FEDERAL REGlSTER NO'I1CES

COURT CASES

FEC v. Massa~husetts Citizens for Life, In~

New Litigation

ADVISORY OPINIONS

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Primary Matching Fund Payments

Compllance Manual for Publicly

Funded General Ele~tion Candidates

COMPLIANCE

Summary of MURS

9

10 FEC CO-HOSTS NEW JERSEY WORKSHOP

6

6

7

8

8

2

I

I

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGULATIONS

Federated Cooperative's Soli~itation

of Members

Repayments by Publicly Funded

Presidential Candidates

Handicapped Persons' Access to FEC

Programs

Washington DC 20463 Volume 10, Number 

REPAYMENTS BY PUBLICLY FUNDED

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

In June, the Commission published a notice 

proposed rulemaking concerning amendments 

FEC Regulations governing repayment of pub

funds used by publicly funded Presidential cand

dates for nonqualified campaign expenditures. S

11 CFR Parts 9038 and 9007. In proposing t

amendments, the Commission seeks to make the

r~les .consistent with recent decisions by the U

DIstrict Court for the District of Columbia C

cult in Kennedy for President v. FEC (Civil A

tion No. 83-1521) and Re an for President 

F~C .(Civil Action No. 83-1666 • In the suits, t

principal campaign committees for the 1980 Pre

idential primary campaigns of Senator Edward 

Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and President Ronald Reag

~hallen~ed the Commission's statutory authori

to. require full repayments of nonqualified cam

pajgn expenses. (The public funding statutes r

continu

During the public hearing, presided over by FEC

Chairman Lee Ann Elliott, the Commissioners

heard testimony from five witnesses representing

the following organizations: the Cooperative League of the USA, the U.S. Department of Agricult~re, the Na!ional Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the lndiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association and Land 0' Lakes Corporation. The witnesses' comments provided further background information for the FEC in its consideration of the

rulemaking petition.

In ~d.dition to hearing oral testimony on possible

revisions to 11 CFR 114.I(e), the Commission

received five sets of written comments on the

advance notice of proposed rulemaking. After

reviewing the comments and testimony, the Commission will decide whether to proceed with a

rulemaking notice based on the petition.

Copies of the written corn ments may be obtained

by contacting the FEC's Public Records Offiee at

202/523-4181 or toll free 800/424-9530.

August 1984

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

HEARINGS HELD ON REVISIONS TO RULE

ON SOlJCrrATION OF MEMBERS BY

FEDERATED COOPERATIVES

On June 27t 1984, the Com mission held a

public hearing on possible revisions to section

114.I(e) of FEC Regulations, a provision that

defines a membership organization's (Ineludlng a

cooperative's) solicttable "members." The Commission held the hearing in response to a petition

for rulemaking filed by the National Coun~il of

Farmer Cooperatives' (NCFC) in January 1983.

(See 48 Fed. Reg. 13265.) In the petition, NCFC

sought an amendment to the rule that would

p~rmit a ~e~erated regi~nal or national cooperatfve to solicit PAC contributions from the individual members of state or local cooperatives affiliated with the federation. (Under the current rule

federat~d. regi~nal. or national cooperatives may

only solicit their direct members.) After receiving

com ments on NCFC's petition, the Com mission

decided to obtain more information on the petition's merits by publishing an advance notice of

proposed rulemaklng and holding the public hearing. (See 49 Fed. Reg. 20831.)

'.
2

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 o

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

Volume 10, Numb

Affect of Court's Rulings

on Other Areas of the Public Funding Process

The Commission sought comments on wh

er the court's decisions have any impact on o

aspects of the Presidential public funding prog

as, for example, the certification of additi

public funds to ineligible candidates with 

outstanding campaign obligations.

Affect of Court's Rulings 

on FEC Repayment and Enforcement Procedur

The Commission sought comments on w

effect the court's decisions may have on 

relationship between repayment and enforcem

actions initiated by the Commission with re

to a publicly funded campaign that has m

nonqualified campaign expenditures. For exam

Should repayment and enforcement proc

ings be conducted concurrently or sequen

ly?

Under either alternative, how should 

Commission balance the confidentiality 

qulrementss of the election law with 

need to conclude the audit and repaym

processes as quickly as possible and place 

information on the public record?

Copies of the FEC's notice of proposed rulem

ing are available from the Public Communicat

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

20463 or by calling: 202/523-4068 or toll 

800/424-9530. Comments on the rulemaking 

tice were due by July 30, 1984.

*Under the election law, compliance c

(Matters Under Review or MURs) may no

made Public until they are concluded and pla

on the public record. 11 CFR 111.21.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS' ACCESS

TO FEe PROGRAMS: NOTICE OF

PROPOSED RULEMAKING

In June, the Commission published a notic

proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register 

cerning the implementation and enforcemen

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

amended. 11 CFR Part 6. Under the prop

rules, the FEC would take reasonable step

ensure that the agency's programs and facil

did not discriminate against handicapped perso

August 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

quire Presidential candidates to repay the U.S.

Treasury for nonqualified campaign expenses. 26

U.S.C. SS9007(b)(4) and 9038(b)(2).) The court held

that the FEC's statutory authority limited its

repayment determinations to a reasonable estimate of the amount of federal funds used for

nonqualified expenses. The court did not, however, dictate the repayment formula to be used by

the FEC; nor did the court require that the

formula be mathematically precise. (For a summary of the court's opinion see pp, 6-7 of the July

1984 Reeord.)

The FEC notice, which appeared in the June 28,

1984, issue of the Federal Register (49 Fed. Reg.

26596), sought comments on three topics affected

by the court's rulings.

The Commission welcomed comments on:

Alternative formulas that would not impose

undue administrative burdens on the FEC;

and

The FEC's statutory authority to adopt the

pro-rata repayment formula. (The election

law currently provides a pro-rata formula for

repayment of surplus campaign funds by public funding recipients but does not provide a

similar formula for repayment of nonqualitied expenses.l

Repayment Formula for Nonqualified

campaign Expenses

Although the court limited its decision to the

repayment formula used for nonqualified expenses incurred by primary matching fund recipients, the

FEC seeks comments on a repayment formula to

be used for: 1) publicly funded Presidential primary candidates; 2) major party nominees who

accept private contributions for their general

election campaigns because of a deficiency in the

Presidential Election Campaign Fund; and 3) minor and new party candidates who receive partial

public funding for their general election campaigns. Under the proposed rules, the repayment

formula would be based on the ratio of federal

funds to total funds received by the candidate

(both private and federal funds). In the case of

Presidential primary campaigns, the proportional

repayment formula would be applied to the candidate's financial status as of the date of ineligibility for public funds, and, in the case of general

election candidates, as of December 31 of the

election year.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

August 1984

The FEC's proposed rules have been adapted from

prototypes developed and distributed by the Department of Justice. The FEC rulemaking notice,

which appeared in the June 27, 1984, issue of the

Federal Register (49 Fed. Reg. 26244), sought

comments on six areas affecting handicapped persons:

Evaluation

The agency would conduct an evaluation of

its compliance with Section 504 within one year

of the effective date of the proposed rules. II

CFR 6.110.

Notice

The agency would release information to the

public on the auxiliary aids it made available to

handicapped persons (i.e., services and devices

that enabled handicapped persons to participate

in, or enjoy the benefits of, FEC programs). II

CFR 6.111.

Employment

To ensure that both handicapped job applicants and handicapped FEC employees were not

discriminated against, the FEC would use the

existing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) procedures to resolve discrimination

grievances. 11 CFR 6.140.

Accessibility of FEC Pacilities

The FEC's new headquarters (reloeation expected in 1985) would comply with the provisions

of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as

adopted in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. However, the agency's existing office space would not

have to meet these standards. 11 CFR 6.150 and

6.151.

Communications

The FEC would implement communications

programs (including auxiliary aids) that ensured

handicapped persons' equal access to the agency's

programs and activities. For example, to make

the FEC's toll-free information lines accessible to

hearing-impaired persons, the agency might install telecommunications devices (TDD's). II CFR

6.160.

Compliance Procedures

The proposed rules would establish compliance procedures for processing discrimination

grievances brought by handicapped persons and

provide for an officer to coordinate these proeedures.11 CFR 6.170.

Copies of the FEC's notice of proposed rulemaking are available from the Public Communications

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

20463 or by calling: 202/523-4068 or toll free

800/424-9530. (Comments on the notice were due

by July 27, 1984.) After final rules are prescribed,

the Commission has 60 days to implement them.

3

Volume 10, Numbe

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

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

1984-30 Affiliated political committees' indep

dent expenditures on behalf of gene

election candidates for whom they m

in-kind contributions in primaries. (D

made publics June 21, 1984 Length

pages, plus 5-page supplement)

1984-31 Donations transferred from corporatio

state PAC to its federal PAC. (D

made public: June 28, 1984; Length

page, plus 4-page supplement)

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the C

mission provides guidance with regard to 

specific situation described in the AOR. A

qualified person who has requested an AO 

acts in accordance with the opinion will not 

subject to any sanctions under the Act. Ot

persons may rely on the opinion if they 

involved in a specific activity which is indis

guishable in all material aspects from the activ

discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance 

their own activity, however, should consult 

full text of an AO and not rely only on' 

summary given here.

AO 1984-17: Voting Records and Voter Guides

Prepared and Distributed by

Nonprofit Corpol'&tions

The National Right to Life Committee, 

(NRLC) and Right to Life of Greater Cincinn

Inc., two nonprofit, tax-exempt corporations t

engage in educational and lobbying activities, m

prepare and distribute nonpartisan voting reco

and voter guides to the general public. Althou

the election law prohibits incorporated gro

from making contributions and expenditures 

connection with federal elections, under revi

FEC Regulations prescribed in March 1984, 

organizations may prepare and distribute th

nonpartisan materials, provided the materials 

not serve an election-influencing purpose. See 

CFR 114.4(b)(4); 114.4(b)(5)(i) and (ii),

contin
August 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Voting' Records

Under the Commission's revised regulations,

a "corporation ••• may prepare and distribute to

the general public the voting records of Members

of Congress as long as the preparation and distribution is not for the purpose of influencing a

Federal election." 11 CFR 114.4(b)(4).

NRLC plans to compile Congressional voting records on abortion-related legislation and distribute the records to the general public by: a)

including the records as an insert in the National

Right to Life News, a bi-weekly newsletter that

NRLC distributes to 100,000 subscribers, and b)

making copies of the records available for purchase and distribution by other right-to-life

groups. NRLC's proposed voting records set forth

its position on abortion-related issues and record

how each Member of Congress voted on a particular issue. In some cases, the' vote is characterized

as either "pro-life" or "pro-aboetion" or as a vote

for or against a measure.

No Member of Congress' is referred to as a

candidate; nor do the records provide information

on elections. They do not urge readers to vote in

an election or to consult the voting records in

choosing a candidate. Nor do they urge readers to

support a Senator or Representative based on

his/her vote on any issue supported by NRLC.

Moreover, they do not suggest that an officeholder is "easier to convince" on an issue as a

candidate than as a safely elected official. Since

they do not serve an election-influencing purpose,

NR{;C's voting records meet the nonpartisan requlrements of the' FEC regulation.

Voter Guides

Under the revised rules, a corporation may

"prepare and distribute to the general public nonpartisan voter guides consisting of questions posed

to candidates concerning their positions on campaign issues and the candidates' responses to those

questions." 11 CFR 114.4(b)(5)(i). Voter guides

prepared by nonprofit, tax-exempt corporations

(26 U.S.C. §50I(c)(4» do not have to comply with

the nonpartisan criteria specified for guides prepared by profit corporations, as long as the guides

do not favor one candidate or political party over

another. See 11 CFR 114.4(b)(5)(ii).

The Cincinnati group, a nonprofit, tax-exempt

corporation, proposed publishing its own voter

guide in its newsletter, which is distributed to

members and the general public. The proposed

guide would contain issue-related questions that

the group posed to state and federal candidates

and would record their responses, including any

comments. The Cincinnati group could distribute

the guide to the general public, provided the

newsletter in which the guide was to be published

did not include other material which favored one

4

Volume 10, Numbe

candidate or political party over another (e.g., t

newsletter did not report candidates favored 

an affiliated organization).

Were the Cincinnati group to establish a separa

segregated fund, it would become an advoca

group by virtue of its control over the fun

contributions. The group's voter guide would th

be subject to the same nonpartisan criteria 

those imposed on profit corporations and nonpr

it, partisan organizations. See 11 CFR 114.4(b)

(i)(A)-(F), 114.5(d) and Pipefitters v. U.S., 4

U.S. 385, 426 (1972).

The Commission expressed no opinion on wheth

or not NRLC's and the Cincinnati group's propos

nonpartisan communications would affect the ta

exempt status of either organization because th

issue is not within the Commission's jurisdictio

(Date issued: June 29, 1984; Length: 6 pages)

AO 1984-22: Nonprofit Corporation's

Solicitation of POW'

. Membership Classes

The American Stock Exchange, Inc. (the E

change), a nonprofit corporation, proposed so

citing contributions to its separate segregat

fund, the American Stock Exchange Federal Po

tical Action Committee (AMEX FEC PAC), fro

the Exchange's four membership classes. Of t

four classes, the Exchange'S regular members a

options principal members would be eligible f

AMEX FEC PAC solicitations because the

member classes are sufficiently related to t

organization. (Any solicitations must, howev

comply with the Act and FEC Regulations. See 

CFR 114.5 and 114.7.) On the other hand, t

Exchange's allied members would not qualify 

solicitable members because they are insuf

ciently related to the organization. By a tie vo

the Commission was unable to agree on whether 

fourth membership class, the Exchange's associa

members, would qualify as solicitable members.

The election law restricts solicitations by inco

porated membership organizations and their se

arate segregated funds to the organization's 

dividual members. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(C). Co

mission Regulations define solicitable members 

"all persons who are currently satisfying the r

quirements for membership" in the organizatio

See 11 CFR 114.He). The Supreme Court h

determined that these members include in

viduals who have "some relatively enduring a

independently significant financial or organiz

tional attachment" to the membership organiz

tion. (See FEC v. National Ri ht to Work Co

mittee,· 459 U.S. , 103 S.Ct. 552 198

*For a summary of this suit, see p. 6 of t

November 1983 Record.
August 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 10, Numb

In determining if a class of members is sufficiently related to the organization to qualify for

PAC solicitations, the Commission has considered

whether the members have: 1) some right to

govern the membership organization, for example,

by exercising voting rights, and 2) an obligation to

help sustain the organization through regular dues

payments. See AOs 1977-17, 1977- 67, 1979-69

and 1982-2.

The Exchange's regular, options principal and allied members all share the right to govern the

organization as evidenced by the fact that members of each class may be:

Elected to serve on the Exchange's Board of

Governors or its nominating committee (although only regular members may vote for

Exchange representatives elected to these

positions); and

Appoin ted to the Exchange's standing committees and its disciplinary panels.

On the other hand, only regular members have a

right to vote in Exchange electlons. Only regular

and options principal members have trading privileges and a right to share in any assets on the Exchange's dissolution. Moreover, while regular and

options principal members pay annual dues, allied

members pay no dues or initiation fees.

The Commission noted that its conclusions were

. based on the unique facts and circumstances presented in the advisory opinion request. (Date

issued: June 18, 1984; Length: 6 pages)

AO 1984-23: Trade Association's Endorsement

oC Presidential Candidate

AnnOWlced in Press Releases

and House Periodieals

The Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a

trade association, may publicly endorse a Presidential candidate and announce the endorsement

through press releases issued to its customary list

of press contacts. On the other hand, since the

election law and FEC Regulations prohibit trade

associations from making expenditures for partisan communications that are directed to the general public, ABC must keep costs for distributing

the press releases minimal and must not use the

endorsement as a pretext for general electioneering. 11 CFR 114.3(a).

ABC may also publish its Presidential endorsement in the August issue of its bi-weekly newsletter, Merit Shop Scoop. Under FEC Regulations,

while a trade association may not make partisan

communications to the general public, it may

make partisan com munieations to its restricted

class (i.e., its executive and administrative em5

ployees, its members and their respective f

lies). 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)(A); 11 CPR 114.3 

114.8(h). Although ABC sends Scoop to both A

members and nonmembers (i.e., persons out

ABC's restricted class), nonmembers consti

only an incidental -- or minimal -- portion of 

newsletter's total circulation (i.e., 125 ou

17,000 or less than one percent). ABC may 

however, publish the endorsement in its mon

magazine, Builder and Contractor, because 

members constitute a percentage of the m

zine's total circulation that is more than min

(i.e., 2,698 out of 17,000 or 13.7 percent). 

AOs 1978-18, 1978-97, 1979-50 and 1980-139.

Reporting Requirements

If the issue of Scoop containing the 

nouncement of ABC's endorsement is not pri 

rily devoted to candidate advocacy issues

reporting is required -- even if the cost

publishing the endorsement exceed $2,000 for 

election. 11 CFR 114.3(b).

The Commission did not address the issue 

whether those persons ABC claimed as mem

would be considered "members" under the elec

law and FEC Regulations. (Date issued: June 

1984; Length: 4 pages)

AO 1984-26: Contributions to senate Candida

Crom Individuals AssOciated

with Dis State Office Duties

The Honorable David M. Bartley for U.S. Se

Committee (the Committee), Mr. Bartley's pr

pal campaign committee for his 1984 Senate c

paign, may accept contributions from indivi

associated with his duties as a state offi

provided the contributions are permissible u

the federal election law (l.e., they do not co

of excessive contributions or contributions 

corporations, labor organizations, foreign na

als or federal contractors). See 2 U.S.C. §§4

b, e and d. (Mr. Bartley is a board member of 

Massachusetts Housing and Finance Admini

tion, an agency which gives financial assistanc

developers. The contributors are associated 

developers seeking assistance from the agen

The Commission noted, but did not commen

the possible relevance of other federal statu

(Date issued: June 29, 1984; Length: 2 pages)
August 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 10, Number 

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

8/16-19 South Carolina Assoc. of

Registration and Election

Officials

Hilton Head, South Carolina

Gwenn Hofmann, Assistant to

Director, National

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

PRIMARY MATCHING

FUND PAYMENTS

On July 19, 1984, the Federal Election Com

mission certified primary matching fund payment

for five Presidential candidates, bringing tota

payments certified to 10 Presidential candidate

to $31,338,353.52. '

The summary chart below provides cumulativ

information on certifications of primary matchin

funds made between January 1 and July 19, 1984.

Askew, Reubirt 8 $ 915,904.7

Cranston, Alan 14 1,812,099.8

Glenn, John 12 3,026,493.5

Hart, Gary 16 4,474,808.3

Hollings, Ernest F. 9 821,599.8

Jackson, Jesse L. 11 2,095,113.8

LaRouche, Lyndon H. 5 467,028.3

McGovern, George 7 553,377.7

Mondale, Walter F. 19 7,567,893.6

Reagan, Ronald 7 10,100,000.0

8/29 American Political Science

Convention

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Lee Ann Elliott

Larry Boyle, Public Affairs

Specialist

9/6 Pennsylvania Election Officials

Conference

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Gwenn Hofmann, Assistant to

Director, National

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

9/10 The Washington Journalism

Center

Conference for Journalists on

Politics, 1984

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Lee Ann Elliott

Primary Matching Fund

Certification Activity

Name of Number of

Candidate Requests·

Total Amount o

Funds Certified

9/10

9/19

New Jersey Election Law

Enforcement Commission

Princeton, New Jersey

Commissioner Frank P. Reiche

Lawrence Noble, Deputy General

Counsel

Roberta Werfel, Chief, Public

Communieations

Todd Johnson, Public Affairs

Specialist

Bar Assoc. of the District of

Columbia

Washington, D.C.

Charles N. Steele, General

Counsel

6

1984 COMPLIANCE MANUAL FOR

PUBLICLY FUNDED PRESIDENTIAL

GENERAL ELECTION CAHDIDATPS

In July 1984, the Commission approved 

revised edition of its Financial Control and Com

pliance Manual for General Election Candidate

Receiving Public Financing'. The manual is now

available for use by those Presidential candidate

who may receive public funding for their genera

election campaigns. In addition, a limited numbe

of copies are available for purchase by othe

parties, at $7.50 per copy, from the FEC's Publi

Records Office. (For more information, call 202

523-4181 or toll free 800/424-9530.)

The manual is designed to help publicly funde

general election candidates comply with the Ac

and Commission Regulations. The manual does no

prescribe a standard financial control system

*Includes requests made after the candidate

initial request for matching fund eligibility.
August 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 10, Numbe

Instead, it offers a Ilexible system, which may be

modified to suit each campaign's need for: receipt

and disbursement controls; recordkeeping and reporting procedures; budget planning and internal

financial management.

The financial control system outlined in the manual parallels the system provided in the revised

compliance manual for Presidential primary campaigns which receive public funds. The general

election manual can therefore help publicly funded primary campaigns minimize the expense and

delay involved in converting their financial systems to the general election campaign.

FRC v. MASSACHUSHTl'S CmzENS

FOR LIF~ INC.

On June 29, 1984, the U.S. District Court for

the District of Massachusetts granted defendant's

motion. for summary judgment in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for' Life, Inc. (MCFL) (Civil

Action No. 82-609-G). The court found that, in

publishing voting records in special editions of its

newsletter in 1978, MCFL had not made prohibited eorporate expenditures in connection with

the Massachusetts primary campaigns of federal

candidates. (MCFL is an incorporated, nonprofit

organization that advocates right-ta-Ijfe lssues.)

Background .

During 1978, MCFL spent $9;812 to prepare a

special edition (and a partial, corrected edition)

of its newsletter, which listed the voting records

of .ineumbents on three legislative proposals pertaining to abortions. The special editions also

reported the responses to questionnaires received

from nonincumbent candidates on these issues.

They urged readers to "vote pro-life" and included

photographs of only those candidates approved by

M CFL. The special newsletter was distributed to

both MCFL members and the general public (approximately 58fOOO persons).

In its suit, the FEC had claimed that MCFL's

expenditures for the special editions constituted

corporate expenditures in connection with federal

elections, prohibited by section 44lb of the election law. The court found, however, that MCFVs

e expenditures were more properly Characterized as

independent expenditures and expenditures for

news and editorial com ments, As such, the court

held that the expenditures were explicitly exempted from section 441b's prohibition on corporate spending.

7

District Court Decision

In characterizing MCFL's expenditures 

the special newsletter as independent expen

tures, the court held that the "publication w

uninvited by any candidate and uncoordinat

with any campaign."·

With regard to its characterization of MCF

publication of the voting records as exem

spending for a news story and news editorial

the court stated: "In our opinion, the compilati

of voting records and questionnaire responses w

news, probably not available elsewhere; and t

call to vote pro-life in conjunction, incidental

with a quotation from Thomas Jefferson, w

editorial. 11 'The court further stated that t

special newsletter editions satisfied the statuto

requirement that exempt stories may be publish

in a "periodical publication." The court noted th

the special editions were similar in size, form

and content to regular issues of MCFL's new

letter. Finally, the court maintained that "t

legislative history of the newspaper exempti

shows that Congress intended that it be a bro

exemption, coextensive with the First Amen

ment."

Alternatively, the court held that, even if it h

misconstrued MCFL's spending as exempt in

pendent and news storyleditorial expenditur

the statutory prohibition on corporate expen

tures was unconstitutional as applied to MCF

spending. The court found that applying the pro

bition to MCFL's spending abridged the organi

tion's free speech, press and association rig

because the expenditures were: "(a) independ

of any -eendldate or party, (b) by a nonprof

making corporation formed to advance an id

logical cause and (c) for' the purpose of publish

direct political speech." Under these circu

.stances, the court concluded, the compelling g

ernmental interest served by banning the vot

continu

*The election law and FEC Regulations d

fine an independent expenditure as an expendit

for a communication expressly advocating 

election or defeat of a clearly identified can

date that is not made with the cooperation 

prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at 

request or suggestion of, any candidate or hia/

authorized committee or agents. 2 U.S.C. sect

431 (17); 11 CFR 110.16 and l09.Ua).

**Under the election law and FEC regulatio

a news story, commentary, or editorial by a

broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, 

other periodical pUblication is not considered 

expenditure, provided the station or publication 

not owned or controlled by a political pa

committee or candidate. 2 U.S.C. section 431

(B)(i)j 11 CFR 100.8(b)(2).
August 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 10, Numbe

records as prohibited corporate contributions (i.e.,

the prevention of real 01' apparent corruption in

federal elections) was not justified. Specifically,

since the court maintained that MCFL's publication of the voting records was not coordinated

with any candidates, the court followed the Supreme Court's determination in Buckley v. Valeo

that their independence "alleviate[df the danger

that expenditures will be given as quid pro quo for

improper commitments from the candidate." See

Buckley v. Valeo at 47. At any rate, in finding

that the expenditures were independent, the court

noted that they were too small (t.e., $80 per

federal candidate) to have a corrupting influence

on federal elections.

With regard to MCFL's role as a nonprofit ideological group, the court held that, 'by sharing its

views on an important public issue" with its

members and the public, MCFL's expenditures for

the voting records advanced, rather than deterred, governmental interests by "promoting citizen

responsibility."

Similarly, the court held that, if viewed as direct

political speech, MCFL's financing of the special

newsletter editions "would seem to promote rather than undermine the honest functioning of representative government." Specifically, the court

found that the voting records published in the

special editions "sought to influence incumbents

and candidates solely by means of informed voter

reaction to the candidates' positions on an important public Issue," Furthermore, the court

found that "the corporate identity of the speaker

does not deprive speech of what otherwise would

be its clear entitlement to protection under the

First Amendment. FiI-st National Bank of Boston

v. Bellotti, supra at 778-786."

NEW LITIGATION

National Kine Association Y. FEC

The National Rifle Assocition (NRA), a nonprofit organization, seeks action against the FEC

with regard to an administrative complaint that

NRA filed with the Commission on December 1,

1983. In its administrative complaint, NRA had

alleged that Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), a nonprofit corporation without members, and its separate segregated fund, Handgun Control, Inc. Political Action Committee (HCI-PAC), had unlawfully solicited contributions from individuals beyond

HCrs solicitable class (i.e., its executive and

administrative employees and their families). See

2 U.S.C. §441b{b)(4)(A).

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. S437g(a)(8)(A), NRA asks the

district court to declare that the FEC's failur-e to

act on the complaint within 120 days was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and con8

trary to law. NRA further requests that the co

direct the FEe to act on the complaint.

V.S. District Court for the District of Columb

Civil Action No. 84-1878, June 19, 1984.

SUMMARY OF MURs

The Act gives the FEC exclusive jurisdict

for its civil enforcement. Potential violations a

assigned case numbers by the Office of Gene

Counsel and become "Matters Under Revie

(MURs). All MUR investigations are kept con

dential by the Commission, as required by 

Act. (For a summary of compliance procedur

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

Part n i.)

This article does not summarize every stage 

the compliance process. Rather, the summar

provide only enough background to make clear 

Commission's final determination. Note that 

Commission's actions are not necessarily ba

on, or in agreement with, the General Couns

analysis. The full text of these MURs is availa

for review and purchase in the Commissio

Public Records Office.

MUR 1536: Hxcessive Contributions

Received by MfOiated PACs

On April 3, 1984, the Commission entered into 

conciliation agreement concerning the acceptan

of excessive contributions by two affiliated pol

cal action committees (PACs).

Complaint

In reviewing reports for the rirst quarter 

1982 filed by two affiliated corporate PACs, 

Commission's Reports Analysis Division no

that the committees had received $90,440 a

$120,150, respectively, in contributions from in

viduals but had not identified the contributors 

supporting schedules. In September 1982, the 

vision requested further information on the co

tributions.

In October, the PACs' treasurer submitted repo

and

reports

amendments

disclosed

to

that

previously

the PACs had

filed reports.

accept

T

contributions which exceeded the law's limits 

late 1981 and early 1982, and had refunded 

excessive amounts on September 30, 1982.
August 1984 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 10, Number 

9

Notice Title

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

The items below identify FEC documen

that appeared in the Federal Register during M

and June. Copies of these notices are available 

the Public Records Office.

1984-10 11 CFR Parts 9007 and 9038: Repa

ments by Publicly Financed Presidenti

Candidates: Notice of Proposed Rul

making (49 Fed. Reg. 26596, June 2

1984)

1984-8 II CFR Parts 4 and 5: Public Recor

and the Freedom of Information A

Access to Public Disclosure Divisi

Documents: Amendment of Fee Prov

sions (49 Fed. Reg. 22335, May 29, 1984

1984-9 1l CFR Part 6: Enforcement of Nond

crimination on the Basis of Handicap 

FEC Programs; Notice of Proposed Rul

making (49 Fed. Reg. 262441 June 2

1984)

Other SWscribers

Record subscribers (who are not political committees), when calling or mailing in a change of

address, are asked to provide the following information:

I. Name of person to whom the Record is sent.

2. Old address.

3. New address.

4. Subscription number. The subscription number is located in the upper left hand corner of the

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

guarantee that your subscription can be located on the computer.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Politieal Committees

Registered political committees are automatically sent the Record. Any change of address by

a registered committee must, by law, be made in writing as an amendment to FEC Form 1

(Statement of Organization) and filed with the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, or

the FEC, as appropriate.

The committees received $35,000 in excessive

contributions on December 23, 1981, and $20,000

on January 15, 1982. The PACs did not refund the

excessive amount, $55,000, until the end of September 1982. The General Counsel therefore recommended the Commission find probable Muse

to believe that the PACs had violated the Act's

contribution limits.

Commission Determination

The Commission accepted the General Counsel's recommendation. On April 3, 1984, the PACs

entered into a conciliation agreement which included a civil penalty.

GeneI'M Counsel's Report

Under the Federal Electlon Campaign Act,

contributions made by affiliated committees are

considered as having been made by a single committee. These contributions are subject to one

limit. 2 U.S.C. S44Ia(a)(5). The Commission has

consistently interpreted this provision to mean

that affiliated committees also share one limit on

the contributions they receive. See AOs 1976-104,

1978-39, 1979-56, 1979-77, 1980-40 and 1982-18.

In this case, the respondent PACs reported receiving $10,000 contributions from several corporate executives who had individually contributed

$5,000 to each PAC. This amounted to an excess

of $5,000 per contributor.
A registration fee of $50 must be received by September 4, 1984. For more information on the

workshop and registration, contact Juana Schultz, Director of Compliance and Review, New

Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, 609/292-8700.

PEC CO-HOSTS WORKSHOP IN NEW JERSEY

On September IIlJ 1984J the Federal Election Commission, in cooperation with the New

Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, will conduct an all-day workshop on federal elec

tion campaign finance laws and New Jersey's state campaign finance law. The workshop will in

clude six sessions on: major provisions of the federal and New Jersey campaign Jaws; sources o

campaign support available to federal candidates; corporate and labor participation in federa

elections; state and local party activity; FEC enforcement and campaign finance disclosur

procedures; and New Jersey reporting requirements,

To be held at the Ramada Inn in Princeton, New Jersey, the workshop will be of particula

interest to those involved with PACs, party activities and political campaigns, at both the state

and federal levels.

Volume 10, Numb

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Official Business

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 KStreet, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

August 1984