FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

August 1989 999 EStreet NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 15, Number

6

6

8

5

5

5

1

3

3

4

10

11

11 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

11 INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Texas And California Elections

PAC And Party Reporting Requirements

Party Expenditure Limits

ADVISORY OPINIONS

AUDITS

Haig for President Final Audit Report

FEe Hears Du Pont Committee Presentatio

REGULATIONS

STATISTICS

PAC Activity, 1987-88

PAC Contributions, 1987-88

Independent Expenditures, 1987-88

800 LINE

8 Opinion Polls

COURT CASES

Fund for A Conservative Majority, Debtor

FEC v, Life Amendment PAC

Texas Special Election

Texas has scheduled a special election 

A~~t 12, 1989, to fill the 12th Congressio

District seat vacated by the resignation of Hou

Speaker Jim Wright.

A second special election may be required 

no candidate wins a majority of the votes in 

August 12 election. In that case, a second spec

election will be scheduled within five days af

the official election results are declared. O

the two top vote-getters in the previous electio

regar~:ness of their party affiliation, will parti

pate 10 the second election.

California Special Election

California will hold a special election 

S~pt~mber 12, 1989, to fill the 15th Congressio

Dlstrict vacated by the resignation of Congre

man Tony Coelho.

As in Texas, a second election may be nec

sary. If no candidate wins a majority of votes 

the September 12 primary, the top vote-getters 

each political party will participate in a spec

general election on November 7, 1989.

continu

San Francisco: October 12-13

Cosponsored with the California Secretary of State's Office, this conference will

feature a special workshop on the new state

campaign .finan~e. law presented by the Califorma Fall' Polltical Practices Commission..

The conference will be held at the Holiday

Inn-Fisherman's Wharf; the fee is $100.

CONFERENCE SERmS ON ELECTION LA W

In upcoming months, the Federal Election Commission will hold two conferences on

federal campaign finance laws. The conferences will include workshops on candidate

c.ampaigns, party and PAC activity, contributtons ~nd reporting. In addition, a representative of the Internal Revenue Service

will be available to answer election-related

tax questions.

The schedule for the conferences is

given below. For more information, contact

the FEC's Information Services Division at

800/424-9530 or 202/376-3120.

Philadelphia: Septembef' 14-15

This conference will be held at the Holiday Inn-Center City. The conference fee is

$110.

TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Texas and California have scheduled special

elections to fill recently vacated House seats.

The reporting f.equiremeo.ts explained below apply

only to committees active 10 the special elections. All other committees should follow the

nor mal nonelection year reporting schedule (see

the January and June issues of the Record).

Politi~a~ c~mm~ttees authorized by candidates participating In these elections must file

the ap.propriate pre- and post-election reports,

according to the schedules given below. PACs

and party committees may also have to file

special election reports, as explained in the article that follows.
August 1989

I

I

FEDERAU ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Numb

TEXAS SPECIAL ELECTION

REPORTING DATES

Table I: Only One Election Held; Committees

Supporting Only Candidates in 8!12 Electioh

I

Where to File

Authorized committees of candidates file

with the Clerk of the House (see Form 31 for the

address) and simultaneously file copies o~ reports

with the appropriate state office: I

o Texas Secretary of State, P.O. Boxl 12070,

Austin, TX 78711 I

o California Secretary of State, P.o. Box 1467,

Sacramento, CA 95812-1467

8/3

10/

1/3

8/3

10/2

12/7

1/3

Fili

Dat

Fili

Dat

7/3

1/3

Fili

Dat

7/31

TBA

TBA

1/3

8/28

10/12

1/31

Reg.!

Cert.

MailiOO

Date *

8/28

10/23

12/7

1/31

Reg.!

CerL

~::~~

Reg.!

CerL

Mailing* Date

7/28

1/31

Period

Covered

7/1** - 8/23

8/24 - 10/2

10/3 - 12/31

7/l** - 8/23

8/24 - 10/18

10/19 - 11/27

11/28 - 12/31

Period

Covered

Period

Covered

Pre-Election

Post-Election

Year-End

**"t» be announced,

Report

Pre-Primary

Pre-General

Post-General

Year-End

CALIFORNIA SPECIAL ELECTION

REPORTING DATES

Report

Mid-Year Waived

Pre-Primary 1/1** -7/23 7/28

Pre-General 7/24 - TBA*** TBA

Post-General TBA TBA

Year-End TBA - 12/31 1/31

Report

Report Period Reg.! Fili

Covered CerL Dat

Mailll.Jg

Date*

Mid-Year Waived

Pre-Primary 1/1* * - 7/23

Year-End 7/24 - 12/31

Table I: Only One Election Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in 9/12 Election

Table II: Two Elections Held; Commi

Supporting Candidates in Both 9/12 Primary 

11/7 General

Table II: Two Elections Held; Com mittees

Supporting Candidates in Both Primary (8/12)

And General (To Be Announced)

Table III: Two Elections Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in 8!12 Primary Only 

in General)

2

I

i

~/31

~~g

~iling

Date

i

7/28

9/11

1/31

Reg./

CerL

Maili~

Date*

Waived

1/1 ** - 7/23

7/24 - 9/1

9/2 - 12/31

Period

Covered

Mid-Year

Pre-Special

Post-Special

Year-End

Report

Reporting by Authorized Committees !

Authorized committees of candidates who

participate in these elections must file reports

according to the schedules given in the tables

below. The committee treasurer should consult

the table that corresponds to the candidate's

situation. I

Note that an authorized committee must also

file notices on contributions of $1,000 'or more

received after the close of books for the preelection report but more than 2 days b~fore an

election. The notice must reach the Cle~k of the

House and the appropor-iate state office within 48

hours of the committee's receipt of the oontrfbution, 11 CFR 104.5(f). See also AO 1988-~2.

Contribution Limits :1

The limits on contributions to candidates

apply separately to each election that is held. 11

CFR 100.2, 110.10) and 110.2(1). A candidate

must participate in an election to qualifjll' for the

contribution limit for that election.

I

"'Reports sent by registered or certified mail

must be postmarked by the mailing date. IOtherwise, they must be received by the filing da;te.

**Or I from the close of books of t~e last

report filed, if the closing date is after 14/31/88

for the Texas election or after 6/30/89 for the

California election. If no previous repor~ have

been filed, the opening date is the date .of the

committee's first activity.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

August 1989

Table Ill: Two Elections Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in 9/12 Primary Only (But

Not in U/7 General)

Volume 15, Number 

o The committee has not previously disclosed th

special election activity in an earlier repor

U CFR 104.5(c)(l)(ii) and 104.5(h).

Report

Pre-Primary

Year-End

Period

Covered

7/1** -8/23

8/24 - 12/3J

Reg./

Cert.

Maili!1lt

Date*

8/28

1/31

Filing

Date

8/31

1/31

Monthly Filers

PACs and party committees that file month

during 1989 do not have to file pre- and pos

election reports for special elections. PACs filin

on a monthly schedule may, however, have to fil

independent expenditure reports, as explaine

below.

•

SPECIAL ELECTION REPORTING FOR

PAC AND PARTY COMMITTEES

PACs and party committees may also have to

file special election reports, depending on whether they file on a semiannual or monthly schedule. 1

Additionally, PACs-including monthly filersmay have to file last-minute reports on independent expenditures made in connection with special

elections.

Semiannual Filers

PACs and party committees that report on a

seminannual schedule during 1989 may have to

file pre- and post-election reports. A filing

requirement for a special election report is

triggered if:

o The PAC or party committee makes contributions or expenditures in connection with a

special election during the coverage dates

shown in the tables; and

*Reports sent by registered or certified mail

must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

*-Or from the close of books of the last

report filed, if the closing date is after 12/31/88

for the Texas election or after 6/30/89 for the

California election. If no previous reports have

been filed, the opening date is the date of the

committee's first activity.

1Party committees and PACs report on

either a semiannual basis or a monthly basis

during 1989, a nonelection year. Committees that

filed quarterly during 1988 now file semiannually;

committees that filed monthly reports in 1988

continue to file monthly in 1989, unless the

committee has changed its filing frequency under

11 CFR 104.5(c).

PAC Reports on Independent Expenditures

Any PAC (including a monthly filer) th

makes independent expenditures in connectio

with a special election may have to file a las

minute report. Independent expenditure

aggregating $1,000 or more that are made afte

the close of books for a pre-election report (se

tables) but more than 24 hours before the electio

must be reported within 24 hours after th

expenditure is made. II CFR 104.4(b) an

104.4(g).

PARTY EXPENDITURE LIMITS

FOR TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

The coordinated party expenditure limit fo

the Texas and California special elections 

$23,990 ($10,000 multiplied by 2.399, the 198

cost-of-living adjustment). This amount may b

spent by the party's national committee in co

nection with the general election campaigns 

candidates running in the special elections. Th

party's Texas and California state committee

may also each spend up to $23,990 on coordinate

party expenditures in connection with the speci

election in their state.

For purposes of coordinated party expend

tures, the August 12 Texas election and th

September 12 California election are considere

general ejections; party committees may ther

fore make coordinated expenditures on behalf 

candidates running in those elections. Note, how

ever, that a single $23,990 limit (that is, one lim

for the national party and one for the state part

applies, regardless of how many of the party

candidates run in the election and regardless 

whether a second election is held. (A secon

election would be considered a continuation of th

first.) AO 1983-16.

•

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

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

Joan Aikens; Thomas J. ,Josefiak; John Warren McGarry;"Scott E. Thomas; Walter J. Stewart,

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

Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/316-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530. (TOO For Hearing

Impaired 202/376-3136)

3
August 1989

i

FEDE~ ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Num

~:~r:'- --'~~-""7--'" --.-.~--~-- ._- --,..-...... - ~~.

_~~..:.t .}I.·:::~~·~.·:~ .: '."":'/; <rr •:\", /:' '••

.,. / >; A ~! ,"

f >- , • 

__•• • ,. ._. _ _ ._ 

I

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS i

The following chart lists recent re~uests for

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of each

AOR is available to the public in the [Cornmission's Office of Public Records. .

AO 1989-7: Corporation's Matching of ;

PAC Contributions with

Donations to Chartity

!he New Jersey Bell Telephone Company!may use

its treasury funds to match contributiohs to its

separate segregated fund with donations ~o charity. :

The company proposes to match the total

amount of an individual's PAC contributions from

the previous year with an equal donation to a

501(c)(3) charity designated by the con~ributor. (See 26 U.S.C. §50 l(c}(3) of the Internal Revenue

Code.) This plan SUbstantially resembles one

approved by the Commission in AO 1986-(44. According to that opinion, matching payn1ents to

501(c)(3) charities qualify as solicitation ~xpenses

of a separate segregated fund, which arel exempt

from the definition of expenditure under 2 U.S.C.

§441b{b)(2)(C) and which may therefore!1 be defrayed with the corporation's treasury funds. See

also AO 1988-48. This process does not result in a

prohibited exchange of treasury funds fo~ contributions because the individual contributors do not

AOR

1989-10

1989-11 .

1989-12

1989-13

Subject .

I

Procedures for determining [a candidate committee's deficit due to embezzlement by former treasurer. (Date

made public: June 15, 1989; Length: 2

pages),I

Sponsorship of a noneonnected political committee by members of a

partnership that is a federal Icontractor. (Date made public: June 16,

1989; Length: 4 pages) I

i

Aces preemption of a statellaw restricting contributions to U.S. Senate

candidates by persons providing services to a lottery commission. .(Date

made publics June 23, 1989~ Length:

3 pages, plus 16-page supplement) I

I

Corporation's plan to provide candidates with computers and software to

aid them in compliance with Ithe Act.

(Date made public: July 10, 1989;

Length: 6 pages) ,

4

receive any financial or tangible benefit, su

a tax benefit.

Commissioner Scott E. Thomas filed 

senting opinion. (Date issued: June 30, 

Length, including dissent: 8 pages)

AO 1989-8: Solicitable Class and Name of P

Established by Corporation

Affiliated with Partnership

Insilco Corporation may establish a separate 

regated fund to solicit the restricted class o

corporation and its affiliates, including an a

ated partnership, Wagner &: Brown. Wagn

Brown's solicitable class, however, does no

tend beyond its executive and administrative 

sonnel and their families. The name of the 

must include the full name of Insilco Corpor

the connected organization, but it may als

clude the name of the affiliated partnership.

Because the two individuals who are par

of Wagner & Brown have a controlling inter

Insilco, the partnership and corporation are a

ated. By virtue of this affiliation, Insileo's 

arate segregated fund may solicit the pa

ship's executive and administrative personne

their families. 11 CFR 114.5(g)(O. The PAC 

also solicit the restricted class of three cor

tions owned by Wagner & Brown and of 27 

sions and subsidiaries owned or controlle

Insileo itself, since all these organizations q

as affiliates of Insileo, 

With respect to the solicitable personne

partnership affiliated with a corporation

1989-8 partially supersedes AO 1979-77 to 

extent that the previous opinion implied t

political committee sponsored by a partne

but affiliated with a corporate separate s

gated fund could solicit contributions beyon

restricted class, set out at II CPR 114.5(g)(l

The name of the proposed PAC must in

the full name of its connected organization, 

co Corporation. 11 CFR 102.14(c). As the e

paying for the PAC's establishment, admin

tion and SOlicitation costs, Insileo will be 

connected organization. II CPR 100.6. The 

of the affiliated partnership may also be inc

in the PAC's name (i.e., "Insilco Corporation/

ner &: Brown Political Action Committee" 

permissible name), but the PAC's Stateme

Organization should list only Insilco Corpo

as the connected organization. Vice Cha

Lee Ann Elliott plans to file a dissenting op

(Date issued: June 30, 1989; Length: 4 pages
August 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Numbe

AO 1989-9: PAC Contributions Matched

with Charitable Donations

The General Dynamics Corporation may match

employee contributions to its separate segregated

fund with donations to charity, a plan similar to

the one contemporaneously approved in AO 1989-

7, summarized above.

Under the proposed program, first-time contributors to the PAC who contribute $200 or more

may designate a 50 l(c){3) charitable organization

to receive a donation from the company in an

amount equal to the employee's contribution.

Employees already enrolled in the PAC who increase their support above the $200 level may

also be eligible to designate a charity to receive a

corporate donation equal to the increase. This

plan, like the one in AO 1989-7, resembles the

plan approved in AO 1986-44. In that opinion, the

Commission viewed a corporation's matching of

contributions with charitable gifts as a solicitation expense permissible under 2 U.S.C. S44l{b)

(2)(C).

Commissioner Scott E. Thomas dissented to

this advisory opinion for the same reasons given in

his dissenting opinion to AO 1989-7. (Date issued:

June 30, 1989; Length, including dissent: 4 pages)

T~-'---; -,._--- :-.~""'"'-"'~-~.~~~-v-~--~-. ..J-"/ 7~"""""""'~"-<--"'"";;:.~~::-:

~{(l~~~~iJ~~~i~

FINAL AUDIT REPORT ON

HAIG CAMPAIGN RELEASED

In June the Commission released the final

audit report on the Haig for President com mittee,

Alexander Haig's 1988 Presidential primary campaign committee.

The Commission must audit all committees

receiving public funds to ensure that they have

complied with federal campaign finance laws.

Mr. Haig was one of 15 Presidential candidates

whose primary campaign committees received

U.S. Treasury funds in the form of matching

payments (up to $250 from each individual contributor can be matched with public funds). The

Commission also authorized full public financing

for the two major parties' Presidential nominating

conventions and for their nominees' general election campaigns. Along with the Haig campaign,

the Commission has released final audit reports

on the campaigns of Pete du Pont and Bruce

Babbitt; other committees rec eiving public funds

for the 1988 elections are in various stages of the

audit process.

As a result of the Haig audit, the Commission

found that several disbursements totaling

$23,029.10 lacked sufficient documentation to be

considered "qualified campaign expenses," 11

CPR 9033.11. Because the law requires it com5

rnittee to repay any public funds that were u

for nonqualified campaign expenses, the Comm

sion made an initial determination that the co

mittee repay to the Treasury $5,979.14, t

portion of the nonquali tied expenses that was 

frayed with public funds.

The Haig audit also revealed that the co

mittee had received $1,681 in matching payme

for seven contributions that exceeded the la

limits and therefore were not matchable under 

CFR 9034.3(e). The committee received an ad

tional $1,174 in matching funds for contributi

that were not matchable because they were 

payable to Haig for President. Instead, th

contributions, which were raised during jo

fundraising events, were made payable to or d

ignated for other committees participating in 

events. Based on these audit findings, the Co

mission made an intital determination that 

committee repay an additional $2,855 ($1,681 p

$1,174) to the Treasury.

A copy of the final audit report for the H

for President committee is available from 

FEC's Public Records Office.

FEe HEARS PRESENTATION BY

DU PONT COMMITTEE

On June 28, 1989, the Chairman of the P

du Pont for President Committee, Glenn Kent

made an oral presentation before the Commiss

to contest the initial repayment determinat

that the Commission had made in the Final Au

Report on the committee, released in March a

summarized in the May 1989 Record.

In that report, the Commission had mad

preliminary determination that the commit

repay $23,254.83 to the U.S. Treasury--a s

representing the portion of public funds used 

the committee to make expenditures in excess 

the spending limit in Iowa. The Commission w

consider the com mittee's presentation when 

makes a final repayment determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF

TRADE ASSOCIATION RULE

An amended regulation governing solic

tions by trade associations, 11 CFR 114.8(f), 

came effective on June 28, 1989. (See 54 F

Reg. 27153.) The revised rule, which applies 

the solicitation of parent and SUbsidiary mem

corporations, appeared in the March 15, 19

Federal Register (54 Fed. Reg. 10622) and w

sum mariz ed in the May 1989 Record.
August 1989

I

FEDERAL ~LEC-nON COMMISSION Volume 15, Numb

PAC ACTIVITYIN 1988 ELECTIONS i

An interim FEC report released i/1 April

showed a slowdown in the growth of PAC ~activity

during the last election. During 1987 artd 198~;

PACs-that is, noncandidate and. n?npar~y political committees-raised $369.5 million and spent

$349.6 million, increases respectively of 51percent

and 3 percent over the previous electi?? cycle.

By comparison, 1985-86 PAC receipts and

disbursements were, respectively, 22 percent and

27 percenthigher than during th.e 1984 cyc;le.

DurinlI the 1987-8.8 . election cycle'i Democrats received $98.6 million from PACsi62 percent of all PAC contributions, a 25 lpercent

increase over the amount contributed t~ Democrats in 1985-86. Republicans receive~ $60.8

million from PACs, an amount vtrtuauy unchanged from the $60.9 million received during

the 1986 cycle. :

Incumbent candidates received 74 percent of

all PAC contributions in the past election, up

from 68 percent in 1986. At the sameI tiime,

contributions to challengers declined from I 14 percent in 1986 to 12 percent in 1988. I

The table below summarizes total receipts,

disbursements and contributions to candidates

made by PACs during 1987-88. Further d~tails on

1987-88 PAC activity are provided in a statistical

press release available from the FEC's', Public

Records Office. Call 800/424-9530. :

;

SUMMARY OF PAC ACTIVITY, 1987-88 !

(in millions of dollars)

Type of Raised Spent Contributed to

PAC Canditlates

I

Corporate $96.4 $89.0 $56.~

Labor 76.0 70.4 35.~

Trade/Membership/Health 86.4 81.6 41.2

Cooperatives! !

Corporations

without Stock 13.3 11.6 6.~i

Nonconnected 97.4 97.0 20.~

1

6

PAC CONTRIBUTIONS, 1987-88

Information compiled by the FEC's Data 

terns Development Division provides a det

analysis of contributions made by PAGs during 

1987-88 cycle.

The graph on the followin~ page comp

the major categories of PAGs In terms of 

mean (or average) and median contributions 

ing 1987-88. Both mean and median levels 

been shown because neither amount, by it

adequately describes a typical committee in 

category. For example, the mean amount 

tributed by corporate PACs (arr-ived at by div

total contributions by the number of PAGs) 

$28 105. By eomparison.. median corporate 

tributions were $11,100 (indicating that half o

corporate PAGs gave more than that amoun

half gave less); The mean amount contribute

labor organization PAGs was $88,646,. wh

median labor contributions were $1,120. In 

case, the median is much lower than the m

because of substantial variations in amounts g

by different committees. Less than 2 perce

corporate PAGs and about 6 percent of 

PAGs made contributions aggregating 

$500,000, while approximately half of all co

ate PACs and two-thirds of all labor PAGs m

aggregate contributions amounting to $5,00

less.

These variations can be seen more expli

in the accompanying table, which distrib

PACs according to the total amount they con

uted to candidates during the 1987-88 ele

cycle. The table shows, for example,. that 

corporate PACs did not make any candidate 

tributions in the past cycle, while 558 m

contributions of between $1 and $5,000. 

means that nearly half the corporate PACs 

out of 2 008) accounted for 2 percent of 

corporate' PAG money contributed to candid

during 1987-88. By contrast, the 100 corpo

PAGs falling in the $100,001 to $250,000 co

bution range-5 percent of the total-accou

for more than a quarter (27 percent) of 

corporate PAC dollars contributed during 

two-year period.

The table also shows that 68 percent o

labor committees made contributions amou

to $5 000 or less, and that labor contributio

this r~nge accounted for 1 percent of all cont

tions from labor PACs to candidates. Six per

of aU labor committees made candidate cont

tions in excess of $500,000; contributions 

labor PAGs in this range accounted for 76 per

of all labor contributions.
August 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Numbe

PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES,1 1987-88

_ Mean and Median Contributions

$100l000

•

Mean

Median 75,000

501000

25,000

o

Corporate Labor Trade/Membership/Health

Key

Cooperative/

Corporation

w/o stock

Nonconnected

Distribution of PACs by Total Contributions2

$0 $1 $5l001 $50,001 $100,001 $250,001 $500,001 $1,000,001 Tot

I I I I I I I PAC

$5,000 $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 and over

Corporate 402 558 744 169 100 31 3 1 2,

% of Committees 20 28 37 8 5 2 <1 <1

% of Dollars ($56.3 mil.) 0 2 26 21 27 18 3 2

Labor 149 124 68 10 18 9 11 12 

% of Committees 37 31 17 2 4 2 3 3

% of Dollars ($41.2 mil.) 0 1 3 2 9 9 23 53

Trade/Member/Health 222 241 256 56 39 19 7 8 

% of Committees 26 28 30 7 5 2 1 1

% of Dollars ($35.5 mil.) 0 1 12 9 15 16 12 35

Cooperative/Corporatlon w/o stock 58 78 69 13 7 4 1 0 

% of Committees 25 34 30 6 3 2 <1 0

% of Dollars ($6.0 mil.) 0 3 22 17 19 25 14 0

Nonconnected 727 296 229 35 37 12 3 2 1,

% of Committees 54 22 17 3 3 1 <1 <1

% of Dollars ($20.3 mil.) 0 3 19 12 28 17 10 11

Total 1,558 1,297 1,366 283 201 75 25 23 4,

% of Committees 32 27 28 6 4 2 <1 <1

% of Dollars ($159.3 mil.) 0 2 16 13 20 16 11 23

"Graph and table reflect contributions made to all federal candidates during 1987-88.

2For each PAC category, the first row indicates the number of committees whose contributions fell within a given 

range. The second row shows the percentage of all committees in that category that made contributions in the given range

third row indicates the percentage of total contributions made by the committees in each given range; for example, 296 non

nected PACs - about 22 percent of all nonconnected PACs - made contributions of between $1 and $5,000. Contributio

that range accounted for 3 percent of all contributions made by nonconnected PACs.

7
August 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION I COMMISSION Volume 15, Numbe

1

1988 INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES I

A report released in June by the FEG shows

that independent expenditures made during the

1988 elections totaled $21.1 million-a d~crease

of nine percent from the $23.4 million r~ported

during the previous Presidential electionI cycle,

1984. I

Independent expenditures, according I to t~e

election law's definition, are made for communications that expressly advocate the elecficn or

defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate.

To be considered "independent," an expenditure

may not be made in cooperation or cons~ltation

with a candidate or candidate's committee. 2

U.S.C. §431(l7). Unlike contributions, independent expenditures are not subject to Iimitations,

The 1988 Presidential race was the main

focus of last year's independent spending, with

$9.7 million spent to support George BUs~, while

$519000 was spent to support Michael ~ukakis.

DUk~kis opponents spent $3 million in inde~endent expenditures advocating his defeat; .1 about

$75,000 in negative independent s~endmlg was

aimed at George Bush. Two-thirds [of all

independent expenditures in 1987-88 were made

to influence the Presidential elections. I

The study also shows that: i

o About $7 million in independent expenditures

were made in connection with Congressional

elections, down from the all-time 1986 !high of

$9 million; I

o Independent spending favored Democrat~ in the

House, Republicans in the Senate,I and

Congressional incumbents over challengers; and

o Negative spending-totaling $4.7 mi1li6n-was

the highest since 1982, when it totaled $5.1

million. I

The chart on the following page compares

independent expenditures made in support I of and

in opposition to Republicans and Democr1ats for

the 1988 elections. 1

Copies of the FEC press release, as well as a

summary index of persons and committees who

filed independent expenditure reports for tre 19~8

elections, are available from the FEC's. Public

Records Office.

8

OPINION POLLS

This article informs candidates and polit

committees about Commission regulations aff

ing the purchase and donation of opinion polls.

Can anyone pay for an opinion poll and 

the results to a eandidate or politieal commit

No. Only persons who may legally make contr

tions may donate poll r.esults, b~cau~e suc

donation is generally considered an In-kind con

bution. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(l)(iii) and 100.8(a)(l)(

See also AO 1987-22.

Under what eircumstances are poll res

considered an in-kind eontribution? When 

recipient candidate or committee accepts 

donation of the poll results. II CFR 106.4(b).

What is meant by "accepting" the resu

Poll results are considered "accepted" when 

recipient candidate or committee:

o Requests the poll results before receiving th

o Uses the poll results; or

o Fails to notify the contributor that the res

are refused. 11 CFR 106.4(b)(I)-(3).

If a committee receives unsolicited poll 

sults after they have been published, are the 

results considered an in-kind contribution? 

11 CPR 106.4(c).

If an individual who is "testing the wat

accepts the results of a poll, has that indivi

accepted an in-kind contribution? Not initia

but upon becoming a candidate the donated o

ion poll is a contribution. Donated goods rece

for testing the waters are not considered "co

butions" unless the individual actually becom

candidate. Although not considered a "contr

tion," the donation is subject to the Act's proh

tions and limitations on contributions. 11 C

100.7(b)(1)(i), IOO.8(b)( 1)(i) and 101.3.

If the results of a poll are given to more 

one political committee. how much should 

attributed to each recipient? While any me

of calculation that yields an amount reason

reflecting the benefit derived may be used, 

Commission suggests anyone of the follow

methods of calculation:

o Adopt the cost allocation formula used by 

polling firm;

o Divide the overall cost of the poll equ

among the candidates and committees recei

the results; or

continued on pag
August 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN 1987-881

10 25 22

Democratic

-

-

-

Key

6 19 12

Republican

President

Senate

House

7 42 280

Democratic

6 55 246

Republican

4

2

8

5

7

6 ---

9

o

3

1

Millions of

Dollars

10

Expenditures Made to

Support Candidates

Expenditures Made to

Oppose Candidates

1Numbers below the bars indicate the number of candidates supported or opposed with independent expenditu

9
Volume 15, Numb

FUND FOR A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY,

DEBTOR

On May 8, 1989, the U.S. Bankruptcy C

for the Eastern District of Virginia deni

motion by the U.S. Trustee to dismiss the Ch

11 petition filed by Fund for A Conserv

Majority (FCM), a noneonneeted political com

tee (Case No. 88-00924-A). The FEC had file

amicus curiae brief discussing the FEC's re

tion of political committees and supporting 

U.S. Trustee's motion for dismissal.

Both the U.S. Trustee and the Commi

argued that Congress did not contemplat~ 

application of the Bankruptcy Code to pol

committees and that permitting relief to 

under Chapter 11 could result in abuses. Pos

abuses cited by the U.S. Trustee and the C

mission included: the deception of contrib

by political committees that fail to inform 

contributors that they have filed for bankru

an unfair advantage obtained by commi

granted relief under Chapter 11 over commi

that must pay their debts in full] and debt se

ments that constitute contributions to such 

mittees by corporate vendors. The Commi

also argued that Chapter 11 was inappli

because of the FEC's exclusive statutory juri

tion over debt settlement by political com

tees. '

In denying the motion to dismiss the case

court found that Chapter 11 does not specifi

prohibit political committees fro~ fi~ng peti

for relief and that no such prohibition coul

inferred without clear evidence of Congress

intent. While acknowledging the deference 

the courts have shown to the FEC regardin

exclusive jurisdiction over the Federal Ele

Campaign Act, the court said, "These [p

cases••• are not dispositive of the matter at h

which relates to the exclusive jurisdiction of 

court to adjudicate petitions filed in bankrup

The court also observed that the Commis

rules on debt settlement "appear to facil

'monitoring' by the FEC, rather than for

mandatory debt resolution mechanlsm," and 

knowledged that the result might be differe

the FEC adopted different rules.! The c

however, noted "the need for the FEC to pa

pate in the case" by reviewing FCM's Chapt

debt settlement plan.

,

August 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION I COMMISSION

,

What if an unauthorized political committee

purchases an opinion poll solely for its o~n information? Assuming that the poll is not used as an

in-kind contribution or an independent !expenditure made by the committee, the purchase is an

overhead expenditure and need not be attributed

to any candidate or committee. 11 CPR! 106.l(c)

(l) and 106.4(d). I

Once a committee has accepted or purehased

an opinion poll, may it later sell the resul~? Yes,

but the sale will result in a eontributlon by the

purchaser to the committee. ThUS, poll results

may be sold only to those buyers who arel permissible sources of contributions and for an' amount

that does not exceed contribution limits. 11 CPR

100.7(a)(1) and 114.2(1:»; AO 1980-19.

continued from page 8 ,

o Apportion the total cost among reeipients based

on the ratio of question results received by

each candidate or committee to the total number of questions included in the poll. 1 CPR

106.4(e). i

Does the value of opinion poll results decrease over time? Yes. For more information,

see 11 CFR l06.4(f) and (g). '

Does the contributor of poll results ~ave any

special responsibilities? Yes. A contributor of

poll results must inform recipients of the ralue of

the in-kind contribution made and mu~t keep

documentation showing how the value was derived. 11 CFR 106.4(h). See also AO 1987l22.

I

How does the recipient candidate or committee report the receipt of the in-kind contribution?

As both a contribution and an operating expenditure on the appropriate lines of the :detailed

summary page. Additionally, the poll results may

have to be itemized on Schedules A and lB. 1 11

CFR 104.l3(a). I

1Contributions from political committees

must be itemized regardless of amount, 11 contribution from an individual must be itemized if it I. •

e..cceeds $200 when added to other cont;rlbutwns

made by the donor during the calendar ~ear. 1 1

CFR 104.3(a)(4). I

10n December 3, 1988, the Commission 

lished a Notice of Proposed RUlemaking on 

vised debt settlement regulations. See 53 

Reg. 49193. For a summary of the prop

rules, see the January 1989 Record.

10
August 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Numbe

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Copies of notices are available from the

Public Records Office.

This cumulative index lists advisory op

ions, court cases, MUR summaries and 800 L

articles published in the Record during 1989. T

first number in each citation refers to the "nu

bert! (month) of the Record issue; the sec

number, following the colon, indicates the p

number in that issue.

OPINIONS

1987-31: Solicitable membership classes of sec

ities exchange (reconsideration), 4:3

1988-37: Affiliated status of two corporate PA

after leveraged buy-out, 1:6

1988-44: Effect of statute of limitations on co

mittee's debts, 2:4

1988-45: Definition of national party committ

2:4

1988-46: Corporation's solicitation of license

2:4

1988-47: Publisher's donation of free magazine

candidate prohibited, 1:6 '

1988-48: Contributions to trade association P

matched with charitable donations, 2:5

1988-49: Federal bankruptcy trustees not con

ered government contractors, 2:5

1989-1: Payment to Congressional employee 

manuscript not an honorarium, 6:4

1989-2: Committee's settlement of debt w

corporate creditor, 6:4

1989-3: Stockholder contributions to trade as

ciation PAC through payroll deduction, 6:5

1989-4: Federal committee's sale of assets 

state committee, 7:4

1989-5: Refund of contribution made in the na

of another, 7:4

1989-6: Contr-ibution of stock to Congressio

candidate, 7:5

1989-7: Corporation's matching of PAC c

tributions with donations to charity, 3:4

1989-8: Solicitable class and name of PAC est

lished by corporation affiliated with par-tners

8:4

1989-9: PAC contributions matched with ch

table donations, 8:5

COURT CASES

FEC v,

-AFSCME-PQ, 1:11

-Batts, Committee to Elect, 5:8

-Bookman & Associates, 6:8

-Braun for Congress Committee, 1:10

-Bull for Congress, 1:11

-Californians for a Strong America (

1554), 1:9; (88-6499), 1:11

-Citizens Party, 1:12 and 7:6

-Dietl for Congress, 1:10

-Friends of Isaiah Fletcher, 6:8

11

Filing Dates for Texas Special Election (54 Fed. Reg. 29385, July 12,

1989)

II CFR Part 114: Trade Association Solicitations; Announcement of

Effective Date of Rule (54 Fed.

Reg. 27153, June 28, 1989)

Filing Dates for California Special

Election (54 Fed. Reg. 27704, June

30, 1989)

Title

11 CFR Parts 100 and 110: Contributions and Expenditures; Prohibited

Contributions and Expenditures;

Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (54 Fed. Reg. 24351, June

7, 1989)

Filing Dates for Florida Special

Election (54 Fed. Reg. 25903, June

20, 1989)

1989-9

1989-7

1989-10

1989-8

Notice

1989-6

FEC v. LIFE AMENDMENT PAC, INC.

On June 15, 1989, the U.S. District Court for

the Western District of Washington issued a final

order and default judgment in FEC v. Life

Amendment PAC, Inc. (No. C88-860Z). The court

declared that Life PAC and its treasurer, Rick

Woodrow, had violated 2 U.S.C. S434(a) by failing

to file six reports during 1985, 1986 and 1987.

The court ordered Life PAC and Mr. Woodrow to

pay a civil penalty of $30,000 ($5,000 for each

missing report).

The court also found that Mr. Woodrow and

Citizens Organized to Replace Kennedy

(C.O.R.K.), a political committee of which he was

also the treasurer, failed to disclose debts and

obligations in three 1986 reports, in violation of 2

U.S.C. §434 (b)(8). The court ordered C.O.R.K.

and Mr. Woodrow to file the missing Schedules C

and D and to pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

Permanently enjoining the defendants from

future similar violations of the election law, the

court also ordered them to pay the FEC's costs in

the action.
August 1989

!

i

!

FEDERAL ~LEC-nON COMMISSION . Volume 15, Numbe

-Furgatch (88-6047), 5:7 and 7:7

-Haley Congressional Committee, 1:9

-Holmes Committee, 3:3

-Life Amendment PAC, 1:11 and 8:11

-National Organization for Women, 7:7

-Populist Party, 1:12 and 5:8

-Richards for President (89-0254) 4:9; (88-

2832),5:8

-Rodriguez, 1:10

-Survival Education Fund, Ine., 3:4

-Taylor Congressional Committee, 1:10

-Weinberg, 5:9

Fund for a Conservative Majority, Debtor, 3:4 and

8:10

Goland v. U.S. and FEC, 6:8

United States v, Goland, 6:8

v, FEC

-Comrnon Cause (87-2224), 3:3

-Common Cause (89-0524-GAG), 4:10

-Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc., 4: 10

-Miller, 3:3

-Stern, 3:4

-USDC, 1:9 and 3:3

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

MURSUMMARIES

MURs 1528/1739: Party activities: prohib

funds, transfers, allocations and loans, 4:7 

MUR 2175: Excessive and prohibited contr

tions accepted by 1984 Presidential campa

3:6

MUR 2262: Presidential candidate's failure 

register and report on time, 6:5

MUR 2286: Membership organization's polit

activity, 6:7

MUR 2356: PAC's failure to file reports on ti

4:7

MUR 2545: Excessive contributions made and 

cepted by PAC, 5:6

800 LINE

Debt retirement by candidate committees, 1:7

Designating a principal campaign committee, 3

Multieandidate com mittees, 7: 10

Opinion polls, 8:8

Political activity and the workplace, 7:8

Recordkeeping rules for all committees, 5:9

First Class Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

FEe

Permit Number G-31