999 E Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 13,Number 

STATISTICS

2 Congressional Spending Tops

$450 Million

LEGISLATION

2 FEC Projects Agency Cost

of S.2

COMPLIANCE

7 MUR 2195

7 MUR 1896

COURT CASES

5 FEe v, NCPAC

5 FEC v, Bank One

REGULATIONS

9 Revised Public Financing Regulations

PUBlJC FUNDING

6 Hart Not Eligible

6 Kemp Eligible

PUBLICATIONS

8 Revised Compliance Manual

8 Federal Elections 86

8 1986 Annual Report

8 ADVISORY OPINIONS

10 INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

I Connecticut Special

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

July 1987

CONFERENCE UPDATE

A special Internal Revenue Service

workshop on tax issues related to federal

campaigns will be a part of two conferences being sponsored by the FEC this fall.

The IRS will participate in both the Vermont conference (September 16-18) and

the Texas conference (November 16-17).

For more information on the conferences,

contact the FEC's Information Services Division at 202/376-3120 or toll free

800/424-9530. See the June 1987 issue of

the Record for more details on the

eonferences,

CONNECTICUT SPECIAL ELECTION

On August 18, 1987t Connecticut will hold a

special general election in the Fourth Congressional District to fill the seat vacated by the

death of Representative Stewart B. McKinney.

The Republicans will hold a convention on

June 29, 1987 t to select a candidate to run in the

special general election. The Democrats will hold

their convention to select a candidate on June 30t

1987. In the event there is a challenge primary,

resulting from the conventions, a special primary

election will be held on July 21t 1987.

The principal campaign committees of candidates participating in these conventions and special elections will receive the appropriate forms

for filing their financial disclosure reports. All

other political committees which support candidates in these elections (and which do not report

on a monthly basis) must also file disclosure

reports. They should contact the FEC to obtain

reporting forms. Call 800/424-9530.
2

Volume 13, Numb3r 

CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING

TOPS $450 MILLION IN 1986 ELECTIONS

A preliminary report released by the FEC o

the 1985-86 election cycle showed that Congres

sional spending exceeded $450 million, an increas

of 20 percent over 1984 spending. The repor

disclosed that 1986 Senate candidates increase

their spending 24 percent over 1984 candidate

while House candidates spent 17 percent mor

than 1984 House candidates. The FEC report als

indicated the sources of monies raised by cam

paigns according to party affiliation and candi

date status.

Chart I compares Congressional incumbents

challengers and candidates involved in election

for open seats, in terms of the money the

received, spent and had left over at the end of th

election cycle.

Chart II reproduces one page of an FEC pres

release that provides detailed information on Sen

ate candidates, showing the level of financia

activity at two-year intervals during the 198

election cycle. Readers should note tha

activity--particularly in the early years of th

cycle--may relate to retiring debts of a previou

election campaign. Note also that "cash on hand

at the beginning of the cycle appears, wher

appropriate, opposite the year 1980. "Transfer

from other authorized committees" refers t

money transferred to the campaign from anothe

committee authorized by the candidate for 

different election, e.g., a different office, eithe

state or federal.

Copies of the 'complete press release, whic

covers all Senate and House candidates who ran i

the 1986 general election, are available from th

Commission's Public Records Office.

More detailed information on the 1985-8

Senate and House campaigns will be published i

the final report in the Fall of 1987, with an entir

volume outlining the financing for each candi

date's campaign.

July 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Scott E. Thomas, Chairman; Thomas J. Josefiak, Vice Chairman;

Joan Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; John Warren McGarry; Walter J. Stewart,

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

Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

FEC PROJECTS AGENCY COSTS OF

IMPLEMENTING S.2

On June 4, 1987, the Commission approved

cost projections for implementing S.2 (substitute

version), known as the Senatorial Election Campaign Act of 1987. The bill contains, among

several provisions, a program for the public

funding of Senatorial general election campaigns.

The Federal Election Commission would

administer and enforce the program. The FEC

projected the agency's costs in response to a

request from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Commission calculated that its total

administrative cost for the first two-year cycle of

the public funding program provided for in the bill

would be $1,496,100. This figure was based on the

assumption that the substitute bill, as reported

out of the Senate Rules Committee, would be

enacted into law as currently drafted and would

become law in time for the 1988 Senatorial general elections. Basing their calculations on 19

workload assumptions, agency staff provided a

detailed analysis of costs required to implement

each phase of the program. FEC staff noted that

the costs of implementing the public funding

program for Senate candidates would be in addition to costs currently projected for the agency's

administration of the 1987-88 Presidential election cycle.

For purposes of the cost estimates, the Commission assumed that 66 candidates would run in

the 1988 Senatorial general election and that all

of the candidates would participate in the public

funding program. In addition to projecting agency

costs, the Commission calculated, on a state-bystate basis, the spending and PAC contribution

limits for the candidates and the total public

funds that would be available to each eligible

candidate. According to FEC calculations, the

total maximum Federal payout for 66 candidates,

if they all received Federal funds, would be $87.3

million.
3

YThis bar includes candidates' loans and contributions to their respective campaigns. Due 

variations in reporting, loans which have been forgiven may be counted as both a direct contribution a

a loan, with the result of inflating the total amount. For an accurate account of candidate suppo

consult the reports filed by campaigns.

YOther includes interest, dividends and offsets to expenditures.

140 

Volume 13, NumOO

100 120

Receipts

• Individual Contributions

!ill] PAC Contributions

• Support from Candidate!

• Other!!

80

::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;~:::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::~;:::::::::::: ,

Millions of Dollars

20 40 60

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

o

Incumbents

Receipts

Disbursements

Cash-an-Hand

Challengers

Receipts

Disbursements

Cash-an-Hand

Open Seat

Receipts

Disbursements ~~~iil~

Cash-an-Hand

Incumbents

Receipts

Disbursern ents .~i!~.II.

Cash-on-Hand

Challengers

Receipts

Disbursements -=::IR••g ... Cash-on-Hand

Open Seat

Receipts

Disbursements

Cash-orr-Hand

SENATE

HOUSE

CHART I

FINANCIAL ACTIVITY OF CONGRESSIONAL

CAMPAIGNS, 1985-86

July 1987
July 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, NumOOr" 

CHART II

SENATE CANDIDATES

SAMPLE PAGE FROM PRESS

RELEASE

IndlYldual NOli Party Candldat. Trans from Ending Cash Closing

Candidate Reuipts Contributions ContrlbutiDns Support OlJlltr Aulh. Disbursitmallls on Hand Debts

ALABAMA

Jerltmlah Denton R U4I9)

DO $6.712 $32,92

1981-82 $'49,029 $60,152 $24,284 $155,469 $3,46

1983-84 $90,319 $44,077 $20.616 $84.359 $6,52

1985-86 $4.086,587 $3,883.334 $669.398 $4,621,163 $71,638 $

Richard Shltlby o W(SO)

1985-66 $2,400,486 $667,325 '85&.164 $210.000 $486.103 '2.259,167 $141,319 $\SO.OOO

ALASKA

Funk nllrkowski RW(S4)

80 $13.649 $4,40

1981-62 $82.923 $31,699 $34.250 '72.746 $

1983-84 $47.430 $19,OC5 $25,9CO $55,620 S

1985-86 $1,425,261 $714,528 $566,256 $1,369,056 '53,848 $18,484

61enn Olds DU44)

1985-86 $412.857 $239,199 S153,207 $412.074 $763 $ 13.45

ARIZONA

John McCain RW(60)

1985-86 $2.510.092 $1,441,325 $147.oa3 '206,780 '2,189.510 '287.217 $

Richard Kimball o U39)

1985-86 $550.024 $326.516 $210,257 $531,696 $16.325 $19,336

ARKANSAS

Dale Dumpers o W(62)

80 $79,499 $

1981-82 $\8,633 $800 '0 $37,1">08 S

1983-84 $101.293 t70.477 $10.400 $90,786 $

1985-86 $1,725.363 $1.132.086 $504.631 SI,672.432 $124.976 $

Wm As. Hutchinson R U38)

1985-86 $916,436 $782,662 $79.265 $20,000 $910,92'1 $5,509 $9'2,21

4
July 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COIVlMISSION Volume 13, Numoo

FEC v, NCPAC

On April 29, 1987, the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia granted plaintiff's motions for sum mary judgment and dismissal of

defendants' counterclaim in FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, et a1.

(Civil Action No. 85-2898). The court found that

the defendants had violated the law by failing to

include a statement in their solicitation material

clearly identifying the person who paid for the

com munication,

Background

During the 1984 election cycle, NCPAC

mounted a $10 million independent expenditure

campaign advocating the reelection of President

Reagan. As part of this project, NCPAC mailed

out materials urging the reelection of the President and soliciting contributions to finance its

expenditures for this effort. The solicitation

material did not identify who paid for it. Under

the Act and Commission regulations, any communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or

which solicits contributions must clearly display a

disclaimer identifying the person(s) who paid for

the communication. 2 U.S.C. §441d{a)(3).

On April 23, 1985, after attempting to resolve this enforcement matter through informal

methods of conciliation, the Commission filed suit

against the defendants in the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia. In its complaint,

the FEC sought the following:

o A judgment declaring that the defendants viola ted the law by failing to include a proper

disclaimer in their solicitation material;

a An order permanently enjoining the defendants

from repeating the violation;

o An assessment of a civil penalty; and

a An award of attorney's fees and costs incurred

by the FEC.

In their counterclaim, the defendants sought

review of the FEOs decision to bring this action

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA), 5 U.S.C. §§70l et seq. The defendants

claimed that the FEe decision was "final agency

action" within the meaning of section 704 of the

APA and, therefore, reviewable. Furthermore,

the defendants claimed that the FEC decision was

"arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion

under the APA" because the Commission had

declined to initiate a civil enforcement action in

another similar case. Finally, in denying the

alleged violation of the Act, the defendants

argued that the use of the NCPAC postal frank

and other references throughout the material

5

made it quite clear who paid for the communic

tion. In their view, therefore, a specific d

claimer was not necessary.

Court's Ruling

In ruling that the defendants had violated 

U.S.C. §44ld(a)(3), the court said that lithe A

and regulations do not provide for disclaimers 

inference and the court is consequently of t

view that these repeated references to NCPA

which appear within the materials do not satis

section 441d's disclaimer requirement."

The court also dismissed the defendan

counterclaim. Citing an earlier Supreme Cou

case, the court held that the initiation of enforc

ment proceedings does not constitute "fin

agency action" and is, therefore, not subject 

judicial review under the APA. Regarding t

defendants' allegation that the FEC exercis

selective prosecution against NCPAC, the cou

ruled that one isolated instance of nonenforc

ment was not evidence that NCPAC was bei

singled out for prosecution and that even if 

were, defendants produced no evidence demo

strating that this action resulted from an im

proper motive.

Finally, the court assessed a civil penalty 

$3,000 against the defendants.

FEC v. BANK ONE

On May 20, 1987, the United States Distr

Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Di

sion, approved a consent order between the Co

mission and the defendants in FEC v. Bank On

ColumbUS, M.A., et a1. (Civil Achon No. C2-8

1082). Defendants were: the John Glenn Pre

dential Committee, Ine., William R. White, tre

surer, and Senator John Glenn (Glenn Committe

and Bank One, Columbus, N.A., Ameritrust Co

pany National Association, BancOhio Nation

Bank and the Huntington National Bank (t

Banks).

Background

The FEC alleged that $2 million in loa

made by the Banks to the Glenn Committee 

1984 were not made on a basis that assur

repayment and, therefore, were in violation of 

U.S.C. S44lb(a). After failing to resolve t

matter through the conciliation process, the FE

filed suit in federal court on September 9, 198

For a summary of the FEC's allegations, see pa

6 of the November 1986 Record.

Consent Order

The consent order contained the following:

o For purposes of settlement of this litigati

only, defendants agreed not to further conte

the Commission's allegations that the maki

continu
July 198? FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMrvllSSION Volume 13, Number

and acceptance of the loan was in violation of 2

U.S.C. §44Ib(a). By agreeing not to further

contest the Commission's allegations, defendants did not concede that such allegations

were proven by the record or could have been

proven at trial.

o In settlement of the litigation, the Glenn Committee agreed to pay $4,000 to the FEe.

o The parties agreed to bear their own costs and

fees in this matter.

HART NOT ELlQffiLE FOR MATCHING FUNDS

On June 4, the Federal Election Commission

made an initial determination that Gary Hart was

not ~ligible t? receive matching fund payments

for his campaign for the 1988 Democratic Presid.ential nominati~n. Under Commission Regulations, Mr. Hart will have an opportunity to submit

written legal or factual materials to demonstrate

that he has satisfied the requirements for eligibility.

Background

On May 18, 1987, Gary Hart submitted a

letter of candidate and committee agreements

and certifications dated May 4, 1987, which constituted his request for a Commission determination of his eligibility to receive Presidential primary matching funds. Prior to this submission; on

May 8; 1987, Mr. Hart held a news conference in

which he stated that he would no longer be a

candidate for the nomination of the Democratic

Party for President of the United States.

At issue was whether Mr. Hart should be

eligible for matching fund payments even though

he was not a candidate on the day he submitted

his request for a determination of eligibility.

Hart's Arguments

In submitting the request for matching funds;

counsel for Mr. Hart argued that the Commission

should determine him eligible for a limited entitlement to Federal funds. Counsel noted that,

although Mr. Hart was no longer seeking the

nomination when he made his SUbmission, he was

an active candidate ·on May 4 when he signed the

letter of candidate agreements and certification.

Counsel for Mr. Hart maintained, therefore, that

Mr. Hart's withdrawl should not; in itself disqualify him. Counsel for Mr. Hart also a'rgued

that "there is no requirement in the law that the

candidate be active at the time the Commission

reviews the submission for eligibility." Counsel

further maintained that Mr. Hart was a candidate

6

prior to the submission of his application fo

eligibility, and had satisfied all the other tests fo

eligibility. Finally, counsel argued that in case

where a candidate has established eligibility, th

law allows the candidate to continue to receiv

matching funds even after the candidate cease

active candidacy. 2 U.S.C. §9003(d). This provi

sion al!ows th.e c~ndidate to cover net outstandin

campaign obligations and winding down costs.

Commission's Determination

.. In the Co~mission's view; the statutory pro

visions governmg the establishment of eligibility

for enti.tlement to matching funds presuppose tha

an applicant for such funds is a candidate within

the meaning of the Presidential Primary Matchin

Payment Account Act. Under this law the term

"csndidate'' is defined as "an individual' who seek

nomination for election to be President of th

United States." 26 U.S.C. §9032(2). Moreover

the law requires the candidate to certify that h~ or she is seeking nomination by a political party

for election to the office of President of the

United States. 26 U.S.C. s 9033(b)(2). Therefore

the Co~mission concluded that only a candidate

as de~med under. 26 U.S.C., was eligible for

matchl~g funds. Since Mr. Hart had ceased bein

a candidate before submitting his application fo

consideration by the Commission, the Commission

ruled that he was unable to establish eligibility

under 26 U.S.C. s 9033.

KEMP DECLARED ELIGmLE FOR

PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS

On May 21, 1987, the Commission declared

that Rep. Jack Kemp, a Bepubllcen Presidentia

candidate; was eligible to receive federal match

ing funds for the 1988 primary elections. Mr

Kemp submitted his eligibility request on Apri

16, 1987. Under the Presidential Primary Match

ing Payment Account, Presidential candidate

may begin seeking eligibility for primary match

ing funds after January 1; 1987. 26 U.S.C. §9031

et seq. Matching funds, however, are not distri

buted until after January I; 1988.

To become eligible for matching funds, a

candidate must raise over $100,000 by collecting

in excess of $5,000 from individuals in each of a

least 20 different states. Although individua

contributors may give up to $1,000 to the candi

date, only $250 from each contributor may be

matched with public funds. The maximum amoun

of matching funds a Presidential candidate may

receive is half of the spending limit, which may

be as much as $22 million in 1988. Presidentia

primary candidates could therefore qualify for up

to $11 million in primary matching funds. 
July 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

MUR 2195: Contributions Made in the

Name of Another

This MUR, resolved through conciliation, involved

a corporation making contributions in the name of

two of its former employees.

Complaint

The MUR was internally generated by the

Commission in the normal course of carrying out

its administrative responsibilities.

General Counsel's Report

After finding "reason to believe" that the Act

had been violated, the Commission conducted an

investigation which indicated that the corporation

reimbursed two former officers for contributions

they made to federal candidates, of $500 and $250

each. The contributions were reported by the

recipient committees as coming from the officers, not the corporation.

Under federal election law, corporations are

prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections. 2 U.S.C. §44lb. Federal law also prohibits persons from making a

contribution in the name of another, and the law

prohibits a person from knowingly permitting

his/her name to be used to effectuate such a

contribution. 2 U.S.C. S44lf. The General Counsel concluded that the corporation .had violated

the Act both by making a corporate contribution

in connection with a federal election in violation

of S44lb, and by making contributions in the name

of others, in violation of S441f. In addition, the

General Counsel found that the former officers of

the corporation had violated the Act by permitting their names to be used to effectuate contributions from the corporation, in violation of

S44l f. The General Counsel recommended that

the Commission enter into conciliation with the

three respondents prior to finding "probable cause

to believe" that they violated the Act.

Commission Determination

Prior to finding "probable cause to believe"

the Act had been violated, the Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with each of

the three respondents. In their separate conciliation agreements, each of the respondents agreed

to pay a civil penalty.

MUR 1896: Excessive Contributions

from Candidate's Family

This MUR, resolved through conciliation, involved

a $25,000 loan from the parent of a candidate to

the campaign committee.

7

Volume 13, Numoo- 7

Complaint

The Commission generated this MUR in the

normal course of carrying out its administrative

responsibilities. A Commission review of the

candidate's quarterly report disclosed the receipt

of a loan for $25,000, which was not properly

reported. The respondents were the candidate

committee, its treasurer and the candidate's

mother.

General Counsel's Report

The Commission investigation, conducted after the Commission found reason to believe the

law had been Violated, indicated that the candidate committee had reported the receipt of a loan

for $25,000 on Schedule D of its quarterly report

but had failed to include it on Schedule A and

Schedule C. In response to an FEC inquiry, the

committee amended its report to properly report

the loan but failed to disclose the original source

of the loan. Further investigation by the Commission revealed that the source of the loan was

the candidate's mother.

Under federal election law, a loan is considered a contribution until it is repaid. 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(A}. Also, no individual may contribute

more than $1,000 to any candidate per election. 2

U.S.C. §44l(a)(l)(A}. An individual may not,

therefore, loan more than $1,000 to a candidate

per election. Since members of a candidate's

family are subject to the contribution limits, the

loan from the candidate's mother exceeded the

limits by $24,000.

The General Counsel recommended that the

Commission find probable cause to believe that

the law was violated in the following ways:

o The candidate committee failed to properly

report and identify the source of the loan. 2

U.S.C. S434(b}(3)(E}.

o The candidate committee accepted contributions in excess of the limits. 2 U.S.C. §44la(f).

o The mother of the candidate exceeded the

contribution limits. 2 U.S.C. S44la(a)(l)(A).

Commission Determination

The Commission voted to find probable cause

to believe that the committee violated the law by

not properly reporting the receipt of a loan and by

accepting an excessive contribution to the campaign. In the conciliation agreement concluded

between the respondents and the Commission, the

respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Numb

Registration and reporting requ

ments of national bank's polit

action committee organized to s

port only state and local candida

(Date made public: May 19, 19

Length: 2 pages)

Relationship between Presiden

candidate's authorized commi

and delegate committees formed 

his behalf. (Date made pub

May 21, 1987; Length: 2 pages, p

17-page supplement)

Health insurance trade associati

solicitation of participating ph

cian partnerships. (Date made p

lic: May 18, 1987; Length: 3 pa

plus 57-page supplement)

Transfer of funds and assets fr

state committee to Presiden

committee of same candid

(Date made public: May 26, 19

Length: 3 pages, plus l l-p

supplement)

Suggested amount for contribut

to PAC printed on membership d

statement. (Date made pub

May 26, 1987; Length: 2 pages p

2-page supplement)

Subject

FEDERAL ELECTIONS 86

During May, the Commission released a p

lication entitled Federal Elections 86, which c

tains the official results of United States Ho

and Senatorial elections held on Novembe

1986. The Commission undertakes this pro

biennially in order to provide an accurate his

cal record of official federal election resu

Copies of the publication may be ordered fre

charge from the National Technical Informa

Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Comme

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virg

22161.

1987-14

1987-13

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests 

advisory opinions. The full text of each AOR 

available to the public in the Commission's Of

of Public Records.

1987-16

AOR

1987-15

1987-17

8

July 1987

REVISED COMPLIANCE MANUAL FOR 1988

PRIMARY MATCHING FUND RECIPIENTS

On April 23, 1987, the Commission approved

a revised edition of its Financial Control and

Compliance Manual for Presidential Primary Candidates Receiving Public Financing. The manual is

designed to help primary matching fund recipients

comply with the Act and Commission Regulations.

The manual incorporates proposed revisions to the

FEC's primary matching fund regulations. Although not yet prescribed, these regulatory revisions have been approved by the Commission and

were included in the final proposed rules sent to

Congress on May 26, 1987.

Free copies of the manual are now available

for use by Presidental primary candidates and

their committees. In addition, a limited number

of copies are available for purchase by other

parties, at $10.00 per copy, from the FEC's Public

Records Office. (If any procedures are revised,

the Public Records Office will send all recipients

of the manual new pages reflecting those

changes.) For more information, the Public

Records Office may be contacted at 202/376-3140

or toll free 800/424-9530.

FEe SENDS 1986 ANNUAL REPORT

TO PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS

As it prepares for the 1988 elections, the

Federal Election Commission has issued its

twelfth Annual Report detailing the agency's role

in the 1986 elections. Copies of the publication

have been presented to the President, the President of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the

U.S. House of Representatives.

The report, which examines the Commission's

administration of federal election laws, includes

information on the FEC's internal operations, a

series of graphs depicting campaign finance data

and a description of the FEC's preparations for

the 1988 presidential elections. Also included are

summaries of advisory opinions and litigation.

Finally, the report contains agency suggestions

for legislative changes in election laws, which the

Commission presented to Congress earlier this

year. A number of appendices appear in the 85-

page report, covering a variety of data related to

FEC activities.

For a copy of the 1986 report, contact the

Information Services Division, 800/424-9530 or

202/376-3120.
July 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Numter 7

REVISED PUBLIC FINANCING

REGULATIONS: PRIMARY AND GENERAL

On May 26, 1987, the Commission transm itted to Congress the revised rules governing

publicly financed Presidential candidates. 52 Fed.

Reg., 20864, June 3, 1987. The Federal election

law requires that regulations prescribed by the

Commission be transmitted to the Speaker of the

House of Representatives and the President of the

Senate 30 legislative days before they are finally

promulgated. A Notice of Proposed Rulernaking

was published in the Federal Register by the

Commission on August 5, 1986, to seek comment

on proposed revisions to these regulations. For a

summary of the notice, see page 12 of the August

1986 Record. Five sets of comments addressed

the public financing proposals. In addition, the

Commission held a public hearing on December 3,

1986, on the proposed rules, at which one witness

appeared.

Highlights from the New Regulations

1. The time period within which a Presidential

candidate must act or respond to a Commission notification will now run from the date

the Commission serves notice instead of the

date the candidate receives it. If the notice

is mailed, three days will be added to the

response time in accordance with Commission regulations.

2. Funds raised to make repayments will be

subject to the limitations and prohibitions of

the Act and must be aggregated with any

contributions previously received from a contributor.

3. The 'new rules require publicly funded candidates to follow the regulations recently promulgated by the Commission in sections

!lO.l and 110.2 for redesignation and reattributton of contributions.

4. In order to be consistent with revisions to

section 106.2, overhead expenditures will now

include all telephone charges for the general

election except those related to a special

program, such as a voter registration effort.

5. A candidate will not be able to reduce the

amount of disbursements counted against the

expenditure limit by settling debts. The full

amount of debts incurred by a candidate will

count against the expenditure limit, regardless of the amount for which the debts have

been settled. The only exception is when a

debt settlement reasonably resolves a bona

fide dispute with the creditor.

6. No payments will be made to candidates from

accounts containing public funds except to

reimburse them for legitimate campaign expenses, such as travel and subsistence. The

new rules make explicit that candidates may

not receive a salary for services performed

for the campaign; nor may they receive

eompensatlon for lost income while campaigning.

7. The new rules establish procedures under

which candidates may request reconsideration of Commission determinations. Also, for

the first time, the regulations set forth procedures the Commission will follow in considering stays of repayment determinations

pending the candidate's appeal.

8. When determining a primary candidate's eligibility for matching funds, the Commission

will consider relevant information in its possession, including the candidate's past actions

in a previous, publicly funded campaign.

9. Recordkeeping requirements for capital assets and other assets have been added to the

new regulations. The dollar threshold at

which a capital asset must be included on the

candidate's NOCO statement has also been

increased.

10. Payment of Federal income taxes will be

considered a qualified campaign expense but

will not count against either the state-bystate limits or the overall national limit.

11. Under the new rules, outstanding obligations

included on the NOCO statement may not include debts for nonqualified campaign expenses, repayment obligations or amounts

paid to secure a surety bond pending an

appeal of a Commission repayment determination.

12. Charges made on a credit card Ior which the

candidate is liable will count against the

candidate's personal contribution limit unless

they are paid in full including any finance

charges by the campaign committee no later

than 60 days after the closing date in the

billing statement.

13. A primary candidate who does not receive

sufficient votes to maintain eligibility for

matching funds no longer has to choose between continuing the campaign and terminating in order to get matching funds for winding down costs. Under the new rules, an

ineligible candidate may continue to seek

continued

9

Employee contributions to PAC

matched with corporate cash and

commodity charitable contributions.

(Date made puolicr May 26, 1987;

Length: 2 pages)

1987-18

•
Ju~ 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \Olume 13, Numb

the nomination and, if he or she does not reestablish eligibility, may still seek funds for

winding down costs after the campaign is

over.

In the course of this rulemaking, the Commission also considered several proposals for

change that it did not ultimately incorporate into

the revised rules. The most extensive of these involved a reexamination of the current entitlement

and repayment processes for Presidential primary

candidates. Following its analysis, however, the

Commission decided to retain its current entitlement and repayment systems. Other issues

that were raised for comment in the Notice of

Proposed Bulemaking, which did not result in new

regulations, concerned expenditures made during

the primary election period that benefit the candidate's general election campaign. The Commission determined not to add new regulations on this

point because the existing law and regulations are

sufficient to support Commission action in an

appropria te case.

Another issue pertained to changes in the

1988 primary election dates. Would these changes

affect the rules for determining ineligibility for

matching funds and for reestablishing eligibiUtythe 10 percent and 20 percent rules? In deciding

to maintain the rules in their current form, the

Commission concluded that a change in these

procedures would require legislative action.

The new regulations, now available from the

Commission's Public Records Office, will be included in the 1987 edition of the 11 CFR, to be

published this summer. Further information on

these and other revisions to the regulations may

be obtained by contacting the Office of Information Services of the Federal Election Commission,

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

This cumulative index lists advisory opinions,

court cases and 800 Line articles published in the

Record during 1987. 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

1986-37: Presidential candidate appearances at

convention of nonprofit corporation, 1:6

1986-38: Individual's financing of media ads to

promote conservative candidates, 1:7

1986-39: Excess campaign funds used to establish

trust fund for minor, 2:3

1986-40: Corporate donations to state party

committee's building fund, 2:3

10

1986-41: Trade association's plan to compen

employees who make contributions, 2:4

1986-42: Affect of corporate reorganization 

PACs, 3:4

1986-44: Contributions to PAC matched with c

porate donations to charity, 3:4

1986-45: Interest payments by his committee 

candidate, 4:4

1987-1: Campaign's compensation of lost wages 

candidate prohibited, 4:5

1987-2: Campaign's purchase of car for can

date's reelection and official duties, 4:5

1987-3: Refund for terminated Presidential c

paign, 4:6

1987-4: Excess campaign funds transferred fr

individual's 1986 to his 1984 campaign, 5:4

1987-5: Solicitability of membership organ

tion's members, 5:5

1987-6: Trade association PAC's combined d

payrn ent/solieitation plan prohibited, 5:5

1987-7: Voter guides distributed to public 

nonprofit corporation, 6:3

1987-8: MUltimedia presentation of Presiden

interviews and profiles, 6:4

COURT CASES

FEC v. Americans for Jesse Jackson, 2:9

FEe v. Bank One, 7:5

FEe v. Beatty for Congress Committee, 3:6

FEC v, Citizens for the President '84, 6:6

FEC v, Citizens Party, 1:8; 2:8

FEC v, Congressman Charles E. RoseJ 2:7

FEC v, Ernest Halter and AIDS, 4:7

FEe v, Furgatch; FEC v, Dorninelli, 3:5; 6:6

FEC v, John R. Clark, Jr., 2:8;

FEC v, Jolyn Robichaux, et al., 2:9

FEC v. Mark Barry, 4:7

FEC v. MCFL, 2:4

FEC v, NCPAC, 7:5

FEC v. Pryor for Congress Committee, 6:6

FEe v, Ted Haley Congressional Committee, 5:

FEe v. 1984 Victory Fund, 3:6

Common Cause v, FEe {fourth suit), 2:6; f

suit, 2:9

Congressman Stark v. FEC, 6:6

Furgatch v, FEC (second suit), 6:6

800 LINE

After the election: winding down, 3:9

Personal financial reports, 5:7
July 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Numoo-7

FREE PUBLICATIONS

The FEC 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 FEe.

FEC Regulations (I I CFR)

FEe regulations, subject indexes prepared by

FEC.

FEC Record

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

regulations, compliance, Federal Register notices,

FEC procedures and staff, and publications.

Campaign Guides

Clear explanation and illustration of election

law requirements. Separate Guide for:

Congressional Candidates and Committees

Party Committees

Corporations and Labor Organizations

Nonconnected Political Committees

House and Senate Bookkeeping Manual

Recommended method of bookkeeping and

reporting for Federal candidates and their committees.

FEC and Federal Election Law

Brief overview of major provisions of the

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

Using FEC Campaign Finance Information

Brochure 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

Committee Treasurers

Contributions

Corporate/Labor Communications

Corporate/Labor Facilities

Independent Expenditures

Local Party Activity

Political Ads and Solicitations

Public Funding of President Elections

State Elections &: Federal Campaign Law

11

Trade Associations

Using FEC Campaign Finance Information

Volunteer Activity

Annual Report

Report to President and Congress, summa

rizing agency's activities, advisory opinions and

litigation; and presenting Commission's legislative

recommendations.

Order Form

NAME

STREET

CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE

CONNE;CTEO ORGANIZATION PHONE lOptionaO

Please indicate quantity in box to left of each item,

General

Federal Election Book keeping Manual

Campaign Laws for Caocidates

FEe Regulations Annual Report

FEC Record

(subscripnon I

Campaign Guides

Congressional Corporations and

Candidates Labor Organizations

Party Committees Nonccnnecred

Committees

Brochures

Advisory Opinions Local Party

Activity

Candidate Poli! ical Ads

Registration and Solicitations

Committee Public Funding of

Treasurers Presidential Elect ions

Contributions State Elections &

Federal Campaign Law

Corporate/Labor Trade Associations Communication;

Corporate/ Labor Using FEC Campaign

Faciiities Finance Information

FEC and Federal Volunteer ACtivity Elect ion Law

Independa nt

Expenditure~

Mail to: Federal Election Commission

Information Services

Washingto~, D.C. 20463

Phone: Tot! Free 800/424·9530

Local: 202/376·3120
July 1987 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 13, Numbe

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

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 FEe Form I (Statement of Organization) and filed with the Clerk of the

House, the Secretary of the Senate, or the

FEe, as appropriate.

Record subscribers (who are not political 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

consists of three letters and five numbers. Without this number, there is no

guarantee that your subscription can

be located on the computer.

FEDERAL ELECTION COM MISSION

999 E Street,NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31