sign in sign up
<<
Home , Election commission

THE FEDERAL ELE010N COMJv1ISSION

The First 10 Years

1975-1985 COlvlMISSIO ERS EX OFFICIO COMMISS10NERS STATUTORY OFFICERS John Warren McGarry. Cllmrmall Jo -Anne L. Cce, St'fr('Jarv

Message from th e Chairman April 1985 marked the Federal Co m mission's 10th year of operatio ns . This report provides th e hist ori cal contex t in w hich th e Commission was formed and describes th e agency's role in ad mi nis teri ng th e Federal Election Ca m paign Act during th e past decade. Our g reatest ac hieveme nt has been to provide the most comple te disclosure of cam pa ign finan ce informa tion that the na tion has ever had . An array of gra phs. pu blished in this volume, suggest the weal th of information genera ted by the Co mmission's disclosure program . Meaningful d isclosure, however, depends on enforcement of the . When th e Wa te rga te bubb le burst, people realized that the existing was no t be ing enforced. Co ngress recognized that an independent election agency was needed not jus t to ad minister the law but to enforce it. Th us, the Federal Election Commission was crea ted.

Now, te n yea l~ later, the Federal Elec tion Commission has made campaign finance disclosure and th e observa nce of th e election law a reality . Recognizing tha i th e law is com plex, we wi ll con tinue to provide info rmation to help ou r co nstituents understan d th e law . We believe thi s is an effective way to ac hieve com pliance and to effec t complete d isclosure .

April 14. 1985. THE FEDERAL ELECTIO CAMPAIG : A SHORT I-IISTORY

Be/bIL' the 79-1 Federal Electio/l Lau 5 bot h labor union s a nd corporations from ma king expenditu res an d contributions in Federal . The first Federal campaign finance legis lation was an '1867 law that prohibited Federal officers The campaign finance provisions of all of these from requesting contributions from lavy Yard laws were largely ignored, however, because none workers. Over the ne xt hundred years, Congress provid ed an institutional fram ework to administer enacted a series of laws which sought broader regu­ their p rov ision s effectively. The laws had o the r lation of Federal campaign financing. These legisla ­ flaw s as well. For example, spending limits applied tive , taken together, so ugh t to: onlv to committees active in two or more States. • limit contributions to ens u re that wealthv Further. candidates could avoid the spending limit individuals and s pecia l interest groups did not and d isclosure requirements altogether because a ha ve a disproportionate influence on Federal ca ndida te who claimed to have no knowledge of elections; spe nd ing on his behalf was not liable under the 1925 Act . • Prohibit certain sources of funds for Federal campaign p urposes; Th e evasion of disclosure provisions beca me • Contro l campaign spending; and evident when Congress passed the more stringent d isclosure p ro visions of th e 1971 Federal Electio n • Require public d isclosure of campaign Campaign Act (FECA). In 1968, s till unde r the old finances to deter ab us e an d to ed ucate th e law , House and Sen at e cand id ates reported spe nd ­ electora te. ing $8.5 million, w hile in 1972, after the passage of the FECA, s pe ndi ng re ported by Co ng ressiona l can­ This effort to bring abou t more co mprehensive d ida tes jum ped to $88.9 million. I campaign fina nce reform began in 1907 when Con­ gress passed the Tillman Act, w hich prohibited cor­ po rations an d national banks from contributing The 1971 Electioll Lau. s money to Federal campaigns. Th e first Federal cam­ paign disclosure wa s a 1910 law affecting The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 House elections onl y. In 1911, the law was (P.L. 92-225), together with the 1971 Revenue Act amended to cover Senate elections as well , and to (P.L. 92-178), ini tiated fundamental cha nge s in Fed ­ set spending limits for all Congressional candidates. eral campaign finance laws. The FECA, effective April 7, 1972, not only required full reporting of The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, campaign contributions and expenditures, bu t also which affe cted general elect ion activity only, stre ng the ned disclosure requirements and increased ICrJlJ:-:rl'~" I C)J li// Q lIllrtl'r/.1I W('~k /}I RrJlorl . Vol. xxvii, I 0 . 49 , December expenditure limi ts . The Hatch Act of 1939 and its 5. 1969. p. 2-D::;. Clerk o i th e Hou se, "TIle Ann ual Sta tisti cal Report 1940 amendments asserted the right of Congress to of Contribu tions and Expenditu res Made DUring li lt' 1972 Election Campaigns for th e U.S. Hou se of Represe ntatives" ( 1974), p. 161; regulat e pr imary elections and included provisions Secreta ry oj the Senate, "The An nual Statistical Report of Receipts limi tin g contributions and expenditures in Congres­ and Expend itures Made on Connec tion w ilh Elccn ons fur Ihe U.S. sional elections . The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 ba rred Scn ar... in 1972" [u nd ated], p 33. limited spending on media advertisements: (These did a consen sus emerge to crea te an independent limits were la ter repealed.) body to en sure complian ce with the campaign fi­ nance laws. Comprehensive amend men ts to the The FECA also provided the bas ic legislative FECA (P.L. 93-443) es tablis he d the Federal Election framework for separate segregated funds,' popularly Commission , an independent agency to assume the referred to as PACs (poli tical action com mittees), administrat ive functions previou sly di vided be­ established by corporations and unions. Altho ugh tween Congressional officers and GAO . Th e Com­ the Tillman Act and th e Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 mission was give n ju risdi ction in civil enforcement banned direct contribution s by corpo rations and la­ matters, authority to wr ite regul ations and respon­ bor unions to influence Federal elections, the FECA sibilitv for monitoring compliance wi th the FECA. c o rp or ati ~n s provid ed an exception whereby and Additionally, the am endments transferred fr~m uni ons could use treasury funds to es tablish, oper­ GAO to th e Commission the function of se rvll1g as ate and solici t voluntary contribu tions for th e or­ a national clearinghouse for info rmation on the ad­ ganization's separate segregated fund (i.e ., PAC) . ministration of elections . The se voluntar y donations cou ld then be used to contribu te to Fed era l races. Under the 1974 am endments, the President, the Speaker of the House and the Presid ent pro Under the Reven ue Act-the first of a series of tempore of the Senate each appointed two of the Pr e ~id ent ial laws implementing Fed eral financing of six Commission ers. The Secretary of the Sen ­ elections-citizens could check a box on their tax ate and the Clerk of th e House were designated forms authorizin g the Fed eral go vernment to use nonvot ing, ex officio Commissioners. The first one of th eir tax dollars to finance Presidential cam ­ Commissioners were sworn in on April 14, 1975. paigns in the general election." Congress imple­ mented th e program in 1973 and, by 1976, eno ug h The 1974 amendments also completed the sys­ tax mon ey had accumulat ed to ~lln d the 1 9 ~6 el.ec­ tem currently used for the public financing of Pre si­ tion-the first publicly funded Fed eral election 111 dential electfons. The ame nd ments provided for U.S. history. partial Fed eral funding, in the form of matching funds, for Presiden tial primary candidates and also The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 did extended public funding to political parties t.o fi­ not provide for a sing le, indepe ndent bod y to. mon­ nance th eir Presidential nominating con ventions. ito r and enforce the law . Instead, th e Clerk 0 1 th e House, the Secretary of the Sena te and the Comp­ Complem enting these provision s, Con gress troller Gen eral of th e United Sta tes General Ac­ also enacted s trict limit s on both contributions and counting Off ice (GAO) mon itored complian ce wi th expe nd itures. These limits applied to all candidates the FECA, and the Dep artment was resp on ­ for Federal office and to political committees influ­ sible for prosecuting violations of the law referred enci ng Federal elecfions .s by the overseeing officials. Following th e 1972 elec­ tions, alt hough Congr essional officials referred Another amendment relaxed a 1939 prohibition about 7,000 cas es to the Justic e Departm ent, and on contribu tions from Federal con trac­ the Comptro ller Gen eral referred about 100 cases to tors. The FECA, as amended, now permitted corpo­ [ustice." few were litigat ed . rations and unions with Fede ral Lo estab­ lish an d operate PACs . 1974 Amendments Not until 1974, following th e documentation of BllCk/t!y v. valeo campaign abuses in the 1972 Presidential elections, Key provisions of the 1974 amendments we re immediately cha llenged as un constitutional in a :"Con lrib ution" and "expend iture" are special terms defined In 2 lawsu it filed by Sen ator James L. Buckley (Republi­ u.s.c. a nd II CFR. can Sena tor from New York) and Eugen e McCarthy ~ " S e p ,1ril t e segregated fund" is a special ter m defined in 2 U.s.c. (former Dem ocratic Sen at or from Minnesota) and 11 CFR. against the Sec reta ry of the Sena te, Francis R. Va­ ' In 1966. Congress e nac ted a law to provide for public fundi ng of leo. The Supreme handed down its ru ling on Presid en tial elections. but sus pended the law a year later. II would have included a ta: payer s' checkoff provision similar to lhat later January 30, 1976. Buckley v. v aleo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). embodied in the 197) law. 'Comp troller General of th e Uni led Sta les. " Report of the Office of Federa l Elections of th e Ge ne ral Acco unting O ffice in Ad mi nis tering the Fed era l Electio n Ca mpa ign ACI of 1971" (February 1975). 1'1'. 23 "" Polilic,, 1 committee" is ,1 special te rm defined in 2 U.S.c. and II a nd 2 ~ . CFR.

2 The Court up hel d co n tribution lim its because 1976, repealed expenditu re limits (exce p t for candi­ they served the governme nt's interest in safeguard­ dates w ho accepted pu blic funding) and revi sed th e ing the in teg rity of electio ns . However, the Cou rt p rovision governing the appoi ntment of Commis­ overtu rne d the expend itu re limi ts, stating: " It is sioners. clea r th at a p rimary effect of th ese expend itu re limi­ tati ons is to restrict the quan tity of campaign The 1976 ame ndme n ts con taine d ot he r s peec h by individ ua ls, groups an d candidates . The changes, including provisions that limited th e scope res trictions . . . limit political expression at the core of PAC fundraisi ng by co rporations a nd labor o r­ of our electoral process and of Firs t Amend men t ga niza tions. Preced ing this cu rtailme n t of PAC so­ free doms." Ackn owledging tha t both cont rib ution licitations, th e FEe had issued an advisory opinio n, an d spending lim its had First Amend ment irnplica­ AO 1975-23 (the SunPAC opi nion), confirm ing that lions, the Co urt s taled tha t the ne w law's "expendi­ th e 1971 law permitted a corporation to use treas­ ture ceilings impose sig ni fica nt ly mo re severe re­ ury money to es tablish, operate and so licit con tribu­ st rictions on p rotected freedom of political tions to a PAC. The opinion also pe rmitte d cor pora­ expression and association tha n do its lim itat ions tions and their PACs to solici t the cor poration' s on fina ncial contr ibutions ." The Court im plied, employees as well as its stockholders. Th e 1976 how ever, tha t the expe ndi tu re limits placed on p ub­ amendments, however, put significan t restrictions licly funded cand idates were constitutional because on PAC solicitatio ns, specifying who could be Presidential ca ndida tes were free to di sregard the solici ted and how solicitations would be cond ucted. limits if th ey chose to reject pu blic fina nci ng; later, In add itio n, a single co ntribu tion lim it was adopted the Co ur t a ffirmed th is ru ling in Republican National for all PACs es tablished by the same union or Committee v. FEe. 445 U.S. 955 (1980). corporation.

The Co urt also sus tained ot her provisions of th e p ublic fu ndi ng law and u pheld d isclosur e and 1979 /vnicndmcnt« recorctkeeping req uiremen ts. Howev er, th e Court Build ing upon th e experience of th e 1976 an d found th at th e met hod of appointing FEC Co mmis­ 1978 elections, Congress made further changes in sione rs violated the constitu tional pr inc iple of se pa­ the law . Th e 1979 amendment s to th e FECA (P. L. rati on of powers, since Congress, no t the President, 96-187), enacted on January 8, 1980, includ ed provi­ appointed fou r of the Commi ssioners, who exer­ sions tha t simplified reportin g requirements, en­ cise d execu tive powers . As a result, beginning on couraged pa rty activity at State an d local levels and March 22, 1976, th e Commission could no longer increased the public fu ndi ng gran ts for Pres iden tial exe rcise its execu tive powers." The agency resumed nomin at ing co nven tions. Minor am endments w ere full ac tivity in May, w he n, u nder the 1976 amend­ adopted in 1977, 1982. 1983 and 1984. ments to th e FECA, the Co mmission was reco nsti­ tut ed a nd the Preside nt a ppoi n ted six Commission me mb ers, w ho we re confirmed by the Senate. Su111 in« ry In one decade, Congress has fu nd amentally al­ 1976 /vnendments tered the regulat ion of Federal ca mpaign finances. Through the passage of th e Reve nu e Act, th e FECA In response to th e Supre me Co urt's decision, a nd its amendments, Congress has provi ded pu blic Congress revised cam paign finance legislation yet fina ncing for Pre sidential ele ctions, limited con tri­ again . The new amendments, enacted on May 11, butions in Federal elections , requ ired subs ta ntial disclosu re of ca mpa ign financial activity and created

~ Th e Supreme Court stayed its [udgme nt concerning Commission an independent agency to ad mi nister and enforce powers for 30 da ys: 11 ll' Slay was extended once. th ese p rovisions.

3 Campaign Finance Statistics The elec tion laws have resulted in substantial data on Federal campaign finance. These selected graphs, cove ring the past several years, display some of this information.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITIEES '

U IBER OF COMMllTE • UPPORT OF FEDERAL ANDIDAT :

1m unrnbuhoo.. 1. Cunlnbulkm'lo I~ Cunlnbuhotn • I~ onlnbuIH1ft' Il'dC'rr:'nd,'nl EJ,f"t-nJ llun~: - •

•

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES~ PARTY COMMITTEES

PPORT OF FEDERAL ANDIDATE

• bfl''11JUurt'''· • For l"tnhlrn ll.ll .andttl.a IMl "'or • "f\.)h' C.lI'l4.JkJ"h • Cuntnburllll\'" hI' tl uu dOlhdoi lt • A~"n'" I'r,·,..,I,·nti.&1 amtk14h"'40 A~l ln' l icnatc <..... I\4,hd.l h~ ~U\~I Il ou~ .1ntJid.tl

I I .1 - I I - PRESIDE IAL . ATE IIOU E A D1DATE C,\ NDIDATES A 'DIDATES

4 PRESIDE TIAL FUNDING )

19 PRIMARY 19 PRJ IARY

(0) "l'\ \ . (D)Brown . I • Ind .. >d.... Contnt'Uu"ft> FNn \ ldurlJl: Fund~ (D) Cranston _ .....n\ (D)Carter :::::-.~ Othn' :::~ (D) Kennedy (0) GICM (D) Hart (D)l.JRouche (D) Holling I (R) Anderson __'_ .-" (D) [ackson _ (R)Baker (D)l.JRouche • (D) kGo\'l'rn I I (Rl Bush :::::~ (R) Cunn.llly (OJ Mondalc •••••••• (R) Crane (R) Reagan •••••••••~ (R) Dole (R)Rcagan ••••••• IL) Bergland I

(LlOa rk (0 Johnson I

1980 GENERAL 1984 GENERAL

h '\Jt't'.JI FunJ", , ".. U\ · f, -ndltUh:"" A nd er on • It'kh~id LU l on u,buUOfb Luc 'Y • ConlnbutKJn k~ Cnmrl&oU'kr J-un..t Mondale Ferraro

art -r Mondale

Reagan Reagan Bush Bush

PRESIDE TIAL FU D: TAX CHECKOFF

r0 1.11 Chc kOll \

5 CAMPAIGN SPENDING

SENATE CA D1DATES" HOUSE CANDIDATES·

SlJ.$2UW· SlJ.S4...... m .IJOO.S299.Wl 55. 5019.­ .UXl-S'.I9'l.m 55O.1JOO.59'1._ • SI,ml.lUl+ Sllll.lXlJ • I

SOURCES OF FUNDJNG ~ SENATE CA DIDATES HOUSE CA DID ATES

160 ~h lll .. n 5250 M,IIi.1n 10,tl\ 'hlUoIl (."'lnl"l ·ul ""l" .lfh t Olh," . ;[ • I',\ l l ( 1 ' " ' Il ~u tk~ • I' JI\ 1' J"I ·n..Il IU"'" lo..rt vC••nlf, I".h••n... $ 120 J l o J .~ulu ., l l ' .l\ln N li•.n.. .., Il: J. Sloo sisol J J J 1978 1980 198-1 197 ' I'Jill! IYS2

SE ATE ANDIDATES, 1984" HOUSE CAl DIDA , 19 •

• tndivt du..1 tlnln bul ~n PACI CunlnhuhtJn'\ r olr1 v Con tn buuon .. r~ rty E' rmJuur .. ClIndk1.th.'Co ntn bul n,, '\ C.lndui.:alc.' Ul.IM OthnlD

I I J I I .I I I UMBEl rs CHALLENGER PEl\! SEAT INCUMBEl\"1 CIIALLE GERS OPEN EAT

6 SPENDING BY HOUSE CANDIDATES, 1984 1l 2% INC MBENTS OPE ' EAT

53 %

SIH2~.999' • S2.~ .oo)'SY9.999 • SI OO. oro-S2~9 . _ S2S0.lXXl .

SO URCES OF FUNDI G" HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES HOUSE DE1I. \OCRAT IC CANDIDATE

$120 hllh ," IrtJl\IJU.•Jtltfllrlt'ulI, 'lh .. n.1 (1 11\,_,1 1 • 1',\( , Ctm tnl- utMn.. • I~.n l\· I ' J'Ondlhlt't.::. · $ 100 I'," I ~ ( ,.nlfll-tlclun,

S80

560

'>-11)

$2ll

so

1'1:-;2 l'JtH l'JiS 1'J!\4

I. A " PAC" (or po litica l ac tio n co mmittee} b 01 pol itical co rnmitu-e that is neith e r ,I ca nd idate rom mittec nor a p,l rly cu m n itt ce ,

2. An "I ndependen t Expendi ture" IS an expendi ture for 01 co unn urucauo n (' .\ p rcs ~l y .1dVI1Cil lon~ lhl' electio n o r dereat of a clc.irlv identified ca nd idate that is no t mad e wi th 11 1(' coope ration or pri or consent Ill. or in co ns ulta uo u WIth, III .11 th e request o r " Uhbl",t;'lIl 01. ,lny candi da te 0 1 his/her a uthori zed co mm ittees " r agents. J. Grap h includes Presid ential ca ndida tes whose C,'l11 l'olign ac tivu y exceede d '5300.000. •1. " O the r" includes refunds, reba tes , Interest , di vidend s, conrnbutio ns by cand ida tes to th ctr own Cill11 p.l'g ns, a nd cu ntn bu no ns by com m ittees.

5. "Con tribu tio ns to Co mpliance Fu nd"

7 Included a re .1 lew indi viduals who have rmsed and ' pent II's ' Ihiln 55,DOO a nd are then -tor e no t sta tutory "ca nd idates" unde r lhe Federa l Election Ca mpaign Act. 8. Gra p h covers general electio n cand idates, showing th eir sources of fu nd ing in promary , runoff and genNall'leciioll5

9. " Par ty Expendi tu res" arc limited expenduures made by pM ly committees on behalf o j Federal candidate 111 the gCI1l'r.ll election. Ind ependent expe ndi tures mad e in Presidential campaigns are show n (>n the lndep -nden t Expendi tures g rilph "II pa!,l' -l. 10. "O ther" incl udes loans, reba tes , refu nds, contributions from unregistered en liues a nd other G1 ll1 p'l ig n commutee s. inte rest and d ividen ds. I I. Graph covers a ll campaign spl.'ndi n '[primarv, runoff ,1I1 d ge ner.ll) of major parly candidates ru nning 111 Ih., ge nera l e lec tio n,

12. " Ind ivid ual Contnbu tions and O ther" uiclud es co ntribu tio ns fro m individua ls in .11l1111l1llS less tha n S5UU, 1",1115 , 10,1ns and co ntribu tions by the ca ndi da te. reba tes , reru nd s. ccrurtbutions [rom u l1 rcg...tered enl;ties ilnd ot her ( ,Im p., ig n committees . in terest a nd d ivid ends.

13. " Individ ual Contnbuunn s an d O ther" inc ludes contrib utions ;r,)m mdrvid uals, loan '> , )"'HIS ,1I1d conn ibu no ns bv the ca nchda te, reba tes, ref unds. contrib u tiuns from un regrstcred cnt iue s a nd o ther C,l ll1p,l lhn <:11111111 1111'1'5 , mtcr e-st .m d dividends. .

7 COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

Des pite continued public debate on the go v­ Th e FEC audits all public funding recip ients ernment of Federal electi on financing, and may require repayment of public funds to the the Federal Election Commission is recogni zed as U.S. Treas ury under certain circumstances-for ex­ playing a necessary role in overseeing federal elec­ am ple, if a candidate or convention committee uses tion laws, By the end of 1984, th e Commissi on had Federal money for expenses unrelated to the cam­ implemented the Fed eral Electio n Campaign Act pa ign . (the FECA) throughout five election cycles and had administ ered the public financin g of three Presiden ­ The public funding programs of 1980 and 1984 tial elections . The sections below de cribe the ma jor were noteworthy for several reason s. In 1980, the functions the Commission undertakes in pe rform­ Commission ce rtified the first public funds to a new ing its role under the electio n law s. pa rty cand idate, John Anderson, w ho received over $4 millio n sho rtly after the general election. This post-election funding was based on the nu mber of Ad1llinisteriJlg Public Funding vo tes he received in the election . In 1984, Sonia Johnson became the first third-pa rty candidate to Th e FEC ha s overseen the public financing of receive primary matching funds. Ad di tionally, in three Presidential election s-in 1976, 1980 and 1984, Presiden t Reaga n beca me th e firs t can didate 1984--and to da te has certi fied payments to 43 can­ ever to raise enough in ma tcha ble con tribu tions to dida tes and 6 Democrati c and Republican no minat­ qualify for the maxi m um am ount of prim ary mat ch­ ing conven tion committees. The pa ym ents are ac­ ing fun ds. His campaign rece ived $10.1 million in tually made by the U.S. Treasury Department. As public funds. of February 19, 1985, $304 million from the tax checkoff fund had been used to fina nce Pre sidential elections. OisclosiJlR• <. CaJJlpaiRIl<- Finan ce Before certifying pa yments, the Commission [Il/onna!ion makes su re that those requesting public funds ha ve in all aspects of campaign fi­ met qualifying condition s. Majo r party Presidential nancing has s tead ily grown through the years. In nominees and convention committees receive out­ response, the Commission has stepped u p its ef­ right grants, and Presidential primary candidates fort s to make campaign finance da ta available more receive Federal ma tching funds for certain contribu­ quickly and in more usable formats. tions they receive. (Up to $250 of an individual's contribution is matched with an equivalent pay­ Co m miss ion disclosure of cam paign finance ac­ me nt from the tax checkoff fund .) In addition , the tivity is based on the reports submitted by specifies the condition s under which minor committees. Th ese repor ts focus on the flow of party candidates and new party candidates may be­ money in and out of campaigns and the so urces of come eligible for pa rtial public funding of their gen­ '''Major party: ' " minor party" and " new party" are special terms eral election cam paigns," defined in 26 U.s.c. and 11 CFR.

8 campaign suppo rt. The reports are available from merion , advi ce and clarification to those see king the Public Record s Office, which was the first of the help. Commission 's offices to be fully staffed and opera­ nve . A store-fron t facility, the Publ ic Records Office Central to the age ncy's informat ion and assis­ ~ak e~ r ~p or t s available for public review and copy­ tan ce Prcgrom art' the toll-free tele pho ne lines . mg within 48 hours of receipt. as requ ired by law. They give political commi ttees and candidates direct By the end of 1984, the office had made public 5.59 access to Comm ission staff who answer qu estions million pages of documents. abou t what the law requires.

In add ition to maintainin g the reports, the The Commissio n's publications also play a ma­ Commission enters data taken from reports into a jor role in promoting compliance by explain ing the computer system. The resulting data base has en­ law, in easy- to-u nde rstand terms, to a variety of ha.nced. publi c disclosure in several ways. Comput­ readers. Expanded over the years, FEC publi cations ~. n zed ind exes, which sort and aggregate reported now include a mo nthly newsletter, in-depth cam­ hna.ncial data in a variety of formats, are readily pa ign manuals and a se ries of brochures that focu s available to the pu blic. The first indexes comp iled on specific aspects of the levv , As the number of manually by the FEC staff in 1975 a re prim itive publications has increased. so has the number of re­ when com pared to the variety of FEC computer in­ ques ts for them; the Commission filled 16,669 or­ dexes now available. Utilizing its compu terized data ders for FEC materials in 1 9~ alone . In addition , base, the Commission pe riodically provides press through workshops and two-day seminars , Com ­ releases summarizing the activity of campaigns, mission ers and staff provid e tech nical ass istance to part y committees and PACs. The Commission also candida tes, parti es and political committees around publ!sh es compre he nsive studies of each two-year the cou ntry. eleCh?n cycle. These Rrp?rts 0" Financiat Activity (previously called the Distosure St'ries) present cu­ FEC ad visory opinions have also been an effec­ mu lative da ta and provide a bas is for resea rch on tive means of encouraging volun tary compliance. " patterns of campaign fina ncing. The charts on the The ad viso ry op inion procedure permits a person preceding pages-most of them based on these involved in political campaig ns to reques t the Com ­ publi shed reports-present a sampling of available mission 's ad vice on a specific activity and to obtain data cove ring several election cycles. the protection of a binding . Advisorv opinions also clarify the law for persons who are in The Commission, in coopera tion with State of­ the same situation ,15 the person who requ ested the ficials, initiated a pilot program in 1984 to provide opinion . From 1975 to 1984, the Commission issued several State election offices with direct com puter 762 ad visory opinions . access to FEC ca mpaign finance data ." Com pu ter term inals installed in the offices give the press and . The agency has also recognized that clearly the public immediate access to three FEC compu ter written regu lations, which interpret and explain the indexes, upda ted daily. Once it has surveyed pu blic law, con tribute to volun tary compliance. The Com­ dema nd for this service, the Co mmission milY ex­ mission prescribed its first in 1977 and pand the program to encompass more States. ad.opte d substantial changes in 1980 to help com­ mittees und erstand the 1979 amendments 10 the The growing interest in campaign finance, cou­ law. Since then, the Commission has continued to pled wit h the wea lth of information ava ilable from a.mend its rules to clarify them and to address prac­ the Commi ssion , has dra mat ically increased the ac­ tical problems encountered by political committees. tivity of the FEe's Public Record s Office and Press Office. In 1984, the Public Records Office se rved The Co mmission also makes sugges tions for 17,240 peop le and received 13.183 telephone inquir­ modifying the election law itself. Every year, in ac­ ies. Simila rly, the Press Office assisted 1,922 visitors corda nce with the FECA, the Commission submits in 1984 and answered 15,317 ph one inquiries. a list of legislati ve recommendations to Congress based on the age ncy's experience in administering the election law . In the 1979 amendments to the FECA, Co ngress ad opted recommendation s from Encol/raging Compliance with the Lau: the Commission's 1978 A nnu al Report to reduce re­ From the beginning, the FEe has fostered vol­ porting req uirements and to streng then the role of untary compliance with the law by offering infer- pol.i~ c~1 parties by enco uraging certain grassroots acnvrncs .

'States p.1rticipa1inS in t~ tnt .Ut' C.11ifornia. Coto-ad o, Ceoegta, lIlinOt'>. Md " $K tlt.l ~lt ... Wa st-ll nglon. Rhode Island and Alaba ma . ••..Advlsory \l1-'mion" ' $ oj ~ P""" i

9 public or through referrals from other government Monitoring Compliance with the Law agencies. Once a formal complaint or referral is The Commission reviews all campaign finance filed, the Commission opens a co mpliance case (re­ reports in order to fulfill two of its responsibilities: ferred to as a Matter Under Review or MUR). The to enforce th e law and to d isclose ca m paign finance Act itself di cta tes the procedures the agency must data. If an error, omission or other potential viol a­ follo w when it opens a case. First, the Commission tio n of the law is discovered, th e agency se nds a must ke ep th e matter confidential until th e case is letter requesting that additional informa tio n be pro­ clo sed and put o n the public record . Se cond, the vided to clarify or amend information in itially re­ Commissi on must give respondents- those alleged ported . The committee ha s the op po rtu n ity to to have vio la ted th e law-a reasonable opportunity amend its report voluntarily and help p reserve the to d emonstrate that no action shou ld be taken integrity of the public record. against th em. Finally, if th e Com m issi o n find s probable ca use to believe the law ha s been viol a ted, Exa m ina tio n of a com m ittee's reports some­ the agency must try to sett le th e case through con­ times reveals that the committee mav have serious ciliation pri or to filing a civ il action. recordkeepin g problems . In such cases, th e Com­ mi ssion may audit the committee to define th e Bv the e nd o f 1984, the Commission had problems and o ffer solu tio ns. Again, th e co m m ittee c1 osed'the file on over 1,700 compliance cases. Until m ay vo lu n ta rily amend its reports. Since 1975, the 1979 , a large portion of th ese cases were rela tively Commission has completed 366 audits . These in­ si m ple in nature. However, in rec ent ye ars, a clude the audits of Pre sidential candid ates receiving greate r number of cases have involve d more co m­ public funding which are required by law . See the plex issues requiring detailed legal analysi s and, ta ble bel ow. sometimes, sign ifica n t civil penalties .

Occasio nally, as a result o f th e review of th e So me co m pliance matters require court action. reports, the Commission determines that a commit­ T he Commission brings s u it w he n it is hampered in tee ma y have serio us re por ting d ifficulties o r o ther its duty to in ve st igate alleged viola tio ns- for exam­ probl ems, which may result in violatio ns of the ple, w h en per sons refuse to coopera te in an in ve s ti­ law. These determinations ma y develop into co m­ gation. The Com m iss ion al so files s ui t as a means pl iance cases, di scussed belo w . of en fo rcing th e law if the agency cannot reach a co ncilia tio n agreement wi th Cl respondent who has viola ted th e law , o r if th e respondent does no t com­ FEe Audits, 1975-1984 ply wi th the agreement. Moreover, because th e Presidential" 46 FECA a fford s th e com pla ina n t the opportunity to Presidential Join t Fundraising ** 6 challe nge th e Commission' s com p lia nce ac tions, th e Sena te 12 Commission mus t sometimes defend its en force­ Hou se 108 ment d ecisions in court. Part y (Nati on al) 38 Party (O the r) <)7 The Commiss ion also d efends the co ns titu tion­ PACs 59 ality o f the ca m pa ign fin ance law when persons To tal 366 bring s u it cla im ing that certain provisions abridge rights protected under th e . Buckley v. '''Presidc ntla l'' refers to audits of principal campaign com­ mittees of primary and ge neral cand idates, and of conven­ Va/eo w as the first of th ese co nstitu tio nal chal­ lion committees (both part y and host committees). lenges . ln the Buckley case, and in the ca se s th a t ...."residen tial [oint Fundraisi ng" refe rs 10 aud its of com­ have follo wed, th e co u rts have had to weigh th e mille es es tablished by two 0 1 more political committees, va lue of th e law as a sa feg ua rd on th e integri ty o f one or mo re of which arc Presiden tial committees, for the electio ns against its potential for curtailing co ns titu­ purpose of join tly raisi ng fun ds. tio nal righ ts .

O verall, th e Commission's litigat ion ac tivities Enforcing and Defending the Law have bee n effective in en fo rcing and d efending the law. Of the 27 court cases closed during 1984, for The Federa l Elec tion Campaign Ac t assigns the example, the Commissi on's position was u pheld in Commiss ion the duty of d etermining whether a 19 cases. T he court disagreed with the Commission candidate or committee has violated the law. Possi­ in three cases." ble violations are brou g ht to the Commission's a t­ tention either internally-through th e report-review procedures and audits d es cribed above-or ex te r­ "Of th e remai ning five cases. three were voluntarily dismi ssed nally- through complain ts filed by members of th e d uri ng the Yl'ar and another two we re dism issed as moot.

10 and confirmed by the Senate. Two ex officio Com­ Servingas a Clearinghouse on missioners, the Secretarv of the Senate and the Election /viinini stration Clerk of the Ho use of Representa tives, are nonvot­ The FEe's Clearinghouse o n Election Adminis­ ing members . They appoint special d eputies to re p­ tra tio n provides in form ation service s to St ate and resent them at the Commission. local election agencies. In contrast w ith the Com­ m ission's primary purpose of regulating th e flow of Th e six voting Commissioners se rve full time money in Federal elec tions, the Clea ring ho use fo­ and are responsible for ov erseeina.ad rnin is tra tio n of cuse s on assisting Slate and local in th e Fed eral Electio n Campaign Ad.'They generally the administrative conduct of the elections them­ meet twice a week, once in closed sessio n to dis­ se lves . Es tablished under th e 1971 Act as part of cu ss ma tters th at, by law , must remain co nfidential, the General Acc ountin g Office, the Clearinghouse and once in a meeting open to th e public. At these was transferred to th e Commission under the 1974 meetings, th ey formula te and vote o n signifi­ amendmen ts to the Act. The Clearinghouse ga the rs cant legal and administrative matters . and disseminates information through published re­ search studies, regional se m ina rs and State wo rk­ sho ps. As ~ central information office, the Clearing­ house received 3,882 phone and ma il inq ui ries in TIle Statu tory Officers 1984. Over the past len years, it has published re­ ports on s uc h topics as Sta te ca mpa ig n finance The law provides for two statu tory officers, a laws, voting regis tra tion syste ms , bilin gual election Staff Dir ector and a General . The Staff Di­ serv ice s and voting machine techno logy . rect or ca rr ies the respo nsibilities of appointing s taff, with th e approval of the Commission , a nd imple­ To make s ure that it responds to the needs of m enting Commission policy . The Staff Director its constituents, the Clearin g house has organized oversees the Commission's public di sclosure ac tivi­ a n Advisory Panel composed of 17 Sta te and local ties, ou trea ch efforts, rev iew of reports and the au­ el~c t ion of~i cial s . Panel members meet period ically dit pr ogram, as well as the ad m inis tra tion of the with C learinghouse sta ff to di scuss current issues in agency . their field and to recommend possible Clearing­ house projec ts and stud ies. The General Counsel directs the agency's en­ forc ement ac tivities and repres ents and advises the Commission in any legal ac tions brought against it. The Connniss io ner« The Office of Genera l Counse l handles a ll civil liti­ ga tion, incl uding severa l cases w hich ha ve come be­ Th e six Commissioners-three Democrats and for e the Supreme Court. The Office is als o responsi­ th ree Republica ns 'j-e-are appointed by the President ble for drafting, for Commission consideration, regu la tions and adv isory opinions, as well as other 12Undc r the election law, no more than three Co mmissioners G ill be "Hdi" lcd wn h lhe sa me pohtrca l part y. legal m emoranda interpreting th e Act.

II APPE DIX

Pres idential Spending Limits as Increased by Cost-oJ-Living Adjustl1/ents

Unadjusted Limit 1976 1980 ---1984 - CO LA" 9. 10/0 47.2% 102 % Prima ry Election Lim it.... $10 million $10.9 million $14 .7 mi llio n $20.2 m illion Ge neral Election Lim it $20 million $21.8 mil lio n $29.4 million $40.4 million Pa rty Convention Limit 1976 $2 million $2.2 million 1980 $3 milli on $4.4 million 1984 $4 m illion $8.1 million Pa rty Limit for 2 cents x $3.2 milli on $4.6 milli on $6.9 million Presidential Nominee"?' u.s. voti ng ~e (VA P = (VAP = (VA P == p o pulation ( AP) 146.8 m illion ) 157.5 m illion) 171.'1 million)

'COLA mean s the cost -of-living ad ju stmen t, wluch the Departme nt o( Labo r iln nuillly ,..rtcu l.u es using 197.j as Ilw base year. " I'rimMy cand idates receiving miltehin!; [und s mus t co mply wi th tW,' type» ui spend ing limits. A nat ion al hm it (listed in till' above table ) .111<1

Co ntributio n Limits

To Nation al To Any Other Total To Ca ndi date Part y Com mittee Contributions Contribut ion Limi ts Pe r Election Per Year Per Year Per Year Individual $1,000 $20,000 $5,000 $25,000 Political Committee $1,000 $20,000 $5,000 No Limi t Mu lticandidate Committee" $5,000 515,000 55,000 No Limit

'A m ultica nd idate com mittee is ,1 ny com mit tee wit h more Ihan 50 contri butors whic h 1101 5 been registered [or at 1",1St six months and. WIth the exce ption of Stale part y cornrnluecs. has made con n ibutiuns 10 live or more Federal ca ndidates,

12 COMMISSIONERS AND OFFICERS 1975-1985

C('I J1111 j~::.i( JIlt'1"., Joan D. Aikens April 1975-Apri11989 (rea ppo inted May 1976, December 1981 and August 1983). Thom as B. Curtis ApriI1975-l\.1ay 1976. T homas E. Harris April 1975-Ap ril 1985 (reappointed Jun e 1979). Nei l O . Staebler April 1975-September 1978. Vernon W. T homson April 1975--]une- 1979; January 1981-Dt"cember 1981. Robert O. Tie rnan April 1975-November 1981. Will iam L. Springer May 1976-January 1979. John Warren McGar ry October 1978---April 1989 (rea ppointed jut y 1983). Max L. Friedersd orf March 1979-December 1980. Frank P. Reiche July 1979-April 1985. l ee An n Elliott December 1981-April 1987. Da nny L. McD onald December 1981-April 1987.

Clerk of th e House W. Pat Jennings April 1975-Novem ber J975. Ed mund L. Hen sh aw, Jr. Dece mber 1975-January 1983. Benjamin J. Guthrie January 198:>-.

Sec'!.tnry of the Senate Francis R. Valeo April 1975-March 1977. Joseph Stanley Kim mitt April 1977-Janlla ry 1981. Will iam F. Hildenbrand Jan uary 1981 -January 1985. Jo-Anne L. Coe January 1985-.

5101 II lory Ulrica, Stalf Director Orla ndo B. Potter May 1975- July 1980. B. Allen Clutter, III September 1980-May 1983. John C. Su rina July 1983---.

General Counsel -- John G. Murph y, J r. May 1975- December 1976. WilJiam C. Ol daker February 1977-0ctober 1979. Charles N. Steele December 1979- .