Volume 10, Numbe

3 FEC CLINIC

5 ADVISORY OPINIONS

REGULATIONS

2 Trade Association Authorizations

3 Testing-the-Waters

4 Status Chart

Chart on Senate Limits

The Commission has compiled the follow

chart for 1984 limits on party spending for Sen

candidates in the general election. The Sen

continued on p

PREmnENTIALELECTIONS

7 Funds Certified to Primary Candidates

7 LaRouche Ineligible for Primary Matching

Funds

COMPLIANCE

8 Summary of MURs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INFORMATION

1984 Limits on Party Coordinated

Expenditures

How to Calculate Senate Limit

The Senate formula is the state voting 

population (VAP) x $.02, increased according 

the 1983 change in the consumer price index (

percent); or $20,000 (increased by the change 

the CPI), whichever is greater. (See chart below

How to Calculate House Limit

The House limit depends on the number 

districts in the state. For House candidates 

states with more than one district (and candida

for Delegate from the District of Columb

Guam Bnd the Virgin Islands or for Resid

Commissioner from Puerto Rico), the limit 

$10,000 (increased by the 1983 change in the e

or $20,200 during 1984. For House candidates 

states entitled to only one representative, 

limit is the same as that for Senate candidat

(See above.)

STATISTICS

10 PAC Growth in 1983

11 PAC Activity in 1980-82

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

March 1984 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463

The formulas for the party spending limits in 1984

are based on state voting age population estimates (as of July 1, 1983) from the Department of

Com rnerce, and the increase in the consumer

price index (CPI) certified by the Secretary of

Labor. They are calculated as follows:

How to calculate Presidential Limit

The formula for the Presidential limit for a

national party is the U.S. voting age population

(YAP) x $.02, increased according to the 1983

change in the consumer price index (}02 percent).

A national party committee's spending limit for

the 1984 general election is $6,924,802.40.

*A designated agent of the national party

committee (e.g., a state party committee or a

local part)' organization) may, however, make

coordinated party expenditures on behalf of the

partyl8 Presidential candidate, but only if the

agent receives prior authorization to do so by the

national party committee. 11 CFR 110.7(0)(4)

National party committees have separate spending limits for Presidential, Senate and House

candidates in the general election. State party

committees are subject to separate spending

limits for Senate and House general election candida tes in their respective states. (State parties

do not have a separate spending limit for their

party's Presidential nominee. *) 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.

PARTY COORDINATED EXPENDITURE

LIMITS -- 1984

Party committees may make limited, special

expenditures on behalf of their candidates in the

1984 general elections. 2 U.S.C. 544la(d); 11 CPR

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 may coordinate

the expenditures with the candidate's campaign,

but the party committee -- not the candidate --

must report them, using Schedule F of FEC Form

3X.
1984 Par

Spending

Limits

40,400.0

166,690.4

127,421.6

57,570.0

139,905.2

40,400.0

$ 20,200.0

20,200.0

20,200.0

20,200.0

Volume 10, Numbe

488

66

2,025

60

YAP

(Thousand<;)

385

4,126

3,154

1,425

3,463

355

Slate

DelegatelResident Commissioner Candidates

District of

Columbia

Guam

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

Vermont'"

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming·

REGULATIONS ON TRADE ASSOCIATION

AUTHORIZATIONS PRHSCRIBED

On February 9, 1984, the Commission pr

scribed revised regulations governing the reque

and receipt of solicitation authorizations that 

trade association must obtain from its corpora

members before soliciting their stockholders an

executive and administrative personnel. 11 CF

114.8(c)(2), (d)(2) and (d)(4). Intended to stream

line procedures, the new regulations permit trad

associations to obtain solicitation approvals fro

their corporate members in a year prior to th

year in which they actually conduct the solicit

tions. The new regulations also permit trade ass

eiations to obtain corporate approvals for sever

years at a time; a separate approval document 

required, however, for each year approved.

--~f:';~;-~:~~~~~:,?~~:Yf.if~~r~i!~~~,~~~~:-:':---~:'~C--:,-~

.. i.;...~_~ _$":~'t< ...,~.",-.~',~ p'" ~:~.'....:.._~.~:>;~:.~_... ~_~~ "'<":~_-t.~ ...~..;..~:~. 

A summary of these regulations appeared on pa

6 of the November 1983 Record. The full text 

the proposed rules was published in the Feder

Register on October 20, 1983 (48 Fed. Re

48650). The announcement of the effective da

of these rules appeared in the Federal Register 

February 9, 1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 4932). Copies 

the new regulations may be obtained by writin

the FEC's Public Communications Office, 1325 

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 or by ca

ing: 202/523-4068 or toll free 800/424-9530.

1984 Party

Spending

Limits

$114,938.00

40,400.00

86,011.60

67,750.80

752,409.60

92,637.20

96,071.20

40,400.00

332,290.00

166,044.00

40,400.00

40,400.00

338,471.20

159,862.80

85,567.20

71,831.20

108,110.40

124,512.80

40,400.00

129,764.80

177,315.60

264,700.80

121,846.40

72,194.80

147,823.60

40,400.00

46,702.40

40,400.00

40,400.00

226,159.20

401400.00

535,138.40

181,032.40

40,400.00

316,574.40

96,152.00

78,901.20

361,580.00

401400.00

94,414.80

40,400.00

138,854.80

447,753.20

40,804.00

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

YAP

(Thousands)

21845

325

21129

1,677

18,624

21293

2,378

451

8,225

4,110

739

671

8,378

3,957

2, us

11778

2,676

3,082

838

3,212

4,389

6,552

31016

1,787

3,659

583

1,156

662

708

5,598

969

13,246

4,481

485

7,836

21380

1,953

8,950

728

2,337

496

3,437

11 ,083

1,010

March 1984

Slate

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.

2

limit also applies to candidates for the House, in

those states which have a single Representative.

In the chart, an asterisk (.) indicates those states

having only one Representative. VAP figures in

the chart are in thousands.

Alabama

Alaska "

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware'"

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

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
March 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEC SEEKS COMMENTS

ON TESTING-THE-WATERS REGULATIONS

On January 17, 1984, the Commission pub-

~ished an advance notice of proposed rulemaking

in the Federal Register, which sought comments

on possible revisions to FEC Rezula tions on "test-

~ng. t~e waters," t.e., activities<>undertaken by an

individual to test the feasibility of a potential

candidacy (49 Fed. Reg. 1995). See 11 CFR 100.7

(b)(l), 100.8(b)(I) and 101.3. Any revisions to these

regulations would not become effective before

January 1985.

Background: Current Regulations

The Commission requested comments on

whether the regulations should be retained in

their present form. Under current regulations an

individual may receive and expend funds to determine whether or not to become a candidate

without triggering his/her status as a "eandldate". under the Act. Financial records of such

activities must nevertheless be maintained because, if the individual later becomes a candidate

the funds received and payments made for testing

the wa ters are considered "contributions" (SUbject

to the Act's limits and prohibitions) and "expenditures." As such, they must be reported with the

first report filed by the campaign. In addition, any

exeesstve or prohibited contributions received

during the testing-the-waters period must be refunded within 10 days after the individual becomes a candidate. 11 CFR 100.7(b)(l), 100.8(b)(l)

and 101.3.

Un~er the regulations, an individual may finance a

variety of ~xempt 8;ctivities to test the feasibility

of a potential candidacy for federal office as long

as the activities do not entail public political

advertising (e.g., t.v, or newspaper ads), do not

seek funds to be used once the campaign is

underway and do not represent the establishment

of a campaign organization.

Under current regulations, testing-the-waters activities include, but are not limited to, disbursements for conducting polls, telephone calls and

travel to determine whether an individual should

become a candidate. In several advisory opinions

the Commission has said that testing-the-water~ activities also include hiring political consultants

and purchasing or leasing office space, equipment

and supplies, but not making written or oral

statements which refer to an individual as a

*An individual becomes a candidate for federal office (and thus triggers registration and

reporting obligations under the Act) when his/her

campaign exceeds $5,000 in either contributions

or expenditures. For circumstances triggering the

thresholds, see 11 CFR 100.3(a)(1)-(a)(4).

3

Volume 10, Number 

FEC CLINIC

This month, the FEC launches a new

service -- the FEC Clinic. If you are new

to the field of federal election law, here is

an opportunity to get hands-on assistance

in complying with the law. If you are

assisting a committee and want to avoid

mistakes -- and the extra time required to

correct them -- take advantage of our

Clinic.

Eve~y Monday, between 2:00 and 4:30 p.rn.,

auditors, reports analysts and public affairs

specialists will be available to help individuals comply with the Federal Election

Campaign Act. Do you have questions concerning a proposed fundraising activity or

do you need assistance completing your

FEC disclosure forms? Call the Office of

Public Communications and schedule a

visit to the Clinic. Tell us a bit about your

interest, and we will have someone meet

with you and give you guidance in that

area",If the Clinic is booked for that day,

we Will make time for you later in the

week. If you are interested in doing further

res~rch, ~e can also arrange a tour of our

public offices: the Commission library the

Public Records and Public Communica~ions Offices and the National Clearinghouse on

Election Administration.

Call toll free (800)424-9530 or locally

(202)523-4068 for your appointment.

"candidate" for a particular office. See AO

1979-26,1981-32,1982-3 and 1982-19.

Scope of Permissible Aetivities

Concerns have been expressed that the Com

mission's interpretation of the testing-the-wate

pr~>v.isions .has included activities beyond tho

origtnally intended, To clarify the scope of pe

m~ss~ble testing-the-waters activities, the Com

mISSIon therefore requested comments on t

following issues:

L S~ould the Commission's regulations be r

vI~e~ to specify the activities that are pe

mlSS1?le under the testing-the-waters e

emptions?

2. If so, what criteria should the Commissi

consider in determining permissible testin

the-waters activities?

3. What factors should the Commission consid

in determining whether an individual h

decided to become a candidate and is ther

fore, campaigning rather than testing th

waters?

continu
4

Volume 10, Numbe

2/9/84

11/21/83

7/21/83

8/22/83

10/27/83

Date Prescribed ** by the Commission

7/11/83

48 Fed. Reg. 31822

6/7/83

48 Fed. Reg. 26296

7/21/83

48 Fed. Reg. 33244

10/20/83

48 Fed. Reg. 48650

Federal Register

Publication

11/21/83

48 Fed. Reg 52567

11/21/83

48 Fed. Reg 50502

what sources of funding should be permit

during the testing-the-waters period.

Since the regulations do not expressly st

whether or not the contribution limits and pro

bitions apply to receipts and disbursements m

for testing-the-waters activities, the Commiss

asked for comments on the following issues:

1. Should the Commission permit individuals 

accept contributions in excess of the A

limits for testing-the-waters activities?

2. Should the Commission permit individuals 

fund testing-the-waters activities with do

tions from prohibited sources (e.g., from c

porations or labor organizations)?

NA***

NA***

7/1/83

6/2/83

Date sent

to Congress

10/17/83

10/27/83

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Regulations*

11 CFR 114.8 (c)(2),

114.8(d)(2) and

114.8(d)(4)

Trade Association

Solicitation Authorizations

11 CFR Part 110

Annual Honoraria Limit

11 CFR 114.3 and 114.4* *** Communications by

Corpora tions and

Labor Organizations

11 CPR Part 9008

Fund for Presidential

Nominating Conventions

11 CFR 102.6 and 102.17

Transfer of Funds;

Collecting Agents, Joint

Fundraising

11 CFR 9001 et seq.

General Election Campaign

Fund

STATUS OF FEC REGULATIONS SHNT TO CONGRESS

March 1984

*The chart is cumulative, listing all amendments to FEC Regulations proposed or prescribed

by the Commission since the publication of Title 11, Code of Federal Regulations (11 CFR) on

July 1, 1983.

**The Commission may prescribe its regulations 30 legislative days after it has transmitted

them to Congress.

***Since these technical, conforming amendments were not a substantive rule representing an

FEC policy decision, they were not submitted for Congressional review but became effective upon

publication in the Federal Register. ****

These regulations were pending before Congress prior to the Congressional recess between

November 18, 1983, and January 23, 1984. The 30 legislative days will continue to IW1 when

Congress reconvenes.

Application of Contribution Limits and

Prohibitions to Receipts and Disbursements

for lPfesting-the-Watersn Activities

In AO 1982-19, the Commission determined

that an individual could accept donations to test

the waters which would be considered excessive

or prohibited contributions under the Act. Within

10 days of becoming a candidate, however, he had

to refund any unlawful contributions received

during the testing-the-waters period. Some concerns have been raised that the use of such funds

could increase the potential for circumvention of

the Act's limits and prohibitions on contributions.

The Commission therefore sought comments on
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 10, Numbe

Voting Records

USDC may not disseminate to the gene

public the particular type of voting records inf

mation proposed in the advisory opinion reque

These proposed materials do not fall under t

nonpartisan communications exemption becau

they have an election-influencing purpose. F

example, one piece of litera ture refers to 

Congressman's "weak voting recordII and advi

the recipient that an officeholder is "easier 

convince ... when he's looking for votes than .

after he's safely in office."

Under current Commission Regulations, as 

exemption to the prohibition against corpora

contributions and expenditures, a nonprofit orga

ization * may prepare and distribute to the gen

al public voter guides and other types of br

chures describing candidates and their positio

provided: a) the material does not favor a partic

lar candidate or party and b) the nonprofit orga

zation is not affiliated with, and does not endor

or support, a candidate or party. 11 CFR 114.4

(3) and AO 1980-45.

However, some of the materials proposed 

USDC do not qualify for the nonpartisan comm

nications exemption because they favor particu

candidates. These voter guides characterize t

candidates responses to the survey questions 

being "right" or "wrong." Moreover, the materi

ask supporters to contact candidates in an i

pending election who answered "wrong" and ur

them to support USDC's position. Accordingly, 

the extent these guides contain such electio

influencing references, they are not permissib

under the nonpartisan communications exemptio

The Commission noted that proposed revisions 

regulations governing nonpartisan communicatio

by corporations and labor organizations had be

submitted to Congress on October 27, 1983, a

continu

public because the language of the materials, 

drafted, suggests an election-influencing purpos

Voter Guides

Under the nonpartisan communications e

emption, USDC may compile and distribute to t

public voter guides which are based on incumbe

candidates' responses to USDC questionnair

concerning defense and national security issu

While the proposed guides have been designed 

advocate USDC's positions on issues, they do n

serve an election-influencing purpose by favori

one political party or candidate over another.

*Profit corporations are required to obta

the materials from a nonprofit or civic organ

zation.

5

March 1984

AO 1983-43: Voter Guides and Voting Records

Prepared and Distributed to General

Public by Nonprofit Corporation

During the 1984 primary and general election

seasons, the United States Defense Committee

(USDC), a nonprofit membership corporation, may

prepare and distribute to the general public those

nonpartisan voter guides which record incumbent

candidates' positions on issues but do not favor

particular candidates. On the other hand, although

USDC may prepare and distribute information to

its members concerning the voting records of

incumbents on specific legislation, USDC may not

distribute these voting records to the general

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIHS

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.

1984-6 Cooperative bank's eligibility to insure

bank depositories holding federal campaign funds. (Date made publici February

9, 1984; Length: 12 pages, plus 18-page

supplement)

1984-5 Status of corporation's employees as

stockholders for purposes of PAC solicitations. (Date made publics February 8,

1984; Length: 1 page, plus 4-page supplement)

1984-4 Eligibility of membership organization's

"associate members" for PAC solicitations. (Date made public: January 24,

1984; Length: 1 page, plus 6-page supplement)

AOR Subject

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests for

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of each

AOR is available to the public in the Commission's Office of Public Records.
FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION Volume 10, Numbe

may pay for administrative and solicitation e

penses incurred by CRNA-PAC. The state asso

ations may also collect contributions from th

solicitable personnel and transfer them 

CRNA-PAC (i.e., act as CRNA-PAC's collecti

agents) because they operate as subsidiary 

local units of AANA. See AO 1979-83; 11 CF

102.6(b)(1 )(ii) and (iii).

Under the Act and Commission Regulations, n

tional and state association PACs are consider

affilia ted if the PACs are "established, finance

maintained or controlled" by the same nation

assoeiation and its related sta te assoc Iations, S

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(5)j 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2) a

II 0.3 (a)(I)(ii)(D); AO 1983-28. In support of 

conclusion that CRNA-PAC and the state ass-o

ation PACs are affiliated, the Commission cit

the following relationships between the sta

associations and AANA, the national association

1. Membership in a state association is co

current with membership in AANA.

2. The state and national associations are 

nanced by membership dues collected 

AANA and allocated to each state assoc

tion.

3. A state association may participate in t

nomination of AANA officers.

4. Seven of AANA's regional directors m

have previously served as officers of sta

associations.

5. Officers of state associations serve on 

AANA advisory board.

(Date issued: January 26, 1984; Length: 3 pages)

AD 1983-4'1: Third Party Candidate's

Eligibility for Presidential

Matching Funds

As a candidate seeking the Presidential nomin

tion of the Citizens Party in 1984, Ms. Son

Johnson satisfies one of the requirements f

primary matching fund eligibility under the P

mary Matching Fund Payment Account (t

matching fund account). 26 U.S.C. S9033(b)(

Accordingly, Ms. Johnson may become eligible f

primary matching funds during 1984, provided s

satisfies all other eligibility requirements stip

lated by the Act and Commission Regulations, S

26 U.S.C. S§9032 and 9033; 11 CFR Parts 90

and 9033.

Under the matching fund account, as one cond

tion for attaining matching fund eligibility, 

Presidential primary candidate must be "seeki

the nomination of a political party." 26 U.S.

S9033(b)(Z). (In contrast to the eligibility requir

ments for general election public funding, t

requirements for matching fund eligibility are n

based on the type of political party with which 

candidate is affiliated, e.g., major, minor or new

6

March 1984

might be prescribed in the near future. At that

time, USDC could request another advisory opinion on its proposed communication activities.

(Da te issued: January 26, 1984; Length: 4 pages)

AD 1983-45: Matchability of Cash Contributions

Converted Into Partnership Cheeks

to Presidential Candidate

Cash contributions subsequently converted into

checks issued by a partnership to Consumers for

Dennis Serrette, Dennis Serrette's principal campaign committee, would not meet the matehability requirements of Commission Regulations. See

11 CFR 9034.2. (Mr. Serrette is campaigning for

the Presidency in 1984 as the candidate of both

the Peace and Freedom Party and the Consumer

Party.)

Under its proposed plan, Consumers for Dennis

Serrette (the campaign) would collect cash contributions and deposit them in a partnership account

specifically established to convert the cash contributions into checks payable to the campaign. A

contributor would subsequently sign statements

(provided by the campaign) which authorized the

conversion of his/her cash contribution into a

check and which showed the amount of the contribution and the serial number the campaign had

assigned it. The campaign would then forward

these statements to the partnership which would,

in turn, issue a check payable to the campaign for

the amount indicated on the statementts), The

proposed plan would not be permissible under the

Act and Commission Regulations because:

I. Contributions drawn on a partnership account

may not be made on behalf of, or attributed

to, individuals who have no interest in the

partnership (I I CFR 9034.2 and AO 1980-67);

and

2. Cash contributions must initially be deposited

in an official campaign depository designated

on the committee's Statement of Organization. Use of the partnership account does not

comply with this requirement. 2 U.S.C.

§432(h)j II CFR 103.3(a).

(Date issued: January 26, 1984; Length: 2 pages)

AD 1983-46: State Associations' Sponsorship

of National PAC

Fundraising Activities

Since state associations of nurse anesthetists are

related in several ways to the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA), a national

membership organization, the separate segregated

funds (i.e., PACS) established by the state associations are automatically affiliated with AANA's

separate segregated fund, CRNA-PAC. By virtue

of the affiliation between CRNA-PAC and the

state associations' PACs, the state associations
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

$ 879,429.7

1,697,663.9

2,633,657.7

766,594.2

739,131.7

272,471.2

100,000.0

5,195,638.0

Thtal Amount 

Funds Certifi

Volume 10, Numbe

6

10

6

6

5

I

o

9

Primary Matching Fund

Certification Activity *

Askew, Reubin

Cranston, Alan

Glenn, John

Hart, Gary

Hollings, Ernest F.

Jackson, Jesse

McGovern, George

Mondale, Walter F.

Background to Initial Ineligibility

Determination

To become eligible for primary match

funds, a Presidential candidate must sign a let

of agreement and certifications in which 

candidate and any authorized committeefs) agr

among other requirements, to pay any civil pen

ties included in a conciliation agreement enter

into with the FEC and to repay public funds to 

U.S. Treasury, if necessary. (See 11 CFR 903

and 9033.2.) In reaching its January 26 decisi

the Commission considered Mr. LaRouche's fa

ure to live up to the letter he had signed in 1

for his 1980 campaign. The Commission fou

that "S0 long as Mr. LaRouche continues to re

dia te his 1979 letter of agreements and cert

cations •.• there is substantial doubt that 

intends to live up to the agreements and certi

cations contained in his 1983 letter," The Co

mission therefore concluded that Mr. LaRouch

"attempt to induce the Commission to certify h

to receive public funds, on the basis of promi

continu

*1\s of February 23, 1984.

**Includes requests made after the candida

initial request for primary matching fund eligi

ity.

Name of Number of

C~iM~ R~u~~**

LAROUCHE CAMPAIGN INELIGmILE

FOR PUBLIC FUNDS

On January 26, 1984, the Commission ma

an initial determination that Lyndon H. L

Rouche, Jr., a 1984 Presidential primary can

date, had failed to establish his eligibility 

primary matching funds. In notifying Mr. L

Rouche of its initial determination, the Comm

sion indicated that, before it makes a final det

mination, it will consider any proposals Mr. L

Rouche wishes to submit regarding his eligibil

for public funds. (See FEe procedures for det

mining matching fund eligibility at 11 C

9033.4(b).)

7

March 1984

*Under Section 9032.7(a) of FEe Regulations, a national nominating convention is defined

as part of the primary election process.

Candidates may submit requests for funds on the

first and third Mondays of each month. The Commission certifies a percentage of the amount

requested within one week of receiving the request. Only contributions from individuals which,

in the aggregate, do not exceed $250 are matchable. (For a complete explanation of the eligibility requirements for primary matching funds, consult 26 U.S.C. S9033 and Parts 9033 and 9036 of

Commission Regulations.)

The summary chart below provides cumulative

information on certifications of primary matching

funds made to eight Presidential candidates between January 1 and February 23, 1984. For each

certified candidate, the chart indicates the number of submissions of matchable contributions for

primary matching funds and the total amount of

funds certified by the Commission.

The Citizens Party's status as a political party is

further evidenced by its record of political activity. Since 1980, Citizens Party candidates have

entered a total of 169 races in 24 states. Moreover, the Commission has issued several advisory

opinions that have recognized the Party's status

as a political party in connection with its 1980

federal election-related activities. (See AO

1980-3.) (Date issued: February 2, 1984; Length: 4

pages)

PRIMARY MATCHING

FUND PAYMENTS

On February 23, 1984, the Federal Election Commission determined that George McGovern was

eligible to receive primary matching funds for his

1984 primary campaign. On the same day, the

Commission certified primary matching fund payments for Mr. McGovern and for six other Presidential candidates. (The U.S. Treasury will issue

actual payments to the eandidates.)

For purposes of this eligibility requirement, the

Citizens Party qualifies as a political party because, during June 1984, it plans to hold a national Presidential nominating convention" in accordance with prescribed delegate selection procedures. See requirements of 11 CFR 9033.3 (b)(I)

and 9032.7(a).
Volume 10, Number 

Second, the FEC filed a motion asking the appea

court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdictio

The Commission argued that its determinatio

was not a "final agency action" ripe for th

court's review. 26 U.S.C. §9041. The FEC argue

that, even if the court had technical jurisdictio

over the case, the appeal should be dism isse

because the Laftouche campaign had failed 

exhaust its administrative remedies. Specificall

the Commission noted that its determination 

ineligibility was "only preliminary and that it ma

well alter its determination if an adequa

showing of good faith is forthcoming." The FEC

motion to dismiss the remainder of the LaRouch

campaign's suit is still pending before the court.

injunction or a reversal of the Commission's inel

gibility determination. On the same day, the cou

decided not to issue the injunction or to summar

ly reverse the FEC's determination.

This article does not summarize every stage 

the compliance process. Rather, the sum marie

provide only enough background to make clear th

Commission's final determination. Note that th

Commission's actions are not necessarily base

on, or in agreement with, the General Counsel

analysis. The full text of these MURs is availab

for review and purchase in the Commission

Public Records Office.

Complaint

On November 25, 1981, the FEC's Repor

Analysis Division referred to the Office of Gen

MUR 1414: Excessive Contributions

to Candidate and Prohibited

Corporate Contributions

On July 20, 1983, the Commission entered into 

conciliation agreement, which concerned exce

sive contributions made by three individuals to a

independent expenditure committee, and a prohib

ited corporate loan to pay for independent ex

penditures.

SUMMARY OF MURs

The Act gives the FEC exclusive jurisdictio

for its civil enforcement. Potential violations ar

assigned case numbers by the Office of Gener

Counsel and become "Matters Under Review

(MURS). All MUR investigations are kept conf

dential by the Commission, as required by th

Act. (For a summary of compliance procedure

see 2 U.S.C. §§437g and 437(d)(a) and 11 CF

Pa.rt 111.)

8

March 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

As evidence of Mr. LaRouche's failure to honor

his 1979 letter of agreements and certifications,

the Commission cited his failure to pay a $15,000

civil penalty stipulated in a conciliation agreement resulting from the campaign's violations of

the election law during 1979 and 1980.*

On January 30, 1984, the Commission filed its

response with the appeals court. First, the FEC

opposed the LaRouehe campaign's request for an

which he has demonstrated he has no intention to

fulfill, constitutes a fraudulent submission."

*On February 9, 1983, the Commission filed

a civil action with the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia Circuit, asking the court to

order the LaRouche campaign and Mr. LaRouche

to pay the civil penalty, with interest. (FEC v.

Citizens for LaRouche; Civil Action No. 83-0372)

**On January 12, 1983, the LaRouche campaign had filed a petition with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

which sought review of the Commission's determination. (Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. v. FEC; Civil

Action No. 83-1050). On December 13, 1983, the

Commission filed a suit in the U.S. district court

to recover the outstanding payment. (FEC v.

LaRouche; Civil Action No. 83-0373).

The Commission also cited Mr. LaRouche's failure

to repay public funds to the U.S. Treasury

(amounting to $54,671.89), as determined by the

Commission on December 16, 1982. On January

31, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the FEC's

determination that the LaRouche campaign must

repay the public funds. **

Court Actions Re: 1984 Ineligibility

Determination

On January 27, 1984, in response to the

Commission's initial decision to deny the LaRouche campaign's eligibility for primary matching funds, the campaign filed a suit with the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit. (Edward Spannaus v. FEC; Civil Action

No. 84-1030). The campaign asked the court to:

1. Determine that the FEC's initial ineligibility

determination was unwarranted under the requirements of the Act;

2. Issue an injunction requiring the FEC to certify that the LaRouche campaign was eligible

for primary matching funds; or

3. Alternatively, reverse the FEC's determination, with instructions to the FEC to process

the campaign'S primary matching fund submissions, regardless of any civil actions currently pending in the district court between

the campaign and the FEC.
March 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

eral Counsel a committee that had reported accepting a corporate contribution. The referral

also noted possible violations by four individuals

and a corporation. Upon review, the General

Counsel recommended that the Commission find

reason to believe that:

The corporation had violated 2 U.S.C. §441b

by making loans to a political committee in

connection with a Federal election;

The committee had violated 2 U.S.C. ss 441b

and 441a(f) by accepting these prohibited

contributions and by knowingly accepting excessive contributions; and

Four individuals had violated 2 U.S.C. §441a

(a)(l)(A) by making contributions in excess of

the Act's limitations.

On March 16, 1982, the Com mission accepted the

recommendation of the General Counsel and initiated an investigation into the matter.

General Counsel's Report

An individual wished to combine his funds

with those of several other individuals in order to

make independent expenditures on behalf of two

Federal candidates. He therefore established a

political committee and registered it with the

Federal Election Commission. In order to make

the advanced payments on the ads (the independent expenditures), as required by the media firm,

the organizer of the committee directed his

solely-owned corporation to advance $19,882. The

organizer of the committee paid the media firm

with two cashier checks purchased with two

checks drawn on an account of his corporation.

Subsequently, four individuals (including the organizer of the committee) contributed $5,000

each to the committee; the committee used these

contributions to repay the corporation's loan for

the ads.

Excessive Contributions by Individuals. The General Counsel maintained that the $5,000 payments

by the individuals were contributions to a political

committee -- not merely a series of independent

expenditures made by several individuals. In support of this view, the General Counsel pointed out

that individuals had paid the the committee, not

the media vendor; that they had exercised no

control over the actual use of the funds since they

made their contributions after the ads had been

paid for; and that the contributed funds had been

deposited in an account maintained in the name of

a distinct political organization.

The General Counsel further believed that the

individuals' contributions to the political committee were each subject to the per candidate limit

(rather than the committee limit of $5,000 a

year)* because the contributors knew that a sub-

*See 2 U.S.C. Section 441a(a)(1)(C).

9

Volume 10, Numbe

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

3/13 National City Christian Church

Understanding Election '84

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens

If you are preparing a group presenta tion

on campaign financing, you may be interested in obtaining free publications and

audio visual materials from the FEC. For

further information, contact the Office of

Public Communications at 202/523-4068 or

toll free 800/424-9530.

stantial portion of their contributions would 

expended on behalf of a clearly identified can

date. See 11 CFR 1l0.I(h). In addition, all but o

of the contributors had already contributed to t

candidate. The General Counsel therefore reco

mended the Com mission find probable cause th

three of the individuals and the committee h

violated 2 U.S.C. §441a by making and receivi

excess contributions. In the case of one individu

the General Counsel recommended that there w

no probable cause to believe he had violated t

Act because he had not known that a substant

portion of his contribution would be spent for o

candidate. The Commission adopted these reco

mendations.

Corporate Contributions. The General Coun

argued that the corporation's advance of funds 

pay for the political ads was a prohibited corp

rate contribution. He pointed out that, since t

committee organizer was also the sole owner 

the corporation which loaned the funds and sin

he intended to use the funds to pay the media b

the loans were "in connection with a fede

election."

Refuting the respondent's argument that the c

poration had made the advance in the ordina

course of its business, the General Counsel s

that the only provision in the statute for loa

made for political use pertains to banks and oth

specified lending institutions. 2 U.S.C. §431(8)

(vii). The General Counsel recommended that t

Commission find probable cause to believe th

the corporation and the committee had violated 

U.S.C. §441b by making and accepting prohibi

corporate contributions.

Commission Determination

On December 22, 1982, respondents 

quested to enter into conciliation negotiatio

prior to the Commission's finding of proba

cause to believe. On July 20, 1983, the Comm

sion accepted the eoncilation agreement, wh

included a civil penalty of $2,500.
1984

Labor

Corporate

Other**

Nonconneet

1983

Volume 10, Numbe

1981 1982

. ~7'-"--'" TradelMe

ship/Healt

1980

that

Figures

yearly

released

increases

by the

in

FEC in

the number

mid-January

of PACs fr

sh

January I, 1975, through January I, 1984, h

averaged 22.3 percent. The largest increase 

PAC growth occurred between January I, 19

and January 1, 1977. During this two-year per

PAC numbers grew by 88.5 percent (from 

PACs in January 1975 to 1,146 PACs in Janu

1977).

The graph below plots the growth of PACs 

tween 1975 and 1984. Figures show that 608 PA

existed at the beginning of 1975. By the end 

1976, that number had risen to 1,146 and 

January 1984 had reached 3,525. The graph d

not reflect the financial activity of PACs.

1979

PAC GROWTH

1977 1978

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1975 1976

March 1984

500 t---------::~=--------= ~---~,;C-----------

10

1983 PAC GROWTH

Although growing at a slower rate than in

past years, the number of PACs registered with

the FEC continued to increase during 1983. By

January 1, 1984, there were 3,525 PACs, an

increase of 4.5 percent over the 3,371 PACs

registered on January 1, 1983. (The term PAC or

political action committee refers to any political

committee not authorized by a federal candidate

or established by a political party.)

*From January 1975 through December 1976, the FEC did not identify categories of PACs

other than corporate and labor PACs. Therefore, numbers are not available for Trade/Membership/Health PACs or Nonconnected PACs.

**Includes PACs formed by corporations without capital stock and cooperatives. Numbers are

not available for these categories of PACs from January 1975 through December 1976.

2000 1------------------------.---------

1500 I-------------------~-------_;;:;;;__~::...=....-=-==-=

1000 1----- .-------------_~--------------

Number or PACs
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Amount

Contribut

1/81 - 12

Volume 10, Numbe

Political Action Committee**

Realtors Political Action Committee $2,115,13

(National Association of

Realtors)

American Medical Association PAC 1,737,09

(AMA)

UAW Voluntary Community Action 1,628,34

Program (United Auto Workers)

Machinists Non-Partisan Political 1 ,445,45

League (Internstional Association

of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers)

National Education Association PAC 1,183,21

(NEA)

Build Political Action Committee 1,006,62

(National Association of Home

Builders)

Committee for Thorough Agricultural 962,45

Political Education (Associated

Milk Producers, Ine.)

BANKPAC (American Bankers 947,46

Association)

Automobile and Truck Dealers 917,29

Election Action Committee

(Automobile Dealers Association)

AFL-CIO COPE Political Contribu- 906,42

tions Committee (AFL-CIO)

Chart I below lists the PACs which made the m

contributions to federal candidates during 

1981-82 election cycle. Chart n sum mar izes 

financial activity of PACs during the period.

CHART I

TOP 10 PAC CONTRIBUTORS TO

ALL FEDERAL CANDIDATES*

ing debts of just over $5.2 million. PACs clo

the 1979-80 cycle with $22 million cash on ha

and $2.3 million in debts.

*Contribution figures do not inclu.de totals

for independent erpenditures made for or agains

candidates.

**The connected organization (i.e, sponsor) 

a separate segregated fund is indicated in paren

theses.

11

*PAC is a popular term used to define a

political committee that has not been authorized

by a candidate or political party.

PACs opened the 1981-82 election cycle with

$22.2 million cash on hand and ended the cycle

with a cash balance of $31.5 million and outstandCorrespondingly, the percentage of PAC contributions given to the 1982 Republican candidates decreased. They received 46 percent ($38.2 million)

of PAC contributions, whereas 47.5 percent of

PAC contributions went to Republican Congressional candidates in the 1980 elections ($26.2

million),

The proportion of PAC contributions going to

incumbents also increased when compared with

previous elections. Incumbents received 65.8 percent (or $55 million) of total PAC contributions

made to 1982 Congressional races, while they

received 60.7 percent (or $33.5 million) of total

PAC contributions for 1980 Congressional races.

In the 1982 Congressional races, challengers received 19.4 percent (or $16.2 million) of total

PAC contributions, while they received 26.3 percent (or $14.5 million) of PAC contributions for

1980 Congressional races. Open-seat races accounted for 14.8 percent (or $12.4 million) of

total PAC contributions made to 1982 Congressional races, while they accounted for 13 percent

(or $7.2 million) of PAC contributions to 1980

races.

March 1984

PAC CONTRmUTlONS UP

51.4 PERCENT FOR 1982 RACES

PACs* contributed $83.6 million to 1982

Congressional primary and general election campaigns, a 51.4 percent increase over the $55.2

million contributed to 1980 Congressional races.

PACs raised $199.5 million during 1981-82, a

marked increase over the $137.7 million raised

during the 1979-80 election cycle, which included

a Presidential election. Total PAC spending also

increased, from $131.1 million to $190.2 million.

The 1981-82 total for PAC spending included $4

million given to federal candidates to retire debts

from previous campaigns or to defray expenses of

future races and $6 million given to political

parties.

Information released by the FEC in November

1983 showed that 1982 Democratic Congressional

candidates received a higher percentage of contributions from PACs than previously -- 54.3

percent (or $45.4 million) of total PAC contributions compared with the 52.3 percent of total

PAC contributions given to 1980 Democratic

campaigns ($28.9 million).
*Receipts and disbursements do not include funds transferred between affiliated committees.

**Includes contributions to committees of 1982 House and Senate candidates as well as all

federal candidates (for House, Senate and Presidency) campaigning in future elections or retiring

debts of former campaigns.

***Includes total number of PACs active in federal elections some time between January 1,

1981, and December 31, 1982. Since some committees terminated during the 1981-82 cycle, this

figure does not represent total committees active as of December 31, 1982.

78

110

Corpora

tions

w/o

Stock:

Volume 10, Numbe

51

46

Cooperatives

FirstClass Mail

Postage &FeesPaid

FEe

Washington, D.C.

PermitNo.G-31

407 524

//J----------- Receipts*

,t-..--------E21 Disbursements* --

-----mContributions**--

---0 Casb-on-Hand

293

Labor Konean- Trade/MemOrgani- neeted bership/

zations Organi- Health Orzations ganizations

420 915 669

FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION

1,557

1,317

Corporations

OfficialBusiness

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.20463

March 1984

Total Number

of

Committees***

Number of

Committees

Making

Contributions