FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

CONGRESS REPEALS MANDATORY

RBvmw BY SUPREME COURT

On June 27, 1988, President Reagan signed

into law an amendment to the judicial review

procedures of section 437h of .the F.ed~ral Election Campaign Act (FECA), which eliminated the

Supreme Court's mandatory jurisdiction under

these provisions. Under the old provision (repealed 2 U.S.C. §437h(b», the Supreme Court was

required to hear, on appeal, any Constitutional

questions pertaining to the FECA that had been

certified by a district court to a court of appeals

under 437h(a).

The amended provision does not change the

Supreme Court's discretionary power to review

Constitutional issues.

The legislative change eliminated the mandatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in many

areas of law. The FECA was one of seven

different federal acts specifically affected by the

new legislation. (See Public Law 100-352.) continued on o. 

CHART I

Candidates Running Only in

Special Primary Election

Volume 14, Number 8

Period Register- Filing

Covered* ed/Certi- Date

fled Mail

Date**

7/1-8/5 8/10 8/13

8/6-9/30 10/15 10/15

Report

Pre-primary

October

quarterly

follow the reporting schedule for the specia

election(s). Note that monthly filers supportin

candidates in the special elections should continu

to file on their monthly schedule. (See th

monthly filer chart on p, 3 of the January 198

Record.)

For forms and more information on require

reports, call: 202/376-3120 or, toll free, 800/424

9530.

August 1988 999E Street NW

TENNESSEE SPECIAL ELECTIONS

On August 25, Tennessee will hold a special

primary election in its 2nd Congressional District

to fill the remainder of deceased Congressman

John J. Duncan's term, which expires on January

3, 1989. A special general election will be held on

November 8, the same date as the regular general

election for the House seat.

If a candidate is involved in both the special

and regular elections for the seat, the candidate's

com mittee should clearly indicate on the

summary page and supporting schedules of each of

its reports (FEC Form 3) that the report covers

activity for both elections.

The FEC will send notices on reporting

requirements and filing dates to individuals known

to be actively pursuing election to these seats.

All other political com mittees which support

candidates in the special elections must also

TABLE OF CONTBNTS

LEGISLATION

Congress Repeals Mandatory Supreme Cou

Review

SPECIAL ELECTIONS: Tennessee

2 ADVISORY OPINIONS

6 800 LINE: Partnership Contributions

COURT CASES

6 FEC v. Cesar Rodriguez

7 New Litigation

7 PUBLICATIONS: Reprints of Record Articles

8 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

8 STATISTICS: PAC and Party Activity
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION Volume 14,Number

continued from p. 1

CHART n

Candidates Running in

Special Primary and General Elections

Report Period Register- Filing

Covered * ed/Certi- Date

fied Mail

Date**

Pre-primary 7/1-8/5 8/10 8/13

October 8/6-9/30 10/15 10/15

quarterly

Pre-general 10/1-10/19 10/24 10/27

Post-general 10/20-11/28 12/8 12/8

Year-end 11/29-12/31 1/31/89 1/31/89

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION OF ADVISORY

OPINION REQUESTS

AOR 1988-16: Membership Organization's Suppo

of Candidates Through PAC Ind

pendent Expenditures and Partisa

Com munleations

On June 21, 1988, the Associate General Couns

notified the requester by letter that the Commi

sion had failed to approve an opinion by th

requisite four-vote majority.

AOR 1988-20: Eligibility of Corporation's Fie

Representatives for PAC

Solicitations

On June 15, 1988, the requester, a corporatio

withdrew its advisory opinion request.

AOR 1988-29: Democratic National Committee

Air Charter Program

On July 5, 1988, the requester withdrew th

request. (See AOR summary below.)

AOR 1988-31: Preemption of County Ordinan

Regulating Campaign Contrib

tions

On July 19, 1988, the Associate General Couns

sent the requesters a letter explaining that 

opinion will not be issued because the question

posed did not involve continuing or future activi

of the requesters. (See AOR summary below.)

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests fo

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of eac

AOR is available to the public in the Commi

sion's Office of Public Records.

*The beginning date for the period covered by

the report is the date of registration, or the close

of books for the last report filed, whichever is

later. Thus, if a candidate's committee filed a

report for the regular primary held on August 4

(i.e., for activity covering July 1 through July 15),

the coverage dates for the pre-special primary

election report would be July 16 through August

5.

* '"Reports sent by registered or certified mail

must be postmarked by the mailing date. Reports

mailed first class or hand delivered must be

received by the filing date.

AOR

1988-29

SUbject

Nonprofit corporation established b

national party com mittee to chart

air flights for the party's Presidenti

nominee. (Date made public. June 1

1988; Length: 5 pages)

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Thomas J. Josefiak, Chairman; Danny L. McDonald, Vice

Chairman; Joan Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; John Warren McGarry; Scott E. Thomas; Walter J.

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

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

(TDD For Hearing Impaired 202/376-3136)

2
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION Volume 14, Number 8

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion (AD) issued by the Commission provides guidance with regard to the

specific situation described in the AOR. Any

qualified person who has requested an AO and

acts in accordance with the opinion will not be

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Other

persons may rely on the opinion if they are

involved in a specific activity which is indistinguishable in all material aspects from the activity

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance for

their own activity, however, should consult the

full tex:t of an AO and not rely only on the

summary given here.

AO 1988-17: Corporation's Sale of

Medallions Depicting Candidates

and National Nominating

Conventions

Election Concepts, Inc. (ECl), a corporation that

produces commemorative medallions for political

activities, may enter into contracts with the

following parties to sell various commemorative

medallions:

o Federal candidates, including Presidential,

active in the 1988 pre-general election period;

o Federal PACs (I.e., separate segregated funds

and nonconnected political committees); and

o Former candidates who have no outstanding

debts from their federal elections.

Under all the proposed agreements with

federal candidates, ECI will not absorb any

production or marketing costs or make any

payments to its clients (listed above). Nor will

AOR

__ 1988-30

1988-31

1988-32

1988-33

Subject

Company's frequent publication of

PA C information article in employee

newsletter. (Date made publics July 7,

1988; Length: 2 pages, plus 2-page

supplement)

Act's preemption of county ordinance

governing disclosure and aggregation

of spouses' contributions to federal

candidate. (Date made public: July 7,

1988; Length: 5 pages, plus ll-page

supplement)

Congressional campaign's reporting of

last-minute contribution. (Date made

publice July 15, 1988; Length: 1 page)

State's distribution of candidate qualifying fees to state party committee's

federal account. (Date made public:

July 19, 1988; Length: 5 pages, plus

13-page supplement)

3

ECI seek to influence the nomination or electio

of any federal candidate. Accordingly, ECl

proposed medallion programs will not result 

prohlbi ted corporate contributions to thes

persons,* provided ECI and other vendors involve

in the medallion marketing programs:

o Charge the usual and normal fee for the

services; and

o Follow ordinary business practices. 11 CF

100.7(a)( l)(iii).

Medallion Program for Federal Candidates

When ECI enters into a contract with 

federal candidate to produce a bronze, silver 

gold commemorative medallion, the candidate

campaign or compliance fund* * will agree to be

all the costs for production of the medallions an

for marketing them. Moreover, advertising br

chures and other informational materials will i

struct purchasers of the medallions (Le., contrib

tors to the candidates) to: (1) make their check

payable to a participating candidate's campaig

committee or compliance fund and (2) send the

order forms and checks directly to the candidate

committee or compliance fund. ThUS, ECrs co

tractual arrangements with candidates will n

result in prohibited corporate contributions 

them. See AO 1982-24.

Medallion Program for Federal PACs

ECI may also sell medallions to federal PAC

(i.e., separate segregated funds and nonconnecte

committees) that will, in turn, provide the meda

lions as gifts or souvenirs to their contributor

ECI will absorb any costs it incurs in marketin

the medallions to the PACs. The Commissio

assumed that ECl's marketing program to PAC

would not involve election-influencing activitie

or efforts.

continue

"Tne Commission distinguished its decision 

this opinion from its conclusion in MU

1166/1180. In that enforcement matter, th

Commission foW1d that a mint had made agre

ments to produce medaHions for the major pa

ties' Presidential tickets that were outside th

ordinary course of business. The Commissio

therefore concluded that the mint's medallio

program constituted prohibited contributions 

and expenditures for the parties' national comm

tees.

It ItA compliance fund is a special account mai

tained by publicly funded Presidential nominee

solely for paying legal and accounting expense

incurred in complying with the campaign financ

law. Although publicly funded major par

nominees may not accept contributions to furth

their elections, they may accept contribution

from individuals of up to $1,000 for the

compliance fundS.
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSIOI\J Volume 14, Number 

Medallion Program for Presidential Conventions

ECI also proposed to produce convention

medallions and sell them at each major party's

convention and through direct mail catalogues.

Since ECI provided very limited information on

this program, the Commission referred ECI to the

requirements of FEC regulations (II CFR Part

9008) rather than addressing the legal ramifications of the plan.

Medallion Program for the General Public

Finally, ECI may produce and market various

medallions to the general public by entering into

joint venture agreements with individuals who: (1)

were candidates in 1988 and (2) have no outstanding debts from their 1988 campaigns. See AOs

1982-66 and 1982-30. The Commission cautioned,

however, that contracts with individuals who

become candidates in upcoming elections may

come within the purview of the election law and

FEC regulations, depending on the facts and circumstances of the individual's candidacy. (Date

issued: May 20, 1988; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1988-23: Air Travel Coupons Sold to

Campaign

Travel coupons (i.e., reduced fare airline tickets)

that Mr. Stephen Finley sells to a Congressional

campaign would not be considered contributions

to the campaign because he is offering the coupons at the going purchase rate in the Seattle

market. (United Airlines has offered the coupons

to airline travelers, such as Mr. Finley, who have

relinquished their seats on oversold flights.) Mr.

Finley based the price of his coupons on current

rates offered by coupon brokers and rates advertised in Seattle newspapers.

FEC regulations do not prohibit a seller from

entering into profitable transactions with federal

candidates or the candidates' campaigns, provided

the seller charges the usual and normal price for

goods and services rendered. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(1)-

(iii)(A) and (B); AO 1988-17. (Date issued: June

20, 1988; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1988-25: Cars Provided by Corporation to

National Presidential Nominating

Conventions

General Motors Corporation (GM) may loan a

fleet of 250 automobiles at no charge to both the

Republican National Committee and the

Democratic National Committee, and to their

respective convention or host committees. The

automobiles will be used for each Committee's

national Presidential nominating convention.

Although OM's vehicle loan program does not fall

within the specific exemptions delineated in the

FEC's national nominating convention regulations,

4

the Commission nevertheless concluded that th

GM program would be the kind of activity san

tioned by those regulations.

Because GM's vehicle loan program will no

result in contributions to the conventio

committees or to the host committees, the valu

of the transportation services provided by th

loan program need not be reported. See 11 CF

9008.l(b) and 9008.12(a)(2) and (b). Howeve

because the FEC must be assured that the loa

program remains within permissible bounds an

must audit the activity of the host and th

convention com mittees, all records pertaining t

the loan program must be retained and furnishe

to FEC auditors. See 11 CFR 9008.8{b)(4){vi) an

(vii) and 9008.9.

GM's Vehicle Loan Program

GM will sell 250 vehicles to its local ca

dealers at the usual cost. The local dealers a

each convention site, in turn, will provide 25

vehicles to each convention committee, or ho

committee, at no cost. At the end of eac

convention, the cars will be returned to the loc

car dealers. GM will then credit the dealer

accounts and rebill them for the cars at a 

percent discount. The local dealers will not pa

any operating expenses for the vehicles or provid

drivers while the cars are in use by the conventio

com mittees.

Each convention committee will designat

the loaned cars as its "official vehicles." With th

approval of the committees, OM may also mak

reference to the committees' use of OM vehicle

in promotional materials that the corporatio

distributes after the conventions.

GM proposes to conduct the program in ac

cordance with promotional, nonpolitical program

it has conducted in the past, including conven

tions, sports events and other meetings occurin

over the past two years where GM assigned car

without charge, for up to 30 days.

GM Vehicle Loan Program Permissible

The election law prohibits any contribution o

expenditure by a corporation in connection wit

any election, including a political convention he

to select candidates for federal office. 2 U.S.C

§441b(a); II CFR 114.2(b). Under FEC rules, 

corporate vendor must provide services at th

usual or normal charge to avoid making a prohib

ted contribution to a federal candidate or com

mittee. 11 CFR 100.7(a){I)(iii)(A) and (B). Unde

longstanding Commission policy, a vendor di

count or rebate is considered a "usual and norm

charge" for services rendered to a federal cand

date or committee, provided the vendor has give

the same reduction to nonpolitical customers o

clients under the same circumstances. See 

CFR 100.7(a){I)(iii)(A) and (B); AOs 1976-8

1982-30, 1985-28 and 1986-22.
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSIOl\J Volume 14, Number 8

•

•

The GM loan program would be subject to the

prohibition on corporate contributions, unless the

program qualifed as one of the exceptions to the

prohibition spelled out in the FEC's regulations

for Presidential nominating conventions. (These

regulations provide for payments from the U.S.

Treasury to defray the major parties' convention

expenses.)

Under exceptions to these rules, transportation services provided by government agencies

and municipal corporations are not considered

contributions to, or expenditures by, the national

convention committees. 11 CFR 9008.7(b)(J) and

(b)(2)(ii). The regulations also exempt products or

services provided by retail businesses at discounted or reduced rates, provided these services are

given in the ordinary course of business. 11 CFR

9008.7(c)( l)(i) and (ii),

Finally, under the convention committee

rules, local retail businesses may donate funds (or

services) to a host committee for its use in

defraying convention expenses, such as transportation services. The amount of services donated

must be proportionate to the commercial return

reasonably expected by the business during the

life of the convention. II CFR 9008.7(d)(3)(j) and

(ii), See also AOs 1975-1, 1982-27 and 1983-29.

Although the GM program does not fall within the specific exemptions delineated in the regulations, and described above, the program

represents the kind of activity sanctioned by FEC

regulations. This conclusion was based on a

number of factors, such as:

o The similarity of the GM vehicle loan program

to other programs undertaken by GM with 'regard to nonpolitical conventions, thus making

the program an activity conducted in the ordinary course of business;

o The assumption that the value of the services

provided to convention com mittees through the

vehicle loan program will be proportionate to

the value provided in similar situations;

o The obvious commercial benefit GM will reap

from the program--a benefit that presumably

will not be outweighed by the value of the

services it provides to the convention committees; and

o The unique promotional (as opposed to political)

opportunities the conventions will provide for

GM.

Com missioner Joan D. Aikens filed a concurring

opinion. (Date issued: June 29, 1988; Length: 12

pages, including concurrence)

5

AO 1988-26: Hourly Wage Earners

Not Solicitable

UNC Incorporated (UNC) may not, as part of it

solicitation of executive and administrativ

'personnel, solicit contributions to its separat

segregated fund from pilot simulator trainin

instructors who are permanent employees o

UNC's subsidiary, Burnside-Ott. (The instructor

train student pilots for the U.S. Navy under 

contractual arrangement between the Navy an

Burnside-Ott.) Because the instructors are paid o

an hourly, rather than a salary, basis, they do no

qualify as soli citable (i.e., executive o

administrative) employees under the election law

and FEC rules. See 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(7) and 1

CFR 114. J(c).

Under the terms of the company's contrac

with the Navy, all Burnside-Ott personnel wh

work as full-time instructors for the Navy -

including company managers - are paid an hourl

wage. The legal provisions that exclude hourl

wage earners from the definition of solicitabl

personnel apply to UNC's proposed solicitation o

the instructors; these provisions specificall

exclude the solicitation of hourly wage earner

and do not contain any language permitting 

waiver of this clear exclusion. (Date issued: Jul

7, 1988; Length: 3 pages)

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

House, the Secretary of the Senate, or the

FEC, as appropriate.

Record subscribers (who are not political com mittees), when calling or mailing in

a change of address, are asked to provide

the following information:

I. 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.
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlrvllSSION Volume 14, Number 

PARTNERSHIP CONTRffiUTIONS

This article answers several frequently asked

questions about contributions by partnersh.ips.

For more detailed information, consult sections

100.10, 1I0.l(e) and 115.4 of FEC regulations or

the FEC Campaign Guide series.

Maya partnership of individuals make contributions to federal candidates and political committees? Yes. Because a partnership of individuals is included in the definition of "person" (II

CFR 100.10), it may make contributi~ns !o influence federal elections, but its contributions are

limited.

What are the dollar limits on contributions by

partnerships? A partnership may contribute up to

$1 000 per election to a candidate for federal

office, up to $5,000 annually to a polltical committee other than a candidate committee, and up

to $20,000 annually to a national party committee.

Does a partnership's contribution also count

against the contribution limit for each partn~r

participating in the contribution? Yes. A contribution from a partnership counts proportionately

against each contributing partner's person~llimit.

An individual partner, like a partnership, may

contribute up to $1,000 per candidate, per election, up to $5,000 annually to other political

committees and up to $20,000 annually to a

national party committee. An individual must

also limit total federal contributions to $25,000 a

year. 11 CFR 110. I(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and

110.5.

For example, if the partnership of Smith and

J ones used a partnership check to contribute

$1 000 to Sally Keene's Congressional primary

ca~paign, $500 of the contribution would be attributed to each partner and $1,000 would be

attributed to the partnership as a whole. Although no additional contribution could be made

to Ms. Keene's primary campaign from the partnership account, each partner could use a personal

check to contribute an additional $500 to her

primary campaign. The additional contribution(s)

would count solely against each partner's personal

limit.

How must a partnership allocate its contributions among its partners? A portion of a partnership contribution must be allocated to each contributing partner. If all partners within the

organization participate in the political

contribution, the partnership may allocate the

6

contribution among the partners according 

their share of the profits. However, if th

partnership allocates contributions on another b

sis agreed to by the partners or if it attribut

contributions only to certain partners, the follow

ing rules must be observed: . . o The contributing partners' respective profi

must be reduced (or their losses increased) b

the amount of the contribution attributed 

them; and

o The profits (or losses) of only the contributin

partners must be affected. 11 CFR 1l0.I(e)(

and (2).

Maya partnership with corporate and indiv

dual members make contributions to federal ca

didates and committees? If so, how must the

contributions be allocated? Yes, partnershi

with corporate and individual members may mak

contributions, as long as no portion of the contr

bution is attributed to any corporate partne

including any partner that is a professional co

poration. II CFR 114.7(d); AO 1982-63. Nor ma

the contribution affect the corporation's share 

the partnership's profits or losses. See AO 198

132.

_ _ __ - _ -. - - --__ - ••- _.- ---- _,r_

. ":;- ',- . . . " . \ , - ~'~

. . _ -'.<... _. _ _ • _ _.. _ _ ~. 

FEC v, CESAR RODRIGUEZ

On June IS, 1988, the U.S. District Court fo

the Middle District of Florida granted the FEC

motion to:

o Reopen the file in a suit the FEC had broug

against Cesar Rodriguez (FEC v. Rodrigue

Civil Action No. 86-687 -CIV-T-IO); and

o File an amended complaint within 15 days o

the court's action.

The FEC's motion to reopen the complai

complied with a June 5, 1987, order by the cou

in the suit. In that action, the court directed th

clerk of the court to administratively close th

file in the case but allowed both the FEC and !\'

Rodriguez six months to file a motion to eithe

reopen or dismiss the case. (On December 

1987, the court extended the parties' time 

reopen the case until June 5, 1988.)

Background

In its original complaint against Mr. Rodr

guez, filed in November 1986, the. FEC asked th

district court to declare that, durmg 1980, Ces

Rodriguez had violated section 441f of the ele

tion law by accepting contributions for th

Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee whic

were made by One person in the names of othe

persons. Specifically, on behalf of Allen Wolfso
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION Volume 14, Number 8

Mr. Rodriguez had solicited contributions to the

Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee and had

subsequently reimbursed each contributor for

his/her contributlon,

District Court Action

The Florida district court, on May 5, 1987

denied the Commission's motion for summary

judgment. The court held that the defendant had

aided and abetted a violation of the first clause of

2 U.S.C. §44lf (11No person shall make a contribution in the name of another•••ll) rather than the

last clause of 441f, as the Commission had alleged

(nNo person shall knowingly accept a contribution

made by one person in the name of another•••."),

Based on this finding, the court directed the

Commission to address the question of whether

the agency "can effectively amend the complaint

and go forward with this case, or whether it must

begin again under the governing statute at the

administrative level."

On May 20; 1987, the FEC noti fied the court

that it had decided to reopen its own administrative proceedings in the case. Based on these

proceedings, the Commission subsequently found

p~obable cause to believe that Mr. Rodriguez had

violated the election law by assisting in the

making of contributions in the name of another.

Failing to reach conciliation with the defendant

the Commission on March 15, 1988, again initiat:'

ed a civil suit against Mr. Rodriguez.

Rather than bringing a new complaint against

Mr. Rodriguez for this violation, however, the

FEC decided to ask the court to:

o Reopen the file on the FECls original complaint; and

o Accept an amended complaint reflecting the

agency's new findings.

NEW LITIGATION

FEC v; Californians for a Strong America

The FEC asks the court to declare that

Californians for a Strong America, a nonconnected political com mittee, and the com mittee's treasurer, Albert J. Cook, violated 2 U.S.C. §434(a)-

(4)(A) by failing to file the 1985 year-end report

the April 1986 quarterly report and the 1986 July

quarterly report on time.

The FEC further asks the court to:

o Assess an appropriate civil penalty against the

defendants; and

o Permanently enjoin the defendants from any

further violations of the election law.

U.S. District Court for the Central District

of California, Civil Action No. 88-1554, March 20

1988. '

7

REPRINTS OF RECORD ARTICLES AVAn. ABLE

Callers inquiring about different aspects o

the law often ask whether the Commission ha

materials on their topic of interest. In respons

to these requests, many previously published 800

Line articles have been transformed into handout

for quick and easy reference. Periodically

appearing in the Record, the 800 Line article

answer frequently asked questions abou

specialized topics relating to election law, such a

fundraisers or transfers of funds.

Other handouts on specific topics, no

previously published, are available as well.

. For ~onvenience, handouts have been grouped

In the list below according to their intended

audience. For each handout taken from th

Record, a parenthetical reference indicates th

month and year when the article was originally

published,

Readers will find the handouts to be 

valuable resource. The Commission provide

them free of charge. To order, call the FEC'

Information Services Division at 800/424-9530 o

202/376-3120.

For All Committees

o Computerized Format for Reporting (11:80)

o Contribution Limits

o Joint Fundraising

o Overall Annual Limit on Contributions fo

Individuals (7 :83)

o Public Records Fee Schedule

o State Filing Offices

o 1988 Filing Dates

For Authorized Candidate Committees

o Concert Fundraisers (12:82)

o Disposal of Campaign Property (1:83)

o Presidential and Congressional Primary Date

(1:88)

o Termination Procedures/Winding Down th

Campaign

o Transfer of Candidate Funds to Federa

Committee (1:86)

For Unauthorized Committees

o Delegates/Delegate Committees (11:87)

o Partnerships (6:83)

o Reporting Internal Communications b

Corporations, Labor Organizations and othe

Membership Organizations

o Single Candidate Committees (10:87)

o SSF & Nonconnected Committees (10:82)

continued
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Numbe

PARTY ACTIVITY SHIFTS IN '88 CYCLE 

Despite a decline in financial activity fro

the 1985-86 election cycle, the Republican Part

three national com mittees maintained a cash a

vantage over their Democratic counterpa

during the first 15 months of the current electi

cycle (i.a., from January I, 1987, through Mar

31, 1988). Information released by the FEC 

June 24th showed that the Republican nation

com mittees raised $97.2 million, as compar

with $29.3 million raised by their Democra

counterparts. (See Chart II on page 10.)

With more money at their disposal, the R

publican national committees transferred to t

Par-ty's state and local committees more than 

times the amount of funds transferred by th

Democratic counterparts (i.e., $1,735,168, 

compared with the $85,047 transferred by t

Democratic national com mittees),

The FEC's information also showed that t

sources of receipts for the major parties' natio

committees had shifted slightly from the l

election cycle. A slightly larger proportion 

their contributions came from PACs during t

first 15 months of the current cycle than duri

the same period in the 1985-86 cycle. (See Ch

Ion page 9.)

More detailed information on national pa

committee activity may be obtained from t

FEC's June 24, 1988, press release. For a copy 

the release, call the FEC's Public Records Off

at 202/376-3140 or, toll free, 800/424-9530.

PAC ACTIVITY FOR FIRST

15 MONTHS OF 1987-88 CYCLE

Between January 1, 1987, and March 

1988, PACs (l.e., political committees that 

not established by candidates or political parti

contributed a total of $56.4 million to fede

candidates seeking election in 1988-a 34 perce

increase over total funds contributed by PACs 

candidates during the same period in the 1985

election cycle. These figures are based on FE

reports filed by 4,527 PACs, of which 2,676 (or 

percent) actually made contributions to fede

candidates.

The PAC study released by the FEC on Ju

22 also showed that, with the exception of no

connected PACs, PACs increased their over

financial activity over the same period in t

1985-86 election cycle. By contrast, receipts 

nonconnected PACs (i.e., PACs that have neith

been authorized by a federal candidate nor spo

sored by an organization) dropped by 17 perce

Nonconnected PAC disbursements declined 

nearly 19 percent.

Filing Dates for Illinois Special Elections (53 Fed. Reg. 16781; May II,

1988)

Filing Dates for New Jersey Special

Elections (53 Fed. Reg. 12188; April

13, 1988)

11 CFR Part 110: Rulernakinz Petition; Ted Haley Congressional Committee (53 Fed. Reg. 2500; January 28,

1988)

Filing Dates for Louisiana Special

Elections (53 Fed. Reg. 1510; January

20, 1988)

Filing Dates for Virginia Special Elections (53 Fed. Reg. 7235; March 7,

1988)

II CFR Parts 102 and 106: Allocation

Between Federal and Nonfederal Accounts; Notice of Inquiry (53 Fed.

Reg. 5277; February 23, 1988; correction published March 3, 1988)

Title

11 CFR Parts 109 and 114: Corporate

and Labor Expenditures; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (53 Fed.

Reg. 416; January 7, 1988) -

Notice of Filing Date for Tennessee

Special Elections (53 Fed. Reg. 26500;

July 13, 1988)

1988-3

1988-8

1988-5

1988-2

For Teachers, Students and Researchers

o Dear Educator Letter (Describes FEC resources

and services available to educators)

o Dear Librarian Letter (Describes available

research materials and FEC resources)

o Educational Materials and Services (5:84)

o Legislative History Reference Information

o Presidential Election Campaign Fund Chart

1988-7

1988-4

Notice

1988-1

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Copies of notices are available in the Public

Records Office.

1988-6

8
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number

A-- CHART I

--- SOURCE OF PARTY RECEIPTS,

Through March 31 of the Election Year

Contributions from Individuals

PAC Contributions

Other*

REPUBLICAN PARTY

$127.2 (total) $97.2 (total)

0.9

5.0

$90.

1.

5.

1985-86 1987·88

DEMOCRATIC PARTY

$23.6 (total) $29.3 (total)

9

$19.

4

5

1986..87

$17.2

3.4

3.0

1985-86

*Other receipts of party committees include: loans, refunds, rebates, interest earned, dividend

and other receipts.
August 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14,Number

CHART II

PARTY· RECEIPTS,

Through March 31 of the Election Year

Millions of Dollars

150

100

50

a

..tIII.-

<r: ..............................'-J

..............

...........: -

Total Republican

National Committees

Total Democratic

National Committees

'81·82 '83-84 '87·88

*Graph reflectstotal receiptsof the national committee, the Senatecampaign committee andt

Congressional campaign committee.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31