26 U.S.C. § 9035

Qualified campaign expense limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Expenditure limitations

No candidate shall knowingly incur qualified campaign expenses in excess of the expenditure limitation applicable under section 315(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and no candidate shall knowingly make expenditures from his personal funds, or the personal funds of his immediate family, in connection with his campaign for nomination for election to the office of President in excess of, in the aggregate, $50,000.

(b) Definition of immediate family

For purposes of this section, the term “immediate family” means a candidate’s spouse, and any child, parent, grandparent, brother, half-brother, sister, or half-sister of the candidate, and the spouses of such persons.

(Added Pub. L. 93–443, title IV, § 408(c), Oct. 15, 1974, 88 Stat. 1300; amended Pub. L. 94–283, title III, §§ 305(a), 307(c), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 499, 501; Pub. L. 113–295, div. A, title II, § 220(z), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 4037.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 315 of The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to section 30116 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.

Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–295 substituted “section 315(b)(1)(A)” for “section 320(b)(1)(A)”.

1976—Pub. L. 94–283 substituted “limitations” for “limitation” in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted “Expenditure limitations” as heading of subsec. (a) as so redesignated and substituted “section 320(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and no candidate shall knowingly make expenditures from his personal funds, or the personal funds of his immediate family, in connection with his campaign for nomination for election to the office of President in excess of, in the aggregate, $50,000” for “section 608(c)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code”, and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1976 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–283, title III, § 305(d), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 499, as amended by Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that: “For purposes of applying section 9035(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954], as amended by subsection (a), expenditures made by an individual after January 29, 1976, and before the date of the enactment of this Act [May 11, 1976] shall not be taken into account.”

Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1974, see section 410(c)(1) of Pub. L. 93–443, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 30101 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Kennedy for President Comm. & Edward M. Kennedy v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 734 F.2d 1558 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kennedy for President Comm. & Edward M. Kennedy v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 734 F.2d 1558 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “However, while the Act imposes spending limits on the candidates, see 26 U.S.C. § 9035 , the remedy prescribed under the administrative audit procedure is the repayment of the amount of federal money spent for unqualified purposes, not the total amount of unqualified…”

John Glenn Presidential Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 822 F.2d 1097 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “26 U.S.C. § 9035 (a); see Kennedy for President Committee v.”

Carter/mondale Presidential Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 775 F.2d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “Campaign expenses are not "qualified" under 26 U.S.C. § 9035 (a) if they exceed certain expenditure limitations, including limitations on spending in each state during the presidential primaries.”

Jill Stein v. FEC, 77 F.4th 868 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “26 U.S.C. § 9035 . Buckley explained that for the general election, the applicable expenditure limits do not affect minor-party candidates but severely constrain major-party candidates, thus benefitting minor-party candidates on average.”

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.