• 

• 

• 

THE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

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

Volume 5, Number 3 

Under this heading, the Record periodically summarizes 

new developments of general interest to candidates for 

Federal office and committees which support such candi· 

dates. 

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM 

UNREGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS 

The Federal Election Campaign Act and Commission 

Regulations permit candidates and oommittees to accept 

contributions from an unregistered organization which 

has not made contributions or expenditures in excess of 

$1,000 during the calendar year in connection with Federal 

elections. In accordance with procedures adopted by the 

Commission on February 8, 1979 (Directive No. 19), candi· 

dates and committees are reminded of their responsibility 

to determine whether or not a contribution from an unregistered organization is permissible. Any candidate or com~ 

mittee accepting contributions from unregistered organizations must assume the responsibility for determining that: 

1. The contributions originally came from permissible 

sources (i.e., not union or corporate treasuries, etc.); 

and 

2. The contributions to the unregistered organization were: 

· a. Designated for the Federal account of that organiza· 

tion; or 

b. Received as a result of a solicitation which expressly 

stated that the contributions would be used for 

Federal elections; or 

c. Received from contributors who had been informed 

that all contributions are subject to the contribution 

and expenditure limitations of 2 U.S. C. §441a. 

Further information can be obtained by calling the Reports 

Analysis Division in Washington 202/523-4048 or, toll free, 

800/424·9530. 

March 197

ILLEGIBLE REPORTS 

On January 18, 1979, the Commission approved 

procedure which would require the refiling of all illegible 

barely legible reports. Filers must submit legible reports, 

they can be reproduced clearly -- a necessary requireme

for public disclosure of campaign finance information. 

In the future, if an illegible report is received, the Comm

sion will contact the filer by telephone or telegram, a

request the immediate refiling of a legible copy of t

report. Candidates and political committees are urged 

respond quickly. If a legible report is not refiled prompt

the Commission will make a formal Request for Addition

Copy (RFAC). 

The Commission adopted this procedure after period

staff checks revealed an increase in the filing of second 

third generation photocopies, telecopies, computer pri

outs and other non-reproducible reports. 

Candidates and committees can obtain all FEC form

for registration and reporting purposes, by contacting t

Office of Public Communications, Federal Election Co

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

by telephoning 202/523·4068 in Washington or, toll·fr

800/424·9530. 

NEW FORMS FOR 

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 

The FEC has prescribed a new form for Presidential a

Vice·Presiqential candidates and their committees. Th

must report campaign finance activity on FEC Form 

and its appropriate accompanying schedules. In additi

Presidential principal campaign committees must use F

Form 3Pb to consolidate reports by any authorized co

mittees, and FEC Form 3Pc to allocate expenditures 

State, if they use public funds. 

continu
Copies Qf F;otm 3)> will pe mailed to all registered Presiden· 

tial candidates and their committees. Questions on the new 

form or request'stor copies of Form 3P and all other FEC 

·forms should be directed to the Office of Public Communi· 

cations, Federal Election .. Commission, 1325.K Street, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20463; or telephone toll free 800/424· 

9530or in Washington call 202/523-4068. 

PENDING ADVISORY 

OPINION REQUESTS 

The following chart lists Advisory Opinion Requests 

(AOR's), with a brief description of the subject matter, the 

date the requests wer.e made public and the number of 

pages of each request. The fuil text of each AOR is avail' 

able to the public in the Commission's Office of Public 

Records. 

Date Made 

AOR Subject Public 

1979·1 Personal liability .for .1/8/79 

campaign debts. 

1979·2 Reimbursement for expeil- 1/15/79 

ditures by political committee. 

-··- -_c,-- ..... 

1979·3 Use of contributor lists 1/12/79 

for solicitations. 

1979-4 Transfer of unidentifiable 1/16/79 

funds to separate segregated 

fun_d . .. 

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES 

No. of 

Pages 

2 

2 

4 

Designated as AO's, Advisary Opinions discuss the 

appliCiltion of the Act or Commission's regulations .to 

sPeCifiC factual Sit~~tiOns. Any qualified person requesting 

an Advisory .Opinion who in good faith acts .in accordance 

with the opinion' wiifnot be subject to any sanction under 

the Act. The opinion may also be relied upon by any other 

person involved in a specific transaction Which is Jndistinguishable in all material aspects from the activity dis· 

~U$_Sed:·)n the Advisory Opinion. Those seeking guidance for 

their ·awn activity should consult the full text of an 

Advisory Opinion and not rely only on the summary given 

h~re. 

A0'1978-86: Conversion to 

Multicandidate Committee 

The Church·for President Committee (the Committee), the 

principal campaign committee of Frank Church, in his bid 

:for the PreSiaerii:y, will become a qualified multicandidate 

-committe·e as.so6nc: as -it has made contributions to- five or 

·more candidates-for Federal office. Upon satisfaction of 

that requirement; the Committee may oontribute up 

to $5,000 per election to any candidate. (and/or his/her 

authorized committees combined). 

2 

The Commission based its conclusion on the fact that 

Committee has already fulfilled the other two (of the thr

prerequisites for qualification as a multican<;lidate comm

tee under 2 U.S. C. §441a(a)(4) since: 

1. It has been registered with the FEC for more than 

months; and 

2. It has received _contributions fro~ more tha_n 50 perso

(Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1978-89: Use of Slate Card Exemption 

Two publications distributed respectively by two Repu

can town committees in New York (the Town Committe

are not permissible under the slate card exemption

U.S. C. § §431 (e)(5)(E) and 431 (f)(4){G). Payments by 

Town Committees for the publications (a pamphlet an

letter} would constitute, -in part, an in-kind contribution 

the Withers for Congress Committee (the Withers Comm

tee). 

The Commission concluded that the two publications 

not fall within the slate card exemption because: 

1. They contain biographical information on the vari

local, State and Federal candidates other than t

allowed under the statute; 

2. They outline the candidates' positions on specific iss

3. They include statements of party philosophy; 

4. The letter solicits contributions on behalf of the nam

Federal candidate, which is not permissible under 

slate card exemption. 

Since Commission regulations preclude the Town Comm

tees from making independent expenditures in cOnnec

with the campaign of a Federal candidate (11 C

110.7(b){4)) and because the expenditures for the publ

tions do not app-ear to haye been "coordinated pa

expenditures" made pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §441a(d), 

allocable portion of the payments for the publicati

would be considered an in-kind contributfon tO the With

Committee. (Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1978·97: Solicitations for 

Separate Segregated Fund 

A magazine published by the National Association of Po

Supervisors (NAPS), which is circulated to NAPS memb

and approximately 1,000 nonmembers (representing th

percent of the circulation), may contain solicitati

for, and articles ·about, NAPS' separate segregated fu

This conclusion is based on the fact that NAPS intends: 

1. To publish, along with each solicitation or article ab

its separate segregated fund (the Supervisors Polit

Action. Committee), an explicit caveat stating t

contributions from nonmembers are not acceptable 

will be returned; and 

2. To screen and· return ·contributions received fr

anyone not solicitable under 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4). 

Under these circumstances, the proposed communicati

will not be viewed as solicitations directed to persons w

may not be solicited. (Length: 4 pages) 
• 

• 

• 

A<i 1978·9.8: Clearing Account for 

Separate Segregated Funds 

Plumbers Union Local 690 Political Action and Social Fund 

(the Fund) may use a clearing account for the deposit and 

negotiation of checks which combine employees' union 

dues with their political contributions. 

Under the Fund's procedures, union members make both 

voluntary contributions to the Fund and paymentsto the 

union (e.g., dues, pension, etc.) through payroll checkoff 

plans administered by employers. Employers remit payroll 

deductions to the union in a single check issued monthly. 

The union maintains a clearing account 'to receive and 

separate the proceeds of the checks, as follows: political 

contributions are segregated from other union monies and 

sent to the Fund; union monies are forwarded to the union. 

The Commission based its approval of the clearing account 

procedure on the following assumptions: 

1. For reporting purposes, the Treasurer of the Fund is 

considered to have received contributions at the moment 

an employee or representative of the union receives the 

checks combining dues payments and voluntary contributions to the Fund. 

2. The 10-day deposit period begins to run when the union 

representative receives the check from the employer. 

By the tenth day after the union's receipt of the employer's check, a separate check must be drawn on the 

clearing account and deposited into a separate checking 

account maintained by the Fund at a bank despository 

designated by the Fund. (Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1978-99: Allocation of Debt Between 

Primary and General Elections 

The Citizens for Dale Sprik Committee (the Committee) 

may treat the entire debt for printed campaign materials as 

a primary debt, even though they were used during both 

the primary _and general elections. This conclusion is 

based on the fact that the materials in question were 

ordered and received before the August 8 primary and the 

invoice for the materials also predated the primary. 

The Commission noted that the invoice constitutes an 

expenditure in the nature of a "written contract, promise 

or agreement ... to make an expenditure." 2 U.S.C. 

§431 (f)(2). 

If the Committee chooses to treat the debt as a primary 

election debt, it may accept contributions designated for 

the primary to liquidate the debt from those who may have 

exhausted their contribution limit with respect to the 

general election, but have not yet exhausted their limit 

with respect to the primary. (The fact that the candidate 

was unopposed in the primary is irrelevant for contribution 

purposes.) In this case, however, the debt must be ide

tified on Schedule C of Form 3 as a primary election deb

(Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1978·100: Excess Campaign Funds 

The Committee to Reelect Senator Case may· use exce

campaign funds to assist Rutgers University in the est

blishment of a professorship in public affairs in th

Senator's name. The contribution of excess campaign fun

to qualified charitable organizations is expressly ma

lawful by 2 U.S. C. §439a. 

The Commission noted that it was ·unabre· 'tO. express 

opinion regarding possible tax ramifications or the app

cability of Senate Rules since those issues are not within 

jurisdiction. (Length: 2 pages) 

ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITION OF 

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS 

Since January 1979, the Commission has respondedt

the following Advisory Opinion Reque.sts. ·i·n "a manne

other than the issuance of an Advisory Opinion. 

.. AOR 1978-103 was withdrawn by itsrequester.~ 

AUDITS RELEASED 

TO THE PUBLIC 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires the Com

mission ", .. to make from time to time audits and fie

investigations with respect to reports and statements fil

under the Act.'' The Commission is ~1$0 required to co

duct audits of all campaigns of Presidential candidates wh

reCeive public funds. Once an audit is cOmPieteCf ~n

an audit report is approved. by ·the Commission, the ·rePo

is made public and is available in the Office of Pub

Records and the Press Office. The following is a chron

logical listing of audits released between January 2, 197

and February 2, 1979. 

Audits 

1. Arkansas R,epubl ican Party Federal 

Campaign Committee 

2. David Crane for Congress Committee, 

IN/6 

3. Fund for a Conservative Majority 

c 

Date Ma

Public 

2/2/79 

2/2/79 

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

missioners are: Joan D. Aikens, Chairman; Robert 0. Tiernan, Vice Chairman; Thomas E. Harris; John W •. McGarry; 

William L. Springer; Vernon W. Thomson; J,S. Kimmitt, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 523-4068 or toll free 800/424-9530. 

3 
NEIL STAEBLER et al. v. 

JIMMY CARTERet al. 

On January 8, 1979, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia granted defendant Jimmy Carter's 

motion for summary judgment and upheld the President's 

recess appointment of John McGarry to the Federal Election Commission. 

The action against President Carter was filed last October 

by former FEC Commissioner Neil Staebler. Mr. Staebler, 

whose term of office expired in April 1977, still held the 

seat (under the holdover provisions of 2 U.S.C. 

§437c(a)(2)(B)) to which Carter appointed Mr. McGarry 

on October 25, 1978. After the Senate had twice failed 

to act on Mr. McGarry's nomination, the President appointed him to the Commission during last. year's congressional 

recess. 

Mr. Staebler challenged the appointment on the grounds 

that: 

-- A vacancy occurs on the Commission, not at the close of 

the statutory term, but upon the lawful appointment of 

a successor. 

-- A successor is lawfully appointed only when he is 

nominated by the President and confirmed by the 

Senate. 

The Court determined that neither the statutory language 

nor the legislative history of the Act supported these 

premises. 

-- The Court interpreted 2 U.S.C. §437c(a)(2)(C) to mean 

that "a vacancy shall occur upon the expiration of the 

term of office." In the case of Mr. Staebler, then, a 

vacancy existed since April 30, 1977, the date upon 

which his term expired. 

-- In the view of the Court, moreover, there is no support 

for the argument that Congress intended to prohibit 

some or all recess appointments to the F EC. 

The Court concluded that a vacancy did exist, the President 

· had the authority to make the McGarry appointment, and 

that Mr. McGarry is a lawful member of the Federal Election Commission. 

This case, the Court noted, involved not only the interests 

of the defendant and plaintiff, but also the proper distribution of power between the branches of government. 

Under the plaintiff's interpretation, it would be possible for 

a member of a Commission, once appointed and confirmed, 

to remain in office indefinitely. As long as the Senate did 

not act, either to confirm the nomination of a successor 

or to bring a nomination to a vote, the President would be 

powerless to protect the powers of appointment granted to 

him by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. 

4 

This argument is "especially compelling," the deci

pointed out, when applied to the "pc;>litically sensit

FEC. By providing the Senate with.de facto authorit

retain appointed officeholders long beyond the expira

of their statutory terms, plaintiff's interpretation w

facilitate the legislative domination of the FEC, which 

Supreme Court condemned in Buckley v. Valeo. 

Court pointed out, however, that had the Senate reje

Mr. McGarry's nomination, the President would have b

"unable to grant a recess appointment to McGarry:" 

Mr. Staebler appealed the decision. 

SOCIALIST WORKERS 

PARTYv. FEC 

On January 2, 1979, a three-judge panel in the 

District Court for the District of Columbia approv

consent decree in a suit by the Sociali.st Workers P

(SWP) against the FEC and Common Cause (which 

intervened as co-defendant). In the consent decree the t

parties agreed that, for a limited time, SWP would no

required to comply with certain disclosure provision

the Act. Until the close of the FEC's reporting period 

1984, SWP will not be required to report the na

addresses and occupations of individuals who contrib

$100 or more to SWP, or to identify recipients of 

expend it~ res. 

SWP had filed suit against the Commission in July 1

alleging that specific sections of the Act deprived SWP 

its supporters of certain First Amendment rights. 

decree noted that SWP and those connected with it "

been subjected to systematic harassment." Citing 

standard for the potential unconstitutional applicatio

the disclosure provisions set forth in a 1976 Supreme C

decision (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1), the decree s

that SWP had demonstrated at least "a reasonable prob

ity that the compelled disclosure" of names of its co

butors and recipients of its expenditures would continu

"subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals 

either government officials or private parties." (Buckl

Valeo, 424 U.S. at 74). Consequently, the defend

concurred, without necessarily agreeing to all the 

presented, that SWP should not constitutionally be 

pelled to comply with the reporting requirements of 

Act which require identification of individuals. 

The decree also provided that: 

-- SWP must file all reports required by the Act, ex

that contributors and recipients of expenditures 

not be identified. 

-- SWP must maintain all records required by the Ac

that all information normally required to be report

available. If the FEC has reason to believe that SWP 

violated any provision 6f the Act other than the 

closure requirements and that the nondisclosed info

tion is needed to investigate the suspected viola

the F EC may apply to the Court for an order to req

SWP to produce the information. 

contin
• 

• 

• 

-- In addition to the notice required on all literature and· 

advertisements under 2 U.S.C. §435(b), SWP may add 

the following: "A Federal court ruling allows us not to 

disclose the names of _contributors in order -to protect 

their First Amendment rights." 

The procedural disagreement between defendants and 

plaintiff, focusing on the duration of the decree and the 

mechanism by which it'-could be extended, wa·S resolved so 

that: 

-- The p.rovisions of the decree will remain in force until 

the end of the reporting period for 1984. 

-- Six months prior to that date, SWP can file for an 

extension. 

- If SWP does request an extension, the FEC must respond 

to the request three month.s prior to the expiration date 

of the current decree. 

MINORITY LANGUAGE REPRESENTATIVES 

ADDED TO ADVISORY PANEL 

On January 25, 1979, the Commission approved the 

addition of two minority language representatives to the 

full Advisory Panel of the Clearinghouse. The two new 

representatives, nominated · by the Bilingual Advisory 

Committee and recommended by Clearinghouse Director 

Gary Greenhalgh, are Mr. AI Perez and Mr. Henry Der. 

Mr. Der, Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative 

Action (the largest Asian language group in the U.S.), 

has worked closely with local elections officials in New 

York and San Francisco. Mr. Perez, General Counsel of 

the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, has dealt 

extensively with elections officials in Texas, California, 

Arizona and New Mexico. 

ADVISORY PANEL MEETS, 

SPONSORS SEMINAR 

Between January 29-31, 1979, the FEC's National 

Clearinghouse on Election Administration sponsored a 

seminar to discuss regional workshops and projects dealing 

with State and local election administration. FEC Chairman 

Joan Aikens, Vice Chairman Robert 0. Tiernan and Staff 

Director Orlalldo B. Potter addressed the opening session of 

tlie seminar, which was held in Washington, D.C. 

During the course of the meeting, the 22 members of the 

Advisory Panel discussed plans for regional workshops, 

which will include Statewide Voter Registration Systems, 

Redistricting and Reprecincting, Training Election and Poll 

Workers, and Bilingual Election and Registration Services, 

among others. The Committee also reviewed the progress of 

several ongoing projects including the Registration File 

Maintenance and Verification Advisory Board, and the 

Training Election Officials Advisory Board. All sessions 

were open to the public. 

5 

This was the first meeting of the Clearinghouse Advis

Committee this year, an~. the seventh since its creation 

the FEC in 1975. 

FEC PUBLIC APPEARANCES 

In keeping with its objective of making informa

tion available io the public, the Federal Electio

Commission regularly accepts invitations for it

representatives to address public gatherings o

the subject of campaign finance laws and the Com

mission itself. This regular column lists schedule

Commission appearances, detailing the name of th

sponsoring organization, the location of the even

and _the Commission's representative. 

3/5 International Franchise Association 

Washington, D.C. 

Peggy McCormick, Executive Assistant 

to Commissioner Harris 

3/7 15th Annual Washington Nonprofit 

Tax Conference 

Washington, D.C. 

Chairman Joan Aikens 

3/7 Association of Counties 

Austin, Texas 

Gary Greenhalgh, Director, 

National Clearinghouse 

3/9 Practising Law Institute 

San Francisco, California 

Chairman Joan Aikens 

Jan Baran, Executive Assistant 

to the Chairman 

William Oldaker, General Counsel 

3/9 State Elections Board Regional 

Planning Committee 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Gary Greenhalgh, Director, 

National Clearinghouse 

3/20 American Farm Bureau 

Denver, Colorado 

Jan Baran, Executive Asssitant 

to Chairman Aikens 

3/22 American Farm Bureau 

Memphis, Tennessee 

Chairman Joan Aikens 

3/27 American Farm Bureau 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

Chairman Joan Aikens 
FEC REPORTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY 

OF NONPARTY POLITICALCOIVIMITTEES 

On January 24, 197.9;· the F EC released updated figure~ 

detailing the financial activities of 1,910 nonparty political. 

com:rl,)ittees. These _committ8e"S_.'a're sepa~ate segr8gated 

funds establ.i.shed by labor organizations, corporations, 

cc;>~Poration_s without stock, coope_rativ~s. trade, membership or health aSso.c·iati9~_S,, and political committees vyith 

no connected (parent) organization. · 

The interim summary :covering a 23-month period from 

January 1, 1977, through November 27, 1978, includes 

receipts and disbursements as well as debt status and 

cash·on·hand figures .. While summary .or gross ·information 

is complete through ·the· closing date of the 30-day post· 

general election period (November 27, 1978), itemize

information (including contributions to candidates :an

tranfers ·between affiliated committees) is complete on

through the closing date of the 1 0-day pre-general ·electio

period (October 23, 1978). Thus, adjusted disbursemen

(gross disbursements minus transfers out to affiliate

political committees) are neither true gross nor true n

figures, since transfers out to affiliated committees mad

after October 23,.1978 are not included. · 

The current summary supersedes figures contained in fo

previous interim releases of March, April, September an

November 1978 and summarized, respectively, in the Apr

June, November and December 1978 issues of the Recor

The table below, based on the interim summary, outline

the financial aCtivity of six major types of political comm

tees. All figures,with the exception of the number of activ

committees, represent millions of dollars. 

NOTE: The figures contained in the release are not fina

but are subject to change after all the 1977-78 relate

reports and ·amendments have been received. 

NONPARTY POLITICAL COMMITTEES' FINANCIAL ACTIVITY, 

JANUARY 1, 1977- NOVEMBER 27, 1978 

COMMITTEE TYPE 

· (Number ACtive) 

Trade/Membership/Health 

(529) 

Labor 

(275) 

No Connected 

.Organization. (257). 

Corporations 

(812) 

Cooperatives 

. (12) 

Corporations Without 

·Stock (25) 

TOTALS 

(1,910 committees 

active in 1977-78) 

· ADJUSTED 

DISBURSEMENTS 

. $23.6 

18.7 

16.1 

14.9 

1.9' 

.4 

$75.6* 

'. 

. , 

By Office 

Senate House 

$2.4 $8.3 

2.6 6.7 

.6 1.6 

3.2 5.6 

.2 .6 

.03 .1 

$9.0 $23.0 

. . 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES 

By Party Affiliation By Status 

Dem. Rep Incumbent Challenger Open Sea

$4.7 $8.0 $8.6 $1.9 $2.2 

8.8 .. 5 5.7 2.0 1.7 

.6 1.6 .7 .9 .6 

3.4 5.4 5.4 1.8 1.6 

.6 .2 .6 .1 .1 

.1 .04 .08 .01 .03 

$18.2 $13.7. $19.1 $8.7 . $6.2 

*sPending figures include fundraising and administrative costs in addition to contributions to Ca-ndidates: 

6 
• 

• 

• 

UPDATE ON 1977,78 SENATE 

AND HOUSE CAMPAIGNS 

On January 30, 1979, the Federal Election Commission 

released figures which show that 1,921 Senate and House 

candidates raised $198.5 million and spent $192.2 million. 

(NOTE: All gross receipt and disbursement totals have been 

adjusted to eliminate transfers of funds between filers 

within the same campaign.) The· release summarizes the 

financial activities of Federal candidates who were· regis· 

tered with the FEC and were certified by appropriate State 

authorities as official candidates in any 1977·78 election .. 

primary run-off, convention/caucus, general election 

and special elections. Also included is a separate summary 

of 1 ,078 November 1978 general election candidates. 

Data was taken from reports filed by the candidates and 

their committees covering the period from January 1, 1977, 

through November 27, 1978. However, itemized informa· 

tion (for example, the categories and levels of contributions 

received) is complete only through October 23, 1978 .. the 

ending coverage date of the 10-day pre-general election 

report. Figures presented in the release are interim and will 

be updated after all 1977·78 reports and amendments have 

been received. 

The interim summary categorized the campaigns' receipts 

and disbursements in the following ways: 

BY TYPE OF CANDIDATE (SENATE AND HOUSE): 

Senate candidates (257) received $83.3 million and 

spent $82.6 million. House. candidates (1,664) received 

$115.2 million and spent $109.6 million. 

BY STATUS OF CANDIDATE (INCUMBENT, 

CHALLENGER, OPEN SEAT): 

Incumbents (414) raised $78.6 million and spent $74 

million. Challengers (986) raised $60.2 million and spent 

$59.9 million. Open seat campaigns (521 candidates in 

races where no incumbent was running) raised $59.7 

million and spent $58.3 million. 

BY PARTY AFFILIATION: 

Democratic candidates (998) received $106 million and 

spent $101.3 million. Republican candidates (694) received 

$91.1 million and spent $89.5 million. Minor party candi· 

dates and independents (229) raised $1.4 million and spent 

that amount. · 

BY ELECTION: 

November 1978 general election candidates (1 ,078) 

received $156.6 million and spent $150.6 million. Based on 

available data, the average amount spent during 1977·78 by 

111 Senate candidates was $570,000, while 967 House 

candidates averaged $90,000. . 

The release also provides details on contributions to 

1977·78 House and Senate campaigns, categorizing them by 

amount and source. 

The releases on Nonparty Political Committees and the 

1977·78 Senate and House Campaigns are available, in their 

entirety, from the Press Office, 202/5234065. 

7 

With the approach of the 1980 Presidential primary a

general elections, the Public Communications Office h

been receiving an increasing ·number· of inquiries regardir

public financing. Accordingly, the .Record will publish 

series of brief artiCleS Suillm8riziilg. those ~ections of' t

Act and Regulations governing public financing. The iriii

article, reprinted from the Commission's brochure on T

FEC and The Federal Campaign Finance Law, provides 

overview of the public financing provisions. 

PUBLIC FINANCING 

The FEC administers public financing of President

elections by certifying: 

.. Matching payments to primary candidates;· 

-- Public grants to nominees in· the general election; a

·· Public grants to the national party committees for th

nominating conventions. 

Public financing is provided through the Presidential El

tion Campaign Fund which consists of dollars volunta~i

checked off by taxpayers on their Federal income t

returns. (The check-off does.not affect the total amount 

taxes paid by an individual or any refund receive

Requests for public funds are reviewed for eligibility a

certified by the FEC to the Department of Treasury, whi

in turn disburses the public funds. 

PRIMARY MATCHING PAYMENTS 

Eligible Presidential primary candidates may recei

public funds to match small contributions of mon

(up to $250 paid by check or money order) from priva

contributors. (Loans, in-kind contributions and contrib

tions from committees are not matchable.) To be eligib

for matching payments, a candidate must first raise 

excess of $5,000 in contributions of $250 or less fro

individuals in 20 different States and must agree to lim

expenditures to $10 million plus a cost-of·living adju

ment (CO LA). 

GENERAL ELECTION GRANTS 

Each major party Presidential nominee becomes eligi

for a public grant of $20 million (plus COLA) for ca

paigning in the general election. The candidate must lim

expenditures to that amount and may not accept a

private contributions for the general election except fo

special account maintained exclusively to pay certain le

and accounting fees. Qualified minor or. new party can

dates are eligible for proportionate or retroacttve paymen

PARTY CONVENTION GRANTS 

Each major political party is entitled to up to t

million dollars (plus COLA) to finance its national Presid

tial nominating convention. Qualified minor party conv

tions are funded on a proportionate basis. Repayment 

public funds is required in cases where the amount 

public funds received exceeds the amount to which t

continu
candidate or convention committee is entitled; where 

spending limits are exceeded; where public funds are used 

for purposes other than "qualified" expenditures; or where 

public funds remain after debts and obligations have been 

paid. · · ·. · · . 

. 

CHANGE OF .ADDRESS 

Record s_ubscribers, when calling or mailing in a 

change of address, are,asked to provide ttie following 

information: 

~~ Name of person to whom the Record is sent; 

-- Old address; 

-- New address; 

~·. Subs_cription number. 

The subscription number is located in the upper 

left hand cor~er of the mailing label. It consists of 

three letters and five numbers (e.g., ABC12345). 

Without this n·umber, there is no guarantee that your 

subscription can be located on the COI:flputer. 

Note: Registered candidates and committees are 

automatically sent the Record and do not have this 

subscription n'!lmber on their mailing labels. Any 

change of address by a registered entity, must, by 

law, be made in writing as an amendment to FEC 

Form 1 (Statement of Organization for a Political 

Committee) or FEC Form· 2 (Statement of Candidate), and be placed on the public record. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1325 KSTREET,NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

FEC PUBLISHES 

NAMES OF NON FILERS 

The Commission is required by the Federal Electio

Campaign Act to publish the names of candidates an

political committees who .fail to file required .reports o

receipts .and expencjitures. Before publishing the name of 

candidate-or committee who has failed to file, the- Com '"!li

sion sends them at least two notices. If, following receipt o

these notices, a candidate or committee continues not t

fife· the required report, the name of that "nonfiler" 

made public. 

The Commission recently published the names of cand

dates and political committees who failed to file a require

report. The following list summarizes Commission action: 

Publication 

Date 

11ang 

1123ng 

Report Number of 

Not Filed Nonfilers 

Hawaii 3 

(Post-Primary) . 

December 7 86 

(Post-Primary) 

FIRST CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

FEC 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 

PERMIT NO. G-31