•

June 19

$102,231. 

36,880.

73,501.

60,261.

655,873.

79,402.

86,041.

36,880.

continu

1982 Party

Spending

Limits

2,772

279

1,993

1,634

17,784

2,153

2,333

436

YAP

Alabama

Alaska * Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware"

NEW IOWA FILING OFFICE

The Iowa Secretary of State's Office

has transferred its filing office to a new

location. Effective May 7, 1982, all political committees active in federal elections

in Iowa should file the state copy of their

federal campaign finance reports with:

Campaign Finance Disclosure Commission

lst Floor

Colony Building

507 lOth Street

Des Moines, Iowa 50309

State

Guam and the Virgin Islands or for Resid

Commissioner from Puerto Rico) the limit 

$10,000 (plus the CPI increase). For House can

dates in states entitled to only one represen

tive, the limit is the same as that for Sen

candidates. (See above.)

Chart on Senate Limits

The Commission has compiled the follow

chart for 1982 limits on party spending for Sen

candidates in the general election. In the ch

an asterisk (*) indicates those states having o

one Representa tive. In these instances, the Sen

limit applies to candidates for the House as w

as to Senate candidates. VAP figures in the ch

are in thousands.

THE FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

1325 KStreet N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463

Volume 8, Number 6

How to C8lculate Senate Limit

The Senate formula is the state voting age

popula tion (VAP) x $0.02, plus the 1982 increase

in the CPI of 84.4 percent; or $20,000 (plus the

CPI increase), whichever is greater. (See chart

below.)

The formulas for the party spending limits in 1982

are based on' state voting age population estimates (as of July I, 1981) from the Department of

Commerce, and the Consumer Price Index (CPr)

increase certified by the Secretary of Labor. They

are calculated as follows:

PARTY COORDINATED EXPENDITURE

IJMlTS -- 1982

Party committees may make limited, special

expenditures on behalf of their candidates in the

1982 general elections. 2 U.S.C. S44Ia(d); 11 CFR

110.7. These special expenditures count neither as

contributions to the candidate nor as expenditures

by the candidate or the candidate's authorized

committees. The party committee coordinates the

expenditures with the candidate's campaign, but

the party committee -- not the candidate -- must

report them, using Schedule F of FEC Form 3X.

National party committees have separate

spending limits for Senate and House candidates

in the general election. State party committees

are subject to separate spending limits for Senate

and House general election candidates in their

respective states. Within a state, all expenditures

made on behalf of one candidate by the state

party committee or any subordinate party committee (e.g., county, district, local) are subject to

one spending limit.

How to C8lculate House Limit

The House limit depends on the number of

districts in the state. For House candidates in

states with more than one district (and candidates

for Delegate from the District of Columbia,
De1egate/Resident Commissioner candidates

1982-36

1982-35

AD~ORYOPnOONREQ~

The following chart lists recent requests f

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of eac

AOR is available to the public in the Commi

sion's Office of Public Records.

AOR

1982-31

1982-32

Subject

Legal and accounting services provide

to campaign by law student partial

supported by scholarship. (Date mad

public: April 15, 1982; Length: 2 page

plus supplement)

Contribution limits of Senate dra

committee that has become multica

didate committee. (Date made publi

April 19, 1982; Length; 3 pages)

Disposal of funds and assets remainin

in former Senator's 1976 campaign ac

count. (Date made public: April 2

1982; Length: 2 pages)

Payroll deduction plan for foreign sub

sidiaries of U.S. corporation, (Da

made publici April 29, 1982; Length: 

pages)

Legal expense fund for contesting po

sible denial of access to primary ballo

(Date made publici May 4, 198

Length: 2 pages, plus supplement)

Funds transferred from PAC of di

solved trade association to PAC o

trade association with which it ha

merged. (Date made public: May 

1982; Length: 3 pages)

Donations to Congressmen for legal ex

penditures related to reapportionmen

plan. (Date made publici May 17, 1982

Length: 1 page)

1982-38 Reasonable accounting method for con

tributions made by county party orga

izations to Senate campaign. (Da

made publics May 18, 1982; Length: 

pages)

1982-39 Excess funds transferred among Sena

candidate's 1980 committee, 1986 com

mittee and Presidential testing-th

waters organization. (Date made publi

May 18, 1982; Length: 6 pages)

1982-33

1982-37

1982-34

18,440.00

18,440.00

18,440.00

18,440.00

1982 Party

Spending

Limits

$286,520.72

144,938.40

36,880.00

36,880.00

304,997.60

143,573.84

77,189.84

64,097.44

95,961.76

109,349.20

36,880.00

115,102.48

159,432.24

241,158.32

108,759.12

63,728.64

132,804.88

36,880.00

41,821.92

36,880.00

36,880.00

201,438.56

36,880.00

480,214.48

159,321.60

36,880.00

286,078.16

82,426.80

71,289.04

325,355.36

36,880.00

82,426.80

36,880.00

123,031.68

381,929.28

36,880.00

36,880.00

146,671.76

113,369.12

51,632.00

125,687.04

36,880.00

492

65

2,046

58

VAP

7,769

3,930

703

650

8,270

3,893

2,093

1,738

2,602

2,965

818

3,121

4,323

6,539

2,949

1,728

3,601

563

1,134

622

680

5,462

910

13,021

4,320

468

7,757

2,235

1,933

8,822

716

2,235

484

3,336

10,356

954

373

3,977

3,074

1,400

3,408

340

District of

Columbia

Guam

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

State

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

MassachuseUs

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota*

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota"

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont*

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming*

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Frank P. Reiche, Chairman; Danny Lee McDonald, Vice

Chairman; Joan D. Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; Thomas E. Harris; John Warren McGarry; William F.

Hildenbrand, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., Clerk of the House of

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

2
•

ADVlSORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion (AO) 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 text of an AO and not rely only on the

summary given here.

AO 1982-5: Reasonable Methods for Allocating

Federal/Nontederal Expenses of

National Party Conference

The Commission approved four out of the five

methods proposed by the Democratic National

Committee (the DNC) for allocating a portion of

the expenses for its national party conference to

nonfederal election activity. 11 CFR 100.3(b),

102.5 and 106.1. The Commission was unable,

however, to reach a decision by an affirmative

vote of four Commissioners on whether any alloea tion was in fact required since it appeared that

the national conference would not be held in

connection with, or to influence, the election of

any clearly identified federal candidate.

The purpose of the two-day conference, which

will be held in Philadelphia in June 1982, is to

provide a "forum for discussion of public policy

issues •••and a mechanism for party-building and

training of candidates and political workers," who

will be providing support to both federal and

nonfederal campaigns and party committees.

Pursuant to Sections 102.5 and 106.1 of Commission Regulations, the DNC may reasonably allocate expenses for nonf'ederal election activity by

using one of the following methods:

Ballot Position. Under this method, the DNC

would allocate convention expenses between federal and nonfederal activity on the basis of the

ratio of federal ballot l?ositions to comparable

nonfederal ballot positions in the 1982 elections

on a nationwide basis.

Funds Expended. Under the second method, the

allocation would be based on the ratio of funds

expended in "direct support" of federal candidates

to funds expended in "direct support" of nonfederal candidates over a certain period of time. The

DNC's "direct support" of federal candidates

would include DNC contributions made to Congressional candidates (as well as contributions by

the Democratic Congressional and Senatorial

campaign committees) and coordinated party expenditures made on behalf of the candidates.

Similarly, the direct support of nonfederal candidates would include contributions and expenditures made by the DNC (or any of its auxiliary

units) on behalf of state and local candidates. The

time period used would be the election cycle

either preceding the conference (i.e., the 1980

3

elections) or subsequent to the conference (L

the 1982 elections). General administrative co

not directly attributable to a particular candid

would not be included in the calculation.

Agenda Time. Under the third method, the DN

would base the allocation on the ratio of fede

time (l.e., time in the conference agenda devot

to federal election activities) to total conferen

time (i,e. total agenda time for all conferen

aetivities).

Participating Candidates and Workers. Under t

fourth method, conference expenses would 

allocated between federal and nonfederal electi

activity on the basis of the ratio of participati

federal candidates and their workers to parti

pating nonf'ederal candidates and their worke

Using this method, the DNC would have to fac

into the ratio those participants who belong 

both the federal and nonfederal categories or 

neither category.

The Commission did not approve a "funds receiv

method" for allocating the nonfederal expen

tures because a reasonable allocation method 

based on the activity engaged in -- not on t

amount of contributions received by a party co

mittee during a given time period.

The Commission conditioned its approval of t

four allocation methods by noting that:

1. They were not an exhaustive listing of 

reasonable allocation methods;

2. Regardless of which method it chose, t

conference committee could make a p

liminary estimate of the allocation since t

actual allocation of expenses might not 

possible until after the close of the co

ference; and

3. The DNC should maintain detailed recor

for whatever allocation method it chose a

should apply the percentage formula deriv

from the allocation method to all natio

conference expenses. Commissioner Thom

E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion. (D

issued: April 21, 1982; Length: 7 pages, 

cluding dissent)

AO 1982-7: PAC's Computer-Designed

Reporting Form

The Solar Energy Industries Assoc. Political A

tion Committee (SEIA-PAC) may submit its 

ports (FEC Form 3X and supporting schedules) 

computerized forms designed by D.C. Associa

Inc. The Commission conditionally appro

SEIA-PAC's proposed reporting form in order 

encourage the PAC's voluntary compliance w

the Act.

SEIA-PAC might, however, have to stop using 

computerized form and report on a standa

computer-printable FEC Form 3X, once this n

form became available. The Commission no

that it was not granting approval of SEIA-PA

proposed Form 3X under 11 CFR l04.2(c), si

continu
that section permits a precise reproduction of

forms and the proposed computerized form was

not a precise reproduction of FEC Form 3X, or

under II CFR 104.2(d), since that subsection

pertains only to Schedules A and B. (Date issued:

April 23, 1982; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1982-12 Trade Association's Solieitation

of Individual Members of Member

Nonstock Corporations

The National Club Association (NCA), a trade

association, may solicit contributions to its separate segregated fund from the individual members

of its member corporations without capital stock,

provided:

I. The nonstock corporate members annually

give NCA their prior, exclusive consent to

solicit their members;

2. NCA solicits only those individuals who are

"members" of the nonstock corporations, as

defined by II CFR 114.I(e); and

3. The solicitations are otherwise conducted in

compliance with 2 U.S.C. S44Ib(b)(4)(D) and

II CFR 114.8.

Although the Act and Commission Regulations do

not expressly give trade associations this solicitation authority, the Act and its legislative history

indicate that a trade association may solicit the

individual members of member corporations without capital stock to the same extent that it may

solicit the stockholders of member corporations

with stock. (See 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(4)(C) and

related legislative history.) (Date issued: April 9,

1982; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1982-13: Law Partnership's

Contribution Plan

Sutherland, Askill & Brennan, a law partnership,

may implement a contribution plan established by

agreement of its partners. Moreover, the fact

that several partners will administer the plan will

not cause the partnership to become a political

committee subject to the requirements of the Act

and Commission Regulations; these services are

incidental to the partners' administration of the

plan and are not provided to directly influence

federal elections.

Under the proposed plan, members of the partnership have agreed on an annual amount to be

budgeted for partnership contributions, with each

partner contributing an agreed-upon share of this

amount. The partnership will delegate the administration of the plan to four partners, who will

consider all contribution requests and be responsible for authorizing any partnership contributions.

When the managers authorize a specific contribution, they will attribute it to the partners (or a

particular partner) by charging their personal firm

accounts with their respective share of the

contribution. (No attribution of a contribution to

a partner will exceed the overall annual amount

he or she has agreed to contribute.) The managers

will then deduct each partner's share of the

contribution from his/her monthly income distribution and notify the partner of this transaction.

4

A partner has the option of vetoing the attrib

tion of a contribution to him/her. Partners m

also make contributions through personal chec

and advise the recipient that the contribution 

authorized by the partnership.

The managers will maintain bookkeeping recor

to ensure that contributions do not exceed t

limits and that they otherwise comply with t

Act. To further ensure that the contribution li

its are not exceeded, each partner will be respo

sible for notifying the partnership of contributio

he or she makes independently.

Under the Act and Commission Regulations, 

partnership may make contributions, as long as: 

it does not exceed the per election moneta

limits for contributions from persons, and 2) 

attributes its contributions to both the partn

ship and the individual partners. One method 

partnership may use to attribute contributions 

individual partners is to agree to a particu

attribution plan. 2 U.S.C. S44Ia(a)(I)(A); II C

1I0.I(e). The partnership's proposed contributi

plan would meet these requirements. Chairm

Frank P. Reiche filed a dissenting opinion w

which Commissioner Thomas E. Harris concurre

(Date issued: 'April 16, 1982; Length: 10 pag

including dissent)

AO 1982-14: Party Committee Fund to

Influence Congressioual

Reapportionment

Funds received and disbursed from a reapportio

ment account established by the Michigan Repu

lican State Committee (the Committee) to 

fluence the Michigan State Legislature's Congr

sional reapportionment activities would not co

stitute "contributions" or "expenditures" subj

to the reporting requirements and the limits a

prohibitions of the Act, provided the funds are n

used to finance any federal election activi

Accordingly, the Committee may accept corp

rate contributions for the reapportionment a

count, provided it does not transfer any fun

from that account to an account for fede

elections. See also AO 1981-35. Commission

Thomas E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion. (D

issued: April 9, 1982; Length: 5 pages, includi

dissent)

AO 1982-15 Legal Service Ads Sponsored by

Firm Whose Partner May Be a

Candidate

Advertising fees incurred by the law firm of Sp

and Andersen (the firm) to publicize its leg

services would not constitute contributions to t

firm's senior partner, Dale Sprik, should he b

come a Congressional candidate from Michiga

Fifth Congressional District. The firm's expen

for the legal service ads would not be contrib

tions to Mr. Sprik's potential campaign becau

the purpose of the ads will be to expand the firm

. clientele -- not to promote Mr. Sprik's candidac

The commercial, rather than political, purpose 

the ads is evidenced by the fact that:
•

1. The ads will not identify Mr. Sprik as a

Congressional (or any other kind of) candidate;

2. The ads will be aired whether or not Mr.

Sprik becomes a candidate; and

3. The ads will not appear more frequently just

before the 1982 primary or general election

in Michigan.

The Commission expressed no OpInIOn on

applicable provisions of the Communications Act

since they are not within its jurisdiction. (Date

issued: April 9, 1982; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1982-17: Party Committee's Deposit

of State Public Funds

in Federal Account

The Indiana Democratic Party (the Party) may

deposit state public funds (i.e., funds received

from the state government's sale of personalized

license plates) in its federal account. Although

the funds are not considered contributions, they

are reportable receipts. The Party should report

them as "miscellaneous receipts," with an explanation indicating their source and identifying the

appropriate state agency as the payor. 2 U.S.C.

§434(b)(3)(G); II CFR 104.3(a)(4)(iv):

Under Indiana law, the state government sells

personalized license plates and distributes a portion of the sales proceeds among all qualified

state party committees. Since the fee for the

plates is mandatory and is not paid to influence

federal elections, the Party's share of the sales

proceeds would not be considered contributions

from the plate purchasers. Moreover, if authorized by its laws, a state may provide such

funding to political parties and candidates active

in federal elections. See also AOs 1978-9 and

1980-103. (Date issued: April 9, 1982; Length: 2

pages)

AO 1982-18 Corporate PAC's Solicitation of

Solicitable Class of Affiliated

Corporations

The Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.

Federal Political Action Committee (the PAC),

the separate segregated fund of Gannett Fleming

Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (Gannett), may solicit contributions ~rom:

1. The individual stockholders (and their families) of Gannett's parent corporation, Gannett

Fleming Affiliates, Inc.,; and

2. The executive and administrative personnel

(and their families) of Gannett's parent corporation, as well as of the parent corporation's other subsidiaries and their respective

subsidiaries.

Under the Act and Commission Regulations, a

separate segrega ted fund may solicit the executive and administrative personnel and stockholders (and their families) of the corporation

that establishes and maintains the fund, as well as

the solicitable personnel of any of the corporation's subsidiaries and affiliates. 2 U.S.C.

5

§441b(b)(4)(A)(i); II CFR 114.5(g)(I). Similar

the PAC may solicit the executive and admin

trative personnel (and their families) of both t

parent corporation's subsidiaries and their respe

tive subsidiaries because they are all owned by 

single parent (i.e., Gannett Fleming Affiliat

Inc.) and consequently are affiliated.

The Commission noted that the PAC and a

separate segregated fund established by any 

Gannett's affiliated corporations would be cons

ered affiliated political committees. For purpo

of the contribution limits, they would be cons

ered a single committee subject to a single lim

on contributions they receive and on contributio

they make. Commissioner Thomas E. Harris fil

a dissenting opinion. 2 U.S.C. §44Ia(a)(5); 11 CF

100.5(g)(2). (Date issued: April 26, 1982; Leng

4 pages, including dissent)

AO 1982-20: Media-Buying Services Supplied

Simultaneously to Independent

Expenditure Committee and

Candidate It Supports

Time Buying Services, Inc. (TBS), a company th

buys radio and television time for its clients 

media markets throughout the U.S., may simul

neously sell its media-buying services to an ind

pendent political committee, such as the Nation

Conservative Political Action Committee (N

PAC), and to the campaign committee of a R

publican candidate whom the independent co

mittee plans to support through independent e

penditures advocating the candidate's election 

his opponent's defeat. The use of TBS's services 

these two clients COUld, however, raise factu

questions as to whether the expenditures of t

independent committee made on behalf of t

Republican candidate qualify as "independent e

penditures" under the Act and Commission regu

tions. Specifically, Section 109.I(b)(4)(i)(B) 

Commission Regulations presumes that a comm

tee's expenditures are not independent if they a

made by or through any person (or agent) who h

been "receiving any form of compensation... fro

the candidate" or any of his campaign agen

(Date issued: April 26, 1982; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1982-21: Contribution by PAC to Another

PAC as Index of Affiliation

A contribution of $500 or $1,000 that HUMPA

the separate segregated fund of Humana, In

proposes to make to the separate segregated fu

of the American Hospital Association (AH

would not, by itself, be sufficient evidence of 

affiliated relationship between the two comm

tees. Under Commission Regulations, two po

ical committees are considered affiliated if the

is evidence that one of the committees has be

established, financed, maintained or controlled 

the other committee. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(3). T

proposed transfer does represent one indicia 

affiliation, namely the transfer of a "substant

portion" of one com rnittee's assets to anoth

committee (in this case either 12 percent or 

percent). By itself, however, this fact is insuf

continu
cient evidence of affiliation. See Section

100.5(g)(2)(ii) of Commission Regulations and AO

1976-104. (Date issued: April 23, 1982; Length: 3

pages)

AO 1982-23: Remaining Funds of Tenninating

Committee Earmarked Through

Local Party Orgunization

The Westchester Citizens for Good Government

(the Committee), an independent expenditure

committee, may not earmark all of its remaining

funds (approximately $3,800) through a local party

organization (not registered with the FEC) for the

1982 general election campaign of an, as yet,

unidentified Republican Congressional candidate.

The Committee could, however, earmark up to

$1,000 for the potential candidate's general election campaign since that is the maximum amount

that it may contribute. 11 CFR 110.1. Although a

Republican candidate has not yet been selected

for the Party's Congressional district, the Committee could nevertheless earmark a contribution

because the specific office, party affiliation and

election have been identified. (See AO 1977-16.)

As long as the party organization exercised no

"direction or control over the Committee's choice

of a recipient candidate, the contribution would

be attributed to the Committee alone, not to the

intermediary party organization. 11 CFR 110.6.

Alternatively, if permitted by state law, the

Committee could contribute all of its remaining

funds to the Party or use the funds for any other

lawful purpose, provided it earmarked no more

than $1,000 to any federal candidate, per election. Moreover, the Committee could report its

termination on the same report that it recorded

the disbursement of its remaining funds. II CFR

102.3. (Date issued: April 23, 1982; Length: 3

pages)

AO 1982-24 campaign Funds Raised Through

Sale of Artworks Consigned by

Artists

The Phillips for Congress Committee (the Committee) may sell artworks on consignment from

various artists as part of a fundraising event. The

artworks will not be considered contributions to

the Committee from the artists because the Committee will pay each artist for the normal price of

each artwork it sells. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(1)(iii). The

Committee plans to raise the price of each artwork above its normal purchase price and keep

the surplus amount. It will return all unsold artworks to the various artists.

The full purchase price for each artwork sold by

the Committee would, however, constitute a contribution from the purchaser to the Committee.

Accordingly, funds received for the artworks

would be subject to the Act's contribution limits

and prohibitions, as well as its reporting requirements. 11 CFR 100.7(a)(2) and 104.3. Chairman

Frank P. Reiche filed a dissenting opinion. (Date

issued: April 30, 1982; Length: 5 pages, plus

dissent)

6

AO 1982-25: campaign Disbursement Made

by Wire Transfer of Funds

The Barbara Sigmund for Congress Commi

(the Committee) may make advance payment

a campaign vendor by wiring a transfer of fu

from the Committee's campaign depository to 

vendor's bank account. Commission Regulati

permit a committee to make disbursements 

check" or by a "similar draft," such as the w

transfer, provided it:

I. Records and maintains adequate docume

tion of the transaction; and "

2. Discloses the transaction as a "disbursem

on its reports. II CFR 102.10 and 104.3

(Date issued: April 23, 1982; Length: 2 pag

AO 1982-27: General Fund Used by City to

Finance Presidential

Nominating Convention

The City of Dallas (the City), which proposes 

host the 1984 Republican National Conventi

may finance facilities and services for the c

vention from a general convention fund admin

tered by the City, provided any services 

facilities obtained from commercial vendors 

purchased at their fair market value. II C

9008.7(b). Moreover, payments that the C

makes for the services and facilities would 

constitute contributions to the Republican N

tional Committee (RNC) by either the City or 

those who donate to the convention fund. N

would the payments count against the RN

convention spending limit, should the RNC acc

public funding for the convention. See 26 U.S

§9008(d).

Since constitutional constraints and long-stand

public policy preclude Dallas from using tax re

nues or other government funds to finance 

convention, the City would like to finance 

through the convention fund. The City plans 

accept unlimited donations to the convention fu

exclusively from the private sector, includ

individuals, associations, businesses, corporati

and other persons. The City would not, howev

permit donors to designate their donations 

particular events or conventions.

In permitting local government agencies and m

nicipal corporations to make disbursements 

behalf of a Presidential nominating conventi

Commission Regulations require only that, if s

vices are purchased from com mereial vendors, 

agency or municipal corporation obtain those s

vices at their fair market value. The Regulati

do not impose any requirements on funding so

ces used by the municipal corporation to finan

services for the convention. Chairman Frank 

Reiche filed a concurring opinion. Commissio

Thomas E. Harris filed a dissenting opinion. (D

issued: May 3, 1982; Length: 9 pages, includ

concurring and dissenting opinions)
•

AO 1982-28: State-Chartered Corporation

Established Under Federal Law

Although the Sealaska corporation (Sealaska) is

an Alaska Native regional corporation established

pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement

Act (a federal law), Sealaska is chartered under

Alaska law and is not considered a corporation

organized by authority of a law of C?ngr.ess.

Accordingly, Sealaska may make contributions

and expenditures in connection with state and

local elections if permitted by state law. Sealaska

may not, however, make contributions and .expenditures in connection with federal elections. 2

U.S.C. §441bta),

Sealaska is not considered a federally chartered

corporation barred by Section 441b from making

contributions and expenditures in connection with

any elections (i.e., local, state and federal elections) because:

1. The legislative history of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act indicates that Congress rejected the concept of establishing

federally chartered Alaska Native regional

corporations and specifically provided that

these corporations should be organized under

state law (I971 U.S. Code Congo & Ad. News,

2192, 2254); and

2. Congress prohibited the regional corpo~ations

from using appropriated federal funds In connection with state and local elections (43

U.S.C. §1605(b)), which would have been unnecessary if Congress had believed that the

regional corporations were already barred

from such activity under 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

The Commission noted that this opinion overruled

AD 1980-129 which had held that Sealaska was a

federally cha~tered corporation and, as such, was

subject to the broad prohibitions of 2 U.S.C.

§441b. (Date issued: May 7, 1982; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1982-29: Payroll Deduction Plan lor

Corporation's Subsidiaries

United Telecommunications, Inc., a Kansas corporation with SUbsidiary operations in at least 21

states may solicit contributions to its separate

segregated fund, United Teleco~ Political Action

Committee (UNrPAC)~ by offermg a payroll deduction plan to as many of its subsidiaries as

choose to use it. Under the Act and Commission

Regulations, a corporation. ':lay imp!em~nt a pa.yroll deduction plan to solicit contributions to its

separate segregated fund from the stockholders

and executive and administrative personnel of the

corporation, as well as the solicitable personnel of

the corporation's subsidiaries. 2 U.S.C. §§441b(b)

(4)(A)(i) and (5); 11 CFR 114.I(f), 114.5(g)(I) and

114.5(k)(l).

The Act would preempt and supersede any st~te

law prohibiting the proposed payroll deductton

plan. 2 U.S.C. §453. Noting that it had not been

asked to consider any other state laws, the Commission expressed no opinion on whether or not

the Act would supersede and preempt other laws.

(Date issued: April 30, 1982; Length: 3 pages)

. 7

FEe TESTIFIES ON FY 1983 BUDGET AND

FY 1982 SUPPLEMENTAL

During four Congressional hearings held 

late April and early May, the Commission r

quested funding for fiscal year (FY) 1983 th

would allow the FEC to administer the 19

elections and to prepare for the 1984 Presidenti

elections. The Commission also requested suppl

mental funds for FY 1982 to avert a possib

furlough of the entire FEC staff this fall.

FEC Chairman Frank P. Reiche, Vice Chairm

Danny Lee McDonald and Commissioner Joan D

Aikens presented the Commission's budget test

mony before the House Committee on Appropr!

tions' Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal servic

and General Government; the Senate Committ

on Rules and Administration; the Task Force o

Elections of the Committee on House Admini

tration' and the Senate Committee on Appropri

tions' Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Servi

and General Government. In their testimony, th

Commissioners stated that the FEC's $9,880,00

budget request for FY 1983 represented th

amount the Reagan administration had requeste

for the Commission in the President's FY 19

budget, This amount is $666,000 less, than th

request the Commission had submitted to th

Office of Management and Budget on Septemb

1, 1981.

Chairman Reiche testified that, when adjusted f

inflation the FEC's FY 1983 budget request re

resented' approximately the same level of fundin

as that used to administer the election law 

1973 ($4.7 million), when there were no regul

tions or advisory opinions and less disclosure. H

noted that the Commission had also had a lea

budget for administering the election law durin

the last Presidential election cycle, with the co

to the federal government for administering pu

lic financing of Presidential elections, as well 

for disclosing, monitoring and providing guidan

with respect to all federal elections in 1979-8

being less than one percent of reported campai

finance activity.

Vice Chairman McDonald, Chairman of the FEC

Budget Task Force, testified on behalf ,?f t

FEC's request for $183,907 to supplement Its F

1982 budget. He reported that if a pay supp

mental were not provided, the Commission cou

run out of money before the end of the fiscal ye

and could "face the prospect of furloughing t

entire staff at a time when we should be increa

ing our activity to deal with the 1982 Congre

sional primaries and general election."

continue
In order to administer the election law under a

continuing resolution during FY 1982, the Commission had to impose a hiring freeze, which

reduced the permanent staff to 217 from a high of

258 during FY 1979. A recent reduction-in-force

also eliminated 16 positions in the FECls Audit

Division, representing half of that division's staff.

Other spending cuts have been made in travel, in

outreach programs to educate candidates and po--

litical committees, and in funds allocated to

printing, supplies, equipment and other materials.

In addition, reductions have been made in contracts administered by the National Clearinghouse

on Election Administration.

FEe PUBLISHES THE NAMES OF NONPll.HRS

During April and May, the Commission published separate listings of authorized candidate

committees that had failed to file either their

first quarterly or their pre-primary reports.* On

April 30, 1982, the Commission published the

names of three California House campaigns that

*The 1979 amendments to the election law do

not require the Commission to publish the names

of unauthorized committees that fail to file required reports.

had failed to file their first quarterly report, d

April 15. During the 1982 election year, 

quarterly report is required of all authori

candidate committees active in 1982 elections, 

well as of all authorized Presidential committe

and all unauthorized committees that choose 

file on a quarterly (rather than a monthly) bas

Prior to this publication, the California campaig

received mailgrams notifying them of th

failure to file the report.**

During April and May, the Commission also pu

lished the names of three House campaigns wag

in separate states (i.e., Texas, Indiana and Pen

sylvania) that had failed to file their pre-prima

reports, due 12 days before the primary electio

in those states. The elections were held on May 

4 and 18, respectively. Other political committe

(not authorized by candidates) that supported ca

didates in the primaries were also required to f

pre-primary reports, unless they had been repo

ing on a monthly basis.

Further Commission actions against committe

tha t fail to file reports required during the 19

election year will be decided on a case-by-ca

basis. The Act gives the Commission broad a

thority to initiate enforcement actions agai

any nonfiler, including civil enforcement and t

imposition of civil penalties.

**The FEe's revised nonf'iler policy is su

marized on page 1 of the March 1982 Record. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20463

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

FEe

WASHINGTON, DC.

PERMIT NO. G·31