(a) Except as provided in 11 CFR 111.20, no complaint filed with the Commission, nor any notification sent by the Commission, nor any investigation conducted by the Commission, nor any findings made by the Commission shall be made public by the Commission or by any person or entity without the written consent of the respondent with respect to whom the complaint was filed, the notification sent, the investigation conducted, or the finding made.
(b) Except as provided in 11 CFR 111.20(b), no action by the Commission or by any person, and no information derived in connection with conciliation efforts pursuant to 11 CFR 111.18, may be made public by the Commission except upon a written request by respondent and approval thereof by the Commission.
(c) Nothing in these regulations shall be construed to prevent the introduction of evidence in the courts of the United States which could properly be introduced pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case:
In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 7× “11 C.F.R. § 111.21 (a). Appellants point to these two provisions to argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying their March 17 Emergency Motion to seal the record of the subpoena enforcement action.”
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 919 (D.D.C. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Section 437g(a)(12)(A) is implemented by 11 C.F.R. § 111.21 (a), which provides that: Except as provided in 11 CFR 111.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. MacHinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
“§ 437g(a)(12), and under the Commission’s regulations, 11 C.F.R. § 111.21 (1980). We need not decide in this case whether these provisions properly apply to disclosure by the courts, since neither party has raised this issue.”
In Re Sealed Case 00-5116, 254 F.3d 233 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
“§ 437g(a)(12)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 111.21 (a) plainly state that “the Commission shall not place information about an ongoing investigation in the public record when it seeks to enforce a subpoena.”
Am. Fed'n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 333 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
“The Commission appeals, arguing that its longstanding disclosure policy warrants Chevron deference. In support of the Commission, the Campaign and Media Legal Center, the Center for Responsive Politics, and the National Voting Rights Institute assert in their amicus brief that…”
Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 2× “3 (holding that disclosure of complaint by the complainant would not violate the confidentiality provision found in section 437g(a)(12) of the Act or in Commission regulation 11 C.F.R. § 111.21 .), with 11 C.F.R. § 111.”
Towbin v. Antonacci, 287 F.R.D. 672 (S.D. Fla. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Defendants also urge the Court to look towards a similar federal provision, 11 CFR § 111.21 , which they contended is essentially the same as the state provision at issue, since it reflects the Federal Election Commission’s desire to protect similar information regarding its…”
Heritage Action for Am. v. Fed. Election Comm'n (D.D.C. 2023).
“§ 30109(a)(12); 11 C.F.R. § 111.21 , the Commission could subject Heritage Action to the same informational and litigation-exposure injuries that it suffered here by not disclosing its votes on such a complaint.”
John Doe Co. 1 v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau (D.D.C. 2015).
“investigation [was] conducted”). The Court of Appeals concluded that these clear statutory and regulatory directives “create[d] a strong confidentiality interest analogous to that protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(6),” which protects the secrecy of grand jury…”
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.