Federal Election Commission Main Page
October 6, 1980
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ADVISORY OPINION 1980-107
Mr. Robert P. Visser
Peabody, Rivlin, Lambert & Meyers
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Visser:
This responds to your letter of September 15, 1980
requesting an advisory opinion concerning application of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the
Act"), and Commission regulations to political activity by
Dean Burch, Esquire, a senior partner in a law firm, on
behalf of the Reagan-Bush Committee ("the Committee").
According to your letter, Mr. Burch is a senior partner
in a law firm. You state that his compensation is not tied
to the number of hours he works, rather, his compensation is
tied to his proprietary interest in the firm. Thus, he may
use his time as he sees fit with the proviso that he may not
engage in another economic enterprise. Further, his compensation
reflects a variety of factors, including status in the Bar,
ability to attract clients, effectiveness in problem-solving
and value as a counselor to other attorneys in the firm and
clients.
Your letter explains that Mr. Burch has served since
July 18, 1980 as a volunteer with the Committee in the role
of senior advisor to George Bush. Mr. Burch expects to
continue his activities which are of a political nature
through November 4, 1980. You state that while serving as
senior advisor he has remained and will continue to be
throughout the 1980 Presidential campaign an active member
of his firm and member of its executive committee. This
encompasses the availability to fulfill his duties in those
regards, including supervision of work, communication with
clients and attendance at meetings of the executive committee
and the partnership.
You go on to say that although he has these ongoing
duties, almost all of his time during the normal work week
since July 18 has been and will continue to be devoted to
Committee business. Nevertheless, Mr. Burch's share of the
firm's net income will not be reduced due to the time working
with the Committee, nor does he intend to make up this time.
You state that, based on an advisory opinion issued by
the Commission you have advised Mr. Burch and his firm that
he may volunteer his time to the Committee without the firm
being considered to have made a contribution to the Committee.
You ask if the Commission agrees with this conclusion and,
if not, you ask for guidance as to how Mr. Burch's volunteer
participation can be brought into compliance with the requirements
of the Act.
As recognized in your request, the Commission in Advisory
Opinion 1979-58, which concerned political activity on
behalf of a presidential committee by a senior partner in a
law firm during normal business hours, considered a number
of factors to conclude that the income paid by the firm to
the partner did not constitute an in-kind contribution to
the Committee. There, as here, the request represented that
the partner's compensation was not tied to the number of
hours worked but, rather, was based on a proprietary interest
in the firm which reflected a number of factors, including
stature in the Bar, ability to attract clients, problem
solving, and counseling, among others. That request also
represented that the partner had complete discretion in the
use of his/her time and that no reduction of income from the
firm would be made even if, for whatever reason, the partner
spent less time on firm matters than may have been spent
during a previous period when no services were provided to
the Committee. Similarly, in your request you state that
Mr. Burch may use his time as he sees fit with the proviso
that he may not engage in another economic enterprise.
In light of the fact that the situation under consideration
appears from your representations to be indistinguishable
from the situation in Advisory Opinion 1979-58, the Commission
concludes that as in AO 1979-58 this partner may volunteer
his time to the Committee without his income from the firm
constituting an in-kind contribution for purposes of the
Act. 2 U.S.C. SS 431(8)(A).
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning
application of the Act, or regulations prescribed by the
Commission, to the specific transaction or activity set
forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C. SS 437f.
P.S. Commissioner Reiche voted against approval of this
opinion and will file a dissenting opinion at a later
date.