE FILED

Committees must file all reports and statements simultaneously with the appropriate federal

and state officials. 11 CFR 108.5.

"'Committees supporting candidates in the

special election in Texas should consult the article on p. 1 for more information on the semiannual reporting schedule.

Filing with the Federal Government

o The principal campaign committees of Hou

candidates and committees supporting or o

posing only House candidates file with th

Clerk of the House, Office of Records an

Registration, 1036 Longworth House Offi

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 o

posing only Senate candidates file with t

Secretary of the Senate, Senate Public Record

119 D Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20510. 

CFR 104.4(c)(2) and 105.2.

o All other committees, including the princip

campaign committees of Presidential cand

dates, file with the Federal Election Com

mission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.

20463. 11 CFR 105.3 and 105.4.

Filing with State Governments

o The principal campaign committees of Co

gressional candidates must file a copy of eve

report and statement with the Secretary 

State or the appropriate elections official 

the state in which the candidate seeks feder

office. 11 CFR 108.3.

o Unauthorized committees making contributio

or expenditures in connection with House a

Senate races file in the state in which t

candidate seeks election. The law requires 

copy only of that portion of the report app

cable to the candidatets) being supported. Com

mittees supporting Presidential candidates mu

file in the staters) in which the President

committee and donor committee have the

respective headquarters.

HOW TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION

During 1985, reporting forms and addition

information will be sent to registered comm

tees. Questions and requests for additional form

should be addressed to the Information Servic

Division, Federal Election Commission, 1325 

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or ca

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

•

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

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

Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; Thomas E. Harris; Frank P. Reiche; Jo-Anne L. Coe,

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

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

3
Ju~ 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \bIume 11, Num

continued from p. 1

o Before JUly 1, however, an individual may accept unlawful contributions for testing-thewaters activities as long as the contributions

are refunded if the individual becomes a candidate.

o Within 10 days after becoming a candidate, an

individual must return any unlawful funds received before JUly 1 for testing-the-waters

activities.

o A registered candidate who, prior to July 1J

received unlawful contributions for testing-thewaters activities must disclose these contributions-and reimbursements made for the contributions-on his or her first FEC report.

The final rules transmitted to Congress were

published in the Federal Re ister on March 13,

1985. (50 Fed. Reg. 9992 Copies are available

from the Commission's Office of Public Communications.

FEC SEEKS COMMENTS ON ENFORCEMENT

REGULATIONS

On May 22, the Commission published an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the

Federal Register, which seeks comments on possible revisions to FEC Regulations implementing

the Federal Election Campaign Act's (the Act's)

compliance procedures. 50 Fed. Reg. 21077. The

Commission's compliance regulations were last

revised in 1980 and have served, in their current

form, through three election cycles. See 11 CFR

Part 111. During that period, a number of related

questions have been raised by public groups, by

individuals involved in FEC compliance actions

and by the Commissioners themselves. In this

advance notice, the Commission seeks comments

on four issues which the agency believes are

significant to the enforcement process and which

might result in amended rules. The Commission

welcomes comments on any other enforcement

regulations as well. The major issues raised in the

notice are highlighted below.

Providing Respondents with the Legal and Factual

Basis for Commission "Reason to Believe" Findings in Complaints Filed by the Public

The Commission seeks comments on:

o Whether, in the ease of externally generated

complaints, the FEC should provide respondents

with a separate statement explaining the factual and legal basis for the agency's "reason to

believe" finding; or

o Whether the agency should prepare the analysis

only for those issues not adequately or clearly

explained in the complaint.

4

Under current practice, in the case of i

nally generated compliance actions (e.g., p

tial violations uncovered through staff review 

committee's FEC reports), the Commission s

the respondent a copy of the staff report, w

explains the factual and legal basis for the C

mission's "reason to believe" finding. 11 

111.8.

In the case of complaints filed by membe

the public, however, the agency does not send 

respondents a factual and legal analysis of 

issues prior to a "reason to believe" finding. 

complaint forwarded to the respondents is 

sidered adequate notice to them. In some c

however, the issues are not clearly or fully st

in the complaint.

Requests for Stays of Final

Repayment Determinations

Under the election law and FEC Regulat

publicly funded Presidential candidates mus

pay public funds used for nonqualif'ied camp

expensesv to the U.S. Treasury. In the eve

publicly funded campaign decides to appeal a 

FEC repayment determination, the campaign 

request a stay of the FEC's determination, p

ing the outcome of the appeal in the Cou

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circui

in appropriate cases, the Supreme Court. A 

be

paign's

filed with a

request for a

federal

stay

court

must be

only

timely

after the

and 

has denied the stay request. In addition to e

lishing procedures for requesting a stay, the C

mission has identified a set of criteria to d

mine whether to grant a stay in a particular 

(These review standards are based on those 

plied by federal appeals and district courts.)

The Commission seeks comments on wh

to include these procedures and review stand

for stay requests in the revised rules.

Respondents' Requests for Extensions

of Time in Responding to FEC Inquiries

Under procedures approved by the Com

sion on April 8, 1985,'"'" a respondent who wa

deadline extension must submit, at least five 

before the original deadline, a written explan

of the merits of the request. Without Commi

approval and without a showing of good cause

General Counsel will not grant deadline ex

sions that exceed 20 days.

The Commission welcomes comments 

whether these procedures should be include

the enforcement regulations.

1I1rA nonqllD.lified campaign expense ts an 

permissible use of public fWlds by a pu

fWlded Presidential campaign.

USee page 2 of the JlDle 1985 Record.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

Juty 1985

Liability of Committee Officials

Under the election law, the Commission has

the authority to bring compliance actions against

a committee treasurer for potential violations of

the Act's accounting, recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. The agency may also bring actions

against a candidate and the officials of his/her

authorized committee for knowingly accepting

excessive or prohibited contributions. .

In August 1983, the Commission decided to

name candidates and committee officials (in their

official capacities) as respondents to compliance

actions brought against their com mittees. Agenda

Document 83-119. (Candidates and committee officials would be held fersonally liable for poten- tial violations only i they were knowing violations.) In May 1984, the Commission extended this

practice by deciding to name a committee's current treasurer as a respondent, even if the action

involved potential violations of the Act incurred

during a previous treasurer's tenure. Agenda

Document 84-79.

By notifying these parties that the FEC has

received a complaint against their com mittee,

and that they may be held liable (in their official

capacities) for certain alleged violations, the

Commission gives committee officials and candidates an opportunity to respond to alleged violations at every stage of the enforcement process.

The Commission seeks comments on whether

these liability procedures should be included in

the proposed regulations as a way of providing

notice to potential respondents in compliance

actions.

General Request for Comments on Any Other

Provisions of 11 CFR Part III

The Commission seeks comments on whether

any existing provisions in the current enforcement

rules should be revised. For example, should the

rules include additional measures to protect the

confidentiality of compliance actions?

ALTERNATE DISP05mON OF

ADVISORY OPINION REQUFSr

AOR 1985-15: Nonfederal Aooount Established by

Nonconnected PAC

Withdrawn by requester on June 3, 1985.

5

\QIume 11, NumOO

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.

AOR Subject

1985-17 Congressional Scholarship Trust progr

established by nonprofit corporati

(Date made public: May 15, 19

Length: 3 pages)

1985-18 Conversion of State PAC into combi

Federal/State PAC. (Date made pub

May 24, 1985; Length: 2 pages, plus 

page supplement)

ADVISORYOPINION&SUMMARUS

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the Co

mission provides guidance with regard to 

specific situation described in the AOR. A

qualified person who has requested an AO 

acts in accordance with the opinion will not 

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Ot

persons may rely on the opinion if they 

involved in a specific activity which is indis

guishable in all material aspects from the activ

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance 

their own activity, however, should consult 

full text of an AO and not rely only on 

sum mary given here.

AO 1985-13: Candidate Committee's Transfers 

Successor's Campaign

In the event that Congressman Lagomarsino 

California) decides not to run for reelection, 

principal campaign committee, the Committee 

Re-Elect Congressman Lagomarsino (the Comm

tee), may not transfer unlimited excess campa

funds to the authorized committee of the Rep

lican candidate who wants to succeed Rep. La

marsino in the same House seat. The Commi

could, however, contribute up to $1,000 per el

tion to the succeeding campaign committee. 

ternatively, if the 'Committee converted to 

multicandidate committee, it could contribute 

to $5,000 per election to a successor candid

(and to any other candidate). 2 U.S.C. S441

(2)(A). Moreover, the multicandidate commi

could contribute up to $5,000 to any other mu

candidate committee. The committee could a

make unlimited contributions to any local, st

or national party com mittee. 2 U.S.C. S439a; 

CFR 113.2. (Date issued: May 9, 1985; Length

pages)

contin
Ju~1985 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMrvllSSION

AO 1985-14: National Party Committee's :Expenditures for Media Program

Some of the political advertising planned by the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

(DCCC), a multicandidate national party committee, may be subject to the Act's limits for "eoordina ted party expenditures" (under 2 V.S.C.

§441a(d». The multimedia political ads, planned

for June and September 1985, will criticize the

records of Republican Congressmen. DCCC has

indicated that the purpose of the ads is to influence the 1986 election process. DCCC plans to

produce and disseminate the program in 20 to 100

Congressional districts represented by Republican

Congressmen who mayor may not be announced

candidates for the 1986 elections. Whether any

given ad is considered a generic expenditure (not

allocable to any particular candidate) or a "coordinated party expenditure" (allocable to Democratic opponents of Republican Members) depends

on the Characteristics of the particular advertisement.

Expenditures DCCC makes for political ads

that refer to Repuoliean Congressmen, as a group

of people, are considered generic expenditures

regardless of whether they include a message

urging the audience to "vote Democratic." Such

ads are neither subject to the "coordinated party

expenditure" limits (441a(d» nor attributable to

specific candidates. These expenditures are,

nevertheless) reportable as "operating expenditures" and must be made from funds permissible

under the Act. See 2 V.S.C. §§434, 441a, 441b,

441c, 441e and 44lf; 11 CFR 104.3(b).

In the case of expenditures that refer to

individual Congressmen) the Commission took the

following actions:

1. It determined that a mailer which identifies a specific Congressman by name and is

mailed to voters in that Member's district is

considered a "coordinated party expenditure" benefiting the Congressman's eventual Democratic

opponent, regardless of whether the mailer urges

readers to "vote Democratic."

2. The Commission could not reach agreement on a radio or T.V. ad which criticizes the

record of "your Republican Congressman" and also

includes a message urging the audience to "vote

Democratic."

3. The Commission determined that a radio

or T.V. ad which criticizes the record of "your

Republican Congressman" but does not include a

message urging the audience to "vote Democratic" is considered a generic expenditure, not

subject to limits or allocation rules. It is,

however, reportable.

With regard to the §441a(d) coordinated expenditures discussed in the opinion, the Commission noted that:

o The DCCC does not plan to make the expenditures in coordination or cooperation with candidates,

6

\blume 11, Numt:e

o Coordinated party expenditures under §441

may be made more than a year before 

general election, and before a nominee is 

lected, because the Act and Regulations do 

restrict the time period during which such 

penditures may be made. Nor do they req

that the nominees be decided before gen

election expenditures are made. See AO 1

15.

o The DCCC is permitted to make "coordin

party expenditures," under §441a(d), as long 

it is designated as an agent by the Democr

National Committee before DCCC makes 

expenditures. See 11 CFR 110.7(a)(4).

The Commission's conclusions are limited 

the timetable specified by DCCC (June and S

tember 1985). The Commission did not, in 

opinion, address the issue of similar expendit

implemented at a later time. (Date issued: 

30, 1985; Length: 9 pages)

AO 1985-16: Prohibited Use of FRC

Contributor Information

Mr. Robert Weiss may not use contributor in

mation obtained from FEC reports to verify 

names of contributors contained on a list (

pared without the use of FEC information), w

he plans to market "for commercial and/or so

tation purposes." Such use would enhance 

commercial value of his list. To protect contr

tors from being victimized by list brokering, 

Act and FEC Regulations specifically prohibit 

use of FEC reports for soliciting contribution

for other commercial purposes.· 2 V.S.C. 543

(4); 11 CFR 104.15(a).

Mr. Weiss had not intended to use infor

tion obtained from FEC reports to add new na

to his contributor list. Nevertheless, by using 

FEC information to purge contributors from 

list or to otherwise identify contributors, 

would have increased the commercial value of 

list, thereby violating the Act's ban on comm

cial use of FEC contributor information. (D

issued: May 24, 1985; Length: 3 pages)

..As an exception to this role, the names 

addresses of political committees may be used 

solicitation purposes.
FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COIV1MISSIOI\J

•

•

July 1985

ALWIN HOPFMANN v. FEC

On May 13, 1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a

district court ruling that the FEC's decision to

dismiss an administrative complaint filed by Alwin Hopfmann was not contrary to law (Hopfmann

v. FEC, Civil Action No. 82-03667). In keeping

with the district court's ruling, the appeals court

also dismissed certain constitutional questions involving FEC actions and the election law. The

court found that Mr. Hopfmann's "appeal was so

meritless as to be frivolous1l and, as a penalty,

ordered him to pay the Commission's attorneys'

fees. Moreover, the appeals court found that Mr.

Hopfmann's appeal "should properly be dismissed

in view of appellant's failure to comply with

orders of this court." The appeals court's ruling

followed a July 1984 ruling in which the court had

denied expedited consideration of Mr. Hopfmann's

appeal.

Background

In seeking the Massachusetts State Democratic Party's endorsement as candidates for the

U.S. Senate, both Mr. Hopfmann and Senator

Edward Kennedy participated in the Party's May

1982 pre-primary convention. Under the Party's

"15 percent rule," only candidates receiving at

least 15 percent of the votes cast at the Party's

pre-primary convention appear on the state's primary ballot. Senator Kennedy alone obtained ballot access by receiving more than 15 percent of

the votes. Mr. Hopfmann, on the other hand,

failed to receive ballot access because he received less than 15 percent of the total votes

cast.

In his administrative complaint, Mr. Hopfmann claimed that, since the convention vote had

resulted in only Senator Kennedy being eligible

for the primary ballot, the convention had the

authority to nominate a candidate. Consequently,

Mr. Hopfmann maintained, the convention qualified, under the election law, as an "election." 2

U.S.C. 5431(l)(B). Based on this assumption, Mr.

Hopfmann alleged that Senator Kennedy- and his

campaign committee had failed to file timely preelection reports and may have received excessive

contributions. See 2 U.S.C. 55434(a), (b) and 441a

(f), respectively.

Appeals Court Ruling

In affirming the district court's decision that

the FEC's dismissal of Mr. Hopfmann's complaint

was 11 'sufficiently reasonable' to merit Ithel

Court's deference,"· the appeals court noted that

*For a swnmary of the district court's ruling,

see page 8 of the May 1984 Record.

7

\t)!ume 11, Numte

the agency "has consistently held that in order 

a convention to constitute an 'election' under 

U.S.C. S431(I)(B), the convention must actua

nominate a candidate, rather than•••narrow 

field of candidates on the primary ballot....ln

much as write-in candidates were permitted 

state law in the 1982 Massachusetts prima

Senator Kennedy did not secure the Democra

nomination until he won the party's primary. 

consequence, the Massachusetts Democratic C

vention of 1982 was not an 'election' under 

FECA.n Consequently, there were no separ

reporting requirements for the convention.

As to Mr. Hopfrnann's constitutional claim

the court found that nit is not within the FE

province to determine whether Massachuse

primary system satisfies the federal Constitutio

That is a claim that Mr. Hopfman must make, 

at all, to the courts; we take note in this resp

of an adverse decision in litigation brought by M

Hopfmann claiming that the Massachusetts s

tem was unconstitutional Hopfmann v. Connol

746 F.2d 97 (Lst Cir, 1984)."

The court described one of Mr. Hopfrnan

court papers as "filled with invective and scur

lous comments••••n Since he had failed to com

with two court orders, the court found dismis

of his appeal justifiable under court rules. T

court stated that "having considered the merits 

the case, we conclude that the appeal is in a

event utterly without merit...• We firmly admon

counsel for appellant to refrain in any futu

filings in this court from engaging in unprof

sional, inappropriate comments and outrageo

name-calling."

NEW LI'I1GA'I10N

James Edward Antosh v. FEC

Mr. Antosh seeks action against the F

concerning the agency's dismissal of an admin

trative complaint he had filed with the FEC 

March 1984. In the complaint, Mr. Antosh alleg

that the Engineers Political Education Comm

tee/International Union of Operating Engine

(EPEC/IUOE) had violated the election law 

making an excessive contribution to Congressm

Fernand T. St. Germain's 1982 reelection ca

paign. See 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(2)(A). Congressm

St. Germain's campaign had, in turn, violated 

law by accepting the contribution. See 2 U.S

§441a(f).

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(l0), Mr. Ant

asks the court to:

o Expedite its review of his suit;

o Declare the Commission's dismissal of his 

ministrative complaint contrary to law, in v

lation of 2 U.S.C. 5437g; and

o Issue an order directing the Commission to a

within 30 days, in conformity with the pro

sions of section 437g.

U.S. District Court for the District of C

lumbia, Civil Action No. 85-1410, May I, 1985.
Juty 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \tllume 11 ,Numt

FDlANCIAL ACTIVITY OF

1984 CONGRESSIONAL RACES

During the 1983-84 election cycle, spending

by Congressional campaigns rose only 9.3 percent

over spending by Congressional campaigns during

the 1981-82 election cycle. This growth in total

Congressional campaign spending is considerably

less than that which occurred between previous

election cycles. (See Chart I below for an overview of House and Senate campaign spending over

four election eyeles.)

Information contained in the interim study

released by the FEC during May shows that, while

total spending by Senate campaigns during the

1983-84 cycle increased 23.1 percent over 1981-

82 levels, spending by House races decreased by .2

percent. The decline in spending by House campaigns may be partially accounted for by the large

percentage of incumbent candidates who won with

60 percent or more of the vote (31 percent of all

general election Congressional candidates). The

CHART I

TOTAL SPENDING BY

CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES: 1975-1984*

Millions of DoJlars

50

average campaign spending by these candid

was less than the average spending by other t

of candidates (l.e., successful challengers, ca

dates running in open seat races, and incumb

who won with less than 60 percent of the vote

Of the $5.16 million spent independentl

1984 Congressional candidates, $3.4 million 

spent to promote their election and $1.76 mil

to advocate their defeat. Independent spendin

behalf of Republiean Congressional candidate

taled $2,463,766, while spending against t

totaled $1,408,522. Democratic Congress

candidates were the beneficiaries of $937,30

independent expenditures; independent expe

tures advocating their defeat totaled $347,609

Chart II below details the sources of sup

provided to 1984 House and Senate candidate

type of campaign and party affiliation.

More detailed information on 1984 Con

sional races may be obtained from The 

Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84: U.S. 

ate and House Cam al s Interim Re ort N

available for IS per copy from: FEC, Offic

Public Records, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washin

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

FEC.

0-------------------------------

meetion 1975-76 1977-78 1979-80 1981-82 1983

Cycle

*Chart covers all campaign spending (primary, runoff and general) of major party candidates run

in Congressional elections.

8
CHARTD

SOURCES OF FUNDING: 1983-84· 11III Individual Contributio

PAC Contributions··

c::=::J Party Contributions

I IParty Expenditures·

_ Candidate Contributio

_ Candidate Loam

_ other Receipts····

•

Ju~ 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \bIume 11 ,Numm

HOUSE CANDIDATES

Open Seat

....------4%

14%

1%

~~~7%3%

Incumbents ~---7%

~=;::-1%0%

2%

1%

Challengers .-----4%

1

~~t9%

'---21

.-------4

1k==,",",,

111 1

Challengers .----6%

~=::::,.-1% ~,--------.. 0%

5%

1%

Incumbents

4%

896

'----0%

'------9%

,....-----396

SENATE CANDIDATES

Open Seat

•

*Chart includes all spending (primary, runoff and general) of all candidates rwming in the Novem

1984 general election. Proportions of receipts from particular sources in Senate races may 

significantly affected by a small number of campaigns. **A "PAC" (or political action committee) is a political committee that is neither a candid

committee nor a party committee• ..··"Party Expenditures" are limited expenditures made by party committees on behalf of fede

candidates in the general election. 2 U.S.C. 441a(d).

····"Other Receipts" include loans, rebates, retunas, contributions from unregistered entities 

other campaign committees, interest and dividends.

9
Juty1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \bIume 11, Numl::x

PINAlfCIAL AC'lWITY OF DEMOCRA'ftC

AND REPUBUCAN PARTIES: 1983-84

In the 1983-84 federal election cycle, the gap

between the Democratic Party's spending and the

Republican Party's spending narrowed. During

1983-84, the Republicans spent more than $3 for

every $1 spent by the Democratic Party; in 1981-

82, the Republicans spent $5 for every $1 spent by

the Democrats.

According to a study released by the FEC

during May, the Democratic Party's total spending

during the 1983-84 election cycle ($97.2 million)

represented a 143 percent increase over the 1981-

82 spending level ($40.1 million). By contrast, the

Republican Party spent $303.2 million, a 40 percent increase over the Party's 1981-82 spending

level ($214 million).

The Democratic Party began the 1983-84

cycle with $1.4 million cash on hand and raised an

additional $96.7 million (a 148 percent increase

over 1981-82 fundraising). The Republican Party

began the 1983-84 cycle with a total of $7.5

million and raised an additional $300.2 million (a

40 percent increase over 1981-82 fundraising).

Both parties ended the election cycle i

better financial position than in 1981-82. 

Democratic Party had $2.4 million cash on h

and debts totaling $3 million. By contrast, 

Democrats ended the 1981-82 cycle with 

million cash on hand and debts totaling 

million. The Republicans ended the cycle w

$4.9 million cash on hand and debts totaling 

million; the Party had $7.5 million cash on han

the end of the previous cycle, with debts tota

$5.3 million.

Chart m below shows how the major par

distributed support (both contributions and "p

expenditures") to their respective candidates o

four election cycles.

More detailed information may be obta

from the four-volume, FEe Reports on Finan

Activity, Interim Report No. 10: Party and N

Party Political Committees. Copies are avail

at fi 5 per volume from the FECts Office 

Public Records, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washing

D.C. 20463. Telephone 202/523-4181 or toll 

800/424-9530. Checks should be made payabl

advance to the FEC.

Republiean Pa

.-------------------::1. ExpendituresMillions of Dollars

20

15 --------------------~~JII'C------

CHARTm

MAJOR PARTY SUPPORT PROVIDED

TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES: 1977-1984

1979-80 1981-82 1983-84

RepubUean pa

Contributions

......:::::::::.--....c:>_-------o_....................--- Demoeratie ContributionsPa

1911-18

*"Party Expenditures" are limited expenditures made by party committees on behalf of fed

candidates in the general election. 2 U.S.C. 441a(d).

o

ffieetion

Cyele

10 -,---------~-----------------""" DemOCl'atie Pa

Expenditures10
Annual Report

Report to President and Congress, summ

rizing agency's activities, advisory opinions a

litigation; and presenting Commission's legislat

• recommendalions.

Juty 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume 11, NumtB

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

Federal IDeetion campaign Laws

Complete compilation of Federal election

campaign laws prepared by FEC.

FEC Regulations (II CFR)

FEC regulations; subject indexes prepared by

FEC.

FEC Record

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

regulations, compliance, Federal Register notices,

FEC procedures and staff, and publications.

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

House and Senate Bookkeeping Manual

Recommended method of bookkeeping and

reporting for Federal candidates and their committees.

FEC and Federal mection Law

Brief overview of major provisions of the

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

'Ole First I0 Years

Special report providing statistical graphs 

campaign financing, history of election laws, d

scription of FEC functions and list of past Co

missioners and statutory officers.

Order Form

NAME

STREET

CITY, STATE, ZI P CODE

CONNECTED ORGANIZATION IPHONE (Optlonalr

Please indicate quantity in box to left of each item.

General

Federal Election Bookkeeping Manual

Campaign Laws for Candidates

FEC Regutati 0 ns Annual

Report

FEC Record 10-Year I

!(subscription) Report !

I

Campaign Guides

congressional Corporations and

Candidates Labor OrganizatiOns

Party Committees Nonconnected

Committees

Brochures

Advisory Opinions Pol itica I Ads

and Sol icitations

Candidate Public Funding of

Registration Presidential Elections

Contributions State Computer

Access to FEC Data

Corporate/ Labor State Elections &

Communications Federal Campaign Law

Corporate/ Labor Trade Associations Facilities

FEC and Federal Using FEe Campaign

Elect ion Law Finance Information

Independent Volunteer Activity Expenditures

Local Party

Activitv

•

Using FEC campaign Finanee Information

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

and candidates by using reports and FEC's computer indexes.

Other Brochures

Advisory Opinions

Candidate Registration

Contributions

Corporate/Labor Communications

Corporate/Labor Facilities

Independent Expenditures

Local Party Activity

Political Ads and Solicitations

PUblic Funding of President Elections

State Computer Access to FEC Data

State Elections &: Federal Campaign Law

Trade Associations

Volunteer Activity

Jl

Mail to:

Phone:

Federal Election Commission

Information Services

Washington, D.C. 20463

Toll Free 8001424-9530
.. --. - ~- - .• ~.. - -.,. .,.~, ~--T'""'-'. L"-:-'-~"""" ~- . - ..- _.: - ... -~--_..... ~:. 

. ,'. '. ..': ,-~'. .T< :'~ ,',- .:- " .' _. _~.:.. _ L __ • _ ~~ _ _ _ ~_~ ••_ ... _~. ..,..... __..... _J.. _L.... -:; • __ . _ _. . . _ _ __ ., ~..

JU~1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \t>lume 11, Numt

visory oplntons,

This eumulattve

court

index

eases

lists

and 800

ad-

Line arflcles published in the Record

during 1985. 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.

OPlRlONS

1984-16: One Limit for Convention &.

Primary, 1:3

1984-33: FundraiseI' by Trade Association's Allied Members, 1:3

1984-41, Corporate Payments for

Media Ad<;, 2:1

1984-48, Travel Reimbursements to

Stilte by Senate Campaign, 2:1

1984-53: Real Estate Lessors as Federal Contractors, 1:4

1984-54: Reporting/LImits for Candidate Elected in Primary, 1:5

1984-55: Solicitation of Law Firm's

Partners by Bank PAC, 1:5

1984-56: Book Payments &. Honorarium, 1:5

1984-57: Corporate CommunIcations

on Legislation, 2:2

1984-58: City's Claim for Reimbursement by Presidential Campaign,

2:3

1984-59: Noncampaign Uses of Campaign Assets, 2:3

1984-60: Campaign Debts Liquidated

through Sale of Real Estate Assets,

3:1

1984-61: Trade Association Solicitation Approvals, 3:2

1984-63: Savings and Loan Association's Solicitations, 3:2

1985-1: Liquidation of Campaign

Assets, 4:4

1985-2: State Funds Transferred to

Congressional Campaign, 4:5

1985-3: Contributions to State Campaign by Subsidiary of Foreign Corporation,4:5

1985-4: Payments not Honorarium,

4:5

1985-5: Contributions Made Before

but Received After mection, 4:6

1985-6: Affiliated PACs of Local/-

Intemational Unions, 4:6

1985-11: Trade Association's Nonsolicitable Members, 6:4

1985-12: Trade Association's Collecting Agents, B~5

800 LIIfB

Supreme Court Rules on 26 U.

59012(f), 4: 1

Using Excess Campaign Funds, 2:4

COURTCASBS

Antosh v. FEC, 2:4

Citizens tor Percy '84 v, FEC, 1:6

DCCC v, FEC, 2:6

FCM Y. PEC, 6:3

FEC v, Anderson, Z:6

FEC v. Furgatch; FEC v. Domin

1:6

FEC v, Gus Savage for Congress 

6:3

FEC v. Hemenway for Cong

Committee, 2:6

FEC v; Liberal Party Federal C

paign Committee, 3:3

FEC v, NRWC; NRWC v. PEC, 1:7

FEC v, Kirk Walsh tor Cong

Committee, 6:3

National Congressional Club and 

ferson Marketing, Inc. v, FEC, 3

Orloski v; PEC, 2:5

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

FirstClass Mail

Postage & FeesPaid

FEC

Washington. D.C.

PermitNo.G-31