• 

THE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

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

Volume 3, Number 6 

NEW OFFICERS ELECTED 

Thomas _E. Harris, vice chairman of the Commission,. was 

unanimously elected chairman by his fellow Commissioners 

on May 12; Joan D. Aikens was unanimously elected vice 

chairman. By statute, Commissioner Harris is -limited to a 

single, one-year term as -chairman. Both he and Commissioner Aikens assumed official capacities on May 21, 1977. 

Mr. Harris and Mrs. Aikens were two of the original six 

Commissioners recommended by the Senate in 1975 and 

renamed to the Commission when it was reconstituted after 

the Buckley v. Va/eo decision. 

Prior to his appo:intment to the Commission, Mr. Harris was 

an associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO in Washington, 

D.C., from 1955 to 1975. He had held the same position 

with the CIO from 1948 until 1955, when it merged with 

the AF L. Previously, he worked as an attorney both in 

private practice_ and in the Federal government. A native of 

Little Rock -and·--a 19~2 -graduate of. the University _of 

Arkansas, Mr. Harris received his law degree in 1935 from 

Columbia .University Law School, where he was on the 

Law Review and was a Kent Scholar. After graduation, he 

clerked one year for Supreme Court Justice Harlan F. 

Stone .. He was originally appointed to the Commission for 

four years ~nd upon reconstitution received a _three-year 

appointment. 

Joan. D; Aikens, at the time of her initial appointment, was 

a vice president and account executive for :Lew Hodges/ 

Communications in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. A 1950 

graduate of Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pa., Mrs. Aikens 

became president of the Pennsylvania Council of Republican Women and also served as a member of the board of 

directors of the National. Federation of Republican Women 

from 1972 to 1974~ She was originally appointed to the 

Commission fOr one year; upon reConsthutiori~ Mrs. Aikens 

accepted a five-year' appointment. 

June 197

FEC RELEASES SURVEY 

ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW 

An FEC survey of 1976 candidates for the House o

Representatives and the Senate indicates strong support fo

public disclosure of campaign finances, but a desire for le

complex reporting procedures. "A Study of the Feder

Election Campaign Act on the 1976 Elections," the com

prehensive 240-page document released by the FEC o

April 28, also reveals that the law has been working reason

ably well, that it did not, as some predicted, stifle the pol

tical process, and that campaigns made use of the F.EC an

were generally satisfied with its response. 

The FEC contracted with two firms, Decision Making Info

mation and Hart Research Associates, to survey jointly th

Act's impact on the ca111paign process and candidates' rea

tions to the law and the FEC. This study was intended as 

basis for recommendations on changes in the Act, as 

guide to future Commission priorities and as a benchma

from which to evaluate future changes in campaign financ

legislation. The Commission specifically did not undertak

to examine questions of niajor policy such aS -pUbli

financing of elections, contribution limits, and corpora

and labor PAC activities. 

Special precautions were taken to cOntact an accu·rate cross

section of all the types of campaigns in tile Hi76 congre

sional elections. Eight'hundred arid fifty House and Sena

campaigns, representing mOre than two-thirds of those ·con

tacted, provided data through written questionnaires an

personal interviews. 

Survey results were presented in six major· parts: 

I. Profile of Candidates: Characteristics of candidate

· including previous experience as candidate, amount o

money spent, degree of organized support and part

affiliation. 

II. 1976 Campaign Experiences: Candidates' attitude

toward the Act's impact on their campaigns. 

Continued on p. 
ADVISORYOPINIONS: SUMMARIES 

With the officfal promulgation of FEC regulations on 

April 13; the Commission dfscontinued the practice of 

issuing 1'Re: AOR's." All responses-to .-equests for advisOry 

opinions will be issued in the form of Advisory Opinions. 

Designated as:'AO's, Ad~isory. Opinions ·conc:ern th:e appl ica' 

tion of •the Act to· specifiC, Jactual . situations. Aiw. person 

requesting an advisor¥ opinion who in .good ·faith acts in 

accordance . with the findings of the opinion will not be 

penalized under the Act. The opinion may also be relied 

upon by any other person involved in a specific transaction 

which is indistinguishable in all material aspects from the 

activity discussed in the advisory opinion; 

AO 1977-12: Place of Work Used as Campaign Office 

Federal candidate Donald Meyer may'use the place of business he personally owns and his business telephone for campaign ·"purposes, but must report their use as campaign 

expenditures. To: assure accurate reporting of these campaign expenditures, a reasonable allocation of office 

expenses must be made between those expenses incurred 

for business and those for campaign purposes. The campaign's telephone costs must be a proportionate share of 

the monthly base charge plus long distance fees incurred 

for campaign purposes. Part of the total overhead costs, 

proportionate to the percentage of time the office is used 

for campaign purposes, must be counted as campaign office 

expenses.and, accordingly,.be reported as campaign expenditures. Computation of overhead expenses must include · 

utilities and the fair market rental value of the space to be 

utilized. (Length: 2 pages) · 

AO 1977-13: High School Intern Program 

Sponsored by Member of Congress 

Representative Newton I. Steers, Jr. may sponsor a 1977 

summer intern program for high school students within his 

district, selected by an Intern Selection Committee (the 

Committee) without regard to party preference. The Committee may raise donations from individuals to defray 

expenses of the intern program. The Committee's funding 

appe8rs n·at to invOlve any- c~ntributions- or expenditures 

made to influen·Ce Steers' future nOmination· or election. 

Thus, the Committee would not be considered a political 

committee subject_ to th~ Act's rep~rting requirements and 

contribution limits. 

However, since Steers is _initiating, .spOnsoring and apparently organizing ·significarit Parts of ttu:i program "as constituent service" tO- his district, donations to the Committee 

are regarded as funds to support Steers' activities as a 

Federal officeholder. As such, they are subject to the disclosure requirements for officeholders under 2 U.S.C. 439a 

and section 113.4 of the regulations. 

The Commission notes that these circumstances _are dis

guishable from the situation where an officeholder mer

meets with constituents and participates in· activities 

tiated and funded by them for their. own benefit. In t

case, no reporting obligations arise. ·(.Length: ::!pages) 

AO 1977-14: Joint Fundraising by Three Former., 

· Presidential Candidates · 

The campaign committees of former Presidential--Candida

Birch Bayh, FredR .. Harris and.Sargent Shriver.may cre

a "Special Committee" .to jointly raiS.· furids:to retire th

respective Presid~ntial.canipaign debtS. Auth'orized by e

candidate, the Special Committee must designate its o

depository, which_must also serve as a-depository for·ea

participating campaign. The Special Committee is subj

to all requirements of the Act and regulations, and 

persons contributing to it will·be regarded as making a c

tribution to the participating Presid~nti~l campaigns. 

'_•

The Special Committee and the participating campaigns 

all responsible for establishing an appropriate account

system to ensure compliance with contribution limits.- 

each contribution transferred to the candidate, the part

pating campaign ·must disclose the same contributor in

mation required for ·contributions made directly to a ca

date.· A person -who has ··"u_sed up" hiS-Iiinit with respec

one of the participating Presidential campaigns must a

cate his contribution among the other- candidates to wh

he has not yet contributed the maximum amount. 

solicitations by the Special Committee must inform pat

tial contributors about the applicability of contribut

limits and methods for allocating contributions am

the participating campaigns. 

Contributions to the Special Committee may be distribu

among the three participating candidates according t

formula based on their respective outstanding campa

debts, to the extent contributors are not required to m

allocations to _particular candidates. This same form

must be used to allocate the Special Committee's ·fu

raising expenses among the three candidates. 

The Special Committee. may also participate as a ben

, ·'-Ciary' incacf<~.l'ldralsing><ilna<wgiven'!>Y-tlie?'EliomtfCI'atfcc-se

torial and, Congressional .Campaign Committees (Campa

Committees) if each· contributor purcllasing tickets fr

2 

the Special Committee is informed of the distribut

formula to be utilized and given an option· to allocate· 

or her contribution (i.e., purchase price ·of ticket) amo

the participating campaigns of the Special Committee. 

avoid making contributions to or receiving contributio

from the Special Committee, the Campaign Committ

must bear a proportionate share of the dinner expen

and must divide any advance expenses with the Spe

Committee according to the ratio of tickets issued 

each committee. (Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1977-15: Application of Contribution Limits io 

Members of Candidate's Immediate Family 

Federal Candidate Caputo, who received a $2,000 contri

tion from both his father and brother prior to the Supre
• 

• 

• 

Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision (January 30, 1976), may 

accept a"dditional post·election contributions from them. 

The candidate may receive, to the extent of remaining 

indebtedness, the maximum contribution of $1 ,000 per 

election from each one because contributions made by 

members of a candidate's immediate family before the 

Buckley decision are neither required to be reported- nor 

regar~ed as having "used up" the candidate contribution 

limit. All contributions. relating to a 1976 election are, 

however, subject to the $25,000 annual (1976) limit 

applicable to all individuals, regardless of when the contri· 

butions are made. (Length: 2 pages). 

TWO SUITS CHARGE FEC 

WITH FAILURE TO ACT ON COMPLAINT 

NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE 

v. VERNON W. THOMSON et al. 

In a suit filecj on March 8, 1977, in District Court for the 

District of Columbia, the National Right to Work Committee asks the Court to direct the FEC to take action on a 

complaint it filed against the National Education Associa· 

tion. (NEA). The plaintiff contends that the original complaint, filed with the FEC on October 21, 1976, alleged 

that the NEA violated the Federal Election Campaign Act 

of 1971,as amended (the Act) by: 

1. Administering a plan which compelled teachers, as a 

condition of employment, to pay money to NEA's 

fund for political purposes; and 

2. Soliciting such payments without informing the employees of their right to refuse without reprisal. 

The plaintiff argues that the FEC failed to act on the complaint within 90 days after it was filed with the FEC, as 

required under the Act. 

PAUL E. CHAMBERLAIN et al. 

v. VERNON W. THOMSON et al. 

On March 14, 1977, Paul E. Chamberlain and Lore M. 

Chamberlain; • ·both" teachers·r·emploied" in; 'Michigan·,•; filed·· 

a complaint in ·U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia, directing the FEC to take action with regard to 

a complaint they had previously filed with the Commission 

against the Garden City Education Association, the Michigan Education Association and the National Educatioh 

Association. Chamberlain states that the original complaint, 

filed on October 19, 1976, alleged that the three education 

associations had violated the Federal Election Campaign 

Act, as amended, as follows: · 

. 

1. They had required plaintiffs, as a condition of emplo

ment, to pay monies to separate segregated funds est

blished by the three education associations. 

2. They had failed to inform the plaintiffs of their right t

refuse such payments without reprisal. 

3. They had solicited payments to a separate segregate

fund from persons other than the solicitors' membe

and their families. · 

Plaintiffs argue that the FEC failed to act on the complai

within 90 days after· the complaint was filed, ·as require

under the Act. 

TWO COMPLAINTS ATTACK FEC'S 

CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

COMMITTEE TO ELECT LYNDON LAROUCHE et al. 

v. FEC 

The Committee to Elect Lyndon LaRouche (CTEL

petitioned the U ;S. · Court of Appeals for the District 

Columbia to review the following actions of the Feder

Election Commission: 

1. Its refusal on February 10, 1977, to certify matchin

payments to petitioners sUpporting Lylldon LaRouch

Presidential candidate of the U.S. Labor Party in 197

2. Its order on January 14, 1977, to co.ntact directlyth

contributors to LaRouche in order to verify contrib

tions from Delaware, Massachusetts and WisConsin. 

On April 14, 1977, the FEC gave the Court a list of 

documents related to the CTEL's request for matchi

funds. 

LE ROY B. JONES at al. v. FEC et al. 

In a second complaint related to the LaRouche cand

dacy, Le Roy B. Jones charges that the FEC and ten of 

employees, in their efforts to certify contributions to th

Committee to Elect Lyndon LaRouche (CTEL), subject

plaintiffs (who were contributors to CTEL) to "illegal an

unconstitutional searches, seizures, threats, harassment, an

interference with the free exercise of constitutionally pr

tected rights of speech, assembly and association .... 

under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amen

ments. 

The suit was brought as a class action on behalf of aU co

tributors to CTEL and to the U.S .. Labor Party residing 

Delaware, Massachusetts and Wisconsin who were contacte

by FEC employees in January 1977. Filed on April 2

1977, in. U.S. District Court for the District of Columb

the complaint seeks a declaratory judgement, a permane

injunction against the FEC, compensatory damages a

punitive relief . 

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

Commissioners are: Thomas E. Harris, Chairman; Joan D. Aikens, Vice-Chairman; William L. Springer; Neil Staebler; 

Vernon W. Thomson; Robert 0. Tiernan; J.S. Kimmitt, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmt~nd L Henshaw, Jr., 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex Officio. 

For more information, call 523-4068 or toll free 800-424-9530. 

3 
RAMSEY CLARK et al. v. J. S. KIMMITT et al. 

(Formerly identified as RAMSEY CLARK v. 

FRANCIS R. VAL EO et al.) 

On April 8, 1977, the Federal Election Commission filed 

in the U.S .. Supreme Court a mOtion to dismi~s Ramsey 

Clark's motion to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision in 

Ramsey Clark v. Valeo. That decision dismissed the case on 

grounds that it did not present a _ripe "case or controversy" 

within the meaning of Article Ill of the Constitution; In his 

original complaint filed on July 1, 1976 (summarized in the 

Record, March 1977, p, 5) appellant Clatk, asserting that 

parts of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended 

(the Act) were unconstitutional, sought declarative and 

injunctive relief against those provisions in the Act which 

permitted either the House Of RePresentatives ,or the Serlate 

to disapprove regulations adopted by the FEC. 

Contending that the appellant challenges the Court .of 

Appeals' decision on a matter of jurisdiction, the FEC 

argues that the Act permits appeals of decisions only· on 

constitutional questions, but not on jurisdictional matters. 

Further, ·the ·FEC ··argues; the'· Supreme" Court ·should not 

review the constitutional questions since: . 

1. As yet, there is no record evidence pertaining to a con· 

gressional veto of FECregulations. . 

2 .. None of the issues has been reviewed by. a .lower court. 

3. The. issues raised by Clark involve complex and sensitive 

questions relating to the separation of legislative and 

executive powers. 

BREAD POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE et al. 

v. FEC et al. 

On April 5, 1977, Bread Political A~tion Committee 

(Bread PAC) et al. filed in the U;S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois a complaint for declaratory and 

injunctive relief against the Federal Election Commission. 

The complaint asl<s the Court to declare certain provisions 

of the Federal Election Campaign . Act, as amended (the 

Act) unconstitutional because they· deny plaintiffs their 

First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association and their Fifth Amendment right to due process of 

law. Plaintiffs challenge those parts of the Act. which: . : ...... , .... ,_ ·-· ·~'" .- ,._,_._. ', ... ,. __ , • ><;'-'' ".. ,..,. ' ' • ,, .... •'""''-- ' .• . ,, •. -. 

1. Limit trade associations to soliciting only the executive 

and administrative personnel of their members. 

2. Require prior approval from the corporation whose per· 

sonnel are to be solicited for voluntary contributions. 

3; Further limit trade association fundiaising by prohibit· 

ing trade association members from granting-solicitation 

privileges ·to more than one ·trade association per year. 

4. Prohibit trade associations from making campaignrelated communications to the general public. 

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF 

THE UNITED STATES et al. v. FEC et al. 

(Part II I 

On April12, 1977, the FEC filed in U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia a motion to dismiss a com4 

plaint filed by the League of Women Voters agains

FEC. The League's complaint (summarized in the Re

April 1977, p. 3) seeks to review part of an FEC p

statement in which the FEC sets forth its view tha

statute prohibits the use of corporate ot union fund

defray expenses involved in the 1976 televised Pres

tial debates, sponsored by the League's Education F

(The same policy statement expresses the Commiss

view that the League's Educati'on FUnd could accept 

paign contributions to pay for the debates.) The Le

alleges that the policy statement injured the Leagu

preventing it from raising sufficient funds to pay for 

Presidential debates. 

In its motion to dismiss, the FI;C argues that the "C

has no jurisdiction over· thiS actiOn· because the Com

sion's policy sta·teine.n.t is not a· final agerlcy action." 

policy_. stateirient", ''-eOnte-Ods the CommiSs-ion, "expr

its view of what interpretation of the law it would see

enforce .... " and" ... represents_ an. attempt by the C

mission to give informal advice in an unchcirted are

thelaw." · · 

BRIAN A. HAMPTON v. FEC 

(Part II) 

On April 15, 1977, the U.S. District Court for the 

trict of Columbia granted the FEC's motion to dis

Brian A. Hampton's complaint against the FEC (sum

rized in the Record, March 1977, p, 6). In its memoran

order, the Court concluded that the "Commission's s

ment of reasons adequately de.monstrates that it did no

in an arbitrary .or capricious m~nne~ in dismissing plain

first complaint." Further, the Court .stated that bec

Hampton filed his complaint in the District Court "be

allowing the Commission 90 days in which to act upo

second complaint,'' the FEC's failure to act "waS 

contrary to law." 

FEC CERTIFIES ADDITIONAL· 

PRESIDENTIAL PAYMENTS 

On May 4 and May 14, 1977, the FEC certified Fe

primary matching funds for. two Presidential candid

sargent Shriver received $10,642 and Ellen McCorm

received $3,095. These payments raise to $24,788

the total amount of matching funds certified 

January 1, 1976, for 15 Presidential primary candid

The Commission also certified $4,328 in payments to 

Democratic National Committee (DNC) to help retire d

outstanding from the 1976 Presidential nominating con

tion. Total funds certified to the DNC for the conven

are $2,013,880. The Republican National Committee 

received a total of $1,581;664 in convention funds. 
• SURVEY ON CAMPAIGN LAW 

Continued 

Ill. Campaign Financing: Candidates' views on fundraising 

disclosure and the influence of money on their campaigns. 

IV. Participants: Impact of various groups on campaigns 

including volunteers, paid staff, political action committees, other organized groups and political parties; 

the importance of incumbency on elections. 

V. Federal Election Commission: Candidates' reactions to 

FEC information serviCes; candidates'-problems dealing 

with the Act's requirements and FEC regulations. 

VI. Campaign Finance Laws: Candidates' views on the 

Act's overall irhpact on campaign processes _and needed 

changes in the Act. 

Some of the survey's significant findings are grouped below, 

according to the major sections of the survey: 

Profile of Candidates 

1. Most 1976 candidates (71%) lost in their election bids, 

while 93% of the incumbents won. 

2. $24,000 was the median amount of money spent in a 

campaign; 43% _ of all congressional campaigns· spent 

less than $15,000. However, winners spent more on 

their campaigns than losers. 

3. More than half of all 1976 campaign spending came 

from less than 10% of the candidates. 

4, Few campaigns had a paid campaign manager, professional accountant, treasurer or lawyer. 

5. 13% of the candidates were Independents or minor 

party candidates. 

1976 Campaign Experiences 

6. Federal campaign laws were not perceived as particular 

liabilities in the 1976 campaigns nor were they perceived as giving opponents competitive advantages. 

7. 68% agreed that the Act reduced major contributor in· 

fluence; 58% felt it helped reduce illegal campaign acti· 

vity and 48% . .!'9!e'~c! thahh~ aa~~lltages of a detailed 

public accounting outweighed the additional time and 

personnel it required. 

Campaign Financing 

8. A majority, however, cited the Act as one of several 

factors hindering fundraising, along with traditional 

factors such as public disillusionment ·and economichardship. 

Participants 

9. 27% felt the Act strengthened political parties, while 

34% disagreed. Democrats disagreed 29% to 26% and 

Republicans disagreed by a 41% to 22% margin. 

10. One out of three felt the Act created unnecessary bar-

• 

riers between the congressional and Presidential races. 

11. 51% felt Independents were "more disadvantaged 

than ever." 

12. 63% disagreed that the Act encouraged people to run 

by putting candidates on a more equal basis. 

5 

Federal Election Commission 

13. 62% learned of the Act primarily through the FEC

relying mainly on FEC pamphlets and the toll-fre

line. Most found F EC materials and personnel helpfu

14. 83% contacted the Commission at least once, usuall

with regard to recordkeeping or filing difficulties. 

Campaign Finance Laws 

15. Although opinion was exactly divided. (36% to 36%) o

whether the Act's overall effect on the campaign pro

cess was beneficicil or harmful, nine out Of ten felt' th

Act should undergo some change. . 

16. 71% wanted slight or major modifications and 18% 

wanted total abolition. DemocratS were most often fo

slight changes, Republicans for major modification

and Independents for abolition. · 

17. The great majority felt public disclosure and confribu

tion limitations should be retained. 

18. Most suggested report simplification as the most need

ed modification. 

19. While there was no consensus on any other change

·respondent~·sugge_sted public financing of oongression~

races, larger individual contribution limits, abolition o

political_action committees, higher contribution limit

for these committees, stricter expenditure and inkin

contribution limits and .the elimination of disclosur

requirements for small contributions. . 

FEC PUBLISHES INDEX ON COMMUNICATION 

COSTS BY CORPORATIONS, UNIONS, 

MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS AND 

TRADE ASSOCIATIONS 

On April 27, an FEC, index was released disclosing tha

71 corporations, labor and membership organizations an

trade associations reported spending $2,146,899 on "inte

nal communications'' for- or against 416- Federal candidate

in 1976. Under the Act, corporations, labor and membe

ship organizations and trade associations are required t

report the costs of partisan communications made to stock

holders, executive and administrative personnel~ or ·t

members and their families, when these. costs excee

$2,000 per election. The index covers election-relate

communications from May 11, 1976, through present. 

Of the total communication costs reported. more than $

million (93.8%) was spent by 66 labor organizations. Fou

corporations spent an aggregate of over $31,000 (1.4%) an

one membership organization reported spending more tha

$101,000 (4.77%). Communication expenses were allocate

as follows: 

Candidate Percentag

Supported Amount of Total 

Jimmy Carter $1,160,432 57.6% 

47 Senate Candidates 449,858 22.3% 

361 House Candidates 334,320 16.6% 

Gerald Ford 44,249 2.2% 

Other Presidential 23,576 1.1% 

Candidates 
FEC RELEASES NATIONAL PARTY INDEX 

An index released by the Commission on April 27 

reveals that both the Democratic and Republican National 

parties received the majority of their 1976 election contributions in ·amounts of less than $1 00. Compiled from 

reports filed between __ January 1, 1975, and December 31, 

1976, the index analyzes the total income and costs of each 

major political party (and its affiliated committees) for the 

1976 Federal election campaigns. _Included are national 

partY ·commi-ttees, -atfiliateS,:-convention comniittees, .congressional cOmmitteeS an~ pari:y"-identified committees. 

Adjusted to reflect interparty transfers, repaid loans, and 

in~kind and earmarked contributions, total receipts of the 

Republican Party committees w~re $45,705,886 and total 

expenditures ·were $40,076,187. Receipts fOr the Democratic_ Party committees totaled $19,739,851 with total. 

expenditures of $19,363,177. 

FEC MAKES PUBLIC 

INDEX ON 197~:SENATI: CAMPAIGNS 

The' FEC released on May 3. an index anillyzing the 

receipts and expenditures ·of 64 ·Senate· candidates who 

appeared. on 1976 general election bal!ots. Covering the 

period of January 1, 1975, through December31; 1976, 

the index lists "adjusted" receipts and expenditures, the 

level of contributions made by individuals and political 

committees, campaign-related loans, and surplus/deficit 

figures for Senatorial candidates and their committees. 

Receipts and expenditures have been adjusted to reflect 

refunds, re.bates, returned contributions, loan repayments, 

Treasury notes and certificates of deposit which have been 

bought and redeemed, and transfers bOtween affiliated 

committees and/or the candidate and the candidate's 

principal campaign committee: All figures in the index 

represent the combined totals for primary and general 

election activity. Highlights of the index include: 

- Of a total of $39,129,660 in receipts for Senate general 

election candidates, 28.3% . consisted of individuals' 

contributions of' $100 or less; 13.4% of individuals' 

contributions ·of between $101 and $499; and 27.9% 

of individuals' contributions· of $500 or more. 

-- DemocratS and Republicans received approximately the 

~···sa~e 'ainotn:Tt '"'?f ~c_orttti~~~_ipn~;_ ___ ~~-t---~~~~~-lr}~yffibe~nts 

received 42% of the total receipts, while 24 challengers 

received 27% and 16 open-seat candidates received 31% 

of total contributions. 

6 

FEC ESTABLISHES AUDIT PRIORITIES 

The FEC's Audit Policy, adopted November 11, 1

mandates audits of congressio_nal candidate_s and 220 p

cal cOmmittees, tO· be· cOnducted (;lver the· next two yea

resources permit. Under this pOlicy, in ·addition to.cond

ing candidate audits, the Commission will audit the b

of 77 State party committees, 121 multicandidate com

tees with receipts or expenditures exceeding $100

during 1976 and a random five percent of nonparty_ c

mittees with financial transactions in 1976 of less 

$100,000 (i.e., 22 out of a total of 445 committees). 

An audit staff report, approved by the Commission 

April 21, 1977, establishes scheduling priorities for au

conducted in 1977. Highest prio-rity will be given to au

of Senate and House candidates and coi"riniitiees ··in 

effort to complete these audits during the non-el~c

year. Priority will also be given to those commi

recommended for audit by the staff. To conserve 

time and travel costs, the FEC will also try to comp

audits located in adjoining geographic areas. 

In addition to establishing scheduling priorities, 

April 21 staff report reveals that current audits are 

completion. The audits of the fifteen Presidential ca

dates who received Federal matching payments 

expected to be completed' in May, with five of t

candidates possibly eligible for additional primary ma

ing funds to retire pre··electiOn debts. Sixteen ·comm

audits are scheduled for completion by the end of J

Once the Commission has com-pleted action on an a

it routinely makes it available to the public. The fol

ing audits have been released: 

1. Voice of Teachers for Education, Committee on Poli

Education, 10/5/76. 

2. The Sanford for President Committee, 10/14/76. 

3. United Federation of Teachers, Committee on Poli

Education (UTF-COPE), 10/5/76. 

4. United Steelworkers of America, Political- Action F

10/28/76 .... , ..... ,, ... . _,,. ·--··- .,. .. ' •.. ,, ..

5. United Technologies Corporation, Political Action C

mittee, 3/24/77. 

FEC GUIDELINES FOR ACCEPTANCE 

OF SPEAKING INVITATIONS 

In response to invitations to address public gather

the Federal Election Commission will send represe

tives, tree ·of charge, to exPlain or discuss election 

campaign finance laws. At anAprii 21 meeting, :ti)e C

mission identified five. guideline~. for aCcepting ~uch _in

tions: 

1. The Commission's appearances must afford equal op

tunity to all political parties, without preferential tr

ment to any orgSnization .Or person. · 
• 

2. 'FEC appearances must permit the Commission to maximize its contact with the public, within a. limited travel 

budget. 

3. As a general rule, that portion of the function involving 

Comrriissi-on represe-ntatives must· be open to the ,Q·en~r.al 

public. 

4. The Commission cannot· accept invitations when the 

sponsors appear to have organized the function to gain 

financial profit or commercial advantage. (This limita· 

tion does no·t, however, prevent FEC appearances at 

functions charging reasonable fees to cover costs of the 

·function.) No~ can the CommisSion participate when its 

presence at the function has been advertised in such a 

manner as to suggest profit or ·commerCial advantage 

for the sponsors. 

5. The Commission must reject invitations when its participation would be associated with political solicitation 

efforts or with endorsement of partisan activities. 

The-Commission will consider deViations from these gUideline~.?~ ~- c~~~by~~ase basis._ 

e FEC TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE 

ON CAMPAIGN REFORM 

In hearings conducted on May 6, 1977, by the Senate 

Committee on. RuleS and AdminiStration, Commissioners 

Joan D. Aikens, Thomas E. Harris and Robert 0. Tiernan 

testified on amendments to the Federal Election Campaign 

Act, as amended (the Act); public financing of congres· 

sional elections; and universal voter registration. Their 

remarks on amendments to the Act and on public financing 

are summarized below. (Commission views on universal 

voter registration are synopsized in the following article.) 

Ti:sti'MCiiliv.diii'AiiiiENbMENTS tol"'HE'Acf ' "'' . ' 

Commission testimony on proposed amendments to the 

Act focused on S. 1344; several appendices also contained 

comments ·on other pending bills. The Commission statement- coVered five areas of concern: 

1. Simplification of the Act. 

2. Contribution limitations and the role of political parties. 

3. Corporate and union activity. 

4. Presidential campaigns. 

5. Clarifying technical amendments. 

Citing both FEC recommendations on needed changes in 

the Act (published in the Commission's 1976 Annual 

Report and summarized in the March 1977 Record) and a 

• 

recent survey on the Act's impact on election campaigns 

(see above, p. 1), Commissioner Aikens expressed Commis· 

sion endorsement of most of. the amendments contained in 

S. 1344 and recommended a small number of additional 

changes. 

7 

TESTIMONY ON CONGRESSIONAL 

PUBLIC FINANCING 

Commissioner Harris. appeared before the Senate Com

mittee to comment on s: 926, a bill proposing publi

financing of Senate election campaigns. His testimon

answered Committee inquiries o'rl-three topics: 

1. Cost per election year to fund Senate can;>paigns. 

2. Agency cost for staff and equipm.entto administer an

nionitor the proposed program~ · . · 

3. Te_chnical sug"gestions on ·'prog(am· imPI9mentati0n- an

enforcement. · · · 

The Commission estimat~d that public funding v,rould .co

between $27.6 and $38.7million per Senate election (com

bining primary and general election campaign costs), wit

an administrative cost of approximately $1.24 million fo

fiscal year 1978. The Commission explained, however, tha

its projections could change significantly with modifica

tions in legislative or administrative requir~m~nts. 

With regard to technical cha~ges i~ the bill, Commissione

Harris recommended that Congress consolidate all publi

financing legislation into one title of the U.S. Code; esta

blish a single document entry point; clarify matching pay

ment eligibility; clarify the status of party expenditures o

behalf of candidates accepting public funds; clarify proce

dures for determining when a publicly-funded candidate 

exempt from the expenditure limit by virtue of an oppo

nent's exceeding the limit; siniplify reporting requirements

and provide guidelines for reducing payments to candidate

in case of shortages in the Federal fund. 

FEC TESTIFIES ON 

VOTER REGISTRATION BILL 

In testimony before the House Administration Commi

tee on April 25, Commissioners Robert 0. Tiernan an

William L. Springer analyzed possible FEC administratio

of H.R. 5400, the Universal Voter Registration bill pendin

before Congress. Commissioner Tiernan presented simila

testimony on May 6 before the Senate Committee on Rule

a~p .1\,dministr~tion, .. AJ~bo!.lgb,.taklng .no .position oo."th

bill's substantive· merits, Commission testimony offere

specific suggestions to ·improve the proposed program

implementation and enforcement. 

BACKGROUND: MAJOR PROVISIONS . 

H.R. 5400 would establish a program under FEC admin

istration, permitting individuals with proper identificatio

to register to vote at the appropriate polling place on elec

tion day. FEC administrative duties would include develop

ing criteria for ~~proper identification" on election day

distributing information and technical assistance on effec

tive registration methods, approving State registration ou

reach plans, administering grants to the States to pay fo

the programs, monitoring the programs and referring pos

sible criminal violations to the Attorney General. Grant

would be allocated to States to implement election-da

registration for Federal elections. Additional assistanc

would be available to those States which implemente

approved programs to increase registration or which inst

tuted election-day registration for State and local election
FEC TESTIMONY 

Suggestions to improve the bill included expanded and 

more precise enforcement provisions for the F EC sUch as 

powers to make audits, issue subpoenas, take depositions, 

investigate matters uncovered in audits or reported by 

persons outside the Commission and file civil suits against 

violators. 

Commissioner Tiernan corrimended the bill for its 

encouragement of Federal-State cooperation, but Warned 

that adequate lead time would· be essential for smooth 

program operation. To make the plan operative for 1978 

elections, the Commission estimated that $300,000 · in 

start-up costs would be needed in 1977. Total program 

costs for fiscal year 1978 were estimated at $1,362,000. 

F EC documents of general applicability are published 

regularly in the Federal Register. The following list identifies all FEC documents appearing in the Federal Register 

between April 15 and May 6, 1977. 

Federaf Register 

Notice Title Publication Date Citation 

1977-24 AOR 1977-16 4/12 42 FR 19313 

1977-25 AOR 1977-17 4/21 42 FR 20773 

1977-26 AOR 1977-18 4/27 42 FR 21597 

and -19 

1977-27 AOR 1977-20 5/3 42 FR 22513 

1977-28 AOR1977-21 .5/6 42 FR 23193 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

. 1325KSTREET;Nw 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463 

OF..FICIAL BUSINESS 

CURRENT PUBLICATIONS 

The FEC prepares a number of informational mate

free to the public. The following publications are availa

upon request, from the Public Comm·unicatirins Office: 

1. Federal Election Campaign Laws, a compilation of 

pertaining to Federal eleCtions, including the Fed

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1

and 1976. 

2. FEC Regulations, June 13, 1977. 

3. Campaign Guides, a color-coded series of six guides 

pared as a reference tool to aid candidates, polit

committees, and political parties in complying with 

Act. Designed for use by committee chairmen, treasu

and accountants, as well as by candidates, each g

focuses on a specific aspect of the law. Titles inclu

-Campaign Guide for Committees 

-Campaign Guide on Contributions and Expenditure

-Campaign Guide for the 1976 General Elections 

-Campaign Guide for State and Subordinate P

Committees 

-Campaign Guide on Post-Election FECA Requirem

The Guides are published as binder inserts to facili

their use in a reference file and the making of page 

rections as the need arises. To date, one revision {to 

Campaign Guide for Committees! has been made 

sent to readers. 

4. Bookkeeping and Reporting Manual, 2nd edition, J

1976. 

5. 1976 Annual Report, a detailed description of 

Federal Election Commission's activities.-

. POSTAGE AND FEES PAID . 

U.S.MAIL