999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

June 1987

COVIMISSIONERS

GARTNER NAMED SPECIAL DEPUTY TO FEC

On April 3, 1987, Secretary of the Senate

Walter J. Stewart designated David G. Gartner as

his Special' Deputy to the FEC. (Under the election law, the Secretary of the Senate serves as an

ex-officio Comrnissioner.) Mr. Gar-tner replaces

Scott E. Morgan, who served as Special Deputy to

Jo-Anne Coe, Mr-, Stewart's predecessor.

Prior to his appointment as Special Deputy,

Mr. Gartner was an attorney in private practice.

From 1978 until 1982, he served as a Commissioner with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Previously, Mr. Gartner worked on both

the Senatorial and Vice Presidential staffs of the

late Hubert H. Humphrey. His career also included serving as a Law Clerk with O'Connor and

Hannan] as Assistant to former U.S. Representative Harold T. Johnson; as Assistant to the late

U.S. Representative Steven Carter and as a reporter and correspondent for The Des Moines

Register and Tribune.

Mr. Gartner has written articles for Commodities. The Financial Exchange, The New"""'YOrk

Times and The Business Lawyer. He is a member

of the District of Columbia Bar, the Virginia Bar,

the U.S. Supreme Court Bar and the U.S. District

Court Bar for the Eastern District of Virginia.

A native of Iowa, Mr. Gartner holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economies from the State University of Iowa and a Juris Doctor from the

Washington College of Law at American University, Washington, D.C.

REGULA110NS

FEC ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OP

NRWCIS PE'ITI10N FOR RULEMAKING

On April 23, 1987, the Commission decided to

pubush a notice in the Federal Register announcing the public availability of a petition for proposed rulemaklng filed with the FEe in February

1987 by the National Right to ~ork Committee

(NRWC). See 52 Reg. 16275.

In the rulernaking petition, NRWC asked the

FEC to consider whether sections 114.3 and 114.4

Volume 13, Number

of its rules, which govern partisan and nonpartisa

communications by corporations and labor organi

zations, should be revised in light of the Suprem

Court's decision in FEC v. Massachusetts Citi

zens for Life (MCFL) (l07 S. Ct. 616(1986»

Specifically, NRWC argued that the MCFL dec

sion held "that independent communications ar

not covered by §441b of the Act unless the

constitute 'express advocacy.' " Consequently, i

NRWC's view, those FEC rules regulating partisa

and nonpartisan communications are unconstitu

tional.

Comments and statements in support of, or i

opposition to, NRWC's petition must be filed b

June 3~ 1987. These written responses to th

petition should be addressed to Ms. Susan E

Propper, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Stree

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or call 202/376

5690 or toll free 800/424-9530. For copies of th

petition, contact the FEC's Public Records Offic

at 202/376-3140 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

continue

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMISSIONERS

1 Gartner Named Special Deputy

REGULATIONS

1 NRWC Rulemaking Petition Available

2 Hearing Canceled on Delegate Rules

PUBLIC FUNDING

2 Gephardt and Babbitt Eligible

for PUblic Funds

2 ADVISORY OPINIONS

CLEARINGHOUSE

5 Report on Accessibility of Polling

Places

PUBLICAnONS

5 Citizens Guide

5 Filing a Complaint

COURT CASES

6 FEC v. Furgatch

6 PEC v. Clark

6 FEC v. Pryor for Congress

Committee

6 New Litigation

7 INDEX
volume 13, Numoo

*The Commission's procedures for reconside

ing an advisory opinion are spelled out in secti

112.6 of FEe Regulations.

"""For a summary of AO 1986-42, see page 4 

the March 1987 Record.

ADVISORY OPINIONS

RECONSIDERATION OF ADVISORY

OPOOON 1982-42

On April 23, 1987, the Commission decid

not to reconsider the conclusions of Adviso

Opinion 1986-42, which the agency had issued 

Dart & Kraft, Inc. on January 16, 1987.* T

opinion dealt with the affect of a corpora

reorganization on the contribution limits a

affiliated status of several separate segregat

funds. *'" The Commission did, however; vote 

reissue a modified version of the opinio

Specifically, the Commission added the underlin

words in the sentence below, thus revising lines 

5 on page 6 of the opinion, as follows: "The

facts demonstrate that, for purposes of the A

and Commission regUlations, DKI established a

continues to maintain an affiliated relationsh

with Premark."

The Commission's determinations followed 

thorough review by the Audit Division of t

threshold submissions made by Rep. Gephardt. 

March 31, 1987, and by Bruce Babbitt on April 

1987. To establish eligibility for matching funds, 

Presidential primary candidate must raise in e

cess of $5,000 from individuals in each of at lea

20 different states. Although individual contrib

tors may give up to $1,000 to the candidate, on

·$250 from each contributor may be matched w

public funds. The candidate must document tho

contributions and must agree to comply with t

election law and Commission Regulations.

FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Scott E. Thomas, Chairman; Thomas J. Josefiak, Vice Chairman;

Joan Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; John Warren'McGarry; Walter J. Stewart,

Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of Representatives,

Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

PUBLIC FUMJING·

2

GEPHARDT AND BABBITT ElJGWLE FOR

PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS

On April 24, 1987, Rep. Richard Gephardt, a

Democratic Presidential candidate, became the

first candidate to qualify for federal matching

funds for the 1988 primary elections. On May 6,

another Demcratic candidate," former Arizona

Governor Bruce Babbitt, also established matching fund eligibility.

Under the Presidential Primary Matching

Payment Account, Presidential candidates may

begin seeking eligibility for primary matching

funds after January 1, 1987. 26 U.S.C.§9031 et

seg.. However, the U.S. Treasury may not make

actual payments until after January 1, 1988. The

maximum amount of matching funds an eligible

candidate may receive during 1988 is equal to half

the overall spending limit established by law for

each publicly funded Presidential primary candidate ($10 million, plus a cost-of-living adjustment). The limit may be as high as $22 million in

1988, II< in which case Presidential primary candidates could qualify for approximately $11 million

in primary matching funds.

HEAlUNG ON DELEGATE SELECTION

RULES CAMCELED

During April, the Commission canceled a

public hearing on proposed revisions to its delerate selection rules because the agency received

no requests to testify at the hearing, originally

scheduled for April 22. (Tpese rules govern contributions and expenditures made in connection with

the selection of delegates to Presidential nominating conventions. See 11 CFR 110.14.)

On March 4, 1987, the Commission had published a notice in the Federal Register which

announced the hearing date and solicited comments on the proposed revisions. See 52 Fed. Rrg• 6580. The agency also published a summary

o the proposed revisions and related issues in the

April 1987 Record.

June 1987

·With an additional $5 million allowed for

fundraising costs, the total spending limit for

1988 coultl reach $2'1 million.
June 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Number 6

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions. The full text of each AOR is

available to the public in the Commission's Office

of Public Records.

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION OF

ADVISORY OPINION REQUEST

AO 1987-9: Independent Expenditures Made By

Committee Facilitating

Earmarked Contributions

On May 7, 1987, the Acting General Counsel

notified the requester by letter that the

Commission had failed to approve an opinion by

the requisite four-vote majority.

AO 1987-7: Voter Guides Distributed to

Public by Nonprofit Corporation

Voter guides which the United States Defense

Committee (USDC), a nonprofit corporation, proposed to prepare and distribute to the general

public would be governed by FEC rules pertaining

to expenditures for such communications by nonADVISORY OPINIONS:SUMMARIES

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

specific situation described in the AOR. Any

qualified person who has requested an AO and

acts in accordance with the opinion will not be

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Other

persons may rely on the opinion if they are

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

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance for

their own activity, however, should consult the

full text of an AO and not rely only on the

summary given here.

•

•

•

AOR

1987-10

1987-11

1987-12

SUbject

Contributions to Presidential primary candidate's 1988 campaign

used to retire debts of his 1984

Presidential campaign. (Date made

public: April 22, 1987; Length: 3

pages)

Disposal of excess campaign funds

by deceased Senator's campaign

committee. (De.te made public:

April 30, 1987; Length: 2 pages,

plus I-page supplement)

Transfer of funds from candidate's

state campaign to his new federal

campaign. (Date made public: April

30, 1987; Length: 3 pages, plus 10-

page supplement)

3

profit, nonpartisan organizations, rather than by

the limited exception for such expenditures carved out by the Supreme Court in its recent ruling

in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life

(MCFL).* Under these FEC rules, USDC could

sponsor a voter guide mailing to the general

public that constituted a "grass roots" lobbying

effort to obtain support for its positions on defense-related legislation before Congress. (This

mailing would include preliminary survey results.)

See 11 CFR 114.4(b)(5)(i) and (Ii), USDC could not,

however, sponsor two other mailings (described

below), which would be distributed to the general

public just before the primary elections. Those

mailings would constitute partisan communications favoring the election of specific candidates

who agreed with USDC's positions. The Commission noted that, to the extent its decision in this

opinion was inconsistent with its decisions in AOs

1984-14 and 1983-43, this opinion superseded

those earlier opinions.

The Commission WaS unable to reach a decision, by the requisite four-vote majority, on

whether USDC's proposed publication of Congressional voting records would be permissible.

Voter Guide: Proposed Mailings

USDC proposed using general treasury funds,

which included payments from its corporate members, to finance voter guides that described the

views of Congressional candidates on defenserelated issues. The voter guides would consist of

questions USDC posed to candidates concerning

their positions on defense-related issues and the

candidates' responses to those questions. The

guides would not expressly advocate the election

or defeat of any candidate. However, they might

identify a candidate's party affiliation and indicate whether USDC favored or opposed each

candidate's position on a particular issue.

After the candidates returned the questionnaires, USDC planned to send out two mailings to

the general public which referred to the completed survey results:

1. USDC proposed mailing a letter and survey

results to the general public and the constituents of specific Congressional districts.

Mailed less than four weeks before a state's

Congressional primary election, the letter

would characterize each candidate's responses to the survey questionnaire as either

right or wrong. The letter would also suggest

that the recipient contact a candidate whose

answers differed from USDC's positions and

urge the candidate to change his or her mind

before the primary. The letter would also

continued

"For a summary of the Supreme Court's decision in this suit, see pages 4-6 of the February

1987 Record.
June 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \bIume 13, Numo

ask the public to thank those candidates who

agreed with USDC's positions.

2. A follow-up mailing would be even more

closely tied to specific candidates and primaries because it would be mailed shortly

before primary elections. This mailing would

focus on the issue positions of incumbents in

specific Congressional districts and would be

sent only to their constituents. The mailing

would ask constituents to contact the candidates (both survey respondents and nonrespondents) and urge them to vote in accordance with their (i.e., USDC's) views. The

letter would also advise recipients that an

incumbent is "easier to convince... when he's

looking for votes than•••after he's safely in

office."

FEC's Opinion

In a recent ruling in FEC v. MCFL (107 S;

Ct. 616 (1986», the Supreme Court carved out a

narrow exception for nonprofit corporations from

"441b's restriction on independent spending." To

be eligible for the MCFL exception, among other

things, a nonprofit corporation must have a policy

of not accepting contributions from business corporations or labor unions. By contrast, in USDC's

case, since USDC has accepted funds from corporations, its communications to the general public are not eligible for the MCFL exception.

However, as a nonpartisan, nonprofit corporation, USDC is eligible, under FEC rules, to

prepare and distribute voter guides to the general

public, provided the guides do not favor one

candidate or political party over another.

2 U.S.C. §441b; II CFR 114.4(b)(5)(i) and (il),

With regard to the proposed mailings, the first

one, containing the preliminary results of the

·USDC candidate survey, would be permissible

under these rules because it would be viewed as a

"grass roots" -- or issue advocacy--effort. However, the two subsequent proposed mailings, which

would include a letter and a compendium of the

survey results, would not be permissible because

of their context and reference to the results.

The mailings: 1) would be sent out close to the

primary election and 2) would contain, in the

accompanying letter, election messages and advocacy concerning specific candidates in the upcoming election. Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

filed a dissent. (Date issued: April 6, 1987;

Length, 8 pages, Including dissent)

AO 1987-8: Multimedia Presentation of

Presidential Candidate Interviews

and Profiles

The American International Group, lnc., (AIG), a

U.S. corporation, may act as the exclusive advertising sponsor of a project involving interviews

with Presidential candidates, to be undertaken by

U.S. News and World Report (U.S. News), a media

partnership, during 1987 and 1988.

4

U.S. News plans to interview approximat

12 major Presidential candidates and to disse

nate the interviews through articles published 

its magazine, U.S. News and World Repo

through a television series synchronized with 

magazine articles and through a book, which w

also Include background information on the can

dates. In acting as the advertising sponsor of 

project, AIG will pay U.S. News a sponsorship 

of $4,377,500 in exchange for certain advertis

benefits (e.g., ad space in issues of U.S. News 

World Report which carry the interviews).

Although the election law prohibits corpo

tions from making contributions or expenditu

in connection with federal elections, costs 

curred by U.S. News for the television and ma

zine interviews would qualify as news story 

penses, which are specifically exempted from 

election law's definitions of contribution and 

penditure.· 2 U.S.C. ss 441b and 431(9)(A

Furthermore, AIG's sponsorship is a permissi

activity because AIG will be involved in 

project only as a commercial advertiser--not 

an agent attempting to influence federal el

tions. In this regard, the Commission noted t

AIG will exercise no control over: the select

of candidates to be interviewed, the content 

their interviews, the manner in which the int

views are produced and distributed or the mark

where the television series will be aired. Nor 

AIG absorb any of the project's production cost

Although U.S. News' proposed distribution 

the interviews in book form would not be cove

by the news exemption, U.S. News could nev

theless distribute a complimentary copy of 

book to each of the delegates at the Republi

and Democratic national Presidential nominat

conventions. FEC rules governing Presiden

nominating conventions specifically permit bu

nesses to distribute promotional items of nomi

value at such conventions. II CFR 9008.7(c)(2

AIG could act as an advertising sponsor for t

permissible activity.

Additionally, in distributing compliment

books to candidates who participated in the int

view series, U.S. News would not be mak

prohibited in-kind corporate contributions to th

campaigns. The complimentary copies would 

present merely a token of U.S. News' appreciat

for their participation in the project. Simila

AIG could distribute the book to its clien

employees and associated businesses.

The Commission cautioned that its opin

was based solely on the facts presented in A

advisory opinion request. (Date issued: May 

1987 ; Length: 8 pages).

• The news story exemption covers only th

qualified communicnttons "distributed through 

facilities of any broadcasting station, newspap

magazine, or other periodical publication• • • •"
June 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Num00r6

•

•

•

CLEARINGHOUSE

REPORT ON ACCESSmILlTY OF

POLLING PLACES TO THE

HANDICAPPED AND ELDERLY

On April 30, 1987, the Commission submitted

to Congress a report entitled Polling Place Accessibility in the 1986 General Election. Prepared by

the FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election

Administration, this compendium is the first of

five reports--to be issued between 1987 and

1995--on the accessibility of polling places to the

elderly and handicapped. The reports are mandated by the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly

and Handicapped Act of 1984, a law which requires the Commission to gather and compile

state-by-state information on obstacles faced by

the disabled when they go to the polls.

A national picture emerges from the compilation of state-by-state figures on polling place

accessibility contained in the report. There are

157,922 voting places in the United States, of

which 82 percent have been inspected to determine their accessibiltty. Some 34,595 polling

places (27 percent of those inspected) were reported as being inaccessible to the disabled,

Among the major problems were stairs without

ramps, obstructed passages to polling place entrances and inadequate parking facilities.

The FEC report discourages comparisons between states because the data collection and reporting techniques used oy election officials varied from one state to another. Also, some jurisdictions conducted polling place inspections

during or after the 1986 general election, while

others made their evaluations in 1985 and implemented changes prior to the 1986 election.

The Commission report says that most state

election officials have made positive efforts to

inspect and improve polling places. However,

since some states got a late start in making their

polling places more accessible to the elderly and

handicapped, the FEC expects to document more

substantial progress in its next report. That

report should present a more accurate national

picture and provide a oasis for comparisons between states.

To obtain copies of Polling Place Accessibility in the 1986 General Election, contact the

FEC's Clearinghouse toll free at 800/424-9530 or

locally at 202/376-5670.

5

PUBUCATIONS

TWO NEW PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE

The Commission recently published two brochures for the general pUblic--Supporting Federal

Candidates: A Guide for Citizens and Filing a

Complaint. Copies of these and other brochures

are available to anyone, free of charge. Political

com mittees may wish to order copies of the Guide

for Citizens for their staff and volunteer workers.

To order copies, contact the Information Services

Division, FEC, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20463; or call 202/376-3120 or toll-free

800/424-9530.

Supporting Federal Candidates:

A Guide for Citizens

This fUlly illustrated brochure explains how

citizens can take an active part in the federal

election process by making contributions (including joint contributions and contributions by family

members), volunteering, providing business services, making independent expenditures or joining

with others and acting as a group.

The brochure also familiarizes citizens with

agency services. For example, it describes:

o The kinds of information the FEC's Office of

Public Records makes available on a candidate's

campaign activity; and

o The procedures citizens must follow to file

complaints with the FEC, if they believe violations of the election law have occurred.

Filing a Complaint

This brochure explains how to file a complaint with the Commission and describes how the

FEC handles complaints. A special chart accompanying the text depicts the entire complaint

process. The brochure also explains the election

law's confidentiality provisions, and it describes

what complainants can do when they disagree

with FEC actions.
June 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION VbIume 13, Numbe

·COURT CASES

FEC V. FURGATCH

On April 23, 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit denied Mr. Harvey

Furgatch's petition for a rehearing of the court's

decision in a suit brought against Mr. Furgatch by

the FEC (FEC v. Furgatch, Civil Action No. 85-

5524). The appeals court also rejected Mr.

Furgatch's suggestion for a rehearing of the suit

by a full panel of its judges.

In its January 1987 decision, the appeals

court confirmed the FEC's claim that Mr.

Furgatch should be held liable for violations of

the election law resulting from: 1) Mr. Furgatch's

failure to report as independent expenditures his

payments for newspaper ads advocating President

Jimmy Carter's defeat in the 1980 general election and 2) his failure to state in one of the ads

that the communication was not authorized by a

candidate or a candidate's committee. For a

summary of the appeals court's decision, see page

5 of the March 1987 Record.

FEC v; JOHN R. CLARK, JR.

On April 23, 1987, the U.S. District Court for

the Middle District of Florida issued a consent

order in FEC v. John R. Clark, Jr. (CA No. 86-

l841-CIV-T-17B). In the order, the FEC and Mr.

Clark agreed that:

o Mr. Clark had entered into a conciliation agreement with the FEC in which he admitted violating section 44lf of the election law by knowingly permitting his name to be used for a

contribution made in the name of another person. In the conciliation agreement, Mr. Clark

also agreed to pay a $250 civil penalty by

January 25, 1985.

o Mr. Clark had violated the conciliation agreement by failing to pay the civil penalty on time.

o Mr. Clark paid the civil penalty only after the

Commission had notified him that the agency

had filed suit against him for failure to pay the

penalty.

Finally, Mr. Clark assured the court that, in

the future, he would fUlly comply with the election law.

FEC v, PRYOR FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE

On March 26, 1987, the U.S. District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an

order of dismissal in FEC v. Pryor for Congress

Committee (Civil Action No. 86-0580), after the

FEC requested that the suit be withdrawn.

6

NEW LITIGATION

Congr~manS~kv.FEC,etaL

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(C), C

gressman Fortney H. (Pete) Stark asks the co

to declare that the FEC acted contrary to law 

failing to act on his administrative compl

within 120 days after he filed it in October 19

Congressman Stark's complaint alleged that c

tain excessive contributions made to David 

Williams' 1986 Congressional campaign by 

American Medical Association Political Act

Committee (AMPAC), the separate segrega

fund of the American Medical Association (AM

resulted in violations of the election law by b

parties.

Congressman Stark further asks the court 

o Issue an order directing the FEC to act on 

complaint within 30 days, as required by 

U.S.C. §437g;

o Declare that Commissioner Lee Ann Ell

should recuse herself from any further part

pation in the FEC's consideration of the co

plaint, consistent with Canon 4 of the Can

of Judicial Ethics; and

o Retain jurisdiction over-the suit, so that, if 

FEC fails to act on his complaint, Congressm

Stark could bring a separate suit against def

dant AMPAC. (In a stipulation filed with 

court on May 8, 1987, Mr. Stark agreed 

voluntarily dismiss his claim against AMA 

AMPAC, both defendants in the suit.)

U.S. District Court for the District 

Columbia, Civil Action No. 87-1024, April 

1987.

Harvey Furgatch v, FEC (Second Suit)

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. S437g(a)(8), Mr. Har

Furgatch asks the court to declare that the F

acted contrary to law by failing to act on 

administrative complaint within 120 days after 

filed it.

Mr. Furgatch further asks the court to or

the Commission to:

o Disclose all actions the agency has taken on 

administrative complaint; and

o Act on the complaint within 30 days, as requ

ed by 2 U.S.C. §437g.

U.S. District Court for the District 

Columbia, Civil Action No. 87-0798, April 

1987.

FEC v, Citizens for the President '84

The Commission asks the district court 

declare that Citizens for the President '84 (

Committee), a political committee, and the Co

mittee's treasurer, Thomas Allen Bayer, viola

the election law by:
June 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Number 6

•

o Failing to file the Committee's 1984 year-end

report on time, in violation of 2 U.s.C.

§434(a)(4)(A)(i); and

o Failing to adequately disclose certain disbursements -- l.e., failing to specify on their reports

whether certain disbursements (e.g., for printing, mailings, advertising and consulting) were

made on behalf of a specific federal candidate,

in violation of 2 U.S.C. S434(b){5)(A) and 11

CPR 106.1(a).

The FEC also asks the district court to:

o Assess a civil penalty against each defendant

for the greater of $5,000 or the amount involved in each violation by each defendant; and

o Permanently enjoin defendants from similar

violations of the election law in the future.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District

of Ohio, Civil Action No. CB7-1040Y, April 28,

1987.

INDEX

This cumulative index lists advisory opinions,

court cases and 800 Line articles published in the

Record during 1987. The first number in the

citation refers to the "number" (month) of the

Record issue; the second number, following the

colon, indicates the page number in that issue.

OPINIONS

1986-37: Presidential candidate appearances at

convention of nonprofit corporation, 1:6

1986-38: Individual's financing of media ads to

promote conservative candidates, 1:7

1986-39: Excess campaign funds used to establish

trust fund for minor, 2:3

1986-40: Corporate donations to state party

committee's building fund, 2:3

1986-41: Trade association's plan to compensate

employees who make contributions, 2:4

1986-42: Affect of corporate reorganization' on

PACs, 3:4

1986-44: Contributions to PAC matched with corporate donations to charity, 3:4

1986-45: Interest payments by his committee to

candidate, 4:4

1987-1: Campaign's compensation of lost wages to

candidate prohibited, 4:5

1987-2: Campaign's purchase of car for candidate's reelection and offidal duties, 4:5

1987-3: Refund for terminated Presidential campaign, 4:6

1987-4: Excess campaign funds transferred from

individual's 1986 to his 1984 campaign, 5:4

1987-5: Solicitability of membership organization's members, 5:5

7

1987-6: Trade association PAC's combined dues

payment/solicitation plan prohibited, 5:5

1987-7: Voter guides distributed to public by

nonprofit corporation, 6:3

1987-8: Multimedia presentation of Presidential

interviews and profiles, 6:4

COURT CASES

Common Cause v; FEC (fourth suit), 2:6; fifth

suit, 2:9

Congressman Stark V. FEC. 6:6

FEC v, Americans for Jesse Jackson, 2:9

FEC v, Beatty for Congress Committee, 3:6

FEC v, Citizens for the President '84, 6:6

FEC v, Citizens Party, 1:8; 2:8

FEC v, Congressman Charles E. Rose, 2:7

FEe v, Ernest Halter and AIDS, 4:7

FEC v, Purgateh: FEC v, Dominelli, 3:5; 6:6

FEC v, John R. Clark, Jr., 2:8;

FEG v, Jolyn Robichaux, et ai, 2:9

FEC v, Mark Barry, 4:7

FEC v, MCFL, 2:4

FEC v, Pryor for Congress Committee, 6:6

FEe v; Ted Haley Congressional Committee, 5:6

FEe v, 1984 Victory Fund, 3:6

Furgatch v, FEC (second suit), 6:6

800 LINE

After the election; winding down, 3:9

Personal financial reports, 5:7

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Registered political committees are

automatically sent the Record. Any change

of address by a registered committee must,

by law, be made in writing as an amendment to FEC Form 1 (Statement of Organization) and filed with the Clerk of the

House, the Secretary of the Senate, or the

FEC, as appropriate.

Record subscribers (who are not political committees), when calling or mailing in

a change of address, are asked to provide

the following information:

1. Name of person to whom the Record is

sent.

2. Old address.

3. New address.

4. Subscription number. The SUbscription

number is located in the upper left

hand corner of the mailing label. It

consists of three letters and five numbers. Without this number, there is no

guarantee that your SUbscription can

be located on the computer.
June 1987 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION Volume 13, Numoo

FEe FORMS AND STATEMENTS REVISED

The Federal Election Commission has

revised the following FEe forms:

o Form 1 (Statement of Organization)

o Form 2 (Statement of Candidacy)

o Form 3 (Report of Receipts and Disbursements for an Authorized Committee)

o Form 3X (Report of Receipts and Disbursements for Committees Other Than

Authorized Committees)

The layout and the instructions for

these forms have been modified. However,

the information that committees must disclose remains the same.

Disregard all the old forms. Copies of

new reporting forms will be mailed to all

applicable registered committees along

with the July reporting notice. Additional

forms may be requested from the FEC.

Committees may also use photocopies of

blank forms.

Questions and requests for forms

should be addressed to the FEe's Information Services Division, 202/376-3120 or,

toll free, 800-424-9530.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMM ISSION

999 E Street,NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

FALL CONFERENCE SERIES

ON ELECTION LAWS

During Fall 1987, the Federal Election

Commission will cosponsor a series of

three conferences with state election offices. The conferences will present

workshops on candidate campaigns, party

and PAC activity, contributions and

reporting. The conference schedule is

detailed below. For more information on

the series, contact the FEels Information

Services Division at: 202/376-3120 or to11-

free 800/424-8430.

Conference Schedule

September 16-18 Burlington, Vermont

FEe and Vermont

Secreta.ry of State

October 16 Madison, Wisconsin

FEC and Wisconsin

State Election Board

November 16-17 Austin, Texas

FEC and Texas

Secretary of State

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31