This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

3996 

Vol. 83, No. 19 

Monday, January 29, 2018 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Parts 102, 104, and 109 

[Notice 2018–01] 

Independent Expenditures by 

Authorized Committees; Reporting 

Multistate Independent Expenditures 

and Electioneering Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Election 

Commission requests comments on 

proposed changes to its regulations 

concerning independent expenditures 

by candidates. The Commission also 

requests comments on proposed 

changes to its regulations to address 

reporting of independent expenditures 

and electioneering communications that 

relate to presidential primary elections 

and that are publicly distributed in 

multiple states but that do not refer to 

any particular state’s primary election. 

The Commission has made no final 

decision on the issues and proposals 

presented in this rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: All comments must be in 

writing. Comments may be submitted 

electronically via the Commission’s 

website at http://sers.fec.gov/fosers, 

reference REG 2014–02. Commenters are 

encouraged to submit comments 

electronically to ensure timely receipt 

and consideration. Alternatively, 

comments may be submitted in paper 

form. Paper comments must be sent to 

the Federal Election Commission, Attn.: 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel. Comments submitted before 

the Commission’s relocation on March 

5, 2018 must be sent to 999 E Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20463; comments 

submitted after the Commission’s 

relocation must be sent to 1050 First 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20463. See 

Change of Address; Technical 

Amendments, 82 FR 60852 (Dec. 26, 

2017). Each commenter must provide, at 

a minimum, his or her first name, last 

name, city, state, and zip code. All 

properly submitted comments, 

including attachments, will become part 

of the public record, and the 

Commission will make comments 

available for public viewing on the 

Commission’s website and in the 

Commission’s Public Records room. 

Accordingly, commenters should not 

provide in their comments any 

information that they do not wish to 

make public, such as a home street 

address, personal email address, date of 

birth, phone number, social security 

number, or driver’s license number, or 

any information that is restricted from 

disclosure, such as trade secrets or 

commercial or financial information 

that is privileged or confidential. 

The Commission may hold a public 

hearing on this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Commenters wishing to 

testify at a hearing must so indicate in 

their comments. If a hearing is to be 

held, the Commission will publish a 

notification of hearing in the Federal 

Register announcing the date and time 

of the hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel, Ms. Esther D. Gyory, or Ms. 

Joanna S. Waldstreicher, Attorneys, 

(202) 694–1650 or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is considering revising 

some of its regulations concerning 

independent expenditures and 

electioneering communications, and it 

seeks comment on the proposed 

changes. 

The Commission is proposing 

revisions to its regulations concerning 

whether authorized committees may 

make independent expenditures. The 

Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 

U.S.C. 30101–46 (the ‘‘Act’’) and 

Commission regulations state that no 

political committee that ‘‘supports’’ 

more than one candidate may be 

designated as an authorized campaign 

committee. 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(3); 11 

CFR 102.12(c), 102.13(c). The statute 

and regulations do not define ‘‘support’’ 

for the purposes of these two provisions, 

except to state that the term ‘‘does not 

include contributions by an authorized 

committee in amounts aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election to an 

authorized committee of any other 

candidate.’’ 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(3)(B); 11 

CFR 102.12(c)(2), 102.13(c)(2). The 

Commission is considering revising its 

regulations to specifically state that for 

the purposes of these provisions, 

‘‘support’’ includes making independent 

expenditures, or, in the alternative, that 

‘‘support,’’ in this context, does not 

include independent expenditures. The 

Commission is seeking comment on the 

following proposed revisions to its 

regulations, which would clarify the 

meaning of ‘‘support’’ as it is used in 11 

CFR 102.12(c)(2) and 102.13(c)(2). In the 

event that the Commission promulgates 

final rules that exclude independent 

expenditures from the definition of 

support, the Commission is also 

proposing changes to its reporting 

regulations at 11 CFR 104.3 and 104.4 

to provide for authorized committees to 

report independent expenditures. 

The Commission is also seeking 

comment on proposed revisions to its 

regulations concerning independent 

expenditures and electioneering 

communications as they apply to 

communications that relate to 

presidential primary elections and that 

are publicly distributed in multiple 

states but that do not refer to any 

particular state’s primary election. The 

Act and Commission regulations require 

persons who make independent 

expenditures and electioneering 

communications to report certain 

information to the Commission within 

specified periods of time. See 52 U.S.C. 

30104(b)–(c), (g); 11 CFR 104.3, 104.4, 

104.20, 109.10. The Commission is 

considering revising its regulations to 

specifically address how these reporting 

requirements apply to an independent 

expenditure or electioneering 

communication that relates to a 

presidential primary election and is 

distributed in multiple states but does 

not refer to any particular state’s 

primary election (a ‘‘multistate 

independent expenditure’’ or 

‘‘multistate electioneering 

communication’’). The Commission is 

seeking comment on the following 

proposed revisions to its regulations, 

which would clarify when and how 

multistate independent expenditures 

and multistate electioneering 

communications must be reported. 

I. Background 

The Act and Commission regulations 

require that political committees report 

all disbursements. 52 U.S.C. 

30104(b)(4); 11 CFR 104.3(b). Political 

committees must also itemize their 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 3997 

1Further, Commission regulations provide that 

persons other than political committees ‘‘shall 

[also] file a report or statement for any quarterly 

period during which any such independent 

expenditures that aggregate in excess of $250 are 

made and in any quarterly reporting period 

thereafter in which additional independent 

expenditures are made.’’ 11 CFR 109.19(b). 

2 ‘‘Support’’ appears in other places in the 

regulations but is not defined in most of those other 

instances. See, e.g., 11 CFR 100.24(b)(3) (defining 

‘‘federal election activity’’ as public communication 

that refers to clearly identified candidate for federal 

office and that ‘‘promotes or supports, or attacks or 

opposes any candidate for Federal office’’), 104.5(d) 

(requiring treasurer of political committee 

‘‘supporting’’ candidate for Vice President to file 

reports on same basis as principal campaign 

committee of presidential candidate), 110.1(h) 

(addressing circumstances in which person may 

contribute to more than one committee 

‘‘supporting’’ the same candidate), 114.4(d)(1) 

(stating that corporation or labor organization may 

‘‘support or conduct’’ voter registration and get-outthe-vote drives), 114.4(d)(2) (specifying that voter 

registration and get-out-the-vote drives are not 

expenditures when they meet certain criteria, 

including that individuals conducting drive are not 

paid on basis of number of individuals registered 

or transported ‘‘who support one or more particular 

candidates’’), 300.2(m) (stating that definition of 

‘‘solicitation’’ does not include ‘‘mere statements of 

political support’’), 300.37(a)(3)(iv) (excluding from 

prohibition on fundraising for certain tax-exempt 

organizations a ‘‘political committee under [s]tate 

law, that ‘supports’ only [s]tate or local candidates 

. . . .’’). Section 100.6, which defines ‘‘connected 

organization,’’ states that, for the purposes of that 

provision, the term ‘‘financially supports’’ does not 

include contributions to a political committee, but 

does include payments of establishment, 

administration, and solicitation costs of a political 

committee. 

3 In MUR 2841 (Jenkins), the Commission stated 

that 2 U.S.C. 432(e) (now 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)) 

precluded a principal campaign committee from 

‘‘making expenditures on behalf of another 

candidate, thus supporting more than one 

candidate,’’ but ultimately decided the matter on 

other grounds. See Conciliation Agreement ¶ IV.13 

(Dec. 11, 1992), http://www.fec.gov/disclosure_

data/mur/2841.pdf. In a subsequent MUR, the 

Office of the General Counsel, relying on the 

Commission’s reasoning in MUR 2841 (Jenkins), 

recommended finding reason to believe that an 

authorized committee violated 2 U.S.C. 432(e). See 

First General Counsel’s Report at 11, MUR 3676 

(Stupak) (Jan. 11, 1995), all documents for MUR 

3676 available at http://www.fec.gov/disclosure_

data/mur/3676.pdf. The Commission rejected 

OGC’s recommendation, though the four 

Commissioners did not agree on the reasoning for 

that decision. See Thomas Statement of Reasons; 

Aikens et al. Statement of Reasons, MUR 3676 

(Stupak). 

disbursements according to specific 

categories. 52 U.S.C. 30104(b)(4); 11 

CFR 104.3(b)(1)–(2). 

An ‘‘independent expenditure’’ is an 

expenditure that expressly advocates 

the election or defeat of a clearly 

identified federal candidate and is not 

coordinated with such candidate (or his 

or her opponent) or political party. 52 

U.S.C. 30101(17); see also 11 CFR 

100.16(a). Under existing regulations, a 

political committee (other than an 

authorized committee) that makes 

independent expenditures must itemize 

those expenditures on its regular 

periodic reports, stating, among other 

things, the name of the candidate whom 

the expenditure supports or opposes 

and the office sought by that candidate. 

52 U.S.C. 30104(b)(4)(H)(iii), (6)(B)(iii); 

11 CFR 104.4(a). Any person other than 

a political committee that makes 

independent expenditures aggregating 

in excess of $250 during a calendar year 

must disclose the same information in a 

statement filed with the Commission.1

52 U.S.C. 30104(c); 11 CFR 109.10(b). 

In addition, any person that makes 

independent expenditures aggregating 

$10,000 or more for an election in any 

calendar year, up to and including the 

20th day before an election, must report 

the expenditures within 48 hours. 52 

U.S.C. 30104(g)(2)(A); 11 CFR 

104.4(b)(2), 109.10(c). Additional 

reports must be filed within 48 hours 

each time the person makes further 

independent expenditures aggregating 

$10,000 or more with respect to the 

same election. 52 U.S.C. 30104(g)(2)(B); 

11 CFR 104.4(b)(2), 109.10(c). 

Any person that makes independent 

expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more 

less than 20 days, but more than 24 

hours, before the date of an election 

must report the expenditures within 24 

hours. 52 U.S.C. 30104(g)(1)(A); 11 CFR 

104.4(c), 109.10(d). Additional reports 

must be filed within 24 hours each time 

the person makes further independent 

expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more 

with respect to the same election. 52 

U.S.C. 30104(g)(1)(B); 11 CFR 104.4(c), 

109.10(d). 

A. Independent Expenditures by 

Authorized Committees 

The Act requires that every candidate 

for federal office (other than the 

nominee for Vice President) designate a 

political committee ‘‘to serve as the 

principal campaign committee’’ for that 

candidate. 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1); 11 CFR 

102.12(a). The principal campaign 

committee of a candidate is 

‘‘authorized’’ by the candidate to receive 

contributions or to make expenditures 

on behalf of that candidate. See 11 CFR 

102.13(a)(1); 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1), (3). 

A candidate may also designate 

additional political committees to serve 

as authorized committees of that 

candidate. 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1); 11 CFR 

102.13(a)(1). The Act and Commission 

regulations state that no political 

committee that ‘‘supports’’ more than 

one candidate may be designated as an 

authorized committee. 52 U.S.C. 

30102(e)(3); 11 CFR 102.12(c), 102.13(c). 

The Act and regulations further state 

that for the purposes of these 

provisions, ‘‘the term support does not 

include contributions by an authorized 

committee in amounts aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election to an 

authorized committee of any other 

candidate,’’ but the term is not 

otherwise defined. 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2), 

102.13(c)(2); 52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(3)(B).2

Until recently, the Commission had 

not definitively addressed whether the 

term ‘‘support’’ in section 30102(e)(3) 

includes independent expenditures.3 In 

Matter Under Review (‘‘MUR’’) 6405 

(Friends of John McCain Inc., et al.), the 

Commission dismissed an allegation 

that an authorized committee violated 

52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(3) by running ads 

that expressly advocated the election of 

another candidate. Factual and Legal 

Analysis at 2–3, MUR 6405 (Friends of 

John McCain Inc., et al.) (Feb. 25, 2015), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/ 

15044371159.pdf (‘‘McCain’’). In its 

analysis, the Commission cited the 

Supreme Court’s decisions in Buckley v. 

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (striking down 

limits on independent expenditures for 

most individuals and groups), Colorado 

Republican Federal Campaign 

Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) 

(striking down limit on independent 

expenditures by political party 

committees on grounds that 

independent expenditures do not pose a 

risk of corruption or the appearance of 

corruption), and Citizens United v. FEC, 

558 U.S. 310 (2010) (striking down 

prohibition on independent 

expenditures by corporations). McCain 

at 9–10. The Commission concluded 

that ‘‘it is unlikely that independent 

spending by authorized committees 

would be deemed more potentially 

corrupting than independent 

expenditures by individuals, political 

parties, or corporations, each of which 

has been found [by the Supreme Court] 

to have a constitutional right to make 

unlimited independent expenditures.’’ 

McCain at 10. 

Currently, neither the regulations nor 

the Commission’s reporting forms 

provide a mechanism for authorized 

committees to report independent 

expenditures. Section 104.3(b)(2), which 

covers reporting by authorized 

committees, does not include 

independent expenditures made by the 

reporting committee among the 

categories of disbursements that must be 

itemized. Similarly, § 104.3(b)(4) sets 

out the categories of information that 

authorized committees must report 

about itemized disbursements and does 

not contain a provision for independent 

expenditures. Finally, section 104.4 

specifies that political committees that 

make independent expenditures must 

report them on Schedule E of FEC Form 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
3998 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4The Draft Interpretive Rules referred to the type 

of independent expenditures that are the subject of 

this proposed rulemaking as ‘‘nationwide 

independent expenditures.’’ As discussed below, 

however, the Commission has not yet determined 

the number of states in which an independent 

expenditure or electioneering communication must 

be distributed to fall under the proposed rules. 

Accordingly, such communications are referred to 

in this Notice as ‘‘multistate’’—rather than 

‘‘nationwide’’—independent expenditures and 

electioneering communications. 

5 ‘‘Memo text’’ refers to a means of including 

additional information or explanation about a 

receipt or disbursement on a Commission form. See 

FEC, Campaign Guide for Nonconnected 

Committees (2008), https://www.fec.gov/resources/ 

cms-content/documents/nongui.pdf. 

6These comments are available on the 

Commission’s website at http://www.fec.gov/law/ 

policy.shtml. 

3X, but authorized committees file Form 

3 (for House and Senate candidates) or 

Form 3P (for presidential candidates), 

neither of which contains Schedule E. 

B. Multistate Independent Expenditures 

and Electioneering Communications 

As described above, the Act and 

Commission regulations require any 

person who makes independent 

expenditures aggregating at or above 

certain threshold amounts and within 

certain periods prior to an election to 

report those independent expenditures 

within 48 or 24 hours. 52 U.S.C. 

30104(g)(1)(A), (2)(A); 11 CFR 

104.4(b)(2), (c), 109.10(c)–(d). The 48- 

and 24-hour filing requirements begin to 

run when the independent expenditures 

aggregating at least $10,000 or $1,000, 

respectively, are ‘‘publicly distributed 

or otherwise publicly disseminated’’ 11 

CFR 104.4(b)(2), (c), (f), 109.10(c)–(d). 

For purposes of calculating these 

expenditures and determining if a 

communication is ‘‘publicly 

distributed’’ within an applicable 24- 

hour pre-election filing window, each 

state’s presidential primary election is 

considered a separate election. See 

Advisory Opinion 2003–40 (U.S. Navy 

Veterans’ Good Government Fund) at 3– 

4 (noting that ‘‘publicly distributed’’ in 

section 104.4 has same meaning as the 

term in 11 CFR 100.29(b)(3)(ii)(A), 

under which each state’s presidential 

primary election is a separate election) 

(citing Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

of 2002 Reporting, 68 FR 404, 407 (Jan. 

3, 2003); Electioneering 

Communications, 67 FR 65190, 65194 

(Oct. 23, 2002)). 

An ‘‘electioneering communication,’’ 

in the context of a presidential election, 

is a broadcast, cable, or satellite 

communication that refers to a clearly 

identified candidate for President or 

Vice President and is ‘‘publicly 

distributed’’ within sixty days before a 

general election or thirty days before a 

primary election or nominating 

convention. 52 U.S.C. 30104(f)(3)(A)(i); 

11 CFR 100.29(a). If the candidate 

identified in the communication is 

seeking a party’s nomination for the 

presidential or vice presidential 

election, ‘‘publicly distributed’’ means 

the communication can be received by 

at least 50,000 people in a state where 

a primary election is being held within 

30 days, or that it can be received by at 

least 50,000 people anywhere in the 

United States within the period between 

30 days before the first day of the 

national nominating convention and the 

conclusion of the convention. 11 CFR 

100.29(b)(3). A person who makes 

electioneering communications that 

aggregate in excess of $10,000 in a 

calendar year must file a statement with 

the Commission disclosing certain 

information about the electioneering 

communication, including the election 

to which the electioneering 

communication pertains. 52 U.S.C. 

30104(f); 11 CFR 104.20(b)–(c). As with 

independent expenditures, each state’s 

presidential primary election is 

considered a separate election for 

purposes of determining whether an 

electioneering communication is 

‘‘publicly distributed’’ within the preelection reporting window. See 

Advisory Opinion 2003–40 (U.S. Navy 

Veterans’ Good Government Fund) at 

3–4. 

The Commission’s current regulations 

do not specifically address how the 

public distribution criteria and other 

reporting requirements apply to 

independent expenditures or 

electioneering communications that are 

made in the context of a presidential 

primary election and that are distributed 

in multiple states. In particular, the 

regulations do not specify which state’s 

primary election date is relevant for 

determining whether the 

communication falls within the 24-hour 

reporting window (for independent 

expenditures) or the 30-day definitional 

window (for electioneering 

communications). 

In a 2012 advisory opinion, the 

Commission considered how the 

independent expenditure reporting 

requirements applied to independent 

expenditures that supported or opposed 

a presidential primary candidate and 

were distributed nationwide without 

referring to any specific state’s primary 

election. See Advisory Opinion 2011–28 

(Western Representation PAC). In that 

advisory opinion, the Commission 

concluded that a political committee 

making such an independent 

expenditure should divide the cost of 

the independent expenditure by the 

number of states that had not yet held 

their primary elections, and should use 

the resulting amounts to determine 

whether the committee must file 24- and 

48-hour reports and for which states. Id. 

In 2014, the Commission made 

available for public comment three 

alternative draft interpretive rules on 

this topic. Draft Notices of Interpretive 

Rule Regarding Reporting Nationwide 

Independent Expenditures in 

Presidential Primary Elections (Jan. 17, 

2014) (‘‘Draft Interpretive Rules’’), 

www.fec.gov/law/policy/ 

nationwideiereporting/ 

draftnationwideiereporting.pdf.4 Draft A 

would have followed the approach set 

forth in Advisory Opinion 2011–28 

(Western Representation PAC), 

instructing persons making a 

nationwide independent expenditure to 

divide the cost of the nationwide 

independent expenditure by the number 

of states with upcoming presidential 

primary elections. Draft B would have 

instructed persons making a nationwide 

independent expenditure to report it as 

a single expenditure without indicating 

a state where the expenditure was made, 

instead using ‘‘memo text’’ 5 to indicate 

that the independent expenditure was 

made nationwide. Draft B also would 

have instructed filers to use the first day 

of the candidate’s national nominating 

convention as the election date for 

determining whether they must file 24- 

and 48-hour reports. Finally, Draft C 

would have provided the same reporting 

guidance as Draft B, except that Draft C 

would have instructed filers to use the 

date of the next presidential primary 

election (rather than the beginning of 

the national nominating convention) as 

the election date. 

The Commission received two 

comments on the Draft Interpretive 

Rules.6 Both comments generally 

supported Draft B. Both comments also 

argued that the approach in Draft A was 

unnecessarily complex and would not 

provide clear information to the public 

about the reported independent 

expenditures. 

After reviewing the comments and 

engaging in further deliberation, the 

Commission has determined that this 

issue would be better addressed through 

regulatory amendments than through an 

interpretive rule. Accordingly, the 

Commission is now seeking comment 

on proposed revisions to its regulations 

regarding reporting of independent 

expenditures and electioneering 

communications. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 3999 

7Currently, both sections 102.12 and 102.13 state 

that the national party committee of a political 

party that has been designated as the principal 

campaign committee of that party’s presidential 

candidate may contribute to another candidate in 

accordance with certain regulations. Section 102.13 

states that such contributions must be made in 

accordance with 11 CFR part 109, subpart D 

(coordinated party expenditures) and part 110 

(contribution limits and prohibitions); section 

102.12, however, states only that such contributions 

must be made in accordance with 11 CFR part 110. 

Under both alternatives A and B, proposed 

paragraph 102.12(c)(2) would be revised to include 

a reference to 11 CFR part 109, subpart D, tracking 

the existing language in 11 CFR 102.13(c)(2). 

8Because Schedule E is not currently included in 

the forms used by authorized committees, the 

Commission would add that schedule to Form 3 (for 

House and Senate candidates) and Form 3P (for 

presidential candidates). 

II. Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR Parts 

102 and 104—Independent 

Expenditures by Authorized 

Committees of a Candidate 

As set forth below, the Commission 

proposes revisions to section 102.12, 

concerning principal campaign 

committees, and section 102.13, 

concerning authorized committees. The 

Commission also proposes revisions to 

sections 104.3 and 104.4 regarding 

authorized committees’ reporting of 

independent expenditures. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

revisions, which are intended to clarify 

the type of activity that an authorized 

committee may engage in without 

‘‘supporting’’ another candidate, as well 

as to require disclosure of independent 

expenditures by authorized committees 

if such expenditures are determined to 

be permissible. 

A. Proposed New 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2)(i) 

and 102.13(c)(2)(i)—Definition of 

‘‘Support’’ 

In both sections 102.12 and 102.13, 

the Commission is proposing to 

redesignate current paragraph (c)(2) as 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) and to add new 

paragraph (c)(2)(i), which would define 

the term ‘‘support.’’ The Commission is 

proposing two alternative provisions for 

new 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2)(i) and 

102.13(c)(2)(i) and seeks comment on 

whether either alternative is preferable. 

Under either alternative, the 

regulations would continue to exclude 

from the definition of support 

contributions by an authorized 

committee in amounts aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election to an 

authorized committee of any other 

candidate. Under both alternatives, 

current §§ 102.12(c)(2) and 102.13(c)(2) 

would be redesignated as 

§§ 102.12(c)(2)(ii) and 102.13(c)(2)(ii), 

respectively. 

Under Alternative A, new 

§§ 102.12(c)(2)(i) and 102.13(c)(2)(i) 

would state that for the purposes of the 

regulation, the term ‘‘support’’ includes 

an independent expenditure by an 

authorized committee. (The proposed 

regulations would clarify that this does 

not affect the ability of a national 

committee of a political party that has 

been designated as the principal 

campaign committee of that party’s 

presidential candidate to make 

independent expenditures supporting or 

opposing other candidates. See 11 CFR 

109.36.7) Under Alternative B, new 

§§ 102.12(c)(2)(i) and 102.13(c)(2)(i) 

would state that for the purposes of the 

regulation, the term ‘‘support’’ does not 

include independent expenditures by an 

authorized committee. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the two alternatives. Is either alternative 

preferable as a matter of statutory 

interpretation, taking into account the 

applicable case law? If both alternatives 

are statutorily permissible, is either 

alternative preferable as a matter of 

policy? 

For the purposes of sections 102.12 

and 102.13, the term ‘‘support’’ does not 

include contributions aggregating 

$2,000 or less. Thus, Alternative A 

would prohibit authorized committees 

from making independent expenditures 

in any amount, while not prohibiting 

those committees from making 

contributions (including coordinated 

expenditures and coordinated 

communications, see 52 U.S.C. 

30116(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 CFR 109.20) of up 

to $2,000 to other candidates. If the 

Commission adopts Alternative A, 

should the Commission also exclude 

independent expenditures aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election from the 

definition of support? If the Commission 

adopts Alternative B, authorized 

committees would be allowed to make 

independent expenditures in any 

amount. What are the implications of 

authorized committees’ potentially 

using substantial portions of their 

resources on independent expenditures? 

B. Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR 104.3— 

Contents of Reports and 11 CFR 104.4— 

Independent Expenditures by Political 

Committees 

Currently, all political committees— 

including authorized committees—must 

report the name and address of any 

person who has received any 

disbursement in an aggregate amount 

exceeding $200 within a certain period, 

along with the date, amount, and 

purpose of such disbursement. 52 U.S.C. 

30104(b)(5), (6); 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3), (4). 

Additionally, political committees— 

other than authorized committees— 

must provide for each reported 

disbursement in connection with an 

independent expenditure the date, 

amount, and purpose of the 

independent expenditure, a statement 

indicating whether the independent 

expenditure was in support of, or in 

opposition to, a candidate, the name 

and office sought by that candidate, and 

a certification that the expenditure was, 

in fact, independent. 52 U.S.C. 

30104(b)(6)(B); 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3)(vii). 

If the Commission adopts Alternative 

B above, the Commission also proposes 

to revise 11 CFR 104.3 and 104.4 to 

provide a mechanism for authorized 

committees to report independent 

expenditures. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes revising 

§ 104.3(b)(2) to add independent 

expenditures to the categories of 

itemized disbursements for authorized 

committees, and adding new 

§ 104.3(b)(4)(iv) to require authorized 

committees to report the same 

information about independent 

expenditures that other political 

committees must report. Proposed 

§ 104.3(b)(4)(iv) would bring authorized 

and non-authorized committees into 

parity by requiring that authorized 

committees report the same information 

about independent expenditures that 

non-authorized committees are required 

to report, using the same form (Schedule 

E).8

The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposed changes to § 104.3(b)(2) 

and (4), which are intended to require 

authorized committees that make 

independent expenditures to report the 

same information, in the same manner, 

as all other political committees. If 

authorized committees make 

independent expenditures, should they 

report more or less detailed information 

about those disbursements than other 

political committees? Is there another 

method that the Commission should use 

to allow for authorized committees to 

report independent expenditures? 

The Commission also proposes 

revisions to 11 CFR 104.4 to refer to the 

new paragraphs that it proposes to add 

to section 104.3, described above. In 

§ 104.4(a), (b), (c), and (d), the 

Commission proposes adding crossreferences to 11 CFR 104.3(b)(4)(iv) to 

reflect the independent expenditure 

reporting requirements for authorized 

committees, described above. The 

Commission also proposes revising 

§ 104.4(b)(1) and (2) to omit the specific 

references to FEC Form 3X because, as 

discussed above, authorized committees 

do not file that form. These proposed 

regulatory changes would be in 

conjunction with changes to Schedule E 

and to Forms 3 and 3P. The Commission 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
4000 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

seeks comment on these proposed 

changes. 

III. Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR 104.3 

and 104.4—Reporting Multistate 

Independent Expenditures by Political 

Committees 

As set forth below, the Commission 

proposes revisions to section 104.3, 

concerning the content of independent 

expenditure reports by political 

committees, and section 104.4, 

concerning the timing of independent 

expenditure reports by political 

committees. The Commission seeks 

comment on these revisions, which are 

intended to clarify the reporting 

obligations of a political committee 

when it makes a multistate independent 

expenditure. The Commission is 

considering three alternative proposals 

and seeks comment on which 

alternative would be preferable. 

A. Alternative A 

1. Proposed New 11 CFR 

104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C)—Content of Reports 

In section 104.3, the Commission 

proposes adding new paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii)(C), which would require that 

when a political committee makes an 

independent expenditure in support of 

or in opposition to a candidate in a 

presidential primary election, and the 

communication is publicly distributed 

or otherwise disseminated in more than 

a specified number of states but does 

not refer to any particular state, the 

political committee must report the 

independent expenditure as a single 

expenditure and use memo text to 

indicate the states where the 

communication is distributed. The 

Commission would also redesignate 

current paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(C) as 

paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(D). 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the proposed new provision. Would the 

proposed paragraph provide sufficient 

guidance to political committees 

reporting multistate independent 

expenditures? Is the proposed provision 

necessary or desirable to provide full, 

accurate, and timely disclosure to the 

public regarding multistate independent 

expenditures that are made by political 

committees? 

If the Commission amends section 

104.3(b)(4) to account for independent 

expenditures by authorized committees 

as described above in Section II.B, the 

Commission would propose to include 

regulatory text in revised section 

104.3(b)(4) providing that the reporting 

requirements for authorized committees 

that make independent expenditures 

would mirror the reporting 

requirements for all other political 

committees that make independent 

expenditures. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether these proposed 

requirements should apply to multistate 

independent expenditures made by 

authorized committees. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on the number of states that would be 

the threshold for a communication to 

fall within the new paragraph. 

Requiring an independent expenditure 

to be ‘‘nationwide’’—i.e., disseminated 

in all fifty states plus the District of 

Columbia (and possibly Puerto Rico, 

Guam, and American Samoa)—would 

exclude some independent expenditures 

that are distributed in a large number of 

states (e.g., the entire continental United 

States). This would significantly limit 

the benefits and application of the 

proposed reporting rule. Alternatively, 

applying the new provision to 

independent expenditures that are 

disseminated in only a handful of states 

might result in independent 

expenditures that are targeted to a 

specific state’s primary—but partially 

distributed in neighboring states that 

share its media markets—being 

misleadingly reported as ‘‘multistate’’ 

communications. In how many states 

should an independent expenditure 

have to be distributed to fall within the 

proposed new reporting rule? Should 

the rule specify a particular number of 

states, or are there other ways to 

effectively delineate the 

communications that would be reported 

as multistate independent expenditures? 

The proposed new paragraph would 

represent a change from the 

Commission’s previous guidance on this 

issue. In Advisory Opinion 2011–28 

(Western Representation PAC), the 

Commission instructed a political 

committee to allocate the cost of a 

multistate independent expenditure 

among all the states where the 

communication was distributed. None 

of the persons who commented on the 

Draft Interpretive Rules supported 

retaining that approach, and the 

Commission is not proposing it here. 

Nonetheless, are there advantages to 

that approach that the Commission 

should consider in crafting the new 

rule? 

If the proposed new paragraph is 

adopted, the Commission recognizes 

that implementing it would likely 

require modifying the instructions for 

the Commission’s Schedule E form. The 

Commission anticipates that these 

modified instructions would provide 

political committees flexibility on how 

to report the states where the multistate 

independent expenditure is distributed. 

For example, the instructions would 

permit the memo text for a multistate 

independent expenditure to indicate 

that the independent expenditure was 

distributed ‘‘nationwide,’’ in ‘‘all fifty 

states,’’ in ‘‘IN, OH, WI, MI, MN, IL, PA, 

MO,’’ or in ‘‘all states except Alaska and 

Hawaii,’’ etc. Would such instructions 

provide sufficient guidance and 

flexibility to filers? Should the 

Commission provide more specific 

guidelines on how political committees 

should indicate the states where 

multistate independent expenditures are 

distributed? Should the proposed new 

regulation address this issue 

specifically? If so, how? 

2. Proposed New 11 CFR 104.4(f)(2)— 

Timing of Reports 

In section 104.4, the Commission is 

proposing to redesignate current 

paragraph (f) as paragraph (f)(1) and add 

new paragraph (f)(2), concerning when 

a political committee must file a 24- or 

48-hour report for a multistate 

independent expenditure. 

Following the approach proposed in 

Draft Interpretive Rule B, a political 

committee that makes a multistate 

independent expenditure would report 

it as a single expenditure, as discussed 

above, and the political committee 

would use the date of the national 

nominating convention for the clearly 

identified candidate’s party as the date 

of the election to determine whether the 

independent expenditure is within the 

20 days before the election and is 

therefore subject to the 24-hour 

reporting requirement under 52 U.S.C. 

30104(g)(1). 

The Commission seeks comment on 

this proposal. Does it provide sufficient 

guidance to political committees as to 

how to determine whether they must 

file 24-hour or 48-hour reports for 

multistate independent expenditures? Is 

this proposal preferable to the 

Commission’s existing guidance under 

Advisory Opinion 2011–28 (Western 

Representation PAC)? Would this 

proposal enhance the public’s access to 

full, accurate, and timely information 

about multistate independent 

expenditures? 

B. Alternative B 

1. Proposed New 11 CFR 

104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C)—Content of Reports 

In section 104.3, the Commission 

proposes making the same changes as 

described above under Alternative A, 

adding new paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(C) and 

redesignating current paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii)(C) as paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(D). 

2. Proposed New 11 CFR 104.4(f)(2)— 

Timing of Reports 

Similar to Alternative A, in section 

104.4, the Commission is proposing to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 4001 

redesignate current paragraph (f) as 

paragraph (f)(1) and add new paragraph 

(f)(2), concerning when a political 

committee must file a 24- or 48-hour 

report for a multistate independent 

expenditure. However, under 

Alternative B, which follows the 

approach proposed in Draft Interpretive 

Rule C, the political committee would 

determine whether the independent 

expenditure is within the 20 days before 

the election and is therefore subject to 

the 24-hour reporting requirement 

under 52 U.S.C. 30104(g)(1) by using as 

the date of the election the date of the 

next upcoming presidential primary 

among the presidential primaries to be 

held in the states in which the 

independent expenditure is distributed 

or disseminated. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

this proposal. Does it provide sufficient 

guidance to political committees as to 

how to determine whether they must 

file 24-hour or 48-hour reports for 

multistate independent expenditures? Is 

this proposal preferable to the 

Commission’s existing guidance under 

Advisory Opinion 2011–28 (Western 

Representation PAC)? Would this 

proposal enhance the public’s access to 

full, accurate, and timely information 

about multistate independent 

expenditures? 

C. Alternative C 

1. Proposed New 11 CFR 

104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C)—Multistate 

Independent Expenditures 

As with Alternatives A and B, for 

Alternative C the Commission proposes 

to amend section 104.3 by adding new 

paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(C). For Alternative 

C, however, the new paragraph would 

provide that for any independent 

expenditure in support of or in 

opposition to a candidate in a 

presidential primary election, where the 

communication is publicly distributed 

or otherwise disseminated in more than 

a specified number of states but does 

not refer to any particular state, the 

political committee must report the 

independent expenditure according to 

new section 104.4(f)(2), discussed 

below. The Commission would also 

redesignate current paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii)(C) as paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(D). 

2. Proposed New 11 CFR 104.4(f)(2)— 

Reporting Multistate Independent 

Expenditures 

As with Alternatives A and B, for 

Alternative C the Commission proposes 

to amend section 104.4 by redesignating 

current paragraph (f) as paragraph (f)(1) 

and adding new paragraph (f)(2). Under 

Alternative C, new paragraph (f)(2) 

would bring together all of the 

aggregation and reporting requirements 

for multistate independent expenditures 

in one paragraph. New section 

104.4(f)(2) would set forth the 

requirements for determining whether 

and when a 24- or 48-hour report is 

required, along with the specific 

information to be included in such a 

report. 

In contrast to Alternatives A and B, 

which would require a political 

committee to determine whether a 24- 

hour report is required based on the 

total amount of the independent 

expenditure, Alternative C would 

require political committees to allocate 

the amount of the expenditure among 

the states where it is distributed whose 

primary elections have yet to occur. 

Political committees who file 

electronically would be able to rely on 

the new electronic filing system that the 

Commission expects to introduce before 

the 2020 election cycle or third-party 

electronic filing software to do this 

calculation. If this alternative is 

adopted, the Commission also proposes 

to make a calculator available on its 

website to aid political committees that 

do not file electronically in making the 

necessary allocations. 

Under Alternative C, a political 

committee would disregard any states 

where the communication was 

distributed but where the presidential 

primary election has already occurred, 

and would allocate the total amount of 

the independent expenditure among the 

remaining states, according to a ratio 

based on the number of U.S. House of 

Representatives districts apportioned to 

each state. 

For purposes of determining whether 

the independent expenditure is within 

the 20 days before the election and is 

therefore subject to the 24-hour 

reporting requirement under 52 U.S.C. 

30104(g)(1), the political committee 

would use the date of the next 

upcoming primary election among the 

states where the independent 

expenditure was distributed. If that date 

is more than 20 days away from the date 

of the expenditure and the amount 

allocated to that state causes the 

political committee’s aggregate spending 

in that state to exceed $10,000, the 

committee would be required to file a 

48-hour report. If that date is between 1 

and 20 days away and the amount 

allocated to that state causes the 

political committee’s aggregate spending 

in that state to exceed $1,000, the 

committee would be required to file a 

24-hour report. 

Information about the dates of the 

major-party presidential primary 

elections and the number of House 

districts apportioned to each state 

would be incorporated into the 

Commission’s electronic filing system, 

so a political committee that filed 

electronically would be able to enter the 

date and amount of the independent 

expenditure and the states where it was 

distributed, and the software would do 

the calculation to determine whether 

any reports were required. The same 

information would be provided on the 

Commission’s website for the benefit of 

any political committees that do not file 

electronically, in the form of a 

calculator that would perform the 

allocation calculation when a political 

committee enters the amount and date 

of a communication and the states in 

which it is publicly distributed. 

Example: A political committee spent 

$40,000 on an independent expenditure 

broadcast in Texas, Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Oklahoma on March 15, 

where the next upcoming primary 

election was going to be in Oklahoma on 

March 20. There are a total of 53 House 

districts in those four states: 9 in 

Arizona, 3 in New Mexico, 5 in 

Oklahoma, and 36 in Texas. On the date 

the communication was distributed, all 

four states where it was distributed had 

yet to hold their presidential primary 

elections. Therefore the political 

committee would allocate the $40,000 

according to each state’s proportion of 

House districts out of the 53 total: 

$6,792 for Arizona (40,000 × (9/53)), 

$2,264 for New Mexico (40,000 × 

(3/53)), $3,773 for Oklahoma (40,000 × 

(5/53)), and $27,169 for Texas (40,000 × 

(36/53)). Because the next upcoming 

primary election where the 

communication was distributed would 

be within 20 days, in Oklahoma, and the 

political committee would have spent 

more than $1,000 in that state, a 24-hour 

report would be required. 

The Commission acknowledges that 

the proposed allocation calculation may 

seem complex, but notes that this 

proposal would allow political 

committees to take advantage of 

advancing technology to relieve them of 

the burden of determining whether and 

when to report multistate independent 

expenditures. A political committee 

would need only enter the date and total 

amount of an independent expenditure 

and the states in which it was publicly 

distributed, and the electronic filing 

system or calculator would determine 

whether a 24- or 48-hour report was 

required and what amount to allocate to 

each state. The Commission would not 

implement Alternative C until the new 

electronic filing system and calculator 

were in place so as to avoid requiring 

any political committee to perform the 

allocation calculation manually. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
4002 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Would Alternative C satisfy the Act’s 

provisions for reporting independent 

expenditures? Would this approach 

enhance the public’s access to full, 

accurate, and timely information about 

multistate independent expenditures? 

Would this proposal provide sufficient 

guidance to political committees as to 

how to determine whether they must 

file 24-hour or 48-hour reports for 

multistate independent expenditures 

and what information to include in such 

reports? Is this proposal preferable to 

the Commission’s existing guidance 

under Advisory Opinion 2011–28 

(Western Representation PAC)? Does the 

feasibility of this proposal depend on 

whether a political committee files 

electronically, and if so, is the number 

of political committees that make 

multistate independent expenditures 

but do not file electronically significant? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it is appropriate or desirable to 

use House representation, which is 

based on population, as a basis for 

allocation. Does the use of House 

districts assume that the entire 

population of a state receives the 

communication, and does that question 

make a difference in how independent 

expenditures should be reported? Does 

this proposed use of House districts to 

determine whether and when 

independent expenditures must be 

reported differ materially from proposed 

Alternatives A and B? 

The Commission also seeks overall 

comment on which of the three 

alternatives (A, B or C) is preferable 

with respect to (1) the burden on the 

political committees that must report 

their multistate independent 

expenditures, and (2) the usefulness of 

the information disclosed to the public. 

Are there other approaches that might 

be preferable to any of these proposed 

alternatives? 

IV. Proposed Revision to 11 CFR 

109.10—Reporting Multistate 

Independent Expenditures by Persons 

Other Than Political Committees 

In 11 CFR 109.10(e)—which addresses 

the content of independent expenditure 

reports filed by persons other than 

political committees—the Commission 

proposes to reference the requirements 

for reporting multistate independent 

expenditures that the Commission 

proposes to add to section 

104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C) or in new section 

104.4(f)(2). Specifically, revised section 

109.10(e)(1)(iv) would provide that 

when a person other than a political 

committee makes an expenditure 

meeting the criteria set forth in section 

104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C) (i.e., an independent 

expenditure that supports or opposes a 

presidential primary candidate and that 

is distributed in more than the specified 

number of states but does not refer to 

any particular state), the person must 

report the expenditure pursuant to the 

provisions of section 104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C) 

or section 104.4(f)(2). 

The Commission requests comments 

on this proposed revision to 11 CFR 

109.10. Should the reporting 

requirements for multistate independent 

expenditures made by persons other 

than political committees parallel the 

reporting requirements for multistate 

independent expenditures made by 

political committees? Although 

Advisory Opinion 2011–28 (Western 

Representation PAC) and the Draft 

Interpretive Rules did not address how 

persons other than political committees 

should report multistate independent 

expenditures, is there any legal or 

policy reason that the reporting 

requirements for political committees 

and for other persons should differ in 

the context of multistate independent 

expenditures? Does the proposed 

revision to section 109.10 clarify the 

reporting obligations of persons who 

make multistate independent 

expenditures? Is the proposed revision 

to section 109.10 necessary or desirable 

to provide full, accurate, and timely 

disclosure to the public regarding 

multistate independent expenditures 

made by persons other than political 

committees? Would the proposed 

revision reduce or increase the 

administrative burden on such persons? 

If the proposed revision does increase 

the administrative burden on such 

persons, is that burden outweighed by 

the usefulness of the information 

disclosed to the public? 

V. Proposed Revision to 11 CFR 

104.20—Electioneering 

Communications 

In section 104.20(c), which concerns 

the content of reports regarding 

electioneering communications, the 

Commission proposes to add a new 

paragraph (c)(6) and redesignate current 

paragraphs (c)(6)–(9) as paragraphs 

(c)(7)–(10). Proposed new paragraph 

(c)(6) would apply when the relevant 

election (which the reporting person is 

required to disclose pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(5)) is a presidential 

primary election and the electioneering 

communication is distributed in more 

than a specified number of states but 

does not refer to any particular state’s 

primary election. 

In such situations, this new paragraph 

would parallel the new reporting 

requirements for multistate independent 

expenditures as discussed above, either 

new section 104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C) if 

Alternative A or B is adopted, or new 

section 104.4(f)(2) if Alternative C is 

adopted. If Alternative A or B is 

adopted, new paragraph (c)(6) would 

provide that the reporting person must 

report the electioneering 

communication as a single 

communication and use a memo text to 

indicate the states in which the 

communication constitutes an 

electioneering communication (as 

defined in 11 CFR 100.29(a)). 

If Alternative C is adopted, new 

paragraph (c)(6) would provide that the 

reporting person must allocate the cost 

of the communication among the states 

where it is publicly distributed and 

whose presidential primary elections 

have not yet occurred as set forth in new 

section 104.4(f)(2). The proposed 

revision would thus treat multistate 

electioneering communications 

similarly to multistate independent 

expenditures, as discussed above. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the proposed revision to section 104.20. 

Should multistate electioneering 

communications be treated similarly to 

multistate independent expenditures, or 

are there differences between the two 

types of communications or the persons 

that make them that would call for 

different reporting requirements? 

Should the same number of states 

constitute the threshold for multistate 

independent expenditures and 

multistate electioneering 

communications? Should the cost of an 

electioneering communication be 

allocated among the states where the 

communication is publicly distributed 

for reporting purposes? 

Would the proposed new paragraph 

increase or decrease the administrative 

burden on persons reporting 

electioneering communications? If the 

proposed revision does increase the 

administrative burden on such persons, 

is that burden outweighed by the 

usefulness of the information disclosed 

to the public? Would the proposed 

revision provide sufficient information 

on how persons making multistate 

electioneering communications should 

disclose them? Is the proposed revision 

necessary or desirable to provide full, 

accurate, and timely disclosure of 

information about multistate 

electioneering communications to the 

public? 

Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility 

Act) 

The Commission certifies that the 

attached proposed rules, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed rules would 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 4003 

clarify whether authorized committees 

may make independent expenditures 

and provide a mechanism for authorized 

committees to report independent 

expenditures. The proposed reporting 

requirements would only affect 

authorized committees that choose to 

make independent expenditures. 

Moreover, authorized committees are 

already required to report all 

disbursements, as well as the name and 

address of any person who has received 

any disbursement in an aggregate 

amount exceeding $200 within a certain 

period, along with the date, amount, 

and purpose of such disbursement. 

Thus, the proposed rules would not 

materially change the amount of 

information reported, but rather would 

change how disbursements for 

independent expenditures are identified 

on reports. 

The proposed rules would also 

provide for consolidated reporting of 

certain independent expenditures and 

electioneering communications that the 

Commission’s current reporting 

guidance indicates should be allocated 

among elections in multiple states. The 

Commission anticipates that the 

proposed consolidation of these reports 

would generally result in a modest 

reduction of the administrative burdens 

on reporting entities, and it would not 

impose any new reporting obligations. 

Thus, to the extent that any entities 

affected by these proposed rules might 

fall within the definition of ‘‘small 

businesses’’ or ‘‘small organizations,’’ 

the economic impact of complying with 

these rules would not be significant. 

List of Subjects 

11 CFR Part 102 

Political committees and parties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

11 CFR Part 104 

Campaign funds, Political committees 

and parties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

11 CFR Part 109 

Elections, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Federal Election 

Commission proposes to amend 11 CFR 

chapter 1, as follows: 

PART 102—REGISTRATION, 

ORGANIZATION, AND 

RECORDKEEPING BY POLITICAL 

COMMITTEES (52 U.S.C. 30103) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 102 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 52 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 

30104(a)(11), 30111(a)(8), and 30120. 

■ 2. Revise paragraph (c)(2) of § 102.12 

to read as follows: 

§ 102.12 Designation of principal 

campaign committee (52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1) 

and (3)). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Alternative A 

(2)(i) For purposes of paragraph (c) of 

this section, the term support includes 

an independent expenditure by an 

authorized committee. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraph (c) of 

this section, the term support does not 

include contributions by an authorized 

committee in amounts aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election to an 

authorized committee of any other 

candidate. 

(iii) Nothing in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section affects the ability of a national 

committee of a political party that has 

been designated as the principal 

campaign committee of that party’s 

presidential candidate to contribute to 

or make independent expenditures in 

support of another candidate in 

accordance with 11 CFR part 109, 

subpart D, and 11 CFR part 110. 

Alternative B 

(2) For purposes of paragraph (c) of 

this section, the term support does not 

include: 

(i) Independent expenditures by an 

authorized committee in any amount; or 

(ii) Contributions by an authorized 

committee in amounts aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election to an 

authorized committee of any other 

candidate, except that the national 

committee of a political party which has 

been designated as the principal 

campaign committee of that party’s 

presidential candidate may contribute to 

another candidate in accordance with 

11 CFR part 109, subpart D, and part 

110. 

■ 3. Revise paragraph (c)(2) of § 102.13 

to read as follows: 

§ 102.13 Authorization of political 

committees (52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1) and (3)). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Alternative A 

(2)(i) For purposes of paragraph (c) of 

this section, the term support includes 

an independent expenditure by an 

authorized committee. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraph (c) of 

this section, the term support does not 

include contributions by an authorized 

committee in amounts aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election to an 

authorized committee of any other 

candidate. 

(iii) Nothing in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section affects the ability of a national 

committee of a political party that has 

been designated as the principal 

campaign committee of that party’s 

presidential candidate to contribute to 

or make independent expenditures in 

support of another candidate in 

accordance with 11 CFR part 109, 

subpart D, and 11 CFR part 110. 

Alternative B 

(2) For purposes of paragraph (c) of 

this section, the term support does not 

include: 

(i) Independent expenditures by an 

authorized committee in any amount; or 

(ii) Contributions by an authorized 

committee in amounts aggregating 

$2,000 or less per election to an 

authorized committee of any other 

candidate, except that the national 

committee of a political party which has 

been designated as the principal 

campaign committee of that party’s 

presidential candidate may contribute to 

another candidate in accordance with 

11 CFR part 109, subpart D, and 11 CFR 

part 110. 

PART 104—REPORTS BY POLITICAL 

COMMITTEES AND OTHER PERSONS 

(52 U.S.C. 30104) 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 104 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 52 U.S.C. 30101(1), 30101(8), 

30101(9), 30102(i), 30104, 30111(a)(8) and 

(b), 30114, 30116, 36 U.S.C. 510. 

§ 104.3 [Amended] 

■ 5. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2)(vi) 

and (b)(2)(vii) as (b)(2)(vii) and 

(b)(2)(viii). 

■ 6. Add new paragraph (b)(2)(vi) and 

revise paragraphs (b)(3)(vii)(C) and (D) 

and (b)(4)(vi) to read as follows: 

§ 104.3 Contents of Reports. 

Alternatives A and B 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vi) Independent expenditures made 

by the reporting committee; 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vii) * * * 

(C) For an independent expenditure 

that is made in support of or opposition 

to a presidential primary candidate and 

is publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated in more than __ 

states but does not refer to any 

particular state, the political committee 

must report the independent 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
4004 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

expenditure as a single expenditure— 

i.e., without allocating it among states— 

and must use memo text to indicate the 

states in which the communication is 

distributed. 

(D) The information required by 11 

CFR 104.3(b)(3)(vii)(A) through (C) shall 

be reported on Schedule E as part of a 

report covering the reporting period in 

which the aggregate disbursements for 

any independent expenditure to any 

person exceed $200 per calendar year. 

Schedule E shall also include the total 

of all such expenditures of $200 or less 

made during the reporting period. 

(4) * * * 

(iv)(A) Each person who receives any 

disbursement during the reporting 

period in an aggregate amount or value 

in excess of $200 within the calendar 

year in connection with an independent 

expenditure by the reporting committee, 

together with the date, amount, and 

purpose of any such independent 

expenditure(s); 

(B) For each independent expenditure 

reported, the committee must also 

provide a statement which indicates 

whether such independent expenditure 

is in support of, or in opposition to a 

particular candidate, as well as the 

name of the candidate and office sought 

by such candidate (including State and 

Congressional district, when 

applicable), and a certification, under 

penalty of perjury, as to whether such 

independent expenditure is made in 

cooperation, consultation or concert 

with, or at the request or suggestion of, 

any other candidate or any other 

authorized committee or agent of such 

committee; 

(C) For an independent expenditure 

that is made in support of or opposition 

to a presidential primary candidate and 

is publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated in more than __ 

states but does not refer to any 

particular state, the political committee 

must report the independent 

expenditure as a single expenditure— 

i.e., without allocating it among states— 

and must use memo text to indicate the 

states in which the communication is 

distributed. 

(D) The information required by 11 

CFR 104.3(b)(4)(iv)(A) through (C) shall 

be reported on Schedule E as part of a 

report covering the reporting period in 

which the aggregate disbursements for 

any independent expenditure to any 

person exceed $200 per calendar year. 

Schedule E shall also include the total 

of all such expenditures of $200 or less 

made during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

Alternative C 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vi) Independent expenditures made 

by the reporting committee; 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vii) * * * 

(C) For an independent expenditure 

that is made in support of or opposition 

to a presidential primary candidate and 

is publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated in more than __ 

states but does not refer to any 

particular state, the political committee 

must report the independent 

expenditure according to 11 CFR 

104.4(f)(2). 

(D) The information required by 11 

CFR 104.3(b)(3)(vii)(A) through (C) shall 

be reported on Schedule E as part of a 

report covering the reporting period in 

which the aggregate disbursements for 

any independent expenditure to any 

person exceed $200 per calendar year. 

Schedule E shall also include the total 

of all such expenditures of $200 or less 

made during the reporting period. 

(4) * * * 

(iv)(A) Each person who receives any 

disbursement during the reporting 

period in an aggregate amount or value 

in excess of $200 within the calendar 

year in connection with an independent 

expenditure by the reporting committee, 

together with the date, amount, and 

purpose of any such independent 

expenditure(s); 

(B) For each independent expenditure 

reported, the committee must also 

provide a statement which indicates 

whether such independent expenditure 

is in support of, or in opposition to a 

particular candidate, as well as the 

name of the candidate and office sought 

by such candidate (including State and 

Congressional district, when 

applicable), and a certification, under 

penalty of perjury, as to whether such 

independent expenditure is made in 

cooperation, consultation or concert 

with, or at the request or suggestion of, 

any other candidate or any other 

authorized committee or agent of such 

committee; 

(C) For an independent expenditure 

that is made in support of or opposition 

to a presidential primary candidate and 

is publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated in more than __ 

states but does not refer to any 

particular state, the political committee 

must report the independent 

expenditure according to 11 CFR 

104.4(f)(2). 

(D) The information required by 11 

CFR 104.3(b)(4)(iv)(A) through (C) shall 

be reported on Schedule E as part of a 

report covering the reporting period in 

which the aggregate disbursements for 

any independent expenditure to any 

person exceed $200 per calendar year. 

Schedule E shall also include the total 

of all such expenditures of $200 or less 

made during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 104.4 by 

■ a. In paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), 

adding ‘‘and (b)(4)(vi)’’ after ‘‘11 CFR 

104.3(b)(3)(iv)’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b) removing ‘‘FEC 

Form 3X’’ and adding, in its place, the 

words ‘‘the applicable FEC Form’’; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (f) as to read as 

follows: 

§ 104.4 Independent expenditures by 

political committees. 

* * * * * 

(f) Aggregating independent 

expenditures for reporting purposes. (1) 

For purposes of determining whether 

24-hour and 48-hour reports must be 

filed in accordance with paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section and 11 CFR 

109.10(c) and (d), aggregations of 

independent expenditures must be 

calculated as of the first date on which 

a communication that constitutes an 

independent expenditure is publicly 

distributed or otherwise publicly 

disseminated, and as of the date that 

any such communication with respect 

to the same election is subsequently 

publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated. Every person 

must include in the aggregate total all 

disbursements during the calendar year 

for independent expenditures, and all 

enforceable contracts, either oral or 

written, obligating funds for 

disbursements during the calendar year 

for independent expenditures, where 

those independent expenditures are 

made with respect to the same election 

for Federal office. 

Alternative A 

(2) For purposes of determining 

whether 24-hour or 48-hour reports 

must be filed in accordance with 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 

and 11 CFR 109.10(c) and (d), if the 

independent expenditure is made in 

support of or opposition to a candidate 

in a presidential primary election and is 

publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated in more than __ 

states but does not refer to any 

particular state, the date of the election 

is the first day of the national 

nominating convention of the party 

whose nomination the candidate is 

seeking. 

Alternative B 

(2) For purposes of determining 

whether 24-hour or 48-hour reports 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 4005 

must be filed in accordance with 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 

and 11 CFR 109.10(c) and (d), if the 

independent expenditure is made in 

support of or opposition to a candidate 

in a presidential primary election and is 

publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated in more than __ 

states but does not refer to any 

particular state, the date of the election 

is the date of the next upcoming 

presidential primary election among the 

presidential primary elections to be held 

in the states in which the independent 

expenditure is publicly distributed or 

disseminated. 

Alternative C 

(2) Multistate independent 

expenditures. (i) If an independent 

expenditure is made in support of or 

opposition to a candidate in a 

presidential primary election and is 

publicly distributed or otherwise 

publicly disseminated in more than __ 

states but does not refer to any 

particular state, the political committee 

must allocate the total amount of the 

expenditure among each of the states 

where it is publicly distributed or 

disseminated and where the 

presidential primary election has yet to 

occur, according to the number of 

Congressional districts apportioned to 

each such state relative to the total 

number of Congressional districts in all 

such states. 

(ii) If the communication is publicly 

distributed or otherwise publicly 

disseminated up to and including the 

20th day before the next upcoming 

presidential primary election in any of 

the states, and the amount calculated in 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section 

aggregates to $10,000 or more with 

respect to any of the states in that 

calendar year, the political committee 

must file a 48-hour report in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(iii) If the communication is publicly 

distributed or otherwise publicly 

disseminated after the 20th day but 

more than 24 hours before 12:01 a.m. of 

the day of the next upcoming 

presidential primary election in any of 

the states, and the amount calculated in 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section 

aggregates to $1,000 or more with 

respect to any of the states, the political 

committee must file a 24-hour report in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(iv) For any report of an independent 

expenditure included on a political 

committee’s regular report under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or any 

48- or 24-hour report of an independent 

expenditure, the political committee 

must indicate the date and amount of 

the expenditure, and list the states in 

which the communication is publicly 

disseminated or otherwise publicly 

distributed. 

§ 104.20 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 104.20: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(6) 

through (c)(9) as paragraphs (c)(7) 

through (c)(10). 

■ b. Revise the heading and add new 

paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 104.20 Reporting electioneering 

communications (52 U.S.C. 30104(f)). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Alternatives A and B 

(6) If the election identified pursuant 

to paragraph (c)(5) of this section is a 

presidential primary election and the 

electioneering communication is 

publicly distributed or otherwise 

disseminated in more than __ states but 

does not refer to any particular state, the 

electioneering communication shall be 

reported as a single communication, and 

the states in which it constitutes an 

electioneering communication (as 

defined in 11 CFR 100.29(a)) shall be 

indicated in memo text. 

Alternative C 

(6) If the election identified pursuant 

to paragraph (c)(5) of this section is a 

presidential primary election and the 

electioneering communication is 

publicly distributed or otherwise 

disseminated in more than __ states but 

does not refer to any particular state, the 

cost of the electioneering 

communication shall be allocated 

among the states where it is publicly 

distributed or otherwise disseminated in 

accordance with § 104.4(f)(2)(A). 

* * * * * 

PART 109—COORDINATED AND 

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES (52 

U.S.C. 30101(17), 30116(A) AND (D), 

AND PUBLIC LAW 107–155 SEC. 

214(C)) 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 109 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 52 U.S.C. 30101(17), 30104(c), 

30111(a)(8), 30116, 30120; Sec. 214(c), 

Pub. L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81. 

■ 9. Revise paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of 

§ 109.10 as follows: 

§ 109.10 How do political committees and 

other persons report independent 

expenditures? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Alternatives A and B 

(iv) A statement that indicates 

whether such expenditure was in 

support of, or in opposition to a 

candidate, together with the candidate’s 

name and office sought; if the 

expenditure meets the criteria set forth 

in § 104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C), memo text must 

be used to indicate the states in which 

the communication is distributed, as 

prescribed in that section; 

Alternative C 

(iv) A statement that indicates 

whether such expenditure was in 

support of, or in opposition to a 

candidate, together with the candidate’s 

name and office sought; if the 

expenditure meets the criteria set forth 

in § 104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C), the 

communication must be reported in 

accordance with § 104.4(f)(2); 

* * * * * 

On behalf of the Commission. 

Dated: January 17, 2018. 

Caroline C. Hunter, 

Chair, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01074 Filed 1–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 125 

RIN 3245–AG85 

Ownership and Control of ServiceDisabled Veteran-Owned Small 

Business Concerns 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA or Agency) 

proposes to amend its regulations to 

implement provisions of The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (NDAA 2017). The NDAA 

2017 placed the responsibility for 

issuing regulations relating to 

ownership and control for the 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

verification of Veteran-Owned (VO) and 

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 

(SDVO) Small Business Concern (SBC) 

with the SBA. Pursuant to NDAA 2017, 

there will be one definition of 

ownership and control for these 

concerns, which will apply to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs in its 

verification and Vets First Contracting 

Program procurements, and all other 

government acquisitions which require 

self-certification. The legislation also 

provides that in certain circumstances a 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS