• 

• 

Volume 3, Number 5 

THE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

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

FEC REGULATIONS 

BECOME LAW 

On April 13, 1977, the Federal Election Commission prescribed a full set of 

regulations interpreting the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. as 

amended. Proposed regulations were submitted to Congress on January 11, 

1977. Under the statute, the Commission could not prescribe them until 

Congress had 30 legislative days in which to review and disapprove one or 

more parts of the proposed regulations. On March 29, this review period 

expired without either house exercising its veto. A virtually identical 

version of these regulations, previously submitted to Congress on August 3, 

1976, was never officially promulgated because Congress recessed after only 

28 legislative days had passed. 

The bulk of the regulations were published in the August 25, 1975, Federal 

Register, with minor amendments appearing in the Federal Register notices 

dated September 1 0 and October 18, 1976. 

Copies of the regulations, published as reprints of the August 25, 1976, 

Federal Register, were sent last year to all candidates, political committees 

and other individuals on the FEC mailing list. Those in need of additional 

copies may obtain them free of charge from the FEC Office of Public 

Information. The three minor amendments incorporated into the final 

regulations were sent to individuals on the FEC mailing list in March 1977. 

Additional copies are available upon request. 

May 1977 

The other Ex Officio member of the Commission is 

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., Clerk of the House of Represen· 

tatives. 

NEW EX OFFICIO MEMBER 

OF THE COMMISSION 

Serving as nonvoting members of the Commission, each Ex 

Officio Commissioner has a Special Deputy assigned and 

attached to the Commission. Harriet Robnett serves as 

Special Deputy to the Secretary of the Senate and 

Douglas J. Patton is the Special Deputy to the Clerk of the 

House. They serve on the Commission panel when the 

Ex Officio members cannot attend Commission meetings. 

J. S. Kimmitt, sworn in as Secretary of the Senate on 

April 1, has become a new Ex Officio member of the 

Federal Election Commission. Prior to assuming the post of 

Secretary of the Senate, Kimmitt served as Secretary of the 

Majority in the Senate. 
laws outside the Commission's jurisdiction, such as Ti

of the U.S. Code, Federal tax laws and rules of the 

of Representatives, may apply to its operation. 

The Commission also stressed the importance of the o

holder's commitment not to use any personal funds 

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES 

With the official promulgation of FEC regulations on 

April 13, the Commission discontinued the practice of 

issuing "Re: AOR's." All responses to requests for advisory 

opinions will be issued in the form of Advisory Opinions. 

Designated as AO's, Advisory Opinions concern the applica· 

tion of the Act to specific factual situations. Any person 

requesting an advisory 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 1976·112: Democrats Abroad Constitutes 

Party Committee 

Democrats Abroad is considered a party committee because 

it "represents the Democratic Party to Americans living in 

foreign countries, and ... functions as part of the official 

structure of the Democratic Party." It is not, however, con· 

sidered a State party committee since it is not responsible 

for the day·tO·day operation of a political party at the State 

level. Therefore, it is not entitled to the special allowance 

granted to State parties for making expenditures on behalf 

of Federal candidates in the general election. Democrats 

Abroad is, however, regarded as a subordinate of the 

national party committee. Transfers between Democrats 

Abroad and other Democratic party committees are not, 

therefore, subject to contribution limits, but they are 

reportable as intraparty transfers. (Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1977·7: Solicitation of Personal Funds 

The Federal Election Campaign Act does not apply to a 

plan submitted by Congressman George Hansen to solicit 

funds for purely personal, noncampaign purposes. The 

Congressman, therefore, is not required to file any reports 

to the FEC on the activities of such a noncampaign fund· 

raising plan. The Commission emphasized, however, that 

this opinion "should not be construed as Commission 

endorsement or approval of the plan ... " Moreover, other 

the plan was in operation) to influence his own future 

tion. Further, the Commission noted, the Congres

could not assume any liability for a loan obtained by 

behalf of an authorized campaign committee to d

costs of a past or future campaign. (Length: 4 pages) 

AO 1977·9: Separation of Federal and 

Non-Federal Funds 

In two specific factual situations, the Santa Clara C

Democratic Central Committee (SCDC) may transfer 

fie sums of money from its account for local and State 

tions to its Federal Funds Committee (FFC), a sep

committee (with separate account) supporting F

candidates. In the first case, the transfer is perm

because the money was originally contributed by 

"political committees," as defined in the Act. Unde

regulations, a "political committee" may accept con

tions from another "political committee," but not fr

committee which is not organized and operated acco

to the Act and FEC regulations. In the second ins

SCDC may transfer to the F FC funds erroneously depo

in the account for local and State elections since they 

expressly solicited for use in Federal elections 

(Length: 3 pages) 

AO 1977·10: Computerized Voters List As Gift 

by State Committee to Candidate 

A computerized voters list given by the Oklahoma Re

can State Committee to Senators Dewey F. Bartlet

Henry L. Bellmon would not be considered a campaign 

tribution if it were given exclusively for the purpo

aiding the Senators' communications with their co

uents under the congressional franking privilege, an

for the purpose of influencing a Federal election. (Le

2 pages) 

AO 1977·11: Criteria for Candidacy 

Regardless of whether a Member of Congress has 

cially" declared his or her candidacy for reelection, 

he or she or an authorized committee accepts contribu

(Contin

The RECORD is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2046

Commissioners are: Vernon W. Thomson, Chairman; Thomas E. Harris, Vice-Chailman; Joan D. Aikens; William 

Springer; Neil Staebler; Robert 0. Tiernan;J.S. Kim mitt, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Henshaw, J

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex Officio. 

For more-information, call 523·4068 or toll free 800424·9530. 

2 
• 

• 

for a "campaign account" or makes campaign·related 

expenditures from it, the Member is considered a candidate 

for a future Federal election. {Note one exception: Funds 

accepted and spent only to retire a past campaign debt do 

not trigger candidacy for a future election.) 

Once a Member thus becomes a candidate for the 1978 

elections, he or she must file a Statement of Candidate 

(FEC Form 2), designating a principal campaign committee 

and a campaign depository and begin filing reports of 

receipts and expe.nditures required under the Act. The 

Member may utilize the same principal campaign committee he or she used in the 1976 campaign by redesignating 

it on FEC Form 2. 

The Act does not restrict the types of expenditures which a 

candidate may make from the campaign account. Funds 

may be used, for example, to defray the costs of services 

which are "quasi-political in nature," such as expenses 

related to travel within the District to address a political 

party meeting or flowers sent to constituents for anniversaries, funerals, etc. 

The advisory opinion notes, however, that noncampaign 

expenditures made from a campaign account may be 

subject to the rules of the House of Representatives and 

Federal tax laws. (Length: 4 pages) 

AUDIT PROCEDURES 

The Federal Election Commission is directed by the 

Campaign Finance Act (2 U.S.C. Sec. 438(a)(8)) "to make 

from time to time audits and field investigations with 

respect to reports and statements filed under the (Act)." 

To carry out this duty, the Commission at its April 7 meet· 

ing approved procedures for conducting audits. 

Three basic objectives for F EC audits were endorsed: 

verifying reporting accuracy, determining compliance with 

the Act and providing guidance to persons filing under the 

Act. The Commission stressed the importance of using its 

auditing staff to help educate candidates and committees 

about proper recordkeeping and reporting procedures. 

The Commission adopted a seven-step auditing process: 

1. A detailed pre·audit review at the F EC of all reports and 

statements filed by the party. 

2. An "Entrance Conference" between the auditors and the 

candidate or committee to explain the purpose of the 

audit, outline its procedures, obtain necessary documents, records and statements and answer any questions 

about the audit process. 

3 

3. A field review to verify the candidate or committe

records. 

4. An "Exit Conference" between auditors and the ca

date or committee to discuss the results of the au

subsequent audit procedures and possible suggesti

for impr?ved recordkeeping and reporting. 

5. A staff report to the Commission on the audit resu

6. Commission review of the report to decide what act

if any, to take with respect to these results. 

7. Publication of all completed audits. 

FEC PUBLICIZES NON-FILERS IN 

GEORGIA'S SPECIAL ELECTION 

The FEC published on March 12 the names of th

candidates for Georgia's 5th District seat in the Hous

Representatives {and their principal campaign committ

who failed to file their pre-election reports. Due ten d

before the March 15 special election, the report was to h

covered the candidate's (campaign's) financial transact

related to the special election held in Georgia to fill the 

vacated by U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young . 

Before making the names public, the Commission sent th

candidates three notices reminding them of their repor

obligations and urging compliance. 

FEC FILES SUITS AGAINST SIX 

HOUSE CANDIDATES 

On March 30, the FEC announced it had filed civil s

in six U.S. District Courts (in Alabama, Illinois, Nev

New York, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) to compel 

1976 candidates for the House of Representatives 

comply with the reporting requirements of the Fed

Election Campaign Act. In separate suits, the FEC as

the courts to order these candidates either to designa

principal campaign committee or to file one or m

required reports (pre-general election, post-general elect

year-end) or both. In addition, the Commission asked 

courts to assess a penalty of not more than $5,000 aga

the candidates for "failing and refusing to comply with 

Act." 

As of April 1, the FEC had filed a total of 28 civil sui

District Courts against candidates failing to file reports 

the 1976 Federal elections. 

Prior to filing these suits, the Commission had sent 

candidates at least two notices concerning each repor

obligation. In addition, it made public their failure 

comply with the Act's reporting provisions. 
ONE-HALF MILLION RETURNED 

TO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FUND 

The Federal Election Commission announced on 

March 18 that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) 

and the Republican National Committee (RNC) had returned to the Federal Treasury a total of more than a halfmillion dollars in surplus funds originally certified for the 

1976 Presidential nominating conventions. The DNC had 

refunded $170,085 and the RNC, $382,136 in unused 

funds. 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, each major 

party was entitled to $2,182,000 in Federal funds to defray 

costs related to the nominating Convention. 

The following figures, which take into account the refunds 

made by the two national committees, indicate how public 

funds were allocated for the 1976 Presidential campaign: 

$2,010,785 ·- DNC national nominating convention 

1,581,664 ·- RNC national nominating convention 

3,592,449 --Total convention payments 

24,774,330 --Primary matching funds for 15 Presidential 

candidates (as of April14, 1977) 

43,640,000 --General election payments 

to Ford and Carter 

$72,006,779 ·-Total certified for Convention, Primary and 

General Elections (as of April14, 1977) 

Public funds are disbursed from the Presidential Election 

Fund consisting of $1 dollar amounts checked off by individuals filing their income tax returns. The fund received 

roughly $95.8 million between 1973 and 1976. As of 

December 31, 1976, this left a surplus of approximately 

$23.8 million to be carried over to the 1980 Presidential 

elections. Between January 1 and March 30, 1977, an additional $17,170,000 was added (from the dollar check-off 

on tax returns filed for 1976), bringing the total amount 

in the Fund to $40,970,000. 

FEC CONTINUES FUND CERTIFICATIONS 

FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 

As of April 14, the FEC had certified a total of 

$24,774,329.99 in matching funds for 15 Presidential primary candidates in 1976. In the case of those candidates 

with remaining primary debts, the Commission continues to 

match qualified contributions received prior to December 

31, 1976. Public funds certified since August 1976 may be 

used only to retire primary debts incurred before the 

national party nominating conventions. Total certifications 

by candidate, as of April 14, are as follows: 

4 

CANDIDATE TOTAL CERTIFICA

B. Bayh (D) ...................... $ 

L. Bentsen (D) ..................•. 

E.G. Brown (D) ................•... 

J. Carter (D) ..................... . 

F. Church (D) .................... . 

G. Ford (R) ..................... . 

F. Harris (D) ..................... . 

H. Jackson (D) ......•.•........... 

E. McCormack (D) ................. . 

R. Reagan (R) ...........•..•...... 

T. Sanford (D) .................•.. 

M. Shapp (D) .................... . 

S. Shriver (D) .................... . 

M. Udall (D) ..................... . 

G. Wallace (D) ................... . 

ANNUAL REPORT 

545,

511,

598,

3,726,

640,

4,657,

639,

1,980

244

5,088

246

299,

285

2,020

3,291,

In its Annual Report for 1976, transmitted to C

on March 28, the FEC says it received disclosure 

from 3,022 Federal candidates (230 candidates 

Presidency, 415 for the Senate and 2,377 for the H

Representatives). from 5,651 political committees an

376 individuals and groups reporting money spent in

dently on behalf of candidates. Altogether, 9,04

representing 3,390 campaigns submitted a half-mill

closure documents. 

In the public financing area, the Commission rep

provided funds to 15 qualified Presidential primary 

dates and developed satisfactory procedures to 

public confidence in the matching process. Duri

peak of the primary season when, for two mont

Supreme Court's decision prevented the FEC fro

tifying public funds, the Commission continued "

ing and processing requests for matching payme

that it was ready "to certify a backlog of $3.2 

to nine candidates on May 21," the day it was em

ed to resume certification of public funds to Pres

candidates. 

During 1976, the Commission reports, the FEC 

mented a computer system to assist in its initial re

disclosure documents, the publication of a var

indexes and the compilation of data from dis

reports. 

By conducting all of its 88 formal meetings and nu

task force meetings in public view, the FEC enc

additional "public comment that would not have 

readily available to the Commission had discussio

held in closed session." 

(Con
The Annual Report also summarizes procedures and policy 

questions related to public financing, disclosure, expenditure and contribution limitations and enforcement. A 

special section includes the full text of the Commission's 

legislative recommendations (summarized .in the March 

issue of the Record). Throughout the Report, the Commission provides statistics on its activity. During 1976, the 

Commission: 

--Certified $24.3 million in matching grants to 15 Presidential candidates; $4.1 million in grants to finance the two 

major party nominating conventions; and $43.6 million 

to the two major party Presidential nominees. 

--Submitted a complete set of proposed regulations to 

Congress which were published in the Federal Register. 

--Responded to 25,000 telephone and letter inquiries 

received by the Public Communications office, including 

more than 1,000 calls a week during October. 

--Provided 57 formal advisory opinions and 51 responses 

to requests for_advisory opinions. 

--Reviewed 319 enforcement cases (including 34 begun in 

1975) of which two-thirds were closed after preliminary 

review or investigation. 

--Made public 245 completed compliance cases. 

--Published the names of 127 candidates as "non-filers" 

after having sent each one at least two notices reminding 

him of his failure to comply with reporting requirements. 

Of this number, only 22 resulted in civil litigation. 

--Published informational materials, including a six-part 

Campaign Guide, a periodic newsletter, compilation of 

Federal election campaign laws and a Bookkeeping 

Manual. 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: 

REPORT OF FEC 

On March 17, 1977, the Federal Election Commission 

transmitted to Congress a report on its 1976 activities 

under the Freedom of Information Act. The report points 

out that most materials and information at the FEC are 

regularly made available to the public, virtually "eliminating the need for interested parties to utilize formal procedures under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain 

desired information." The only exceptions to this open 

policy are pending audits, compliance cases and personnel 

matters. All of the Commission's 88 meetings in 1976, for 

example, were open to the public with the exception of the 

portions of meetings dealing with pending compliance, 

auditor personnel topics. Even compliance cases, the report 

explains, were revealed to the public once the Commission 

completed action on them. During 1976, 245 such compliance cases were released to the public. As further 

evidence of the Commission's general policy of openness, 

the report cites public access to all campaign finance 

reports, the processing of 25,000 requests for information 

and the regular distribution of informational materials to a 

mailing list of more than 10,000 candidates, political 

committees and other interested parties. 

5 

FEC RELEASES INDEX 

OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES 

An index released by the Federal Election Commission 

on March 23 reveals that individuals and groups spent 

$373,993 in "independent expenditures" which supported 

or opposed 43 Federal candidates in the 1976 elections. Of 

this total, $364,823 was spent in support of 43 candidates 

and $9,170 was spent in opposition to two candidates. (An 

"independent expenditure" is a disbursement for communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 

clearly identified candidate. It may not be made with the 

cooperation or at the request of the candidate or his/her 

authorized agents. Independent expenditures are reported 

by the person or group making them.) The 130-page index, 

itemizing independent expenditures alphabetically by candidate and spender, covers the period from January 1, 1975 

to February 28, 1977. It does not include independent 

expenditures made by regularly reporting political committees. 

The following chart, based on data from the index, details 

the total amounts of independent expenditures made in 

support of each Presidential candidate. 

Independent Expenditures for Presidential Caodidates 

Candidate Amount Spent %of Total 

Ronald Reagan . . . . . $115,957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43% 

Gerald Ford ....... $108,214* ............ 40% 

Frank Church. . . . . . $ 24,212. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% 

Jimmy Carter. . . . . . $ 17,091* . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% 

Morris Udall. . . . . . . $ 675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% 

Jerry Brown. . . . . . . $ 630 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% 

Milton Shapp . . . . . . $ 448 ............ . 

George Wallace . . . . . $ 445 ............ . 

Henry Jackson . . . . . $ 14 ............ . 

TOTAL .......... $267,686 ............. 100% 

*Figures do not include expenditures made in opposition to the 

candidate: $650 made in opposition to Gerald Ford and $8,520 

made in opposition to Jimmy Carter. 

This index also lists expenditures made on behalf of clearly 

identified candidates by "unauthorized delegates" participating in the Presidential nominating conventions (i.e., 

those delegates who had no financial relationship with a 

Presidential candidate) and delegate committees. They 

spent a total of $277,167 for communications supporting 

or opposing Federal candidates. This figure, representing 

the expenditures made for identified candidates only, 

does not reflect total expenditures made by all "unauthorized delegates" and delegate committees; 67 percent of 

such delegates and committees reported the identity of 

the candidates they supported. 
FEC COMPLETES TESTIMONY 

ON BUDGET REQUEST 

Completing its testimony on the budget request for 

fiscal year 1978, the Federal Election Commission 

addressed the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Treasury, Postal Service and General Government on 

March 30, 1977. Commissioners Robert 0. Tiernan and 

Joan D. Aikens presented data in support of the Commis· 

si9n's request for $8.123 million. Similar testimony was 

previously delivered to the Senate Rules and Senate 

Appropriations Committees on March 3 and 15, respectively. Congress has not yet voted on the FY '78 appropriations. 

FEC ENSURES EQUALITY OF 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

On March 31, the Commission adopted specific guide· 

lines to ensure equality of employment opportunity for all 

persons working at the FEC, regardless of their race, creed, 

color, sex, age, national origin, physical handicaps or other 

irrelevant factors. 

To carry out this policy, the Commission designated several 

staff members to serve as Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) officers while continuing their other regular duties at 

the FEC. Victor Sterling, staff attorney, will serve as EEO 

Director; Evelyn Kershaw, document coordinator, will be 

Federal Women's Program Coordinator; and Joan 

Middleton, secretary to Commissioner Staebler, will serve as 

one of two EEO counselors. 

The EEO Director is responsible for developing programs to 

ensure equal employment opportunity, appraising personFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1325 KSTREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

nel operations to gauge conformity with EEO policy a

providing counseling services to employees or job applica

who feel they have encountered discrimination. T

Women's Coordinator, under the EEO Director's sup

vision, is responsible for matters of special concern 

women, including recruitment, training, advanceme

expansion of part~time employment opportunities a

development of an Upward Mobility Program to allevi

concentration of women in lower~level, dead~end positio

FEC documents of general applicability are publish

regularly in the Federal Register. The following list iden

fies all FEC documents appearing in the Federal Regis

between March 19 and April 14, 1977: 

Federal Register 

Notice Title Publication Date Citation 

1977·17 Advisory Opinion 3·21·77 42 FR 1536

Request 1977~12 

1977·18 Clearinghouse 3·28·77 42 FR 1646

Advisory Panel 

Review Notice 

1977-19 Advisory Opinion 3-30·77 42 FR 1684

Request 1977~13 

1977·20 Candidate and 4·14·77 42 FR 1961

Committee Index 

of Filers ~-1975 & 

1976 

1977·21 Advisory Opinion 4·5·77 42 FR 1824

Request 1977-14 

1977·22 Advisory Opinion 4.f;·77 42 FR 1830

Request 1977-15 

1977·23 Promulgation of 4·13·77 42 FR 19324 

Regulations lmplementing FECA 

of 1971, as amended 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

U.S.MAIL