0 0 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 1325 K STREET N.W WASHIING1ON.D.C. 20463 2 7 AUG 1976 Mr. G. T. Blankenship FEDERAI [TiT, , 1140 N. W. 63 14' Suite 219 o IC IA L Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116 OFFICE Of G CUJiiAL Re: MUR 164 (76) Dear Mr. Blankenship: This acknowledges receipt of your telegram dated June 4, 1976, and your letter dated June 11, 1976, alleging certain violations of the Federal Election Cam- Spaign Act of 1971, as amended, by 214r. Paul Weyrich. I have reviewed your allegations and have concluded on the basis of the information in your telegram and letter that there is no reason to believe that a violation of any statute within the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Counission has been committed. Accordingly, upon my recounendation, the Commission has closed its file in this matter. Should additional information come to your attention which you believe establishes a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Laws, please contact me. The attorney assigned to this matter was Victor Sterling (telephone no. 202/382-4055). The file reference number is MUR 164 (76). Sincerely yours, i-John G. Murphy, Jr. General Counsel 0 k S FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 1325 K SIRE V N.W WASHIiN 1ON,[).C. 20463 27 AUG 1976 Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq. Harrison, Lucey and Sagle Suite 500 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 Re: MUR 164 (76) Dear Mr. Harrison: I am forwarding the enclosed telegram and letter pursuant to §437g(a) (2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, for your information. As shown by the attached copy of my letter to complainant, the Cormnission believes that on the basis of the information in the telegram and letter there is no reason to believe that a violation of any statute within its jurisdiction has been committed. Accordingly, the Commission does not intend to investigate the matter any further. Sincerely yours, John G. Murphy, Jr. General Counsel I I %.- U.L V54Ui~ ~4.' 60/0 < 4 c * 0 MEMORANDUM To: Commissioners From: Neil Staebler Subject: MUR - 164 Date: August 26, 1976 I must object to one of the reasons stated in the General Counsel's report on disposition of this MUR. The allegation is that the staff member in question "participated in" the election in a capacity with a political committee at the same time he was serving as a Senate staff member. The disposition of the matter depends, in my view, on the nature and extent of that participation. Nothing in the record de- tails the accusation, and nothing in the proposed resolution of the matter explores that participation. .f the staff member's participation was incidental, indirect, on behalf of the private organization and not the candidate, then I believe that no expenditure or contribution in kind has been made on behalf of the candidiate by either of the staff mem ber's employers: The Private Committee or the Senator. If, however, the participation was direct, substantial, and on behalf of the candidate in his capacity as an employee of the private committee, then the value of the participation -1- constitutes a contribution in kind to the candidate which must be reported. If it was not, then a reporting violation has occurred which should be corrected. Finally, if the employee used time paid for by the government to engage in direct, substantial campaign activity on behalf of the candidate, then either an expenditure requir- ing repayment or a contribution in kind may have been made by the Senator. Note that the candidate on whose behalf the cam- paign activity occurred is not the Senator by whom the staff member is employed. There is, therefore, no question as to the legislative nature of the activity. If it occurred, it was political. As a political activity paid for from public funds it requires, at the least, reim.bursement and may well be 7 forbidden completely. The General Counsel's analysis gives insufficient information to reach any conclusion. Accordingly, I believe that either the complaint ought to be dismissed for the sole reason of insufficient evidence, or the file ought to be left open and the complainant invited to submit additional evidence. Accor.dlngly, the reliance by implication on MUR - 077 and MUR - 105 is misplaced. Should the Commission choose to close the file relying on the reasons stated in the General Counsel's report, I would dissent for the reasons stated in my separate statements filed in MUR- 077 and MUR- 105. -2-L ,,,c,;., 0 0 Since the General Counsel's report contains other reasons to close the file, I do not feel it necessary to include this statement with the letters, but do hereby make it a part of the file. : .. o;: . .. -3- BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) MUR 164 (76) Paul Weyrich ) CERTI FICAT ION I, Marjorie W. Emmons, Secretary to the Federal Election Commission, do hereby certify that or August 26, 1976, the Commission determined by a vote of 5-0 that there was no reason to believe that a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, had been committed in the above- captioned matter. Voting that there was no reason to believe were Commissioners Aikens, Harris, Thomson and Tiernan. Commissioner Staebler filed a memorandum stating a separate view for finding no reason to believe. Commissioner Springer was absent. Accordingly, the file in this matter has now been closed. Marjorie.19. Emmons Secreta(/ to the Commission 4, AUG 2 5 1976 NO. MUR 164 (76) DATE AN') " 1:~ TRA ?Si-1 ,IT TA , RIEC'D: 6/4/76 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Washington, D. C. G. T. Blankenship Con 1 -1 Paul Weyrich flo 2 U.S.C. 434(b) Reports of the Committee for thLe Survival of a .,_- ...Checke~d: Froze___~ cr SU:.LRY C- A'LLEGATTON U.S. Senate Staff Member is the 2 lio alleges that Mr. Wevric-, ... •.n. a tolitical committee, the Comittee for the Survival of a Free Oklahoma's Fifth S.. a -d )ar.ticipated in a prircampaignin Ccncr. .: on aI Dis trict. PETTYV7RYp- LEGAL ALZALYSIS for the Survival of a Free Con- ,.An examination of the reports of the Committee gress covering the period from January 1, 1976 through April 30, 1976, disclosed this year has sup- that: 1) The committee is a multicandidate committee which 2) Paul Weyrich is ported 102 candidates for Congress in a number of States. expenditures listed on the Committee's stationary as its Director; and 3) and expense.: tota.llinj $6,207 were paid to him and describod as "salary (see continuation sheet) Close file; send attached letters. CONTINUATION SHEET PRELIMINARY LEGAL - 2 - ANALYSIS reimbursed." 4) The attached copies of reports filed by the committee indicate that it has made contributions to Marvin Edwards totalling $4,650 since January 1, 1975. The 1976 Congressional Staff Directory lists Mr. Weyrich as special assistant to Senator Carl Curtis. Mr. Weyrich al.;o appears on the Senate payroll. It is unclear whether Mr. Weyrich's work as a Special Assistant overlapped with his functions as Director for the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress. If it did, there is again issue as to whether a portion of his Senate salary constituted a contribution in-kind to the candidates on whose behalf he worked and was therefore reportable by, them. However, in the light of the Commission's decision to close its file with regard to a substantially similar issue %.,::' .! -involving an executive level employee, we believe that a similar result is warranted here. It also should be noted that there is no issue as to excessive contributions by the Committee since it donated less than $5,000 over a pericd of approximately a year to Mr. Edwards Campaign (2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(l)(A)). While Mr. Weyrich's alleged work on behalf of the EdWards Campaign may constitute an additional contribution in-kind by the Com- mittee, there is no indication as to the extent of this work and its relation to Weyrich's overall duties as Director of the Cormmittee. Indeed, in view of the fact that the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress appears to have supported a large number of candidates besides 1.4r. Edwards, it appears - 3 - unlikely that there was a contribution-in-kind by its Director. Thus, it would seem unlikely that a violation of 2 U.S.C. S44la(a) (2) (A) has been committed. CFFICE" ~ 3LE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 1325 K STREET N.W WASHINGTONoD.C. 20463 .arion Edwyn Harrison, Esq. Harrison, Lucey and Sagle Suite 500 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 Re: MUR 164 (76) Dear Mr. Harrison: I am forwarding the enclosed telegram and letter oursuant to §437g(a) (2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, for vycu- d-normation. As shown L by the attached copy of my le--er to complainant, the _ Co-mission believes that on the basis of the information in the telegram and letter there is no reason to believe that a violation of any statute .'.iLhin its jurisdiction has been committed. Accordin-1, the. a Commission does not intend to investigate the matter any further. Sincerely yours, John G. Murphy, Jr. General Counsel Enclosures b < .. b0 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 1325 K SIREFI N.W. WASHING IOND.C. 20463 2 7 AUG 1976 Mr. G. T. Blankenship 1140 N. W. 63 Suite 219 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116 Re: MUR 164 (76) Dear Mr. Blankenship: This acknowledges receipt of your telegram dated June 4, 1976, and your letter dated June 11, 1976, alleging certain violations of the Federal Election Cam- paign Act of 1971, as amended, by Mr.