Other amendments to the disclosure requirements which the FEC

recommends are:

Eliminate the need for multicandidate committees to
amend their statement of organization each time they
support a new candidate.

Eliminate certain superfluous information currently
required on registration statements such as the "scope"
of the Committee, whether it is "continuing", disposition
of residual funds, and reports filed with State offices.
Reduce the burden on State filing offices by

shortening the length of time reports must be

preserved, and only requiring multicandidate
committees to file reports in their home states.

(We would like to note at this point that through the
support of this Committee, the Senate has already
acted on one of the FEC's recommendations to assist
State officers by passing S. 994 authorizing $250,000
to reimburse them for their expenses in maintaining
FECA reports.)

ENCOURAGING PARTY AND GRASS ROOTS ACTIVITY

Unfortunately, the FECA has had, or is perceived to have had, some unforeseen effects on party and grass roots political activity. In particular, such activity as spontaneous local volunteer efforts, should be encouraged since it is the essence of healthy election campaigning.

Changes in the statute are vitally needed to permit

State and local party committees adequate flexibility for vigorous

campaign activity.

The FEC's legislative recommendations suggest a number of

improvements in this regard, such as:

-

State parties should be permitted § 44la(d)

expenditures on behalf of Presidential candidates

in the amount of $20,000, or two cents times the
voting age population of the State. This would be in
addition to the National Party committee's limit.

Local and subordinate committees of a State party
committee should be permitted to distribute

materials normally associated with volunteer activities
(bumper stickers, handbills, pamphlets, etc.), without
having such expenses count towards the expenditure
limitations of a Presidential nominee.

The current $500 exemption for vendors, and volunteer
entertainment and travel expenses on behalf of a
candidate, should also be extended to include similar
activities on behalf of a party committee.

The contribution limitations should be clarified by placing them on an election cycle basis, rather than a "per election" basis. For example, if such a clarification were adopted, an individual would

be permitted to give up to $2,000 to a candidate at any time during

an election cycle. (An election cycle would be 2 years for House can

didates, 4 years for Presidential candidates and 6 years for Senate candidates.)

The contribution limitations also contain a number of anomalies which should be corrected. Chief among these are:

If a national committee of a political party serves as its Presidential nominee's principal campaign committee, it becomes subject to the contribution limitations for principal campaign committees. In effect, the national committee of a political party is prevented from serving as the principal campaign committee of its Presidential nominee. This situation should be corrected. Although an individual may give up to $20,000 per year to the committees established by the national committee of a political party, a multicandidate committee may only give $15,000. This discrepancy should be addressed. In addition to the above, the FEC recommends a minimum contribution amount be established for multicandidate committees to become qualified for the higher contribution limits of the Act. At present the FECA requires that a committee meet three conditions to qualify as a multicandidate committee: 1) be registered with the Commission for six months; 2) receive contributions from at least 50 individuals; and 3) make contributions to at least five Federal candidates. The five contributions to Federal candidates required to satisfy the third condition could be as little as $1 each. The FEC recommends that a figure of at least $100 be established in order for such contributions to satisfy the third condition and qualify for the higher contribution limit.

The FEC believes that the 1976 Presidential public financing program worked very well, considering that it was the first time that such a comprehensive scheme of national election campaign financing had been attempted. During the 1976 Presidential election, certain difficulties did, of course, arise. Some of these difficulties were discussed at hearings held by the FEC in June 1978 on proposed changes to our regulations on public financing.

The FEC is attempting to alleviate the problems noted at the 1978 hearings through revisions to our regulations. On May 7, 1979, we promulgated new primary matching fund regulations. On June 6,

1979, draft convention financing regulations were published for comment, and we expect to have a final set of proposed convention financing regulations before the Congress shortly.

There is of course a limit to what can be done through regulations.

Therefore, the FEC has suggested a number of changes to the provisions of the FECA regarding Presidential elections and public financing.

The FECA should be amended to permit Congressional and State candidates to give occasional, isolated or incidental support to their party's Presidential nominee without such expenses counting as an expenditure on behalf of the Presidential candidate. The present lack of clarity in the law on this point has had a chilling effect on grass roots candidate activity in support of Presidential candidates receiving public financing. The law should be amended to accommodate such endorsements since they are a traditional part of Presidential and Congresssional candidates' campaigns.