,"
 

•
 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 

March 1983 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 9, Number 

FEC MAKES AVAILABLE NEW 

PRESIDENTIAL REPORTING FORMS 

On February 16, 1983, the Commission made 

available a revised reporting form (FEC Form 3P) 

for authorized committees of Presidential candidates. The new Form 3P supersedes the old Form 

3P. The new form must be used by all Presidential 

committees filing reports with the FEC. 

• 

The new Form 3P provides for fuller disclosure of 

campaign finance information, as required by the 

1979 amendments to the election law. The Commission has also modified the format of the form 

to facilitate disclosure of campaign finance information. For example, the line spacing on the new 

form corresponds to typewriter spacing. 

In late March, the Comm ission will send the new 

Form 3P to all authorized Presidential committees and to those Presidential exploratory committees which have voluntarily registered with 

the FEC.* Presidential committees filing on a 

quarterly basis must use the new Form 3P to file 

their April quarterly report, due by April 15. 

In the case of monthly filers, the Commission 

recommends that Presidential committees file an 

April quarterly report (using the new Form 3P) in 

lieu of filing monthly reports in February, March 

and April (using the old Form 3P). In this way, 

monthly filers can avoid difficulties arising from 

the use of two different report formats during one 

calendar year. 

Questions and requests for forms should be addressed to the Public Communications Office, 

Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or call 202/423­

4068 or toll free 800/424-9530. 

PRIMARY MATCIllNG FUND REGULATIONS 

SENT TO CONGRESS 

On January 24, 1983, the Commission tran

mitted to Congress revised regulations governin

the payment of public money in the form 

primary matching funds to Presidential prima

candidates. These regulations will be promulgate

30 legislative days after their transmittal to Co

gress, provided neither the House nor the Sena

disapproves them. 

The intent of the proposed revisions is to clari

and simplify administration of the prima

matching fund program. The changes have thr

major purposes: to clarify provisions in the la

which have caused uncertainty in the past; 

provide a fuller explanation of the certificatio

and audit processes; and to cover aspects of th

Presidential primary process not previously a

dressed in the FEC's Regulatlcns, The followin

paragraphs highlight the major modification

Readers should not, therefore, rely solely on th

summary. Instead, they should consult the fu

text of 11 CFR Parts 106 and 9031-9039, pu

lished in the Federal Register on February 4, 19

(48 Fed. Reg. 5224). 

State-by-State Allocations 

Presidential primary campaigns receivi

public funds must agree to limit spending to bo

a national limit and a separate limit for ea

state.* The existing regulations provide fe

guidelines for allocating expenditures under t

state limits. By contrast, the suggested revisio

set out definite procedures for allocating parti

ular types of expenditures. For example, th

include specific methods for allocating med

expenditures within a state (e.g., newspaper a

t.v, political ads) and overhead expenses involvi

continu

• 

*The national spending limit is $10 milli

plus a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). T

* Under" the election law, exploratory com­ state limit is based on the following formul

mittees formed by individuals to test the waters $200,000 plus COLA or 16 cents (plus COLA) 

for a potential Presidential candidacy are not the state Voting Age Population, whichever 

required to register or report with the FEC. greater. 
March 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Numoor 

campaign activity in several states (e.g., costs of 

telephone calls between states or opinion polls 

conducted in two or more states). 

Moreover, the revised regulations clearly establish "testing-the-water" disbursements as a category of allocable expenditures. Under a new provision, if an individual makes disbursements to 

test the waters for a potential Presidential candidacy and subsequently becomes a candidate, those 

payments become campaign expenditures subject 

to the spending limits. 

Exemptions to State-By-Btate Spending Limita 

Other provisions allow campaigns to exclude 

certain expenditures from the state spending limits. For example, one provision allows campaigns to exclude from the state spending limit up 

to 10 percent of overhead expenditures and campaign workers' salaries in a particular stateoThese 

are considered exempt compliance costs (Le., 

expenditures to ensure compliance with the campaign finance law). Another 10 percent may be 

applied toward the limited exemption for fundraising. (If, however, a campaign wishes to exempt more than 10 percent of its overhead expenditures under either category, the campaign 

must fully document its claim to the larger exemption.) Such disbursements for compliance and 

fundraising are also exempt from the national 

spending limit. 

Another proposed rule establishes a new category 

of national campaign expenditures which need not 

be allocated to the state spending limits, namely, 

expenditures for national campaign headquarter 

operations and for national advertising and opinion polls. The suggested revisions also clarify 

other types of expenditures which are not SUbject 

to the campaign's state-by-state spending limits, 

such as the salaries of campaign staff working in 

a state for four consecutive days or less or 

disbursements for 'Producing media ads or for 

providing transportation and other services to 

media representatives. These expenditures are, 

however, subject to the campaign's national 

spending limit. 

Submissions and Certifications 

The proposed rules more closely reflect actual procedures followed in past elections for the 

submission and resubmission of contributions to be 

matched and for the Commission's certification of 

matching fund payments. Moreover, all require

ments for matching fund submissions are con

solidated under one section of the regulations. 

One new provision, for example, allows a cam

paign to submit requests for matching funds b

letter rather than a full matching fund submis

sion.· The letter request must specify the amoun

of matchable contributions a campaign receive

subsequent to its last SUbmission and must be ac

companied by supporting bank documentation

such as valida ted deposit slips. The campaign

next submission must be a fully documented sub

mission covering the letter request and the cur

rent submisslon.vl'he Commission anticipates tha

this proposed change will almost halve the numbe

of matching fund submissions prepared by cam

paigns while still providing for twice-monthl

matching fund payments. Under another new pro

vision, a campaign will no longer be required t

alphabetize the back-up documentation (l.e

copies of all contributor checks) included wit

each submission made after its threshold submis

sion. Instead, the checks may be presented in th

order in which they are deposited with a refer

ence on the contributor list to indicate the exac

location of each check. 

Matchable Contributions 

The proposed rules answer a number of ques

tions raised during the 1980 election cycle con

cerning the matchability of certain types of con

tributions. For example, a new provision state

that contributions collected through joint fund

raising with other candidates or committees ar

matchable contributions. (Although the Commis

sion had matched joint fundraising proceeds in th

1980 Presidential election, it had never codifie

the rule.) The provision goes on to set out proce

dures for campaigns to follow when engaged i

joint fundraising. 

*A full matching fund submission contains 

list of matchable contributions and includes each 

contributor's address and the amount of each 

contribution. The submission also includes a pho

tocopy of each contributor check (or other writ

ten instrument) and supporting bank documenta

tion showing that the funds were deposited

These contributions must be submitted in ac

cordance with the Commission's Guideline fo

Presentation in Good Order. 

The Record is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Danny Lee McDonald, Chairman; Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman; 

Joan D. Aikens; Thomas E. Harris; John Warren McGarry; Frank P. Reiche; William F• 

Hildenbrand, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Benjamin J. Guthrie, Clerk of the House of 

Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530. 

2
 
March 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Numter

In a change from 1980 policy, the proposed regulations provide that the full price for admission 

to a fundraising event, such as a concert, may be 

a matchable contribution if it otherwise meets 

the requirements. Contributions received when an 

individual tests the waters for a potential Presidential candidacy may also be matched, according 

to the proposed rules, once the individual declares 

his/her candidacy and if the contributions meet 

the standards for matchability. In addition, the 

revisions include new matchability standards for 

contributions' made by money orders or cashier's 

checks. 

Sale of Assets 

• 

The proposed regulations address the issue of 

whether campaigns may sell fundraising items 

either donated to or purchased by the campaign, 

such as artwork. A suggested provision permits 

campaigns to sell such assets, though the amount 

paid would be a contribution subject to the law's 

limits and prohibitions. However, the provision 

includes an exception for campaigns whose outstanding debts exceed their cash on hand at the 

end of the matching payment period. These campaigns may sell assets acquired for fUndraising 

purposes to a wholesaler or other intermediary, 

who may, in turn, sell the assets to the public. 

The proposed rules specify that, in this case, the 

sale proceeds do not count as campaign contributions from either the wholesaler or the purchaser. 

Review and Investigative Authority 

The proposed rules clarify the Commission's 

statutorily mandated authority to conduct audits 

of campaigns receiving matching funds. They fully 

describe the audit process, including audit fieldwork and the preparation, content and public 

release of audit reports. 

Repayments 

Other provisions explain the candidate's obligation, under certain circumstances, to repay 

matching funds. The revised regulations also provide candidates with an opportunity to contest an 

initial Commission determination that the campaign must repay public funds. Under the new 

rules, campaigns that submit written statements 

contesting a repayment determination can also be 

granted an oral hearing upon an affirmative vote 

of four Commissioners. 

ADYmORYOPDRONRBQumns 

The following chart lists recent requests fo

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of eac

AOR is available to the public in the Commi

sion's Office of Public Records. 

AOR	 Subject 

1983-3	 Affiliation of utility company's stat

and federal PACs; transfer of fund

between them. (Date made public: Jan

uary 19, 1983; Length: 5 pages, plus 1

page supplement) 

1982-4	 PAC funds used for lobbying expense

of parent labor organization. (Da

made public: January 19, 1983; Length

I page) 

1982-5	 Campaign funds used to reward regul

contributors. (Date made public: Janu

ary 27, 1983; Length, I page) 

1982-6	 Settlement of disputed bill reached b

hotel corporation and county party o

ganization. (Date made public: Febru

ary 4, 1983; Length: I page, plus 4-pag

supplement) 

ADYmORY OPDRONS: SUMMARIIlS 

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the Com

mission provides guidance with regard to th

specific situation described in the AOR. An

qualified person who has requested an AO an

acts in accordance with the opinion will not b

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Oth

persons may rely on the opinion if they ar

involved in a specific activity which is indisti

guishable in all material aspects from the actlvl

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance fo

their own activity, however, should consult th

full text of an A0 and not rely only on th

summary given here. 

AO 198%-60:	 Services Provided by 

Congressional Pellow to 

Co~m8dsL~ti"Staff

The American Society of Mechanical Enginee

(ASME), a nonprofit professional society, sponso

a Congressional Fellowship Program under whic

an ASME member takes a year's leave of absenc

from his or her company and serves full time o

•	 

the staff of a member of Congress or on 

Congressional committee. During 1983, an ASM

fellow plans to work on a Congressman's legisl

continue

3
 
March 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Number 

tive staff. Financial support provided to the fel­ other ATLA receipts. In a timely manner, ATLA 

low by ASME or his company will not result in a will forward directly to ACCT those funds to b

prohibited corporate contribution to the Con­ used for political contributions (l.e., funds derive

gressman, as long as this compensation does not 

cover any campaign activities the fellow might 

undertake on behalf of the Congressman <or any 

other federal candidate or political committee). 

The Commission noted that this opinion superseded a previous opinion issued to ASME in 1975 

(OC 1975-63), which held that 18 U.S.C. §610 

(now 2 U.S.C. §441b) prohibited corporate financial support for ASME fellows assigned to the 

staff of a Member of Congress, while permitting 

such support to ASME fellows assigned to a Congressional committee. 

The Commission did not address the application of 

House or Senate rules since they are outside its 

jurisdiction. (Date issued: January 21, 1983; 

Length: 2 pages) 

AO 1982-61:	 Association's Solicitation Plan; 

Disposition of Corporate Donations 

Used for Administering PAC 

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America 

(ATLA), an incorporated membership association 

consisting of individual members, may solicit contributions to its separate segrega ted fund, the 

Attomeys Congressional Campaign Trust (ACCT), 

by implementing a combined dues payment/political contribution plan. Moreover, checks representing combined payments from members may be 

deposited in ATLA's general treasury fund and 

either transmitted to ACCT for use as political 

contributions or, in the case of checks drawn on 

corporate accounts, used to defray ACCT's administrative expenses. Contributions drawn on 

corporate accounts may be used by ATLA to pay 

for the administrative costs of ACCT, but the 

checks may not be transmitted to an "ACCT 

Administrative Fund" under the control and direction of ACCT. 

Under a proposed plan, ATLA will send members a 

sta tement billing them for both membership dues 

and a contribution, payable by one check for the 

total amount. The billing statement will indicate 

that ATLA's contribution guidelines are merely 

suggestions, that the contributor may give more 

or less than the suggested amount and that no 

member will be favored or disfavored by the 

amount of his or her contribution. 11 CFR 114.5 

(a)(2). However, if a member pledges future contributions to ACCT by checking off a box on the 

sta tement, ATLA must include all the solicitation 

information (described above) on any SUbsequent 

from checks drawn on members' personal checkin

accounts). ATLA will also forward a list of th

contributors' names. See 2 U.S.C. §432(b)(2) an

11 CFR 102.8(b), 103.3(d). 

Of the two methods proposed for using corporat

donations (i.e., checks drawn on corporate ac

counts) to pay for ACCT's administrative ex

penses, only one is permissible. ATLA may retai

the corporate donations in its general treasur

fund and pay ACCT's administrative expense

directly from the fund. See 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2

(C); 11 CFR 114.l(b) and 114.5(b); AO's 1982-3

and 1980-59. However, ATLA may not forwar

the donations from its general treasury fund to 

separate ACCT Administrative Fund, which woul

be under the "control and direction of the gov

erning body of ACCT." This method is not permis

sible because, under FEC Regulations, a spon

soring organization (i.e., a corporation or labo

organization) may exercise control over its sepa

rate segregated fund, but a separate segregate

fund may not exercise control over its sponsor

funds. 11 CFR 114.5(d). See also California Med

cal Association v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (981) an

AFL-Cm v. FEC 628 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1980

(Date issued: January 21,1983; Length: 7 pages) 

AO 1982-62:	 Eligibility of 1980 New Party 

Election 

Presidential 

Public 

Candidate 

Funding 

for 

Prior 

Genera

to the 1984 General Election 

Mr. John Anderson, a 1980 new party Presidentia

candidate who received public funding for hi

general election campaign after the 1980 genera

election, meets two of the three eligibility re

quirements for receiving general 'election publi

funding prior to the 1984 general election, shoul

he became a candidate for the Presidency in 1984

Under Section 9004(a)(2)(B) of the Presidentia

Election Campaign Fund Act (the Fund Act), 

Presidential candidate is entitled to receive gen

eral election public funding prior to the Presi

dential general election if the candidate: I) was 

candidate of a political party in the precedin

Presidential general election, 2) received five 

percent or more but less than 25 percent of th

total popular votes cast for all Presidential candi

dates in that election and 3) is the candidate o

one or more political parties (other than a majo

party) for the upcoming Presidential election. A

a new party candidate in 1980, Mr. Anderso

satisfied the first two eligibility requirements

billing sta tement or' reminder.	 However, the Commission found that it did no

have sufficient facts before it to determin

Upon receiving the checks, ATLA plans to deposit whether Mr. Anderson would satisfy. the thir

them in its general treasury fund, along with eligibility requirement. 

4 
March 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Numbe

'. As to any future Commission action, once the to the PAC from the Firm. As in-kind contrib

Commission determines that Mr. Anderson has tions, they must be attributed only to the none

complied with all the conditions for eligibility porate partners in the Firm. The Firm may n

(see 26 U.S.C. SS9002(2), 9003, 9004 and 9005), it contribute more than $5,000 per year to admin

will certify his initial payment to the U.S. Trea­ ter the plan (or the PAC). Alternatively the PA

sury. Certification must occur within 10 days 

after the Commission decides that Mr. Anderson 

is eligible. 

The Commission was not asked to address the 

question of whether, as an independent, nonparty 

candidate, Mr. Anderson would qualify for pregeneral election public funding in 1984 under the 

Fund Act. (Date issued: February 8, 1983; Length: 

4 pages) 

AO 1982-63:	 Check-Off System Used by Law 

Partnership to Solicit 

Funds to Its PAC 

• 

Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg <Ie Tunney (the Firm), 

a law partnership, may implement a check-off 

system to facilitate the making of contributions 

to the Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg &. Tunney 

Political Action Committee (the PAC) from the 

Firm's noncorporate partners and from the employees of its corporate partners. Although it is 

located on Firm premises and is operated by Firm 

personnel, the PAC was established as a none onnected political committee (i.e., a political committee without a corporate sponsor). Accordingly, 

in addition to steps the Firm must take to ensure 

that its corporate partners do not indirectly contribute to the PAC in facilitating contributions 

from their employees, the Firm must ensure that 

expenses it incurs in administering the check-off 

plan do not result in excessive or corporate contributions to the PAC. 

Proposed Cheek-off Plan 

Following the guidelines for partnership contributions spelled out in Section 110.He) of the 

Regulations, a noncorporate partner would authorize the Firm to withhold a designated amount 

from the partner's share of Firm profits. The Firm 

would then transfer this amount to the PAC. An 

employee of a corporate partner would authorize 

the partner to deduct the contribution from his or 

her salary. To expedite the transfer of the employee's contribution to the PAC, the corporate 

partner would authorize the Firm to deduct the 

contribution from the partner's share of Firm 

profits. The Firm would then transfer the amount 

designated to the PAC. 

Conditions of Operating the Plan 

• 

To ensure that neither the Firm nor its 

partners make excessive or prohibited corporate 

contributions to the PAC, expenditures the Firm 

makes to administer the plan (e.g., costs incurred 

in using Firm facilities, personnel, supplies and 

services) must be treated as in-kind contributions 

may reimburse the Firm for expenditures wh

the Firm incurs in administering the check-

plan. All PAC transactions are reportable. 

Firm employees may provide legal and accounti

services to the PAC during regular work hou

but solely to ensure compliance with the A

While these compliance services are specifica

exempt from the Act's definitions of "contrib

tion" and "expenditure" (11 CFR 100.7(bX14

they are reportable by the PAC. 

In authorizing the Firm to deduct a share of 

profits to cover employee contributions, a corp

rate partner. must take steps to ensure that 

does not indirectly make prohibited corpor

contributions to the PAC. Accordingly, a corp

rate partner may not deduct from its profits mo

than the amount needed to deduct an employe

contribution. Nor may the corporate partner ba

an employee's salary level on his or her contrib

tions to the PAC. 2 U.S.C. S441b; 11 CFR 114

(bXl). 

The Commission distinguished this advisory op

ion from earlier opinions involving partnersh

contribution plans. The earlier opinionse de

with partnership contributions to candidates fac

itated through various administrative mech

nisms. In those situations, reporting by the pa

nerships was not required. By contrast, in t

opinion, a partnership has established a noneo

nected political committee subject to the law

reporting provisions. The committee, not t

partnership, makes contributions to candidat

Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a concurri

opinion. Commissioner Thomas E. Harris filed 

dissenting opinion. (Date issued: February 

1983; Length: 8 pages, Including concurring a

dissenting opinions) 

AO 1982-65:	 PAC Information Provided in 

Corporation's Annual Report 

The Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbi

may insert a notice in its 1982 annual rep

regarding the availability of information on 

separate segregated fund, the Union Carbide C

poration Political Action Committee (UCCPA

The notice will be solely informational; it will n

encourage or facilitate contributions to the PA

Accordingly, the notice will not be considered 

continu

'See AO's 1979-77, 1980-72, 1981-50 a

1982-13. 

5 
March 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Number 3 

solicitation for PAC contributions and will not 

require the authorization statement specified in 2 

U.S.C. S441d. 

Similarly, 

tional requests 

Union 

genera

Carbide's 

ted by 

response 

the notice 

to 

will 

informanot be 

considered solicitations of either solicitable 

shareholders or other nonsolieitable individuals 

who receive the report.* The response Union 

Carbide sends to solicitable shareholders will only 

include information on contributions made to 

UCCPAC in the previous year, as well as some 

information on contribution guidelines and 

UCCPAC members. Furthermore, the response 

will explicitly state that Union Carbide plans to 

reject any contributions sent in response to the 

annual report notice. The response Union Carbide 

sends to nonsolicitable individuals will provide no 

information on UCCPAC, but will merely direct 

requesters to consult information on UCCPAC 

filed with the FEC. See also AO's 1979-13, 1979­

66 and 1980-65. (Date issued: February 4, 1983; 

Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1982-66: Merchandising Program to 

Promote Fictitious 1984 

Presidential Candidate 

A merchandising program undertaken by a marketing corporation to promote a fictitious 1984 

Presidential candidate (Le., George Orwell) would 

not be subject to the election law, as long as the 

program did not attempt to influence the election 

or defeat of an actual person. (See AO's 1978-72 

and 1982-30.) However, depending on the facts, 

production costs incurred for promotional items 

tha t referred to actual candidates could be regarded as election-influencing expenditures subject to the Act. 2 U.S.C. SS431 and 441b. (Date 

issued: February 4, 1983; Length: 2 pages) 

'Approximately 70 percent of those receivNEW LlTIGATlON 

Citizens for LaRouche v. FEC 

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. S9041, Lyndon H. LaRouche, a candidate for the Democratic Party's 

Presidential nomination in 1980, and Citizens for 

LaRouche, his principal campaign committee, ask 

the appeals court to review a final determination 

made by the FEC on December 16, 1982. The 

FEC's determination required the LaRouche campaign to repay $54,671.84 in primary matching 

funds to the U.S. Treasury. (The FEC had certified the funds to the LaRouche campaign during 

1980.) 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Docket No. 83-1050, January 11, 

1983. 

Orloski v. FEC 

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. S437g(a)(8), plaintiff 

asks the district court to review and reverse an 

FEC decision dismissing an administrative complaint CUed by plaintiff on September 27, 1982. In 

the complaint, plaintiff had alleged that a picnic 

organized by a group of senior citizens was a 

political event on behalf of a candidate, requiring 

Plaintiff 

the group 

also 

to 

alleged 

register 

that, 

as a 

in 

political 

sponsoring 

committee. 

the pie­

nle, the group had accepted prohibited corporate 

contributions. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 

Docket No. 83-0026, January 7, 1983. 

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES 

The items below identify FEC documents 

that appeared in the Federal Register during 

January and February 1983. Copies of these notices are available in the Public Records Office. 

Notice Title 

1983-3 11 CFR Parts 106 and 9031-9039: 

Presidential Primary Matching Fund; 

Transmittal of Regula tions to Congress 

ing the report are ineligible for UCCPAC solicita­ (48 Fed. Reg. 5224, February 4, 1983) 

tions. Among these are Union Carbide's foreign 

shareholders who are prohibited by 2 U.S.C. S441e 1983-4 Filing Dates for New York Special 

from being solicited for, or making, contributions Election (48 Fed. Reg. 4320, January 

in connection with American elections. 31, 1983) 

6
 
March 1983	 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 9, Numbe

.. 

1982PAC GROWTH 

The number of PACs registered with the FEC 

continued to increase during 1982. By the year's 

end, there were 3,371 PACs, an increase of 16.2 

percent over the 2,901 PACs registered at the end 

of 1981. (The term PAC or political action committee includes all political committees not authorized by a federal candidate and not established by a political party). 

Figures released by the FEC in mid-January sh

tha t yearly increases in the number of PACs sin

1976 have averaged 20 percent, with the exce

tion of 1980, when PACs increased by 28 perce

However, between 1974 and 1976, PAC numb

grew by 88 percent. PACs formed by corporatio

without capital stock showed the greatest perce

tage increase in 1982 -- up by 51.5 percent ov

1981 to a total of 103 PACs. 

The graph below plots the growth of PACs b

tween 1975 and 1982. Figures show that 608 PA

existed at the beginning of 1975. By the end 

1976, that number had risen to 1,146 and 

December 31, 1982, had reached 3,371. The gra

does not reflect the financial activity of PACs. 

PACGROWfH 

Number of PACs 

3500 

•	 3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

Total 

Year 

Corporate 

• 

*For the years 1974 through 1976, the FEC did not identify subcategories of PACs other t

corporate and labor PACs. Therefore, numbers are not available for Trade/Membership/Health PACs 

Nonconnected PA cs. 

**Includes	 PACs formed by corporations without capital stock and cooperatives. Numbers are 

available for these categories of PACs from 1974 through 1976. 

7 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 

1325 K Street, NW.
 

Washington, D.C. 20463
 

Official Business 

First Class Mail
 

Postage & Fees Paid
 

FEC
 

Washington, D.C.
 

Permit No. G-31