C.F.R. » Title 11 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 110—CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS

11 C.F.R. § 110.7

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1980–1996 · leading case: Fed. Election Comm'n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27 (1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27 (1981). · cites it 12× “In April 1977, the Commission issued a regulation, 11 CFR § 110.7 (a)(4) (1981), which provides that the national party committees may make expenditures in the general election campaign for President "through any designated agent, including state and subordinate party committees.”
Colorado Repub. Fed. Campaign Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 518 U.S. 604 (1996). · cites it 2× “in connection with" a "general election campaign," 11 CFR § 110.7 (b)(4) (1995); (2) FEC Advisory Opinions that use the *620 word "coordinated" to describe the Party Expenditure Provision's limitations, see, e.”
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, Nat'l Repub. Senatorial Comm., Intervenor, 660 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “The DSCC did not challenge the agency agreement between the NRSC and the Republican National Committee, since the FEC at that time interpreted a Commission regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 110.7 , to authorize such agreements.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Colorado Repub. Fed. Campaign Comm., 839 F. Supp. 1448 (D. Colo. 1993). “” However, for purposes of determining whether an expenditure is coordinated or independent, it is irrelevant whether a candidate has been nominated at the time the expenditure is made.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Colorado Repub. Fed. Campaign Comm., 59 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “See also 11 C.F.R. § 110.7 (b)(4). Because political parties are considered incapable of making independent expenditures, the district court correctly found that the anti-Wirth publicity expense was a coordinated expenditure.”
Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 715 F. Supp. 398 (D.D.C. 1989). “II Since the NRSC could not make independent expenditures on behalf of the Evans campaign, see 11 C.F.R. § 110.7 (b)(4), nor could any political committee established, financed, maintained, or controlled by the NRSC do so, as expenditures made by affiliated committees are…”
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.