(a) The provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.
(b) Federal law supersedes State law concerning the—
(1) Organization and registration of political committees supporting Federal candidates;
(2) Disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates and political committees; and
(3) Limitation on contributions and expenditures regarding Federal candidates and political committees.
(c) The Act does not supersede State laws which provide for the—
(1) Manner of qualifying as a candidate or political party organization;
(2) Dates and places of elections;
(3) Voter registration;
(4) Prohibition of false registration, voting fraud, theft of ballots, and similar offenses;
(5) Candidate's personal financial disclosure; or
(6) Application of State law to the funds used for the purchase or construction of a State or local party office building to the extent described in 11 CFR 300.35.
[45 FR 15117, Mar. 7, 1980, as amended at 67 FR 49119, July 29, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
Priorities USA v. Dana Nessel, 978 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4× “11 C.F.R. § 108.7 (b).1 As relevant here, FEC regulations state that “Federal law supersedes State law concerning the .”
Weber v. Heaney, 793 F. Supp. 1438 (D. Minnesota 1992).
· cites it 6× “Regulation: 11 C.F.R. § 108.7 Pursuant to its statutory authority, the commission promulgated 11 C.”
Teper v. Miller, 82 F.3d 989 (11th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 4× “We note that Congress has seen and not disapproved 11 C.F.R. § 108.7 , thus suggesting that the regulation is not inconsistent with Congressional intent.”
Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d 825 (N.D. Tex. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The Political Committees contend that the “Effect on State law” regulations at 11 C.F.R. § 108.7 show that FECA’s “reach extends to the regulation of campaign financing for federal elective office through federal political committees.”
New Hampshire Attorney Gen. v. Bass Victory Comm., 166 N.H. 796 (N.H. 2014).
· cites it 5× “” Krikorian, 2010 WL 4117556 , at *11; see 11 C.F.R. § 108.7 (2014). That regulation provides: (a) The provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect…”
Seltzer v. New York State Democratic Comm., 293 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002).
“Based on the legislative history of FECA, the broad language of FECA’s preemption clause ( 2 USC § 453 ), the FEC regulations (11 CFR 108.7), and several cases which have interpreted FECA’s preemptive effect on similar state statutes, the FEC concluded that FECA preempted…”
Repub. Party v. King, 850 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D.N.M. 2012).
“”); 11 C.F.R. § 108.7 (b) (“Federal law supersedes State law concerning the .”
Holtzman v. Oliensis, 695 N.E.2d 1104 (NY 1998).
“), or a “[Candidate’s personal financial disclosure” (11 CFR 108.7 [c] [5]). Thus, it is apparent that Congress did *496 not intend FECA’s preemptive scope to reach official conduct discrete from Federal election fund raising, such as a City’s ethical prohibitions (see…”
Weber v. Heaney, 995 F.2d 872 (8th Cir. 1993).
“2d at 545-46 (holding a state statute not preempted when legislative history directly and clearly stated the type of statute at issue was not preempted). Further, in 1977 the FEC promulgad ed a regulation identifying areas in which state regulation is preempted and areas in…”
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.