April 1985 Record

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION • April 1985 1325 K Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 11 , Number 4 INTERVIEW WITH CHAIRMAN ON COMMISSION'S 10TH ANNIVBRSARY To mark the Commission's lOth anni versary, which occurs on April 14, the Record interviewed Commission Chairman John Warren McGarry. We asked several SUPREME COURT RULES questions about the Commission's experi ON 26 U.S.C. 59012(0 ence over the past decade. His remarks Many calls have been received regarding the follow: impact of the Supreme Court's March 18 decision striking down 26 U.S.C. S9012(f) as unconstitu What do you think has been the Commis tional. The next issue of the Record will sum sion's most important achievement during marize that decision (FEC v. NCPAC et al.), the past ten years? Unfortunately, several accounts of that deci Meaningful disclosure. The purpose, sion incorrectly reported the Court's ruling. The the thrust and the goal of the Act is inquiries generated by this misreporting suggest disclosure. The Commission has achieved that a brief comment on what the Court did not this goal in a magnificent manner. For say is in order. example, you can get information on inde First, eontributiom to a Presidential candi pendent expenditures made to support or date accepting general election funding are stilI oppose eandidatesj you can find out about prohibited. The Court decision only addressed in communication costs that corporations and dependent expenditures made by political com labor organizations make to their re mittees to further the election of such a Presi stricted classes; you can identify what dential candidate. PACs have contributed. This is all mean Second, all contribution limits remain in ingful. Beyond that, the information is force. Some reports have misconstrued the • Court's decision to mean that limits governing available and accessible. You don't have to go to some archive and spend money or individual contributions to political action com perform manual research. At the Commis mittees have now been lifted. As noted above, the sion, the most important information is contribution limits were not at issue in this case. readily accessible through computer print outs. In my opinion, the Com mission has carried out disclosure in a manner that surpasses the expectations of even the TABLE OF CONTENTS most ardent supporters of election reform. 1 Interview with Chairman Many commentators have observed that the most important part or the election 800 LINE law is disclosure. In what way does dis I Supreme Court Rules on 26 U.S.C. S9012(f) closure serve the public interest? Disclosure leads to confidence securi REGULATIONS ty, stability on the part of the electorate, 3 Sunshine Rules Even though people may not utilize the 3 Testing-the-Waters Rules information, it's pretty widely known that 4 Repayment Rules the data is available. There is as a result a genume. sense of accountability" and re- 4 OPINIONS sponsibility on the part of elected officials. This has restored the public's confidence in INFORMATION the electoral process. Confidence had 6 Computer Access in Alabama plummeted at the time of the Watergate 7 COURT CASES scandal. Today, disclosure allows the voter to make an informed judgment about can- 7 COMPLIANCE • continued on p. 2 April 1985 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION \k)lume 11 ,Numoo- 4 INTERVIEW WITH CHAIRMAN one case, the court sat on a subpoena enforce- continued from p.l ment matter for two years. There was nothing the • didates, The voter knows where the candidates' Commission could do. By the time the Commis- money comes from and how it is spent. sion resolves a compliance matter, a year may have passed. But at other government agencies Some critics have suggested that the Commis and in the private sector, similar cases may be sion's powers be limited to disclosure alone. In strung out over two or three years. other words, they would like to see the Commis The Commission is constantly mindful of the sion stripped of its enforcement powers. Do you need to find ways to speed things up. We have, for think this would be advisable! example, developed a three- track system .for No, I don't. I think it would be most unfortu processing cases (ranging from the simple to the nate. It would bode ill for the election reform complex). The simpler cases are moved with dis law, which I think has been been successful. One patch. I think we have made great strides in dramatic lesson from Watergate and the very improving the process in the last two years, but reason for the Commission (and I had a ringside we continue to review our procedures, looking for seat for all this) is the need for enforcement. ways to improve them in any way we can. Though we had an excellent, all encompassing election reform law, when the Watergate bubble What do you believe is the most difficult problem burst, the confidence of the American public facing the Commission today? plummeted; we realized that the election law was My answer is twofold: Insufficient funding not being enforced. We recognized that an inde and trying to strike a balance between our duty to pendent election commission was needed not just enforce the law and the need to encourage parti to administer the law but to enforce it. The best cipation in the political process. Let me speak example is the Internal Revenue Service. On April about funding, first. 15, in any post office in the country, people are Campaign spending has skyrocketed. In 1984, falling over one another to file tax returns, be campaign spending exceeded $1 billion. The in- cause people are vividly aware that the IRS will creased activity impacts directly on the Commis- enforce the law; and if they don't file, there will sion. Voluminous reports are filed with us, creat- be penalties. Without enforcement, you wouldn't ing more work for those who review reports, audit get disclosure. The law would not be observed. campaigns and handle compliance. Despite this, • Without Watergate, there would have been no we have had to battle to get enough funds to do Commission, and the FECA would have gone the our job. Staff has been cut from 282 to 245, and way of the Corrupt Practices Act (of 1925), we have had to reduce basic programs. For ex- creating deep distrust among the American ample, we no longer enter into the computer people. information about individual contributions of between $200 and $500. We used to. Similarly, we Some have eriticized the Commission for taking are unable to monitor aggregate contributions by too long to process outside complaints. Has this individuals that exceed the annual limit of been a problem? If so, do you foresee any solu $25,000. Nevertheless, despite our limited fund- tion? ing, we have had dramatic increases in productiv- I think it is a continuing problem, and I can ity. We have a young, dedicated staff; we have understand that outsiders feel there's a delay in done well, but we're hurting. A lot of the criti- processing complaints. But many people are not cism leveled at the Com mission could be over- aware of the problems confronting the Commis come with proper funding. sion in this area. The Act is replete with a The second problem, and of equal impor panoply of procedural safeguards, which in them tance, is the difficulty of trying to balance our selves cause delays. Respondents often have so duty to enforce the law with the need to do so in phisticated attorneys, well versed in adversarial a manner that increases citizen participation in procedure. The Commission sometimes finds itself elections. Most of the people we deal with are 'in the position of having to fight for every inch of volunteers. Although we must enforce the law, it ground in its effort simply to get information is important that we not be intrusive or disrup needed to process a case properly. tive. We must enforce the law with grace and Interrogatories, subpoenas, legal procedures avoid tipping the scales in favor of one candidate to enforce subpoenas---all these take time. In over another. We. know the law is complex; it The Record is published by the Federal Election Commission, 1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: John Warren McGarry, Chairman; Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman; Lee Ann Elliott; Danny Lee McDonald; Thomas E. Harris; Frank P. Reiche; Jo-Anne Coe, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Benjamin J. Guthrie, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/523-4068 or toll-free 800/424-9530. • 2 April 1985 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION \blume 11, Numter 4 would be unfortunate if we enforced it in such a way as to chill participation. So, we do our very SUNSHINE REGULATIONS: best to provide our constituents with information, SECOND RULEMAKING NOTICE to help them understand the law; but we don't do AND HEARING enough with outreach because of insufficient On March 13, 1985, in response to • funding. comments on its first notice of proposed These are two very real problems that the rulemaking, the Com mission published a Commission constantly wrestles with. We are very second rulemaking notice in the Federal mindful of the fact that they require a great deal Register to seek additional com ments on of effort and attention, and we try to give them possible revisions to its Sunshine regula that. tions. See 11 CFR Parts 2 and 3. At the same time, the Commission announced that, on April 24, it will hold a public hearing on the proposed revisions.

Load more