III

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

20463 Volume 16, Num

20 INDEX

STATISTICS

16 1989 Special Elections

19 PAC Growth

16 STAFF: Inspector General App

CLEARINGHOUSE

15 Voting System Standards Appr

13 COMPLIANCE: Released MUR Fil

COURT CASES

11 Common Cause v. FEC (89-0524(

PUBLICATIONS

7 Updated party Guide Available

9 ADVISORY OPINIONS

10 AUDIT: Friends of Gary Hart-1

800 LINE

6 coordinated party Expenditur

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 APRIL REPORTS

4 NEW YORK SPECIAL ELECTION

PARTY ACTIVITIES

5 1990 party Spending Limits

Last-Minute Contributions

A candidate's principal campa

committee or any other authorized

committee must file special notice

contributions of $1,000 or more

received after the 20th day and m

than 48 hours before an election 

which the candidate is running. 

CFR 104.5(f) Within 48 hours afte

receiving the contribution, the

committee must deliver the follow

(contin

aggregating $1,000 or more and ma

between 20 days and 24 hours befo

election day begins must be repor

within 24 hours after the expendi

are made.

March 1990 999 EStreet NW Washington DC

pre-primary Reports

pre-primary reports, covering

activity from the close of books of

the last report filed through 20 days

before the primary election, are due

12 days prior to the election. Only

committees making contributions and

expenditures in connection with primaries are required to file preprimary reports.

If sent by registered or certified

mail, the report must be postmarked no

later than the 15th day before the

election. See the January 1990 Record

for a state-by-state list of preprimary filing dates.

• • ~. - - .- --~~~ -,...- - -'> •

. , .--~, '"',- ~I ~::r ;:: <, ,

/" ,': 1'0' . , '..'-. ./ . '", ~. "

. . __ ~._._.>..-..,,,,,",""_lii.~_~. _

Independent Spenders

Any independent expenditures

Quarterly Reports

All political committees filing on

a quarterly schedule during 1990 must

file a quarterly report by April 15.

The report should cover all activity

from January 1 (or from the closing

date of the last report filed, or from

the date of the committee's first

activity, whichever is later) through

March 31.

Monthly Reports

Those committees filing on a

monthly schedule during 1990 must file

reports by April 20. The report

should cover all activity from March 1

(or the closing date of the last

report filed, whichever is later)

through March 31.

REPORTS DUE IN APRIL

Reporting requirements for reports

due in April are described below. All

registered committees expected to file

reports in April are automatically

mailed forms. For additional forms or

other information on reporting

requirements, call the FEe at 800/424-

9530 or 202/376-3120.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530 202/376-3120 202/376-3136(TDD)

March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlrVllSSION

information in writing to the Clerk of

the House or the Secretary of the

Senate, as appropriate:

o The candidate's name and the

office that he or she is seeking;

o The identification of the

contributor; and

o The amount and date of receipt of

the contribution.

Changing Filing Schedule

PACs and party committees supporting candidates in several 1990

elections may wish to file monthly

report, in order to avoid filing

frequent pre-primary reports. A committee that wishes to change its

filing schedule (e.g., from quarterly

to monthly) must notify the Commission

in writing when it files a report

under its current schedule. A committee may not change its filing

schedule more than once in a calendar

year. 11 eFR 104.5(c).

The FEe requests that Presidential

committees also inform the Commission

in writing when they decide to change

their filing schedule.

Late Filing

The Federal Election Campaign Act

does not permit the Commission to

grant extensions on filing deadlines

under any circumstances. Failure to

file on time could result in enforcement action by the FEC.

Where Reports Are Filed

Committees must file all reports

simultaneously with the federal and

state officialS, as explained below.

11 CFR 108.3 and 108.5. Addresses for

federal offices can be found on the

back of FEC Forms 3 and 3X.

Filing with the Federal Government

o House Candidates: principal

campaign committees and committees

supporting or opposing only House

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry, Vice Chairman

Joan Aikens

Thomas J. Josefiak

Danny L. McDonald

Scott E. Thomas

2

Volume 16, Numbe

candidates file with the Clerk of

the House.

o Senate Candidates: Principal

campaign committees and committee

supporting or opposing only Sena

candidates file with the Secretar

of the Senate

a All Others: PACs, party committee

and principal campaign committees 

Presidential candidates file with

the Federal Election Commission.

Filing with State Governments

.0 House and Senate Candidates: The

principal campaign committees of

Congressional candidates must fil

copy of every report and statemen

with the Secretary of State (or

other election official, as appro

priate) of the state in which the

candidate is seeking office. 11 

108.3.

a Presidential Candidates: The

principal campaign committees of

Presidential candidates must file

copies of reports and statements

with the secretary of State or th

appropriate elections official o

the state in which the committee

makes campaign expenditures. Th

reports must contain all financia

transactions pertaining to that

state during the reporting period

covered. 11 CFR 108.2

o All Others: PACs and party committees making contributions or

expenditures in connection with

House and Senate races file repo

and statements in the state in w

the candidate seeks election. T

law requires a copy of only that

portion of the report applicable 

the candidates who seek election

from that state. Committees

supporting Presidential candidate

must file in the states in which 

Presidential committee and donor

committee have their respective

headquarters.

walter J. Stewart, Secretary of the

Senate, Ex Officio

Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the

House of Representatives, Ex Offic
APRIL REPORTING SCHEDULE •

March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Report

Volume 16, Numb

Type of Filer

Congressional Candidate

Committees, 1990

Quarterly

April 15

pre-primary

.(

Monthly

April 20

•

Congressional Candidate

Committees, Other Years

PAC/Party Committees:

Quarterly Filers

PAC/Party commi~tees:

Monthly Filers

Presidential Candidate

Committees:

Quarterly Filers

presidential Candidate

Committees: 3

Monthly Filers

Corporate/Labor/Membership

Organizations: Reports 4

of Partisan Communications

No reports required in April

.(

.(

.(

.(

.(

•

1. Required only if the committee makes previously undisclosed

contributions or expenditures on behalf of primary candidates.

2. All corporate and labor PACs, nonconnected committees and party

committees are required to file on either a monthly or a quarterly

schedule in 1990.

3. Presidential committees must file on either a monthly or a quarterly

schedule in 1990.

4. Reports required if an organization's aggregate costs for internal

communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 1990

candidate in a primary held before April 1 exceed $2,000. For more

information, see page 23 of the FEC's Campaign Guide for Corporations

and Labor Organizations.

3
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numb

NEW YORK SPECIAL ELECTION

New York will hold a special

election on March 20 to fill vacant

House seats in the 14th and 18th

Congressional Districts. Nominees for

those races are selected by the

parties and through the petitioning

process; all known nominees are

automatically sent forms for filing

the necessary pre- and post-election

reports.

Committees supporting candidates

in the special election must file preand post-election reports according to

the schedule below; all other committees should consult the article on

April reporting, above, for applicable

filing requirements.

Authorized Committees

Authorized committees of candidates who participate in this election

must file reports according to the

schedule given in the table.

Note that an authorized committee

must also file notices of last-minute

contributions received between March 1

and March 17, as explained on page 1.

PACs and party Committees

PACs and party committees active

in the New York special election may

also have to file special election

reports, depending on whether they

file on a quarterly or a monthly

schedule. Additionally, PACs--

including monthly filers--may have to

file last-minute reports on independent expenditures made in

connection with the special electi

Quarterly Filers

PACs and party committees that

report on a quarterly basis during

1990 may have to file pre- and

post-election reports. A filing

requirement for a special election

report is triggered if:

a The committee makes contribution

expenditures in connection with 

special election during the cove

dates shown in the tables; and

o The committee has not previously

disclosed the special election

activity in an earlier report. 

CFR 104.5 ( c ) ( 1) ( ii) and (h).

Monthly Filers

PACs and party committees that

file monthly during 1990 do not ha

to file pre- and post-election rep

for the special election.

PAC Reports on

Independent Expenditures

Any PAC (including a monthly

filer) that makes independent

expenditures in connection with a

special election may have to file 

last-minute report. Independent

expenditures aggregating $1,000 or

more that are made between March 

March 18 must be reported within 2

hours after the expenditure is ma

11 CFR 104.4(b) and (g).

Where to File

Authorized committees of

candidates file simultaneously wi

the Clerk of the House and the New

York state Board of Elections, One

Commerce plaza, Albany, NY 12260.

NEW YORK SPECIAL ELECTION: REPORTING SCHEDULE

Report

Pre-General

April Quarterly

post-General

Period 1

Covered

1/1 - 2/28

3/1 - 3/31

4/1 - 4/9

Reg./Cert. 2

Mailing Date

3/5

4/15

4/19

Fili

Date

3/8

4/1

4/1

1. The period begins with the close of books of the last report filed. I

previous reports have been filed, the period begins with the date of t

committee's first activity. 

2. Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the

mailing date. otherwise, reports must be received by the filing date.

4
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

o House, in states With Only One

Member: Parties supporting House

candidates in states with only on

Representative in the House (i.e

Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming

may spend up to the limit for Sen

candidates in those states, $50,2

o Senate: Party committees may spe

up to $50,280 on behalf of each

Senate candidate or up to the 198

VAP multiplied by $0.02 and

increased by the COLA, whichever 

greater.

The chart below lists 1990 part

spending limits for Senate candida

in the general election. As explai

above, the Senate limit also applie

to candidates for the House in thos

states entitled to only one

Representative. In the chart, an

asterisk (*) indicates those states

having only one Member in the House 

Representatives.

1990 P

Spen

Lim

$ 151,34

50,28

129,47

88,29

L073,478

123,33

124,64

50,28

492,69

233,24

50,28

50,28

436,32

207,80

107,19

93,21

138,77

156,32

50,28

177,63

230,08

343,36

162,10

93,11

193,77

50,28

59,68

50,28

50,28

296,80

54,00

683,80

247,83

(contin

Volume 16, Numbe

3,010

362

2,575

1,756

21,350

2,453

2,479

504

9,799

4,639

825

710

8,678

4,133

2,132

1,854

2,760

3,109

917

3,533

4,576

6,829

3,224

1,852

3,854

588

L187

833

828

5,903

1,074

13,600

4,929

VAP

(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

State

March 1990

5

.' - -_:':. ~'-.~~-.~-:;~-;~-:'-=;~: .. ':. :.~-.. :"~:.::~r-- ..-:- .:: ' ': ~.-f~'l U{l ~\J/ fa\! ~-;':, r; It f f ':;1 ! ~~~: >~y~' .. h ~~. , ,-L, ' .. J,...f'\~~)J"_!-;~~f.,1.,_\~_-::,;~,:~;, . lJ>T:~J*":-I'~~-';'~~rt". ,~~~.

'.. _, ~., _.~""",,'~~ ..... ~_~~ _ .~2~.~·__-::~~.:" .::-~>~.-

COORDINATED PARTY

EXPENDITURES: 1990 LIMITS

Party committees may make limited

expenditures on behalf of House and

Senate candidates in the 1990 general

elections. These "coordinated party

expenditures" are subject to limits

separate from the limits on

contributions to candidates. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d) and 11 CFR 110.7. Although

commonly referred to as "coordinated"

expenditures--meaning that they are

usually undertaken with the

cooperation or consent of the

candidate--only the party committee

making the expenditures (not the

candidate) reports them, using

Schedule F of FEC Form 3x.

The National Committee of each

party has its own spending limits for

Senate and House candidates in the

general election. state party

committees are subject to separate

spending limits. Within each state,

all expenditures incurred on behalf of

one candidate by the state party

committee or any subordinate party

committee (e.g., county, district or

local) are subject to the state

committee's spending limit. 11 CFR

1l0.7(c).

The formula for determining the

party spending limits for Senate

candidates is generally.based on the

state's voting age population (VAP),

as calculated by the Department of

Commerce. spending limits are then

increased by a cost-of-living

adjustment (COLA) based on the annual

change in the Consumer Price Index, as

certified by the Secretary of Labor.

In states with more than one

Congressional district, the limit on

party spending for House candidates is

$10,000, multiplied by COLA. The 1990

COLA is 2.514. The House and Senate

party spending limits for 1990 are as

follows:

o House, in States with Kore Than One

Member: For House candidates in

states with more than one district,

the 1990 party spending limit is

$25,140. This limit also applies to

candidates for Delegate seats in the

House from the District of Columbia,

American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands.
March.1990 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numb

North Dakota*

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota*

Tennessee

Texas

utah

Vermont*

virginia

washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming*

481

8,090

2,371

2,123

9,199

767

2,558

519

3,685

12,038

1,076

425

4,615

3,545

1,394

3,612

339

50,280.00

406,765.20

119,213.88

106,744.44

462,252.72

50,280.00

128,616.24

50,280.00

185,281.80

605,270.64

54,101. 28

50,280.00

232,042.20

178,242.60

70,090.32

181,611.36

50,280.00

contribution. Other differences

between contributions and party

expenditures are:

o Coordinated party expenditures m

be made in connection with only 

general election, while contribu

tions may be made for any electi

o Contributions count against con

bution limits while coordinated

party expenditures count agains

separate (and generally higher)

limits.

o party expenditures are reported 

by the party committee, while co

tributions are reported by both 

committee making them and the co

mittee receiving them.

COORDINATED PARTY EXPENDITURES

Section 441a of the election law

limits certain types of support that

parties may give to their candidates.

In addition to limiting contributions

to candidates, the provision limits

the "coordinated party expenditures"

made by national and state party

committees in connection with the

general election campaigns of their

candidates. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d). These

activities are called "coordinated

expenditures" because they are usually

undertaken with the consent or

knowledge of the candidate.

This article explains the rules

governing coordinated party

expenditures. For further information

on party activities, consult the FEe's

Campaign Guide for Party Committees.

How do coordinated party expenditures differ from contributions? When

a party makes a contribution to a

candidate, money or something of value

is given directly to the candidate or

to his or her authorized committee.

When a party makes a coordinated

expenditure, the money is spent by the

party to support the candidate's campaign. For example, as a coordinated

expenditure, a party committee may

write a check to a vendor to pay for

services rendered to a candidate

committee. If the party committee

gives the candidate money to pay the

bill, that money would be considered a

6

What are the limits on coordin

party expenditures? Coordinated p

spending limits are calculated as

follows:

o Senate Candidates: state Voting 

population (VAP) multiplied by

$0.02, increased by. the cost-of

living adjustment (COLA); or

$20,000, increased by the COLA;

whichever is greater. 11 CFR

110.7(b)(2)(i) and 110.9(c). I

1990, effective spending limits 

Senate nominees range from $50,2

in small states, such as Alaska 

Wyoming, to $1,073,478 in the

largest state, California.

o House Candidates: $10,000 incre

by the COLA. Based on this form

the 1990 limit on party spending 

$25,140. In states with only on

Representative in the House, the

limit is the same as the Senate

limit. 11 CFR 110.7(b)(2) and

llO.9(c).

The Commission publishes the

limits for coordinated party expen

tures each election year in the

Federal Register, as well as in th

Record. See page 5 of this issue.

May the National Committee mak

expenditures for House and Senate

candidates? Yes. The National

Committee has a coordinated party

spending limit for each Senate and

House candidate in the general

election. 11 CFR 110.7(b)(1). Th

limit on the National Committee's

spending is shared with the Congressional and Senatorial Campaign

Committees. 11 CFR 110.7(a)(4).
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COIVIIVlISSION Volume 16, Numbe

Address

CAMPAIGN GUIDE ORDER FORft

No. o

Copie

( continu

Nonconnected Committees

City, State, Zip

Campaign Guide

Party Committees (new)

Congressional Candidates

Corporations/Labor

Organizations

Organization

Name

How about a local party group?

Can it make these expenditures? A

local party committee or a local p

organization may make coordinated

expenditures only if it has been

designated (in advance) by the

national or state committee.

Does a local party committee h

a separate spending limit? No.

Coordinated party expenditures by

local organizations count against 

limits of the designating state or

national committee. 11 CFR 110.7(

(4) and (c). A state party commit

is responsible for monitoring the

party expenditures of local commit

to make sure its expenditure limit

for House and Senate candidates are

not exceeded. 11 CFR 110.7(c)(1} 

( 2 ) •

candidate that count against the st

committee's limit. 11 CFR 110.7(a)

(4). The Commission recommends th

when one committee designates anoth

to make coordinated party expenditu

on its behalf, the designation sho

be in writing and include the auth

ized amount.

7

How much support can a state party

committee offer to the candidates it

supports? A state committee has its

own coordinated party spending

limit--separate from the national

committee/s limit--for each House and

Senate general election candidate

affiliated with the party who is

seeking election in the state. 11 CFR

llO.7(b)(I).

Can spending limits be transferred

between national and state committees?

Yes. Although national and state

party committees each have a limit on

the amount of money they can spend for

their candidates, the right to spend

up to that limit can be transferred

from one committee to the other. If,

for example, the coordinated party

spending limit for a Senate candidate

in one state is $75,000, the national

committee may authorize the state

committee to spend any portion of its

$75,000 limit (in addition to the

state committee's own $75/000 limit).

Likewise, the state committee may

authorize the national committee to

make expenditures on behalf of the

CAMPAIGN GUIDE FOR PARTY

COMMITTEES UPDATED

The Commission recently published

a revised campaign Guide for political

Party Committees, a manual designed to

help pa~ty commitees understand and

comply with the requirements of the

federal election law.

Written in plain English, the

guide provides instructions for each

step of the election process--from

registration to fundraising to winding

down the campaign. Detailed

information and illustrations are also

included to help committees follow the

recordkeeping and reporting rules.

Campaign Guides are also available

for Congressional candidates,

corporations and labor organizations

and nonconnected PACs. To request

copies, send the attached form to:

Federal Election Commission

Information Services Division

999 E street, NW

washington, DC 20463
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numb

If a local party organization is

not registered with the FEC, can it

still make these expenditures? Yes,

but party expenditures by a designated

local organization must still be made

with funds permissible under federal

law. The expenditures could trigger

federal registration requirements for

the local organization, if that

organization raises or spends over

$1,000 in connection with federal

elections. 2 U.S.C. §431(4)(C); 11

CrR 100.5(c) and 102.5(b).

Does a party committee have a

choice over whether to call a disbursement a coordinated party

expenditure or an in-kind contribution? Yes. Depending on whether

the party committee has exhausted its

contribution limit or coordinated

party expenditure limit for a general

election candidate, the committee may

choose to regard a disbursement made

on behalf of a candidate as either a

coordinated expenditure or a

contribution. Note, however, that

coordinated expenditures are reported

only by the party committee, while

contributions are reported by both the

committee making the contributions and

the candidates receiving them.

If a party expenditure supports

several general election candidates,

must it be allocated among them in the

party committee's records and reports?

Yes. If a party committee supports

more than one candidate through a

coordinated party expenditure, the

disbursement must be allocated among

the candidates on a reasonable basis.

The amount attributed to each candidate as a party expenditure must

reflect the benefit each receives. 11

eFR 104.10 and 106.1(a).

Are any party activities exempt

from the expenditure limits? Yes,

certain state and local party

activities that support the party's

general election nominees are exempt

from the limits on coordinated party

expenditures (as well as from the

limits on contributions). These

exempt activities include:

o Payments for slate cards and sample

ballots listing three or more

candidates;

a Co~ts of campaign materials (such as

bumper stickers, buttons and

posters) used in connection with

8

volunteer activity; and

o Costs of voter registration and

voter drives conducted on behalf 

the Presidential nominee.

Funds used to make these payme

must be lawfully solicited and

received. Exempt activities may n

be funded with contributions desig

nated by their contributors to be 

to support a particular candidate. 

U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(v}, (x) and (xii

11 CFR lOO.7(b)(9), (15) and (17).

Maya party committee make

independent expenditures? No.

Because party committees, by natur

support the election campaigns of

candidates, their efforts on behal

candidates cannot be considered

"independent" under the election l

which defines an independent expen

ture, in part, as "made without

cooperation or consultation with a

candidate,~ and "not made in conce

with or at the request or suggesti

of any candidate." 2 U.S.C. §431(

Instead, party committees may make

limited coordinated expenditures o

behalf of their candidates. 11 CF

110.7{a){5) and (b)(4): AO 1980-11

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

March 8-10 Council on Governmen

Ethics Laws Steering

Committee

Ft. Mi tchell, KY

John surina, Staff

Director

March 23 Simpson Timber and

Simpson Paper

Companies

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Lee Ann

Elliott

April 4 Society of statesmen

Chowder and Marching

Republican Clubs

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Lee Ann

Elliott

April 30 Missouri Optometric

Association

Jefferson City, MO

Craig Engle, Executi

Assistant to Chairm

Lee Ann Ell iott
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COIVIIVIISSIOI\J Volume 16, Numbe

l

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent

requests for advisory opinions (AORs).

The full text of any AOR is available

for public inspection and comment from

the FEe's Public Records Office.

AOR 1990-3

PAC's sale of advertisements in

newsletter circulated to contributors.

(Date made public: February 2, 1990;

Length: 2 pages)

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION OF

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

AOR 1989-31

The Commission failed to approve a

draft advisory opinion by the required

four votes.

ADVISORY OPINION SUMMARY

AD 1989-28: voter Guides Distributed

by Nonprofit Corporation

voter guides distributed to the

general public by the Maine Right to

Life Committee (MRLC), Inc., in the

form of a newsletter must comply with

FEC regulations on nonpartisan

corporate voter gUides, set forth at

11 CPR 114.4(b}, if MRLC uses its

general treasury funds to finance the

production and distribution of the

guides.

MCFL Question

MRLC does not qualify for the

exemption granted to certain types of

nonprofit corporations as a result of

the Supreme Court's decision in FEe v.

Massachusetts1Citizens for Life,

Inc., (MCFL). The Court ruled that

section 441b's prohibition against

corporate expenditures in connection

with federal elections was

unconstitutional as applied to MCFL

because that organization (1) was a

corporation formed for political,

1. FEe v. Massachusetts Citizens for

Life, Inc., 479 u.s. 238 (1986).

See the February 1987 Record for a

summary.

9

rather than commercial, purposes, (

had no shareholders or other

affiliated persons with a claim on 

assets or earnings, and (3) was not

established by a business corporati

and accepted no corporate or labor

contributions.

Unlike MCFL, MRLC solicits and

accepts corporate funds in the form 

advertising sales (for its newslett

and direct corporate contributions.

Thus, MRLC is not exempt from the

law'S restrictions on corporate

spending.

Voter Guide Rules

While the election law prohibit

corporations from using their gener

treasury funds to make expenditures 

connection with federal elections,

nonpartisan efforts to encourage

voting are specifically excluded fr

the definition of "expenditure" and

thus, are not prohibited. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)12) and 431(9)(8)(ii).

Corporations may spend their genera

treasury funds to produce nonpartis

voter guides that feature candidate

responses to questions. Such guide

may not favor any candidate or part

over another. 11 CFR 114.4(b)(5}.

MRLC, which is a nonprofit

corporation that is tax-exempt unde

26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4), proposes to u

its general treasury funds to finan

voter guides. Since MRLC has

established a separate segregated

fund, MRLCPAC, the Commission

considers the organization to be on

that supports, endorses or opposes

candidates. Therefore, its voter

guides must comply with the specifi

criteria for nonpartisan

communications set forth at 11 CFR

114.4(b)(5)(i)(A)-(D). These rules

list certain factors to consider in

deciding whether a voter guide is

nonpartisan, including whether the

wording of the guide does not sugg

or favor any position on the issues

covered. As another factor, the

regulations provide that a nonparti

voter guide may not express an

editorial opinion concerning the

issues presented or indicate any

support Or opposition to a candida

Prior to the 1984 general elect

MRLe produced a newsletter/voter gu

that was nonpartisan according to

these criteria. The 1984 guide,

ftnanced with MRLe's general treasu

(continue
March 1990

==

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numb

10

funds, included questions that were

not worded in such a way as to suggest

a favored response on the part of the

candidates surveyed. MRLC's

presentation of the survey questions

and the results did not instruct

readers as to what MRLC-preferred

responses should be. No responses

from federal candidates were included

in the 1984 guide; instead, the

letters "NR" appeared next to each

federal candidate named, with a note

explaining that "NR" meant "no

response." The newsletter/voter guide

suggested that readers personally

contact those candidates regarding

their positions on the issues in the

survey. 11 CPR 114.4(b}(S). Thus, a

1990 newsletter/voter guide that is

materially indistinguishable from the

1984 guide would be permissible under

the election law and FEe rules.

MRLC distributed another voter

guide in 1988 which did not conform

with FEC rules. The 1988 guide

presented responses to questions posed

in language explicitly favoring the

organization's views. Each question

was framed so that only a "yes" or

"no" answer was expected. Four of six

federal candidates listed in the guide

were designated as making no response

to the questionnaire; one candidate

was shown as answering "yes" to each

of the committee's questions. The

guide stated that a "yes" response

indicated agreement with MRLC's views.

In addition, a cover feature on the

1988 Presidential election was replete

with partisan editorial references to

the candidates' known positions on

abortion-related issues. MRLC,

therefore, may not use its general

treasury funds to produce a voter

guide similar to its 1988 guide for

distribution during the 1990

elections.

Press Exemption

MRLC's newsletter/voter guide is

not eligible for the press exemption

under section 431(9)(8)(i) af the

election law. That provision excludes

from the definition of "expenditure"

news stories, commentaries and

editorials broadcast or published in a

newspaper, magazine or other

periodical. The press exemption

applies only to entities engaged in

normal newsgathering activities and

deriving their revenues from the sale

of subscriptions (or single issues)

and advertising. MRLe is essenti

a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporatio

not a news media business, and

therefore does not meet these

standards.

Commissioners Aikens and Elli

plan to issue concurring opinions

(Date issued: February 14, 1989;

Length: 10 pagesl

FINAL AUDIT REPORT ON 1968

HART CAMPAIGN RELEASED

On January 25, 1990, the

Commission released the final aud

report on Friends of Gary Hart-198

the publicly funded 1988 Presiden

campaign of former Senator Gary H

The Commission'S findings are

desc ribed below.

Copies of final audit reports 

1988 Presidential campaigns are

available from the Public Records

Office.

Contributions in the Form of Check

payable to 1964 Presidential Camp

The audit of the 1988 Hart

campaign uncovered $13,606 in chec

made payable to Americans With Ha

(AWH), Mr. Hart's 19B4 Presidentia

campaign committee, that were rece

and deposited by the 1988 committ

The committee forwarded $530 to AW

keeping the remaining $13,076.

In response to the interim au

report, the Committee refunded two 

the AWH contributions to their

contributors, issued checks to AWH

representing 130 of the contributi

and provided documentation for 12

other contributions showing that t

were actually intended for the 198

campaign. Satisfied with the

Committee's efforts to clarify the

designation of the AWH contributio

the Commission took no further ac

on the matter.

Insufficiently Documented Expense

Travel and Subsistence Paymen

Several disbursements for "travel 

subsistence" appeared to be

nonqualified campaign expenses be

the committee failed to prOVide an

receipts or vouchers dem?nstrating 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numb

$5,399.68, representing the amount 

matching funds received in excess 

the candidate's entitlement. 26

U.S.C. §9038(b)(1). The Committee

received the excessive matching

payment prior to submitting its

statement of Net Outstanding Campa

Obligations (NaCO). Because the N

Statement showed that the candidat

had surplus funds on his date of

ineligibility, the Committee was n

entitled to those matching funds.

The Committee made the require

repayment prior to the Commission'

adoption of the final audit report

Background

In its original complaint, Com

Cause alleged that NRSC had made

excessive contributions to 12 Sena

candidates as a result of a 1986

"bundling" project.

The focus of Common Cause's com

plaint was a series of direct mail

solicitations asking contributors 

write checks to benefit Republican

Senate candidates in four states.

NRSC mailed diffe~ent versions of 

letter, varying the set of four st

mentioned and the amount of the

contributions requested according 

geographic area of the recipients 

their pattern of prior contributio

None of the 12 candidates involved 

the Senate races was named in the

letters. Recipients were asked to

write checks payable to different

accounts controlled by the Committ

such as "Inner Circle" or "Republi

(continu

COMMON CAUSE v. FEC (89-0524(GAG»

On January 24, 1990, the U.S.

District Court for the District·of

Columbia found that the Commission

dismissal of a portion of an admin

istrative complaint filed by Commo

Cause against the National Republi

Senatorial Committee (NRSC) was

arbitrary, capricious and contrary 

law. The court reversed the FEC's

partial dismissal of the complaint 

remanded the matter back to the ag

with directions to conform with the

court's declaration.

March 1990

11

the funds were spent by their

recipients. The Commission's Audit

staff questioned $279,608 in diem

payments the committee had made.

In response to the interim audit

report, the Committee argued that the

payments were made pursuant to a

pre-established diem policy in

accordance with 11 CFR 9033.11(b)(1)

(iv)(B). The Committee also provided

supporting documentation for the

travel and subsistence expenses,

producing payroll records and

affidavits regarding the intended and

actual use of the money. (Some of the

money was spent on termination and

severance payments for Committee

staff, not travel and subsistence.)

The Committee also filed amended FEe

reports.

The Commission concluded that the

Committee had satisfied the documentation requirements.

Consulting Fees. The audit also

identified payments to consultants

that had not been sufficiently

documented. Among these payments were

$11,000 paid on the Committee's behalf

by a law firm. The law firm had paid

the consultant with an unused portion

of a retainer the Committee had

previously paid. Subsequent

documentation and amendments to

reports filed by the the Committee

provided sufficient clarification.

Media Purchases. At the time the

Commission conducted its field audit,

the Committee was unable to produce

adequate documentation supporting a

payment of $26,092 to an advertising

firm for media purchases. Eventually,

the Committee produced copies of

invoices from TV stations supporting

the payments in question.

Surplus and Excess Matching Funds

The Commission made an initial

determination that the Hart campaign

had to repay $29,036 to the U.S.

Treasury, representing a prorated

portion of surplus campaign funds that

the committee had on hand when Mr.

Hart withdrew from the Presidential

race--i.e., Mr. Hart's "date of

ineligibility." The Commission

determined that an additional $1,354

needed to be repaid, representing

interest the Committee had earned on

deposits of federal matching funds. 11

CFR 9038.3(c)(1) and 9034.4(a)(4).

The Commission also determined

that the Committee must repay
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numb

12

Presidential Task Force.~ The project

raised more than $2,800,000. In its

FEC reports, NRSC reported most of

these funds as earmarked contributions

that were passed on to the 12 candidates. The Committee also provided

the 12 campaigns with information to

itemize the contributions in their own

reports. 11 CFR 110.6(cl.

Common Cause alleged that NRSC had

exercised ~direction or control~ over

the contributions received as a result

of the mailing and that, therefore,

the contributions should have been

reported as contributions by NRSC to

the candidates and counted against

NRSC's limits. Alternatively, Common

Cause alleged that the contributions

had not been earmarked at all and

that, therefore, the Commission should

have viewed the transactions as contributions from the individual donors

to NRSC and contributions by NRSC to

the the 12 candidates.

Under FEC rules, an earmarked

contribution does not affect the

contribution limits of the conduit or

intermediary unless the intermediary

has exercised direction or control

over the choice of 1the candidate

receiving the money. 11 CFR 110.6(d)

(1). In that situation, the limits of

both the donor and the conduit or

intermediary are affected.

The Commission pursued several

reporting violations and excessive

contributions of $534,249 in connection with the ~bundling~ project.

Concerning these matters, the

Commission found probable cause and

assessed a civil penalty of $20,000

against NRSC. The Commissioners

deadlocked, however, over the issue of

whether the Committee had improperly

treated $2,718,814 collected from

contributors as earmarked contributions and whether, instead, the

Committee should have reported the

money as its own contributions to the

12 candidates. Such a finding would

have meant that NRSC had exceeded its

contribution limits for the 12

candidates by $3,485,467. The split

3-3 vote on this question resulted in

the Commissioners' rejection of the

General Counsel's recommendation that

1. The FEC recently promulgated

revised rules concerning earmarked

contributions. See the November 1989

Record for a summary of the changes.

they find probable cause to believ

NRSC had failed to report the

contributions passed on to the

candidates and had exceeded the

contribution limits by $3,222,165

(rather than $534,249 mentioned

above).

Commissioner Josefiak, who vot

to reject the General Counsel's

recommendation regarding the earma

ing question, issued a Statement o

Reasons explaining his vote, with

which Commissioners Aikens and Ell

filed a joint concurrence. Commis

sioners McDonald, MCGarry and Thom

issued a joint Statement of Reason

explaining their votes to approve 

General Counsel's recommendations.

District Court Decision

In finding that the Commission 

acted contrary to law in dismissin

part of the plaintiff's complaint, 

court pointed out that, under FEC

rules, a contribution is ~earmarke

if it bears a designation, instruc

or encumbrance which results in al

part of it being made to a clearly

identified candidate. 11 CFR

110.6(b). In the court's view, th

contributions resulting from NRSC

solicitation project were not ~ear

marked" under this definition beca

checks were payable to NRSC or som

other entity controlled by the

Committee and not to "specific can

dates •... [Furthermore,] the candid

who ultimately received these

contributions were not 'clearly

identified' in the mailings in tha

neither their names nor their pict

appeared in the mailings and their

identities were not apparent to ma

contributors .... The court conclu

therefore, that the donors ~did no

make a meaningful designation,

instruction or encumbrance on the

NRSC's use of the contributed fund

Supporting the conclusion tha

NRSC had exercised some direction 

control over the contributions, th

court noted evidence suggesting "t

individual donors intended to give 

the NRSC for use in its discretion

In addition, ~NRSC chose twelve

campaigns which were mentioned in 

letters... chose which mailing list

with which donation histories, wou

be used for each version of the

letter. The contributions were to 

made to the NRSC or an organizatio

controlled by the NRSC , were depo
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numbe

13

in the NRSC's bank accounts, and were

disbursed to the campaigns by the

NRSC. "

The court also pointed out that

the Commission's decision concerning

the "direction or control" issue was

not mandated by prior FEC precedent,

was effected by a 3-3 deadlock vote,

was contrary to the General Counsel's

recommendation, and "ignored the

plain language of the applicable regulation." Thus, the court found that

the FEC's action was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.

In reversing the Commission's

action, the court remanded the case tc

the agency with instructions to

conform with the court's declaration

within 30 days. On February 15, 1990,

consistent with the court's decision,

the Commission reopened the enforcement proceedings.

MURS RELEASED TO PUBLIC

Publicly released MUR summary

files, as announced in FEC press

releases on January 16 and 25 and

February 2, 1990, are listed below.

Civil penalties resulted from

conciliation agreements reached

between the respondents and the

Commission.

The summary file for each MUR is

available from the FEC's Public

Records Office.

HUR 2570

Respondents: (a) Citizens for Jack

Kemp and treasurer (NY); (b) D.R.

Corbin (CA)i (e) M. Goland (CA)i (d)

R.D. Krotzer (NY); et al., (e)-(g)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Excessive and prohibited

contributions

Disposition: (a) $3,500 civil

penalty; (b) $250 civil penalty; (c),

(e), (f) and (g), reason to believe

but took no further action; (d) $500

civil penalty

MUR 2697/2699

Respondents: J. Nixon for U.S. Senate

Committee and treasurer (Mal

Complainant: T. Feather, Executive

Director, Missouri Republican party

Subject: Failure to refund or

redesignate contribution on time;

receipt of contribution from unregi

tered committee

Disposition: $700 civil penalty

HUR 2729

Respondents: (a) M. Hanson (MN); (

Hanson '88 Committee and treasurer

(MN); (c) Minnesota State Democrati

Farmer-Labor Party and treasurer;" (

7th Congressional District DFL

Campaign Committee and treasurer

Complainant: J.R. Gaylord, Executi

Director, National Republican

congressional Committee (DC)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

affiliation; failure to register an

report on time

Disposition: (a) No reason to

believe; (b) and (c) Reason to beli

but took no further action; (d) No

probable cause

HUR 2741

Respondents: Manor Healthcare Fede

PAC and treasurer (MD)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Transfer from nonfederal 

federal account

Disposition: $800 civil penalty

MUR 2770

Respondents: Alexander Campaign

Committee and treasurer (AR)

complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $3,400 civil penalty

!'lUR 2793

Respondents: Jefferson County

Republican Central Committee and

treasurer (CO)

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $2,000 civil penalty

MUR 2806

Respondents: Hartford National

corporation PAC and treasurer

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Transfer from nonfederal 

federal account

Disposition: $1,200 civil penalty

MUR 2808

Respondents: (a) Democratic State

Central Committee (of Colorado) and

treasurer; (b) Gordon & Schwenkmey

Inc. (CA)

Complainant: FEe initiated

(continued
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION Volume 16, Numb

Subject: Failure to designate

campaign depository or file adequate

disclosure documents

Disposition: (a) $1,350 civil

penalty; (b) No probable cause

Il1UR 2831

Respondents: Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign Committee and

treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Transfer from nonfederal to

federal account

Disposition: $2,350 civil penalty

MUR 2853

Respondents: DeConcini '88 Committee

and treasurer (AZ)

Complainant: Sua sponte

Subject: Disclaimer

Disposition: $1,500 civil penalty

KUR 2886

Respondents: North Carolina Election

Campaign Fund and treasurer

complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to register and

report on time and to report correct

information

Disposition: $5,000 civil penalty

MUR 2897

Respondents: (a) Congressman R.K.

Armey (TX); (b) S. Armey (TX); Ic)

O.F. Henning, Jr. (TX); (d) Dick Armey

Campaign and treasurer; Ie) policy

Innovation PAC and treasurer

Complainant: J.W. Caton (TX)

Subject: Affiliation

Disposition: (a)-(e), no reason to

believe

MUR 2898

Respondents: (a) Congressman R.K.

Armey (TX); ( b) S. Armey (TX); (c)

O.F. Henning, Jr. (TX); (i) Dick Armey

campaign and treasurer; et al.,

(d)-(h) and (j) -- --

complainant: J.W. Caton

subject: Use of conduit to evade

contribution limits

Disposition: (a)-(c) and (i), took no

action; (d)-(h) and (ji, no reason to

believe

MUR 2923

Respondents: Ravenscroft for

Congress and treasurer (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $300 civil penalty

14

MUR 2929

Respondents: Franco for Congress

Committee and treasurer (CA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to report on tim

Disposition: $350 civil penalty

MUR 2930

Respondents: Republican National

Committee-Contributions and treasu

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions

Disposition: $1,750 civil penalty

MUR 2946

Respondents: Avon products, Inc.,

Fund for Responsible Government an

treasurer (NY)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to report on tim

Disposition: $300 civil penalty

MUR 2955

Respondents: General Public Util

Political Participation Associatio

and treasurer (DC)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to report on tim

Disposition: $375 civil penalty

MUR 2958

Respondents: International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Local 98 COPE and treasurer (PA)

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on tim

Disposition: $600 civil penalty

I'lUR 2965

Respondents: National Telephone

Cooperative Association Telephone

Education Committee Organization a

tceasurer

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on tim

Disposition: $300 civil penalty

MUR 2971

Respondents: Senate Victory Fund 

(FKA Cochran Committee) and treasu

(MS)

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on tim

Disposition: $350 civil penalty

MUR 2972

Respondents: st. Louisians for B

Government and treasurer

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on tim

Disposition: $500 civil penalty
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 16, Numbe

15

Washington, D.C., Candidate Conference

On March 30, the Commission will host a conference at the

Washington Court on Capitol Hill for candidates and staff membe~s

prep~ri~g for the 1990 elections. Workshops will be conducted by

CommlSSloners and FEe staff members; a representative of the Internal

Revenue Service will speak about election-related tax issues. The $65

registration fee includes all materials, lunch and refreshments.

(continue

COMPUTERIZED VOTING SYSTEM

STANDARDS APPROVED

In January, the Commission

approved a final set of voluntary

standards for computerized voting

systems. The new standards are

designed to help election officials

and voting system vendors ensure th

accuracy and reliability of

computer-based vote counting system

Seven states have already adopted

portions of the standards program.

The standards establish minimum

performance, testing and security

requirements and cover punchcard,

marksense and direct recording

electronic systems.

In addition to the standards, t

Commission approved three advisory'

plans addressing their implementati

The advisory plans focus on:

o Issues and options to be consider

in adopting and implementing the

standards;

o The escrow of voting system softw

and other system documentation; a

o The evaluation and selection of

independent test authorities that

will test computerized voting

systems against the performance

standards.

ELECTION LAW CONFERENCE SERIES

To receive a registration form for either of these conferences,

call the FEC at 800/424-9530 or 202/376-3120.

Arizona Regional Conference

On March 8 and 9 the FEe and the Arizona Secretary of State's

Office will hold a regional conference on campaign finance laws at the

Safari Resort in Scottsdale, Arizona. The conference will include

workshops on candidate campaigns, party and PAC activity,

contributions and reporting. The $50 registration fee includes all

materials, lunch and refreshments.

MUR 2979

Respondents: Apartment political

Committee of the National Apartment

Association and treasurer (DC)

Complainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $8,750 civil penalty

MUR 2980

Respondents: (a) D.K. McCloud (DC);

(b) Robb for the Senate and treasurer

(VA)

Complainant: B. Franklin (VA)

SUbject: Breach of FECA

confidentiality requirements

Disposition: (a) and (b), no reason

to believe

MUR 2976

Respondents: Utah State Democratic

Committee Federal and treasurer

Complainant: FEe initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $450 civil penalty

MUR 2977

Respondents: Women's Pro-Israel

National PAC (WIN PAC) and treasurer

(DC)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $1,000 civil penalty

MUR 2974

Respondents: Transarnerica Life

Companies PAC (TALCPAC) and treasurer

(eA)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to report on time

Disposition: $1,200 civl penalty
March 1990 FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlMISSION Volume 16, Num

After Congress authorized the

project in 1984, the FEC's National

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration organized the effort to

develop the standards. The commission

published a notice in the Federal

Register, in August 1989, requesting

final comments on the proposed

standards and three associated plans.

See 54 Fed. Reg. 32479.

The final standards and companion

guidelines incorporate numerous

changes suggested in the responses

received, and represent the

culmination of eleven public meetings

and input from more than 130 state and

local election officials, independent

technical experts, vendors,

congressional staff, members of the

Commission and others. The Commission

announced the issuance of the final

standards and three associated plans

in the Federal Register on February 5,

1990. See 55 Fed. Reg. 3764.

, . :- ,

I

. . . - . . . - - .

COMMISSION APPOINTS

PERMANENT INSPECTOR GENERAL

In February the Commission

appointed Lynne McFarland as the

agency's first permanent Inspector

General (IG}.

Charged with conducting audits and

investigations to detect fraud, waste

and abuse within the agency, the IG

reports directly to the Commission.

Ms. McFarland will also advise the

Commissioners on ways to improve the

economy and efficiency of the FEe's

operations. upon announcing the

appointment, Chairman Lee Ann Elliott

directed the agency's staff to provide

the new IG with full cooperation and

assistance in these efforts.

Ms. McFarland has been an FEC

staff member since 1976, serving most

recently in the Office of planning and

Management as a program analyst. She

holds a B.S. in Sociology from

Frostburg state College in Maryland.

16

1989 SPECIAL ELECTIONS

An FEC statistical study relea

in February showed that the 41 Ho

candidates who ran in the eight

special elections held in 1989 sp

total of $10.9 million. Addition

the Democratic and Republican par

spent $592,303 on the 16 candidate

who survived initial primary race

the vacant seats.

Special elections held during

nonelection years focus national

attention on a small number of

Congressional districts. As a re

they often generate greater levels 

spending than open-seat races held

during regular elections. In 198

median spending by the 16 major p

finalists was $551,852; by contra

median spending by the 50 major p

ge~eral election candidates for op

seats during the 1988 campaigns w

$451,812.

The graph on the following pag

compares candidate contributions, 

source, and coordinated party

expenditures for the 16 finalists.

Overall Republican party contribu

and expenditures on behalf of

candidates totaled $754,330, while

Democratic contributions and

coordinated expenditures totaled

$440,283.

The FEC's survey of special

election activity also showed an

unprecedented level of interstate

party activity. Several finalists

received substantial amounts of

contributions from state party

committees outside of their own

states. The graph on page 18 com

contributions from state party

committees outside the home state 

were received by the 1989 finalist

as disclosed in FEe reports.
Resources of 1989

Special Election Candidates

*Candidate won the election.

March 1990

Indiana

(0) Long*

(R) Heath

Alabama

(0) Browder"

(R) Rice

Wyoming

(D) Vinich

(R) Thomas"

Florida

e (0) Richman

(R) Ros-Lehtinen*

California

(D) Condit"

(R) Berryhill

Texas (12th)

(D) Geren*

(R) Lanier

Mississippi

(0) Taylor"

(R) Anderson

Texas (18th)

(D) Washington*

(D) Hall

0

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOI\l Volume 16, Numb

Contributions from Individuals

11IIIII Contributions from Committees

_ Contributions from Parties

_ Contributions from Candidates

_ Party Expenditures

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Thousands of Dollars

17
Contributions to 1989 Special Election

Candidates from State Parties

Outside the Home State1

March 1990

$80,000

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

..Democrats

Republicans

Volume 16, Numb

18

1The bars represent contributions from state partv committees from the following states: Arkansas, Ca

nia, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississi

Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

2No out-of-state party contributions were reported.

Texas Mississippi2 Texa

12th 5th 18th

Indiana Wyoming Florida California

4th (At Large) 18th 15th

Alabama

3rd

$0

$60,000

$20,000

$40,000
FEDERAL ELECTION COlVltvllSSION

•

March 1990

FEe REPORTS DECLINE IN PAC GROWTH

A recent FEC survey of PACs--i.e.,

noncandidate and nonparty political

committees--showed the past decade's

sharpest drop in the number of registered committees.

At the close of 1989, 4,178 PACs

were registered, representing a

decline of 90 PACs since December

1988, when registrations hit an alltime high.

The rate of PAC growth has slowed

considerably in the last five years.

While PAC registrations more than

Volume 16, Numbe

doubled between 1979 and 1984, regi

trations increased by only four per

cent between 1984 and 1989.

The chart below depicts changes 

the numbers of registered committee

in different categories of sponsorship. Registration does not

necessarily imply financial activity

For more information on PAC

growth, request a statistical press

release from the Commission's Publi

Records Office. Call 800/424-9530 

202/376-3140.

83 84 87 88

o Corporate

• Nonconnected

.. Trade/Membership/Health

!:l Labor

• Other 2

80 81 82

o+-__-'I""--r---

Number

of PACs

2000 -.-----------------------

PAC GROWTH, 1975-89 1

1000 +------------=-.E---------~- __--~J_-

1500 +-------------

19

tFor the years 1974 through 1976, numbers are not available for Nonconneeted PACs, Trade/Membership/He

PACs and PACs in the "Other" category.

2"Other" category includes PACs formed by corporations without capital stock and PACs formed by incorporated 

operatives.

500 +--------,,,-£--.-=

•
v. FEe

ADVISORY OPINIONS - Common Cause (89-0524-GAG),

1989-21: Fundraising by sole 3:11

proprietor in cooperation with - NRA (89-3011), 2:7

candidates, 1:9

1989-25: Preemption of state law MUR SUMMARIES

limiting party spending on behalf of MUE 2823: Excessive contribution

candidates, 1:10 received -by candidate committee

1989-26: Automatic bank transfers from

contributor's account to candidate 800 LINE

committee's account, 1:11 Combined dues/solicitation statem

1989-27: Act's preemption of state law 1:17

governing solicitations by state coordinated party expenditures, 3

employees, 2:2 Designating a principal campaign

1989-28: Voter guides distributed by committee, 1:19

nonprofit corporation, 3:9 New treasurer, 2:9 

When reimbursements are required 

SSF fundraising, 2:8

~. -. . - _. - 

,

- . - ~.

Volume 16, Num

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Ejection Commissio

Permit Number G-31

COURT CASES

FEe v.

- Franklin, 1:13 - Furgatch (83-0596-GT(M)), 2

1989-29: PAC established by compa

owned by foreign principal, 2:3

1989-30: Payment to Senator for

teaching course, 2:4

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Official Business

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

March 1990

This cumulative index lists

summaries of advisory opinions, court

cases, and MURs that have appeared in

the Record during 1990, as well as 800

Line articles. The first number in

each citation refers to the "number ll

(month) of the Record issue; the

second number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue.