Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 16

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-941

Limits on spending and contributions for political campaigns

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

 

(Caution:  1998 Prop 105 applies)

 

A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a participating candidate:

1. Shall not accept any contributions, other than a limited number of five-dollar qualifying contributions as specified in section 16-946 and early contributions as specified in section 16-945, except in the emergency situation specified in section 16-954, subsection F.

2. Shall not make expenditures of more than a total of five hundred dollars of the candidate's personal monies for a candidate for the legislature or more than one thousand dollars for a candidate for statewide office.

3. Shall not make expenditures in the primary election period in excess of the adjusted primary election spending limit.

4. Shall not make expenditures in the general election period in excess of the adjusted general election spending limit.

5. Shall comply with section 16-948 regarding campaign accounts and section 16-953 regarding returning unused monies to the citizens clean elections fund described in this article.

B. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a nonparticipating candidate shall not accept contributions in excess of an amount that is twenty per cent less than the limits specified in section 16-905, subsections A through E, as adjusted by the secretary of state pursuant to section 16-905, subsection H. Any violation of this subsection shall be subject to the civil penalties and procedures set forth in section 16-905, subsections J through M and section 16-924.

C. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a candidate, whether participating or nonparticipating:

1. If specified in a written agreement signed by the candidate and one or more opposing candidates and filed with the citizens clean elections commission, shall not make any expenditure in the primary or general election period exceeding an agreed-upon amount lower than spending limits otherwise applicable by statute.

2. Shall continue to be bound by all other applicable election and campaign finance statutes and rules, with the exception of those provisions in express or clear conflict with this article.

D. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who makes independent expenditures related to a particular office cumulatively exceeding five hundred dollars in an election cycle, with the exception of any expenditure listed in section 16-920 and any independent expenditure by an organization arising from a communication directly to the organization's members, shareholders, employees, affiliated persons and subscribers, shall file reports with the secretary of state in accordance with section 16-958 so indicating, identifying the office and the candidate or group of candidates whose election or defeat is being advocated and stating whether the person is advocating election or advocating defeat.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014) ariz · cites it 61× “-945(A) (early contributions limits); - 948(C) (petty cash restrictions); -954(B) (tax reduction); -955(G) (commissioner compensation); and -961(G) (primary election spending limits).”
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2013) arizctapp · cites it 74× “§ 16-941(B) applies “[notwithstanding any law to the contrary,” if AR.S. § 16-941 (B) fixed campaign contribution limits as they existed in 1998 subject to authorized adjustments, 4 then AR.”
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers (2000) ariz · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 16-941. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission is responsible for administering the program.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz · cites it 59× “¶16 Indeed, the voters fixed monetary amounts in other parts of § 16-941 and elsewhere in the CCEA. See A.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz · cites it 59× “¶16 Indeed, the voters fixed monetary amounts in other parts of § 16-941 and elsewhere in the CCEA. See A.”
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election (2018) ariz “See § 16-941(D) (requiring reporting of certain independent expenditures to the secretary of state).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-941(A)(2) — 3 cases
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014) ariz “-945(A) (early contributions limits); - 948(C) (petty cash restrictions); -954(B) (tax reduction); -955(G) (commissioner compensation); and -961(G) (primary election spending limits).”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz “¶16 Indeed, the voters fixed monetary amounts in other parts of § 16-941 and elsewhere in the CCEA. See A.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz “¶16 Indeed, the voters fixed monetary amounts in other parts of § 16-941 and elsewhere in the CCEA. See A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-941(B) — 4 cases
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014) ariz “-945(A) (early contributions limits); - 948(C) (petty cash restrictions); -954(B) (tax reduction); -955(G) (commissioner compensation); and -961(G) (primary election spending limits).”
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2013) arizctapp “§ 16-941(B) applies “[notwithstanding any law to the contrary,” if AR.S. § 16-941 (B) fixed campaign contribution limits as they existed in 1998 subject to authorized adjustments, 4 then AR.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz “¶16 Indeed, the voters fixed monetary amounts in other parts of § 16-941 and elsewhere in the CCEA. See A.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz “¶16 Indeed, the voters fixed monetary amounts in other parts of § 16-941 and elsewhere in the CCEA. See A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-941(D) — 1 case
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election (2018) ariz “See § 16-941(D) (requiring reporting of certain independent expenditures to the secretary of state).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.