[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8.  Elections and Election Campaigns]
[C. Campaign Practices]
[Â§ 10. Regulation and Enforcement]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 904-919]
 
                               CHAPTER 8
 
                    Elections and Election Campaigns
 
                         C. CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
 
Sec. 10. Regulation and Enforcement


    The U.S. Constitution grants each House of Congress the power, 
under article I, section 5, to judge the elections and returns of its 
own Members. It also grants to Congress, under article I, section 4, 
the power to make or alter regulations for the time, place, and manner 
of holding elections.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For the constitutional provisions and comments thereon, see House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 42-44, 46-51 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that the power of Congress to make 
regulations for holding elections extends to every phase of the 
election process, including campaign practices:

[[Page 905]]

        It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words [U.S. 
    Const. art. I, Sec. 4, clause 1] embraces authority to provide a 
    complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and 
    places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of 
    voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt 
    practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and candidates, 
    and making a publication of election returns; in short, to enact 
    numerous requiements as to procedure and safeguards which 
    experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental 
    right involved.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Smiley v Holme, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932).
            Congressional authority over election regulation and 
        practices extends to the primary process. See United States v 
        Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), United States v Wurzbach, 280 
        U.S. 396 (1930).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until 1972, campaign practices in congressional elections were 
governed by the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, as amended; the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1971 repealed the Corrupt Practices Act and 
established a new and comprehensive code for campaign practices and 
expenditures with provisions for investigations and 
enforcement.(19) The act required reports on campaign 
contributions and expenditures to be filed with the Clerk by candidates 
for election to the House and designated the Clerk as ``supervisory 
officer'' of the act in relation to House elections with duties as to 
investigations, enforcement, and referral to prosecutors of violations 
of the act. Because of the Clerk's role under the election statutes, a 
variety of civil actions have been brought against him in his official 
capacity, and the Clerk has been authorized to obtain counsel when 
necessary in relation to his statutory functions. The Federal Election 
Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 imposed new limitations on campaign 
contributions and expenditures, modified reporting requirements under 
the act, provided for public financing of Presidential nominating 
conventions and primary elections, and created a new Federal Election 
Commission to investigate and enforce compliance with the act, to 
render advisory opinions and to promulgate rules and regulations under 
the act. Under the 1974 amendments, the commission was composed of the 
Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate, as ex officio members 
without voting rights, and six members, two to be appointed by the 
Speaker upon the recommendations of the Majority and Minority Leaders 
of the House,

[[Page 906]]

two to be appointed by the President pro tempore upon the 
recommendations of the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and 
two to be appointed by the President; all nominees were subject to 
confirmation by both Houses of Congress.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, Feb. 7, 1972. See Sec. Sec. 10.6-
        10.8, infra, for instances of civil actions brought against the 
        Clerk.
20. Pub. L. No. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263, Oct. 15, 1974. See Sec. 10.11, 
        infra, for the procedure of the House in receiving and 
        confirming the nominations to the commission in 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 30, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in 
the case of Buckley v Valeo,(21) in which the 
constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments was 
challenged on several grounds. The Court ruled that certain of the 
spending limitations imposed by the act violated the first amendment to 
the Constitution; the Court also found that the Federal Election 
Commission was prohibited from exercising all of the administrative and 
enforcement powers granted to it by the act, since the authority of the 
Speaker and the President pro tempore to appoint two members each to 
the commission violated U.S. Constitution, article II, section 2, 
clause 2, vesting in the President the power to nominate and to 
appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, officers of the 
United States. To remedy the constitutional infirmities of the 1974 act 
and to effect further modifications in the Election Campaign Act, the 
Congress passed and the President signed into law the Federal Election 
Campaign Act Amendments of 1976; that act provided that all six members 
of the Federal Election Commission be appointed by the President with 
the advice and consent of the Senate.(22) The 1976 
amendments also provided a new procedure, not contained in the 1974 
act, for the House to consider as a privileged matter a report of the 
appropriate House committee on a resolution disapproving certain 
regulations proposed by the commission on reporting requirements for 
candidates for election to the House; the 1974 act had made such 
regulations subject to a single-House veto but did not specify any 
procedure for House consideration of disapproval 
resolutions.(23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 424 U.S. 1 (1976); as indicated in the note to Sec. 10.11, infra, 
        the decision of the Court as to the powers of the commission 
        was stayed for a time certain to allow Congress to consider and 
        act on the matter.
22. Pub. L. No. 94-283, 90 Stat. 475, May 11. 1976.
23. See Sec. 10.12, infra, for a discussion of congressional 
        disapproval of commission regulations under the Election 
        Campaign Act, as amended.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 907]]

    The functions of the Clerk under the 1974 and 1976 amendments to 
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 differ from his functions 
both under the original act and under the Federal Corrupt Practices 
Act.
    Under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, candidates for the House 
were required to report to the Clerk, as were political committees 
which fell within the terms of the act, even if such committees existed 
to support senatorial or Presidential candidates.(24) 
Similarly, any person making expenditures greater than $50, other than 
by contribution to a political committee, had to file a statement 
disclosing the particulars with the Clerk, if such expenditures 
influenced the election of candidates in two or more 
states.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Pub. L. No. 506, Ch. 368, title III Sec. 305, Feb. 28, 1925.
25. Id., Sec. 306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which designated 
the Clerk a ``supervisory officer'' with respect to House elections, 
the definition of committees supporting candidates was broadened, with 
the result that most of the intrastate and district committees 
previously reporting at the state level under the Federal Corrupt 
Practices Act had to file timely reports with the Clerk.(26) 
Moreover, all committees falling within the definition had to file a 
statement of organization and register with the Clerk.(27) 
The Clerk had jurisdiction over amendments to or withdrawals of 
registrations. Finally, the definition of an election was expanded to 
include primaries and runoff elections.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, Sec. 304(a), Feb. 7, 1972.
27. Id., Sec. 303(a).
28. Id., Sec. 301(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the reports which committees and candidates were 
required to file at specified time intervals, the Clerk received 
reports of independent expenditures. Among other duties and functions 
of the Clerk were the following: to prescribe reporting and 
registration forms together with separate schedules, particularly for 
the reporting of committee debts and obligations; to make reports and 
registrations available for public inspection; to preserve all 
documents for a five-year period from the date of receipt; to conduct 
audits and field investigations; to receive complaints and to report 
any apparent violations of the act to the appropriate law enforcement 
authorities; and to prescribe rules and regulations for the performance 
of these duties.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id., Sec. 308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 1974 amendments, signed Oct. 15, 1974, many functions of 
the Clerk were trans

[[Page 908]]

ferred to the newly established Federal Election Commission. Although 
reports of House candidates and committees were still to be filed 
initially with the Clerk, independent expenditure reports were now 
required to be filed with the commission. The Clerk was required to 
cooperate with the commission in carrying out its duties under the act 
and to furnish such services and facilities as might be required. Any 
complaints filed with, or apparent violations found by, the Clerk were 
to be referred to the Federal Election Commission,(2) which 
had primary jurisdiction with respect to civil enforcement of the law. 
The Clerk continued to review registrations and reports filed so as to 
determine their completeness and accuracy, although responsibility for 
audits and field investigations was shifted to the staff of the Federal 
Election Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Pub. L. No. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263, Sec. 314(a)(1)(B), Oct. 15, 
        1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 1976 amendments, all complaints of possible violations 
are to be submitted directly to the Federal Election Commission, rather 
than the former practice whereby the Clerk referred apparent violations 
of the act to the commission.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Pub. L. No. 94-283, 90 Stat. 475 at 483, Sec. 313, May 11, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other public laws bear on campaign practices, such as those 
prohibiting bribery and other unlawful acts.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, for example, the following criminal statutes: 18 USC Sec. 599 
        (prohibits candidate from promising employment); 18 USC 
        Sec. 602 (solicitation or receipt of political contributions 
        from federal employees); 18 USC Sec. 603 (solicitation of 
        political contributions in federal building); 18 USC Sec. 611 
        (solicitation of contributions from federal contractors); 18 
        USC Sec. 608 (limitation on expenditure of personal funds); 18 
        USC Sec. 610 (no contributions from corporations or labor 
        unions); Pub. L. No. 92-225, Sec. Sec. 301-311 (failing to file 
        campaign fund reports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use by an incumbent Member of his statutory allowances, in 
relation to campaigns, has been the subject of much discussion and 
litigation.(5) In the 93d Congress, a public law was enacted 
to clarify the use of the congressional frank, to prohibit the franking 
of campaign mail, and to limit the jurisdiction of courts to the review 
of decisions of a Special

[[Page 909]]

Commission on Mailing Standards, which commission has power to 
investigate the use of the frank, whether related to campaign mail or 
to other types of mail.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For the allowances of a Member and their use, see Ch. 7, supra. For 
        a compilation of court cases on the alleged use of the frank 
        for campaign purposes, see Report of the Joint Committee on 
        Congressional Operations Identifying Court Proceedings and 
        Actions of Vital Interest to the Congress, Final Report for the 
        92d Congress, Dec. 1972.
 6. Pub. L. No. 93-191, 87 Stat. 737, Dec. 18, 1973.
            The act provides that the computed cost of franking shall 
        not be considered as a campaign expenditure or contribution for 
        the purpose of statutory limitations thereon. 87 Stat. 741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on House Administration has general jurisdiction over 
election practices and their regulation and obtained jurisdiction over 
campaign contributions in the 94th Congress.(7) The 
committee investigates contested elections and practices occurring in 
specific campaigns.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973). The committee was created 
        by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1947 and absorbed the 
        former Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and 
        Representatives in Congress.
 8. For select committees on campaign expenditures, see Sec. 14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, created in the 90th 
Congress, has jurisdiction over financial disclosure requirements and, 
until the 94th Congress, over the regulation of campaign 
contributions.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 10.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The states may also enact corrupt practices acts, and the Federal 
Election Campaign Act provides for reports to be filed with proper 
state officials, for each congressional candidate.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Pub. L. No. 92-225, Sec. 309.
            The House or its committee has taken state corrupt 
        practices acts into account in judging election contests; see 
        Sec. 11, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campaign Funding

Sec. 10.1 In the 90th Congress, the rules of the House were amended to 
    provide regulations governing the use and expenditure of campaign 
    funds.

    On Apr. 3, 1968,(11) the House agreed to House 
Resolution 1099, amending the rules of the House to establish, as new 
Rule XLIII, a Code of Conduct for Members, and for other purposes. 
Clauses 6 and 7 of the new rule related to campaign funds and 
contributions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 8802, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        6. A Member of the House of Representatives shall keep his 
    campaign funds separate from his personal funds. He shall convert 
    no campaign funds to personal use in excess of reimbursement for 
    legitimate and verifiable prior campaign expenditures. He shall 
    expend no funds from his campaign account not attributable to bona 
    fide campaign purposes.
        7. A Member of the House of Representatives shall treat as 
    campaign

[[Page 910]]

    contributions all proceeds from testimonial dinners or other fund 
    raising events if the sponsors of such affairs do not give clear 
    notice in advance to the donors or participants that the proceeds 
    are intended for other purposes.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The resolution also provided for a financial disclosure 
        requirement, in Rule XLIV, not applicable to campaign receipts. 
        See House Rules and Manual Sec. 940 (1973). Disclosure of 
        campaign receipts and expenses are required under the Federal 
        Election Campaign Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Jurisdiction

Sec. 10.2 Where a Presidential legislative proposal amending the 
    federal election laws included a title on income tax deductions for 
    political contributions, that title was deleted in order that the 
    Committee on House Administration could consider the bulk of the 
    proposal and the Committee on Ways and Means could consider the tax 
    proposal as a separate proposition.

    On May 26, 1966,(13) a Presidential communication, 
executive communication 2433, proposing a comprehensive amendment of 
the federal election laws, was referred to the Committee on House 
Administration. The proposal included amendments not only to the 
Federal Corrupt Practices Act but also to the Internal Revenue Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 11686, 11687, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It was agreed by House leaders that while 
most of the proposal fell within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
House Administration, title VII of the bill, pertaining to income tax 
deductions for political contributions, was clearly within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. It was agreed that the 
latter committee would consider title VII as a separate proposition and 
that the Committee on House Administration would delete that title from 
the proposal before introducing the bill on the floor of the House.

Sec. 10.3 In the 74th Congress, bills relating to election offenses and 
    providing penalties therefor came within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary and not the (former) Committee on 
    Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in 
    Congress.

    On Feb. 19, 1936,(14) Mr. Thomas Fletcher Brooks, of 
Ohio, addressed the House in order to ask

[[Page 911]]

unanimous consent that a bill relating to offenses in elections and 
providing penalties therefore, which was formerly referred to the 
Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives 
in Congress, be rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. 
Fletcher stated that he had talked with the chairmen of both 
committees. There was no objection to the request.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 2360, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. The former Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and 
        Representatives in Congress was absorbed by the Committee on 
        House Administration, created by the Legislative Reorganization 
        Act of 1947. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 694 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.4 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Military Affairs had jurisdiction of bills to repeal the provisions 
    of the War Disputes Act relating to political contributions by 
    labor organizations.

    On May 11, 1944,(16) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, who 
had introduced a bill to repeal provisions of the War Disputes Act 
relating to political contributions by labor organizations, addressed 
the House in relation to the committee jurisdiction of the bill. The 
bill had originally been referred to the House Committee on Military 
Affairs, but Mr. May obtained unanimous consent that the bill be 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 4323, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.5 In the 91st Congress, the House rules were amended to confer 
    on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct jurisdiction over 
    the raising, reporting, and use of campaign contributions for House 
    candidates.

    On July 8, 1970,(17) the Committee on Rules reported 
House Resolution 1031, amending the rules of the House in relation to 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct over 
campaign contributions. The resolution, as passed by the House, 
conferred on that committee jurisdiction over the raising, reporting, 
and use of campaign contributions for candidates for the House. The 
committee was also given jurisdiction to investigate such matters and 
to report findings to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 23136-41, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
            This jurisdiction was transferred to the Committee on House 
        Administration in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 912]]

Clerk's Role Under Election Campaign Act

Sec. 10.6 A class action was brought against the Clerk claiming that he 
    had failed to comply with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
    and challenging the price of copies of reports filed thereunder.

    On May 2, 1972, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, laid before the 
House a communication from the Clerk, advising the House that he had 
been named as defendant in a court action instituted by Common Cause, 
seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that the Clerk had failed to comply 
with the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; and 
(2) a restraining order to prohibit the Clerk from continuing a price 
increase for copies of reports filed under the act and from prohibiting 
the plaintiff from using its own duplicating equipment.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 15311, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
            For the court opinion in the suit against the Clerk, see 
        Common Cause v Jennings, Civil Action 842-72 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 
        The U.S. District Court entered a restraining order precluding 
        any increase in the copying cost of 10 cents per page. (The 
        Committee on House Administration had ordered the Clerk to 
        raise the price to $1 per page.) The District Court action was 
        affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
        Columbia without opinion on Dec. 21, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.7 An action was brought in which the plaintiff alleged that the 
    Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate had failed to 
    take action against the practice known as ``earmarking'' political 
    campaign contributions in violation of the Federal Election 
    Campaign Act of 1971.

    In an action brought by Common Cause against the Clerk of the House 
and the Secretary of the Senate,(19) the plaintiffs alleged 
that the defendants ``unlawfully'' refused ``to take action against 
certain practices that insulate candidates from associating with their 
actual contributors.'' The plaintiffs characterized the practice of 
``earmarking'' as one in which, instead of giving directly to the 
candidate, the contributor gives his money to an intermediary political 
committee which supports a number of candidates, with the informal but 
clearcut agreement that the intermediary committee will pass the gift 
on to the candidate named by the original donor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Common Cause v Jennngs, (D.D.C. No. 2379-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The plaintiffs asserted that this practice violated the Federal 
Elec

[[Page 913]]

tion Campaign Act, section 310, which stated ``No person shall make a 
contribution in the name of another person, and no person shall 
knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of 
another person.''
    The District Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on Mar. 
20, 1973. The parties, on May 13, 1974, stipulated that the case be 
dismissed without prejudice and that all designated, earmarked 
contributions should be reported as such under section 304 together 
with the details of the earmarking.

Clerk Authorized to Obtain Counsel

Sec. 10.8 The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the 
    Clerk, informing the House of the receipt of replies from the 
    Department of Justice and the United States Attorney for the 
    District of Columbia in which they agreed to furnish representation 
    for the Clerk in a civil action relating to the enforcement of 
    certain election campaign statutes unless a ``divergence of 
    interest'' should develop between the positions of the Clerk and 
    the Justice Department.

    On Mar. 15, 1972,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House various communications from the Clerk of the 
House relative to a case later to become known as Nader v Kleindienst. 
This case was a class action based on the Federal Corrupt Practices 
Act. The plaintiffs sought enforcement of the act, or the appointment 
of special prosecutors, and the termination of the alleged Justice 
Department policy to only prosecute under the act if so requested by 
the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 8470, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On May 3, 1972, the Clerk received a letter 
from the Justice Department stating that a ``divergence of interest'' 
had developed between the positions of the Clerk and the Justice 
Department and requesting the Clerk to obtain other counsel. On May 3, 
the House adopted House Resolution 955, authorizing the Clerk to obtain 
other counsel in cases brought against him relating to the Corrupt 
Practices Act and the Federal Election Campaign Act.(21) (A 
similar resolution

[[Page 914]]

adopted in the 93d Congress, House Resolution 92, Jan. 6, 1973, was 
later made permanent law by Public Law No. 93-145, 87 Stat. 527.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. For the communication from the Clerk advising the House of the 
        original summons, see 118 Cong. Rec. 5024, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 22, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
dismissed the complaint as to the Clerk of the House and Secretary of 
the Senate.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See Nader v Kleindienst, 375 F Supp 1138 (D.D.C. 1972), aff'd, 497 
        F2d 676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suit Testing Applicability of Campaign Act

Sec. 10.9 The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the 
    Clerk, advising that he had been served with a summons and 
    complaint in a civil action pending in a federal court relating to 
    the applicability of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to a 
    political advertisement prepared by the American Civil Liberties 
    Union.

    On Oct. 5, 1972,(23) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a communication from the Clerk of the House 
relative to American Civil Liberties Union v Jennings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 118 Cong. Rec. 34040, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case, the Clerk, among others, was named in a challenge to 
the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The 
case arose from the refusal of a newspaper to print an allegedly 
``political'' advertisement prepared by the ACLU, where the 
advertisement contained the name of a Congressman. The U.S. District 
Court ruled that the statutory language in question did apply to the 
activities of the ACLU, but ``only to committees soliciting 
contributions or making expenditures'' for candidates.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 366 F Supp 1041 (D.D.C. 1972j. See also United States v The 
        National Committee for Impeachment, 469 F2d 1135 (2d Cir. Oct. 
        30, 1972), wherein it was held that an organization printing an 
        advertisement was not a ``political committee'' required to 
        file statements and reports under the Federal Election Campaign 
        Act of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clerk Authorized to Investigate Violations

Sec. 10.10 The House agreed to a privileged resolution, reported from 
    the Committee on Rules, establishing a special committee to 
    investigate and report on campaign expenditures and practices by 
    candidates for the House, and authorizing the special committee and 
    the Clerk of the House to jointly investigate alleged violations of

[[Page 915]]

    the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

    On Mar. 15, 1973,(2) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 279 
as privileged. The resolution created a special or select committee to 
investigate campaign expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 7957, 7958, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution authorized joint investigations by the select 
committee and by the Clerk of the House, in order to permit the Clerk 
to take advantage of the select committee's subpena power in carrying 
out his duties under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971:

        . . . (8) The Clerk of the House of Representatives is 
    authorized and directed when carrying out assigned responsibilities 
    under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 that prior to 
    taking enforcement action thereunder, to initiate a request for 
    consultation with and advice from the committee, whenever, at his 
    discretion, election campaign matters arise that are included 
    within sections (1) through (6) above and may affect the interests 
    of the House of Representatives.
        (9) The committee is authorized and directed to consult with, 
    advise, and act in a timely manner upon specific requests of the 
    Clerk of the House of Representatives either when he is so acting 
    on his own motion or upon a written complaint made to the Clerk of 
    the House under oath setting forth allegations of fact under the 
    Federal Campaign Act of 1971. The committee, or a duly authorized 
    subcommittee thereof, when acting upon the requests of the Clerk 
    shall consult with him, shall act jointly with him, and shall 
    jointly investigate such charges as though it were acting on its 
    own motion, unless, after a hearing upon such complaint, the 
    committee, or a duly authorized subcommittee thereof, may be either 
    in executive or in public sessions, but hearings before the 
    committee when acting jointly shall be public and all order and 
    decisions and advice given to the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives by the committee or a duly authorized subcommittee 
    thereof shall be public.
        For the purpose of this resolution, the committee, or any duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such public 
    hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the 
    sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods during the period from 
    March 1, 1973 through June 6, 1973, of the Ninety-third Congress, 
    to employ such attorneys, experts, clerical, and other assistants, 
    to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses 
    and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and 
    documents, to administer such oaths, and to take such testimony as 
    it deems advisable. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of 
    the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member 
    designated by such chairman, and may be served by any person 
    designated by any such chairman or member.
        (10) The committee is authorized and directed, when acting on 
    its own

[[Page 916]]

    motion or upon a complaint made to the committee, to report 
    promptly any and all violations of any Federal or State statutes in 
    connection with the matters and things mentioned herein to the 
    Attorney General of the United States in order that he may take 
    such official action as may be proper. The committee or a duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof is authorized and directed when 
    acting upon the specific request of the Clerk of the House to 
    render advice promptly in order to give the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives the prior benefits of its advice and in order that 
    he may then take such official action under the Federal Election 
    Campaign Act of 1971 as the Clerk of the House ofRepresentatives 
    deems to be proper.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also H. Res. 131, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., extending the Special 
        Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures created in the 
        92d Congress, to enable it to assist the Clerk of the House in 
        investigating new allegations of violations of federal election 
        laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This was the ]ast occasion on which a 
select committee to investigate campaign expenditures was established. 
The Committee on House Administration, with jurisdiction over campaign 
practices, also was given jurisdiction over campaign contributions in 
the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, 94th Congress). And in the 94th Congress, 
all standing committees, including the Committee on House 
Administration, were given the power to issue subpenas whether or not 
the House was in session (H. Res. 988, 93d Congress, effective Jan. 3, 
1975).

Federal Election Commission, Composition

Sec. 10.11 Under the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, 
    establishing a Federal Election Commission, both the House and 
    Senate were required to confirm the nominations of six members of 
    the commission, two to be appointed by the Speaker on the 
    recommendations of the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House, 
    two to be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate on 
    the recommendations of the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
    Senate, and two to be appointed by the President.

    On Jan. 29, 1975,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a communication from the Majority Leader Thomas 
P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, and a communication from Minority 
Leader John J. Rhodes, of Arizona, each recommending a nominee for 
appointment by the Speak

[[Page 917]]

er to serve as members of the Federal Election Commission; the 
recommendations were submitted pursuant to section 301(B) of Public Law 
No. 93-433, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, creating 
the commission and providing for two appointments by the Speaker upon 
recommendations of the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House, two 
appointments by the President pro tempore upon recommendations of the 
Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and two appointments by 
the President. The Speaker referred the communications to the Committee 
on House Administration, which had considered and reported the public 
law in question. On Mar. 6, 1975,(5) the Speaker laid before 
the House a communication from the Secretary of the Senate transmitting 
the recommendations of the Majority Leader of the Senate, Mike 
Mansfield, of Montana, and the Minority Leader of the Senate, Hugh 
Scott, of Pennsylvania, for appointments to the Federal Election 
Commission by the President pro tempore of the Senate. The 
communication was referred to the Committee on House Administration. 
And on Mar. 10, 1975,(6) the Speaker laid before the House 
two messages from President Gerald R. Ford nominating two persons for 
his appointments to the commission; the messages were referred to the 
Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 1680, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 5537, 5538, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 5870, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 19, 1975,(7) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, called 
up by direction of the Committee on House Administration House 
Resolution 314, confirming the six nominations for appointment to the 
commission, and asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of the resolution (the resolution had no privileged status under the 
rules of the House). The House agreed to consider the resolution and 
after debate agreed thereto, voting separately on each nominee since a 
demand had been made for a division of the question. The Senate later 
confirmed all six nominees and the Speaker, the President pro tempore 
of the Senate, and the President made their various appointments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 7344-54, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Federal Election Campaign Act 
Amendments of 1976, enacted May 11, 1976, as Public Law No. 94-283, 
deleted from the Federal Election Campaign Act the provisions for 
appointments to the com

[[Page 918]]

mission by the Speaker and President pro tempore and joint House-Senate 
confirmation of all nominees, and provided instead for six members to 
be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate 
(with the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate to serve ex 
officio without voting rights, as in the 1974 amendments). The United 
States Supreme Court had held, in the case of Buckley v Valeo, 424 U.S. 
1 (1976) (decided Jan. 30, 1976), that the Federal Election Commission 
could not exercise the full range of administrative and enforcement 
powers granted to it in the 1976 amendments, since the method of 
selecting members of the commission provided in the 1976 act violated 
the ``Appointment Clause'' of the Constitution, vesting in the 
President the sole power to appoint, with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, officers of the United States (U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 2, 
clause 2). The Supreme Court had stayed that portion of its ruling for 
50 days in order to avoid interrupting enforcement of the Election 
Campaign Act while the Congress considered whether remedial legislation 
was necessary (see H. Rept. No. 94-917, Mar. 17, 1976, 94th Cong. 2d 
Sess., a report by the Committee on House Administration on H.R. 12406, 
the House counterpart to S. 3065 which was enacted as the Federal 
Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976).

Federal Election Commission, Congressional Disapproval of Regulations

Sec. 10.12 The Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, allows the 
    House or the Senate, whichever is appropriate, to disapprove 
    certain regulations proposed by the Federal Election Commission 
    dealing with campaign reports and statements required of candidates 
    for the House or Senate, and allows both Houses to disapprove 
    reports and statements required of Presidential candidates.

    The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Public Law 
No. 93-443, section 209, amended the act to require the Federal 
Election Commission to transmit to the House or Senate, whichever is 
appropriate, proposed regulations dealing with reporting requirements 
for candidates for the House in question. Such regulations may be 
promulgated by the commission if the House or Senate, as the case may 
be, does not disapprove such regulations within 30 legislative days.

[[Page 919]]

In the case of proposed regulations dealing with reporting requirements 
for Presidential candidates, both the House and the Senate may 
disapprove.
    On Oct. 22, 1975,(8) Mr. John Young, of Texas, called up 
by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 800, providing 
for the consideration in the House of House Resolution 780, reported 
from the Committee on House Administration and disapproving a 
regulation proposed by the Federal Election Commission; a special order 
from the Committee on Rules was necessary since the Federal Election 
Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 did not provide a privileged procedure 
for considering such disapproval resolutions in the House. The House 
adopted the special order and then adopted the disapproval resolution. 
(The disapproval resolution had previously failed of passage under 
suspension of the rules on Oct. 20.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 33662, 33663, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, Public Law 
No. 94-283, section 110(b), amended the act to provide that whenever a 
committee of the House reports a disapproval resolution provided for by 
the act, ``it is at any time thereafter in order (even though a 
previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to 
proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The motion is highly 
privileged and is not debatable. An amendment to the motion is not in 
order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.'' The 1976 law a]so redefined 
a ``rule or regulation'' which could be disapproved as a ``provision or 
series of interrelated provisions stating a single separable rule of 
law.''