•

THE FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

1325 K Street N,W., Washington, D.C. 20463

continu

• it When several contributions from the same person aggreg

more than $200 a year, each contribution received thereaf

in the same year from the same person fregardless of amou

must also be itemized. 11 CFA 104.3{aIl4}(i).

3, Incomplete Reporting of Summary Totals

The "total" provided on the last line of each supporti

schedule (which reflects the sum total of the tran

actions itemized on that schedule) should be added 

A loan must be reported on Schedule C until it is liquidat

See the 800 Line on p. 5 for more details.

...

2. Failure to Use Separate Schedule for Each Type of

Transaction

For reporting purposes, receipts and disbursements a

each divided into several categories; a separate schedu

should be used for itemization in each category. F

example, "loans made or guaranteed by the candidat

should be itemized on one Schedule A....... while "co

tributions from persons" should be itemized on 

separate Schedule A. The total itemized transactio

within one category should be recorded on the last li

of the schedule. Total itemized "transfers to affiliat

committees," for example, should be recorded on t

last line of a Schedule B. If more than one page of 

schedule is needed to Itemize transactl ons of one typ

the total should appear on the last line of the last pa

for that transaction.

June 198

1. Failure to Report Contributor Identification Informati

For each contribution (from a person other than a poli

cal committeel exceeding $200, a political committ

must report, among other things, the donor's nam

address, occupation and name of employer..... If th

contributor fails to include this information with his 

her contribution, the committee must be able to give th

Commission written evidence that reflects the cor

mittee's "bests efforts" to obtain the informatio

"Best efforts" consist of at least one clear request th

informs the contributor that the reporting of su

information is required by law. 11 CFR 104.7. F

example, the committee could show its "best effort

by retaining a copy of the original solicitation f

the contribution, or a written record documenting 

follow-up phone request for the required informatio

11 CFR 104.7.

Volume 7, Number 6

National and state party committees may each make

coordinated expenditures of up to $16,710 on behalf

of their candidates in the special general election. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(dl. Expenditures by county, district and local

party committees are subject to the state party limit.

The FEe has sent notices on reporting requlremems and

filing dates to all individuals on the ballot in these elections.

All other committees supporting candidates in the Ohio

special elections should contact the Commission for more

information on required reports. Call 202/523-4068 or

toll-free 800}424-9530,

it In reponing campaign finance activity, committees authorized by Congressional candidates use FEe Form 3, autnor.

ized Presidential committees use FEe Form 3P and all other

registered political committees use FEC Form 3X.

FREQUENT REPORTING ERRORS

In reviewing reports filed with the Commission, the

FEC's Reports Analysis Division has identified a number of

reporting errors frequently made by political committees.

This article, the second in a series on reporting errors,

identifies several common mistakes and then explains the

correct reporting procedure."

SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN OHIO

Ohio will hold special elections in its Fourth Congressional District to fill the seat formerly held by Congressman Tennyson Guyer. The primary election is scheduled

for June 2, 1981, and the general election for June 25,

1981. The principal campaign committees of candidates

running in these elections must file the appropriate pre- and

post-election reports in addition to their semiannual

reports. All other political committees which support

candidates in the elections (and which do not report on a

monthly basis} must also follow this reporting schedule.

Note: If any committee active in the special general

election files a post-election report by JUly 25, 1981,

the Commission will waive its semiannual report (due

JUly 31).
2

The Commission also named Mark J. Davis, formerly w

the U.S. Department of Justice, to the newly crea

position of Director of Congressional, Legislative and In

governmental Affairs. Mr. Davis acts as the Commissi

chief liaison for legislative and intergovernmental affairs. 

is also responsible for all Congressional inquiries and 

maintaining an effective relationship with members of C

gress and Congressional staff and committees.

NEW STAFF APPOINTMENTS

The Commission made two senior staff appointme

during April. It appointed James Pehrkon, forme

Assistant Staff Director for the Data Systems Developm

Division, as Deputy Staff Director for Management. 

addition to overseeing management of the Commissi

data services, Mr. Pehrkon now has overall managem

responsibility for its administrative services, bUdget proc

and planning and management function.

1981 REGULATIONS AVAILABLE

A copy of the 1981 edition of Title 11 of the Code 

Federal Regulations (11 CFR), containing the Fed

Election Commission Regulations, has been sent to 

political committees currently registered with the Co

mission. The volume contains all regulations prescribed 

the Commission as of January 1, 1981, supplemen

by four updated indexes to the regulations. Additio

copies of the 1981 edition of 11 CFR are available free 

charge by contacting: Office of Public Communicatio

Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N

Washington, D. C. 20463. Or call 202/523·4068 or toll-f

8001424-9530.

46 Fed. Reg,

22039

46 Fed. Reg.

24993

Federal Register

Publication Date Citation

Commission Regulati ons define "personat funds" at 11 CFR

110.10.

total unitemized transactions; the combined total should

then be recorded on the appropriate line of the Summary and/or Detailed Summary pages. For example, total

itemized "other disbursements" (reported on a Schedule

B) plus total unlternlzed "other disbursements" should

be reported on Line 27 of the Detailed Summary Page.

As another example, total itemized "contributions from

persons" (reported on a Schedule A) plus total unitemized "contributions from persons" (reported on the

memo entrv line directlv below Line 11a of the Detailed

Summary Page) should be reported on line 11a of the

Detailed Summary Page.

4. Failure to Indicate the Source of a candidate Loan

When a candidate's campaign committee reports a loan

from the candidate, the committee must indicate

whether the candidate has loaned personal funds**** or

has obtained the loan from a lending institution (e.g., a

bank). If, for example, the candidate has obtained a loan

from a bank and forwarded' it to the committee, the

committee must report the bank as the original source of

the loan (on Schedule C). The committee must also

indicate the name and address of the bank, the interest

rate, the duration and terms of the loan and any

endorsers or guarantors of the loan. If the candidate is

an endorser or guarantor, that should be indicated as

welL

Note: Persons (other than the candidate) who endorse or

guarantee the candidate's loan are subject to the Act's

contribution limits.

Notice Title

The RECORD is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Com

missioners are: John Warren McGarry, Chairman; Frank P. Reiche, Vice Chairman; Joan D. Aikens, Thomas E. Harris;

Vernon W. Thomson; Robert O. Tiernan; 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-tree

800/424·9530.

The list below identifies all FEC documents that appeared in the Federal Register between April 15 and May 4,

1981. Copies of these notices are not available from the

FEC.

.....

198106 Ohio Special 5/4/81

Primary and

General Elections

Filing Date,

1981-5 Mississippi Special 4/15/81

and Runoff Election

Reports; Filing

Dates
ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

Advisory Opinion Requests (AORs) pose questions on

the application of the Act or Commission Regulations to

specific factual situations described in the AOA. The following chart lists recent AORs with a brief description of

the subject matter, the date the requests were made public

and the number of pages of each request. The full text of

each AOR is available to the public in the Commission's

Office of Public Records.

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion lAO) issued by the Commissi

provides guidance 'with regard to the specific situati

described in the AOA. Any qualified person who 

requested an AO and acts in accordance with the opini

will not be subject to any sanctions under the Act. Oth

persons may rely on the opinion if they are involved in 

specific activity which is indistinguishable in all mater

aspects from the activity discussed in the AD. Those se

ing guidance for their own activity, however, should cons

the full text of an AD and not rely only on the summ

given here.

AO 1981-10: Deferred Payment of Honoraria

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION OF

ADVISORY OPINION REQUEST

AOR 1981-12 (earmarking contributions for political

committee through voluntary payroll deduction plans}

was withdrawn by its requester on April 29,1981.

5/13/81 8

AOR Subject

1981-19 Combined funds of

PAC and corporation's

administrative account

invested in money

market fund.

1981-20 Combined funds of

cooperative's federaland state committee Invested in

treasurybill.

e 1981-21 Employee authorlzation to transfer funds

from state to federal

committee account.

19B1-22 ProhIbited funds

raised to pay interest on campaign debts.

1981-23 Cooperative's solicl tation of individual

members of assoclations that are

stockholders.

1981·24 Act's preemption of

citv cha rtar's ban on

employee contrtbutions,

Date Made

Public

4115/81

4/22/81

4/27/81

5/5/B1

5/12/81

No. of

Pages

2

3

15

2

43

3

A U. S. government employee (who was a hostage in Ira

may enter into an agreement whereby he/she receiv

payment of an honorarium in a year (or years) after t

event for which the honorarium was earned. A deferr

honorarium payment would be subject to the over

$25,000 limit for the year in which it is actually receiv

Although Section 441 ;(a)(2) of the Act limits total hon

raria accepted by government employees to $25,000 p

year, Section 441i(d} provides that "an honorarium shall 

treated as accepted only in the year in which that hon

rarium is received."

The Commission noted, however, that:

1. The $2,000 limit on each honorarium received by 

government employee could not be avoided or deferr

under any circumstances; and

2. The employee may be considered to have "accepte

the honorarium for purposes of the limits if he or s

uses a deferred payment agreement to obtain a pres

financial benefit even though he or she has not actua

received the honorarium. For example, acceptance 

the honorarium might occur when the governm

employee uses a deferred payment agreement as c

lateral for a loan obtained a year before the honorariu

is payable under the agreement. (Date Issued: April 

1981; Length: 6 pages)

AD 19B1-11: Free Use of Mailing list by

National Party Committee

The Clark for President Committee (the Committee) cou

donate the Committee's mailing list to the Libertar

National Committee (the LNC) free of charge, witho

making a contribution to the LNC, provided the mailing 

represented excess campaign funds of the Committee. Bo

committees would, however, have to report the value of t

mailing list transaction pursuant to the procedures 

scribed in 11 CF R 104.13. On the other hand, if t

Committee determined that the mailing list did not qual

as excess campaign funds, the LNC's use of the list wou

result in an in-kind contribution from the Commit

to the LNC, and would be subject to the contribution lim

for a national party committee. 2 U.S.C. § §441 a(a)( 1)

and 431(B}lA) (i); 11 CFR 100.7(aHl)(iii)(A).

continu
The Act permits candidate committees to transfer, without

limit, excess campaign funds to the national committee of

their political party. 2 U.S.C. §439a. Not restricted to cash

alone, excess campaign funds may consist of "anything of

value," including mailing lists. Moreover, the candidate has

the discretion to decide when the funds on hand exceed the

amount necessary to defray expenditures.

The Commission cautioned, however, that by using the

mailing list as excess campaign funds, rather than to defray

its debts, the Committee might later have difficulty showing that it had made reasonable efforts to retire its campaign debts. (Date Issued: April 9, 19B1; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1981-14: Agent Authorized to Reapportion Employee

Contributions Among Corporation's Federal

and Nonfederal Committees

The E1 Paso Company (the Company) may offer executive

and administrative employees participating in its payroll

deduction plan the option of authorizing an agent to

reapportion their contributions among the Company's

separate segregated funds (one federal and several nonfederal committees).

Under the proposed arrangement, the agent will inform

employees of changes in apportionment and, to ensure that

the Act's contribution limits are observed, the federal

committee will monitor all contributions it receives.

The arrangement is permissible because it preserves the

voluntary nature of contributions by executive and administrative personnel, as follows:

1. The employee may choose whether he or she wishes to:

a) execute a new authorization agreement for

every reapportionment of contributions; or

b) appoint an agent to reapportion the contributions.

2. The agent's authority to reapportion contributions

may be exercised only after the employee has voluntarily decided to participate in the payroll deduction

plan.

3. At any time, the employee may revoke either the

decision to authorize the agent to apportion contributions among committees or the decision to participate in

the plan at all, thereby ensuring his/her authority over

contributions. (Date Issued: April 17, 19B1; Length: 3

pages)

AO 1981-16: Donations to Post-Election

Legal Defense Fund

A Special Fund for Legal Matters (legal defense fund)

established by the Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee,

Inc. (the Committee) to defray costs of post-election

litigation related to FEC compliance actions and audits

would be considered an arm of the Committee. Accordingly, all its receipts and disbursements would be

subject to the requirements of the Act and Commission

Regulations. The Act exempts from the definitions of

"contribution" and "expenditure" legal services that are

rendered solely to ensure compliance with the Act. 11 CFR

100.7 (b)(l4). Moreover, disbursements for such services

4

are exempted from the expenditure limits that apply 

publicly funded Presidential primary candidates. 11 C

100.B(b)(15). The Act does not, however, exempt fu

donated for such legalservices, including funds donated 

post-election litigation. Therefore, donations made 

the Committee's legal defense fund would be conside

contributions subject to the Act's limits, prohibitions 

reporting requirements even if they are used solely 

ensure compliance with the Act.

The Act would not, however, govern donations used 

defray expenses of commercial litigation involving Co

mittee contracts and other similar liabilities. The Co

mittee could, therefore, establish a special fund for co

mercial litigation. Funds donated to such a separate fu

would not be considered contributions subject to 

provisions of the Act. Chairman John Warren McGarry a

Commissioner Thomas E. Harris filed dissenting opinio

(Date Issued: April 15, 19B1; Length: 9 pages, includ

dissenting opinions)

AO 1981-17: Excess Campaign Funds Loaned

to State Party Committee

A Congressional officeholder may loan $13,000 in exc

campaign funds to the Vermont State Democratic C

mittee (the Committee). A federal candidate may 

excess campaign funds for a variety of purposes "includ

transfer without limitation" to any national, state or lo

committee of any political party. 2 U.S.C. §439a; 11 C

113.2. The loan is regarded as a transfer of excess campa

funds. Although the Committee's subsequent repaymen

the roan to the officeholder would not be considere

contribution to him, Commission RegJlations require t

the repayment would have to be made with Commi

funds which are permissible under the Act. 11 C

100.7{a}{1}{iHD). {Date Issued: April 15, 19B1; Length

pages)

AO 1981-18: PAC Contributions Made in

Connection With .Nonfederal

Election Activity

Funds solicited and received pursuant to the Act 

CENTRAL 8ANCPAC, a separate segregated fund to 

established by Central Bancshares of the South, lnc., co

be used to make contributions in connection with n

federal, as well as federal, elections. Under Sect

102.5(a)(1)(iO of Commission Regulations, if a polit

committee maintains a single account for both federal 

nonfederal election activity, all contributions it soli

and receives are subject to the prohibitions, limits, so

tation and reporting requirements of the Act - regard

of whether the funds are ultimately used for federal 

nonfederal activity.

This regulation does not place any restrictions on a co

mittee's use of contributions in connection with nonfede

election activity, but all such disbursements must 

reported. The Commission noted, however, that con

butions made in connection with nonfederal elections 

subject to applicable state laws. (Date Issued: May B, 19

Length: 2 pages)
_e

In recent weeks, the Public Communications Office has

received inquiries on correct reporting procedures for

political committees registered with the FEC. The following

article is offered in response to these questions. For further

information, call the Commission on its toll-free line:

800/424-9530_

Maya committee authorized by a Presidential candidate file

semiannual reports during a nonelection year?

No. Authorized Presidential committees must report on

either a monthly or quarterly basis during a nonelection

year. 11 CFR 104.5(bH21. This rule applies to all Presidential committees, including 1972 and 1976 committees.

If a candidate loans money to his/her campaign committee

and later forgives the loan. how should the committee report the transaction?

The candidate's authorized committee may report the

forgiven amount of the loan in one of two ways:

1. It may attach a note to its next report, explaining that

the candidate has forgiven the loan and indicating that

no other creditors were associated with the loan; or

2. It may note the forgiven amount of the loan as a memo

entry on SChedule A, B or C (in addition to reporting

the loan on Schedule C with a $0 balance). The forgiven

amount should not, however, be added to total contributions reported on Schedule A or total disbursements

reported on SChedule B.

In either case, once the committee has reported that the

loan has been forgiven. it no longer has to report that

particular loan.

If a committee has reported a campaign debt on one report

(Schedule C or 0), must it continue to report the debt on

subsequent reports?

Yes. A committee must report an outstanding debt on

Schedule C or D every reporting period until it extinguishes

the debt - even if there has been no activity concerning the

debt during the reporting period. Moreover, any payment

made to liquidate part or all of the debt must be reported

on both Schedule B and Schedule C.

Maya committee terminate if it has outstanding debts?

No. Political committees may terminate their registration (and reporting obligation) only when: 1) all their debts

and obligations have been extinguished and 2~ after they no

longer intend to receive any contributions or make any

disbursements. A principal campaign committee may

terminate onlyattef it has satisfied these requirements and,

additionally, after all debts of any affiliated or authorized committees have been extinguished. 11 CFR 102.3.

Once a political committee has extinguished all its debts,

may it stop filing reports?

Yes, a committee's reporting obligation ceases once it

has submitted a Termination Report, which may be filed on

FEC Form 3 (or 3X) or by a written statement containing

the same information. The Termination Report must

disclose:

5

1. All receipts and disbursements not previously reporte

including an accounting of the retirement of all deb

and

2. The disposition of any residual funds.

Does a candidate need to register again if he or she ran 

the last election and begins to receive funds for a futu

eleC1ion?

Yes. The candidate should file a new FEC Form 

(Statement of Candidacy) when receipts or disbursemen

for the future campaign exceed $5,000. On this form, t

candidate must either designate a new principal campaig

committee or redesignate the currently registered comm

tee. If a new committee is named, it in turn must file FE

Form 1 (a Statement of Organization). Alternatively, jf t

candidate redesignates the currently registered committe

the committee must amend its Form 1 to reflect any ne

information (e.s., a change in the committee's name 

address).

Should a candidate's authorized committee report "coord

nated" expenditures (§441a(d) expenditures) made by 

party committee on the candidate's behalf?

No. Since these expenditures do not constitute contrib

tions in-kind or candidate expenditures. the candidat

committee does not report them. Instead, the party co

mittee uses Schedule F, Form 3X to report special "coord

nated" expenditures it makes on the candidate's behalf. 

CFR 110.7.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Political Committees

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 FEe Form 1 (Statement of Organization) and filed with the Clerk of the House, the

Secretary of the Senate or the FEC, as appropriate.

Other Subscribers

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

that your subscription can be located on the

computer.
RICHARD B. KAYv. FEe

On April 21, 1981, the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment in the suit Richard B. Kay v. FEe (Civil

Action No. 80-3081) and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for

summary judgment.

Plaintiff had filed the suit on December 2, 1980, seeking

a declaratory judgment that the FEC had acted contrary to

law in dismissing an administrative complaint that plaintiff

had filed against the Plain Dealer Publishing Company of

Cleveland and several of its officers and employees.

Plaintiff, who had been a Presidential primary candidate

in Ohio, alleged that a full-page chart published in The

Plain Dealer before the 1980 Ohio Presidential primary was

a political advertisement by the publishing company.

The chart carried photographs of three major party Presi·

dential candidates and summaries of their positions on nine

campaign issues ranging from inflation to federal funds for

abortions. Plaintiff alleged the ad constituted either a

corporate expenditure or a corporate in-kind contribution

- both prohibited under the Act.

After investigating the complaint pursuant to the enforcement procedures of Section 437g(al of the Act, the Commission, acting on a recommendation from the General

Counsel to dismiss the complaint, found no reason to

believe the Act had been violated. In his report to the

Commission, the General Counsel observed that the

"contents of this chart merely constitute an effort on the

part of The Plain Dealer to report in an orderly manner for

the benefit of its readers the issue stands and activities of

the major candidates in the Ohio primary. In essence,

The Plain Dealer was printing a news story in chart form,"

The General Counsel noted that the Act and Commission

Regulations specifically exempt such news stories from the

definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure," provided

the news corporation is not controlled by any political

party, political committee or candidate. The General

Counsel noted that there was no indication of such ownership or control of The Plain Dealer.

Holding that no material facts were in dispute and that

applicable law was clear, the court found that: "The

Commission's action, based on the General Counsel's

recommendation that the publication be treated as a

newspaper story, was plainly consistent with the law.

The Plain Dealer was doing the main business of a newspaper: in its own way, it informed the public about issues

which the public would decide."

As to plaintiff's claim that he did not receive reasonably

equal news coverage in The Plain Dealer's circulation area,

the court noted that a newspaper had no duty under the

Act to give "equal time" to candidates. The court said, "To

the extent that this 'equal time' concern was an element of

plaintiff's complaint, the Commission quite properly

ignored it."

6

FEe v, DANIEL MINCHEW

On April 24, 1981, the U.S. District Court for 

District of Columbia issued a judgment in favor of the 

in the suit FEe v, Daniel Minchew (Civil Action 

81-lt74)'fDeclarin~I' tt~e defendant htad violadte? the r~qh

men s 0 a ccnci la Ion agreemen entere Into Wit 

FEC in October 1979, the court ordered Mr. Minc

to comply with the conciliation agreement and to p

$4,000 civil penalty resulting from the agreement. 

Court also required the defendant to pay the costs of 

civil action and to pay interest on the civil penalty from 

date of the court's order. Mr. Minchew had incurred 

penalty for a violation of 2 U.S.C. §432(b); he had f

to provide Senator Talmadge's 1974 reelection comm

with detailed accounts of campaign contributions, whic

had received on the Senator's behalf, within the requ

five-day period.

SUMMARY OF MURs

Selected compliance cases, which have been closed 

put on the public record, are summarized in the Rec

Compliance matters stem from possible violations of 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, w

come to the Commission's attention either through for

complaints originating outside the Commission or by 

FEC's own monitoring procedures. The Act gives the 

the exclusive jurisdiction for the civil enforcement of 

Act. Potential violations are assigned case numbers by 

Office of General Counsel and become "Matters U

Review" (MURs). All MUR investigations are kept 

fidential by the Commission, as required by the Act.

MURs may be closed at anyone of several points du

the enforcement process, including when the Commiss

Determines that no violation of the Act has occurred

Determines that there is no reason to believe or 

probable cause to believe a violation of the Act 

occurred;

Enters into a conciliation agreement with the res

dent;

Finds probable cause to believe a violation has occu

and decides to sue; or

Decides at any point during the enforcement proces

take no further action.

After the MUR is closed and released by the Office 

General Counsel, the Commission makes the MUR 

available to the public. This file contains the compla

the findings of the General Counsel's Office and the C

mission's actions with regard to the case, including the 

text of any conciliation agreement. The Commissi

actions are not necessarily based on, or in agreement w

the General Counsel's analysis.
Selection of MURs for summary is made only from MURs

closed aher January 1, 1979. The Record article does not

summarize every stage in the compliance process. Rather,

the summary provides only enough background to make

clear the Commission's final determination. The full text of

these MURs and others which were closed between 1976

and the present are available for review and purchase in the

Commission's Public Records Office.

MURs 1167,1168 and 1170: Sponsorship of

Presidential Debate

On February 21, 1980, the Commission decided to take no

further action with regard to a complaint that a publishing

company had violated 2 U.S.C. §441 b by staging a debate

between two Presidential primary candidates of the same

party.

Complaint: On February 19, 1980, three Presidential

candidate committees filed complaints alleging that a

publishinq company (the Company] was about to make

prohibited corporate contributions to two Presidential

primary candidates by funding a debate between them. The

complainants asked the Commission to seek an immediate

court injunction barring the publishing company from

staging the debate, contending that the debate would be

partisan because they were excluded.

General Counsel's Report: The General Counsel found that,

although Section 431 (f)(4)(A) of the Act exempts from the

definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" payments

made by a news media corporation for printing and broadcasting news stories, commentaries and editorials on

election-related topics, payments made by the Company for

staging these particular debates would not fall within the

news story exemption (2 U.S.C. §431(f)(4)(A)). Rather,

they would be corporate expenditures in connection with

an erection, prohibited by 2 U.S.C. §441b.

The General Counsel added that, although pending FEC

Regulations* provided a narrow exemption permitting a

media corporation's sponsorship of nonpartisan debates,

the debate staged by the Company would be partisan,

promoting the candidacies of the participants over the

candidacies of the excluded candidates (i.e., the complainants).

Commission Deterrninetion: Since the debate was scheduled for February 23, the Commission decided the complaints warranted expedited treatment. On February 20,

1980, therefore, the Commission determined there was

reason to believe the Company and its newspaper were

about to violate 2 U.S.C. §441 b and authorized the

General Counsel to immediately file suit for injunctive

relief that would bar use of corporate funds to stage the

debate. On the same day, the Commission sent a telegram

notifying the Company of its determination and requesting

the Company to provide certain information on the debate

by the next day.

The Cornmisslon prescribed regulations on the funcfing and

sponsorship of federal candidate debates on April 1.1981.

7

On February 21, the Company sent the Commission 

telegram stating that it still planned to sponsor the debat

on February 23 and that it had denied complainant

requests to participate in the debate. The Company added

however, that the debate would be totally financed by on

of the participating candidates, who had agreed to advanc

the company $3,500 to cover its costs in staging the debate

therefore, no corporate funds would be used. Based on thi

information, the Commission decided on February 21 t

take no further action on the complaint.

MURs 1178 and 1179: Sponsorship of Presidential

Debates

On February 22 and 24, 1980, one of the three Presidentia

candidate committees that had filed the complaint again

the publishing company (see above) filed an addition

complaint against the Company and the candidate who ha

paid for the debate. The Commission found no reaso

to believe respondents had violated the Act.

Complaint: The committee's complaint alleged that, eve

though one of the candidates paid the Company $3,50

to stage the debate, the services of the Company

employees in moderating the debate resulted in an in-kin

contribution to the two participating candidates, a violatio

of §441b, which prohibits corporate contributions. Th

complainant also alleged that half of the sponsoring cand

date's $3,500 payment should be considered an excessiv

in-kind contribution to the candidate whom he debated, 

violation of §441a(a)(1)(A).

General Counsel's Report: The Company used only th

funds advanced by the candidate's campaign to defray th

costs of the debate, including payments for employe

services. Thus, no corporate funds were expended. Th

General Counsel therefore recommended the Commissio

find no reason to believe that the Company had violate

section 441 b of the Act.

The General Counsel also recommended that the Com

mission dismiss the second allegation. He compared th

debate to a television commercial paid for by candidate X

in which he or she reviews the positions of the opponen

candidate Y. Viewers agreeing with candidate Y's positio

may be influenced to vote for him or her, yet candidate 

would not be making a contribution to candidate Y. In th

same way, the sponsoring candidate's payment for th

debate would not be considered a contribution for th

purpose of influencing the election of the opponent.

Commission Determination: On April 23, 1980, the Com

mission found no reason to believe that the Company ha

violated §441b or that the candidate had violated th

§441a contribution limits.
AUDITS RELEASED

TO THE PUBLIC

The Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (the

Act) requires candidates and political committees to file

financial disclosure reports with the Commission. The Act

also gives the Commission authoritv to audit campaigns of

all Presidential candidates who receive public funds, and

the reports of other political committees. Final audit

reports are available to the press through the Press Office

and to the general public through the Office of Public

Records. The tollowinq is a chronological listing of audits

released between April 20 and April 29, 1981.

ELECTION LAW SEMINARS HELl)

IN MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA

The Offices of the Mississippi and Alabama Secretar

of State each sponsored a Workshop on FederalElecti

ResponsibilWes during April. The 204 state and lo

election administrators attending the workshop held 

Jackson, Mississippi, on April 20 and 21 participa

in individual sessions on Planning and Managemen

Elections, Voting Svstems and Training Poll Workers. T

days later, in Birmingham, Alabama, 106 administrat

attended similar workshops. plus one on Automa

Registration Systems.

._' 

FIRST CLASS MAll

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

FEe

WASHINGTON, D.C.

PERMIT NO. G·31

The workshops were conducted by the FEC Clearinghou

on Election Administration in conjunction with ea

Secretary of State's Office.

You may order these subscriptions by mail from: Super

tendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Offi

Washington, D.C. 20402. Identify report title. Enclos

check or money order for subscription pricefs) payable 

Superintendent of Documents.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

- etectton Law Updates is a quarterly series which su

marizes all new state and federal election legislati

$11.00 per year.

- stectton Case Law is a quarterly series which summari

recent state and federal litigation relating to elect

matters. $10.00 per year.

Date Made

Public

4/22/81

4/29/81

Audit

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

2. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Brown for

President (Addendum to Final Audit

Report)

1. Howard H. Baker, Jr., The Baker Com- 4/20/81

mittee (Addendum to Final Audit Report)

4. International Ladies' Garment Workers

Union (I LGWU) Campaign Committee

3. 1980 Democratic National Convention

Com mittee, Inc.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 KSTREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20463