FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.

February 15, 2024

ADVISORY OPINION 2024-02

Leilani Beaver, Esq.

Beaver Legal Corporation

220 S. Pine St, Suite 109 

Sisters, OR 97759

Dear Ms. Beaver:

We are responding to your advisory opinion request on behalf of Congresswoman 

Maxine Waters and Citizens for Waters (collectively, “Requestors”), concerning the 

application of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101-45 (the “Act”), 

and Commission regulations to Requestors’ proposal to solicit and receive reimbursement

from non-federal sources of Requestors’ costs to design, print, and mail certain 

brochures.

1

 The Commission concludes that the Act and Commission regulations would 

not prohibit Requestors from soliciting or receiving reimbursement of funds from the 

non-federal sources because the reimbursement of funds as proposed would comply with 

the source prohibitions, amount limitations, and reporting requirements of the Act.

Background

The facts presented in this advisory opinion are based on your letter received on 

January 25, 2024, and your email received on February 1, 2024. 

Congresswoman Maxine Waters represents California’s 43rd District in the 

United States House of Representatives. Citizens for Waters is her principal campaign 

committee. 

1 The Commission has adopted the Requestors’ term “brochure” here as a matter of convenience, 

and notes that it used the same term in Advisory Opinion 2004-37 (Waters). The Commission has not 

determined, however, whether the Requestors’ publication is a “brochure” as that term is used in the 

Commission’s regulations. See, e.g., 11 C.F.R. § 100.24(c)(4) (exempting certain communications, 

including certain brochures, from the definition of “federal election activity”). 
AO 2024-02 (Waters)

Page 2

Requestors intend to design, publish, and mail brochures featuring 

Congresswoman Waters’s endorsements of federal and non-federal candidates, together 

with her positions of support for or opposition to ballot measures to be voted on the 

March 5, 2024, California primary ballot. Citizens for Waters will pay for the costs of 

designing, publishing, and mailing the brochures. The brochures will use the same 

design and layout as those described in Advisory Opinion 2004-37 (Waters). The space 

devoted to each candidate and ballot measure and its prominence on the brochure will be 

determined by the candidate’s or ballot measure’s prominence on the primary election 

ballot. As in Advisory Opinion 2004-37 (Waters), Requestors anticipate distributing at 

least 500 pieces of each version of their proposed brochure by U.S. Mail.

Requestors state that they will use only federally permissible funds to pay for the 

design, publishing, and mailing of the brochures.2 Requestors propose to solicit and

receive reimbursement from non-federal sources, however, for the portion of the 

brochures devoted to each non-federal candidate and ballot measure, as determined by

the candidate’s or ballot measure’s pro rata share of the costs to design, publish, and mail 

the brochure.3 The non-federal sources from which Requestors propose to solicit and 

receive funds are (1) the featured non-federal candidates’ personal funds, (2) the nonfederal candidates’ committees; (3) state independent expenditure-only political 

committees supporting or opposing the non-federal candidates; and (4) ballot measure 

committees supporting or opposing the featured ballot measures. 

Citizens for Waters will invoice the non-federal candidates and committees for 

their pro rata share of the brochures’ costs. Each invoice will state that Requestors are 

soliciting and will accept only federally permissible funds. The non-federal candidates 

and committees that reimburse Citizens for Waters will be required to submit signed 

invoices attesting that their payments are from federally permissible funds. Citizens for 

Waters will not accept any reimbursements that exceed the non-federal candidate’s or 

committee’s pro rata share of the costs. Congresswoman Waters will not establish, 

finance, maintain, or control any of the non-federal committees reimbursing Citizens for 

Waters.

Question Presented

May Citizens for Waters receive reimbursements from individuals, non-federal 

candidate committees, state independent expenditure-only political committees, and 

ballot measure committees to appear in the brochure using funds that do not exceed the 

2 Requestors state that the term “federally permissible funds” as used in their request means “funds 

that do not exceed the applicable contribution limitations of the Act and from sources that would not be 

prohibited under the Act from contributing directly to Congresswoman Waters.” Advisory Opinion 

Request (“AOR”) at AOR002 n.3. 

3 Pro rata shares will be determined according to the “space or time” method described in 11 C.F.R. 

§ 106.1(a).
AO 2024-02 (Waters)

Page 3

applicable contribution limitations of the Act and from sources that would not be 

prohibited under the Act from contributing directly to Congresswoman Waters?

Legal Analysis 

Citizens for Waters may solicit and receive reimbursements from non-federal 

candidates, non-federal candidate committees, state independent expenditure-only 

political committees, and ballot measure committees to appear in the proposed brochure

if the non-federal sources’ funds comply with the source prohibitions, amount limitations, 

and reporting requirements of the Act.

Under the Act, federal candidates and their committees may not “solicit, receive, 

direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with an election for Federal office, 

including funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are subject to the 

[amount] limitations, [source] prohibitions, and reporting requirements of [the] Act.”4

 

The term “federal election activity” includes “a public communication that refers to a 

clearly identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a candidate for State 

or local office is also mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a candidate 

for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the 

communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate).”5 The term

“public communication” includes a “communication by means of any . . . mass mailing, 

. . . or any other form of general public political advertising.”6

 A “mass mailing” is “a 

mailing by United States mail or facsimile of more than 500 pieces of mail matter of an 

identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period.”7

Here, Requestors state that they anticipate distributing at least 500 pieces of each 

version of their proposed brochure by U.S. Mail. Such a distribution would be a “mass 

mailing” and, therefore, a public communication.8 Moreover, the brochures for which

Requestors propose to obtain reimbursement would refer to and contain Congresswoman 

Waters’s endorsements of certain clearly identified candidates, including federal 

candidates.

9

Regardless of whether the proposed brochure would qualify as “federal election 

activity” under the Act and Commission regulations, a question on which the 

Commission takes no position, Congresswoman Waters may solicit, receive, or spend 

4 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

5 52 U.S.C. § 30101(20)(A)(iii); see also 11 C.F.R. § 100.24 (b)(3).

6 11 C.F.R. § 100.26.

7 Id. § 100.27.

8 See Advisory Opinion 2004-37 (Waters) at 6.

9 AOR001-2. 
AO 2024-02 (Waters)

Page 4

funds as proposed if the funds comply with the Act’s contribution limitations, source 

prohibitions, and reporting requirements.10 Requestors state that Citizens for Waters will 

invoice the non-federal candidates and committees featured in the brochures for their pro 

rata shares of the costs to design, publish, and mail the brochures, and that these invoices 

will state that Congresswoman Waters and Citizens for Waters will accept only “federally 

permissible funds.” In addition, Requestors propose to require the non-federal candidates 

and committees reimbursing Citizens for Waters to submit signed invoices attesting that 

their payments are made with “federally permissible funds.” Requestors explain that the 

term “federally permissible funds” as used in their request means “funds that do not 

exceed the applicable contribution limitations of the Act and from sources that would not 

be prohibited under the Act from contributing directly to Congresswoman Waters.”11

As part of their proposal for obtaining reimbursement from the non-federal 

candidates and committees, Requestors have stated that they will “only solicit[ ] and 

accept[ ] funds from federally permissible funds,” and that they will require non-federal 

candidates and committees to “submit signed invoices attesting that their payment is from 

federally permissible funds when payment is received.”12 Accordingly, the funds used to 

reimburse Requestors will comply with the Act’s source prohibitions and amount 

limitations. The only remaining question, then, is whether such reimbursement is also 

consistent with the Act’s reporting requirements. The condition in 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30125(e)(1)(A) that any funds solicited or received in connection with a federal 

election must be subject to the Act’s reporting requirements does not itself impose any

standalone duty to report that would not otherwise exist under the Act.13 Therefore,

because the Act does not require non-federal candidates and committees to separately 

report their reimbursement of a federal candidate for their pro-rata share of the brochure,

and provided that the non-federal committees are not otherwise required to report to the 

Commission,14 then such reimbursement is subject to the reporting requirements of the 

Act for the purposes of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). Citizens for Waters is separately 

10 Although the Commission concluded in Advisory Opinion 2004-37 (Waters) that reimbursements 

to Congresswoman Waters’s authorized committee for costs relating to similar brochures were not 

contributions to the committee, the restrictions of section 30125(e) extend beyond contributions to a federal 

candidate’s committee, covering all funds that the candidate solicits, receives, directs, transfers, or spends

in connection with an election for Federal office.

11 AOR002 n.3.

12 AOR002. The Requestors further clarify that “[f]ederally permissible funds means funds that do 

not exceed the applicable contribution limitations of the Act and from sources that would not be prohibited 

under the Act from contributing directly to Congresswoman Waters.” Id. n.3. 

13 See 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A); see also11 C.F.R. § 300.71. 

14 For example, if one of the non-federal committees received contributions in excess of $1,000 or 

made expenditures in excess of $1,000 and had the major purpose of influencing a federal election, then the 

committee would be required to register and report as a political committee. 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4); 

11 C.F.R. § 100.5; Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976). 
AO 2024-02 (Waters) 

Page 5 

required to report activity related to the brochure under different provisions of the Act 

and Commission regulations.15 

The Commission does not address the potential application of any state or local 

laws to Requestors’ proposed activities because such matters do not fall within the 

Commission’s jurisdiction. 

This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of the 

Act and Commission regulations to the specific transaction or activity set forth in your 

request.16 The Commission emphasizes that, if there is a change in any of the facts or 

assumptions presented, and such facts or assumptions are material to a conclusion 

presented in this advisory opinion, then Requestors may not rely on that conclusion as 

support for their proposed activity. Any person involved in any specific transaction or 

activity which is indistinguishable in all its material aspects from the transaction or 

activity with respect to which this advisory opinion is rendered may rely on this advisory 

opinion.17 Please note that the analysis or conclusions in this advisory opinion may be 

affected by subsequent developments in the law including, but not limited to, statutes, 

regulations, advisory opinions, and case law. Any advisory opinions cited herein are 

available on the Commission’s website.

On behalf of the Commission, 

Sean J. Cooksey, 

Chairman

 

15 In Advisory Opinion 2004-37 (Waters), the Commission held that, under a similar brochure 

comprised of only federal candidates, the Requestor should report production and distribution costs as 

operating expenditures and report reimbursements from federal candidates as offsets to operating 

expenditures. AO 2004-37 (Waters) at 5-6 (citing current 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(2)(I); 11 C.F.R. 

§§ 104.3(a)(2)(vii), (3)(ix); 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(b)(1)(i), (2)(i)). Further, in certain circumstances, the 

reimbursements may result in debt reporting obligations. Id. (citing current 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(8); 11 

C.F.R. §§ 104.11(a), (b)).

16 See 52 U.S.C. § 30108.

17 See id. § 30108(c)(1)(B).