THE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

*For a definition of "political committee:' see Commission Regulations at 11 CFR 100.5. 

CORRECTION 

The October Record incorrectly listed the purchase price of the Commission's updated edition of 

the cumulative Index to Advisory Opinions. The 

correct price is $2.55 per copy. Requests for the 

Index should be addressed to the Public Records 

Office, Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Orders should be sent 

to the Commission and accompanied by a check or 

money order made payable to the U.S. Treasurer. 

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM 

UNRE.GISIEREB-ORGANIZATIONS 

The Federal Election Campaign Act and Commission 

Regulations permit political committees* to accept contrlbutions from unregistered organizations (i.e., committees 

that are not required to report under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act), Political committees which receive contributions from unregistered organizations are, however, 

responsible for determining whether or not those contributions consist of any funds which are prohibited under the 

Act (e.g., contributions from national banks, corporations, 

unions or foreign nationals). If a political committee does 

receive a contribution from an unregistered organization 

which consists of funds from prohibited sources, the full 

amount of the contribution must be refunded. If the 

recipient committee has an account which is used for 

nonfederal activity, however, it may transfer corporate 

or union contributions into that account. Directive No. 19 

Revised, September 12, 1980. 

Volume 6, Number 11 

J 

COMPUTERIZED FORMAT 

FOR REPORTING ITEMIZED 

RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 

On September 2, 1980, the Commission established 

procedures designed to expedite Commission approva

requests to use a computerized format for reporting it

ized receipts and disbursements. The Commission delega

authority for approving such requests to the Rep

Analysis Division rather than requiring a formal Comm

sion vote on each request. 

The Reports Analysis Division and, if appropriate, the C

of the House or the Secretary of the Senate will rev

sample formats submitted by political committees. To 

approved, sample formats must meet the following requ

ments: 

1. They must contain complete information and must c

form to the format of Schedules A (itemized receip

and 8 (itemized disbursements) of FEC Form 3 or 3X

any information required by Schedules A or 8 is 

contained in a sample schedule, the schedule will not 

approved. The Reports Analysis Division will indicate 

a letter to the committee which information must 

supplied. 

NOTE: The Reports. Analysis Division will, howe

conditionally approve sample formats that con

information required by Schedules A and 8 but wh

do not conform to the standard format of the sched

(or from which only minor items are missing). 

committee will then be required to modify its sam

format to conform to the standard format of Sched

A and 8. 

2. They must lend themselves to being legibly xeroxed 

microfilmed. 

The Commission is currently developing a standardi

format for computerized schedules. In the future, polit

committees using this computerized format will be assu

of approval by the Commission. Directive No. 37, Octo

6,1980. 
ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS 

Advisory Opinion Requests (AOA's) pose questions on 

the application of the Act or Commission Regulations to 

specific factual situations described in the ADR. The 

following chart lists recent AOR's, with a brief description 

of the subject matter, the date the requests were made 

public and the number of pages of each request. The full 

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

Date Made No.of 

AOR Subject Public Pages 

1980·108	 Bank loans to new party 9/18/80 26
 

Presidential candidate.
 

1980·109	 Publication of endorsement, 9/19/80 8 

sol lcltetlon or campaign
 

materials in subscription
 

periodical.
 

1980-110	 Registration and reporting 9/19/80 2 

requirements for local party 

committee. 

1980·111	 Establishment of separate 9/22/80 2 

segregated fund by trade 

association with foreign 

corporate members. 

1980-112	 Post-election public funding 9/22/80 4 

used for loan repayments. 

1980-113	 Use of surplus funds for 9/22/80 2 

political purposes and 

official duties. 

1980-114	 Disposition of checks refund- 9123/80 3 

ed to terminated committee. 

1980-115	 Law firm's compensation to 9/23/80 3
 

partner campaigning as
 

Congressional candidate.
 

1980-116	 Independent politicel commit- 9/25/80 2
 

tee aided by paid Presidential
 

campaign workers.
 

1980-117	 Return of prohibited funds by 9/26/80 2 

state political organization 

registering as (federal) political 

committee. 

1980·118	 Definition of stockholder for 9/26/80 4 

purposes of solicitations by 

corporate separate segregated 

fund. 

Date Made No

AOR Subject Public Pag

1980-119	 Coordinated party expendi· 10/6/80 5 

tures for television ads that 

are partially broadcast to area 

outside Senate candidate's 

state. 

1980·120	 Host committee's payment 10/7/80 2 

of convention expenses with 

funds transferred from general 

account to convention account. 

1980·121	 Political pertv's status as 10/14/80 7 

national partv committee. 

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES 

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the Commiss

provides guidance with regard to the specific situati

described in the AOR. Any qual ified person who 

requested an AO and acts in accordance with the opini

will not be subject to any sanctions under the Act. Oth

persons may rely on the opinion if they are involved i

specific activity which is indistinguishable in all mater

aspects from the activity discussed in the AO. Tho

seeking guidance for their own activity, however, shou

consult the full text of an AO and not rely only on t

summary given here. 

JAO 1980-87: Local Party Committee's Expenditures 

. for President Ticket 

The Pelham Republican Town Committee a subordin

committee of the state party committee, may make 

penditures for local newspaper and direct mail advertis

which support the Republican Presidential ticket only if t

Republican National Committee authorizes the subordin

committee as its designated agent. Moreover, these expen

tures must be charged against the Republican Nation

Committee's overall "coordinated party" expenditu

limit for the Presidential ticket and must be reported by t

national committee. 2 U.S.C. §§441a(d)(11 and (2); 

CFR 110.7(a)(4), 109.1 (d)(2) and 104.3(b)(1)(viii). 

Commission Regulations prescribed after the enactm

of the 1979 Amendments eliminated the special $1,0

expenditure which a subordinate party committee cou

make on behalf of its party's Presidential nominees 

the general election. Under current Regulations, subor

nate party committees may, however, make other types 

exempted expenditures that indirectly benefit the Pre

dential nominee. For example, a state or local party co

mittee may pay for: 

Certain campaign materials (e.g., handbills, pins, bump

stickers, brochures) which are distributed by voluntee

provided the materials are not designed for gene

The RECORD is published by the Federa/ E/ection Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Max L. Friedersdort, Chairman: John Warren McGarry. Vice Chairman; Joan D. Aikens; Thomas E. 

Harris; Frank P. Reiche; Robert O. Tiernan; J.S. K/mmitt, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Henshaw, 

Jr., Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424­

9530. 

2 
public political advertising and meet other conditions 

spelled out in Commission Regulations. See 11 CFR 

100.7(b)(15) and 100,8(b)(16); and 

Voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities, provided specified conditions are met. See 11 CFR 100.7(b) 

(17) and 100.8(b)(18). 

A local party committee is required to register as a "political committee" under the Act, however, when it spends 

more than $5,000 a year for such exempted activities. 

For more detailed information on the application of the 

Act and FEC Regulations to state and local party committee activities, see the "800 Line," page 6 of th is issue, and 

the August 1980 FEC Record Supplement, available at no 

cost from: Office of Public Communications, Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

20463; or call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530. 

lJ"te Issued: September 15, 1980; Length: 4 pages) 

..,lAo 1980-92:	 Corporate Contributions to
 

Nonpartisan Organization's
 

Voter Registration Drives
 

The Voter Registration Program (V RP), a nonprofit, 

~artisan corporation whose sole purpose is to sponsor 

voter registration drives, may accept donations to support 

its voter registration drives from corporations, foundations 

and other entities if, in connection with its efforts to 

register voters in California, it has not, does not and will 

not endorse, support or oppose candidates for political 

office or political parties. 11 CFR 114.4(d)(2). (Date 

Ijed: September 11, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

~o 1980·94:	 Essay Contest Sponsored by 

Congressman's Campaign Committee 

The Whitehurst for Consress Committee may pay all costs 

of sponsoring an essay contest for high school students in 

Mr. Whitehurst'S Congressional district, as long as these 

costs are reported pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §434. (Date Issued: 

September 19, 1980; Length: 2 paqes) , 

Ao 1980-95: National Bank'. Contribution V	 .. to State Political Fund 

The First National Bank of Florida (the 8ank) may make a 

contribution to "5 for Florida's Future." a fund whose 

express purpose isto promote adoption of five amendments 

to Florida's Constitution. Although the state's referendum 

on the ballot issues will be held in conjunction with a 

primary run-off election, the bank's contribution does not 

fall within the purview of the Act because the contribution 

will be used to influence a ballot referendum - not the 

election of any candidate for public office. The Commission noted that the Supreme Court examined virtually 

the same issue in The First National Bank of Boston et al. v. 

Bellotti. (Date Issued: September 19, 1980; Length: 3 

pages] 

h

o ;980-97: Trust for Pre-Election Presidential
 

Transition Activities
 

.	 The fresidential Transition Trust (the Trust), a group 

established to undertake certain transition activities on 

behalf of a potential new Republican administration prior 

to the November 4 election, will not constitute a "political 

committee" under the Act, provided the Trust: 

1. Does not assist the Reagan-Bush Committee in any of its 

campaign activities; and 

2. Does not use	 its assets to further the election of 

Republican Presidential ticket. 

Donations to, or disbursements by, the Trust would not 

considered "contributions" or "expenditures" under 

Act. 

As an organization totally separate from .the Reagan-Bu

Committee, the Trust plans only to conduct transiti

activities, such as gathering information about critical jo

in a possible new administration and identifying personn

qualified to fill those positions. Donors to the Trust will 

asked to sign a card affirming that their donations are giv

for the purpose of funding pre-election transition activit

and not for influencing federal elections. Donations will 

limited to $5,000 per individual. In addition, The Trust w

not accept donations from corporations, national banks 

labor organizations. 

The Commission expressed no opinion on the applicati

of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to the Trus

activities since that statute is outside its jurisdiction. (D

Issued: September 15,1980; Length: 4 pages) 

~1980-98: Title/Solicitation Activities 

of Separate Segregated Fund 

The Birmingham Trust National Bank Co ittee for Go

Government the Committee) is an acceptable title for 

separate segregated fund of the Birmingham Trust Natio

Bank (the Bank) because it includes the sponsoring orga

zation'. full name. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(5); 11 CFR 102.14(

(To comply with 1979 Amendment. to the Act, the Co

mittee had changed its title from the Southern Commit

for Good'Government to its current title.) The Committe

title does not have to include the names of the Ban

corporate affiliates whose executive and administrat

personnel the Committee also solicits. 

The Committee's new abbreviated title, BTNB Commit

for Good Government, is not permissible, however, becau

"8TN8" is not a clearly recognizable abbreviation. 11 C

102.14(c). 

The Commission noted that the Advisory Opinion Requ

had suggested that the Committee does not restrict solici

tions to shareholders and executive and administrat

personnel of the 8ank and its affiliates. While the Bank 

the Committee may solicit the executive and administrat

personnel of the Bank's subsidiaries, branches, divisions a

affiliates and their families at any time, it may solicit oth

employees only twice a year according to special pro

dures described in 11 CFR 114.6(11. (Date Issued: sePtem

ber 26, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

~O 1980-99: Accounting Method. for 

Contributions Under $50 

When the Republican Roundup Committee (the Comm

tee), a registered political committee, hosts fundrais

events, it must keep records of all contributions, includ

those under $50. 2 U.S.C. §432(c)(l). While neither 

Act nor the Commission's Regulations specify the deta

for keeping records of contributions under $50, the Regu

tions state that "an account [of all contributions receive

shall be kept by any reasonable accounting procedure." 

CFR 102.9(a). 

continu

3 
/

The Commission recommended two alternative accounting AD 1980-102: Definition of Immediate Family 

methods for keeping the records of small contributions: 

1. The Committee may keep the same records of contributions under $50 that it must keep for contributions of 

$50 or more, i.e., the name and address of each contributor and the date and amount of the contribution. If the 

Committee uses this method, or otherwise retains information on the names of contributors, it should also 

track the amount donated by each contributor on a 

calendar year basis so it can comply with the requirements for recording aggregated contributions. 11 CF R 

102.9(a)(2). 

2. Alternatively, the Committee	 may record the name of 

the fundraising event, the dates the contributions were 

received for the event, and the total amount of contributions received on each day for the event. Using this 

method, the Committee must nevertheless keep more 

complete records for contributions aggregating $50 or 

more (see above). (Date Issued: September 26, 1980; 

Length: 2 pages) 

1980-100: Separate Segregated Fund Established
 

by Corporation Wholly Owned by
 

Foreign Nationals 

The Revere Sugar Corporation (Revere), a corporation 

wholly owned by foreign nationals, may pay costs of 

establishing, administering and soliciting contributions to a 

separate segregated fund (the Committee). Revere's sponsorship of the Committee will not result in (prohibited) 

contributions by foreign nationals. Revere itself is not a 

"foreign principal" - hence not a "foreign national" ­

because it is a domestic corporation whose principal place 

of business is in the United States. (See 22 U.S.C. 

§611(b).) Moreover, no foreign nationals will exercise 

decision-making authority over the Committee's activities 

and no contributions will be solicited or accepted from 

foreign nationals. 

The Commission noted that it has authority to audit the 

Committee's activities. Commissioner Thomas E. Harris 

filed a dissenting opinion (Date Issued: September 19, 

1980; Length: 4 pages, including dissenting opinion) 

J AO 1980-101: Commercial Use of Campaign 

Finance Information 

Ex~t for information identifying individual contributors, 

Ma ·n I. Wein~rger may use any information copied 

from F EC documents and reports filed with the Commission in a directory of political action committees, which he 

plans to publish and sell. 

Although the Act and Commission Regulations generally 

prohibit commercial use of information copied from FEC 

reports, Section 104.15(c) of the Regulations does allow 

this information to be used in newspapers, magazines, 

books and other similar communications. The communications, however, may not use any FEC information on 

individual contributors. (Date Issued: September 26,1980; 

Length: 3 pages) 

for Solicitation Purposes 

The Fru-Con Corporation Political Action Committee, th

separate ~egregated fund of the Fru-Con Corporation, ma

solicit contributions from the immediate family of Fr

Con's executive and administrative personnel. For thes

purposes, "immediate farnilv" includes the children an

parents who live in the household with the corpora

personnel. The Committee may not, therefore, solic

members of the immediate family living outside the hom

2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(A); 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1). (Da

Ird: October 1, 1980; Length: 3 pages) 

\lAo 1980-105: Notices Required 

for Advocacy Literature 

The Pro· Life Action Council (the Council) must include 

notice of nonauthorization on any general public politic

communication which the Council finances if the commu

ication expressly advocates the election or defeat of 

clearly identified candidate for federal office. If the com

munication is issued without a candidate's authorizatio

the notice must clearly identify the Council as the organiz

tion which has " . . . paid for the communication and sta

that the communication is not authorized by any candida

or candidate's committee." 2 U.S.C. §441d(a)(3); 11 CF

110.11(al(1)Oii). (Date Issued: October 6, 1980; Length:

pages) 

AD 1980-107: Volunteer Services Provided 

by Senior Partner of Law Firm 

A senior partner may provide free services to the Reaga

Bush Committee during normal working hours while co

tinuing to receive full compensation from his law firm. 

U.S.C. §431 (8) (A). The compensation will not count as a

in-kind contribution from the firm to the Committe

because the partner's compensation is not determined b

the number of hours worked and the partner hascomple

discretion in the use of his time, provided he does no

engage in other business activities. Rather, his income 

based on his proprietary or ownership interest in the firm 

reflecting, for example, his ability to attract clients, solv

problems and counsel others. Commissioner Frank 

Reiche . a i . n. (Date Issued: (Jctober 

1 0; Length: 5 pages, including dissenting opinion) 

D 1980-108: Bank Loans Made to New Party 

Presidential Candidate 

Loans made by a consortium of banks to the Nation

Unity Campaign, the principal campaign committee o

PresidentIal candidate John 8. Anderson, could be treate

as bona fide loans, rather than as prohibited contribution

even though they would be secured by Mr. Anderson

expectation of receiving post-election public funding. (T

be eligible for post-election public funding as a new part

candidate, Mr. Anderson must receive five percent or mo

of the total votes cast in the general election.) 

More specifically, the loans would not necessarily fa

outside the "ordinary course of business" solel'1( becaus

the principal means of repayment would be the pos

election federal funds available to Mr. Anderson if h

4 
receives at least five percent of the popular vote. Furthermore, the loans would not violate the Act's requirement 

that bank loans be "made on a basis which assures repayment" solely because Mr. Anderson's receipt of postelection financing is contingent on his obtaining five percent or more of the vote. The Commission noted that 

the risk of the candidate's failure to repay the loans was 

mitigated by a proposed Revolving Credit Agreement, 

which included the following risk-control mechanisms: 

1. Under	 the "available commitments formula," the 

amount of funds available to the Anderson campaign on 

any given day would depend on Mr. Anderson's performance in the most recent opinion polls. 

2. Total	 loans available to the Anderson campaign would 

not exceed $10 million. 

3. All loans would have to be used solely to defray qualified campaign expenses. 

4. In	 order to borrow at all, Mr. Anderson would have to 

be favored in the polls by no less than six percent of the 

voters. 

5.	 A series of dollar limits and time restraints would be set 

on all loan transactions. The Agreement specifies, for 

example, that the Anderson campaign may not borrow 

additional funds within 10 days of the preceding borrowing or borrow more than a total of $6 million within 

20 days of the Agreement. 

6.	 Mr. Anderson would assign his rights to post-election 

funds to his principal campaign committee, which in 

turn would assign those rights to an agent representing 

the banks. Further, the Anderson campaign would irrevocably authorize the Commission to have all public 

funds paid directly to the agent. 

7. Numerous provisions of the Agreement would safeguard 

the banks' first-priority security interest in any postelection public funds Mr. Anderson might receive. 

8.	 The Anderson campaign would remain liable for the 

debt even if Mr. Anderson failed to receive post-election 

public funding. 

The Commission expressly did not decide, however, 

whether any particular loan made pursuant to the Agreement would be considered a loan negotiated in the "ordinary course of business," because this decision would 

depend on many other factors involved in the particular 

loan transaction. The Commission therefore cautioned 

against any use of the opinion as a legal sanction for any 

particular loan transaction. Further, the Commission 

expressed no opinion on the application of other laws and 

regulations to the loans, including tax laws or state and 

federal banking laws. Vice Chairman John Warren McGarry 

Clnd Commissioner Thomas E. Harris issued a concurring 

ini Commissioner Robert O. Tiernan issued a disnti . (Date Issued: October 6. 1980; Length: 17 

pages, including concurring and dissenting opinions) 

AO 1980-109: Candidate Support Provided 

by SUbscription Periodical 

Endorsement of candidates for federal office by The Ruff 

Times (a subscription periodical), including solicitations to 

their campaigns, would not constitute contributions to the 

candidates by Mr. Ruff, The Ruff Times or the subscription 

periodical's publisher. If a commentary in the periodical d

solicit contributions to a candidate, the contributors wou

have to be instructed to forward their contributions dire

ly to the candidate's campaign committee - and not 

The Ruff Times. Nor would campaign advertising prepa

and paid for by a candidate's committee and published 

the periodical result in a contribution to the candida

provided the candidate's campaign committee paid 

usual and normal rate for the advertisements. 

Commentaries in The Ruff Times endorsing specific can

dates would not constitute contributions because Sect

100.7(b)(2) of Commission Regulations specifically 

empts from the definition of contribution "any c

incurred in covering or carrying a news story. commenta

or editorial by a ... periodical publication." Furth

"periodical publication" has been defined to mean 

publication in bound pamphlet form appearing at regu

intervals and containing articles of news, informati

opinion or entertainment, whether of general or specializ

interest, which ordinarily derives its revenue from subscr

tions and advertising. (Date Issued: October 6, 19

Length: 4 pages) 

/

.J 

FEC PUBLIC APPEARANCES 

In keeping with its objective of making information available to the public, the Commission accepts 

invitations to address public gatherings. This column 

lists upcoming scheduled Commission appearances, 

the name of .the sponsoring organization, the location 

of the event and the name of the Commission's 

speaker. For additional information on any scheduled 

appearance, please contact the sponsoring organization. 

11/3	 Nippon Express Company, Ltd.
 

Election Management Committees
 

FEC, Washington, D.C.
 

Chairman Max Friedersdorf
 

Vice Chairman John Warren McGarry
 

Dr. Gary Greenhalgh, Director,
 

Clearinghouse 

11/8	 Southern Political Science Association 

Convention 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Gwenn Hofmann, Clearinghouse 

11/15	 New York University Review of Law and 

Social Change Colloquium 

New York, New York 

Charles N. Steele, General Counsel 

11/20	 Rutgers University
 

Public Policy Analysis Class
 

Newark, New Jersey
 

Commissioner Frank P. Reiche
 

5 
COORDINATED PARTY 

EXPENDITURES 

The Public Communications Office receives numerous 

inquiries from the public on its toll-free line: 800/424­

9530. The following explanations are offered in response to 

questions that party committees frequently ask about 

coordinated expenditures (2 U.S.C. §441a(d)). 

May state party committees make expenditures on behalf 

of federal candidates in the general election? 

In addition to direct contributions, state party committees may make special expenditures, referred to as "coordinated party expenditures," on behalf of their party's candidates for the House and Senate. (These expenditures are 

also sometimes called "441a(d) expenditures" because they 

are provided for in §441a(d) of the Act.) These expenditures are subject to monetary limits and may be made only 

for a general election campaign, not for a primary election. 

Although they may be made in cooperation with a candidate, coordinated party expenditures are not considered 

contributions and do not count against the committee's 

contribution limit for a candidate. 11 CF~ 110.7(b). The 

party committee - not the candidate - must actually make 

the expenditures and is responsible for reporting them. 

Maya local party organization make coordinated party expenditures? 

Yes. A local party organization may make coordinated 

party expenditures, but only if the state party committee 

has designated it as an agent to do so. 

If a state party 'committee designates a subordinate party 

committee to make coordinated expenditures, who ;s responsible for ensuring the state committee's limits are not 

exceeded? 

The state committee monitors its spending limits by following the special reporting procedures detailed below. 

Must a local party organization that makes coordinated 

party expenditures register as a political committee? 

Maybe. Coordinated party expenditures made by a local 

party organization count toward the $1,000 threshold 

which would trigger the organization's registration as a 

political committee. (For complete information on registration thresholds for local party organizations, consult FEC 

Regulations at 11 CFR 100.5(c).) 

May a national party committee make coordinated party 

expenditures on behalf of House and Senate candidates? 

If so, do separate spending ceilings apply to the expenditures made respectively by the state and national party 

committees? 

Yes. The national party committee may also make coordinated party expenditures on behalf of the party's House 

and Senate nominees in the general election. A separate 

ceiling applies to the expenditures made by the national 

party. 11 CFR 110.7(b)(11. 

6 

May state and national party committees also make coord

nated expenditures to support their party's Presidentia

ticket in the general election? 

Yes and no. Only the national committee may mak

coordinated expenditures on behalf of the party's Pres

dential nominee, although state and local party committee

may be designated by the national committee as agents fo

making Presidential coordinated party expenditures. 1

CFR 110.7(al. A separate spending limit applies to th

expenditures the national committee makes on behalf o

the Presidential ticket. Moreover, the national committee 

responsible for ensuring this limit is not exceeded if 

designates a state or subordinate party committee to mak

these expenditures. 

What are the spending ceilings? 

The national and state party committees may eac

spend: 

for House candidates, $10,000 (plus a cost of livin

adjustment); and 

for Senate candidates, or House candidates from state

with one Congressional district, $20,000 (plus a cost o

living adjustment); or $.02 x the state voting age popula

tion (VAP)(plus a cost of living adjustment), whicheve

is greater. 11 CFR 110.7(b). 

A national party committee may also spend up to $.02 

VAP of the United States (plus a cost of living adjustmen

on behalf of its Presidential nominee. 11 CFR 110.7(a

(The 1980 limits for coordinated expenditures are detaile

on page 5 of the March 1980 Record.) 

How are coordinated party expenditures reported? 

A party committee reports its total coordinated expend]

tures on the Detailed Summary Page of Form 3X. I

addition, the committee must itemize the expenditure

regardless of amount, on Schedule F. The campaign com

mittees of the candidates for whom the expenditures ar

made do not report these expenditures. 

Are there special reporting procedures for a local part

organization that has been designated by the state part

committee to make coordinated party expenditures? 

Yes. To help the state party committee monitor spend

ing limits for coordinated expenditures, the Commissio

recommends the special reporting methods outlined below

Alternatively, a state committee may use another metho

of controlling and reporting coordinated party expenditure

if the plan is submitted to and approved by the Commissio

In advancev l l CFR 110.7(c). 

1. Unregistered Local Organizations.	 A local party organ

zation not registered as a political committee disclose

its coordinated party expenditures on Schedule F, whic

it then submits to the state committee. The state com

mittee then attaches the Schedule F to the report o

receipts and disbursements it files with the Commi

sion. 

2. Registered Local Committees.	 A registered local part

political committee files a Schedule F with its regularl

scheduled report (Form 3X), itemizing all coordinate

party expenditures it has made since the last report file

and recording the total on the Detailed Summary Pag

In addition, the committee forwards a copy of i

completed Schedule F to the state committee. 
3. State Committees.	 A state party committee also files a 

Schedule F with its regularly scheduled report, itemizing 

only those coordinated party expenditures that the state 

committee itself has made and recording the total of its 

own expenditures on the Detailed Summary Page. The 

state committee also files, as attachments to its own 

report, the Schedule F reports submitted by all local 

organizations and committees that have made coordinated party expenditures. This means, of course, that 

the local organizations and committees must submit 

their Schedule F reports to the state committee sufficiently in advance of the filing date to permit the state 

committee to file on time. 

FEC REPORTS ON FINANCIAL
 

ACTIVITY OF NONPARTY
 

POLITICAL COMMITTEES
 

The FEC released summary figures on September 25, 

1980, indicating that nonparty political committees had 

contributed approxlrnatelv $25 million to federal candidates from January 1, 1979, through June 30, 1980. These 

committees also independently spent approximately $1.4 

million to support federal candidates. The figures released 

. are part of an ongoing study of federal campaign finance 

activity entitled 1979-1980 FEe Reports on Financial 

Activity. 

Interim Report No.9, the first study of nonparty financial 

activity, indicated that nonparty political committees had:. 

raised $85.3 million; 

spent $61.4 million; 

contributed $25 million to federal candidates; and 

spent $1.36 million independently in support of federal 

candidates. 

NOTE: The figures in this interim report are not final; they
 

are subject to change 'after all 1979·80 related reports and
 

amendments have been received.
 

The chart below lists the ten largest contributors to federal
 

candidates from January 1, 1979, through June 30, 1980.
 

The entire four-volume set of Interim Report No.9 is avail­


able for purchase ($5 per volume) from the FEC's Public
 

Records Office, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
 

20463. Telephone: 202/523·4181 or toll free 800/424·
 

9530. Or each of the following volumes of Interim Report
 

No.9 may be pu rchased separately:
 

Vol I; Summary Tables
 

Vol. II: State and Local Party Detailed Tables
 

Vol. III: Non-Partv Detailed Tables (Corporate and Labor)
 

Vol. IV: Non-Party Detailed Tables (No Connected Orqanizatlon, Trade/Membership/Health, Cooperative, 

Corporation Without Stock I 

"TOP 10" POLITICAL 

COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTORS 

Contributions 

to Federal 

Candidates 

Name of Contributor	 1/79 . 6/80' 

1.	 American Medical Political Action $596,435 

Committee (American Medical 

Association) * * 

2.	 Automobile and Truck Dealers $512,526 

Election Action Committee 

(National Automobile Dealers 

Association) 

3.	 Realtors Political Action Committee $465,647 

(National Association of Realtors) 

4.	 UAW·V·CAP (United Auto Workers $449,816 

Voluntary Community Action 

Program)(United Auto Workers) 

5.	 AFL·CIO COPE Political Contribu- $381,922 

tio~s Committee (AFL-CIO) 

6.	 Carpenters' Legislative Improvement $333.408 

Committee (Carpenters and Joiners 

of America) 

7. Committee for Thorough Agricul-	 $331,489 

tural Political Education of Associated 

Milk Producers, Inc. (Associated Milk 

Producers, lnc.) 

8.	 Machinists Non-Partisan Political $325,785 

League (Machinists and Aerospace 

Workers) 

9.	 Transportation Political Education $302,435 

League (United Transportation 

Union I 

10.	 National Association of Life Under­ $295,637 

writers Political Action Committee 

(National Association of Life Underwriters) 

"Federal candidates include House. Senate and Presidential ca

dates seeking election in 1980. candidates campaigning in fu

elections and inactive candidates retiring debts of former c

paigns. 

44The organization sponsoring each political committee is indic

in parenthesis, 

7 
FEC REPORTS ON FINANCIAL 

ACTIVITY OF CANDIDATE 

POLITICAL COMMITTEES 

u.s. Senate and House candidates have raised $126 million and spent more than $103 million on their 1979-1980 

election efforts, aceordinq to summary figures released by 

the Commission on October 1,1980. These figures are part 

of the 1979-1980 FEe Reports on Financial Activity of 

federal campaigns. 

The first study of U.S. Senate and House campaigns, Interim Report No.8, is based on reports filed with the Commission from January 1, 1979, through June 30, 1980. 

(Some additional total receipt and disbursement lnforrnation is also included for Congressional primaries held in 

August.) The study provides an itemized account of the 

contributions and expenditures made on behalf of the 

2,184 Congressional candidates. For example: 

Contributions from nonparty political committees to the 

candidates totaled $20.8 million; 

Party committees contributed $1.8 million and spent $.3 

million on behalf of the candidates; and 

Independent expenditures by nonparty committees 

totaled $.04 million on behalf of the candidates and $.8 

million in opposition to them. 

The study also summarizes the financial activity of "candidates," as follows: 

NONPARTY CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES 

Type of Candidate Funds Raised· Funds Spen

Senate candidates $56.5 $47.2 

House candidates 69.3 55.8 

Democrats 69.7 55.4 

Republicans 56.0 47.5 

Others .1 .1 

Incumbents 60.5 41.9 

Challengers 41.8 38.7 

Open Seat Races 23.5 22.4 

..All figures are in millions of dollars. 

NOTE: Figures provided in the study reflect the financi

activity related to six special elections held in 1979-198

in addition to the 1980 primary and general elections. 

paigns 

ity, Interim 

Copies of 

Records 

may be 

Office, 

the 

Report 

1979-1980 FEC Reports 

purchased 

1325 

No.8, 

K Street, 

at 

U.S. Senate and House 

a cost of $5 

N.W., 

on 

Washington, 

from 

Financial 

the 

Act

Pub

Ca

D

20463. For more information, call: 202/523-4181 or to

free 800/424-9530. 

I11III DEMOCRATS 

__I REPUBLICAN

59
 

49
 

7 

$7.4 million $5.3 million $1.2 million
 

CORPORATE LABOR NON
 

CONNECTED
 38 

$20.8 million 

47 TOTAL 

31 

$6.1 million $0.6 million 

TRADE/ COOPERATIVES 

MEMBERSHIP/ 

HEALTH 

$0.2 million 

CORPORATIONS 

WITHOUT STOCK 

These graphs show, on a percentage basis, how each type Source: 1979-80 FEC Reports on FinancialActivity of 

of nonparty committee divided its contributions between 1979-80 U.S. Senate and House Campaigns, Interim Repo

1979-80 Democratic and Republican Congressional No.8.
 

candidates. (1/1/79-6/30/80)
 

8 
NEW LITIGATION 

J Fred P. Ames v, FEC et al. 

Plaintiff seeks an injunction from the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia which would prevent the FEe 

from certifying public funds to the two major political 

parties. Plaintiff also demands that the FEe provide a grant 

of $4 million to the Concerned Citizens of America. 

(If.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Docket 

No. 80·2051, August 13, 1980.) 

J' The National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEe 

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(8)(A), the National Repub· 

lican Senatorial Committee seeks review by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of a Commission 

decision to dismiss a complaint brought by plaintiff. 

Plaintiff had brought the complaint against both the Hart 

for Senate Campaign Committee (the Committee) and 

Linda Ronstadt, who had donated entertainment services 

to the Committee. Contending that the Commission's 

decision was not based on facts and the applicable law 

because the defendants had not given the Commission an 

accurate account of the fundraiser, plaintiff seeks a Court 

decision directing the Commission to enforce provisions of 

-the Act applicable to the complaint. 

Itj.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Docket 

No. 80·2266, September 6, 1980.) 

j Barry Commoner v. FEe et al. 

Plaintiff sought a ruling from the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia that the Commission's September 16, 1980, decision dismissing a complaint brought by 

plaintiff was contrary to law. Plaintiff asked the Court to 

retain jurisdiction over the complaint. (In the complaint, 

plaintiff and the Citizens Party, a new party, had alleged 

that the Presidential debates scheduled for the general 

election campaign, and sponsored by the League of Women 

Voters Education Fund, violated the FEC's debate regulations by being partisan.) Plaintiff further sought the Court's 

declaratory judgment that the method of staging debates 

used by the League of Women Voters Education Fund was 

illegal. Plaintiff asked the Court to enjoin the League from 

sponsoring subsequent debates or, alternatively, to compel 

the League to include plaintiff in the debates. 

On October 1, 1980, Mr. Commoner filed a motion with 

the Court to dismiss the case without prejudice. 

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

No. 80·2389, September 19, 1980.) 

Felice M. Gelman and Citizens for LaRouche, Inc. v. FEC 

Plaintiffs seek an injunction from the- U.S. Dist

Court of the District of Columbia enjoining the Comm

sion from conducting investigations of volunteers a

contributors to Citizens for LaRouche, Inc., the princi

campaign committee of Presidential candidate Lyndon 

LaRouche. Plaintiffs further seek a declaratory judgm

from the Court that such investigations are being conduc

in violation of the Act and Commission Regulations at 

CFR Part 111. 

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

No. 80-2471, October 1, 1980.) 

j 

EXPEDITED COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES 

FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION 

On September 25, 1980, the Commission approv

procedures for expediting complaints filed" with the Co

mission within 30 days of the general election. Th

procedures apply only to federal candidates running in 

general election and to political committees making con

butions and expenditures in connection with the gene

election. 

Under the expedited procedures, the Commission w

continue to follow all the steps specified under the Co

mission's normal compliance procedures. 11 CFR Part 1

(See also the April Record, p. 6.) The time provided 

certain steps, however, will be reduced. 

After the Commission has received a complaint, for exa

ple, it will notify the respondent within 24 hours (rat

than five days) that a complaint has been filed against h

or her. The respondent will have 15 days in which to re

to the complaint. Similarly, the Commission will info

the complainant within 24 hours after receiving the co

plaint [rather than five days) that the complaint has b

received and is being processed. 

The Commission may decide to dismiss the compla

before receiving the respondent's reply. If it is possible 

dismiss a complaint on this basis, the Commission w

attempt to do so within five days after the complaint 

been filed. If the complaint is dismissed, the complain

and respondent will be notified by mailgram. 

If the complaint cannot be dismissed on its face, 

Commission will make no decision until the receipt of 

respondent's reply or 15 days after the respondent recei

notification of the complaint, whichever comes first. If 

Commission decides there is "reason to believe" the Act 

been violated, it will notify the respondent and compla

contin

9 
ant by mailgram (or as soon as practicable) and send a 

follow-up letter by the close of business on the following 

day. (Under normal procedures, the Commission allows five 

days to inform respondents and complainants by mail.) 

If the Commission determines before the November 4th 

general election that there is "probable cause to believe" 

the Act has been violated, and if the respondents are invalved in the general election, the Commission will formally seek a conclllatlon agreement with the respondents for 

at least 15 days (rather than 30). 

JFEC PUBLISHES NAMES J OF NONFILERS 

On September 10, 1980, the Commission released the 

names of 280 committees authorized by candidates which 

had failed to file their semiannual reports of receipts and 

expenditures. The reports were due by close of business on 

July 31. An FEC press release issued September 10 provides 

state-by-state details on those committees which failed to 

file their July semiannual report. The release may be obtained from the FEC's Office of Public Records. Call 

202/523·4181 or toll free 800/424·9530. 

Under the 1979 Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act, if a candidate is not running for office in 

1980, the candidate's campaign committee must file two 

semiannual reports if the committee either received contributions or made expenditures (including payment of 

debts) in excess of $5,000. One report must be filed by 

July 31, the other by January 31, 1981. Each semiannual 

report must include information on all financial activity 

occurring during the six-month period. 

Further Commission action against nonfilers and late filers 

will be decided on a case-by-case basis. The Federal Election Campaign Act gives the Commission broad authority 

to initiate enforcement actions against nonfilers, including 

civil court enforcement and the imposition of civil penalties. 

SUMMARY OF MUR's 

Selected campi iance cases, which have been closed and 

put on the publ-ic record, are summarized in the Record. 

Compliance matters stem from possible violations of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, which 

come to the Commission's attention either through formal 

complaints originating outside the Commission or by the 

FEC's own monitoring procedures. The Act gives the FEC 

the exclusive jurisdiction for the civil enforcement of the 

Act. Potential violations. are assigned case numbers by the 

Office of General Counsel and become "Matters Under 

Review" (MUR's). All MUR investigations are kept confidential by the Commission, as required by the Act. 

MUR's may be closed at anyone of several points during 

the enforcement process, including when the Commission: 

Determines that no violation of the Act hasoccurred; 

Determines that there is no reason to believe or no 

probable cause to believe a violation of the Act h

occurred;
 

Enters into a conciliation agreement with the respo

dent;
 

Finds probable cause to believe a violation has occurr

and decidesto sue;or
 

Decides at any point during the enforcement process 

take no further action. 

After the MUR is closed and released by the Office 

General Counsel, the Commission makes the MUR fi

available to the public. This file contains the complain

the findings of the General Counsel's Office and the Cor

mission's actions with regard to the case, including the fu

text of any conciliation agreement. The Commission

actions are not necessarily based on, or in agreement wit

the General Counsel's analysis. 

Selection of MUR's for summary is made only from MUR

closed after January 1, 1979. The Record article does n

summarize every stage in the compHance process. Rathe

the summary provides only enough background to ma

clear the Commission's final determination. The full text 

these MUR's and others which were closed between 197

and the present are available for review and purchase in th

fommission's Public Records Office. 

~UR 1032: Creditor Files Complaint 

Against Candidate Committee 

On March 4, 1980, the Commission voted to take n

further action in the case of a Presidential candidate com

mittee that responded satisfactorilv to a reason to believ

finding. 

j 

Complaint: On September 26, 1979, a creditor of th

candidate committee filed a complaint alleging that th

committee had failed to pay a debt owed to the compan

thus violating the Act by breaking an oral contract. Th

company also alleged that the committee, by failing t

continuously report outstanding debts or file reports afte

its July 1978 quarterly report, had violated 2 U.S.C

§ §434(b)(12) and 434(a), respectively. 

General Counsel Reports: The General Counsel pointed ou

that, as to the breach of contract, no statute within th

Commission's jurisdiction had been violated. Although th

Regulations address the forgiveness of debts owed t

corporations, there is nothing in the Act or Regulation

granting the Commission jurisdiction to enforce the pa

ment of debts owed by a political committee. The Gener

Counsel's review of the committee's reports, however, su

stantiated the other alleged violations. The committee ha

last disclosed its debts in August 1976 and had not file

any reports since July 1978. 

Commission Determination: On December 14, 1979, th

Commission found reason to believe the committee ha

violated the §434 reporting requirements. The Committe

then complied with the Act by filing the necessary repor

and disclosing information on its debts. The Commissio

on March 3, 1980, decided to take no further action in th

matter and closed the file. 

10 
SUBSCRIPTIONS 

Election Law Updates is a quarterly series which sum­


marizes all new state and federal election legislation.
 

$11.00 per year.
 

Election Case Law is a quarterly series which summarizes
 

recent state and federal litigation relating to election
 

matters. $10.00 per year.
 

You may order these subscriptions by mail from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 20402. Identify report title. Enclose a 

check or money order for subscription pricels) payable to 

Superintendent of Documents. 

CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

Political Committees 

Registered political committees are automaticall

sent the Record. Any change of address by a regis

tered committee must, by law, be made in writing a

an amendment to FEC Form 1 (Statement of Organ

zation) and filed with the Clerk of the House, th

Secretary of the Senate or the FEC, as appropriate. 

Other Subscribers 

Record subscribers (who are not political commit

tees), when calling or mailing in a change of addres

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 

located in the upper left hand corner of the mai

ing label. It consists of three letters and five num

bers. Without this number, there is no guarante

that your SUbscription can be located on th

computer. 

STATUS OF FEC REGULATIONS-


Regulations* 

Date Sent 

to Congress 

Federal Register 

Publication 

Date Prescribed* * 

by the Commission 

11 CFR 9033.9 

Suspension of Primary 

Matching Fund Payments 

4/10/80 4/15/80 

(45 FR 25378) 

7/3/80 

11 CFR Part 4 

Public Records and the 

Freedom of Information Act 

Not appl icable 5/13/80 

(45 FR 312911 

6/12/80 

11 CFR Part 5 

Access to Public Disclosure 

Division Documents 

Not applicable 5/13/80 

(45 FR 312921 

6/12/80 

11 CFR, Parts 100 and 110 

Contributions to and 

Expenditures by Delegates 

to National Nominating 

Conventions 

5/14/80 5/23/80 

(45 FR 34865) 

8/7/80 

'11 CFR, Parts 100,106, 

110,140-146 and 9001-9007 

Public Financing of Presidential General Election 

Campaigns 

6/13/80 6/27/80 

(45 FR 433711 

9/5/80 

·The chart is cumulative. listing all amendments to the FEC Regulations proposed after the April 1980 edition of 11 CFR was pub

lished, including any technical amendments. 

"The Commission may prescribe its regulations 30 legislative days after it has transmitted them to Congress, provided neither the Hous

nor the Senate disapprovesthem during thisperiod. 

11 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 

1325 K STREET, NW
 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463
 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

}2
 

FIRST CLASS MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

FEC
 

WASHINGTON, D.C.
 

PERMIT NO. G·31