THE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

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

Volume 5, Number 10 

REPORTS 

THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT 

All candidates for Federal office (except those who 

have received a personal reporting waiver) who are not on 

the ballot during this calendar year and all of their authorized committees must file a quarterly report by October 10, 

1979, if the candidate and the committees together received contributions and made expenditures exceeding $5,000 

during the period from July 1, 1979, to September 30, 

1979. (Contributions and expenditures include debts 

incurred and debts extingu ished or forgiven.) All other 

political committees (except monthly filers) must file the 

quarterly report if either contributions or expenditures 

(including debts incurred and debts extinguished or for· 

given) exceeded $1,000 during this period . 

Candidates and committees must use one of the following 

forms: 

Form 3a: Candidates and committees whose financial 

activity for the quarter did not exceed one 

of the reporting thresholds must fi le the postcard exemption form (FEC Form 3a) or a letter 

with the same information. Note, however, that 

candidates and committees who already filed a 

postcard form for both the April 10 and July 

10 quarterly reporting periods or just for the 

July 10 quarterly reporting period, and who 

still have not exceeded the appropriate reporting threshold (above), need not file another 

postcard for this reporting period. 

Form 3P: Presidential candidates and their committees 

whose financial activity exceeded the reporting 

thresholds must file their report on Form 3P 

(with supporting schedules). 

Form 3 : All other candidates and committees whose 

financial actiVItY exceeded the reporting 

thresholds should file their report on Form 3 

(with supporting schedules). 

The quarterly report is due on or before October 10, 1979. 

Reports sent by registered or certified mail mu st be post· 

marked no later than midnight, October 1 0. The report 

October 1

must include all reportable transactions occurring betw

July 1, 1979, and September 30, 1979, or from the dat

registration (if after July 1) through September 30, 1979

a candidate or committee filed a postcard form for 

previous quarterly report in 1979, and the appropr

reporting threshold was met for the October 10 quart

reporting period, the October 10 report must disclose 

reportable transactions that occurred between the last 

quarterly report filed and September 30, 1979. 

Political committees filing on a monthly basis need not 

the quarterly reports, but must file reports by the 20th 

each month covering all transactions for the previ

month. 

Reports should be filed with the Clerk of the House, 

Secretary of the Senate or the Federal Election Comm

sion, as appropriate. Copies of the report must also be f

with the Secretary of State or equivalent State office

the appropriate State. 

Filers must submit legible reports that can be reprodu

clearly ; candidates or committees who fil e il legible 

bare ly legible reports will be required to refile. 

A notice contammg additional information, as well 

form s, has been sent to ~II registered candidates and co

mittees. Questions about the notices or requests for a

tional forms shou ld be addressed to the Office of Pu

Communicat ions, Federal Election Commission, 1325 

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or telephone 2

523-4068, toll-free 800/424-9530. 

OFFICE ACCOUNT REPORTS 

All Federal officeholders, and State officehold

who are candidates for Federal office, who have maintai

office accounts under the Federal Election Campaign 

(and Part 113 of the FEC Regulations) during the per

April 1, 1979, through September 30, 1979, are requ

to fil e an office account report (on FEC Form 8) 

October 15, 1979. The report should be filed with 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of 

Senate or the Federal Election Commission, as appropri

If you have questions, please contact the Office of Pu

Communications, 202/523-4068 in the Washington me

politan area, or call toll-free 800/424-9530. 
OPINIONS 

CONSIDERATION OF ADVISORY 

OPINION REQUESTS 

From time to time, the Commission is asked to respond 

to an advisory opinion request which, although submitted 

by a person who has standing to request an advisory opinion, presents a factua l situation that occurred before the 

request was submitted. To clarify how the Commission 

handles this and other types of requests, procedures were 

adopted on July 12, 1979, which define the c ircumstances 

under which the Commission will accept advisory opinion 

requests. To be considered by the Commission, advisory 

opinion requests must be: 

1. Received before the factual sit uation presented in the 

request has occurred; or 

2. Submitted as part of the requester's "best efforts" to 

determine the legality of a contribution that has been 

conditionally accepted; or 

3. Submitted in circumstances which present a continuing 

factual situation with possible compliance consequences. 

For example, a request involving a payroll deduction 

system could be presented after the system had been 

operating for a period of time. 

ADVISORY OPINION 

REQUESTS 

The following chart lists recent Advisory Opinion 

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

matter, the date the requests were made p ublic and the 

number of pages of each request. The full text of each AOR 

is available to the publ ic in the Commission's Office of 

Pub I ic Records. 

AOR Subject 

1979-44 Solicitation of executive and 

administrative personnel of 

the parent company, and all 

subsidiaries of the parent, by 

the separate segregated fund 

of one subsidiary. 

Date Made 

Public 

8115/79 

No. of 

Pages 

2 

Date Made No. of 

AOR Subject Public Pages 

1979-47 Allocation, between State 8/16/79 6 

and Federal candidates, of 

political committee's receipts 

and expenditures for voter 

survey. 

1979-48 Corporation's payment for 8/23/79 2 

nonpartisan advertisement 

encouraging voter registration. 

1979-49 Contribution and expenditure 9/4/79 

limitations of unauthorized 

draft committee for Presidential candidate. 

1979-50 Solicitation by union's 9/5179 2 

separate segregated fund 

of employees who are not 

union members. 

1979·51 Reporting and termination 915/79 

obligations of "exploratory" 

committee. 

1979-52 Candidate's use of aircraft 9110/79 2 

owned by corporation of 

which he is sole owner. 

1979-53 Use of multiple checking 9111/79 2 

accounts by committee. 

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES 

Designated as AO's, Advisory Opinions discuss the 

appl ication of the Act or Commission Regu lations to 

specific factual situations. Any qualified person requesting 

an Advisory Opinion who in good faith acts in accordance 

with the opinion will not be su bject to any sanctions under 

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

person involved in a specific transaction which is indistin· 

guishable in all material aspects from the activity discussed 

in the Advisory Opinion. Those seeking guidance for 

their own activity should consult the full text of an 

Advisory Opinion and not rely only on the summary given 

here. 

AO 1979-35: Joint Fundraising Effort 

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) 

may conduct a joint fundraising effort in cooperation 

with certain Democratic Senate candidates, provided 

1979-45 Formation of State Senatorial 

General Election Committee(s) 

by National Republican 

Senatorial Committee. 

1979-46 Campaign contributions and 

office account donations by 

multicandidate committee. 

8115/79 

8116/79 

2 that the DSCC adheres to those recordkeeping and report· 

ing procedures which DSCC proposed to the Commission. 

The effort will involve giving art prints to contributors 

who donate a certain amount to the DSCC in conjunction 

with a particular candidate. Under the proposed procedures, the DSCC will act as the authorized agent of the 

candidates. The DSCC will establish a special account which 

The RECORD is published by the Fedmal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Robert 0 . Tiernan, Chairman; Max L. Friedersdorf, Vice Chairman; Joan D. Aikens,- Thomas E. Harris,-

John W. McGarry,- Frank P. Reiche,- 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 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424·9530. 

2 
will be designated as an additional campaign depository by 

each participating candidate. The DSCC will report the 

proceeds received into the special account and, after the 

fundraising expenses have been paid, will distribute the 

appropriate share to each candidate. Each candidate 's 

principal campaign committee will report its share of 

contributions received. In addition to approving the proce· 

dures proposed by the DSCC, the Commission noted that 

the following procedures would also be required: 

1. The DSCC, as agent of the participating candidates. 

must deposit all contributions into the special account 

within ten days of their receipt. 

2. The DSCC must report gross proceeds received into the 

account and distribute to each participating candidate 

his or her appropriate share of the net proceeds (gross 

contributions less allocable share of fundraising costs). 

Since DSCC will make all fundraiser expenditures, the 

allocation of fundraising costs must be made on the 

same basis as the allocation of proceeds to avoid the 

making of an in-kind contribution by DSCC to any 

participating candidate. The candidates' committees 

need not report fundraiser expenditures, provided that 

they are reported by DSCC. 

3. The DSCC must report all relevant contributor information on Schedule A and disclose all fundraiser expenditures on Schedule B. In addition, the DSCC must report 

the distribution of net proceeds to each candidate as 

a transfer out, and note (on Schedule B) that the 

proceeds were the result of a joint fundraising effort 

with the particular candidate. 

4. The DSCC must furnish each candidate's principal campaign committee with aggregate contributor information, including the candidate's share of each gross contribution received and reported by DSCC. 

5. Each candidate's principal campaign committee must 

report the actual amount of the transfer received from 

the DSCC as a transfer in. In addition, each principal 

campaign committee must itemize (as a memo to Schedule A) the candidate's share of each gross contribution 

received by DSCC if that share, together with previous 

contributions from the same donor during the same 

calendar year, exceeds $100. 

The Commission noted that the artist's services in creating 

the original work of art from which the prints are made 

would constitute a volunteer service rather than an in-kind 

contribution to the fundraising effort. 2 U.S.C. § 431 (e)(5) 

(A). (Date Issued: August 17, 1979; Length: 5 pages) 

AO 1979-39: Fundraisers' Commissions 

The Crane for President Committee (the Committee) must 

treat the gross amount of all contributions, which are 

the result of solicitations by its agent, including amounts 

deducted to pay commissions to fundraisers, as the amount 

received by the Committee regard less of whether: 

3 

1. The fundraiser turns the gross amount of the contribution over to the Committee and the Committee 

subsequently pays the fundraiser's commission; or 

2. The fundraiser turns the net amount of the contribution over to the Committee, after the fundraiser 

has deducted his commission. 

In either situation, the entire amount contributed must 

be treated as the contribution received by the Committee. 

The agent's commission, which is a percentage of the 

total contribution, represents part of the cost of fundraising. Commission Regulations provide that donation of 

all or a part of fundraising costs are included in the definition of "contribution." 11 CF R 1 00.4(a) (2). (Date Issued: 

August 17, 1979; Length : 2 pages) 

AO 1979-40: Financial Activities of 

Unauthorized Committee 

The Florida for Kennedy Committee (FFKC). an unauthorized political committee formed to draft Senator Edward 

Kennedy as a 1980 Presidential candidate, may receive 

from each individual and each political committee up to 

$5,000 in contributions per calendar year. FFKC's expenditures are not limited by the Act. 

Contribution Limitation~: Since Senator Kennedy is not a 

Presidential candidate and because FFKC is not established 

or maintained by a national political party , the $5,000 

limit on contributions "to any other political committee" 

governs contributions to the FFKC. 2 U.S.C. § 441 a(a) 

(1 )(c). 

Expenditure Limitations: The Act does not prescribe limits 

for the expenditures proposed by FFKC. There are no 

limits on independent expenditures. Limits apply only if 

expenditures constitute contributions in-kind. Although 

expenditures by FFKC are not independent expenditures 

because Senator Kennedy is not a candidate, the limits 

still do not apply. because they are not contributions 

in-kind either. Since Senator Kennedy has not consulted 

with FFKC and has disavowed its activities on his behalf, 

the expenditures by FFKC are not in-kind contributions. 

The Commission declined to answer FFKC's hypothetical 

question regarding the effect which contributions to FFKC 

would have on the contributors' right to make contributions to Senator Kennedy should he eventually become a 

candidate. Advisory opinions address only specific, factual 

situations. (Date Issued: August 17, 1979; Length : 4 pages) 

ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITION OF 

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS 

Since August 1979, the Commission has responded 

to the following Advisory Opinion Requests in a manner 

other than the issuance of Advisory Opinions. 

AOR 1978-62: Requester does not have standing to request 

Advisory Opinion. 
COMPLIANCE 

SUMMARY OF MUR's 

In June, the Record began to summarize the files of 

selected compliance cases which have been closed and put 

on the public record. Compliance matters stem from 

possible violations of the Act, which come to the Commis· 

sian's attention either through formal complaints originating outside the Commission or by the FEC's own monitoring procedures. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended (the Act) gives the FEC the exclusive 

primary jurisdiction for the civil enforcement of the Act. 

Potential violations are assigned case numbers by the Office 

of General Counsel and become "Matters Under Review" 

(M U R's). All MUR investigations are kept confidential by 

the Commission, as required by the Act. 

MUR's may be closed at any one of several points during 

the enforcement process, including when the Commission: 

Determines that no violation of the Act has occurred ; 

Determines that there is no reason to believe, no reasonable cause to believe or no probable cause to believe a 

violation of the Act has occurred; 

Enters into a conciliation agreement with the respondent; 

Finds probable cause to believe a violation has occurred 

and decides to sue; or 

Decides at any point during the enforcement process to 

take no further action. 

After the MUR is closed and released by the Office of 

General Counsel, the Commission makes the MUR file 

available to the public. This file contains the complaint, 

the findings of the General Counsel 's Office and the Commission's actions with regard to the case, including the full 

text of any conciliation agreement. The Commission's 

actions are not necessarily based on, or in agreement with, 

the General Counsel's analysis. 

Selection of MU R 's for summary will be made on ly from 

MUR's closed after J anuary 1, 1979. The Record article 

will not summarize every stage in the compliance process. 

Rather, the summary wi ll provide only enough background 

to make clear the Commission's final determination. The 

full text of these MUR's and those which were closed 

between 1976 and 1978 are available for review and purchase in the Commission's Public Records Office. 

MUR 534: Prohibited Contributions 

On January 9, 1979, the Commission entered into conciliation agreements with a trade association and its separate • 

segregated fund. Both had been in violation of 2 U.S.C. 

§441b(a). 

4 

Complaint: During the course of a routine report analysis, 

it was discovered that a trade association had transferred 

$1,100 to its political action committee. Shortly after the 

transfer, the political action committee contributed $1,000 

to a congressional campaign committee. 

General Counsel Reports: The ensuing Commission investigation revealed that the transfer was authorized by the 

trade association's Board of Directors after the Board had 

decided to support a Federal candidate, in violation of 

§441 b(a). The General Counsel pointed out that the 

political action committee had apparently been used as a 

conduit for a corporate contribution. Therefore, he recommended that the Commission find reason to believe that 

the association had violated §441 b(a) by making a corporate contribution in connection with a Federal election, and 

that the political action committee had violated §441 b(a) 

by accepting a corporate contribution to be used in connection with a Federal election. Further investigation by 

the Commission revealed no evidence to suggest that the 

candidate, to whom the illegal contribution was made, was 

aware of the corporate origin of the committee's contribution. 

Commission Determination: On January 9, 1979, the 

Commission entered into conciliation agreements with the 

association which had directed the transfer of funds and the 

political action committee which had accepted the funds. 

Civil penalties were assessed in both cases. 

MUR 597 (78): Excessive Contributions 

On January 11, 1979, the Commission approved conciliation agreements with seven individuals who had violated the 

contribution limitations of 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1 )(A) and 

with a committee which had violated the limits of 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(f). 

Complaint: During an audit of a candidate's campaign 

committee, the Audit Division discovered that: 

1. The chairman of the committee had obtained, on behalf 

of the committee, a $20,000 bank loan. Eight individuals, including the candidate, had guaranteed the loan 

with each guarantor assuming a pro rata share of $2,500; 

2. Seven of the noncandidate guarantors had also made 

additional contributions to the committee; 

3. An eighth contributor donated $1,000 to the committee 

and subsequently made in-kind contributions which 

totaled $274; and 

4. Two contributions were received from an apparent 

corporation. 

On June 1, 1978, the Commission found reason to believe 

that the seven noncandidate loan guarantors and the 

individual who made the in-kind contributions had violated 

the contribution limitations of §441a(a)(1)(A); that the 

corporation which made the contribution to the committee 
-------- - - - - - - ---- ------ ---- --- - ·-- - ---

had violated §441 b(a); and that the committee had vio· 

lated both §441b(a), by accepting a corporate contribution, and §441 a(f). by accepting excessive contributions. 

General Counsel Reports: The Commission investigation of 

the bank loan revealed that eight guarantors executed a 

counter letter in which each signatory guaranteed payment 

of 1/8 share ($2,500) of the $20,000 loan if campaign 

funds proved insufficient to repay the bank. The General 

Counsel maintained that the signing of the counter letter 

was the equivalent of a $2,500 contribution by each 

guarantor because: 

1. The Act's definition of "contribution" includes guaran· 

tees of loans (§431 (e)(1 )(A)). and Commission Regula· 

tions provide that a loan is a contribution to the extent 

the obligation remains outstanding and to the extent the 

risk of nonpayment rests with a guarantor as well as with 

the primary obligor. 11 CFR 100.4(a)(1 )(i). By virtue of 

the counter letter, the cosigners shared in the risk of 

nonpayment of the outstanding obligation; although 

only the Chairman was liable to the bank, the cosigners 

were liable to the Chairman. 

2. Commission Regulations also provide that a contribution 

directed through an intermediary (in this case, the 

Chairman) is still a contribution from the individual to 

the Committee. The guarantors' payments to the Committee rather than to the Chairman, and the Commit· 

tee's characterizations of its eventual reimbursements to 

the guarantors as "loan refunds" are evidence that the 

loan was intended for the Committee and directed 

through the Chairman. 

The Commission investigation also revealed that the sus· 

pected corporate contributions were not corporate contributions but were salary advances, which made them con· 

tributions by individuals. This determination was based on 

the Commission's July 1978 policy statement concerning 

personal drawing accounts. 

Commission Determination: On October 23, 1978, the 

Commission found reasonable cause to believe that the loan 

guarantors had violated the contribution limitations of 

§441a(a)(l)(A). and that the committee had violated 

§ 441 a(f) by accepting the excessive contributions. The 

Commission also found reasonabl e cause to believe that the 

CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

individual who had made in-kind contributions in addition 

to the $1,000 contribution had violated §441a(a)(1)(A). 

On January 11, 1979, the Commission entered into con· 

ciliation agreements with six of the individual respondents 

and wit h the committee. On January 25, 1979, the Com· 

mission entered into a conciliation agreement with the 

seventh respondent. (The eighth respondent died during the 

course of the investigation.) In all cases, civil penalties were 

levied against the respondents. 

MUR 780: Coordinat ed Party 

Expenditures 

On January 19, 1979, the Commission found no reason to 

believe that the national senatorial committee of a political 

party had violated the coordinated party expenditure 

limitations of 2 U.S.C. §441a(d). On November 2, 1978, 

the Commission had determined that there was no reason 

to believe that a candidate's campaign committee had 

violated the Act by unlawfully benefitting from such 

expenditures. 

Complaint: On October 26, 1978, an unaffiliated multi· 

candidate committee filed a complaint against the principal 

campaign committee of a U.S. Senate candidate and the 

national senatorial committee of a political party. The 

complaint alleged that: 

1. The senatorial committee exceeded its authority under 

§441 a(d) by making coordinated party expenditures in 

connection with the particular Senate campaign as agent 

of both a State party committee and the National 

party committee. The complainant conceded that AO 

1976·1 08 had established the principle that a National 

party committee may designate a National congressional 

campaign committee to make its §441a(d) expenditures, 

but asserted that the opinion had not suggested that a 

State party committee could also designate the National 

congressional campaign committee for that purpose. 

2. The principal campaign committee on whose behalf the 

senatorial committee made these excessive expenditures 

illegally benefitted from them. 

General Counsel Reports: Commission Regulations (11 

CFR 110.7(a)(4)) specifically grant to the National committee of a political party the right to designate an agent to 

make authorized § 441 a(d) expenditures on its behalf. 

continued 

Record subscribers, when calling or mailing in a change of address, are asked to provide the following information: 

1) Name of person to whom the Record is sent; 2) Old address; 3) New address; 4) Subscription number. 

The subscription number is located in the upper left hand corner of the mailing label. It consists of three letters and five 

numbers. Without this number, there is no guarantee that your subscription can be located on the computer. 

NOTE: Registered candidates and committees are automatically sent the Record and do not have this subscription 

number 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. 

5 
While the Regulations do not specifically grant that same 

authority to a State committee, neither do they prohibit 

it. In the absence of any specific prohibition, the General 

Counsel did not consider such designation improper. The 

General Counsel recognized the possibility that such an 

arrangement potentially would allow the senatorial com· 

mittee to expend, from its own resources, an amount twice 

as great as its own § 441a(d) expenditure limitation. How· 

ever, it was noted that another principle established in AO 

1976-108 was applicable to this situation : since 2 U.S.C. 

§ 441a(a)(4) permits unlimited transfers of funds between 

and among political committees which are National and 

State committees of the same political party, it IS 1m· 

material which committee's funds are expended under 

§441a(d). 

Therefore, the General Counsel concluded that the sena· 

torial committee acted properly in making § 441a(d) 

expenditures on behalf of a particular campaign as agent of 

both the State and National committees. 

With respect to the candidate's principal campaign commit· 

tee, the General Counsel pointed out that nothing in the 

Act or Regulations specifically prohibits the candidate from 

"benefitting" from the Committee's expenditures. Therefore, the General Counsel recommended that the Commis· 

sion find no reason to believe the candidate's committee 

had violated the Act as alleged in the complaint. 

Commission Determination: On November 2, 1978, the 

Commission found no reason to believe the candidate's 

principal campaign committee had violated the Act. On 

January 19, 1979, the Commission found no reason to 

believe that the senatorial committee had violated 

§ 441a(d) and voted to close its investigation. 

THE LAW 

IN THE COURTS 

LITIGATION STATUS INFORMATION 

The following is a list of new litigation involving the 

Commission, together with the date the suit was filed, the 

Court involved, the Docket Number and a brief description 

of the major issue(s) involved in the case. Persons seeking 

additional information on a particular case should contact 

the Court where the suit is filed or the Commission. 

FEC v. Marjorie Bell, Bell for Senate Committee, Andrew 

P. Napolitano, Treasurer of the Bell for Senate Committee, 

James S. Wagner, Offi,ce Administrator and Secretary/ 

Assistant Treasurer of the Bell for Senate Committee, U.S. 

District Court fqr the District of Columbia, Docket No. 

79-1891, July 20, 1979. 

The FEC alleges that Marjorie Bell violated the 

contribution limits of 2 U.S.C. §§441a(a)(1) 

(A) and 441a(a)(3); and that the Bell Commit· 

tee and its officers violated 2 U.S.C. § 441 a(f) 

by knowingly accepting excessive contribu· 

tions, and 2 U.S.C. §434(b) by failing to report 

the source of those contributions. 

6 

FEC v. Angelo Gambino, U.S. District Court for the Dis· 

trict of Columbia, Docket No. 79-1897, July 23, 1979. 

The FEC alleges that the defendant violated 

the requirements of the conciliation agreement 

he entered into with the Commission pursuant 

to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(5) for violations of 2 

U.S.C. § § 432, 434 and 441b. 

COMMITTEE TO ELECT 

lYNDON LAROUCHE v. FEC 

On August 23, 1979, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia upheld the Commission's action in 

denying primary matching fund payments to Lyndon La 

Rouche, candidate of the U.S. Labor Party, during the 

1976 Presidential primary campaign. 

In October 1976, Mr. La Rouche "certified" to the Com· 

mission that he had met the eligibility requirement to 

receive primary matching funds by having raised at least 

$5,000, in contributions of $250 or less, in each of at least 

20 States. Because this "certification" was in the form of a 

one-page notarized statement, the Commission requested 

further financial information to support this statement. 

Later that month, the candidate's principal campaign 

committee, the Committee to Elect Lyndon La Rouche 

(CTEL), submitted a computer printout listing contribu· 

tions in excess of the threshold. Once again, however, the 

Commission received no supporting documentation of 

the listed contributions. A subsequent Commission audit, 

initiated to verify Mr. La Rouche's el igibility, raised sub· 

stantial questions as to whether many contributions had 

been made by residents of the States to which they were 

attributed. After further investigation and an expanded 

audit, the Commission determined on February 10, 1977, 

that Mr. La Rouche had not met the threshold requirement 

in at least two States. Accordingly, the Commission ruled 

that Mr. La Rouche was not entitled to primary matching 

funds. On February 14, 1977, CTEL filed suit challenging 

the Commission's decision. 

CTEL argued that the Commission had overstated both the 

candidate's burden in establishing eligibility and its own 

role in certifying eligibility. As a result, CTEL maintained, 

the Commission had violated the Act by denying matching 

funds to Mr. La Rouche. To establish eligibility, CTEL 

asserted, the candidate need only "attest authoritatively" in 

good faith and with knowledge that he has met the threshold. The Commission's role in the certification process is 

limited to ensuring that the candidate has so attested. 

CTEL also objected to the Commission's investigative 

procedures in determining Mr. La Rouche's ineligibility. 

The Commission argued that the candidate must not 

merely attest, but demonstrate to the Commission's satis· 

faction that he has adequate documentation to support his 

contention that the threshold has been met. Furthermore, 

the Commission maintained it is empowered not only to 

review documentation supplied by the candidate, but also 

to audit records or campaign contributions and to verify 

reported contributions by interviewing individual contributors, if necessary. 
----------------- -----·-- - · 

To properly determine the respective roles of the candidate 

and the Commission in the certification process, the Court 

focused on two relevant concerns: Congress's intent, on the 

one hand, to withhold public funds from frivolous candidates and its desire, on the other, to provide prompt 

payment to serious candidates. The best way to accommodate these two objectives, the Court determined, is to 

construe the Act as the Commission had. Since Congress 

established eligibility thresholds, it cou ld also impose 

reasonable procedures to ensure that those thresholds were 

met. The Commission's approach, the Court pointed out, 

involves an objective standard, which ensures that eligibility 

criteria will be applied to all candidates in an equitable 

manner. 

Although the Commission acted ultra vires in conducting a 

premature audit, the Court found the Commission's actions 

reasonable and nonprejudicial. Therefore, since Mr. La 

Rouche's submissions fell far short of the documentation 

requ ired to establish his eligibility, the Court concluded 

that the Commission had acted properly in not approving 

matching funds. 

FEC v. COMMITTEE TO ELECT 

LYNDON LAROUCHE, et al. 

On August 23, 1979, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia upheld three actions of the District 

Court for the District of Columbia in an appeal which had 

been filed o n September 28, 1977, by the Committee to 

Elect Ly ndon La Rouche, the National Caucus of Labor 

Committees, the New Solidarity International Press Service, 

Inc., and Campaigner Publications Inc. This was an appeal 

from an order of the District Court enforcing subpoenas 

issued by the F EC during the investigation of Lyndon La 

Rouche's el igibility for primary matching funds (see above). 

In upholding the District Court's action, the Court of 

Appeals maintained that: 

1. The District Court had jurisdiction to determine this 

case despite appella nts' argument that the District of 

Columbia was not the place where the Commission's 

inquiry took place. The Court maintained that the 

Commission was conducting a nationwide investigation 

from its national office in the District of Columbia and 

should be afforded broad discretion, "within the bounds 

of reasonable ness," in selecting this jurisdiction as its 

place of inquiry. 

2. The District Court had personal jurisdiction over the 

appellants despite the fact that they were served in New 

York rather than in the District of Columbia. The Court 

pointed out that the scope of the Commission's responsibilities is nationwide and its power is sufficiently broad 

to wa rrant an implied grant of authority for extraterritoria l service of process under 2 U.S.C. § 437(b). 

7 

3. The District Court had not denied the appPIIants an 

opportunity to demonstrate that the Commission had 

issued the subpoenas in retaliation for two suits which 

the appellants had brought against the Commission. The 

Court of Appeals pointed out that the appellants could 

not have been denied such an opportunity since they 

had never requested it. 

The above appeal was argued with Le Roy B. Jones, et a/. 

v. FEC. In Jones, the appellants repeated numerous constitutional, statutory and common law claims originally 

stated in their initial suit. The claims arose from the Commission's field interviews of La Rouche contributors, the 

manner in which the interviews were conducted and the 

scope of the questions asked. The District Court had 

granted summary judgment to the FEC. The Court of 

Appeals upheld the District Court's action with respect to 

all but two of the allegations. The Court of Appeals determined that the District Court had erred in granting summary judgment with regard to the appellants' claim that the 

Commission had inquired during field interviews into issues 

bearing no relation at all to the subject matter of an otherwise legitimate investigation into a candidate's eligibility to 

receive primary matching funds; and appellant Jones' claim 

that he was subjected to a warrantless seizure of certain 

financial documents and bank records. These allegations 

were remanded to the District Court for factual determinations. In all other respects, the Court affirmed the decision 

under review. 

FEDERAL REGISTER 

NOTICES 

The fo llowing list identifies all FEC documents which 

appeared in the Federal Register between July 5, 1979, and 

September 5, 1979: 

Notice Title 

1979-10 Clearinghouse Advisory Committee; 

Notice of Hearing. 

Federal Register 

Publication Date 

8/20/79 

1979-11 Contributions to and 9/5/79 

Expenditures by Delegates to National Party 

Nominating Conventions; 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Citation 

44 FR 48937 

44 FR 51962 
AUDITS 

AUDITS RELEASED 

TO THE PUBLIC 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires the Commission to periodically conduct audits and field investigations with respect to reports and statements filed under the 

Act. The Commission is also required to conduct audits of 

all campaigns of Presidential candidates who receive public 

funds. Audit reports which have been approved by the 

Commission, either through a tally vote or after discussion 

in open session, are released as final audit reports. If an 

audit report has been discussed in open session, but has not 

been approved by the Commission, the report is available as 

an interim audit report. Both final and interim reports are 

available through the Office of Public Records and Press 

Office. In the list below, interim reports are designated by 

an asterisk (* ). All others are final audit reports. The 

foll owing is a chronological listing of audits released 

between August 6, 1979, and September 4, 1979: 

Audit Report 

1. Texas Democratic Voter Registration 

Committee 

2. Republican State Central and Executive 

Committee of Ohio 

3. Committee to Elect Jim Madrid, CA/25 

4. American Party 

5. Goodman for Congress, NC/9 

6. Nebraska Democratic State Central 

Committee 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMM ISSION 

1325 K STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

Date Made 

Public 

8/7/79 

8/9/79 

8/9/79 

8/ 17/79 

8/24/79 

8/24/79 

PUBLIC 

FINANCING 

CONVENTION FINANCING 

CERTIFICATION 

On August 16, 1979, the Commission approved the 

Democratic National Committee's request for public 

funds for its nominating convention, and certified to the 

Secretary of the Treasury that the Committee was entitled 

to an initial payment of $300,000. 

FEC PUBLIC APPEARANCES 

In keeping with its objective of making information available to the public, the Federal Election 

Commission regularly accepts invitations to address 

public gatherings on the subject of campaign finance 

laws and the Commission itself. This regu lar column 

lists scheduled Commission appearances, detailing the 

name of the sponsoring organization, the location of 

the event and the name of the Commission's speaker. 

For additional information on any scheduled appearance, please contact the sponsoring organization. 

10/ 15 Wash ington Journalism Center 

Conference for Journalists on Politics 1980 

Washington, D.C. 

Chairman Robert 0. Tiernan 

10/30 Los Angeles Bar Association 

Los Angeles, California 

Chairman Robert 0. Tiernan 

Commissioner J oan D. Aikens 

FIRST CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

FEC 

WASHI NGTON. D.C. 

PERM IT NO. G·3 1