[Federal Register: October 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62224-62229]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20oc08-17]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
11 CFR Parts 100, 101, 102, 104, 110, 113, 400, 9001, 9003, 9031,
and 9033
[Notice 2008-11]
Increased Contribution and Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits
for Candidates Opposing Self-financed Candidates
AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission (``Commission'') requests
comments on the proposed deletion of its rules regarding increased
contribution limits and coordinated party expenditure limits for Senate
and House of Representatives candidates facing self-financed opponents.
These rules were promulgated to implement sections 304 and 319 of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the ``Millionaires'
Amendment.'' In Davis v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court
held that sections 319(a) and (b), regarding House of Representatives
elections, were unconstitutional. The Court's holding also applies to
the contribution and spending limits in section 304 regarding Senate
elections. The Commission, therefore, proposes to remove its current
rules that implement the Millionaires' Amendment. In addition, the
Commission proposes to retain certain other rules that generally are
applicable throughout the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as
amended (the ``Act'' or ``FECA''). The Commission has made no final
decision on the issues presented in this rulemaking. Further
information is provided in the supplementary information that follows.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: All comments must be in writing, must be addressed to Mr.
Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in
either e-mail, facsimile, or paper copy form. Commenters are strongly
encouraged to submit comments by e-mail to ensure timely receipt and
consideration. E-mail comments must be sent to
millionairerepeal@fec.gov. If e-mail comments include an attachment,
the attachment must be in either Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word
(.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to (202) 219-3923, with
paper copy follow-up. Paper comments and paper copy follow-up of faxed
comments must be sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20463. All comments must include the full name and
postal service address of the commenter or they will not be considered.
The Commission will post comments on its Web site after the comment
period ends.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General
Counsel, or Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Attorney, 999 E Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission seeks to revise its current
regulations to reflect the Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Federal
Election Commission, 554 U.S.------, 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008) that
invalidated the Millionaires' Amendment. The Commission proposes to
delete its current rules at 11 CFR 100.19(g), 104.19, 110.5(b)(2), and
Part 400. It proposes to retain and revise its current rules at 11 CFR
100.33, 100.153, 101.1, 102.2(a)(1)(viii), 113.1(g)(6)(ii), 9001.1,
9003.1(b)(8), 9031.1, and 9033.1(b)(10). It proposes to retain
unchanged its current rules at 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C), 116.11,
116.12, and 9035.2(c).
I. Background
The Millionaires' Amendment \1\ of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-155, (March 27, 2002) (``BCRA''), increased
certain contribution limits and coordinated party expenditure limits
for Senate and House of Representatives candidates facing opponents who
spent significant amounts of personal funds. When a self-financed
opponent spent personal funds above a certain threshold amount, the
Millionaires' Amendment permitted a candidate to accept individual
contributions under increased contribution limits. 2 U.S.C. 441a(i) and
441a-1(a). When certain other threshold amounts were reached, the
Millionaires' Amendment also allowed national and state political party
committees to make unlimited coordinated party expenditures on behalf
of the candidate in the general election. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 304 of BCRA added a new paragraph (i) to 2 U.S.C.
441a, which addressed Senate elections. Section 319 of BCRA added a
new section 441a-1 to the Act, which addressed elections for the
House Representatives. The Senate provisions also added new
notification and reporting requirements in 2 U.S.C. 434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2002, the Commission approved interim final rules
to implement the Millionaires' Amendment. See Interim Final Rules on
Increased Contribution and Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for
Candidates Opposing Self-Financed Candidates, 68 FR 3970 (Jan. 27,
2003) (``Interim Final Rules''). The Commission sought public comments
on the Interim Final Rules, as well as on specific issues discussed in
the Explanation and Justification. No comments were received. These
Interim Final Rules were in effect during the 2004 and 2006 election
cycles, and the beginning of the 2008 election cycle.
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court invalidated the Millionaires'
Amendment. In Davis, the Supreme Court reviewed a challenge by a self-
financed candidate who triggered the Millionaires' Amendment in the
2004 and 2006 elections for the House of Representatives. The Supreme
Court held that the House of Representatives provision of the
Millionaires' Amendment was unconstitutional because it violated the
plaintiff's First Amendment rights. 128 S.Ct. at 2775. The Supreme
Court invalidated the entire BCRA section 319 relating to House
elections, including the increased contribution limits in 319(a) and
its companion disclosure requirements in 319(b). The Court reasoned
that the Millionaires' Amendment imposed a substantial burden on the
plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment right to use personal funds
for campaign speech, and that the burden was not justified by any
governmental interest in eliminating corruption or the perception of
corruption. 128 S.Ct. at 2772-73.
On July 25, 2008, the Commission issued a Public Statement that, in
light of the Davis decision, it would no longer enforce the
Millionaires' Amendment. See Press Release, Public Statement on the
Supreme Court's Decision in Davis v. FEC, July 25, 2008, available at
[[Page 62225]]
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/220080725millionaire.shtml. As of
June 26, 2008, the increased contribution limits and reporting
requirements were no longer in effect, and political party committees
were no longer permitted to make increased coordinated party
expenditures on behalf of self-financed candidates. Id.
II. Proposed Removal of Current 11 CFR Part 400--Increased Limits for
Candidates Opposing Self-Financed Candidates
The Commission proposes to delete current 11 CFR Part 400 because
the statutory foundation for Part 400 has been invalidated by the
Supreme Court's decision in Davis. The Commission's rules at 11 CFR
Part 400 implement the Millionaires' Amendment. See Interim Final Rules
at 3975. The rules at Part 400: (1) Provide the notification and
reporting requirements for Senate and House of Representatives
candidates (subpart B); (2) explain when the increased contribution
limits apply (subpart C); (3) explain how to calculate the increased
contribution limits (subpart D); and (4) explain how candidates'
authorized committees must dispose of excess contributions. In Davis,
the Supreme Court decided that increased contribution limits and
disclosure requirements for House of Representatives candidates in BCRA
sections 319(a) and (b) were unconstitutional. Thus, the Commission's
rules at 11 CFR Part 400 that implement BCRA sections 319(a) and (b)
are no longer valid.
The Supreme Court in Davis struck down only BCRA sections 319(a)
and (b) governing House of Representatives elections. The Commission,
however, believes that the Supreme Court's analysis in Davis also
precludes enforcement of the Commission's rules implementing BCRA
sections 304(a) and (b), which provide increased contribution limits
and disclosure requirements for Senate elections. In Davis, the Court
concluded that increased contribution limits for a House of
Representatives candidate facing a self-financed candidate
impermissibly burdened the First Amendment right of the self-financed
candidates to spend their own money for campaign speech. 128 S.Ct. at
2771. There is no basis to conclude that the constitutional
implications would be different for similarly situated candidates in
Senate elections, governed by BCRA sections 304(a) and (b), than in the
respective House of Representatives elections, governed by BCRA
sections 319(a) and (b).
The Commission's rules at Part 400 implement the Millionaires'
Amendment provisions for both House and Senate elections. The
Commission, therefore, proposes to delete 11 CFR Part 400 in its
entirety.
III. Proposed Amendments to Other Provisions
A. Part 100--Definitions
1. Proposed Removal of Current 11 CFR 100.19(g)--File, Filed, or Filing
The Commission proposes to delete current 11 CFR 100.19(g) because
the statutory foundation for this provision has been invalidated by the
Supreme Court's decision in Davis. Section 100.19 defines ``file,
filed, or filing'' and specifies when a document is considered timely
filed. Paragraph (g) states that a candidate's notification of
expenditures from personal funds under 11 CFR 400.21 and 400.22 are
considered timely filed if sent by facsimile or electronic mail to all
appropriate parties within 24 hours of the time the thresholds set
forth in 11 CFR 400.21 and 400.22 are exceeded, thereby triggering the
reporting requirement.
As explained above, the Commission proposes to delete current 11
CFR Part 400 in its entirety because the Supreme Court invalidated the
Millionaires' Amendment. The Commission proposes to delete paragraph
(g) from section 100.19 because the candidate's notifications under 11
CFR 400.21 and 400.22 would no longer be required.
2. Proposed Revision of 11 CFR 100.33--Definition of ``Personal Funds''
The Commission proposes to revise the definition of ``personal
funds'' in 11 CFR 100.33 by deleting the cross-reference to current
section 400.2, which the Commission intends to remove through this
rulemaking. The Commission proposes to retain the remainder of section
100.33 because the definition of ``personal funds'' in section 100.33
applies generally to other Title 2 rules that use the term ``personal
funds.'' See Interim Final Rules, 68 FR at 3972. The Commission also
notes that the definition of ``personal funds'' at 11 CFR 9003.2(c)(3),
which applies to Title 26 of the United States Code, would remain
unchanged.
B. Proposed Revision of 11 CFR 101.1--Candidate Designations
The Commission proposes to delete the sentence in paragraph (a) of
current 11 CFR 101.1 that requires Senate and House of Representatives
candidates to state, on their Statements of Candidacy on FEC Form 2
(or, if the candidate is not required to file electronically, on his or
her letter containing the same information), the amount by which the
candidate intends to exceed the threshold amount as defined in 11 CFR
400.9. The reporting requirements of that sentence would no longer be
necessary because, as explained above, the Commission proposes to
delete 11 CFR Part 400 through this rulemaking.
C. Proposed 11 CFR 102.2--Statement of Organization: Forms and
Committee Identification Number
The Commission proposes to retain and revise current 11 CFR
102.2(a)(1)(viii), which requires principal campaign committees to
provide an electronic mail address and a facsimile number on FEC Form
1. Paragraph (viii) was promulgated by the Interim Final Rules to
facilitate the notification of expenditures from personal funds under
Part 400. See Interim Final Rules, 68 FR at 3972. Although the
notifications under Part 400 would no longer be required, the
electronic mail address provided by committees facilitates the exchange
of information between committees and the Commission for other purposes
under FECA. Continuing to require committees' electronic mail address,
therefore, would continue to benefit the committees as well as the
Commission. The Commission, however, proposes to delete the requirement
that committees provide their facsimile number because it does not
routinely communicate with committees via facsimile machine.
Consistent with its delegated authority to require political
committees to provide an ``address'' when filing a statement of
organization under 2 U.S.C. 433(b)(1), the Commission proposes to
retain the requirement that committees report their electronic mail
address on FEC Form 1.
D. Proposed Removal of Current 11 CFR 104.19--Special Reporting
Requirements for Principal Campaign Committees of Candidates for
Election to the United States Senate or United States House of
Representatives
The Commission proposes the remove and reserve current 11 CFR
104.19 because the statutory foundation of this section was invalidated
by the Supreme Court's decision in Davis. Current section 104.19
requires principal campaign committees of Senate and House of
Representatives candidates to report information necessary to calculate
their ``gross receipts advantage,'' which is defined at 2 U.S.C.
441a(i)(E) (Senate) and 441a-1(a)(2)(B) (House of Representatives).
This reporting requirement was promulgated
[[Page 62226]]
to ensure the candidates in the same House or Senate election have
sufficient and timely information to calculate the ``opposition
personal funds amount'' under 11 CFR Part 400.10. See Interim Final
Rules, 68 FR at 3972. Because the Commission intends to delete Part 400
in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Davis, the reporting
requirements under section 104.19 would no longer be necessary.
E. Proposed Deletion of 110.5(b)(2)--Biennial Contribution Limitations
The Commission proposes to delete current paragraph (b)(2) of
section 110.5 because the statutory foundation for this provision has
been invalidated by the Supreme Court's decision in Davis. Paragraph
(b)(2) states the circumstances under which the individual biennial
limits on contributions do not apply to contributions made pursuant to
11 CFR Part 400. As explained above, the Commission intends to remove
11 CFR Part 400 because the Davis decision invalidated the
Millionaires' Amendment. Accordingly, the exception to individual
contribution limits under section 110.5(b)(2) is no longer valid. The
Commission, therefore, proposes to delete 11 CFR 110.5(b)(2).
F. Proposed Retention of 11 CFR 116.11 and 116.12--Repayment of
Candidate Loans
The Commission proposes to retain sections 11 CFR 116.11 and 116.12
of the regulations concerning the repayment of candidates' personal
loans. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal in light of the
Supreme Court's decision in Davis.
BCRA added a new provision prohibiting candidates and their
authorized committees from using contributions made after the election
to repay loans from the candidates to their authorized committees to
the extent the contributions total over $250,000. See 2 U.S.C. 441a(j).
These loans are referred to as ``personal loans.'' The Commission's
current rules at 11 CFR 116.11 and 116.12 implement 2 U.S.C. 441a(j).
Section 116.11 prohibits an authorized committee from using
contributions made after an election to repay any personal loan by a
candidate that exceeds $250,000. Section 116.12 addresses the repayment
of candidate's personal loans that, in the aggregate, are equal to or
less than $250,000.
The Commission believes that the Davis decision did not invalidate
the personal loan provision in BCRA and, thus, it proposes to retain
the rules that implement that provision. The Commission does not have
authority, on its own, to declare a duly enacted law to be
unconstitutional.
The Court in Davis did not address the validity of the personal
loan provision, and the plaintiff did not challenge that provision.
Although that provision is in the same statutory subsection of BCRA
section 304(a) as other provisions that the Supreme Court in Davis held
to be unconstitutional, the personal loan provision is placed in a
separate subsection within 2 U.S.C. 441a. This statutory provision has
a wider application than other provisions of the Millionaires'
Amendment. It applies equally to all candidates and regardless of
whether the Millionaires' Amendment provisions also apply. Most
notably, while other provisions of the Millionaires' Amendment apply
only to Senate and House of Representatives candidates, the loan
repayment provision applies to candidates for all Federal offices,
including presidential candidates. Because this statutory provision has
wider application than the Millionaires' Amendment, the Commission
added new sections 11 CFR 116.11 and 116.12 rather than include these
rules in 11 CFR Part 400 with the Millionaires' Amendment regulations.
See Interim Final Rules at 3973.
The Commission's proposal to retain sections 116.11 and 116.12 is
consistent with the approach it took in a recent advisory opinion,
which was requested after Davis invalidated the Millionaires'
Amendment. See Advisory Opinion 2008-09 (Lautenberg). Senator
Lautenberg loaned money to his principal campaign committee in
connection with his primary election. The Senator asked the Commission
whether the personal loan provision applied to his personal loan case
in light of the Davis decision. The Commission concluded that it did
apply because the Davis decision did not address the constitutionality
of the personal loan provision. The Commission explained that, unlike
the BCRA provisions found to be unconstitutional in Davis, the personal
loan provision applies equally to all candidates, regardless of whether
they or their opponents have triggered the increased campaign
contribution limits.
The Commission also concluded in Advisory Opinion 2008-09 that the
personal loan provision was severable from the Millionaires' Amendment.
As the Commission explained there, BCRA section 401 provides that the
invalidation of one provision of BCRA will not affect the validity of
any other provisions of BCRA nor the application of such provisions to
other persons and circumstances. 2 U.S.C. 454. It is a well-settled
principle of statutory construction that ``[u]nless it is evident that
the legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are
within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part
may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.'' Buckley
v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976) quoting Champlin Refining Co. v.
Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 234 (1932)). In Buckley, the
Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of FECA's section 202, but
expressly upheld other provisions within the same subsection of the
statute.
In Advisory Opinion 2008-09, the Commission found that it was not
at all ``evident'' from the text, function, or legislative history of
the Millionaires' Amendment that Congress intended the personal loan
provision to be inextricably tied to the increased contribution limits
of BCRA 304(a). Section 304(a) was codified in two separate provisions
of 2 U.S.C. 441a, one providing for the increased contribution limits
and the other limiting repayment of personal loans. Functionally, the
personal loan provision can operate effectively without the provisions
invalidated by Davis. Because the loan repayment provision's operation
does not depend upon the invalidated increased contribution limits or
reporting provisions, its validity is not affected by their
invalidation. Moreover, legislative history shows that Congress in
several instances addressed the loan repayment provision separately
from the unconstitutional provisions regarding increased contribution
limits. See, e.g., 147 Cong. Rec. S2450-51 (daily ed. Mar. 19, 2001)
(statement of Sen. Domenici); 147 Cong. Rec. S2461-62 (daily ed. Mar.
19, 2001) (statement of Sen. Domenici).
The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to retain the current
rules at 11 CFR 116.11 and 116.12 restricting the repayment of personal
loans.
G. Proposed Retention of 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C)--Net Debts
Outstanding
The Commission proposes to retain current 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3), which
restricts the ability of candidates and their authorized committees to
accept contributions after the election. Together with sections 116.11
and 116.12, current 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3) implements 2 U.S.C. 441a(j).
Candidates and their authorized committees cannot accept
contributions after the election is over unless the candidate still has
net debts outstanding from that election. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(1)(i). This
rule was promulgated long before
[[Page 62227]]
BCRA added the loan repayment restriction in 441a(j). After the
election is over, candidates and their authorized committees may accept
contributions up to the amount of their ``net debts outstanding,'' as
defined in current 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3)(ii). To conform with the
fundraising restrictions in 11 CFR 116.11, the Commission added
paragraph (C) to section 110.1(b)(3)(ii), which excludes the amount of
personal loans that exceed $250,000 from the definition of ``net debt
outstanding.'' See Interim Final Rules, 68 FR at 3973. The Commission
proposes to retain the current rule at 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C) for
the same reasons it intends to retain the current rules 11 CFR 116.11
and 116.12, as explained above.
H. Proposed Retention of 11 CFR 9035.2(c)--Expenditure Limitations
The Commission proposes to retain the cross-reference in current 11
CFR 9035.2(c) to the definition of ``personal funds'' in 11 CFR 9003.2.
Section 9035.2 provides limitations on expenditures from personal or
family funds when a candidate has accepted matching funds in a
presidential primary election. In promulgating 11 CFR 9035.2(c), the
Commission explained that it cross-referenced that section to the
definition of ``personal funds'' in 11 CFR 9003.2 because it was more
appropriate in the context of Title 26 regulations than the
Commission's definition of ``personal funds'' in 11 CFR 100.33, which
applies only to FECA. See Interim Final Rules, 68 FR at 3986-87. For
the same reason, the Commission continues to believe that the cross-
reference in 11 CFR 9035.2(c) to 11 CFR 9003.2 is appropriate and,
therefore, it should be retained.
IV. Technical and Conforming Amendments to Other Regulations
A. 11 CFR 100.153--Routine Living Expenses; 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(ii)--
Definition of Personal Use
The Commission proposes to amend 11 CFR 100.153 and 113.1(g)(6)(ii)
by revising the cross-reference to the definition of ``personal funds''
in 11 CFR 110.10(b) to current 11 CFR 100.33. The Commission deleted 11
CFR 110.10(b) in the Interim Final Rules. The proposed change would
reflect the Commission's prior removal of the ``personal funds''
definition from section 110.10(b) to section 100.33.
B. 11 CFR 110.5(b)(2)--Biennial Contribution Limitations
The Commission proposes to amend 11 CFR 110.5 paragraphs (b), (d),
and (e), by revising the spelling of the word ``bi-annual'' to
``biennial.'' This proposed change would make the spelling consistent
with the title of section 110.5, which uses the term biennial.
C. 11 CFR 9001.1--Scope; 11 CFR 9003.1--Candidate and Committee
Agreement; 11 CFR 9031.1--Scope; 11 CFR 9033.1--Candidate and Committee
Agreement
The Commission proposes to make technical amendments to these
sections that would update the reference to its other regulations to
reflect the proposed elimination of Part 400.
V. Request for Comments
The Commission invites comments from the public concerning any of
the proposals outlined above. The Commission also invites comments from
the public regarding any additional changes that should be made to 11
CFR 100.33, 101.1, 102.2(a)(1)(viii), 110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C), 116.11,
116.12, 9035.2(c), or any other section of the regulations to conform
with the holdings and points of law articulated in the Supreme Court's
decision in Davis.
Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory
Flexibility Act)
The Commission certifies that the attached proposed rule, if
adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The basis for this certification is that few,
if any, small entities would be affected by this proposed rulemaking,
which applies only to Federal candidates and their campaign committees,
and political committees of political parties. Such committees are not
``small entities'' under 5 U.S.C. 601. Candidate and party committees
are not independently owned and operated because they are not financed
and controlled by a small identifiable group of individuals; rather,
they rely on contributions from a variety of persons to fund the
committee's activities. The Democratic and Republican parties also have
a major controlling influence within the political arena and are
dominant in their field. However, to the extent that any party
committees representing major or minor political parties or any other
political committees might be considered ``small entities,'' the number
that would be affected by this rule is not substantial.
The proposed rule also would not add new substantive provisions to
the current regulations, but rather it would remove or retain existing
regulations. Therefore, the attached proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
11 CFR Part 100
Elections.
11 CFR Part 101
Political candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
11 CFR Part 102
Political committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
11 CFR Part 104
Campaign funds, Political committees and parties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
11 CFR Part 110
Campaign funds, Political committees and parties.
11 CFR Part 113
Campaign funds.
11 CFR Part 116
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry,
Credit, Elections, Political candidates, Political committees and
parties.
11 CFR Part 400
Campaign funds, Elections, Political candidates, Political
committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
11 CFR Part 9001
Campaign funds.
11 CFR Part 9003
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
11 CFR Part 9031
Campaign funds.
11 CFR Part 9033
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
11 CFR Part 9035
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Subchapters A, C, E, and F of Chapter I of Title 11 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 100--SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (2 U.S.C. 431)
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431, 434, 438(a)(8), and 439a(c).
[[Page 62228]]
Sec. 100.19 [Amended]
2. In section 100.19, is amended by removing the reference to
``(g)'' and adding in its place ``(f)'' in paragraph (b) introductory
text and (b)(2) and by removing paragraph (g).
3. Section 100.33 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.33 Personal funds.
Personal funds of a candidate means the sum of all of the
following:
(a) Assets. Amounts derived from any asset that, under applicable
State law, at the time the individual became a candidate, the candidate
had legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to which
the candidate had--
(1) Legal and rightful title; or
(2) An equitable interest;
(b) Income. Income received during the current election cycle, of
the candidate, including:
(1) A salary and other earned income that the candidate earns from
bona fide employment;
(2) Income from the candidate's stocks or other investments
including interest, dividends, or proceeds from the sale or liquidation
of such stocks or investments;
(3) Bequests to the candidate;
(4) Income from trusts established before the beginning of the
election cycle;
(5) Income from trusts established by bequest after the beginning
of the election cycle of which the candidate is the beneficiary;
(6) Gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily received
by the candidate prior to the beginning of the election cycle; and
(7) Proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of chance; and
(c) Jointly owned assets. Amounts derived from a portion of assets
that are owned jointly by the candidate and the candidate's spouse as
follows:
(1) The portion of assets that is equal to the candidate's share of
the asset under the instrument of conveyance or ownership; provided,
however,
(2) If no specific share is indicated by an instrument of
conveyance or ownership, the value of one-half of the property.
Sec. 100.53 [Amended]
5. Section 100.153 is amended by removing the reference to ``11 CFR
110.10(b)'' and adding in its place ``11 CFR 100.33''.
PART 101--CANDIDATE STATUS AND DESIGNATIONS (2 U.S.C. 432(e))
6. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 432(e), 434(a)(11), 438(a)(f).
7. Section 101.1(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 101.1 Candidate designations (2 U.S.C. 432(e)(1)).
(a) Principal Campaign Committee. Within 15 days after becoming a
candidate under 11 CFR 100.3, each candidate, other than a nominee for
the office of Vice President, shall designate in writing, a principal
campaign committee in accordance with 11 CFR 102.12. A candidate shall
designate his or her principal campaign committee by filing a Statement
of Candidacy on FEC Form 2, or, if the candidate is not required to
file electronically under 11 CFR 104.18, by filing a letter containing
the same information (that is, the individual's name and address, party
affiliation, and office sought, the District and State in which Federal
office is sought, and the name and address of his or her principal
campaign committee at the place of filing specified at 11 CFR part
105). Each principal campaign committee shall register, designate a
depository, and report in accordance with 11 CFR parts 102, 103, and
104.
* * * * *
PART 102--REGISTRATION, ORGANIZATION, AND RECORDKEEPING BY
POLITICAL COMMITTEES (2 U.S.C. 433)
8. The authority citation for part 102 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 432, 433, 434(a)(11), 438(a)(8), 441d.
9. In Sec. 102.2, paragraph (a)(1)(viii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 102.2 Statement of organization: Forms and committee
identification number (2 U.S.C. 433(b), (c)).
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) If the committee is a principal campaign committee of a
candidate for the Senate or the House of Representatives, the principal
campaign committee's electronic mail address.
* * * * *
PART 104--REPORTS BY POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER PERSONS (2
U.S.C. 434)
10. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(1), 431(8), 431(9), 432(i), 434,
438(a)(8) and (b), 439a, 441a, and 36 U.S.C. 510.
Sec. 104.19 [Removed and Reserved]
11. Section 104.19 is removed and reserved.
PART 110--CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS
12. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(8), 431(9), 432(c)(2), 437d, 438(a)(8),
441a, 441b, 441d, 441e, 441f, 441g, 441h, and 36 U.S.C. 510.
13. In Sec. 110.5, paragraphs (b)(1), (d), and (e) are revised,
and paragraph (b)(2) is removed and reserved to read as follows:
Sec. 110.5 Aggregate biennial contribution limitation for individuals
(2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)).
* * * * *
(b) Biennial limitations. (1) In the two-year period beginning on
January 1 of an odd-numbered year and ending on December 31 of the next
even-numbered year, no individual shall make contributions aggregating
more than $95,000, including no more than:
(i) $37,500 in the case of contributions to candidates and the
authorized committees of candidates; and
(ii) $57,500 in the case of any other contributions, of which not
more than $37,500 may be attributable to contributions to political
committees that are not political committees of any national political
parties.
* * * * *
(d) Independent expenditures. The biennial limitation on
contributions in this section applies to contributions made to persons,
including political committees, making independent expenditures under
11 CFR part 109.
(e) Contributions to delegates and delegate committees. The
biennial limitation on contributions in this section applies to
contributions to delegate and delegate committees under 11 CFR 110.14.
PART 113--USE OF CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS FOR NON-CAMPAIGN PURPOSES
14. The authority citation for part 113 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 432(h), 438(a)(8), 439a, 441a.
Sec. 113.1 [Amended]
15. Section 113.1(g)(6)(ii) is amended by removing the reference to
``11 CFR 110.10(b)'' and adding in its place ``11 CFR 100.33''.
PART 400--[REMOVED]
16. Under the authority of 2 U.S.C. 437d(a)(8), part 400 is
removed.
[[Page 62229]]
PART 9001--SCOPE
17. The authority citation for part 9001 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9009(b).
Sec. 9001.1 [Amended]
18. Section 9001.1 is amended by removing the number ``400'' and
adding in its place the number ``300'' in both instances in which it
appears.
PART 9003--ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS
19. The authority citation for part 9003 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9003 and 9009(b).
Sec. 9003.1 [Amended]
20. In section 9003.1, paragraph (b)(8) is amended by removing the
number ``400'' and adding in its place the number ``300''.
PART 9031--SCOPE
21. The authority citation for part 9031 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9031 and 9039(b).
Sec. 9031.1 [Amended]
22. Section 9031.1 is amended by removing the number ``400'' and
adding in its place the number ``300'' in both instances in which it
appears.
PART 9033--ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS
23. The authority citation for part 9033 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9003(e), 9033 and 9039(b).
Sec. 9033.1 [Amended]
24. In section 9033.1, paragraph (b)(10) is amended by removing the
number ``400'' and adding in its place the number ``300''.
Dated: October 8, 2008.
Donald F. McGahn, II,
Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-24505 Filed 10-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P