11 C.F.R. § 100.23
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2001–2007 · leading case: McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003).
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “11 C.F.R. § 100.23 (c)(2). 57. BCRA section 214 repealed the FEC's December 2000 coordination regulations because, according to one of BCRA's sponsors, they were "far too narrow to be effective in defining coordination in the real world of campaigns and elections and…”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004). “15 (quoting 11 C.F.R. § 100.23 (c)(2)(iii) (2001) (repealed)).”
Wertheimer v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 268 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “" 11 C.F.R. 100.23 (2001). Prior to promulgating this broader definition, the Commission deadlocked 3-3 on whether to pursue its counsel's finding that the 1996 Clinton campaign made illegal coordinated expenditures and accepted illegal contributions from the Democratic National…”
Martin v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 38 (Ky. 2003). “11 C.F.R. § 100.23 . However, those aspects of the definition that we have borrowed from Christian Coalition also apply to the type of expenditures alleged to have occurred in this case.”
Shays v. United States Fed. Election Comm'n, 508 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2007). “In enacting BCRA, Congress repealed the previous regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 100.23 (c)(2) (2001), and ordered the FEC to promulgate new regulations that did not “require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.”
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). “" 11 CFR § 100.23 (c)(2) (2001). [99] Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the statutory framework was not significantly different at the time of our decision in Buckley.”
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.