Volume 11, Number 

ADVISORY OPINIONS

COURT CASES

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens

for Life, Inc.

New Litigation

INFORMATION

Michigan Direct Access Program

1986 Primary Dates

STATISTIcS

Independent Spending, 1983-84

7

9

3

5

1

2

contin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMISSIONERS

1 President Appoints Josefiak

1 Morgan Named Special Deputy

Kansas, Mr. Morgan worked as an attorney w

the U.S. Customs Service and served on the s

of Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS) from 1

to 1980. Mr. Morgan holds degrees in journal

and law from the University of Kansas.

MICmGAN PROVIDES DIRECT ACCESS

TO FEC COMPUTER INFORMATION

On September 23, 1985, the Commission 

Michigan Secretary of State Richard H. Au

inaugurated a special program which provides 

Michigan Elections Division with direct comp

access to FEC campaign finance informat

This office now provides free computer print

on FEC information to the public.

Other participants in the FEC computer 

cess program include the campaign records 

fices for Alabama, California, Colorado, Geor

illinois, l\tJassachusetts, Rhode Island and Wash

ton.

For more information on the program's ca

bilities, see page 6 of the April 1985 Record 

contact the FEC.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463

MORGAN NAMED SPECIAL DEPUTY

TO SECRETARY OF SENATE

On September 11, 1985, Secretary of the

Senate Jo-Anne Coe designated Scott E. Morgan

to replace Thomas J. Josefiak as her Special

Deputy for the FEC. (Under the election law, the

Secretary of the Senate serves as an eX~fficio

Commisioner.) Mr. Morgan had been servmg as

Acting Special Deputy since Mr. Josefiak's appointment to the Commission. (See story above.)

Prior to his appointment as Special Deputy,

Mr. Morgan served as staff counsel on the Senate

JUdiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts,

chaired by Senator Bob Dole (R-KS). A native of

PRESIDENT APPOINTS JOSEFIAK

On August 9, 1985, President Reagan appointed Tbomes J. Josefiak to s~rve as. FEC

Commissioner during the term ending Apr-il 30,

1991. Mr. Josefiak replaces Commissioner Frank

P. Reiche whose term ended on April 30, 1985.

The President appointed Commissioner Josefiak

under the "recess appointment" clause of the U.S.

Constitution. Thus, in accordance with the Constitution, this "recess appointment" will expire at

the end of the second session of the 99th Congress

(I 986). If Mr. Josefiak is to serve a full term on

the Commission (through April 199I), his nomination must be confirmed by the Senate before the

99th Congress adjourns.

A native of Massachusetts, Mr. Josefiak has

extensive experience in election law. From 1981

until his appointment as Commissioner, Mr.

Josefiak served as Special Deputy to the Secretary of the Senate, who, by law, is an ex officio

member of the Commission. Prior to his appointment as Special Deputy, Commissioner Josefiak

served as legal counsel to the National Republic~n

Congressional Committee. He also ser~ed as rrunority special counsel for federal. e"ectI~n law on

the Committee on House Administration, U.S.

House of Representatives. Prior to that,. h~ was

legislative assistant to Congressman SIlVIO O.

Conte (R-Mass.).

Mr. Josefiak holds a Bachelor of Arts degree

from Fairfield University, Fairfield, Connecticut,

and a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University Law Center.

October 1985

•

•
2

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: John Warren McGarry, Chairman; Joan D. 'Aikens, Vice Chairman;

Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; Thomas E. Harris; Thomas J. Josefiak; Jo-Anne L. Coe,

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

Ex Officio. For more information, call 2021523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

"'States holding Senate races in 1986.

... "'The District of Columbia and the U.S. 

ritories of American Samoa, Guam and the Vi

Islands will each hold an election for Delegat

the U.s. House of Representatives. In 1

Puerto Rico will hold its next election for R

dent Commissioner to the U.s. House of Re

sentatives.

June 3

June 3

September 9

May 6

June 3

June 10

May 6

August 26

September 16

May 20

May 20

No Election

September 9

June 10

June 24

June 3

August 7

May 3

June 7

August 19

September 9

September 9

June 10

September 16

May 13

September 9

August 19

Date of IDection

\blume 11, Numt:e

New Jersey

New Mexico

*New York

*North Carolina

Runoff

*North Dakota

*Ohio

*Oklahoma

Runoff

*Oregon

*Pennsylvania

**Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

*South Carolina

Runoff

*South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Runoff

*Utah

*Vermont

* *Virgin Islands

Virginia

*Washington

West Virginia

*Wisconsin

Wyoming

State or Territory

June 3

June 24

August 26

November 4

November 18

September 9

May 27

June 10

June 3

August 12

September 9

September 6

September 9

September 2

September 30

August 12

September 2

September 2

September 20

May 27

March 18

May 6

June 3

August 5

May 27

September 27

June 10

September 9

September 16

August 5

September 9

June 3

June 24

August 5

June 3

May 13

September 2

September 9

Date of meetion

o::tot:er 1985 FEDERAL ELECTlON COMMISSION

*Alabama

Runoff

*Alaska

**American Samoa

Runoff

*Arizona

*Arkansas

Runoff

*California

*Colorado

*Connecticut

Delaware

**District of Columbia

*Florida

Runoff

*Georgia

Runoff

**Guam

*Hawaii

*Idaho

*lliinois

*Indiana

*Iowa

*Kansas

*Kentucky

*Louisiana

Maine

*Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Runoff

*Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

*Nevada

*New Hampshire

1986 PRIMARY DATES

The chart on the following pages provides the

dates for 1986 Congressional primaries and runoffs, based on a nationwide survey of Secretaries

of State and other election officials. Note,

however, that the dates are subject to change by

state legislatures.

In early 1986, the Record will publish an

updated listing, along with filing deadlines for

campaign finance reports. Those with questions

should contact Richard C. Thomas, Coordinator of

State Disclosure, by calling: 202/523-4055 or toll

free 800/424-9530.

State or Territory
ALTERNATE DISPOsmON OF

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of each

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

\rbIume 11, NumOOr" 

AO 198~22: Exeess Campaign Funds Used

for Evening Attire

Congressman William Clay may use excess c

paign funds to purchase evening attire (i.e., tu

dos and evening gowns) which he and his <wife 

wear to "politically related functions which 

both social and official business." Since Congr

man Clay did not indicate that he and his w

contin

AO 198~19: .Joint Purehase of Computer Syst

by Csndidate Committee and Co

poration

If Congressman Vallely's principal campaign c

mittee (the Committee) jointly purchased a co

puter system with a consulting firm (the Corpo

tion), the Corporation's share of the joint p

chase would result in a prohibited contribu

from the Corporation to the Committee. Se

U.S.C. S44Ib(a). Under the joint purchase 

rangement, the Committee would pay only 

half of the cost of the computer system ($22,0

but it would have free access to the system at 

time, just as it would as a sole purchaser. Con

quently, the Committee would be deriving a be

fit from the joint purchase (i.e., a reduced p

chase price for unrestricted use of the syst

that it could not have derived as a sole purcha

This benefit would be equivalent to a prohib

contribution from the Corporation to the C

mittee.

In a series of past advisory opinions, 

Commission has determined that joint inv

ments by a political com mittee and another gr

are permissible, provided: I) the political comm

tee has sufficient funds to make the investm

on its own and 2) the political committee does 

receive any special benefit from the joint inv

ment that it could not have received as s

investor. See AOs 1978-67, 1980-38, 1981-19 

1981-20. Although the Committee's proposed jo

investment with the corporation would meet 

first requirement, the investment would not m

the second requirement. (Date issued: Augus

1985; Length: 4 pages)

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the C

mission provides guidance with regard to 

specific situation described in the AOR. 

qualified person who has requested an AO 

acts in accordance with the opinion will not 

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Ot

persons may rely on the opinion if they 

involved in a specific activity which is indis

guishable in all material aspects from the activ

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance 

their own activity, however, should consult 

full text of an AO and not rely only on 

summary given here.

3

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Redesignation of excessive contribution

to spouse. (Date made public: August 14,

1985; Length: I page, plus 2-page supplement)

Limits for contributions made by two

PACs before and after merger of their

respective parent corporations. (Date

made publici August 30, 1985; Length: 2

pages)

Loans and interest-bearing notes issued

to candidate by individuals. (Date made

public: September 13, 1985; Length: 2

pages, plus 16-page supplement)

Rebate to candidate by corporation

'W:hich administers fundraiser, (Date

made public: September 6, 1985; Length:

I page, plus 4-page supplement)

Employee's payments to corporation for

distributing his candidate information to

other employees. (Date made public:

August 29, 1985; Length: 2 pages)

Subject

O::tot:er1985

AOR 198~20: .Toint Ownership and Use of

Mailing IJst by Candidate and

Corporation

Withdrawn by requester on August 20, 1985.

AOR 198~21: Eligiblity of Corporation's AeCOWlt Managers for PAC Solicitations

Withdrawn by requester on August 21, 1985.

AOR

1985-25

1985-26

1985-29

1985-27

_198&-28

•

•
OctotEr 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

would wear the evening attire to events related to

his 1986 reelection effort, tile Commission assumed that payments for the attire were not campaign expenditures. Although the 1979amendments to the election law prohibit candidates

from converting excess funds to personal use,

these amendments do not apply to individuals,

such as Congressman Clay, who were members of

Congress on January 8, 1980. 2 U.s.o, §439a.

Accordingly, Congressman (;lay's principal

campaign committee must report payments for

the evening attire as "other disbursements" rather

than as "campaign expenditures." See 11 CPR

104.3(b)(4)(vi). (Date issued: August 9, 1985;

Length: 2 pages)

AO 1985-23 PAC Established by Corporation

Wholly Owned by Limited Partnership with Govemment Contract

GSMMI HOldings Inc. (Holdings), a Delaware corporation wholly owned by Goldman, Sachs and roo

(GSC), which is a limited partnership with a

federal contract, may establish a separate segregated fund (i.e., a political action committee or

PA(;). 11 CFR 115.3(a) and AO 1975-31. Once

established, Holdings' PAC may solicit contributions from GSC's individual partners and recruit

individuals who are employed by both Holdings

and GSC for PAC activities, provided the conditions described below are met.

Solieitation of GSC's Individual Partners

Although partnerships with federal contracts

may not make contributions for federal elections,

the individual partners of a partnership with a

government contract may make contributions

from personal assets. 11 CFR 115.4(a) and (b).

Since GSC's individual partners, through their

partnership, are considered Holdings' stockholders, they may be solicited by Holdings' PAC,

provided the PAC: 1) solicits only those contributions made in the name of the individual partners,

from funds drawn on their respective individual

accounts; and 2) complies with other relevant

FEC Regulations governing solicitations by corporate PACs. See II CPR 102.5, Part 110 and

114.5; AO 1979-77.

Participation by Employees in

PAC Aetivities

Individuals who are both employees of Holdings and employees or partners of GSC may help

establish, administer and solicit contributions to

the PAC, provided the employees' PAC activities

are financed exclusively by Holdings. Accordingly,

the amount of working time spent on PAC activities must be proportional to the amount of salary

received from Holdings. For example, if a clerk

received 10 percent of his/her salary from Holdings and 90 percent from GSC, the employee

could devote no more than 10 percent of his/her

4

Volume 11, NumtEr 

working time to the PAC and no less than 

percent of his/her working time to GSC. If 

employee had to devote more than 10 percent 

his/her working time to the PAC, HOldings wo

have to purchase the amount in excess of 

percent from GSC before the employee provi

the PAC services. See AO 1984-37. (Date issu

September 6, 1985; Length: 4 pages)

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Business Industry PAC

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens

10/21/85 Atlanta, Georgia

10/23/85 Dallas, Texas

10/25/85 Minneapolis, Minnesota

10/25/85 Georgetown University

Law Center

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

Commissioner Thomas J.

Josefiak _

Charles N. Steele, General

Counsel

11/13/85 Congressional Quarterly

Conference: Electing Congress

in '86

Washington, D.C.

Kenneth A. Gross, Associate

General Counsel

11/20/85 St. Paul District Farm Credit

Council

St. Paul, Minnesota.

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

12/12/85 Coopers & Lybrand

Washington, D.C.

Patricia Klein, Public Affairs

Specialist
--,-----------_._--,---~._~~--_.._,-----,--~_._-_._-

1983-84

\blume 11, Numb9r 

continu

According to a study released by the F

during -September 1985, while most of the in

pendent spending made to influence Presiden

races supported candidates, a large portion of 

independent spending in Congressional races ad

cated the candidates' defeat. Chart I below 

picts independent spending over the last th

election cycles by type of candidate and by ty

of expenditure (i.e., spending for or agains

candidate). Chart II depicts on page 

independent spending on Congressional races 

party affiliation and by type of candidate 

race.

While total independent spending on Pre

dential races has increased over the last t

Presidential cycles, independent spending on C

gressional races has fluctuated over the last th

election cycles. Specifically, during 1983-84, 

dependent spending on House and Senate can

dates totaled $6.0 million; in 1981-82, $5.75 m

lion; and, in 1979-80, $2.3 million.

5

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

For Presidential Candidates

For Senate Candidates

For House Candidates

Against Presidential candidates

~{:~: Against Senate Candidates

Against House Candidates

o -

Octoter1985

INDEPENDENT SPENDING IN 1983-84

PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE

During the 1983-84 Presidential election cycle, a total of $23.4 million was spent independently to influence the outcome of federal elections. Most of that amount ($17.5 million) was

spent on Presidential races. Similarly, during the

1979-80 Presidential cycle, independent expenditures made to influence Presidential races accounted for $13.7 million of the $16.1 million

spent independently. (Under the federal election

law, an independent expenditure is an expenditure

for a communication expressly advocating the

election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. The expenditure must be made without

cooperation or consultation with the candidate or

his/her eampaign.)

16 -~~----_ ---.

14 ~.~.------

CHART I

_INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN ALL RACES

Millions of Dollars

18
Republican

\,rblume 11, Numm

SENATE RACES

Democrats

other groups. Chart mon page 7 lists the P

reporting the largest independent expen

during 1983-84. Chart IV lists the candidates 

or against whom the most money was spent.

The full FEC Index of Independent Expe

tures, 1983-84, is available for $15 from 

Commission's Office of Public Records, 132

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Ch

should be made payable in advance to the FEC

6

Republicans

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Challengers

Open Seat

Incumbents

HOUSE RACES

Democrats

2.5 --

CXLom- 1985

1.0 -------------------+---~---------1

For Against

3.0----~---~---------_+_----------

.5

The total number of political action committees (PACs), individuals and other groups making

independent expenditures has also fluctuated OVer

the last three election cycles. During the 1983-84

cycle, 155 PACs, 24 individuals and 24 other

groups reported independent expenditures. In

1981-82, independent expenditures were reported

by 70 PACs, 7 individuals and 17 other groups and,

in 1979-80, by 105 PACs, 33 individuals and 80

CHART [(

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN CONGRESSIONAL RACES, 1983-85

3.5~-----------------.........------------~---

i 2.0 --------------------+-----------

o

l:l

'0

g

:s 1.5 ------------------+--------- i
7

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume11, Numo

Background

In September 1978, MCFL printed 10

copies of a special election edition flyer 

tioned "Everything You Need to Vote Pro-L

The publication contained the position of 

and federal candidates on abortion-related i

It included at least two exhortations to "vote 

life" and the statement that "No pro-life c

date can win in November without your vo

September." Photographs of pro-life candi

were also included in the publication. To co

minor errors in the special election edition, M

subsequently issued a supplement to the editi

MCFL distributed copies of the two sp

election editions to 5,985 MCFL contributor

50,674 noncontributors. MCFI, also sent cop

its local chapters for distribution, mailed 

copies on request, and left copies in public 

for general distribution.

In response to a complaint filed with 

Com mission, the FEC found probable cau

believe that MCFL's expenditures for the pu

tions (amounting to $9,812.76) had violated 

Act's ban on corporate spending in conne

with federal elections. After unsucces

attempting to conciliate the matter with M

on February 22, 1982, the FEe filed suit ag

MCFL in the U.S. District Court for the Di

of Massachusetts. (Civil Action No. 82-609-G

cont

FEC v: MASSACHUSE'M'SCmZENS FOR

LIFE, INC.

On July 31, 1985, the U.S. Court of Ap

for the First Circuit ruled that expenditure

curred by Massachusetts Citizens for Life

(MCFL) for two publications that detailed 

position of 1978 federal candidates on three 

life issues, and exhorted the reader to vote 

life, were subject to the election law's prohi

on expenditures by corporations in conne

with federal elections. (MCFL is a nonprofit 

poration, without members, which opposes 

tion measures.) This statutory ruling reversed 

of the district court. At the same time

appeals court affirmed the holding by the di

court that, if applied to MCFL's expenditure

Federal Election Campaign Act's (the Act's) 

hibition on corporate expenditures (2 U

S441b) would violate MCFL's First Amend

rights. See FEC v. Massachusetts Citizen

Life, Inc., Civil Action No. 84-1719.

On August 28, 1985, the Commission fil

appeal of the first circuit's decision with 

Supreme Court.

Q:;toter 1985

•

CHARTm

COMMrrTHES REPORTING LARGEST

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES, 1983-84

Political Committee AmolDlt Spent

National Conservative PAC $ 10,243,753

Fund for a Conservative 2,177,628

Majority

Ruff PAC 2,020,225

National Congressional Club 948,032

NRA Political Victory Fund 785,516

North Carolina Campaign 765,936

Fund

Council for National Defense 739,552

American Medical Association 450,020

PAC

Realtors PAC 355,346

Christian Voice Moral 345,191

Government Fund

CHART IV

CANDIDATES FOR OR AGAINST WHOM MOST

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES WERE MADE

Spending Spending

Candidate For Against

-

Presidential

Ronald Reagan (R) $15,806,225 $343,835

Walter Mondale (D) 803,923 445,240

Gary Hart (D) 40,859

Senate

Jesse Helms (R-NC) 583,310 812,590

Charles Percy (R-IL) 40,687 1,187,716

Phil Gramm (R-TX) 533,526

Roger Jepsen (R-IA) 194,014 6,807

Daniel Evans (R-WA) 186,597

Kent Hance (D-TX) 99,270

Thomas Harkin (D-IA) 14,129 83,753

Ray Shamie (R-MA) 91,416

Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 69,518

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) 61,849

House

Thomas P. O'Neill (D-MA) 213 61,014

Robert Dornan (p-cA) 54,424

James Kolbe (R-AZ) 54,091

Helen Delich

Bentley (R-MD) 50,230

Lewis Crampton (P-MA) 49,799

Tom Vandergrif (D-TX) 48,475

Jerry Sikorski (D-MN) 43,797

James Jones (D-OK) 41,339 1,913

•

Dean Gallo (R-NJ) 42,180

Peter Kostmayer (D-PA) 21,637 10,425
Cttooor1985 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION

District Court's Ruling

On June 29, 1984, the district court granted

MCFL's motion for summary judgment in the suit.

The court held that MCFL's spending for the 1978

special election edition (and its supplement) did

not constitute prohibited corporate "expenditures," as narrowly defined by 2 U.S.C. S441b(b)

(2). The court said that MCFL's spending for the

flyers was more properly characterized as exempt

spending for a news story.*

Alternatively, if MCFL's expenditures for the

flyers were prohibited by section 441b, the court

held that this provision abridged MCFL's rights of

free speech, press and association, in violation of

the First Amendment.

Appeals Court Ruling

MCFL's Expenditures Pall within the Purview

of Section 441b. In overturning the district court's

ruling that section 441b(b)(2)'s ban on corporate

expenditures did not apply to MCFL's expenditures, the appeals court concluded that section

441b prohibits expenditures in connection with

federal elections, in general, as well as contributions specifically made to candidates for federal

office.

The appeals court also rejected the district

court's holding that, even if section 441b prohibited corporate expenditures in connection with

federal elections, MCFL's publieatlon expenditures were exempt from the prohibition because

the publication did not expressly advocate the

election or defeat of any particular candidate. To

the contrary, the appeals court found that the

publications did constitute express advocacy: "The

MCFL Special Election Edition •••explicitly advocated the election of particular candidates in the

primary elections and presented photographs of

those candidates only••••., The appeals court added

tha t it did not have to decide whether such

spending was covered by section 441b because

MCFL's flyers "would fit within the definition of

expenditure, even if an express advocacy requirement were incorporated into the definition."

Finally, contrary to the district court, the

appeals court found that the publications did not

qualify for the news story exemption: n••• the Special Editions may not be considered new stories,

commentaries, or editorials because the editions

were not distributed through the newsletters faeilities, were not published by the newsletter's

ItUnder the Act and FEC Regulations, a news

story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication is not considered an expenditure, provided the station or publication is not

owned or controlled by a political party, political

committee or a candidate. 2 U.s.C. Section 431(9)

(B)(i); 11 CFR 100.8 (b)(2).

8

'vblume 11, Numter1

FEC WD.,L CO-HOST CONFERENCE

INDHNVER

On November 6, 1985, a one-day conference on election laws will be held in

Denver. Co-sponsored by the FEC and the

Colorado Secretary of State's Office, the

conference will provide an overview of

federal and Colorado election laws and

include sessions on: supporting federal candida tes; complying with federal and Colorado reporting requirements; FEC enforcement procedures; and an FEC program that

provides Colorado (and 8 other states) with

direct computer access to FEC data.

For more information on the conference, contact the FEC, toll free, at

800/424-9530 or the Colorado election office at 303/866-2021.

staff, did not contain the newsletter masthea

and were not limited to the usual MCFL news

letter circulation." Nor did the expenditures qua

ify under the exemption as "normal functions of 

press entity,"

Prohibiting MCFL's Expenditures Is Unconst

tutional. Nevertheless, the appeals court af

firmed the district court's holding that sectio

441b, as applied to MCFL's expenditures, wa

unconstitutional. The appeals court said that 

did not believe that "the availability of alterna

tive methods of funding speech le.g., MCFL

establishment of a separate segregated fundi jus

tifies eliminating the simplest method."

Furthermore, the court found that there wa

no substantial government interest (i.e., to pre

vent corruption or the appearance of corruption i

federal elections) in prohibiting MCFL's expend

tures for the publications. "Because MCFL did no

contribute directly to a political campaign

MCFL's expenditures did not incur any politica

debts from legislators," The appeals court con

cluded that a ruling by the Supreme Court whic

upheld section 44lb's ban on solicitations b

another nonprofit corporation, the National Righ

to Work Committee,* did not apply to MCFL

expenditures. TlUnlike National Right to Wor

Committee, [MCFL's spendingl involves a corpo

ration's indirect and uncoordinated expenditure

in connection with a federal election, not a solici

tation for direct contributions to candidates."

The appeals court therefore affirmed th

district court's ruling that section 44lb was un

continue

ItFor a summary of the Supreme Court's rulin

in FEC v. National Ri ht to Work Committee se

page 3 0 the February 1983 Record.
FEDERALElECTlON COMMlffilON

•

0::t000r 1985

constitutional, as applied to MCFL's expenditures:

"We therefore uphold that the application of section 441b to indirect, uncoordinated expenditures

by a non-profit ideological corporation expressing

its views of political candidates violates the organization's First Amendment rights.ft

NEW LlTIGA'l1011

NCPAC ¥. PEe (Fourth Suit)

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(aXaXA)f the National Conservative Political Action Committee

(NCPAC), a nonconnected PAC, asks the district

court to:

o Declare that the FEC acted contrary to law in

failing to act on an administrative complaint

within 120 days after NCPAC had filed it; and

o Issue an order directing the FEe to act on the

complaint in conformity with the rourt's decision within 30 days of the decision.

NCPAC claims that it had filed an administrative complaint with the FEe on July 20, 1984,

alleging that Walter F. Mondale and others had

failed to rully disclose the purpose of expenditures (amounting to approximately $2.5 million)

which the Committee for the Future of America,

a nonconnected political committee, had made in

support of Mr. Mondale's 1984 Presidential bid. In

the complaint, NCPAC further alleged that Mr.

Mondale and others associated with his Presidential campaign had accepted unlawful contributions

and made unlawful expenditures in connection

with the campaign. NCP AC claimed that, as a

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

\k)Iurne 11 ,NumOO

result of the alleged violations, the Mondale c

paign should have been denied the public gr

that Mr. Mondale was otherwise entitled to 

his general election campaign.

u.s. District Court for the District of 

lumbia, Civil Action No. 85-2500, August 6, 19

Maine Hight to Life Committee

¥.FEC

The Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc. 

Committee), a nonprofit membership corpora

with a separate segregated fund, challenges 

constitutionality of FEC Regulations govern

the publication of voter guides to be dissemina

by the Committee to its membership and 

general public.

Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that:

oPEC Regulations governing the preparation 

distribution of voter guides are not authori

by the Act and violate plaintiffs' First and F

Amendment rights; and

o Corporate expenditures for the preparation 

distribution of plaintiffs' proposed voter gu

are not subject to the Act and FEC Reg

tions.

Plaintiffs further ask the court to enjoin 

FEe from enforcing these regulations or fr

instituting 8I\Y enforcement action against pl

tiffs or their associates for sponsoring the p

posed voter guides.

U.s. District Court for the District of Ma

Civil Action No. 85-0244-B, July 30, 1985.

•

Politieal Committees

Registered political committees are automatically sent the Record. Any change of address by

a registered committee must, by law, be made in writing as an amendment to FEC Form 1

(Statement of Organization) and {"ded with the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, or

the FEC, as appropriate.

Other Subseribel's

Record subscribers (who are not politieel committees), when calling or mailing in a change of

address, are asked to provide the following information:

1. Name of person to whom the Record is sent.

2. Old address.

3. New address•

4. SUbscription number. The subscription number is located in the upper left hand corner of the

mailing label. It eonsists of three letters and five numbers. Without this number, there is no

guarantee that your subscription can be located on the computer.

9
(doter 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \b!ume 11 ,Numrer 

FREE PUBLICATIONS

The PEC offers the following free publications. To order, return the completed form below.

Federal Election campaign Laws

Complete compilation of Federal election

campaign laws prepared by FEC.

FEe Regulations (II CPR)

FEC regulations; subject indexes prepared by

FEC.

FEe Record

Monthly newsletter covering reporting, advisory opinions, litigation, legislation, statistics,

regulations, compliance, Pederal Register notices,

FEC procedures and staff, and publications.

Campaign Guides

Clear explanation and illustration of election

law requirements. Separate Guide for:

Congressional Candidates and Com mittees

Party Committees

Corporations and Labor Organizations

Nonconnected Political Com mittees

House and Senate Bookkooping Manual

Recommended method of bookkeeping and

reporting for Federal candidates and their committees.

FEe and Federal Election Law

Brief overview of major provisions of the

Federal Election Campaign Act and the Commission's role in administering it.

Annual Report

Report to President and Congress, summ

rizing agency's activities, advisory opinions a

litigation; and presenting Commission's legislati

recorn menda tions,

The First I 0 Years

Special report providing statistical graphs 

campaign financing, history of election laws, d

scription of FEC functions and list of past Co

missioners and statutory officers.

Order Form NAME

STREET

CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE

CONNECTED ORGANIZATION IPHONE (Optional)

Please indicate quantity in box to left of each item.

General

Federal Election I Bookkeeping Manual

Campaign Laws for Candidate,

FEC Regulation. Annual

Report

FEC Record !,0-vear

{s\Jbscriptionl Report

Campaign Guides

Congre ..ional Corporations and

Candidates Labar Organizations

Party Committees Noncon nected

Committee$,

Brochures

Using FEC Campaign Finanee Information

Brocnure explaining how to gather information on financial activity of political committees

and candidates by using reports and FEC's computer indexes.

Brochures

Advisory Opinions

Candidate Registration

Contributions

Corporate/Labor Communications

Corporate/Labor Facilities

Independent Expenditures

Local Party Activity

Political Ads and Solicitations

Public Funding of President Elections

State Computer Access to FEC Data

State Elections & Federal Campaign Law

Trade Associations

Using FEC Campaign Finance Information

Volunteer Activity

10

Advisorv Opinion, Pol itieal Ad,

and Solicitation,

Candidate Public Funding of

Regi'tration Presidential Elections

Corrtributions State Computer

ACCeSl to FEC Data

Corpora te/Labor State Elections &

Communicarions Federlll C<nl>a'gn L"",

Corporare/Labor Trade Assoc.auons Facilities

FEC and Federal Using FEC Campaign

Election Law Finance lnf ormatron

Independent Volunteer Activitv E.penditures

Local Party

Acnvitv

Mail to: Federal election Commission

Information Services

Washington, D.C. 20463

Phone: Toll Free 800/424-9530
•

•

Cdob9r1985 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMrvllSSION \blume 11, Numoo

11
CX1000r 1985 FEDERAL B£CllONCOMMISSION \(jume 11, Numoo- 

This cumulative index lists advisory opinions, court cases and 800

Line articles published in the Peeord

during 1985. The first number in the

citation refers to the "number"

(month) of the Record issue; the second number, following the colon, indicates the page number in that

issue.

OPINIONS

1984-16: One Limit for Convention &:

Primary, 1:3

1984-33: Pundraiser by Trade Association's Allied Members, 1:3

1984-41: Corporate Payments for

Media Ads, 2:1

1984--48: Travel Reimbursements to

State by Senate Campaign, 2:1

1984-52: Refund of Jllegal Contributions, 1:4

1984-53: Real Estate Lessors as Federal Contractors, 1:4

1984-54: Reporting/Limits for Candidate Elected in Primary, 1:5

1984-55: Solicitation of Law Firm's

Partners by Bank PAC, 1:5

1984-56: Book Payments &: Ponorarium, 1:5

1984-57: Corporate Communications

on Legislation, 2:2

1984-58: City's Claim for Reimburse--

ment by Presidential Campaign,

2:3

1984-59: Noncampaign Uses of Campaign Assets, 2:3

1984-60: Campaign Debts Liquidated

through Sale of Real Estate Assets,

3:1

1984--61: Trade Assoeiation Solicitation ApprovaJs. 3:2

1984-62: campaign Firm's Slate Mail

Program, 5:4

1984--63: Savings and Loan Assoeiation's Solicitations, 3:2

1985-1: Liquidation of Campaign

Asse~ 4:4

1985-2: State FIJn(E Transferred to

CongressioD8l campaign, 4:5

1985-3: Conbibutions to State Campaign by SUbsidiary of Foreign Corporation, 4:5

1985-4: Payments not Honorarium,

4:5

1985-5: Contributions Made Before

but Received After Election, 4:6

1985-6: Mfiliated PA('.s of Loe81/

International Unions, 4:6

1"985-7: Solicitation of Wholesalers'

Personnel, 5:4

1985-8: Fundraising to Refund mega!

Contributions, 5:5

1985-9: Excess Funds for University

Programs. 5:5

1985-10: campaign wan Liquidated

by Candidate's Estate, 5:5

1985-11: Trade Assoeiation's Nonsolicitable Members. 6:4

1985-12: Trade Association's Collecting Agents. 6:5

1985-13: Transfers to Successor candidate's campaign, '1:5

1985-14: National Party Committee's

Media Program, '1:6

1985-16: Prohibited Use of FEC Contributor Information, '1:6

1985-17: Congressional Scholarship

Trust, 8:3

1985-18: Conversion to Federal PA

9:1 _LIME

Foreign Nationals, 5:8

State and Local Party Activities, 8

SUpreme Court Rules on 26 U.S

59012(f), 4:1"

Using Excess Campaign Funds, 2:4

COURT CASES

Antosh v. FEC, 2:4

Citizens for Percy '84 v. FEC, 1:6

DCCC v. FEC, 2:6

FCM v. FEC, 6:3

FEe v. Anderson, 2:6; 8:8

FEC v. Committee to Return Sta

to Congress, 8:7

FEe v. Furgatch; FEe v, Domine

1:6

FEe v. Gus Savage for Congress '

6:3

FEe v. Hemenway for Congr

Committee, 2:6

FEe v, Liberal Party Federal Ca

paign Committee, 3:3

FEe v. NCPAC. 5:6

FEC v_ NRWC; NRWC v. FEC. 1:7

FEe v. Kirk Walsh for Congr

Committee, 6:3

Alwin Hopfmann v, FEe, 7:7; 9:3

LaRouche v. State Board of El

tions, 8:7

National Congressional Club and J

ferson Marketing, Inc. v. FEC, 3:

Orloski v. PEe, 2:5

Sierra Club v. FEC~ 9:3

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31