•

January 1985

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 11, Number 1

FEC ELECTS NEW OFFICERS

On December 18, 1984, the Federal Election

Commission unanimously elected John Warren

McGarry as Chairman and Joan D. Aikens as Vice

Chairman to serve one-year terms commencing

January I, 1985. Mr. McGarry succeeded Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott in the Chairmanship. Mrs.

Aikens succeeded Commissioner Thomas E. Harris

as Vice Chairman.

Mr. McGarry, a Democrat, was first appointed to

the Commission in 1978 by President Carter. In

1983, he was named to serve a second term, which

is due to expire on April 30, 1989. He served as

FEC Chairman in 1981. Before serving on the

Commission, Mr. McGarry served as Special

Counsel on Elections to the Committee on House

Administration of the U.S. Congress from 1973 to

1978. Prior to that, he combined private law

practice with service as Chief Counsel for the

Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of the U.S. House of Representatives.

(By special resolution, Congress recreated this

Committee every two years, through 1972, to

oversee House elections.) From 1959 through

1962, he was an Assistant Attorney General of

Massachusetts.

Mr. McGarry graduated cum laude from Holy

Cross College in Massachusetts in 1952, did graduate work at Boston University and earned a Juris

Doctor degree in 1956 from Georgetown Law

Center.

directors of the National Federation of Republican Women. She served as Alternate Delegate-atLarge to the 1972 Republican National Convention and, at the time of her appointment to the

Commission, she was a member of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee. She has also

been active in a variety of other volunteer organizations.

A native of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Mrs.

Aikens received her B.A. and honorary Doctor of

Law degree from Urslnus College, COllegeville,

PennsyIvania,

1985 REPORTING SCHEDULE

All political committees must file a year-end

report due J-nuary 31, 1985. Committees must

meet other reporting requirements, as well, depending on what type of committee they are. The

accompanying charts list filing dates for reports

required during 1985. continued

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMISSIONERS

1 F EC Elects New Officers

REPORTS

1 1985 Reporting Schedule

3 Com rnunications Filers: Correction

3 OPINIONS

Mrs. Aikens, a Republican, is one of the original

members of the Commission. She was first appointed to the Commission in March 1975, and,

upon the FEC's reconstitution in May 1976, she

received a five-year appointment. In 1983, President Reagan reappointed Mrs. Aikens, this time

for a six-year term. She served as FEC Chairman

between May 1978 and May 1979.

Before serving on the Commission, Mrs. Aikens

was Vice President of Lew Hodges/Communications, a public relations firm located in Valley

Forge, Pennsylvania. From 1972 until 1974, she

was president of the Pennsylvania Council of

Republican Women and served on the board of

6

6

7

8

10

12

12

COURT CASg;;

FEC v. Furgatchj FEC v. Dominelli

Citizens for perch'84 v. FEc

FEe v. NRWCj N WC v. FEe

STATISTICS

Presidential Primary Campaigns

Party Committees

CLEARINGHOUSE

Publications

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume 11, Numt:er 1

YEAR-END REPORT 1984

MONTHLY REPORTS 1985

SEMIANNUAL REPORTS

QUARTERLY REPORTS

Congressional candidates

All committees authorized by Congressional

candidates must report semiannually: July 31,

1985, and January 31, 1986. Semiannual filers

include the authorized committees of candidates

retiring campaign debts or running in future elections.

Congremonal Candidates Active in

Special mections

All committees authorized by candidates running for Congress in special elections held in 1985

must file pre- and post-election and semiannual

reports during 1985.

Authorized Presidential Filers

Authorized Presidential committees must report on either a monthly or a quarterly basis

during 1985. The FEC's Reports Analysis Division

requests that Presidential committees which

change their reporting schedule during 1985 notify

the Commission of their intention in writing.

Unauthorized Committees

All unauthorized committees (t.e., committees not authorized by candidates) are required to

file on either a semiannual or monthly basis in

1985. Unauthorized committees that wish to

change their reporting schedule (for example,

from monthly to semiannual reports) must submit

a letter with the report filed prior to the intended

change, indicating that they will change their

schedule starting with the next report. A committee may not change its filing frequency more than

once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

Forms and Information

During 1985, reporting forms and additional

information will be sent to all registered committees. Questions and requests for forms should be

addressed to the Office of Public Com rnunieations, Federal Election Commission, 1325 K

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or call

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

Report

Year-End

Report

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Year-End

Report

First

Second

Report

First Q

Second Q

Third Q

Fourth Q

(Year-End)

Period Covered

11/27-12/31

Period Covered

1/1 - 1/31

2/1 - 2/28

3/1 - 3/31

4/1 - 4/30

5/1 - 5/31

6/1 - 6/30

7/1 - 7/31

8/1 - 8/31

9/1 - 9/30

10/1 - 10/31

11/1 - 11/30

12/1 - 12/31

Period Covered

1/1 - 6/30

7/1 - 12/31

Period Covered

1/1 - 3/31

4/1 - 6/30

7/1 - 9/30

10/1 -12/31

Filing •

Date * •

1/31/85

Filing

Date *

2/20/85

3/20/85

4/20/85

5/20/85

6/20/85

7/20/85

8/20/85

9/20/85

10/20/85

11/20/85

12/20/85

1/31/86

Filing

Date*

7/31/85

1/31/86

Filing

Date·

4/15/85

7/15/85

10/15/85

1/31/86

* The filing date is considered the mailing

date if the report is sent by registered or

certified mail. If CFR I04.5(e).

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: John Warren McGarry, Chairman; Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman;

Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; Thomas E. Harris; Prank P. Reiche; JoAnne Coe, 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
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume11, Numter1

COMMUmCATIONFaERS:

CORRECTION

The reporting chart in the November

Record erroneously indica ted that connected organizations may have to file postelection reports on their internal communications. In fact, the 30-day post-election report is not required. However, a

pre-election report was required if the

organization's aggregate costs for internal

communications which expressly advocated

the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate in the 1984 general election

exceeded $2,000. 11 CFR 104.6 and 104.5

(a)(I)(j). Furthermore, under Commission

regulations, an organization must file quarterly reports beginning with the first reporting period during which aggregate

costs exceed $2,000 and for each quarter

thereafter in which it makes additional

disbursements in connection with the same

election. II CFR I04.6(b). Thus, if a connected organization which filed the preelection report made additional disbursements for internal partisan communications (involving express advocacy) after

October 17, 1984, it should file an end-ofthe-year report, due January 31, 1985.

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.

AQR Subject

1984-60 Debts retired by candidate's sale of assets to family member. (Date made public: November 21, 1984; Length: 2 pages)

1984-61 Trade association's use of single authorization form to request multiple-year solicitation approvals. (Date made publics

December 6, 1984; Length: 2 pages)

3

ALTERNATE DISPOSmON OF

ADVISORY OPINION REQUEST

AOR 1984-40 (Reporting of expenditures for

t.v. ads.) On December 7, 1984, the General

Counsel sent the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee (DCCC) a letter

stating that the Commission concluded that

the DCCC's advisory opinion request did not

meet the requirements of the Act. 2 U.S.C.

§437f. The request did not "set forth a specific transaction or activity that [DCCC] plans

to undertake or is presently undertaking and

intends to undertake in the future." 11 CFR

112.l(b).

AO 1984-16: Single Contribution Limit for State

Convention and Primary Election

A single contribution limit applied to contributions received by Ji m Shannon, Senate candidate,

with respect to the state nominating convention

held by the Massachusetts Democratic Party and

the primary election. The Party's state convention

constituted a step in the primary election process,

rather than a separate election with a separate

contribution limit, because the convention did not

have the authority to nominate a candidate for

the U.S. Senate; the party could only endorse

candidates for nomination to the Senate seat.

While candida tes who won the Party's endorsement at the convention (i.e., at least 15 percent

of the delegates' votes) automatically had their

names placed on the ballot for the primary election, they still had to campaign in the primary.

Moreover, even if a candidate did not win the

convention's endorsement, he or she could wage a

write-in campaign to obtain access to the primary

election ballot.

The Commission distinguished its decision in this

opinion from its decisions in AOs 1981-29 and

1978-25. In those opinions, state party conventions in Connecticut and Utah had the authority

to nominate candidates for federal office. If candidates were endorsed by a specified percentage

of votes cast by convention delegates, they became the party nominees in the general election,

and no primary election was held. (Date made

publier May 11, 1984; Length. 4 pages)

AO 1984-33: Fundraiser for Trade Association

PAC Paid by Allied Members

Allied members of the National Restaurant Association (NRA), a trade association, may not

underwrite costs of a PAC fundraising event NRA

plans to hold in conjunction with its annual trade

show. Although a trade association's corporate

members may finance such fundraising costs (AOs

1980-59 and 1983-36), NRA's allied members are

not sufficiently related to NRA to qualify as the

association's "members," II CFR 114.He). Morecontinued
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMfVllSSION \blume 11, NumtBr 1

over, the authorization form NRA proposes to

print on tickets for the fundraiser does not comply with FEC rules. See 11 CFR 114.8(c) and

114.8(d)(3).

NRA's Allied Members May Not

Underwrite Pundraiser

Commission Regulations define a trade association's members as "all persons who are currently satisfying the requirements for membership" in the organization. 11 CFR 114.l(e). The

Supreme Court has determined that "members"

include individuals who have "some relatively enduring and independently significant financial organizational attachment" to the membership organization. (See FEC v. National Right to Work

Committee, 459 U.S. at 204, 103 S.Ct. at 557). In

determining if a class of members is sufficiently

related to the organization to qualify as a "member," 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.

Although NRA's allied members pay dues, these

members do not have the right to govern the

organization. They may not vote for NRA's officers and directors; nor are they eligible for election to these positions. Accordingly, NRA's allied

members are not considered "members" eligible to

underwrite the costs of NRA's fundraiser.

Authorization Form Insufficient

Under FEC Regulations, before soliciting

PAC contributions from the solicitable personnel

of member corporations, a trade association must

first obtain written approval for the solicitation

from the corporate member. The request for

approval may be addressed to the designated

representative of the member corporation with

whom the trade association regularly corresponds.

11 CFR l14.8(e). NRA's proposed authorization

form, to be printed on tickets for its fundraiser,

does not meet these reqUirements. The language

of the form suggests that NRA seeks approval for

its solicitations from individuals rather than from

designated respresentatives of member corporations. Nor does the form explain that only the

person authorized by the member corporation may

grant the approval. Furthermore, the procedure

for billing pledged contributions does not conform

to the prior authorization procedures. See AO

1980-15.

The Commission noted that any contributions solicited by NRA or NRA-PAC at the fundraising

event must also comply with the notification

requirements and other relevant Commission Regulations. 11 CFR 102.5(a)(2) and 114.5(a). Moreover, all contributions to NRA- PAC are subject

to the limits and prohibitions of the election law.

4

2 U.S.C. §44la, 441b, 441c, 44le and 441f. (Date

issued: November 30, 1984; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1984-52: candidate's Refund of megal

Contributions

Representative Marty Russo's principal campaign

com mittee for his 1982 reelection ca mpaign (the

Russo Committee) must refund illegal contributions to the Board of Trade Clearing Corporation

(the corporation), which had contributed to the

Russo committee in the name of corporate employees between December 1981 and September

1982. The Russo Committee must make the refunds (amounting to $7,750) immediately upon

receiving the FEC's advisory opinion and disclose

them on its next required report.

Representative Russo first learned of the illegality of the contributions in September 1984, when

findings of a grand jury investigation into the

corporation's activities were disclosed in the

Chicago Sun Times. The findings revealed that,

although the corporation's employees had ostensibly contributed to federal candidates from their

personal funds, the corporation had actually

funded their contributions through subsequent employee bonuses. (The case was concluded after the

corporation entered a plea of guilty to criminal

violations of the Act's ban on corporate contributions. See 2 U.S.C. S54lb.)

As a general rule, recipients of unlawful contributions must refund the contributions upon discovering their illegality. In some cases an exception to

this rule may be allowed, but none of the circumstances in this case justify such an exception.

Since the corporation admitted making the contributions to federal candidates through bonuses to

employees, the Commission concluded that the

Committee should make the refunds to the corporation rather than to the employees. Commissioner Joan D. Aikens filed a dissent. (Date

issued: November 30, 1984; Length: 5 pages, ineluding dissent)

AO 1984-53: Real Estate Lessors Considered

Federal Contractors

Members of the National Association of Realtors

(the Association) who, as individuals, lease real

property to federal agencies are considered federal contractors under the election law. As such,

they may hot make contributions to the Association's separate segregated fund, the Realtors Political Action Committee (RPAC), or to other

federal committees or candidates.

The election law specifically prohibits federal 4

contractors from making contributions to any

political committee, political party or candidate

for public office. 2 U.S.C. S441c. The law defines

federal contractors as persons who enter into a
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \k)lume 11 ,Numter 1

contract with a federal agency for the purpose of

rendering personal services; furnishing material,

supplies or equipment; or selling land or buildings.

11 CFR 115.1(a)(1). Under this definition, an Association member who leases real property to

federal agencies would qualify as a federal contractor because the association member would, in

effect, be selling an interest in the property to

the agency. Moreover, since many leases contain

explicit contractual provisions regarding building

services, Association members who leased property would also be rendering services to federal

agencies. (Date issued: November 13, 1984;

Length: 3 pages)

AD 1984-54: Reporting/Contribution Limits for

Congressional Candidate Nominated

and Elected in Louisiana Primary

Under Louisiana election law, a primary election

results in the final selection of the officeholder if

the candidate receives a majority of the votes or

if the candidate is unopposed. Representative Bob

Livingston did not seek election in Louisiana's

general election because he received a majority

of the votes cast in the primary for the House

seat in Louisiana's First Congressional District. In

fact, Louisiana did not hold a general election for

any Congressional candidate in 1984. Nevertheless, the Commission considered Representative

Livingston a candidate for the general election

because the general election date in November is

prescribed by federal statute. 2 U.S.C. §§l and 7.

Accordingly, his principal campaign committee,

Friends of Bob Livingston, had to file pre- and

post-general election reports, in addition to a

year-end report.

As a general election candidate under federal law,

Rep. Livingston could have accepted contributions

that counted toward a separate limit for the

general. election. 11 CFR 110.1(j)(2). The Commission distinguished this decision from that

reached in AO 1982-49.. In that opinion, the

Commission decided that a separate contribution

limit was not available for a primary that was

not, in fact, held; primaries are not mandated by

federal la w.

In response to Rep. Livingston's request, the Commission also noted that it would consider treating

this subject in a future rulemaking. Commissioners Thomas E. Harris and Frank P. Reiche

filed a joint dissent. (Date issued: November 13,

1984; Length: 10 pages, including dissent)

5

AD 1984-55: Solicitation of Law Firm's Partners

by PAC of a Client Bank

The Amerifirst Good Government Committee (the

Committee), the separate segregated fund of the

Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association

(Arnerifirst), may not solicit contributions from

lawyers associated with two law firms that represent Amerifirst because, although the firms receive client fees from Amerifirst, the la wyers are

not employed by the bank. Instead, they receive

compensation directly from their firms. The committee may, however, solicit one of the firm's

lawyers who also serves as Chairman of the Board

of Amerifirst, provided he is compensated by

Amerifirst on a salaried basis. Under the election

la w, to be eligible for solicitations by a corporation's separate segregated fund, professional personnel must be employed by the corporation and

paid on a salaried basis. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(7)j

11 CFR 114.1(c).

Since Amerifirst did not indicate whether or not

the lawyers were Amerifirst stockholders or

members, the Commission did not address their

eligibility for solicitations under either of these

circumstances. (Date issued: November 13, 1984;

Length: 4 pages)

AD 1984-56: Exclusion of Book Payments from

the Definition of Honorarium

Royalties and other agreed-upon payments made

to Senator David Durenberger by Piranah Press

for his book, Neither Madmen nor Messiahs, are

not considered honoraria under the election law.

Accordingly, they are not subject to the $2,000

limit placed on an honorarium accepted by a

federal officeholder. 2 U.S.C. §441.

Income which federal officeholders derive from

books (e.g., royalties) is excluded from the election law's definition of honorariu m. 11 CFR 110.

12(b); AOs 1975-77 and 1978-59. Furthermore,

quarterly payments Senator Durenberger receives

from the publisher in exchange for promotional

appearances and certain rights in the book are

considered stipends, which are also excluded from

the definition of honorarium. 11 CFR 110.12(c)(3).

(Date issued: December 6, 1984; Length: 2 pages)
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 11 ,Numoor 1

FEC v. FURGATCH; FEC v. DOMINELLI

On November 20, 1984, the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of California

dismissed FEC v. Furgatch (Civil Action No. 83-

596-GT [M]) on the ground that the case failed to

state a justiciable claim. Based on its ruling' in

the Furgatch suit, on November 30, 1984, the

court also dism issed a "virtually identical case,"

FEC v. Dominelli (Civil Action No. 83-0595-GT

[M)).

Background

In filing suit against Mr. Furgatch on March

25, 1983, the FEC claimed that he had violated

the election law by failing to report independent

expenditures of approximately $25,008. 2 U.S.C.

§434(c). Mr. Furgatch incurred the expenditures

for two political ads he placed in The New York

Times and The Boston Globe, respectively, which

the Commission alleged expressly advocated the

defeat of President Carter in his 1980 reelection

bid. The FEC also claimed Mr. Furgatch had

violated section 441d of the law by failing to

include an adequate disclaimer notice on the ad

he placed in The Boston Globe.

In filing suit against Mr. Dominelli on the same

day, the FEC had asked the court to find that he

had failed to report independent expenditures

amounting to $8,471. The FEC alleged that Mr.

DomineUi had incurred the expenditures for an ad

in a November 1980 issue of The Chicago Tribune,

which expressly advocated President Carter's defeat.

Court's Ruling on the Furgatch Suit

In ruling on whether the political ads sponsored by Mr. Purgateh expressly advocated President Carter's defeat, and therefore constituted

independent expenditures,* the court applied the

standard contained in the Supreme Court's

Buckley v. Valeo opinion. In Buckley v. Valeo, the

Court had defined express advocacy as "communications containing express words of advocacy

of election or defeat, such as 'vote for,' 'elect,'

'cast your ballot for,' 'Smith for Congress,' 'vote

against,' 'defeat,' 'reject.' 11 Buckley v. Valeo, 424

U.S. I, 44 (I976). The district court cited earlier

ItAn independent expenditure is an expenditure for a ccmmuntcctton expressly advocating

the election or defeat of a clearly identified

candidate that is not made with the cooperation

or prior consent of, or in consultation wit~ or at

the request or suggestion of, any candidate or

his/her authorized committees or agents. 11 CFR

100.16 and 109.1(a).

6

district and appeals court decisions which emphasized that "n-Ither the purpose nor the effect •

of a political advertisement is determinative of •

the issue of whether the ad expressly advocates

the election or defeat of a clearly identif'ied :

candidate." See FEC v. CLITRIM, 616 F.2d 45, 53

(2d cr-, 1980); FEC v. AFSCME, 471 F.Supp. 315,

316 (D. D.C. 1979). Applying this express advocacy

standard to Mr. Furgatch's ads, the court found

that the pivotal question was "whether the phrase

'Don't let him do it' [was] the equivalent of the

expression 'vote against Carter.' " (The remainder

of the language in the ad was beyond the election

law's scope because it contained only an implied

message not to vote for President Carter.) Interpreting the word "it" in the phrase, the court

concluded that the ad exhorted the reader not to

let President Carter "hide his own record" or

"degrade the electoral process and lessen the

prestige of the office." The court then concluded

that the phrase "Don't let him do it" did not

constitute express advocacy. The court found that

"the range of actions expressly recommended by

the ad obviously did not include voting the President out of office." Consequently, the ad did not

ask the reader to vote against the President.

Finally, the court noted that, since it had decided

the case on grounds of statutory construction, it

was not "necessary or desirable to (address] the

defendants' constitutional challenges to sections

434(c) and 441d" of the election law.

CfnZENS FOR PERCY '84 v. FEC

On November 19, 1984, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia issued an

opinion in Citizens for Percy '84 v. FEC (Civil

Action No. 84-2653) stating that the FEC's delay

in acting on an administrative complaint filed on

April 26, 1984, by Citizens for Percy '84 (the

Committee) was contrary to law. (The Committee

was former Senator Charles H. Percy's principal

campaign committee for his 1984 reelection campaign.) The court also ordered the FEC to conform its conduct to the decision within 30 days of

the court's order. See 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8).

Background

On August 26, 1984, the Committee had

petitioned the district court to declare that the

FEC's failure to act on its administrative complaint was contrary to law. See 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(8)(A). In the complaint, the Percy campaign had claimed that media expenditures made

by Michael Goland on behalf of Rep. Thomas

Corcoran, Senator Percy's opponent in the lllinois

Senate primary, were coordinated with the Cor- 4

coran campaign. The Percy campaign had alleged

that, since the expenditures were not independent, Mr. Goland had violated the election law by

making excessive in-kind contributions to the
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 11, Numter 1

Corcoran campaign. See 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(l)(A).

Moreover, the Corcoran campaign had violated

the law by accepting the contributions. See 2

U.S.C. §441a(f).

Court's Ruling

Noting that the FEC had not found reason to

believe the respondent had violated the election

law until October 2, 1984, more than five months

after the Committee had filed its administrative

complaint, the court concluded that the FEC had

acted contrary to law. The court reasoned that,

since Senator Percy's reelection campaign had

been the "focus..•of tremendous national

interest, 11 the agency did not have the discretion

to give the complaint routine treatment.

FEC v; NRWC; NRWC v. FEC

On October 4, 1984, the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia issued a consent

order in the consolidated cases of FEC v. National

Right to Work Committee and National Right to

Work Committee v. FEC (Civil Action Nos.

77-2175 and 78-0315). The court required the

National Right to Work Committee (NRWC) and

its separate segregated fund, the Employee Rights

Campaign Committee (ERCC), to return unlawful

solicitations and to pay a civil penalty for violating the election law.

Background

In December 1983, the Supreme Court had

ruled on the FEC's suit against NRWC. (For a

summary of the Court's ruling, see p, 3 of the

February 1983 Record.) The Court held that

267,123 persons solicited by NRWC for contributions to ERCC were not NRWC's "members" under

any "reasonable interpretation" of 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(4)(C). The Court then remanded the case

to the appeals court to consider, among other

things, "the...imposition of a $10,000 civil penalty" on NRWC for unlawful solicitations to its

separa te segregated fund. On September 2, 1983,

the appeals court found that the district court had

erred in finding NRWC's violation to be "knowing

and willful," The appeals court therefore concluded that the $10,000 civil penalty imposed by

the district court was unwarranted.

District Court's Decision

After the case had been remanded to the

district court, the court accepted a consent order

on OCtober 4, 1984, which provides that:

NRWC, ERCC and any of their agents will

not solicit contributions to ERCC from persons other than NRWC's members. See 2

U.S.C. §441b(b)(4).

Within thirty days of the date of the consent

order, NRWC and ERCC will mail refunds

totalling $67,401.62 to those individuals unlawfully solicited on June 21 and September

7

9-15, 1976. (The court will grant extensions

for reasonable delays.)

Each refund will be accompanied by a letter

informing the contributor that the courts

have Qetermined that the solicitation constituted a violation of the law's prohibition on

corporate contributions which was not knowing and willful. 2 U.S.C. §441b.

The refund checks will expressly, and in bold

print, require deposit within 30 days from the

date drawn.

NRWC and ERCC will report to the FEC on

the status of the refund checks indicating

whether they were undeliverable, cleared

through the bank or remained outstanding.

Within 30 days of the consent order, NRWC

and ERCC will pay a $5,000 civil penalty

(without interest) to the U.S. Treasury.

Within 30 days of the consent order, NRWC

and ERCC will pay FEC court costs from the

district court proceeding amounting to

$4,483.64 (without interest).

Within an agreed upon time, NRWC and

ERCC will donate to the Salvation Army: any

contribution refunds that were undeliverable;

all checks which remain outstanding; and

$15,000 in lieu of the interest accrued from

April 24, 1980, on refundable contributions,

NRWC's civil penalty and the FEC's court

costs.

Once NRWC and ERCC have satisfied these conditions, the parties will file a joint motion to:

Have the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company released from any and all obligations

under the Supersedeas Bond filed with the

district court in these actions; and

Have all NRWC and ERCC contributor information which was filed under seal with the

district court returned to NRWC and ERCC.

In addition, the FEC will return to NRWC and

ERCC all contributor information that the defendants presented to the FEC under seal, together

with all copies, lists, summaries or digests made

from them.
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 'vOlume 11, Numtsr1

1984 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS

During the first 18 months of the Presidential

campaign, 14 Presidential primary campaigns

raised a total of $98 million and spent $88 million.

This information was contained in the FEC

Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-1984, InterIm

Report No.6, Presidential Pre-Nomination Cam-

~, released on November 29, 1984. The study

provides campaign finance information on those

campaigns whose activity exceeded $100,000.

Chart I below details how each campaign spent its

funds. Chart II, on page 9, provides information on t

the source of campaign support provided to each

campaign through June 1984. Figures for receipts

and disbursements have been adjusted to reflect

transfers among authorized committees of the

same campaign.

Copies of the FEC Reports on Finanaial Activity,

1983-1984, Interim Report No.6, Presidential

Pre-Nomination camWtigns are available for

$1.00 per copy from t e FEC's Office of Public

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

20463. Checks for the report should be made

payable to the Federal Election Commission.

CHART I

DISBURSEMENTS OF

PRBSIDENTIAL PRIMARY

CANDIDATE;; THROUGH 6/30/84

Adjusted Expenditures Latest Debts

Campaign Subject Cash Owed By

candidate Total· to Limit·* on Hand Campaign

Askew(D) $ 2,541,230 $ 1,847,178 $ 201 $ 119,114 t

Cranstonffr) 5,550,181 3,874,219 42,734 45,300***

Glenn(D) 11,489,342 7,570,151 146,054 2,930,880

Hart(D) 13,584,333 11,335,890 175,307 4,484,785

Hollings(D) 2,409,449 2,100,544 22,266 14,236

Hubbard(D) 182,427 0 529 53,421

Jackson(D) 5,344,129 4,665,296 378,095 386,911

Johnson(CP) 160,340 0 16,202 11,650

LaRouche(D) 3,743,431 3,441,226 29,877 2,154,172

McGovern(D) 916,491 685,502 -526 117,417

Mondale(D) 23,308,423 17,681,389 549,133 4,895,293

Willis(D) 136,003 0 0 112,742

Reagan(R) 18,242,826 13,726,487 8,216,265 500,112

Bergland(L) 291,980 0 14,440 2,154,172

Dem. Subtotal 69,185,439 53,201,395 1,343,670 15,314,251

Rep. Subtotal 18,242,828 13,726,487 8,216,255 500,112

Other Subtotal 452,320 0 30,642 2,165,822

GRAND TOTAL $87,880,585 $66,927,882 $9,590,577 $17,980,185

"Includes total reported disbursements minus transfers among authorized committees of the same

campaign. The total excludes refunds, rebates, loan repayments and refunded contributions.

exempt

""Does

from

not

each

include

publicly

certain

funded

expenditures

candidate's overall

for campaign

spending

fundraising

limit and

and

nis/tier

compliance

state-by-state

costs

spending

that are 4

limits.

***Debts owed by the Cranston for President Committee include only outstanding loans and do not

include debts owed to vendors.

8
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \blume11, Numoor 1

CHARTD

RECmpTS* OF

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES THROUGH 6/30/84

Millions of Dollars

\

• Other Receipts

•

Individual

Contributions

Federal

Matching Funds

~Loam f£B Received

---_._--------

.~.-._---------

5---~----

o

--_._---

20-.--------

10--·--------m

30··

• Includes total receipts minus transfers between each candidate's authorized committees.

··The Cranston for President Committee has not identified aU the sources of funds received during

1984. The committee had received approximately $1.8 million in federal matching funds through June 30, '

1984.

9
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION \k>lume 11, Numter 1

FINANCIAL ACTIVITY OF REPUBLICAN AND

DEMOCRATIC PARTY COMMITTE~

Republican party committees at the national,

state and local levels raised a total of $207.7

million and spent $171.0 million from January 1,

1983, through June 30, 1984. Their Democratic

counterparts raised a total of $59.7 million and

spent $52.1 million during the same period.

The study released by the FEC on November 4,

1984, showed that, during the first 18 months of

the current election cycle, Democratic party

committees' receipts increased 141 per-cent over

funds received during the same period in the 1982

election cycle. Republican committees' receipts

increased by 29 percent.

Between January 1, 1983, and October 17t 1984,

Republican party committees at the national level t

raised a total of $225.4 million and spent $217.6

million. Their Democratic counterparts raised

$5"7.3 million, on page II, and, on page 12, spent

$54.4 million.

See the charts below for depictions of each major

party's receipts. More detailed information may

be obtained from the four-volume, FEC Report on

Financial Activity, 1983-84, Interim Report No.

S: Part and Non-Part Committees. The study

may be purchased at 15 per volume from the

FEe.

CHART ill

RECElPTS* OF MAJOR PARTIESt 1/1/83-6/30/84

DEMOCRATIC RECEIPTS BY SOURCE

Individual Contributions (55%)

PAC Contributions (7%)

Other Receipts (38%)

TOTAL

$ 33.0 million

3.9 million

22.8 million

$59.7 million

REPUBLICAN RECEIPTS BY SOURCE

,----------- Individual Contributions (87%)

.r--------- PAC Contributions (0.5%)

Other* * Receipts (12.5%)

TOTAL

$180.6 million

1.0 million

26.1 million

$207.7 million

------,---

"'Includes total receipts minus transfers among each party's committees. •

'""'Other receipts include contributions from other political committees and unregistered orqanizations (e.g., local party organizations); loans or loan repayments received by party committees; offsets to

expenditures; dividends, interest and other miscellaneous income.

10
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION volume 11, Numoor 1

CHART IV

• RECEIPTS* OF

., NATIONAL PARTY COMMITfEES, 1/1/83-10/17/84

$73.5 million

~------_._-----

$ 8.2 million

$39.8 million

$ 9.3 million

---._-----_.- -_..•----_.

Democratic Party

25·---

225----

200 Senatorial ~Committee

175------··--· • ~~~~~nal --..~-_._-~----.-

150 --.-------0·----·--_·_- ---.----_.----.------

100---------

Millions of Doll81's

250 ~_c. ..._. .__. ---.-------..- ....-.------.---------------------

National

Committee ---~~~-

*Includes total receipts minus transfers between each party's respective committees.

CHART V

FUNDS RAISED BY MAJOR PARTIES

Millions of Dollars

250 --._------.---.-----..-.-.. -- _.. _... _.~ .__c~_c.__ .•__ . .... • • . c_~. __• ..._..._ .... _

Republican

• Democratic

1/1/79-6/30/80 1/1/81-6/30/82 1/1/83-6/30/84

._-------_.._--------- 200 ... _

o

Election

Cycle 1/ 1/77 -6/30/78

50 ---~_;::r;:;:;::;::::;::;----V150 ------------------r/

100---

11
January 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \kJlume 11, Numter 1

UPDATED PUBUCATIONS FOR STATE

AND LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS

Two recent publications are available to

state and local election officials:

Election Directory 84 includes the name,

address and telephone number of over 400

key federal, state and local election 'officials.

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

Campaign Finance Law 84 summarizes state

campaign finance laws and provides comparative charts on: campaign finance reporting

requirements; contribution and solicitation

limits; and special tax and public financing

provisions. $9.50 per copy; order no. 052-006-

00030-9.

Write the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402,

making reference to the publication and its order

number.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Official Business

FEDERAL REGISTER N<YfICHS

Copies of notices are available in the Public

Records Office.

Notice Title

1984-17 Public Records and the Freedom of Information Act: Access to Public Disclosure Division Documents; Amendment

of Fee Provisions; Notice of Effective

Date for Final Rules (49 Fed. Reg.

41016, October 19, 1984)

1984-18 11 CFR Part 6: Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap

in FEC Programs; Notice of Effective

Date for Final Rules (49 Fed. Reg.

44091, November 2, 1984)

1984-19 Notice of Disposition of Rulemaking Petition; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (No action taken by FEC) (49

Fed. Reg. 48210, December 11, 1984)

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31