Who Need Not Report

Under the 1979 Amendments, the following person

not required to file a quarterly or monthly report in A

1980:

April 

When Reports Are Filed

Monthly Reports. The treasurer of each principal camp

committee of a Presidential candidate which has rece

contributions or made expenditures aggregating $100

or anticipates doing so, must file a monthly report by 

20. In addition, all committees not authorized by a· c

date, which file on a monthly basis, must file their mon

report by April 20. The monthly report must cove

transactions that occurred from March 1 through March 

1980. Note that, jf a Presidential committee that has 

filing on a quarterly basis receives contributions or m

expenditures aggregating in excess of $100,000, 

committee must begin to file monthly. reports in the 

reporting period.

Quarterly Reports. The treasurer of any other pol

committee required to report in April (see above) 

file a quarterly report by April 15 regardless of the am

of funds received or expended by the committee durin

quarter. (F EC Form 3a (postcard waiver) is no long

acceptable fil ing.} The quarterly report must includ

reportable transactions occurring since the last fu II re

Committees that exclusively support candidates not see

election in 1980 (e.q., candidates seeking a U.S. Senate 

in 1982). Instead, these pol itical committees are require

file semiannual reports in July 1980 and January 1

(Quarterly reports are required only during an elec

vear.)

Cendidetes: Instead, as an agent of the campaign, the ca

date must report to the principal campaign committee

personal financial activity related to the campaign. 

. Committees authorized by individuals who are not ce

. dates under the Act, l.e., committees which have 

received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,00

made expenditures and incurred debts in excess of $5,

even though they may have already registered under 

Act.

-rHE FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

1325 KStreet NW., Washington, D.C. 20463

Volume 6, Number 4

Local party organizations register as political committees

and report when they have either:

1. received contributions in excess of $5,000 a year;

2. spent more than $5,000 a year for certain payments

that are exempted from the definition of contribution

or expenditure. See 2 U.S.C. §431 8(8) (v), (x) and (xii);

3. made expenditures exceeding $1,000 a year; or'

4. made contributions exceeding $1,000 a year.

Who Reports in April

The thresholds which trigger registration and reporting

requirements for political committees have been modified

by the 1979 Amendments as follows:

Separate segregated funds (political action committees or

PACs) must register and report regardless of the amount of

their financial activity.

All other political committees must register and report

when they have received contributions in excess of $1,000

or made expenditures and incurred debts in excess of

$1,000 per calendar year.

Authorized candidate committees (including principal campaign committees) register and report when both the cornmittees and the candidate they support have together

received contributions in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures and/or incurred debts in excess of $5,000.

NEW REPORTING PROCEDURES

AND FORMS FOR APRIL REPORTS

Political committees listed below are now required to

file quarterly reports with the Federal Election Commission

by April 15 or monthly reports by April 20. Political

committees must report their campaign finance activity in

accordance with the new disclosure provisions contained in

the 1979 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign

Act (Pub. L. 96·187). The Commission has revised its

regulations (11 CF R Part 104) and issued new forms to

carry out the 1979 Amendments.

•

•
2

The RECORD is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Robert O. Tiernan, Chairman; Max L. Friedersdorf, Vice Chairman; Joan D. Aikens; Thomas E. Harris;

John W. McGarry; Frank P. Reiche; J.S. Kimmitt, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., Clerk

of the House of Representatives,Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 8001424-9530.

SPECIAL ELECTION IN LOUISIANA

louisiana has scheduled a special primary election fo

April 19 to fill the seat vacated by Governor David C

Treen, former Representative from the Third Congressiona

District. A special general election will be held on May l

only if one of the candidates running in the special primar

election does not achieve a majority of the votes in th

primary. (Under Louisiana's open primary Jaw, all Republ

can and Democratic candidates appear on the same primar

ballot. In the event no candidate ach ieves a majority o

votes in the primary erection, the top two vote-getters g

on to the special general election regardless of party affl

iation.)

COMMISSION PROPOSES REGULATIONS

TO IMPLEMENT 1919 AMENDMENTS TO ACT

On February 28, 1980, the Federal Election Commissio

sent to Congress a- new set of proposed regulations revising

11 CFR, Parts 10D-l06, 108-114, and 900B, which imple

ment the 1979 Amendments to the Federal Election Cam

paiqn Act (the Act) (Pub. L. No. 96·187). Under a specia

provision for exped iting this set of regulations, the Comm is

sion may prescribe these regulations 15 legislative days afte

it has sent them to Congress, unless the House of Represen

tatives or the Senate disapproves them. (Normally, th

Congressional review period is 30 legislative days. 2 U.S.C

§438(d )(2).)

The principal campaign committees of all candidate

involved in the primary election will receive a special notic

from the FEC on their reporting requirements and filin

dates. All other committees supporting candidates in th

special election in Louisiana should contact the Commis

sion for information on required reports. Information ma

be obtained by calling toll free (800)424-9530 or 523·406

in Washington, D.C.

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

20463; or telephone 202/523-4068, toll-free 800/424

9530.

The proposed regulations modify only those parts of th

regulations that were affected by the 1979 Amendments

Regulations on reporting requirements (Part 104), fo

example, have been changed substantially, but the regula

tions on separate segregated funds (Part 114) have bee

modified only slightly. The following chart indicates which

parts and sections of the regulations have been affected by

being rewritten, renumbered or deleted. All citations refe

to regulations prescribed by the Commission on April 13

1977, to implement the 1976 amendments to the Act.

New Forms

Political committees must use the following forms, with

appropriate schedules, to file their quarterly or monthly

reports:

1. Form 3X must be used by all political committees which

are not authorized by a candidate.

2. Form 3 must be used by all political committees authorized by a candidate for the House or Senate,

3. Form 3P must be used by Presidential campaigns.

A notice containing additional information, as well as

forms, has been sent to all registered committees. Questions

about the notice, or requests for forms, should be addressed

to the Office of Public Communications, Federal Election

Content

The 1979 Amendments to the Act modify the content

of reports by redefining and reordering reporting categories

under which receipts and disbursements must be reported.

Consult the new FEC forms for detailed instructions on

how to fill out the report.

filed (or, if the committee is new, from the date of registration) through March 31, 1980.

A copy of reports and statements related to candidates for

the Senate and the House must be filed with the appropriate official in the state in which the candidate seeks

election. Political committees, other than authorized

committees, need file only that portion of their report

apol icable to a candidate seeking election in the particular

state. 2 U.S.C. §439(a)(2)(B).

NOTE: Each authorized comm ittee of a candidate must file

its report with the principal campaign committee, which in

turn must file a consolidated report on FEC Form 3Z with

the appropriate offices.

Where Reports Are Filed

Statements and Reports Filed with the Federal Government. Political committees must file their reports with the

Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate or the

Federal Election Commission, as appropriate. 11 CFR

Part 105.

Statements and Reports Filed with State Officers. Principal

campaign committees of Presidential and Vice Presidential

candidates must file a report with the appropriate officials

in each state in which an expenditure is made on behalf of

the candidate during the reporting period covered. 11 CF R

1OB. 2. All unauthorized committees must file a copy of

each report and statement related to Presidential and Vice

Presidential campaigns with the appropriate state officers

of both the state in which the expenditure is made and

the state in which the unauthorized comrn ittee is headquartered. 11 CFR 10B.2.
The proposed regulations were published in the Fed

Register on March 7, 1980 (45 FR 15080·15126). 

notice includes a subject index to 11 CFR, Parts 100-

This index covers both .the proposed regulations 

implement the 1979 Amendments to the Act and th

sections and parts of the regulations that were not affec

by the Amendments (and thus were not changed by 

newly proposed regulations).

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

Advisory Opinion Requests (AOR's) pose questions 

the application of the Act or Commission Regulation

specific factual situations described in the AOR. The 

lowing chart lists recent AOA's with a brief descrlptlo

the subject matter, the date the requests were made pu

and the number of pages of each request. The full tex

each AOR is available to the public in the Commissi

Office of Public Records.

AOR Subject

Date Made

Public

No

Pa

1980-13 Payment of college tultlon and

salary when professor is federal

candidate.

2/13/80 

1980-14 Use of campaign materials from 2/22/80

1972 carnpeiqn in 1980 campaign.

1980-15 Nonpartisan voter registration

and set-out-t he-vote pub Iic

service announcements by

corporation.

1980-16 Transportation cost to charity

fund raising golf tournament

paid by corporations.

1980·17 Fundraising agent of political

committee paid on commission

basis.

2/22/80

2/27/80

2/27/80

1980-18 Establishment and administrative 2/27/80

costs of separate segregated fund

established by fou r affi Iiated

corporations.

1980·19 Purchase by labor orqanlzatlon of 2/28/80

a poll conducted under contract

between a Congressional campaign

committee and a polling firm.

1980-20 Corporate payment of advertise- 3/3/80

ment urging voter registration in

a general circulation newspacar.

1980·21 Donation of baseball tic kers to 3/4/80

host committee of national party

convention.

1980·22 Corporate sponsorship of town 3/4/80

meetings.

"Previous change. Amended Section 107 was prescribed by the

Commission on December 20, 1979. and published in the Federal

Register on November 1,1979 (44 FA 630451.

3

1980-23 Name of separate segregated fund. 3/10/80 

contin
ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

An Advisory Opinion (AO) issued by the Commission

provides guidance with regard to the specific situation

described in the AOR. Under the 1979 amendments to the

Act, any person may request an AO on a specific activity

which the person intends to undertake. The requester

will not be subject to any sanctions under the Act if he/she

acts in accordance with the opinion. Other persons may

rely on the opinion if they are involved in a specific activity

which is indistinguishable in all material aspects from the

activity discussed in the AO. Those seeking guidance for

their own activity, however, should consult the full text of

an AO and not rely only on the summary given here.

AD 1979-58: Volunteer Services Provided by

Senior Partner of law Firm

The senior partner of a law firm may engage in volunteer

fundraising and political activities for the Carter/Mondale

Presidential Committee, Inc. (the Committee) without such

activities counting as in-kind contributions from the firm

to the Committee. 2 U.S.c. §431 (8)(A).

Although the senior partner would be providing services

to the Committee during the law firm's normal business

hours, his income from the firm would not be considered

compensation for such services because: 1) the partner's

income is not based on time devoted' to firm business

but rather on "his proprietary or ownership interest in the

firm"; and 2) the partner hascomplete discretion in the use

of his time, and no reduction of income to the firm would

occur if, for whatever reason, he spent fewer hours at the

firm. Commissioner Frank P. Reiche filed a dissenting

opinion. (Date Issued: March 5, 1980; Length: 6 pages)

AO 1979-62: Solicitations by

Trade Association PAC

The Tooling and Machining PAC, the separate segregated

fund of the National Tool, Die and Precision Machining

Association (NTDPMA), a trade association, may not

solicit the executive or administrative personnel of corporations which are members of the Chicago Tool and Die

Institute (CTDI) but are not members of NTDPMA.

Although CTDI and NTDPMA have similar goals, interests

and membership requirements, not all the member corporations of CTDI are members of NTDPMA. The Tooling

and Machining PAC would, therefore, be specifically

precluded from soliciting those corporations that are not

members of NTDPMA. (Date Issued: February 14, 1980;

Length: 3 pages)

AD 1979-80: Independent Expenditures Program of a

Multicandidate Political Committee

Use of consultants or vendors by the National Conservative

Political Action Committee (NCPAC), a multicandidate

political committee, to make independent expenditures

may' result in an in-kind contribution to a candidate for

federal office under certain circumstances.

Before undertaking an independent expenditure program

advocating the defeat of certain candidates for federal

office, NCPAC sought guidance from the Commission in

determining whether NCPAC would be prohibited from

engaging a particular consultant or vendor, in connection

with making independent expenditures advocating the

4

defeat of a clearly identified candidate, if that consultant o

vendor had also been separately engaged by an opponent o

that candidate or by a potential opponent of that candi

date.

The Act and Commission regulations state the condition

which must be met in order for an expenditure to b

independent. Specifically, "independentexpenditure mean

an exp.enditure by a person for a communication expressl

advoc,;ting the election or defeat of a clearly identified

candidate which is not made with the cooperation or with

the prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the

request or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or

authorized committee ofsuch candidate." (Italics added.]

The questions posed by NCPACsuggested that NCPACwa

concerned with the last element (italicized) in the defini

tion of an independent expenditure. Commission requta

tions specifically define th is element of an independen

expenditure as an expenditure which is not arranged

coordinated or directed "by the candidate or his/her agen

prior to the publication, distribution, display or broadcas

of the communication." 11 CFR 109.1 (b)(41. Further, the

regulations state that such cooperation or coordination in

making the expenditure would be presumed to exist if:

1. The expenditure is "based on information about th

candidate's plans, projects, or needs provided to th

expending person by the candidate," or

2. The expenditure is "made by or through any person who

is, or has been, authorized to raise or expend funds, who

is, or has been, an officer of an authorized committee, o

who is, or has been receiving any form of compensation

or reimbursement from the candidate, the candidate'

committee or agent." 11 CFR 109.1 (b)(4)(i).

Therefore, if NCPAC engages the services of a vendor o

consultant to make independent expenditures advocating

the defeat of a certain candidate, the presumption is tha

the expenditures would not be independent and would

result in an in-kind contribution to the candidate's oppo

nent if:

1. An agency relationship exists or existed between th

candidate's opponent and a vendor or consultant en

gaged by NCPAC;or

2. The expenditure is based on information provided by

the opponent or the opponent's agent;or

3. The expenditure is made by or through any person con

nected with the opponent's campaign, as specified by

11 CFR 109.1(b)(4)(i)(B). (See above.)

The Commission then applied these three criteria for an

independent expenditure program to nine specific situa

tions presented by NCPAC. (Date Issued: March 12,1980

Length: 10 pages)

AD 1979·81: Free Use of Community Facility

for Fundraising Event

Free use of the Kansas City Armory for a fundraising

event by the Winn for Congress Committee (the Winn Com

mittee) would not constitute an in-kind contribution to

the Winn Committee by the State of Kansas (owners of the

Armory), by the Citizen's Military Committee (manager

of the Armory) or by the Wyandotte County Republican
•

Committee (the group that transferred to the Winn Committee their right to use the Armory free of charge once a

year) provided the conditions below are met.

Under the Act as amended in 1979, the term "contribution" excludes, under certain circumstances, "the use of

real or personal property, including a church or community

room." 2 U.S.C. §431 (8)(b) (ii). In this case, the use

of the Armory free of charge would not be considered

an in-kind contribution to the Winn Committee as long

as the Armory:

is commonly offered and used on a regular basis by

members of the Kansas City community for noncommercial and community purposes; and

is available for use without regard to potltlcal affiliation.

There would be no reporting requirement if the use is not

a contribution under these conditions. (Date Issued:

February 13. 1980; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1979-82: Use of Excess

Campaign Funds

Congressman Ronald M. Mottl (D-Ohio) may transfer

excess campaign funds to his son's campaign for state office

as long as the transfer of funds is lawful under Ohio law.

Under the 1979 Amendments to the Act, candidates who

were not members of Congress on the day the 1979

Amendments were enacted into law (January 8, 1980) may

not use excess campaign funds for personal use. Since,

however, Congressman Mottl was a Member of the U.S.

House on that date, the question does not arise as to

whether a transfer to his son's state campaign would be

considered using the funds for "personal use." 2 U.S.C.

§439a.

Further, the Act does limit the amount of funds which

may be transferred by Congressman Mottl's principal

campaign committee to candidates for state or local office.

2 U.S.C. §441a. (Date Issued: February 8, 1980; Length: 2

pages)

AO 198D-1: Solicitation of Insurance

Agents by Corporation PAC

The Farmer's Mutual Hail Political Action Committee

(FMH-PAC), the separate segregated fund of the Farmers

Mutual Hail Insurance of Iowa (the Company), may not

solicit contributions from the commissioned insurance

agents who represent the Company.

The commissioned agents may not be considered "executive or administrative personnel" because the Company

does not withhold income tax from the agents' salaries. 11

CFR 114.1 (c). Since corporations may solicit only their

executive and administrative personnel and stockholders,

FMH-PAC may not solicit these agents for contributions.

(Date Issued: February 15, 1980; Length: 2 pages)

AO 1980-3: Qualifying as the National Committee

of a Political Party

Documentation provided to the Commission demonstrates

that the Executive Committee of the Citizens Party is

engaged in sufficient party-building activity on the national

level to qualify as the "national committee" of the Citizens

Party, once the Citizens Party qualifies as a "pol itical

party" under the Act and Commission Regulations. To

5

qualify as a political party, the Citizens Party must ob

verification from a state election official that a fed

candidate's name will appear on that state's election b

as a Citizens Party candidate. 2 U.S.C. §431 (161. At 

time, assuming the Executive Committee continue

party-building activities, it would qualify as the nati

committee of a political party.

Determination of national committee status would pe

the Citizens Party to accept contributions subject to 

annual limit ($20,000 or $15.000) of 2 U.S.C. §441

and to make limited national party expenditures as pro

ed by 2 U.S.C. §441a(d}. The Commission did not exp

an opinion, however, on the applicability of public fun

provisions of the Act to possible activities by the Cit

Party and its potential Presidential candidate since 

Executive Committee did not present any specific t

action or activity related to these provisions of the 

(Date Issued: March 4,1980; Length: 3 pages)

AO 1980-7: Political Contributions by

State-Chartered Corporation

The Central Capital Corporation (Central Capital), a wh

owned subsidiary of Central Savings and Loan Associ

(Central Federal), may make contributions to candid

for state and local office as permitted by California 

Central Federal is a federally chartered corporation

subsidiary Central Capital is a state-chartered corpora

Although the Act prohibits a federally chartered corp

tion from making contributions or expenditures in con

tion with any election for any political office (2 U

§441b), that prohibition does not extend to a s

chartered subsidiary provided that it is a distinct 

entity from its parent corporation. In this case, as lon

there are no circumstances to suggest Central Capital 

Central Federal are one entity, Central Capital is 

subject to the Sec. 441 b prohibition on contribution

federally chartered corporations. (Date Issued: Marc

1980; Length: 2 pages)

SUBSCRIPTIONS TO ELECTION LAW

UPDATES AND ELECTION CASE LAW SERI

The following subscriptions are available from the F

Clearinghouse:

Election Law Updates. This quarterly series includ

synopsis of all key federal and state election law

comprehensive index to aid in research and an an

cumulative summary. Subscription price: $11.00 a y

Election Case Law. This quarterly series is similia

design and concept to the Election Law Updates

federal and state election cases are summarized 

indexed. Subscription price: $10.00 a year.

Please do not send checks or money orders to the Com

sion. For information on how to subscribe, please w

Clearinghouse - FEC, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washin

D.C. 20463; or call 202/523-4183 locally or toll-free 

424-9530.
FEC PUBLIC APPEARANCES

In keeping with its objective of making lnforrnation available to the public, the Federal Election

Commission regularly accepts invitations to address

public gatherings on the subject of campaign finance

laws and the Commission itself. This regular column

lists scheduled Commission appearances, detailing the

name of the sponsoring organization, the location of

the event and the name of the Commission's speaker.

For additional information on any scheduled appearance, please contact the sponsoring organization.

4/3 Southern Methodist University

Edwin Cox School of Business

The Corporation and Practical Politics

Dallas, Texas

Commissioner Joan Aikens

4/10-11 Amer. Law Institute/Amer. Bar Association

Legal Aspects of Political campaigns

Arlington, Virginia

Chairman Robert Tiernan

Louise Wides, Dep. Asst. Staff Director

for Information Services

4/11-12 Syracuse University

Seminar on Public Regulation of Politics

Syracuse, New York

Bill loughrey, Deputy Staff Director

4/18 Harnline University School of Law

Advanced Legal Education Seminar

St. Paul, Minnesota

N. Bradley litchfield, Assistant General

Counsel for Policy

4/22 Tulsa County Bar Association

Corporate Counsel Section

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Commissioner Joan Aikens

6

COMMISSION ADOPTS INTERIM

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

On February 29, 1980, the Commission sent Congress

amended regulations, including new enforcement provisions, which conform to the 1979 Amendments to the Act.

Until the regulations are prescribed by the Commission

(see article above, p, 2), the Commission wilt follow the

interim enforcement procedures adopted on February 7,

1980, which are detailed below. These procedures closely

follow the language of the statute and are embodied in the

newly proposed regulations.

Complaint and Respondent's Right to Respond

Complaints filed with the Commission will be referred to

the Office of General Counsel where they will be given a

MUR (matter under review) number. Within five days of

receiving a complaint, the Commission wilt notify the

respondent (s) in writing that the complaint has been filed

and enclose a copy of the complaint. The respondentts]

will then have 15 days to demonstrate, in writing, that no

action should be taken against him/her. The complainant

will also be notified at this time that the Commission has

received the complaint.

Preliminary Analysis and Recommendation by OGC

At the end of 15 days (plus five days allowed for mailing), the Office of General Counsel will prepare a report for

the Commissioners, based on a preliminary legal and factual

analysis of the complaint and any submission made by the

respondentls). A copy of the respondent's submission will

be attached to the Office of General Counsel's report. This

initial report may recommend that the Commission:

1. Find "reason to believe" the complaint sets forth a possible violation of the Act and that the Commission

conduct an investigation of the matter;

2. find "no reason to believe" the Act has been violated

and take no further action on the matter; or

3. take no action.

"Reason to Believe" Finding and Investigation

If, by an affirmative vote of four Commissioners, the

Commission decides that there is "reason to believe" a

violation of the Act has occurred, the Office of General

Counsel will open an investigation into the matter. During

the investigation, the Commission may subpoena documents, subpoena individuals to appear for deposition and

order answers to interrogatories.

Informal Conciliation Agreement

If, during the period of investigation, the respondent(s)

indicate a desire to enter into conciliation, the Office of

General Counsel staff may begin an informal conciliation

process. Any agreement must be adopted by an affirmative

vote of four Commissioners before it becomes final. After it

has been signed by the General Counsel and the respondent (s), the Commission will make the conciliation agreement public and the case wilt be closed.
•

"Probable Cause to Believe" Finding and

Respondent's Right to Respond

If the investigation warrants further action, the Office of

General Counsel must notify the respondentfsl of its intent

to recommend that the Commission vote on whether there

is "probable cause to believe" the Act has been violated.

The notification must include a brief which details the

position of the General Counsel on the legal and factual

issues of the case. With in 15 days of receiving the brief, the

respondentts] may reply to the brief, presenting his/her

position. The Commission must consider both briefs before

taking further action.

Formal Conciliation Agreement

If the Commission then determines by an affirmative

vote of four Commissioners that there is "probable cause to

believe" the Act has been violated, formal conciliation must

be undertaken for at least 30 days, but no longer than 90

days. If formal conciliation fails, the Office of General

Counsel may recommend that the Commission file a civil

suit against the respondent(s) to enforce the Act. If, on the

other hand, an agreement is reached, it will be made public

by the Commission.

APPEALS COURT ORDERS

DISMISSAL OF CLlTRIM SUIT

On February 2, 1980, the U.S, Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit remanded FEC v, Central Long Island Tax

Reform Immediately, et al. to the District Court for the

Eastern District of New York with an order to dismiss the

suit.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) originally filed

the suit on August 1, 1978, alleging that violations of the

Act occurred when the central Long Island Tax Reform

Immediately Committee (CL1TRIM) published a pamphlet

for general circulation in October 1976 at a cost of more

than $100. The FEC claimed that, in publishing and distributing the pamphlet, defendants violated the following

provisions of the Act:

2 U.S.C. §434(e), which requires any "person. , , who

makes ... independent expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" in an amount exceeding $100 in any calendar year

to report such costs to the F EC; and

2 U.S.C. §441d, which requires any person who "makes

an expenditure for the purpose of financing a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a

clearly identified candidate" to state in the communication whether it is authorized by a candidate, his authorized pol itical committees or their agents or any other

unauthorized person.

In its motion to dismiss the case, CLlTR 1M argued that, in

its Buckley v, Valeo decision, the Supreme Court had

specifically mandated that the Act be amended to regulate

only expenditures or communications by persons "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified

7

candidate" (Buckley v, Valeo, 424 U,S. 1 (1976) at 

Further, "express advocacy" must include at least on

the phrases suggested by the Court in Buckley v. Va

" 'vote for', 'elect', 'support', 'cast your ballot for', 'Sm

for Congress', 'Vote Against', 'defeat', 'reject'," (424 U

(1976) at 52.) CUTR 1M pointed out that the TRIM B

tin did not contain any of the terms of "express advoc

spelled out in Buckley v, Valeo.

Responding to this argument in one of its reply b

filed with the Court of Appeals, the FEC maintained 

the CLlTR 1M/National Trim bulletin was not merely 

informational or educational compilation of Congressi

voting records. The bulletin discussed TR 1M's pos

on the issue of high taxes and big government, ident

federal candidates. critiqued their position on the 

of high taxes and big government and urged the vote

vote with TRIM. The Commission interpreted these c

munications as "express advocacy" communicat

within the meaning of 2 U.S.C. §434(e) and as const

by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.

(1976) at 44 N. 52).

In reaching its decision to dismiss the case, the C

of Appeals concluded that the CLITRIM Bulletin did 

"expressly advocate" the election or defeat of a candi

within the meaning of 2 U.S.C. § §434(e) and 441d. Si

as interpreted by the Court, these provisions of the Act 

not apply to defendants' conduct, the Court concluded 

constitutional issues raised by defendants in the Case w

not present a case ripe for consideration by the Court.

On February 25, 1980, .Natlonal TRIM and John 

Robbins, intervenor in the case, petitioned the Cour

Appeals for a rehearing, Defendants sought injunctive r

from FEC enforcement proceedings brought against 

TRIM committees which were not affected bvthe Co

February 2 order to dismiss the case. On March 5, 1

the petition for rehearing was denied by the Cour

Appeals.

SUPREME COURT DENIES HEARING

TO THREE SUITS

On February 19, 1980. the Supreme Court deni

petition for certiorari in three cases brought by Lyndo

La Houche, et al. and Leroy B. Jones. et at The Fe

Election Commission, as respondent in the suits, had fi

brief opposing the petition. Plaintiffs' petition so

review by the Court of decisions of the U.S. Cour

Appeals for the District of Columbia in the following ca

In Committee To Elect Lyndon La Rouche v, FEC

Court of Appeals had upheld the Commission's actio

denying primary matching fund payments to Lyndo

Rouche, candidate of the U.S, Labor Party, during 

1976 Presidential primary campaign.

In FEC v, Committee to Elect Lyndon La Bouche, e

the Court of Appeals had upheld three "actions of the 

District Court for the District of Columbia in a suit w

had been filed on September 28, 1977, by the Comm

to Elect Lyndon La Rouche, the National Caucus of L

contin
Federal Register

Notice Title Publication Date Citation

The list below identifies all FEC documents which

appeared in the Federal Register between January 7, 1980,

and March 10, 1980. Copies of these notices are not available from the FEC.

1980-1 Notice of Designation 1/22/80 45 FR 4999

of Official to Receive

Presidential Primary

Candidate Certification

of Inactive Status.

45 FR 9559

45 FR 6475

45 FR 5546

45 FR 150BO

45 FR 13411

45 FR 13816

45 FR 13766

Act's ban on corporate and union political

contributions (2 U.S.C. §441 b(a)); and

3. Whether First Amendment rights of corporate stockholders are violated by 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2)(C), which authorizes use of

corporate assets for the costs of raising

political contributions.

1980-3 Notice to Committees 1J28/80

Filing Year-End Reports.

1980-2 Draft RegUlations to 1/23/80

Implement 1979 Amendments to the Federal

Election Campaign Act

(pUblished for comment).

1980-4 Presidential Election Cam- 2/12/BO

paiqn Fund; Presidential

Primary Matching Fund.

(FEe prescribes proposed

Regu lat ions.)

1980-7 Opinion and Regulation 3/3/80

Index Supplements

1980-6 Contributions to and 3/3/BO

Expenditures by Delegates

to National Nominating

Conventions. (Draft regulations published for comment.)

1980·5 Filing Date for 2/28/80

Pennsylvania Special

General Election

1980·8 Amendments to Federal 3nl80

Election Campaign Act

of 1971; Regulations

Transmitted to Congress

FEC v, Jeffrey Bell, U.S. District Court for the District of

New Jersey, Docket No. 80-174, January 21, 1980.

FEC alleges that Jeffrey Bell, a candidate for

the U.S. senate from New Jersey in 1978,

violated 2 U.S.C. §441a(f) by accepting excessive contributions from his mother.

International Association of Machinists v. FEC, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Docket No.

80-0354, February 4, 1980.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief pursuant to 2

U.S.C. §437g (a)(8), alleging that the FEC acted

contrary to law in dismissing an administrative

complaint filed by plaintiffs. If the Court does

not take this action, plaintiffs seek certification

of the following constitutional issues to an en

banc court of appeals, pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§437h(a):

1. Whether first Amendment rights of unprotected career employees are violated by

provisions of the Act authorizing corporations to solicit campaign contributions from

them;

2. Whether First and Fifth Amendment rights

of unions and their members are violated,

and unions are discriminated against, by the

The three suits are summarized in detail in the October

1979 issue of the FEC Record, available on request in the

Commission's Public Records Office.

LITIGATION STATUS INFORMATION

The following is a list of new Iitigation involving the

Commission, together with the date the suit was filed, the

court involved, the docket number and a brief description

of the major issue(s) involved in the case. Persons seeking

additional information on a particular case should contact

the court where the suit is filed or the Commission.

Committees, the New Solidarity International Press Service,

lnc., and Campaigner Publications, Inc. In upholding the

District Court's action, the Court of Appeals held that:

1. The District Court had jurisdiction to determine this

case despite appellants' argument that the District of

Columbia was not the place where the Commission's

inquiry took place;

2. The District Court had personal jurisdiction over the

appellants despite the fact that they were served in New

York rather than in the District of Columbia; and

3. The District Court had not denied the appellants an

opportunity to demonstrate that the Commission

had issued the subpoenas in retaliation for two suits

which the appellants had brought against the Commission.

In LeRoy B. Jones, et et. v. FEC, the plaintiffs had challenged the Commission's field interviews of La Rouche

contributors, the manner in which the interviews were

conducted and the scope of the questions asked on constitutional and statutory grounds. The District Court had

granted summary judgment to the FEC. The Court of

Appeals had upheld the District Court's action with respect

to all but two of the allegations made by plaintiffs.

8
AUDITS RELEASED

TO THE PUBLIC

The Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended 

Act) requires candidates and political committees to 

financial disclosure reports with the Commission. The 

also gives the Commission authority. to audit campaig

all Presidential candidates who receive public funds, and 

reports of other political committees. Final audit re

are available to the press through the Press Office an

the general public through the Office of Public Rec

The following is a chronological listing of audits rele

between January 7, 1980, and March 10, 1980:

In addition, the Democratic and Republican Nati

Committees have each received a maximum entitlemen

$4,416,000 to finance their respective 1980 Preside

nominating conventions.

Date M

AUdit Publ

1. Constructive Citizensh ip Program 1/8/

2. Southwestern Committee on Political 1/8/

Education

3. Vision Political Action Comm ittee 1/15

4. Committee to Elect Ronnie Gene 1/15

Flippo, AL/5

5. Evans for Congress Campaign Fund, GA/8 1/15

6. North Pacific Dairymen's Cooperative 2/5/

Trust

7. Kansas Republ ican State Comm ittee/ 2/5/

Kansas Republican Federal Campaign

Committee

8. National Republican Heritage Groups 2/12

Council Convention 1976

9. National Republican Heritage Groups 2/12

1977 Convention Committee

10. Det Monte Voluntary Nonpartisan 2/12

Good Government Fund

11. 1978 National Party Conference 2/12

Arrangements Committee, Inc.

12. Active Ballot Club, A Department of the 2/12

Retail Clerks International Union

13. Texas Republican Congressional Committee 2/20

9

$ 447,008.13

1,555,092.45

607,189.14

1,31 8,394.47

2,310,018.88

1,090,447.90

368,199.98

1,553,365.15

354,766.59

3,121,351.49

Cumulative Certifications

To be eligible to receive federal matching funds, a candidate

must first raise $100,000 in amounts of $5,000 or more

from each of 20 states, contributed by individuals in

amounts of no more than $250. While individuals may

contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only the first $250

is matchable. Candidates must also agree to abide by

spending limits, keep detailed records and submit those

records for audit. Candidates may submit requests for funds

on the first, third and fifth Monday of each month. The

Commission certifies a percentage of the amount requested

within one week of receiving the request.

John B. Anderson

Howard H. Baker, Jr.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

George Bush, Jr.

Jimmy E. Carter

Philip M. Crane

Robert Dole

Edward M. Kennedy

Lyndon H. LaRouche

Ronald Reagan

Candidate

MATCHING FUNDS CERTIFIED

TO '76 CARTER CAMPAIGN

On February 21, 1980, the Commission approved

a matching fund certification of $88,293.92 to the Committee for Jimmy Carter (the Committee). The payment

will be used by the Committee to liquidate net outstanding

campaign obligations of $116,616.52 remaining from the

Committee's campaign. activities in the 1976 Presidential

primaries. In calculating total payments it would certify to

the Committee, the Commission deducted the following

funds from the Committee's net outstanding campaign

obligations:

- $19,500, an amount equivalent to funds transferred by

the Committee in 1978 and 1979 to the 1976 Democratic Presidential Campaign Committee, Inc. (the

principal campaign committee for Carter's general

election campaign);

$2,950 in civil penalties paid by the Committee to the

U.S. Treasury in 1978; and

$5,872.60 repaid by the Committee to the U.S. Treasury

in 1978 for insufficiently documented - and therefore

nonqualified - campaign expenses.

FEC CERTIFIES FUNDS

FOR TEN CANDIDATES

By February 27. 1980, the FEC had certified a total of

$12,725,834.18 in federal funds to ten Presidential candidates eligible to receive matching payments for the 1980

Presidential primary election. The chart below lists the

cumulative amount of certified funds which each candidate

had received as of February 27, 1980:

•
SUPPLEMENT TO 1979 AMENDMENTS

AND 1979 RECORD INDEX AVAILABLE

A special Silpplement summarizing the 1979 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act has been sent

to all Record subscribers. The Supptement outlines changes

in the Act which affect the following groups: All Committees; Candidates and Their Authorized Committees; Party

Political Committees; and Nonparty, Noncandidate ComFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1325 K STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20463

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

mittees. The Supplement also includes information on

changes which affect independent expenditures and Com

mission powers.

The 1979 Record Index has also been sent to Record sub

scribers. The Index enables the reader to identify and

document Commission decisions made during 1979

Advisory opinions and litigation, for example, are indexed

by several subject entries and by name of the partie

involved.

Additional copies of the Supplement and the Index ar

available through the FEC Office of Public Communica

tions, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463; or by

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

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

FEC

WASHINGTON, D.C.

PERMIT NO. G-31