FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

PUBLIC FUNDING

1 Additional Funds for Major Parties

I Kemp Submissions Not Matchable

STATISTICS

9 Presidential Activity

6 'ADVISORY OPINIONS

COURT CASES

8 Congressman Stark v. FEe

9 FEG v. Citizens to Elect Jerald Wilson

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background

Prior to the 1988 election year, per

meetings were held known as "Kemp Forums.

Spring 1987t the Kemp Presidential Comm

asked members of The Kemp Forum to atte

continued on 

12 SEATTLE CONFERENCE

12 INDEX

WashingtonDC 20463 Volume14, Numbe

KEMP CAMPAIGN. MATCHING FUND

SUBMISSIONS NOT MATCHABLE

On February 11, 1988, the Commission m

a final determination that contribution ch

made payable to I1The Kemp Forum'tmay no

matched with federal funds for The Jack K

for President Committee (the Kemp Preside

Committee). (The Kemp Presidential Comm

is Congressman Kemp's principal campaign 

mittee for his publicly funded Preside

campaign in 1988.) Since the Committee pu

its submissions of the contributions and m

resubrnissions, the FEC will not have to re

future certifications for the Committee, base

the nonmatchable contributions.

April 1988 999 E Street NW

"'1'0 establish eligibility for a convention

grantt the national c.om~ittee of each. major

party must fHe an appllcatlOn statement wlth the

FEe and register a convention committee. See

part 9008 of FEe regulations. ..

* *The cost-or-living adjustment (COLA) IS calculated annually by the Secretary of Labor, u.sing

1974 as the base year.

FEe CERTIFIES ADDITIONAL CONVENTION

FUNDS FOR MAJOR PARTIES

On March 2, 1988, the Commission approved

the certification of an additional $32B,000 in

federal funds to both the Republican and Democratic parties for their 1988 national Presidential

nominating conventions. On March 3, the Commission forwarded the certifications to the U.S.

Treasury, which will issue actual payments ~o

each party's convention committee.* The additional certifications bring each major party's total

grant to $9,220,000, the maximum entitlement

each party's convention committee may receive

to finance the 1988 Presidential nominating convention.

Under the Presidential Election Campaign

Fund Act, each major party is entitled to $4

million (plus a cost-of-living adjustment**) to

finance its Presidential nominating convention.

26 U.S.C. §9008(b). Since each party's convention

committee is eligible to receive its grant in the

year preceding its convention, in JUly 1987, the

Commission certified $8,892tOOO to each convention committee, based on the 1986 cost-of-living

adjustment. During February 1988, when figures

became available on the 1987 cost-of-living adjustment, the Commission certified the additional

funds for each convention committee.

REPORTS

3 April Reporting Schedule

5 Virginia Special Elections

COMPLIANCE

2 Nonfilers

•
2

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Thomas J. Josefiak, Chairman; Danny L. McDonald, Vice

Chairman; Joan Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; John Warren McGarry; Scott E. Thomas; Walter J.

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

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

(TDD For Hearing Impaired 202/376-3136)

State Repor

Not

Filed*

\blume 14, Numbe

Office

Sought

Babbitt, B. President Monthl

DUke, D. President Monthl

Fernandez, B. President Monthly

Haig, A.* President Monthl

Martin-Trigona, A. President Monthly

Cohlmia, K.

* House TX Pre-Pri

Davis, J. House lL Yr.-End

" " " Pre-Pri

Reynolds, M.* House IL Pre-Pri

Roxborough, C.... House MD Pre-Pri

Candidate

*Report was Subsequently filed.

Nonfilers

Nor was The Kemp Forum a Iundraiser sponso

and authorized by either Congressman Kemp a

Presidential candidate or the Kemp Presiden

Committee.

FEe PUBLISHES NONFILERS

During February and early March, the C

mission published the names of eight federal ca

paigns that had failed to file disclosure repo

required by the election law. See chart below.

The election law requires the agency to p

lish the names of nonfiling candidates. Com

ance actions against nonfiler'S are decided o

case-by-case basis. The law gives the Comm

sion broad authority to Initiate enforcement 

tions resulting from infractions of the law, incl

ing civil court enforcement and imposition of c

penalties.

April 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlNIISSION

dinner announcing Congressman Kemp's Presidential candidacy and to contribute to his Presidential campaign. Members of The Kemp Forum

made their contributions for Congressman Kemp's

1988 Presidential campaign payable to The Kemp

Forum. The Kemp Presidential Committee deposited the contributions. Subsequently, the Committee received affidavits from the contributors

that verified that they had intended their contribution checks for the Kemp Presidential Com mittee.

On August 18, 1987t the Commission made an

initial determination that "The Kemp Forum" contributions were not matchable. The Commission

found the Committee had not provided evidence

to demonstrate that "The Kemp Porum" was a

function sponsored and authorized by the Jack

Kemp for President Committee or the candidate

himself as a Presidential candidate.

In its response to the FEC's initial determination, the Kemp Presidential Committee argued

that "T'he Kemp Forum" contributions were

matchable because the contributors had intended

them for the Kemp Presidential Committee.

Moreover, the Committee claimed that, in the

past, Kemp's Congressional campaign committee

had accepted checks made out to "The Kemp

Forum" and that FEC rules allowed a Presidential

committee to accept transfers from another campaign committee authorized by the same candidate. See II CFR lOO.5(g).

FEe Determination

Under FEe regulations, contribution checks

for a publicly funded primary candidate must be

made payable to the candidate or one of his/her

authorized committees for the Presidential campaign. See 11 CPR 9034.2(c). A narrow exception

exists for checks made payable to a fundraiser for

the candidate, as long as the candidate can document the event (i.c., submit solicitation materials

that indicate contributions collected at the event

will go to the candidate's Presidential

committee). See Exception Code A-5 of the

FEC's Guideline for Presentation in Good Order.

The Com mission voted to accept the General

Counsel's recommendation that contributions payable to The Kemp Forum did not meet these

requirements and thus were not matchable, The

Kemp Forum was not an authorized committee

for Congressman Kemp's Presidential campaign.
Volume 14, Numo

, ""'~ / "' ,'<' <

-. 1·' C'.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Report

Type of Filer Quarterly Pre-Primsry Monthly

April 15 April 20

1988 Congressional Committeesl x x

1988 Presidential Committees/

$100,000+ x

1988 Presidential Committees/

Under $100,000 x x

1984 Presidential Comrnitteess x

Parties and P ACs/Monthly3 x

Parties and PACs/Quarterly x ;<4

National Party Convention

Committecs5 x

Connected Organizationsl

Communications6 x

APRIL REPORTING SCHEDULE

The following chart and paragraphs explain the reporting schedule for the various categories 

filers.

continued on p

3

1Congressional committees active in other years have only two reports covering 1988 activ

the semiannual report, due on July 31, 1988, and the 1988 year-end report, due on January 31, 1989.

2Presidential committees that are not active in 1988 elections may file on either a monthl

quarterly reporting schedule. See 11 eFt< 104.5(b)(2). Presidential committees which have recei

contributions or made expenditures aggregating $100,000 or more toward the 1988 Presidential cy

(or Which anticipate this level of activity) must file monthly reports during 1988.

3AIl part)' committees and PACs (i.e., nonconnected committees and separate segregated fun

are re2uired to file on either a monthly or quarterly basis in 1988.

kequired only if the unauthorized committee makes contributions or expenditures on beha

candidates in the primary, which have not been preViously disclosed.

SIn the case of national party convention committees, the quarterly report is due April 10. 

CPH. 9008.12(b)(2).

6Heport required if aggregate costs for partisan, intemal communtccttons for all 1988 prima

have e:rceeded $2,000.

Apri11988

•
April 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Num00

Quarterly Filers

Due by April 15, the report should cover all

activity from January 1 (or from the closing date

of the last report filed in 1988 or from the date of

registration,* whichever is later) through March

31.

Pre-Primary Filers

The report is due 12 days before the primary

election and must be complete as of the 20th day

before the election. If sent by registered or

certified mail, the report must be postmarked no

later than the 15th day before the election.

Monthly Filers

The monthly report must be filed by April 20.

It should cover all activity from March 1 (or from

the closing date of the last report filed in 1988 or

from the date of registration,* whichever is later)

through March 31.

CHANGE IN FILING FREQUENCY

PACs and party committees which plan to

change their reporting schedule in 1988 (e.g.,

from quarterly to monthly) must notify the Commission by submitting a letter with the April

report. A committee may not change its filing

frequency more than once a year. 11 CFR

104.5(c). The FEC requests that Presidential

committees also inform the Commission in writing if they change to a monthly reporting schedule

because their respective campaigns receive or

spend more than $100,000 during 1988.

WHERE REPORTS ARE FILED

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

and state officials. 11 CFR 108.5.

Filing with the Federal Government

1. The principal campaign committees of House

candidates and committees supporting or opposing only House candidates file with the

Clerk of the House, Office of Records and

Registration, 1036 Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. II CFR 104.-

4(c)(3) and 105.1.

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

*In the case of an authorized candidate committee, from the date candidate status is established. The Committee must report all campaign finance activity incurred by the candidate

before he/she authorized the committee. 11 CFl<

101.3 (0) and 104.3(0) and (b). However, activity

which occurred before 1988 must be reported

separately.

4

2.The principal campaign committees of Sen

candidates and committees supporting or oppos

only Senate candidates file with the Secretary 

the Senate, Senate Public Records, Hart Sen

Office Building, Room 232, Washington, D

20510. 11 CPR 104.4(c)(2) and 105.2.

3. All other. committees, including the princi

campaign committees of Presidential can

dates, file with the Federal Election Co

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

20463. 11 CFR 105.3 and 105.4.

Filing with State Governments

1. The principal campaign committees of Co

gressional candidates must rile a copy of eve

report and statement with the Secretary 

State or the appropriate elections official 

the state in which the candidate seeks fede

office. 11 CFR 108.3.

2. The principal campaign committees of Pre

dential candidates must file copies of repo

and statements with the Secretary of State 

the appropriate elections official of the state 

which the committee makes campaign expen

tures. These reports must contain all financ

transactions which apply to that state duri

the reporting period covered. 11 CFR 108.2.

3. PACs and party commmittees making contrib

tions or expenditures in connection with Hou

and Senate races file in the state in which t

candidate seeks election. The law requires 

copy only of that portion of the report app

cable to the candidatels) being supported. Co

mittees supporting Presidential candidates mu

file in the state(s) in which the President

committee and donor committee have th

respective headquarters.

HOW TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION

During 1988, reporting forms and addition

information will be sent to registered co

mittees. Questions and requests for addition

forms should be addressed to Information S

vices, Federal Election Commission, 999·E Stre

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or call 202/37

3120 or toll free 800/424-9530.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMNIISSION

•

April 1988

VIRGINIA SPECIAL ELECTIONS

On June 14, 1988, Virginia will hold a special

election in its 5th Congressional District to fill

the seat vacated by the death of Congressman

Dan Daniels. The Democratic Party will hold a

special nominating convention on March 26, 1988,

to select a Democratic nominee for the special

election. The Republican Party will select its

nominee at a special convention held on April 9,

1988.

Volume 14, Numb

Political committees authorized by c

da tes (candidate com mittees) who are parti

ting in these special elections must file the a

priate pre- and post-election reports. The 

rate reporting schedules for Democratic and 

publican candidates are detailed in the c

below.

All other political committees which su

candidates in the special elections (and whic

not report on a monthly basis) must also f

the reporting schedule for the special election

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

Chart I: Candidates Participating in the Democratic Convention

5

..Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date (except 

the case of the pre-election report). Reports mailed first class or hand delivered must be received 

the filing date.

Report Period Covered Registered/Certified Filing Da

Mailing Date*

Pre-convention 1/1-3/20 3/25 3/28

April Quarterly 3/21-3/31 4/15 4/15

Pre-special 4/1-5/25 5/30 6/2

July Quarterly WAIVED

Post-special 5/26-7/4 7/14 7/14

3/14

4/15

Registered/Certified Filing Da

Mailing Date"

3/11

4/15

1/l-3/6

317-3/31

Period Covered

Chart II: Candidates Participating in the Democratic Convention and Special Election

Pre-eonvention

April Quarterly

Report

Chart IV: 'Candidates Participating in the Republican Convention and Special Election

Report Period Covered Registered/Certified Filing Da

Mailing Date*

Pre-convention 1/1-3/6 3/11 3/14

e April Quaterly 3/7-3/31 4/15 4/15

Pre-special 4/1-5/25 5/30 6/2

July Quarterly WAIVED

Post-special 5/26-7/4 7/14 7/14

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

Chart ill: Candidates Participating in the Republican Convention

Report Period Covered Registered/Certified Filing Da

Mailing Date*

Pre-convention 1/1-3/20 3/25 3/28

April Quarterly 3/21-3/31 4/15 4/15
April 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Numter

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions. The full text of each AOR is

available to the public in the Commission's Office

of Public Records.

AOR

1988-6

1988-7

1988-8

1988-9

1988-10

1988-11

1988-12

Subject

Application of Presidential fundraising

exemption to costs of tv ads that

advocate candidate's election and

solicit funds. (Date made public:

February 11, 1988; Length: 5 pages)

Individual's receipt and use of parents'

monetary gifts for his 1988 campaign.

(Date made public: February 17, 1988;

Length: 1 page)

PAC's receipt of bequest from trust

and from escrow account. (Date made

public: February 17, 1988; Length: 2

pages)

Nonconnected PAC's allocation of

expenditures for political/nonpolitical

trips. (Date made publics February 25,

1988; Length: 6 pages)

Individual and slate activities related

to delegate selection. (Date made

public: February 26, 1988; Length: 3

pages, Dlus 25-page supplement)

Trade association PAC's solicitation of

corporate members' employees. (Date

made public. February 29, 1988;

Length: 3 pages, plus 23-page

supplement)

National bank's reimbursements to

party committee for supplying lists of

potential credit card customers and

using committee's name to solicit new

customers. (Date made publici

February 29, 1988; Length: 6 pages)

I)

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

AO 1987-29: Partisan Communications by

Incorporated Membership

Organization

The Commission approved an alternative partisa

communications program submitted by the Ass

ciation of Advanced Life Underwriters (AALU

which would provide certain information o

AALU-endorsed candidates to the organization

members but would not facilitate the making 

member contributions to the candidates. (AAL

is a governmental affairs division of the Nation

Association of Life Underwriters [NALU], an i

corporated membership organization for unde

writers of health and life insurance.)

By a 3-3 split vote, the Commissioners faile

to approve another proposed program whereb

AALU would ask its members to contribute 

AALU-endorsed candidates with checks made o

to the candidates and transmitted to the cand

dates through LUPAC, the separate segregate

fund of the parent, NALU.
April 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Numte

ceived approximately five or six cornmuncatlons

during 1988 that encouraged them to: 1) contribute to AALU-endorsed candidates (some 20 to

100 candidates) and 2) make earmarked contributions to any of the endorsed candidates through

,LUP AC. Some of the comrnuneiatlons would have

recommended one specific candidate to the contributor. Thus, LUPAC would have been responsible for transmitting members' earmarked contributions to candidates.

To qualify for AALU's Legislative Circle,

AALU members would have had to contribute to

AALU-endorsed candidates and use LUPAC as the

conduit for delivery of their contributions.

AALU and LUPAC, in their request for an

advisory opinion, wanted to know whether AALU

could finance the communciations and whether

LUPAC could accept and transmit the earmarked

contributions without affecting LUPAC's contribution limits. (Date issued: March 7, 1988;

Length: 5 pages)

AO 1988-2: FEC Reports Posted on Security

Exchange's Bulletin Boar-ds

The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.

(CBOE), a securities exchange, may post FEC

reports of industry PAC receipts and disbursements (Including reports of its own PAC,

CBOEPAC) on employee bulletin boards. The

Commission suggests that CBOE post a warning

that information contained in the reports may not

be used for commercial purposes, although such a

notice is not required under these particular

circumstances.

To protect individuals from being victimized

by list brokering, the election law and FEe regulations prohibit persons from using or selling information copied from FEe reports for either

contribution solicitations or for commercial purposes. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4); 11 CF R 104.15(a).

However, the Commission has permitted the use

of contributor information in limited cases, such

as CBOE1s proposed use, where the information

will not serve commercial or solicitation purposes. See AOs 19B1-5 and 1984-2.

Since CBOE's notice is purely informational

and neither encourages nor facilitates the making

of contributions, the notice is not considered a

solicitation for contributions to CBOEPAC. (Date

issued: February 26, 1988; Length: 4 pages)

AO 1988-6: Aaocation of Media Expenses to

Presidential Campaign's

Fundraising Exemption

The Albert Gore, Jr., for President Committee,

Inc. (the Gore campaign), Senator Gore's publicly

funded 1988 Presidential primary campaign, plans

to air a tv ad in Colorado before the state's April

4th caucuses. The ad will seek both political

7

support and contributions for his campaign. 

Gore campaign may exclude a reasonable por

of broadcast costs for the ad (Le., 50 perc

from its spending limits as exempt fundrai

expenditures. Finally, under a provision of F

Regulations-the 2S-day rule-the dates when 

ad is actually aired determine Whether a por

of the costs ror the ad may be allocated to 

fundraising exclusion or whether the full c

must, instead, be allocated to the campai

spending limit for Colorado.

Application of Fundraising Exclusion

Under :the election law and public fund

statutes, a publicly funded Presidential prim

candidate is subject to both a national spend

limit* and state-by-state limits. 2 U,S.C. §44

(b) and 26 U.S.C. §9()35. A publicly fun

primary campaign may, however, exclude f

these limits fundraising costs amounting to 

percent of the expenditure limits. This exclu

may be made from both its national and s

spending limits. 2 U.S.C. S431(9)(D)(vi). Un

FEG regulations, costs of hroadcasting fund rai

ads expressly qualify for this exclusion. 11 C

100.8(b)(21)(ii).

Since the regulations recognize 

campaign expenditures may be made for mult

purposes, a portion of the expenditures for ai

tv ads that include a fundruising solicitation 

be reasonably allocated to the fundrai

exclusion.

The Commission noted that the Gore c

paign's tv ad included a solicitation for contr

tions: a video message in the final three seco

of the GO-second spot asks veiwers for contr

tions to the campaign and a voice-over annou

ment repeats the request. These messages 

reinforced by showing the campaign's teleph

number for potential eontibutors, The Com

sion concluded that the Gore campaign c

reasonably allocate 50 percent of the costs 

broadcasting the ad in Colorado to its fundrai

exclusion, provided the timing or the broadc

co mplied wi th the 28-day rule.**

Application of 28-Day Rule

Although FEC rules permit ex elusion of u

20 percent of a publicly funded Presidential 

mary candidate's fundraistng expenses from 

national and state spending limits, certain fu

contin

ItAs determined by statutory formulas, 

national spending limit for 1988 is $23,050,0

The spending limit for Colorado is $893,233.60.

"''''The Commission noted that previous advi

opinions had approved other methods for rea

ably allocating fundraising expenditures. See A

1978-46, 1981-3 and 1982-5. However, th

methods did not foreclose the reasonableness 

different allocation method.
April 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, NumtE

raising expenditures do not qualify for the exclusion. Specifically, if fundraising expenditures are

targeted to a particular state and are made within

28 days of the state's primary election, convention or caucus, no portion of the expenditures may

be allocated to the fundraising exemption. 11

CFR lOO.8(b)(2I)(iii), llO.8(c)(2) and 106.2(c)(5).

Further, in AO 1975-33, the Commission decided

that the date of the fundraising activity-not the

date the expenditure was made for the activitygoverns the application of the 28-day rule. Thus,

regardless of when the Gore campaign makes

payments for airing its tv ad in Colorado, the

campaign may apply the fundraising exclusion

only if the ad is aired more than 28 days before

the state's Presidential caucuses. (Date issued:

March 1, 1988; Length: 6 pages)

CONGRESSMAN STARK v. FEe (Second Suit)

On February 8, 1988, the U.S. District Court

for the· District of Columbia dismissed a

complaint brought against the agency by

Congressman Fortney H. (UPetell) Stark, a Democratic Congressman from California. (Congressman Stark v. FEC; Civil Action No. 87-1700) The

court found that the FEC had not acted contrary

to law in dismissing, in a deadlock vote, an

administrative complaint which Congressman

Stark had filed against his Republican opponent,

and the opponent's supporters in a 1986. The

court accordingly granted summary judgment in

the Commission's favor.

Background

Shortly before election day in 1985, Congressman Stark filed an administrative

eomplaint* that alleged, among other things, that

excessive contributions made to Daniel M.

Williams' 1986 Congressional campaign by the

American Medical Association Political Action

Committee (AMPAC) resulted in violations of the

election law by both parties. (AMPAC is the

separate segregated fund of the American

*Prior to filing his suit with the district court,

Congressman Stark had filed a suit which sought a

court order requiring the FEC to act on his

administrative complaint within 120 days. (No.

87-1024) Since the FEe subsequently took final

action on Congressman Stark's administrative

complaint, the court dismissed this suit as moot

on August 20, 1987. See the JW1.€ and October

issue.s of the 1987 Record.

8

Medical Association.) In the complaint, Congr

man Stark also alleged other violations of 

election law's contribution limits by 

American Medical Association (AMA), AMP

and certain state PAGs affiliated with AMPAC

After a preliminary investigation of the c

plaint as amended in February 1987, the Gen

Counsel's Office recommended that 

Commission find no reason to believe AMPA

affiliates had violated the law.

With regard to the other allegation, 

General Counsel recommended that the Comm

sion find reason to believe that AMPAC 

violated the law by making excessive contr

tions to the Williams campaign and that 

Williams campaign had violated the law by acc

ting them. (See 2 U.S.C. S§441 a(a) and {f}.

the preliminary investigation. the Gen

Counsel's staff found that AMPAC had m

three mailings to its membership describ

Williams' position on certain issues and advoca

Williams' election. One of the mailings had 

solicited funds for Williamst campaign. 

solicitation mailing included: 1) pre-addres

envelopes for donors to mail their contributi

directly to candidates and 2) pledge cards p

addressed to AMPAC, which AMPAC could us

verify donors' contributions.

AMPAC claimed that its spending for 

mailings constituted independent expenditu

However, citing an advisory opinion that d

with a similar situation (AO 1980-46), the Gen

Counsel reasoned that AMPAC's spending for 

solicitation mailing constituted in-k

contributions to the Williams campaign. (In 

1980-46, the Commission decided 

expenditures by a PAC to facilitate earmar

contributions to candidates constituted in-k

contributions to the candidates rather than in

pendent expenditures on their behalf.)

Furthermore, the General Counsel fo

that, taken together, the circumstances of 

mailings were sufficient to indicate that AMP

and the Williams campaign might not h

remained at arms length throughout the c

paign. For example, the General Counsel fo

that AMPACts substantial spending on behalf 

the Williams campaign, when compared with 

low spending by the campaign itself, ra

questions concerning the independence 

AMPAOs expenditures.

On June 9, 1987, the Commission voted 

accept the General Counsel's recommendation 

dismiss the allegation concerning exces

contributions by AMPAC's affiliates. Howe

the Commissioners were divided by a series of 

votes on the General Counsel's recommenda

concerning AMPAC's excessive in-k

contributions to the Williams campaign, Since 

Commission can act only on lithe affirmative v

of four members," the agency voted unanimo

to close the enforcement file.
FEDERAL ELECTION CONIMISSION

•

April 1988

On June 22, )987, Congressman Stark filed a

complaint with the district court. He asked the

court to find that the FEe's dismissal of his

administrative complaint was contrary to law.

District Court Ruling

Following a decision by the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. circuit in Democratic

Congressional Campaign Committee v. FEC (831

F.2d 1131 (D.C. Cir, 1987)}, the court held that it

could review the case because the provision of the

election law affording judicial review of

dismissals "imposes neither vote count nor

substantive-issue conditions on the right it

confers." (See 2 U.S.C. S437g(a)(8)(A).)

The court noted, however, that, unlike the

DCCC case, the Stark case included a statement

from the dissenting Commissioners setting forth

their reasons for voting against the General Counsel's recommendations.

The court observed that, in their statement,

the dissenting Commissioners said, among ether

things, that they disagreed with the conclusion of

AO 1980-46, the advisory opinion that the General

Counsel had cited in arguing that AMPAC's

solicitation expenditures might be in-kind

contributions. Thus, concluded the three

Commissioners, the rationale of that opinion

should not be extended beyond the facts presented

in that case. These Commissioners argued that

independent expenditures (e.g., AMPAC's

expenditures for contribution envelopes sent to

candidate Williams' potential donors) did not lose

their independence because the candidate

SUbsequently derived indirect benefit from them.

Further, the dissenting Commissioners

rejected the idea that a "dollar disparity" between

AMPAC's spending .and spending by the Williams

campaign implied cooperation between the two

committees. The Commissioners also rejected

Congressman Stark's allegations concerning a

"debate arrangement'! made by AMPAC and the

duplication of Williams' campaign materials by

AMPAC for solicitation purposes.

In determining whether the dissenting

Commissioners acted reasonably in voting to

dismiss the Stark allegations, the Court found

that the DCCC case required "that the same

deferencebe accorded the reasoning of

'dissenting' Commissioners who prevent

Commission action by voting to deadlock as is

given the reasoning of the Commission when it

acts [by at least four affirmative votesl as a body

to dismiss a complaint."

Accordingly, the court concluded that the

dissenting Commissioners' statement of reasons

was " 'sufficiently reasonable,' if not 'the only

reasonable [decision] or even the [one] the court

would have reached' on the General Counsel's

Report on his findings••••"

9

Volume 14, Numb

FEC v, ClTlZENS TO ELECT JERALD WILSO

On February 8, 1988, pursuant to the F

notice of voluntary dismissal, the U.S. Dis

Court for the Northern District of Illi

Eastern Division, dismissed without prejudic

complaint filed by the FEe in October 1987. 

Commission filed the complaint against 

principal campaign committee for Jerald Wil

1986 Congressional campaign, Citizens to E

Jerald Wilson, and the campaign's treasu

(FEe v. Citizens to Elect Jerald Wilson; 

Action No. 87 C 8855)

In the complaint, among other things, 

FEC had asked the court to:

o Declare that the Wilson campaign had viol

the election law's reporting requirements 

failing to file certain reports during 1986; an

o Assess a civil penalty against the campaign 

these violations.

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY - 1987

Eighteen Presidential primary candid

raised $103.5 million and spent $91.6 million 

ing 1987. Three candidates who have alre

withdrawn from the race raised and spent ne

$6 million of this amount.

This information was included in summ

figures for 1988 Presidential primary campa

released by the FEC on February 11, 1988. 

summary figures include the 14 Presidential 

mary campaigns which have been declared elig

to receive federal matching funds, as wel

other Presidential campaigns whieh had acti

exceeding $500,000 during 1987.

The graphs on pages 10 and 11 describe 

receipts of each candidate who, at year's end, 

an active candidate and had spent more than 

million. Each graph depicts total receipts 

quarterly reporting period and indicates 

sources of each campaign's receipts.

More detailed information on the activit

these Presidential campaigns is contained in 

FEe's February 11, 1988, press release. To ob

a copy of the release, call the Public Rec

Office: 202/376-3120 or, toll free, 800/424-953

contin
April 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Numoo

RECEIPTS OF PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS

THROUGH 12/31/871 KEY

Contributions from

Committees

Loans

II Contributions from

Individuals

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

10

pre 9130 lOll -12

Robertson

$O&------IIl

$2,000,000

$8,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

7/1 - 9130 1011-12131

.Kemp

pre 6130

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$12,000,000 Bush $12,000,000 DoJe

$10,000,000 $10,000,000

$8,000,000 $8,000,000

$6,000,000 $6,000,000

$4,000,000 $4,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,000,000

$0 $0

pre 411 4'1 - 6130 711-9130 1011-12131 pre 4/1 4/1 - 6130 7/1 -9/30 1011-12

$12,000,000 DuPont $U,OOO,OOO Haig

$10,000,000 $10,000,000

$8,000,000 $8,000,000

$6,000,000 $6,000,000

$4,000,000 $4,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,000,000

$0 $0

pre 411 4/1 -6130 711 - 9130 lOll -12/31 411-6130 711-9130 lOll -12

'Note that the figures for the Republican Candidates are plotted on a scale of $12 million, and the figures for

the Democratic Candidates are plotted on a scale of $5 million.
Apn11988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Numt

• DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

$5,000,000 $5,000,000

Babbitt Dukakis

$4,000,000 $4,000,000

$3,000,000 $3,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,000,000

$1,000,000 $l,OOO,COO

$0 $0

pre 411 411- 6130 7/1 - 9130 1011-12/31 pre 6130 711-9130 1011-12

$5,000,000 $5,000,000

Gephardt Gore

$4,000,000 $4,000,000

$3,000,000 $3,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,000,000

$1,000,000 $1,000,000

$0 $0

pre 4/1 411 - 6/30 711-9130 1011-12131 411-6130 711 -9/30 10/1 -12

$5,000,001) $5,OOO,aoo

Hal1 Jackson

$4,000,000 $4,000,000

$3,000,000 $3,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,OOO,aoo

$1,000,000 $1,001),000

$0 $0

pre 6/30 7/1- 9130 TOI1 -1~3T pre 9130 1011-12

$5,000,000 $5,000,000

LaRouche Simon

$4,000,000 $4,000,000

$3,000,000 $3,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,000,000

$1,000,000 $1,000,000

$0 $0

pre 411 411- 6130 711-9130 1011-12131 411- 6/30 111-9/30 10/1-12

11
April 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION Volume 14, Numte

SEATTLE CONFERENCE ON ELECTION LAWS 

On May 12 and 13, the Federal Election Commission will cosponsor a conference with

Washington state's Public Disclosure Commission in Seattle. The conference will present

workshops on candidate campaigns, party and PAC activity, contributions and reporting. For

more information on the conference, contact the FEC's Information Services Division at: 202/376-

3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

The Washington conference is the third in a series cosponsored by the FEC and state

election offices during 1988. In February, the agency co-sponsored a conference with the

Kentucky Registry of Election Finance and, in March, with the Ohio Secretary of State.

This cumulative index lists advisory

opinions, court cases and 800 Line articles published in the Record during 1988. The first

number in the citation refers to the "number"

(month) of the Record issue; the second number,

following the colon, indicates the page number in

that issue. -

OPINIONS

1987-29: Partisan communications by incorporated membership organization, 4:6

1987-30.: Assets of candidate's wife used to pay

off bank loan to candidate, 2:3

1987-31: Eligibility of security exchange's eight

membership classes for PAC solicitations, 3:5

1987-32: Campaign contributions in the form of

silver dollars, 3:7

1987-33: Law firm and partner are not government contractors, 3:7

1928-2: FEC reports posted on security exchange's

bulletin boards, 4:7

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 EStreet,NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

1988-6: Allocation of media expenses to fu

raising exemption, 4:7

COURT CASES

Ralph J. Galliano v. U.S. Postal Service, 1:7; 3:9

FEe v",__

-Augustine for Congress, 1:8

-Citizens for the President '84, 3:10

-Citizens to Elect Jerald Wilson for

Congress, 1:9

-New York State Conservative Party Stat

Committee/l984 Victory Fund, et at, 2:

v. FEC

-Antosh, 1:8; Second suit, 3:10

-Stark, second suit, 4:8

800 LINE

Last-Minute Contributions and Independent E

penditures, 2:4

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit NumberG-31