(a) Staging organizations. (1) Nonprofit organizations described in 26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(3) or (c)(4) and which do not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or political parties may stage candidate debates in accordance with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f).
(2) Broadcasters (including a cable television operator, programmer or producer), bona fide newspapers, magazines and other periodical publications may stage candidate debates in accordance with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f), provided that they are not owned or controlled by a political party, political committee or candidate. In addition, broadcasters (including a cable television operator, programmer or producer), bona fide newspapers, magazines and other periodical publications, acting as press entities, may also cover or carry candidate debates in accordance with 11 CFR part 100, subparts B and C and part 100, subparts D and E.
(b) Debate structure. The structure of debates staged in accordance with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f) is left to the discretion of the staging organizations(s), provided that:
(1) Such debates include at least two candidates; and
(2) The staging organization(s) does not structure the debates to promote or advance one candidate over another.
(c) Criteria for candidate selection. For all debates, staging organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate in a debate. For general election debates, staging organizations(s) shall not use nomination by a particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine whether to include a candidate in a debate. For debates held prior to a primary election, caucus or convention, staging organizations may restrict candidate participation to candidates seeking the nomination of one party, and need not stage a debate for candidates seeking the nomination of any other political party or independent candidates.
[61 FR 18051, Apr. 24, 1996; 61 FR 24533, May 15, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78681, Dec. 26, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
Becker v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 230 F.3d 381 (1st Cir. 2000).
· cites it 10× “The plaintiffs challenge as ultra vires two FEC regulations, 11 C.F.R. 110.13 and 114.4(f), which allow qualified nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations to accept corporate donations in staging presidential debates and allow corporations to make such donations.”
Level the Playing Field v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 232 F. Supp. 3d 130 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 13× “Under the law, corporations may not give contributions to or make expenditures on behalf of political candidates or campaigns, but they may donate to organizations that stage debates featuring those candidates because the FEC’s regulations provide that any “[fjunds provided to…”
Nat. Law Party of the United States v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 111 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2000).
· cites it 10× “” 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (c). In addition, the regulations prohibit staging organizations from using “nomination by a political party as the sole objective criteria to determine whether to include a candidate in a debate.”
Buchanan v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 112 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2000).
· cites it 14× “11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (c). The FEC subsequently dismissed the complaint, finding that there was “no reason to believe” that the CPD was violating the law.”
Hagelin v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 411 F.3d 237 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 5× “4 (f), so long as they do not, in the words of the Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) implementing regulation, “endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or political parties,” 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (a)(1). Since 1987, presidential *239 and vice-presidential debates have…”
La Botz v. Fed. Election Comm'n of Washington, D.C., 61 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The FEC’s general counsel reviewed the administrative complaint and issued a report concluding that the ONO employed pre-existing objective criteria in compliance with 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (c). AR119. Accordingly, the report concluded that there was “no reason to believe” the ONO…”
State of TX v. USA, 987 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2021).
“1996) (per curiam) (quoting 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 ). Although the agency gave private entities “the latitude to choose their own ‘objective criteria,’” such private entities acted at their peril if they did not first secure an agency advisory opinion that their criteria were…”
Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1994).
· cites it 3× “The structure of debates staged in accordance with 11 CFR 110.13 and 114.4(e) is left to the discretion of the staging organization, provided that (1) such debates include at least two candidates, and (2) such debates are nonpartisan in that they do not promote or advance one…”
Gluck v. Wnin Tri-State Pub. Media, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Ind. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Cunningham cites 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 of the Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) implementing regulations to support his claim that the Defendants violated federal election laws.”
Fulani v. Brady, 935 F.2d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Perhaps more importantly, this status also qualified the CPD to sponsor candidate debates under Federal Election Commission Rule 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (a)(1). Fulani attacks the CPD’s tax-exempt status based on its exclusion of her from its presidential debates.”
Fulani v. Bentsen, 862 F. Supp. 1140 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
· cites it 2× “See 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (a). Section 501(e)(3), in turn, exempts from federal income taxation organizations operating exclusively for charitable or educational purposes.”
— 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(a) — 1 case
Becker v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 230 F.3d 381 (1st Cir. 2000).
“The plaintiffs challenge as ultra vires two FEC regulations, 11 C.F.R. 110.13 and 114.4(f), which allow qualified nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations to accept corporate donations in staging presidential debates and allow corporations to make such donations.”
— 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(b) — 3 cases
Becker v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 230 F.3d 381 (1st Cir. 2000).
“The plaintiffs challenge as ultra vires two FEC regulations, 11 C.F.R. 110.13 and 114.4(f), which allow qualified nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations to accept corporate donations in staging presidential debates and allow corporations to make such donations.”
Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1994).
“The structure of debates staged in accordance with 11 CFR 110.13 and 114.4(e) is left to the discretion of the staging organization, provided that (1) such debates include at least two candidates, and (2) such debates are nonpartisan in that they do not promote or advance one…”
— 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(c) — 2 cases
Nat. Law Party of the United States v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 111 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2000).
“” 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (c). In addition, the regulations prohibit staging organizations from using “nomination by a political party as the sole objective criteria to determine whether to include a candidate in a debate.”
Becker v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 230 F.3d 381 (1st Cir. 2000).
“The plaintiffs challenge as ultra vires two FEC regulations, 11 C.F.R. 110.13 and 114.4(f), which allow qualified nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations to accept corporate donations in staging presidential debates and allow corporations to make such donations.”
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.