C.F.R. » Title 11 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 100—SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (52 U.S.C. 30101) › Subpart B—Definition of Contribution (52 U.S.C. 30101(8))

11 C.F.R. § 100.57

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2005–2012 · leading case: Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “22 (b) (defining when a communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate); 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 (a) (defining campaign contributions to include funds “to support or oppose the election of a clearly identified Federal candidate” (emphasis…”
Emily's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 8× “This means that donations in response to such solicitations are subject to a $5000 cap.”
EMILY's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 569 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 18× “Pursuant to the new rule at 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 (a), all funds received in response to a solicitation are treated as “contributions” under FECA “if the communication indicates that any portion of the funds received will be used to support or oppose the election of a clearly…”
Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “22 (b) (defining when a communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate); 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 (a) (defining contributions for certain purposes under FECA); and 11 C.”
Emily's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 362 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 6× “11,743 (discussing proposed 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 ). The NPRM also raised the question of whether the new rule should “use a standard other than express advocacy, such as solicitation that promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a Federal candidate, or indicates that funds received…”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 511 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2007). “See 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 . As with the dispute over the proper interpretation of “expenditure,” however, adjusting the definition of “contribution” is separate and apart from plaintiffs’ principle contention — that the FEC should adopt a rule that codifies the “major purpose” test.”
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 796 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Va. 2011). “RTAO originally challenged FEC regulations at 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.57 and 114.15, but it has withdrawn these challenges.”
— 11 C.F.R. § 100.57(a)(1) — 1 case
EMILY's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 569 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2008). “Pursuant to the new rule at 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 (a), all funds received in response to a solicitation are treated as “contributions” under FECA “if the communication indicates that any portion of the funds received will be used to support or oppose the election of a clearly…”
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.