Volume 13, Numbe

REPORTS

1 January Schedule

800 LINE

3 Reporting Internal Communications by

Organizetions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGULATIONS

I Revised Delegate Rules Prescribed

1 FOIA and Access to Public Records Rule

4 ADVISORY OPINIONS

PUBLICATIONS

5 New Editions Available

COURT CASES

5 DCCC v. FEC

6 NRA v. FEe

7 New Litigation

8 INDEX

STATISTICS

9 Activity of Presidential Primary

Candidates

9 Charts on Campaign Spending

JANUARY REPORTING SCHEDULE

All registered political committees must 

a year-end report, due January 31, 1988. 

chart below indicates the coverage and f

dates for the different types of committees

page 2 for information on where to file report

continued on 

-----------------

11!;1Il·.~.,"lll71_ ill;

!\~:-~~c.~Zf: ~~;-j~-!-0\ ?~.

1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

December 1987 999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND

ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS: EFFECTIVE

DATE FOR RULES

The FEC's new rules governing the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA) and access to Public

Disclosure Division documents became effective

on November 20, 1987, thirty days after their

publication in the Federal Register on October 21.

(See 52 Fed. Reg. 3921 0.) These final rules

contain revised language concerning the billing of

special mail services. Otherwise, they are identical to interim rules which became effective on

June 24, 1987. (See 52 Fed. Reg. 23636)

For more detailed summaries of these rules,

see page 4 of the November 1987 Record (final

rules) and page 5 of the August 1987 Record

(interim rules).

REVISED DELEGATE

REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED

On November 20, 1987, the Commission prescribed revised regulations, at II CFR 110.14,

setting forth the Act's prohibitions, limitations

and reporting requirements as they apply to the

process of selecting delegates to the Presidential

nominating conventions. (For a sum mary of the

revised rules, see pages 1-4 of the November 1987

Reeord.)

These regulations, along with an explanation

and justification, were published in the September

22, 1987, issue of the Federal Register. 52 Fed.

Reg. 35530. Copies of the new regulations and

the explanation and justification may be obtained

by calling 376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

•

·e
2

-The_",Record is published by the Federal Election Commission, 999 EStreet, 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 lIouse of Representatives,

Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/376-3120 or toU-free 800/424-9530. (TDD For Hearing Impaired 202/376-3136)

"'This category applies to any committee

which is filing its first report.

*"'Or from the c~osing date of the last report

filed.

'"'""Tne year-end report is filed in lieu of a

monthly report, otherwise due on January 20,

1988.

\bIume 13, Numoo- 

WHERE REPORTS ARE FILED

Committees must file all reports and stat

ments simultaneously with the appropriate fede

and state officials. II CFR 108.5.

Filing with State Governments

o The principal campaign committees of Congre

sional candidates seeking nomination must fi

a copy of every report and statement with t

Secretary of State or the appropriate electio

official of the state in which the candida

seeks federal office. II CFR 108.3

o The principal campaign committees of Pre

idential candidates must file copies of repor

and statements with the Secretary of State 

the appropriate elections official of the state 

which the committee makes campaign expend

tures. These reports must contain all financi

transactions which apply to that state durin

the reporting period covered. 11 CFR 108.2.

Filing with the Federal Government

o The principal campaign committees of Hou

candidates and committees supporting or o

posing only House candidates file with t

Clerk of the House, Office of Records a

Registration, 1036 Longworth House Offi

Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. 11 CP

104.4(c)(3) and 105.1.

a 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

Hart Senate Office Building, Room 23

Washington, D.C. 20510. 11 CPR l04.4(c)(2) a

105.2.

o All other committees, including the princip

campaign committees of Presidential cand

dates, file with the Federal Election Comm

sion, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.

20463. 11 CFR 105.3 and 105.4

CHANGE IN FILING FREQUENCY

PACs and party committees which plan 

change their reporting schedule in 1988 (e.

from semiannually to monthly) must notify t

Commission by SUbmitting a letter with the Ja

uary report. A committee may not change 

filing frequency more than once a year. 11 CF

104.5(c). The FEC requests that President

committees also inform the Commission in wr

ing if they decide to change their reporting sche

ules.

January 31

January 31

January 31

January 31

Filing

Date

January 31

January 31

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

December 1

through

December 31

December 1

through

December 31

Beginning of

Federal

Election

Activity

through

December 31

Coverage

Period

October 1

through

December 31

July 1** through

December 31

July 1**

through

December 31

D:remter 1987

Authorized

Congressional

Committees

Newly

Registered

Committees*

Authorized

Presidential

Committees!

Quarterly

Unauthorized

Committees

Authorized

Presidential

Committees/

Monthly* **

Unauthorized

Committees!

Monthly* **

JANUARY REPORTING SCHEDULE

Type of Filer
Oe:::Ember 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMrvllSSION Volume 13, Numl:e

o PACs and party committees making contributions or expenditures in connection with House

and Senate races file reports and statements in

the state in which the candidate seeks election.

The law requires a copy of only that portion of

the report applicable to the candidatefs) campaigning in that state. Com mittees supporting

Presidential candidates must file in the state(s)

in which the Presidential com mittee and donor

committee have their respective headquarters.

REPORTING INTERNAL

COMMUNICATIONS BY CORPORATE.

LABOR AND MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act) and Commission Regulations, corporations" and labor organizations are permitted to

communicate with their respective "restricted

elasses't" * on any' subject, 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)

(A), 11 CFR 114.3(a). However, the Act requires

that costs incurred for communications which

expressly advocate the election or defeat of one

or more clearly identified candidates be reported

by the corporation or labor organization if the

costs exceed $2,000 for any election. Communications primarily devoted to subjects other than

express advocacy of the election or defeat of a

clearly identified candidate are not reportable. 2

"'The rules governing corporate activity apply

to a broad range of incorporated organizations:

national banks, corporations with capital stock

and incorporated membership organizations (including corporations without capital stocjc, incorporated trade associations and incorporated

cooperatives).

'It "'For purposes of these partisan communications, the restricted class of a corporation

includes its stockholders, executive and administrative personnel and their families. A labor

organization's restricted class includes its members, executive and administrative personnel and

their families. In the case of incorporated membership organizations, trade associations, cooperatives, and corporations without capital stock, the

restricted class includes their noncorporate members, executive and administrative personnel and

their families. (A trade association may also

direct partisan communications to individual representatives of member corporations with whom

the association normally conducts its activities.)

3

U.S.C. §43l(a)(B)(iii); 11 CFR lOO.8(b)(4) 

104.6(a).

The $2,000 threshold for reporting app

separately to each election process within a 

endar year (i.e., all primary elections, the gen

election and any special or runoff elections). 

CFR lOO.8(b)(4)(v) and 104.6(a)(1) and (2). E

corporation, each incorporated SUbsidiary 

each state and local chapter of a labor organ

tion has a separate $2,000 threshold. Theref

each entity need not report until the thresho

reached. 11 CFR lOO.8(b}(4)(i) and (vi).

Note that this reporting requirement is 

applicable to "polltical committees" as define

2 U.S.C. §431(4).

What Form to Use

Corporations and labor organizations requ

to file a report under these provisions should 

either FEC Form 7 or a letter containing 

same information. 11 CFR 104.6(a).

What Must be Reported

Each report filed under these provisions 

include the following for each communication

1. The type of communication (e.g., direct m

telephone or telegram).

2. The class or category communicated with (

members, stockholders or executive/adm

trative personnel).

3. The" date(s) of the communication.

4. Whether the communication is in support o

in opposition to, the candidate.

5. The name of the candidate, the office sou

the district and state of the office and whe

the communication was for the primary or 

general election.

6. The cost of the communication. 11 CFR 

(c).

NOTE: In the case of a communication w

advocates the election or defeat of more than 

candidate, the cost should be allocated among 

candidates according to the benefit they are 

pected to derive and should be reported acc

ingly.

When to Report

Organizations required to report under t

provisions must file quarterly reports durin

calendar year in which a regular-ly scheduled 

eral election is held. In addition, a 12-day 

general election report must be filed for act

in connection with any general election held 

ing an election year. Reports are required 

ginning with the first reporting period du

which the aggregate cost for communica

exceeds $2,000 per election and for each pe

thereafter in which the organization makes 

additional disbursements for advocacy comm

cations in connection with the same election

U.S.C. ~431(9)(B)(iii)j 11 CFR IOO.8(b)(4), 

and 114.3.
Ce::Bmter 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, NumOOr" 

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION

OF ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

AOR 1987-10: Contributions to Presidential

Primary Candidate's 1988

Campaign Used to Retire 1984

Presidential Campaign Debts

The requester withdrew the advisory opinion request in a letter of October 14, 1987.

AOR 1987-28: Party Expenditures

as Contributions to

Candidates or Operating

Expenditures

The requester withdrew the advisory opinion request in a letter of November 5, 1987.

ADVISORY 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.

AO 1987-26: Sponsoring Corporation's Use of

Abbreviated Name for PAC

The Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company (the

Company) may not change the official name of its

separate segregated fund (the PAC) from the

"Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company Federal Political Action Committee" to the "Pr-incipal Financial Group Federal Political Action

Committee," a name which incorporates the Company's new service mark, The name change is not

acceptable because the new name would not include the full name of the PAC's sponsoring

organization (l.e., the Company). 2 U.S.C. §432

(e)(5). Nor may the Company use the abbreviated

name, "Principal FEDPAC," for the PAC's letterhead and checks. The word "Principal" in "Principal FEDP AC" is not a clearly recognized abbreviation by which the Company is commonly known

and thus does not adequately inform the public

that the Company sponsors the PAC.

The Company may, however, identify the

PAC by using the abbreviated name, "Principal

4

Financial Group FEDPAC," on the PAC's chec

and letterhead. Since the Company. has used 

service mark, "Pr-incipal Financial Group," to p

mote its new corporate identity in both its ann

report and in the Standard and Poors Regist

this abbreviated name assures identification 

the Company as the PAC's sponsoring organi

tion. The Company must, however, include t

PAC's official name, along with its abbrevia

name, on all statements and reports filed with 

Commission and on all required disclosure notic

2 U.S.C. §432(e); 11 CFR 102.14(0); 109.3 a

110.1 L (Date issued: October 23, 1987; Leng

3 pages)

AO 1987-27: Services Provided to Presidential

Campaigns by Telephone

Companies

The Bell Atlantic Company (the Company) m

provide 1988 Presidential campaigns with Co

pany services to coordinate their needs for c

tain local and long distance telephone services 

any area of the United States. The Compan

services will not constitute prohibited in-k

contributions to the campaigns because the ca

paigns will adequately compensate the Compa

for the services. In the course of its regu

business, the Company provides its large c

tomers with account executives without impos

additional charges. Under a plan proposed by t

Company, it will not provide any other types 

services to the campaign as, for example, ca

paign consulting services. The proposed servic

will be offered to all Presidential campaigns on 

nonpartisan basis.

Services Provided; Terms

The Company, and its six regional compani

may enter into agreements with the President

campaigns. The agreements will significan

reduce the financial risks of providing services 

these special customers (e.g., inadequate accou

security and the lack of a meaningful deterrent 

nonpayment).

Under a Reciprocal Agreement, .a telepho

company chosen by the campaign will provide 

coordinator to centralize and service all the ca

paign's local and long distance telephone nee

For example, the coordinator will handle all t

campaign's requests for local services provided 

the other participating telephone companies a

consolidate all the campaign's telephone bills.

In return for the services of a coordinat

the campaign must agree to the terms of 

National Payment Agreement. Under the agre

ment, the campaign must:

1. Place all requests for services through specifi

agents of the campaign; 

2. Provide the amount of financial security r

quested by the coordinator and;
IJa::BmOOr" 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, NumOO

3. Pay consolidated bills submitted at least three

times a month, within 10 days of their submission.

The Act prohibits a corporation from making

contributions, including in-kind contributions of

services, in connection with federal elections. 2

U.S.C. S44lb(b)(2); 11 CFR 100.7(a)(l)(iii) and

114.1(a)(1). Goods and services provided by corporate vendors to a candidate may result in

prohibited contributions to the candidate's campaign if they are provided at less than the usual

and normal charge. Under the stringent terms of

the agreements made with the candidates, however, the Company will be assured of adequate'

compensation for providing the coordinating services and thus avoid making prohibited in-kind

contributions to the campaigns.

The Commission expressed no opinion concerning the possible ramifications of the Comparry's proposed plan on the Modificiation of Final

JUdgment in a court action involving the Company. Such issues are beyond the agency's jurisdiction. (Dated issued: October 30, 1987; Length:

5 pages)

NEW EDITIONS OF FEC BROCHURES

AVAILABLE

The Commission recently issued updated editions of three FEC brochures.

o Public Funding of Presidential Elections gives a

brief history of Presidential public funding and

describes, In layman's terms, how the process

works. It explains the ways individuals may

suppor-t- publicly funded candidates and the

various materials on Presidential campaign finance available from the Com mission.

o State Computer Access to FEC Data, revised to

reflect programmatic changes, describes an

FEC project that provides state election offices

with direct computer access to FEC campaign

finance information. (Eleven state offices are

currently participating in the project. In 1988,

fourteen additional state election offices will

begin to participate in the project.)

o Free PUblications, recently updated, describes

informational materials available from the FEC

and provides a convenient order form.

Copies of these brochures are available free

of charge. 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.

5

DCCC v. FEC

On October 23, 1987, the U.S. Cour

Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir

issued an opinion in Democratic Con ressi

Cam ai n Committee DCCC v. FEC No. 

5661 , which partially affirmed an earlier deci

by the U.S. District Court for the Distric

Columbia* .in the suit. The appeals court 

firmed the district court's ruling that the F

dismissal of an administrative complaint resul

from a deadlock vote on the merits of the c

plaint was subject to judicial review. Howe

since the appeals court lacked a Commis

explanation for the dismissal, it rejected 

district court's finding that the dismissal 

contrary to law. Instead, the court remanded 

suit to the district court with instructions 

the district court, in turn, remand the suit to 

Commissioners for an explanation of why 

voted to dismiss the complaint.

Background

This case arose when the DCCC, a nati

committee of the Democratic Party, filed 

with the district court in July 1986. The 

challenged the FEC's dismissal of an admini

tive complaint which DCCC had filed against 

National Republican Congressional Commi

(NRCC) in December 1985. In the administra

complaint, DCCC stated that newspapers 

reported that NRCC had spent $10,000 for m

ings to the Congressional district of Rep

Germain (D., R.I). DCCC stated that the mail

had encouraged recipients to petition the H

Ethics Committee to investigate newsp

charges that "Cong. St Germain has amasse

multimillion dollar personal fortune by using 

public position to help wealthy investors." DC

alleged that NRCC had failed to allocate 

$10,000 to NRCC's coordinated party spen

limits on behalf of its eventual candidate 

would challenge Congressman St Germain. DC

based its allegation on an FEC advisory opinio

had received concerning the issue of coordin

party expenditure limits.**

The General Counsel recommended the C

mission find "reason to believe" that the NR

had failed to allocate the mailing expense

coordinated party expenditures. However. 

contin

*The district court's decision in the suit 

summarized in the November 1986 Record, p. 

**Coordinated party expenditures are lim

expenditures which may be made by party c

mittees on behalf of federal candidates in gen

election campaigns.
December 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \.bIume 13, Numoo- 

June 5, 1986, the Commission deadlocked in its

vote on whether there was "reason to believe"

NRCC had violated the election law. Subsequently, by a unanimous vote, the Commission

closed the file on the complaint.

District Court Ruling

Initially, the court noted that, even though

the Commission's dismissal of the complaint had

resulted from its deadlock on the merits. of the

complaint, the DCCC still had "the right [under 2

U.S.C. 5437g(a)(8)] to seek review of an adverse

outcome."

The court went on to consider, the merits of

DCCC's complaint. The court concluded that the

"NRCC mailer conveys an 'electioneering message' as defined by the FEC's own advisory opinions and as interpreted by its General Counsel.

Thus the FEC's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint was 'contrary to law.'"

FEC Appeal

On July 16, 1987, the FEC filed an appeal of

the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (No.

86-5661). The FEC argued that "authoritative

legislative history..•dernonstrateldl that section

437g(a)(8) [of the election law] was not intended

to authorize judicial review" of the agency's dismissal of an administrative complaint which results from a deadlock vote on the merits of the

complaint.* Moreover, the FEC contended that

"...even apart from the controlling legislative

history of section 437g(a)(8), the courts have

traditionally found agency deadlocks that do not

resolve substantive issues to be inappropriate for

judicial review." The FEC further argued that the

district court should not have ruled on the merits

of DCCC's administrative complaint but should

have limited its role to determining whether the

FEC's dismissal of the complaint "could be rationally justified." The FEC claimed that "the district court's failure to limit its review to this

narrow question [ran] afoul of Congress's expressed intent not to 'work a transfer of prosecutorial

discretion from the Commission to the courts•• .'

and was therefore erroneous."

Appeals Court Ruling

The appeals court concurred with the district

court's finding that the FEC's dismissal of the

complaint in this case was subject to judicial

*(I)f the C~mmission considers a case and is

evenly divided as to whether to proceed, that

division. •• is not SUbject to review anymore than

a similar prosecutorial decision by a U.S. attorney." See legislative history of 2 U.S.C. Section

437g(a)(8)(A) at 125 CONG. REC. 36,754 (1979)

(emphasis added), reprinted in FEC, Le islative

Risto 0 the FECA Amendments 0 1 79, at

549.

6

review, but it rejected the lower court's ruli

that the FEC's dismissal of the complaint w

contrary to law.

To the contrary, the court found that "b

cause 5437g(a)(8)(A) provides broadly for cou

review of an FEC order dismissing a compla

••••we resist confining the judicial check 

cases in which••.the Commission 'actjs] on t

merits.'" The court further noted that the exp

nation of the provision in the legislative histo

occurred three years after Congress origina

enacted the provision. However, the court lim

ed its decision to the narrow circumstances pr

sented in the case, "specifically a general coun

recommendation to pursue the complaint in fid

ity to FEC precedent in point."

Furthermore, the appeals court did not agr

with the district court's resolution of the mer

of DCCC's administrative complaint. "Becau

we have no explanation why three Com missione

rejected or failed to follow the General Counse

recommendation; we are unable to say wheth

reason or caprice determined the dismissal 

DCCC's complaint," the court said. . The cou

therefore held that "the Commission or the indiv

duai Commissioners should first be afforded 

opportunity to say why DCCC's complaint w

dismissed in spite of the FEC's General Counse

recom mendation,"

NRA v. FEe

On October 19, 1987, the U.S. District Cou

for the District of Columbia dismissed a suit 

which the National Rifle Association of Ameri

(NRA) challenged the FEC's dismissal of an a

ministrative complaint, which NRA had file

against Handgun Control Inc. (HCI). (NRA 

FEC; Civil Action No. 86-2285) The court foun

that NRA's administrative complaint constitute

an untimely appeal of an earlier FEC decisio

See 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(B).

Background

NRA's suit challenged the FEC's dismissal 

NRA's third administrative complaint alleging v

olations of the election law by Handgun Contr

Inc. (HCI), an incorporated membership organiz

tion that supports restrictions on gun ownershi

All three of NRA's administrative complain

challenged HCI's status as a membership organ

zation under the election law.

The first administrative complaint resulted 

a conciliation agreement with the FEC in whic

HCI was required to: I) reconstitute itself as 

membership organization and 2) pay a $15,00

civil penalty. In its second and third administr

tive complaints; NRA alleged that HCI: I) ha

not complied with the conciliation agreement an

2) had violated section 441b(b)(4)(A)(i) of the ele

tion law by soliciting contributions to its' separa
DEa3mter 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 'vOlume 13, NumOOr 

segregated fund from individuals who were not

HCI members.

In dismissing NRA's second administrative

complaint, the FEC found that HCI qualified as a

membership organization, even though it had improperly applied the membership requirements retroactively to past contributors. With respect to

NRA's third administrative complaint, the FEC

found that the allegations were virtually identical

to those raised in NRA's second complaint. Consequently, the agency dismissed the third complaint.

In its suit, NRA asked the court to: 1) declare

that the FEcrs dismissal of its third administrative complaint was contrary to law and 2) issue an

order directing the FEC to initiate enforcement

proceedings against HCI within 30 days of the

court's order.

The FEC argued that, under section 437g(a)

(8)(B) of the election law, a party challenging the

agency's dismissal of an administrative complaint

must file suit within 60 days after the date of

dismissal. NRA did not petition for review of the

FEe's dismissal of its second administrative complaint within the statutory time period. Instead,

NRA reasserted its previously dismissed claim in

a third administrative complaint which, the FEC

contended, amounted to nothing more than an

attempt to obtain review beyond the 60-day period.

In dismissing NRA's suit, the court concurred

with the FEC: "Regardless of how one would

characterize the record herein, it is apparent that

the issues and facts in all three complaints are

SUbstantially similar. More importantly, however,

it is clear that plaintiff failed to appeal the

defendant's decision in the second complaint within the time-period allowed by law."

On October 26, 1987, NRA filed an appeal of

the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

FEC v; HARVEY FURGATCH

On October 5, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court

denied Mr. Harvey Furgatch's petition for a Writ

of Certiorari in a suit brought against Mr. Furgatch by the FEC. (FEC v. Furgatch; Civil Action

No. 87-108) In April 1987, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had denied Mr.

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

decision in the suit. The appeals court had 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. Furgateh's

failure to report as independent expenditures his

payments for newspaper ads expressly advocating

President Jimmy Carter's defeat in the 1980 gen7

era! election and 2) his failure to state in one 

the ads that the communication was not auth

ized by a candidate or a candidate's committ

For a summary of the appeals court's decision, 

page 5 of the March 1987 Record.

NEW LITIGATION

DCCC v. FEC (Suit Two)

The Democratic Congressional Campa

Committee (DCCC), a national committee of 

Democratic Party, asks the district court to:

o Declare that the FEe acted contrary to law 

failing to act on an administrative compla

within 120 days after DCCC had filed 

complaint on April 28, 1987; and

a Issue an order directing the FEC to act 

issues raised in the administrative compla

within 30 days of the court's decision. (See 

U.S.C. §437g{a){8)(A).)

In papers filed with the court, DCCC sta

tha t its administrative complaint alleged v

lations of the election law by a political comm

tee and various individuals who had establish

two "purportedly nonpartisan tax-exempt corp

ations" to serve their "broad political purpose

(DCCC states that the respondents were the pr

ident and board members of the Sentinel, 

National Endowment for the Preservation of L

erty (NEPL) and the American Conservat

Trust, a political committee registered with 

FEC.)

Specifically, DCCC claims in this suit t

its administrative complaint presented eviden

that respondents had sponsored media ads whi

1) were designed to solicit voter opposition 

Democratic House candidates in the 1986 gene

elections and 2) were targeted to certain C

gressional districts. DCCC complained that, 

their efforts to defeat Democratic candidates, 

spondents had violated the election law by fail

to comply with:

o The prohibition on the use of general corpor

funds to influence the outcome of federal el

tions;

o The reporting requirements for contributio

and expenditures; and

o The applicable contribution limits.

DCCC further said that the respondents h

also failed to register NEPL and Sentinel 

political committees or, alternatively, to est

lish a separate segregated fund for each organi

tion.

U.S. District Court for the District 

Columbia, Civil Action No. 87-2793, October 

1987.
D:u3mOOr 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \t>Iume 13, Numb:!

This cumulative index lists advisory opinions

court cases and 800 Line articles published in th~ Record during 1987. The first number in the

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

Record. is.sue; 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: Effect 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 official 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

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

1987-11: Use of excess campaign funds, 8:2

1987-12.:. Transfer of funds from state campaign

committee to federal campaign committee, 9:3

1987-13: Trade association's solicitation of contributions, 8:2

1987-14: National Bank's SSF supporting only

state and local candidates, 8:3

·1987 -15: Relationship between authorized Presi-

. dential committee and delegate committees, 9:4

1987-16: Transfers from state campaign committee to federal campaign committee, 8:3

1987-17: Combined membership dues and contribution on billing statement, 8:3

1987-18: PAC matches employee contributions

with commodity charitable donations, 8:4

1987-21: Effect of corporate reorganization on

PAC and proposed new PAC, 9:4

8

1987-22: Polling data provided to federal can

dates by corporate polling firm, 10:1

1987-23: PAC's acceptance of contributions fr

state committee, 9:5 

1987-24: Incorporated hotel chain may prov

complimentary items to federal candidates, 1

1987-25: Volunteer services conducted by fore

national, 10:2

1987-26: Sponsoring corporation's use 

abbreviated name for PAC, 12:4

1987-27: Services provided to Presiden

campaigns by telephone company, 12:4

COURT CASES

FEC v,

-Amerlcan-s-Cor Jesse Jackson, 2:9; 8:9

-Bank One, 7:5

-Barry, 4:7

-Batts, Committee to Elect, 10:6

-Beatty for Congress, 3:6

-Citizens for the President '84, 6:6

-Citizens Party, 1:8; 2:8; 9:6

-Clark, 2:8

-CRT, 9:8

-Dominelli, 3:5; 6:6

-Furgatch, 3:5; 6:6; 12:7

-Haley, Ted, Committee, 5:6

-Halter and AIDS, 4:7

-MCFL, 2:4

-NCPAC, 7:5

-NOW, 10:6

-Pryor for Congress, 6:6

- Robichaux, 2:9

-Roeha, 9:6

-Rose, Congressman, 2:7

-Sailor' Union of the Pacific

Political Fund, 11:6

-1984 Victory Fund. 3:6

v, FEC

-Common Cause, fourth suit. 2:6; fifth sui

2:9; sixth suit, 9:6; eighth suit, 10:6 

-DCCC, 12:5; suit two, 12:7

-Furgatch, second suit, 6:6

-Glenn Presidential Committee, 9:6

-NRA, 12:6

-Spannaus, 10:6

-Stark, Congressman, 6:6; 10:6; second sui

9~ 

800 LINE

After the election: winding down, 3:9

Personal financial reports 5:7

Honoraria, 8:9 '

Reporting a new treasurer, 9:9

Single-candidate committees, 10:4

Corporate/Labor Internal Communications, 12:
Ca:ember 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Number 

FEe RELEASES 1988 PRESIDENTIAL

REPORT

Democratic and Republican Presidential primary candidates active in the 1987-88 Presidential election cycle raised over $70 million for

their campaigns through September 30, 1987.

These candidates spent a total of $55 million

during the same period.

These figures, which are derived from an

FEC computer-generated sum mary of Presidential

activity, appeared in a report released on October

CHART I

RECEIPTS OF

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES

THROUGH 9/30/87

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

23, 1987. In addition to graphically depicting t

campaign activity of the major party candidat

the report provides comparative figures for 19

and 1984 Presidential campaign activity. Figu

in the report have been adjusted for contributi

refunds, loan repayments and any refunds or r

bates received by the campaigns.

Chart I below depicts the receipts of ma

party candidates. Chart II on pages 10 and 

shows the spending by each candidate's campai

on a state-by-state basis. The maps allow reade

to identify those states in which candidates ha

concentrated early campaign spending.

To obtain a copy of the report, call t

Public Records Office: 202/376-3140 or, toll fre

800/424-9530.

Babbitt

Biden

Dukakis

Gephardt

Gore

Hart

Jackson

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

Bush

Dole

DuPont

Haig

Kemp

Laxalt

Robertson

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Millions of Dollars

9

9 10 11 12 13
Decernber 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Numt€

CHARTll

STATE-BY-STATE SPENDING

OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES

THROUGH 9/30/87*

!IDIl] Spending of $5,000 or More

Bush

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

Dole

DuPont Haig

Kemp

10

Robertson
· ~DecemOOr 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

Babbitt O"'s

Gephardt

Jackson Simon

"Data for different campaigns may not be comparable. Although FEe Regulations require state-b

state allocation of money spent for campaign expenses (e.g., media, staff, equipment), each campaig

employs its own method for determining the distribution of those expenses. Certain expenditures m

not be allocated to any state, since they are more closely related to the campaign's national effor

Thus, a highly centralized campaign, with a large national staff, might report a smaller proportion of i

operating expenses as allocable to given states than a decentralized campaign.

11
:~ .....

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume 13, Numoo

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street,NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31