Additional improvements which should be made to the public financing provisions of the Act are: - c. A major party Presidential nominee receiving public Private donations are permitted, however, to defray legal private contributions to cover such expenses, block grants should be given to each candidate receiving public financing in the general election to defray such compliance expenses. Repayments of public funds should be returned to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, rather than to the Commission Procedures and Judicial Review There are a number of changes which should be made in the statute to enable the Federal Election Commission to better perform its mission. Such changes should be aimed at reducing delays and eliminating cumbersome procedures, particularly in the area of judicial review. One problem which the FEC often faces is the limited availability of the advisory opinion procedure. When coupled with the prohibition on giving an opinion of an advisory nature outside the formal advisory opinion process of § 437£, the restrictions on standing to receive an advisory opinion severely hamper the FEC's ability to advise certain parties on how they may comply with the FECA. Under current law, only Federal officeholders, Federal candidates, political committees and the national committee of a political party may request an advisory opinion. Many other individuals and organizations are subject to the FECA, however, such as corporations, labor organizations, State and local officials, and individual contributors. To encourage voluntary compliance with the FECA, any person subject to the provisions of the FECA should have standing to request an advisory opinion on the applicability of the FECA or FEC regulations to a specific factual situation in which the requestor is involved. To reduce delays, our recommendations also include proposals for shortening the regulation review period and the conciliation period for enforcement actions. The judicial review provisions of the FECA also have created a unique procedural problem for the Federal courts. Under Thus, 2 U.S.C. § 437h, the district court is empowered to certify This confused situation could be eliminated by making the judicial review provisions of Title 2 and Title 26 conform to one another. A more effective measure than merely conforming the two provisions, however, would be repeal of 2 U.S.C. $437h. The provision was originally written to permit expedited consideration of the challenges brought in Buckley v. Valeo. Since then it has already been the vehicle for ten suits, six of which are still in litigation. The provision flies in the face of traditional Federal jurisprudence by requiring consideration of constitutional questions prior to questions of statutory construction or application. Furthermore, by not requiring any action on the Commission's part before a constitutional question may be brought, the statute effectively places the court in the position of issuing an advisory opinion. This is a role which the Federal courts have consistently sought to avoid. Since Buckley has been heard, $437h should simply be stricken. Further suggestions for changes to the FECA are included in the Appendix to this statement. These recommendations are all based on the FEC's experience gained in administering the Act for the past four years. The FEC believes these recommendations will improve the clarity of the FECA, reduce the burdens on those required to comply with it, encourage more party and local activity, and enable the FEC to more efficiently carry out its responsibilities. The FEC and its staff are ready to assist the Committee and its staff in revising the FECA. We look forward to working with the Committee toward what we are sure is a mutual goal: a Federal Election Campaign Act which is more effective, and less burdensome for those required to comply with it. Chapter 8 Recommendations Appendix A In 1976 Congress enacted the fourth major overhaul of campaign financing laws in slightly over four years. During implementation of the 1976 Act, the Federal Election Commission kept a continually updated list of apparent statutory omissions, inadequacies and other problems. This list served as the basis for the Commission's legislative recommendations in its 1976 Annual Report, submitted in March 1977. Several additional recommendations were made in the 1977 Annual Report, submitted in March 1978. The Commission reiterates its support for its 1976 and 1977 recommendations and includes additional recommendations in this Annual Report. These recommendations seek to bring to Congress' attention provisions of the Act which merit revision. The Commission has categorized these recommendations into seven separate areas: Simplification; Presidential Elections; Limitations and the Role of the Political Party; Commission Duties, Powers and Authority; Clarification; Corporate and Union Activity and Miscella neous. Simplification The Commission strongly believes that a simple, workable system of campaign financing regulations is achievable. Almost one-half of the Commission's recommendations seek to meet this goal. The 1974 Amendments attempted to reduce the number of reports required to be filed, but in 1976 and 1978 many candidates and committees actually were required to file more reports than previously. Implementation of the following recommendations dealing with reporting would dramatically reduce the number of reports required to be filed. Streamlining of the disclosure provisions of the Act will simplify reporting and maintain a high level of public disclosure. Principal Campaign Committee Reporting The Act requires each candidate to designate a principal campaign committee which must file reports. Since the candidate has a separate reporting obligation many campaigns file two sets of reports. The Commission recommends that candidates should be given two options: either (a) file all reports of receipts and expenditures on a candidate's report and have no committee or (b) designate a principal campaign committee which would compile and file all reports. This change often would reduce by one-half the number of reports required for some campaigns. Presidential Candidates Presidential candidates operating in two or more states should be required to file monthly in an election year and quarterly in a nonelection year, as is the case under current law. For all candidates and committees, the 10-day preelection report should be changed to a 12-day preelection report. For a Tuesday election, the tenth day before an election is a Saturday and reports received usually are not processed and microfilmed until Monday. A 12-day preelection report would be due on Thursday and would substantially increase the period during which these reports are publicly available prior to the election. (Note: appropriate adjustments will be needed in the 48-hour reporting requirements if this recommendation is adopted.) Congressional Candidates During nonelection years, all Congressional candidates and committees should file only two reports, in July and at the end of the year. There should be no dollar threshold for filing these reports. Candidates and committees involved in special elections would file 12-day preelection reports and a 30-day post special general election report. In election years, Congressional candidates and committees should file 12-day preelection reports, a 30-day post general election report |