FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

••

November 1984 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 10, Number 

AO 1984-37: Politieal Services Rendered

by Employees of Parent

Organization and Paid by

PAC

The American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC), the separate segrated fund of the

American Medical Association (AMA), a nonprofit

corporation, may make in-kind contributions to

House and Senate candidates by purchasing the

consulting services of AMA employees and providing them to the candidates. AMPAC may purchase

the employees' services by using either an advance payment plan or a dual employment

method. Both methods are permissible because

they do not involve advances or payments made

•

with AMA corporate funds. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(3)

and 114.112(c). Under either proposed payment

plan, AMPAC must record and report payments

made to AMA, as required by FEC Regulations.

See below and 11 CFR 102.9, 104.3, 104.10 and

106.1(a).

Advanee Payment PIan

Under the advance payment plan, AMPAC

would determine the number of hours each employee was expected to work for each candidate

and would pay AMA for the employees' services at

the fair market rate charged by independent consultants. AMA would continue to pay its employees their regular salary and fringe benefits, which

would be substantially less than the AMPAC pay;"

ments for these employees' services. Payment

would be made before the services were rendered

to the candidate and before the employee was

compensated for the services. If the value of an

employee's consulting services actually exceeded

the advance payment to AMA, AMPAC would pay

AMA additional funds before the employee provided the services. Conversely, AMA would apply

any excess AMPAC payments to future employee

services. AMPAC would absorb costs associated

with the employees' campaign services (e.g.,

travel and lodging) either by paying the vendors

directly or by reimbursing employees.

• AMA's office facilities would not be used by the

AMA consultants. If needed, office supplies and

services would be purchased from independent

contractors.

The Commission distinguished this arrangeme

from the one the Commission rejected in A

1984-24. In that opinion, the Commission rule

that an advance payment plan was impermissib

because it involved an initial disbursement by th

parent organization to pay for the services re

dered by its employees to candidates. That pla

would have resulted in prohibited contributio

from the organization to both its PAC and th

candidates.

Dual Employment Plan

Under the dual employment payment metho

an AMA employee would take an unpaid leave 

absence to work on a campaign. During th

period, AMPAC would compensate the employ

at his/her AMA salary rate. Moreover, AMPA

would reimburse AMA for fringe benefits th

employee accrued during his/her leave of absenc

continued on p, 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I OPINIONS

REPORTS

2 Reports Due in December

PUBLICATIONS

5 PAC Contributions to Congressional

Candidates

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

5 General Election Candidates

COURT CASES

5 Antosh v. FEC

6 FEC v. Citizens for LaRouche

7 New Litigation

COMPLIANCE

7 Summary of MURS

CLEARINGHOUSE

8 Updated Publications
NoJemt:er 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COIVIIVlISSIOI\J \bIume 10, Numt:

D~EMBER. REPORTING SCHEDULE

Only those political committees and organizations listed in the chart below are required to

file a report in December. Note that the next

report required of an political committees is the

year-end report, due January 31, 1985. To obtain

more information, contact the Office of f'ublic

Communications, PEe, 1325 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or call 202/523-4068 or toll

free 800/424-9530.

Post-General Report

Type of Filer (December 6)

1984 Congressional X

Candidates Active in

the General Election

1984 Presidential X

Candidates/$lOO,OOO+!I

1984 Presidential X

,Candidates/Under

$IOO,OOO/Active in the

General Election

Unauthorized Committees/ x!I

Monthly

Unauthorized Committees/ X

Quarterly!!

Connected Organizations/ X

Communications~/

YAuthorized Presidential committees with

activity of $100,000 or more that are not participating in the general election may file a November monthly report, due by December 20, or a

post-general election repol1. See AD 1980-83.

Y Unauthori~ed committees that file on a

monthly schedule must file a post-general election report in lieu of the November monthly

report, otherwise due by December 20. A II other

unauthorized Committees must _also file the postg~neral .e~ecti~ -"eport, regardless of their electIOn actl\llty. :" , ,[

Y Reportj required if aggregate costs for

internal comm~ications which expressly advocate the electio"" or defeat of (a) clearly identified candidate(s) in the 1984 general election have

exceeded $2,000.

2

Post-General mection Report

The post-general election report is 

December 6 and must cover activity thr

November 26, 1984. If sent by registere

certified mail, the report must be postmarke

later than December 6. Note that all unautho

committees must file the report, regardles

their election activity.

Monthly Report

In lieu of the November monthly re

otherwise due, in December, monthly filers 

file a post-general election report, due 

December 6. (See schedule above.)

WHERE REPORTS ARE FILED

Committees must file all reports and s

ments simultaneously with the appropriate fed

and state officials. 11 CPR 108.5.

Piling with the Federal Government

1. The principal campaign committees of H

candidates and committees supporting or 

posing only House candidates file with 

Clerk of the House, Office of Records 

Registration, 1036 Longworth House O

Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. II 

104.4(c)(3) and 105.1.

2. The principal campaign committees of s

candidates and committees supporting or 

posing only Senate candidates file with 

Secretary of the Senate, 232 Hart Se

Office Buildi~, Washington, D.C. 20510

CPR l04.4(c)(2) andI05.2.

3. All other committees, including the prin

campaign committees of Presidential ca

dates, file with the Federal Election C

mission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washin

D.C. 20463. II CPR 105.3 and 105.4.

Filing with State Govemments

1. The principal campaign committees of 

gressional candidates must file a copy 

every report and statement with the Se

tary of State or the appropriate elec

official of the state in which the cand

seeks federal office. 11 CPR 108.3.

2. Unauthorized committees making cont

tions or expenditures in connection 

House and Senate races file in the stat

which the candidate seeks election. The 

requires a copy only of that portion of 

report applicable to the eandidatels) b

supported. Committees supporting Presi

tial candidates must file in the statefs

which the Presidential committee and d

committee have their respective headq

ters.
NovemtBr 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \bIume 10, Numb3r 

OPINIONS, continued from p.l

• Reporting Requirements

Under either payment plan, AMPAC must

report all disbursements for the employees' consulting services as in-kind contributions to candidates. See 11 CPR 102.9, 104.3, 104.13 and

106.l(a). Under the advance payment plan,

AMPAC would report each payment to AMA as an

expenditure (in-kind contribution) for the reporting period in which the payment was made. On the

report, AMPAC would also include a memo entry

detailing the amount of the in-kind contribution

allocated to each candidate. See 11 CFR 104.10

and 106.l(a); and reporting procedures on the back

of Schedule B, FEC Form 3X. If AMPAC had to

subsequently readjust the payment because it

either overestimated or underestimated the costs

of employee services, it would disclose the correct amount on an amended report for the appropriate reporting period. A candidate's authorized

committee reports the dates when the services

are performed as the datels) AMPAC makes the

in-kind eontributlonfs), Commissioner Frank P.

Reiche filed a concurring opinion. (Date issued:

September 26, 1984; Length: 11 pages, including

concurring opinion)

•

AO 1984-39: Ineumbent's Use of Mailing List

Supplied by OUtside Group

Congressman Mike Synar may use a mailing list

supplied by the Alliance for Energy Security (the

Alliance) to make a franked mailing to his constituents which clarifies his support for the federal deregulation of natural gas prices. (Previously, the Alliance sent Congressman Synar's

constituents some pamphlets which allegedly dis>

torted his position on the issue.) In supplying the

list, the Alliance will not be making an in-kind

contribution to Congressman Synar's 1984 reelection campaign because the list will be used to

communicate with his constituents -- not to innuence his reelection. Specifically:

Congressman Synar will make the mailing

after the November general election;

The draft letter proposed for the mailing will

make no reference to elections, political

parties, campaign finance matters or Congressman Synar's candidacy; and

The mailing list will be used solely for this

one mailing and will not be retained for later

use by Congressman Synar's campaign.

The Commission did not address other applicab

federal laws or House rules because they are n

within its jurisdiction. (Date issued: Septemb

14, 1984; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1984-42: Contribution Limits Applied to

Candidate Running in Special

and General Elections

A separate contribution limit applies to each 

two elections in which Carl Perkins simult

neously is seeking the same office. The tw

elections are: a special election, to fill th

remaining term of the Representative fro

Kentucky's seventh Congressional district, and th

general election, to fill the new term of the sam

Congressional seat.

Mr. Perkins has established a separate campaig

committee for each election. Donors may contri

ute up to their maximum limit to each committ

because the two elections, although held on th

same day, are considered separate. 11 CF

110.1(j)(1). The law specifically defines, as sep

rate elections, a special election and a gener

election. 11 CFR 100.2(b) and 100.2(f). This vie

is further supported by the facts that, as require

under Kentucky law, Mr. Perkins' name will a

pear twice on the ballot (once for each electio

and the voter may cast two votes, one for eac

election. (Date issued: September 27, 198

Length: 2 pages)

AO 1984-43: Praise of Candidate by Company

Official in TV Ad Paid by Candidat

If an executive employee of the Brunswick Co

poration praises the work of Congressman Ji

Jones (D-OK) in a television ad paid for 

Congressman Jones' reelection committee, th

endorsement will not constitute a contribution 

Congressman Jones from either the employee 

the corporation. The employee will be voluntee

ing his time to make the endorsement. Althoug

the employee will be identified as a compan

official in the ad, his statement will not result 

a prohibited corporate contribution because th

company is not paying for the ad. (Date issue

September 14, 1984; Length: 2 pages)

•

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

'D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman; Thomas E. Harris, Vice Chairman;

Joan D. Aikens; Danny Lee McDonald; John Warren McGarry; Frank P. Reiche; William F.

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

Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

3
Novemcer 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \kJIume 10, Numte

AO 1984-45: Credit Card Contributions

to PAC

KFC Corporation may pay credit card service

fees incurred by its separate segregated fund (Le.,

its political action committee or PAC) when the

PAC accepts credit card contributions from the

corporation's solicitable personnel. FEC Regulations specifically permit a parent corporation to

pay solicitation costs incurred by its PAC. See 11

CFR 114.l(b). The companies that issue the credit

cards will charge the PAC a monthly service fee

and debit the amount from the PAC's account. If

KFC Corporation plans to reimburse its PAC for

the service charges, the corporation must do so no

later than 30 days after the PAC has paid them.

11 CFR 114.5(b)(3). (Date issued: October 5, 1984;

Length: 3 pages)

AO 1983-48: Corporate PAC Solicitation of

(Reconsidered) Personnel of Aff"Iliated

Partnerships and Corporations

On September 14, 1984, after considering additional information provided by the requester, the

Commission issued a revised version of AO 1983-

48. (For a summary of the original opinion, issued

February 17, 1984, see p.6 of the April 1984

Reeord.) The Commission's original opinion was

vacated by its September 13 decision to reconsider the opinion at the request of the requester,

Cablevision Systems Corporation (CSC). (See FEC

reconsideration procedures at 11 CFR 112.6(a).)

(CSC is a New York corporation wholly owned by

its board chairman Charles F. Dolan. CSC, together with other corporations and limited and

general interest partnerships, constitutes a privately held network of cable television system

operators and companies.)

In the revised opinion, the Commission reaffirmed

the conclusion reached in its original opinion that

CSC may sponsor a separate segregated fund to

solicit contributions from: 1) CSC's solicitable

personnel; and 2) the solicitable personnel of

corporations and partnerships in the cable television network that qualify as CSC affiliates. In the

revised opinion, CSC affiliates include:

1. Twelve corporations owned or controlled by Mr. Dolan; and

2. Thirteen limited and general partnerships in

which Mr. Dolan holds the controlling partnership interests. (This group includes a New

Jersey joint venture partnership which the

Commission had originally ruled did not qual- ify as a CSC affiliate.)

The Commission ruled that CSC's PAC may not

solicit the solicitable personnel of nine other

partnerships. These partnerships do not qualify as

CSC affiliates because neither Mr. Dolan nor a

Dolan-controlled corporation has controlling partnership interests in them.· (This group includes

4

three Connecticut limited partnerships which 

Commission originally ruled were CSC affil

(Date issued: September 14, 1984; Length

pages)

ADVISORY OPINIONREQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests 

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of e

AOR is available to the public in the Comm

sion's Office of Public Records.

AOR Subject

1984-50 Posters of Vice Presidential Candidat

Contributed by (former) Congressi

campaign to National party commit

(Date made public: September 20, 1

Length: 1 page)

1984-51 Partisan literature prepared by coalit

of three local unions and distributed 

their respective members. (Date m

public: September 24, 1984; Length

pages; withdrawn on October 9, 1984)

1984-52 Congressman's handling of reportedly 

legal contributions to 1982 campa

(Date made public: September 24, 1

Length: 6 pages) 

1984-53 Exclusion of real estate lessors from 

finition of "federal contractor" for pu

poses of PAC contributions. (Date m

public: September 25, 1984; Length

pages)

1984-54 Reporting by Congressional candid

nominated and elected in Louisiana 

mary election. (Date made public: O

ber 9, 1984; Length: 2 pages)

1984-55 Solicitation of two law firms' partner

PAC of client bank. (Date made pub

October 9, 1984; Length: 2 pages)

"An accompanying memorandum from 

General Counsel to the Commission (Agenda 

cument 84-145) explained that serving as 

"managing partner" is not, by itself, suffic

evldence of controlling the partnership. New fa

indicated that, as managing partner of three C

necticut partnerships, Mr. Dolan has no gr

powers than those granted to all the general p

ners. Consequently, these partnerships cannot 

considered affiliates of Mr. Dolan's corporat

CSC.
•

Novemter 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION \t)lume 10, NumOOr" 

•

•

NEW PUBLICATION ON PAC CONTRIBUTIONS

TO CONG~ONAL CANDIDATES

During October, the Commission made available a publication entitled PAC Money Contributed to U.S. Senate and House Candidates:

1977-82. The publication was prepared from information contained in the FEe's Reports on

Financial Activity series for 1977-78, 1979-80

and 1981-82.

For each two-year election cycle, the publication

lists Senate and House candidates separately and

notes total PAC contributions made to each candidate on the lists. candidates are listed in descending order according to the total PAC money

received.

The lists for each election cycle include only

those candidates who were actively seeking election during that particular cycle. Candidates who

received PAC contributions to retire campaign

debts or to run in future elections were not

included.

Copies of PAC Money Contributed to U.S. Senate

and House Candidates: 1977-1982 may be purchased for $5.00 per copy from the FEC's Office

of Public Records, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C-. 20463. Checks should be made payable

to the FEC.

EIGHTEEN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

IN 1984 GENERAL ELECTION

By the end of October, 18 Presidential candidates representing 17 different political parties

had qualified for the general election ballot' in

various states throughout the country and the

District of Columbia. In the 1980 Presidential

general election, 21 candidates were on the ballot. For a listing of the 1984 candidates, their

party affiliations and home states, see the

October 3, 1984, FEC press release, available free

of charge in the Commission's Public Records

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

20463.

5

ANTOSH v. FEe (Suits 1 and 2)

On August 30, 1984, the U.S. District Cou

for the District of Columbia issued an ord

granting the FEC's motion to dismiss Antosh 

FEC (Civil Action No. 84-1552) and denying t

plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental co

plaint. On September 13, 1984, the court issued 

opinion explaining the ruling. Following t

court's order, Mr. Antosh filed a second suit w

the court on September 6, 1984. (Antosh v. FE

Civil Action No. 84-2737).

First Suit

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. S437(g)(a)(8), Mr. Jam

E. Antosh filed his suit with the court on May 

1984, seeking action on an administrative co

plaint he had filed with the FEC on December 

1983. Specifically, Mr. Antosh asked the court t

Declare that the FEC's failure to act on 

administrative complaint within 120 days w

contrary to law; and

Issue an order directing the FEC to proce

with an investigation into the compla

within 30 days.

Mr. Antosh had filed the administrative compla

against the separate segregated fund of the AF

CIO, an international labor organization, a

against the three separate segregated funds 

international/national unions, which he alleg

were affiliated with the AFL-CIO. He complain

that the respondents had violated the election l

by failing to:

Disclose their affiliation on their respect

Statements of Organization; and

Comply with a single contribution limit 

contributions they had made to each of 

federal candidates.

Furthermore, his complaint claimed that the el

tion law and FEC Regulations recognize au

matic affiliation between business federations a

their members, on the one hand, while only 

discretionary affiliation between a labor fede

tion and its members, on the other. Plaintiff h

alleged that this was discriminatory treatment 

violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

On July 10, 1984, the Commission dismissed M

Antosh's administrative complaint, finding no r

son to believe that violations of the election l

had occurred. On the same day, the Commiss

also filed a motion with the court to dismiss M

Antosh's suit as moot. On July 23, 1984, M

Antosh requested that the court deny the FE

motion to dismiss his case and grant his motion 

continu
NovemtEr 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \bIume 10, NumtE

file a supplemental complaint. In his proposed

supplemental cornplaint, Mr. Antosh requested

that the courts 1) declare that the FEC's dismissal of his administrative complaint was contrary

to law, and 2) aertify his eonstltutional questions

to an appeals eourt,

The court found, however, that Mr. Antosh's July

23 request did not constitute a supplement to his

original suit because, unlike the original request,

the motion did not deal with delays in processing

his eomplaint, Rather, the proposed supplement

dealt with the merits of the FEC's decision to

dismiss the complaint, The court therefore deaided that, under procedural rules, Mr. Antosh had

to file a separate suit with the court, See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(d).

Second Suit

Following the district court's OpInIOn, on

September 6, 1984, Mr. Antosh filed a second suit

with the court in which he reiterated the claims

made in the proposed supplement to his first suit.

In addition, Mr. Antosh asked the court to issue an

order direating the FEC to find reason to believe,

within 30 days, that the respondents named in Mr.

Antosh's administrative complaint had violated

the election law.

FEC v. CtI1ZENS FOR LaROUCHE

On September 17, 1984, the U.S. Distr-ict

Court for the Distrtct of Columbia issued an order

in FEC v. Citizens for LaRouahe (Civil Aetion No.

83-373), which granted summary judgment in

favor of the FEC and dismissed the defendants'

eounterclairns,

Background

On February 9, 1983, the FEC filed suit

against Lyndon H. LaRouahe and the Citizens for

LaRouahe (CFL), Mr. LaRouahe's prinlelpal earnpaign aommittee for his publicly funded Presidential earnpalgn in 1980. In the suit, the FEC asked

the district court to declare that the LaRouahe

eampaign had violated a coneillation agreement

entered into by CFL with the FEC. The Commission claimed that the campaign had failed to pay

any portion of the $15,000 civil penalty stipulated

in the agreement. The eonciliatlon agreement had

resulted from an enforcement action in which the

FEC had found probable cause to believe that,

among other violations, the LaRouahe campaign

had aeeepted unlawful contributions in 1979 and

1980.

In its suit, therefore, the FEC had asked the

district eourtr

To declare that CFL had violated the eonciliation agreement;

To order Mr. LaRouahe and the Laftouehe

campaign to pay the $15,000 eivil penalty

(with interest);

6

To permanently enjoin the LaRouahe ea

paign from further violations of the eonci

tion agreement;

To declare that Mr. LaRouahe was jointly 

severally liable for the civll penalty and th

in failing to pay the penalty, he had viola

one of the terms of his certtftcatlon lett

(He had signed the letter in November 1

as a prerequisite to being eligible for prim

matching funds); and

To permanently enjoin Mr. LaRouahe fr

further violating the terms of the eertlfi

tion letter.

Mr. LaRouahe and the Laftouche eampaign adm

ted that it had failed to pay any portion of 

civil penalty. The defendants maintained, ho

ever, that the entire written coneiliatton agr

ment had been voided by the FEC's alleged bre

of both the written agreement and a supplemen

oral agreement that allegedly had been reach

between the eampalgn and FEC attorneys. A

result, the defendants claimed, the FEC could 

recover the civil penalty.

The Court's Ruling

The court noted that, under the election l

a eoncillation agreement may only be entered i

with the affirmative vote of four Commissione

See 2 U.S.C. S437g(a)(4)(A)(i). The court fou

therefore, that it had to base its consideratton 

the ease exclusively on the terms of the writ

conciliation agreement approved by the Comm

sion. The Commission had not voted on the ter

of the alleged oral agreement; nor had the writ

conciliation agreement made referenae to a s

plemental oral agreement.

The court further noted that, to file a civil act

against parties that violate the terms of a e

cillatlon agreement, "the Commission need o

establish that the person has violated, in whole 

in part, any requirement of sueh a eonciliat

agreement••••" See U.S.C. S437g(a)(5)(D). Si

the LaRouahe earnpalgn admitted that it h

never paid the civil penalty required by the c

clltation agreement, the court found that "

FEC is entitled to declaratory relief in this act

and receipt of an accelerated payment of $15,0

from defendant CFL."

The Court further found that the candida

Lyndon H. LaRouahe, must also be held liable 

the unpaid civil penalty. The cour-t eited 

letter of agreements that Mr. Lafcouehe had 

tered into with the FEC as a condition of mat

ing fund eligibility. Under the agreements, b

held

Mr. LaRouahe

liable for any

and his

civil

earnpalgn

penalties

committee

assessed agai

w

his campaign,
Noveml::er 1984

-,

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \bIume 10, Numt:er 

•

Finding no merit to the campaign's counterclaim

for damages resulting from "fraudulent induce-

•

merit and fraudulent actions by the FEC," the

court dismissed the counterclaim "for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

NEW LITIGATION

Republican Party of North Carolina v. FEe

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8), the Republican Party of North Carolina (the Party) filed

suit against the FEC for failing to take action.

within 120 days, on an administrative complaint

that the Party had filed against the Jim Hunt

Committee, Governor Hunt's principal campaign

committee for his 1984 Senate campaign. In the

complaint, filed on April 20, 1984, the Party

alleged that the campaign had violated the election law by using state property for Governor

Hunt's Senate campaign without fully reimbursing

the state.

The Party therefore asked the court to:

Declare that the FEC's failure to act on the

complaint within 120 days was contrary to

law;

Issue an order directing the FEC to take

action on the complaint within 30 days, as

specified by section 437g; and

•

-- Retain jurisdiction over the Party's suit in

the event that the FEC failed to take action

on its administrative complaint.

u.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,

Docket No. 84-2937, September 19, 1984.

Antosh v. FEe (Suit 3)

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. S437g(a)(8)(A), Mr.

James E. Antosh petitioned the district court to

take action against the FEC for dismissing an

administrative complaint Mr. Antosh had filed

with the FEC on May 31, 1984. In the administrative complaint, Mr. Antosh had alleged that:

The International Union of Operating Engineers and its separate segregated fund had

violated 2 U.S.C. §44Ia(a)(2)(A) by making

contributions in excess of $5,000 to the primary campaign of Thomas P. Lantos, a 1982

Congressional candidate, and Mr. Lantos'

principal campaign committee;

Mr. Lantos and his principal campaign committee had,. in turn, violated 2 U.S.C.

S441a(f) by knowingly accepting the excessive contributions; and

Mr. Lantos, his campaign treasurer, and his

principal campaign committee had violated

Commission Regulations by failing to report

the excessive contributions accurately. See

11 CFR 104.14(d).

7

Mr. Antosh asked the court to:

Declare that the FEC's dismissal of his a

ministrative complaint was contrary to la

and

Issue an order directing the FEC to act 

the complaint within 30 days,

U.S. District Court for the District of Columb

Docket No. 84-3048, October 1984.

MUR 1605: Relationship Between Federation

of Labor Unions and Its Members

On July 10, 1984, the Commission found no reas

to believe that the political action committ

(PAC) of a federation of labor organizations, t

PACs of three federation members and the trea

urers of the four PACs violated the election l

by: a) failing to disclose their alleged affiliat

relationship on their Statements of Organizati

or b) by making contributions in excess of t

Act's limitations to seventeen candidates for fe

eral office. .

Complaint

On December 2, 1983, an individual filed 

complaint figainst the respondents, which alleg

that the federation controlled and maintained t

unions and their PACs. Consequently the fo

PACs were affiliated. The complainant claim

that the PACs had failed to disclose their affi

ated status and had made contributions in exce

of the limits they allegedly shared as affiliat

committees.

General Counsel's Report

Citing the legislative history of the Ac

affiliation provision, the General Counsel's Rep

stated that, during consideration of propos

amendments to the Act in 1976, Congress ma

clear that it did not intend the affiliation pro

sion to apply to two federations of organization

the AFL-CIO, a federation of labor organizatio

(one of the respondents "in this action), and t

Chamber of Commerce, a federation of busine

associations. (The general rule under what becam

2 U.S.C. S441a(a)(5) is that political committe

are affiliated if they are established, finance

maintained or controlled by the same organiz

tion.) Congress! intent was later incorporated in

FEC Regulations at 100.5 (g)(2)(i)(B) and (C

Subsection B regulates the relationship between 

union and its state and local bodies; subsection 

regulates the relationship between an organls

tion of unions and its state and local bodies. 

continu
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

\t)/ume 10,NurnOO

Campaign Finance Law 84 summarizes s

campaign finance laws and provides comp

tive charts on: campaign finance repor

requirements; contribution and solicita

limits; and special tax and public financ

provisions. $9.50 per copy; order no. 052-0

00030-9.

Write the Superintendent of Documents, Gov

ment Printing Office, Washington, D.c. 204

making reference to the pubtieatlon and its o

number.

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

UPDATED PUBLICATIONS POR STATE

AND LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS

Two recent puolieatlons are available 

state and local election officials:

Election Directory 84 includes the na

address and telephone number of over 

key federal, state and local election offici

$2.25 per copy; order no. 052-006-00031-7

Novemoor1984

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

Commission Determination

The Commission voted to accept the General

Counsel's recommendation and, on JUly 10, 1984,

found no reason to believe that the PACs or their

treasurers had violated the Act.

-The FEe reached the same conclusion in

two earlier complaints: MURs 354 and 783.

Moreover, even assuming that section 441a(a)(5)

were applicable to the respondents' PACs, the

report contended that the facts presented by the

complainant did not support his claim that the

federation controlled and maintained the member

unions and their PACs. The General Counsel

therefore recommended that the Commission find

no reason to believe the Act had been violated by

the respondents.

past decisions," the Commission has interpreted

these provisions to mean that, although the federatiori's PAC and the ·PACs of its state and local

bodies are affiliated, and the federation's member

unions and their state and local bodies are affiliated, the federations' PACs are not affiliated

with the PACs of the member unions.