Private right of action

Arizona A.R.S. § 16-957(C) explicitly grants candidates a private right of action to bring civil suit in superior court to impose campaign-finance penalties if the commission fails to act within thirty days. The statute clearly defines who may sue (opposing candidates in the same election contest), the trigger condition (commission inaction within 30 days), and the remedy available (civil penalties under § 16-942). This directly satisfies the procedural requirement for a private enforcement mechanism.

“Any candidate in a particular election contest who believes that any opposing candidate has violated this article for that election may file a complaint with the commission requesting that action be taken pursuant to this section. If the commission fails to make a finding under subsection A of this section within thirty days after the filing of such a complaint, the candidate may bring a civil action in the superior court to impose the civil penalties prescribed in this section.”

Section 7-6-218(a)(1) explicitly grants any citizen a statutory right to file complaints with the Arkansas Ethics Commission for campaign-finance violations. This establishes a private right of action by creating a direct mechanism through which citizens can initiate enforcement proceedings against alleged violators. The statute specifies the filing deadline, procedures, and that the Ethics Commission must investigate and notify the complainant of final action, providing comprehensive procedural grounding for citizen enforcement.

Cal. Elec. Code § 18564.5(a) authorizes the SoS, AG, and local elections officials to bring civil actions against tampering — a multi-party enforcement scheme. Combined with PRA private-right-of-action (Gov Code 91007, not ingested) which gives ANY person standing to bring suit after 60-day administrative notice. Codified.

§ 88 codifies private right of action — every voter may complain to the Folketing about Folketing elections. § 103 codifies parallel for referendums. § 104 codifies materials retention. Private right of action for election disputes codified.

§ 101 codifies a private right of action: every person whose interest or right a decision infringes, every candidate, and every eligible voter in the constituency may appeal an election result on the ground that it was unlawfully conducted. § 102 codifies appeal to the regional administrative court within 14 days, handled urgently. § 27 codifies the parallel private appeal against voter-register decisions. § 106 codifies re-run of the election where an appeal so requires. Comprehensive private-action framework codified.

§ 97.029 codifies a private right of civil action to challenge election-law validity. § 106.27 (5110) provides criminal-proceeding pathway via competent court.

“In a civil action challenging the validity of a provision of the Florida Election Code in which a state or county agency or officer is a party in state or federal court”

The statute explicitly grants any voter (vælger) and any candidate (kandidat) a private right to file written complaints (klage) regarding election validity with the relevant electoral board. This establishes a statutory basis for private parties to bring complaints challenging election conduct, which satisfies the criterion for a private right of action in the electoral context. Campaign-finance violations affecting election validity can be raised through this mechanism.

The statute explicitly grants any person the right to file a complaint regarding campaign-finance violations (Title III covers campaign finance). This establishes a statutory private right of action by permitting citizen suit without limiting filers to government officials or parties. The provision is codified in statute and does not delegate the right to administrative discretion.

Article 465(1) explicitly grants any person (and legal entities through their representatives) a private right to file complaints or denunciations for alleged violations of electoral law, including campaign-finance violations. The statute establishes clear procedural requirements for such complaints (filing forms, documentation, proof submission) and creates a defined administrative review process, satisfying the statutory grounding and enforcement mechanism required for ENF.3.

§ 209.021 codifies notice of contest — a private right of action for election contests, with service-of-process and timing rules (5 days after primary canvass, 7 days after general). § 211B.075 codifies penalties for voter intimidation/interference with a private-action component. Private right of action for election disputes codified.

The section explicitly grants any registered voter the right to file a written complaint under oath with the State Board alleging campaign-finance violations (filing failures or non-conformity with statutory requirements). This codifies a private right of action to initiate enforcement proceedings, with the Board required to notify the accused entity and provide an opportunity to respond before action is taken.

“A written complaint is filed under oath with the State Board by any registered voter of this State alleging that a statement filed with the State Board does not conform to this Article or to the truth or that an individual, candidate, treasurer, political committee, referendum committee, media, or other entity has failed to file a statement required by this Article.”

§ 16.1-16-06 codifies private right of action for election contests, tried as civil actions in district court within 10 days of filing. § 16.1-16-04 codifies time-for-action. Private right of action for election-related disputes codified.

“Election contest actions must be tried as civil actions to the court without a jury. The district court shall set the hearing on the contest action not more than ten days after the filing of the contest answer.”

§ 16-5 codifies private right to complain about election validity. § 16-2 / § 16-3 codify standing to challenge Storting/county election preparation/conduct. § 16-7 codifies complaint form. § 16-8 codifies complaint procedure. Private right of action for election-law violations codified.

ORS § 260.532(5) explicitly grants a private right of action to candidates and political committees aggrieved by violations of the false-statement prohibition. The statute defines standing (aggrieved party), venue (any county where defendant resides or publication occurred), the burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence), available remedies (economic and noneconomic damages, minimum $2,500, attorney fees, and equitable relief), and procedural requirements (30-day filing deadline, expedited adjudication). This is a comprehensive statutory right of action with defined enforcement procedures.

Article 33.º, paragraph 2, explicitly grants citizens (cidadãos eleitores) a statutory right to file complaints (queixa) regarding campaign-finance violations to the competent enforcement entity. This constitutes a private right of action codified in statute, enabling electoral citizens to trigger enforcement proceedings without dependence solely on governmental initiative.

“A Entidade das Contas e Financiamentos Políticos atua, nos prazos legais, por iniciativa própria ou mediante queixa apresentada pelos cidadãos eleitores.”

§ 12-27-35 codifies that 'investigation and prosecution of violations [is] by attorney general — civil actions' — explicit civil-action authority. § 12-27-40 codifies parallel for state's attorney (county prosecutor) civil actions. Private right-of-action through public-prosecutor + injured-party suits codified.

15 kap. 5 § codifies private right of action via appeal to the Valprövningsnämnden. 15 kap. 4 § codifies standing. 15 kap. 6 § codifies submission. 15 kap. 7 § codifies misdirected-appeal acceptance. Comprehensive private-action framework for election disputes codified.

Section 20A-11-1104(6)(a) explicitly establishes a private right of action by permitting 'a person' to bring a civil action against creators or sponsors of synthetic media in campaign communications, with a defined penalty structure (up to $1,000 per violation). This provides clear statutory authorization for private enforcement of the synthetic-media disclosure requirements codified in this section.

“In a civil action brought against the creator or the sponsor of content that includes synthetic media by a person to enforce this section, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 against a person for each violation of this section that the court finds a person has committed.”

Section 383 provides a limited private right of action: candidates in an election may apply for injunctions against conduct that contravenes the Act or Commonwealth electoral law (subsections 1-2). However, this mechanism is narrowly confined to injunctive relief rather than broader enforcement (damages, penalties, or administrative complaints), and applies only to candidates, not general citizens. The Electoral Commission retains the broader enforcement role. The statute does codify candidate standing, satisfying part of the criterion, but the scope is restricted and does not establish a comprehensive private enforcement framework for campaign-finance violations generally.

“in a case where the conduct relates to an election—a candidate in the election; or (b) in any case—the Electoral Commission; grant an injunction restraining the first ‑ mentioned person from engaging in the conduct”

§ 21-2-33 codifies hearings before the State Election Board with right of complaint and appeal. § 21-2-33.1 codifies enforcement. § 21-2-229 codifies private-elector challenge to applicant registration. Limited private-action framework codified for election violations; campaign-finance private rights via separate § 21-5 chapter.

Article 115(2) establishes that criminal offences under the Act are prosecuted before the Courts of Magistrates, but the section does not explicitly grant a private right of action to citizens or political parties to sue for campaign-finance violations. The provision addresses governmental enforcement (criminal prosecution) but is silent on whether private actors may initiate or participate in enforcement. A credible legal interpreter could reasonably conclude that only public prosecutors (the Attorney General under art. 115(4)) may bring proceedings.

“(2) Any criminal proceedings for offences under this Act shall be brought before the Courts of Magistrates and subject to the following provisions of this article, the provisions of the Criminal Code shall apply to any such proceedings.”

§ 13-37-130 establishes that the civil action under § 13-37-128/129 is the exclusive remedy for campaign-finance violations; § 13-37-124 lets a private citizen bring that action if the Commissioner and county attorney decline — a limited private right of action, not a general one.

This section establishes evidentiary presumptions applicable 'for purposes of a civil action,' which presupposes the existence of a private right of action but does not itself create or authorize one. The statute assumes civil litigation is available to challenge campaign-contribution solicitations but does not enumerate standing, remedies, statutes of limitation, or the substantive cause of action. A complete private-right-of-action framework requires explicit authorization of suit, who may sue, and available remedies—none of which appear in this section.

§ 14-126 codifies violations/penalties with state-board enforcement as primary; § 14-127 codifies civil-penalty notice. Private rights of action are limited — civil-penalty actions are typically brought by the state board / attorney general, though candidates/committees may seek judicial review under § 16-* for contests involving their own filings.

MP Election Law Article 19 grants a citizen private right of action via administrative court within 48 hours of a list-keeping decision. The right is bounded to voter-list disputes, not the full campaign-finance enforcement landscape, hence partial.

“Против решења из става 3. овог члана може се, у року од 48 часова од часа достављања решења, поднети тужба суду надлежном за решавање у управним споровима.”

52 USC § 20510 codifies NVRA civil enforcement and private right of action: 'A person who is aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may provide written notice... bring a civil action'. NVRA private right, not FECA private right.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 17-5-7 establishes permissible uses and acceptable sources of campaign contributions, but contains no language authorizing private parties, citizens, or political parties to bring suit for violations of these rules. The section describes what candidates and committees may and may not do, but does not create a private right of action for enforcement. Procedural enforcement mechanisms are absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 15.10.100 addresses judicial review of precinct-boundary determinations, not campaign-finance violations or enforcement. It provides a private right of action, but for boundary disputes only—a matter unrelated to campaign finance. The criterion asks whether statute provides a private right of action for campaign-finance violations; this section addresses election administration (precinct boundaries) and therefore does not satisfy ENF.3.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 28 addresses voter-registry disputes and the elimination of deceased or duplicate voters from electoral rolls. It does not concern campaign finance at all, and therefore does not establish any private right of action for campaign-finance violations. The section pertains to voter eligibility and electoral administration, not to contributions, expenditures, disclosure, or other campaign-finance matters.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of § 9 PartG addresses the accounting and reporting structure for political parties — specifically the format of financial statements, required line-items in income and expense accounts, and auditor appointment procedures. It contains no provision for private rights of action, citizen suits, or party suits for campaign-finance violations. The section is purely procedural with respect to record-keeping and disclosure, not enforcement against violators.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 116 regulates candidate-presentation procedures (signatures, identity information, ballot symbols) but contains no provisions establishing a private right of action for campaign-finance violations. The section addresses administrative filing requirements and verification by electoral officials, not enforcement mechanisms or citizen/party suits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 14 of the Brazilian Constitution addresses voting rights, eligibility, ineligibility, and the impugnment of electoral mandates, but contains no provision establishing a private right of action for campaign-finance violations. § 10 permits impugnment of a mandate for abuse of economic power, corruption, or fraud, but this is a post-election remedy focused on mandate validity, not a statutory mechanism for private parties to enforce campaign-finance rules prospectively or to obtain damages. The section delegates regulation of ineligibility and electoral protection to complementary law (§ 9) but does not itself codify campaign-finance enforcement procedures or private standing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Чл. 36 codifies voter-list entry by current address; not private right of action.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 512(1) explicitly prohibits private prosecution for offences under the Act, restricting enforcement to the Commissioner or Director of Public Prosecutions acting with consent. This section affirmatively negates rather than provides a private right of action for campaign-finance violations.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1-40-118 concerns petition-signature verification and protest procedures in the context of ballot initiatives; it does not address campaign finance violations or establish a private right of action for such violations. The section deals with procedural mechanisms for challenging petition sufficiency, not with enforcement of contribution limits, disclosure rules, or other campaign-finance requirements. No statutory private right of action for campaign-finance violations is present in this text.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 107 addresses election observers' rights to monitor electoral procedures and access to election materials. It establishes no private right of action for campaign-finance violations; instead, it merely grants certain domestic and international entities the right to observe elections. The section is entirely procedural regarding observation and transparency of the voting process, not enforcement of campaign-finance rules or private remedies for violations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 58b addresses procedural timing and notification requirements for supplementary and new elections in Czech municipal council contests, specifically when supplementary elections cannot produce a quorum of 5 mandates. The section contains no language establishing, recognizing, or enabling a private right of action for any violations—campaign-finance or otherwise. The criterion requires statutory authorization for citizens or parties to sue for campaign-finance breaches; this section is entirely about election scheduling and does not engage that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 4709 addresses employment protection for election officers and does not relate to campaign finance. The criterion ENF.3 concerns private rights of action for campaign-finance violations; this section governs employment law and protection from employer retaliation. There is no campaign-finance content in this provision.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (R39-12) addresses threat assessment and protection measures for candidates facing electoral violence, not campaign-finance violations. It establishes an administrative procedure for evaluating threats to candidates and does not create any private right of action for campaign-finance breaches. The criterion requires statutory authorization for citizens or parties to sue for campaign-finance violations; this section contains no such provision.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 23b addresses only the party's affirmative duty to self-report accounting errors to the Bundestag President and the conditions under which penalties are waived. It contains no provision granting private parties, citizens, or non-governmental entities a right of action to sue for campaign-finance violations. Enforcement is administrative (through the Bundestag President) rather than through private litigation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Άρθρο 45 of ΠΔ 26/2012 governs party broadcast rights; no private right of action for campaign-finance violations surfaced.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/4-13 governs voter-registration appeals (cancellation of registration), not a private right of action in campaign-finance enforcement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: §68B.32 establishes the ethics and campaign disclosure board and its enforcement authority, but does not create or reference a private right of action for citizens or parties to sue for campaign-finance violations. The section delegates enforcement to the board itself (investigation and standards-setting), but contains no language permitting private litigation, standing for private parties, or citizen suits—hallmarks of a private right of action.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section provides a private right of action, but only for malicious prosecution by a respondent against a complainant—not for campaign-finance violations themselves. ENF.3 asks whether the statute provides a private right of action for *campaign-finance violations*. This section addresses a procedural remedy against frivolous complaints, not enforcement of substantive campaign-finance rules by private parties.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: KRS 121.140 allows any person to file a sworn complaint triggering a Registry investigation and administrative hearing, with judicial review of the final order. Enforcement civil actions, however, are brought by the Registry itself (KRS 121.256), not by private citizens, so no private right of action is codified.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 109 establishes enforcement mechanisms through the independent electoral commission and judicial review, but provides no private right of action for citizens or political parties to bring suit directly for campaign-finance violations. Enforcement is limited to commission-initiated proceedings and subsequent appeal to electoral courts; individual complainants have no statutory standing to initiate enforcement action.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 60 addresses enforcement of election administration procedures by the state secretary and attorney general but contains no provision for private citizens or parties to bring suit for campaign-finance violations. The section explicitly reserves 'judicial remedies to any person, official, commission or board' but does not affirmatively grant a private right of action; it merely preserves existing remedies without establishing a new statutory private-suit mechanism for campaign-finance breaches.

The statute provides a citizen complaint mechanism to the Secretary of State, but this is administrative, not a private right of action in court. No private civil suit is authorized.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 130.188(2)(1) explicitly grants enforcement authority exclusively to the attorney general, with no provision for private parties or citizens to sue for campaign-finance violations. The statute centralizes enforcement in a single government actor, precluding the private right of action that ENF.3 requires.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 59 establishes procedural mechanisms for governmental supervision and control of campaign financing by the Central Electoral Commission and electoral constituency councils, but contains no provision creating or enabling a private right of action for citizens or parties to sue for campaign-finance violations. The enforcement authority is exclusively vested in administrative bodies operating ex officio or on-the-spot review; no statute text here grants standing to private parties.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses citation and arrest procedures for Election Act misdemeanors generally, but contains no provision for private rights of action in campaign-finance violations. It prescribes only a public criminal enforcement mechanism (peace officer citations, prosecutorial complaints, and court proceedings), with no language authorizing citizens or political parties to bring suit for campaign-finance violations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 25a establishes a mandatory reporting requirement for large political contributions (€10,000+) and prescribes a three-day notification deadline to the Minister with specified data fields. However, the section contains no private right of action, no standing for citizens or rival parties to sue, no civil remedy mechanism, and no authorization for private enforcement. The statute delegates enforcement to governmental authorities (the Minister) and does not create a procedural avenue for private parties to challenge violations or seek remedies.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses election-contest procedures (challenging election results) and filing requirements for candidate-election disputes, not campaign-finance violations or private enforcement mechanisms. It establishes procedural rules for contesting elections but contains no provision creating a private right of action for campaign-finance violations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter fraud and wrongful voting penalties, not campaign-finance violations. It establishes enforcement by the attorney general for civil penalties and criminal prosecution, but it does not relate to campaign finance (contributions, expenditures, disclosures, or fundraising). ENF.3 asks whether statute provides a private right of action for campaign-finance violations; this section concerns electoral integrity violations by voters, not campaign-finance rule breaches. The section is therefore outside the scope of campaign-finance law.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 19:44A-6 vests enforcement authority exclusively in the ELEC (Elections Law Enforcement Commission), granting it power to initiate civil actions and forward violations to the Attorney General or county prosecutors. The statute contains no provision authorizing private citizens or parties to bring suit for campaign-finance violations; enforcement is limited to government agencies.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORC 3515.10 governs hearing-timing for election contests; not a private right of action for campaign-finance.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns ranked choice voting prohibition and election administration, not campaign finance. It does not address campaign-finance violations, contributions, disclosures, or donor identity verification—the subject matter of ENF.3. The enforcement mechanism described (civil action by the Secretary of State or legislative leaders) is for election procedure violations, not campaign-finance breaches. Campaign-finance private rights of action are not mentioned.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 145 addresses only the procedural appeal mechanism for financial committees challenging rejection of their financial reports by electoral authorities. It establishes administrative and judicial review processes (complaints to the Supreme Court and regional courts) but does not create a private right of action for citizens or parties to sue for campaign-finance violations. The provision is limited to financial-committee standing to contest report rejections, not to private enforcement of campaign-finance rules.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes enforcement mechanisms exclusively through the Board of Elections and the attorney general; it permits the board to file civil actions and provides for judicial review of board actions by 'any interested person,' but does not create a private right of action allowing citizens or political parties to independently sue for campaign-finance violations. The phrase 'any interested person' refers to review of board decisions, not to independent enforcement authority.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section vests exclusive authority for representation and defense of legality in contentious electoral matters with the Fiscal (Public Prosecutor), thereby precluding private citizens or parties from bringing suit. The text explicitly grants public enforcement to the state actor alone, with no provision for private rights of action.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 2-2-115 addresses voter registration procedures and fraud prevention in mail registration, not campaign finance. It contains no private right of action for campaign-finance violations; it instead authorizes the coordinator of elections and district attorney general to bring civil action against fraudulent registration. The section falls entirely outside the campaign-finance regulatory framework assessed by ENF.3.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 253.035 makes a person who converts a political contribution to personal use 'civilly liable to the state' — enforcement liability running to the state, not a private citizen or party right of action. Texas's private-suit provisions for campaign-finance harm (§ 253.131-253.132) were not surfaced for this datapoint, so no private right of action is evidenced.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaces Madde 176 of Law 298 (defamation-related private cause of action during campaigns) and Madde 110/55 of Law 2820 (party-closure procedures) — none codify a general PRIVATE right of action for citizens to sue over campaign-finance violations. Enforcement is via Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı (Public Prosecutor) and AYM only.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 143 addresses only witness expenses in election petition trials—a procedural matter for dispute resolution about election outcomes, not campaign-finance violations. It contains no provision creating or authorizing private rights of action for breaches of campaign-finance rules (contributions, spending, disclosure, foreign-source prohibitions, etc.). The section is about cost-shifting in existing litigation, not substantive enforcement of finance rules.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses notification procedures for civil actions challenging election district boundaries, not campaign-finance violations or private rights of action for campaign-finance breaches. It contains no language establishing, enabling, or referencing a private right of action for any campaign-finance violation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.56.120 governs the procedural mechanics of filing recall petitions and serving charges on incumbent officers—it is a recall-election procedural statute unrelated to campaign finance. It does not address campaign-finance violations, private rights of action, or citizen enforcement mechanisms for any finance-related breaches. This section falls entirely outside the domain of campaign-finance regulation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 3-7-6 addresses election-contest procedures and judicial jurisdiction over disputed elections, not campaign-finance violations or enforcement mechanisms. It contains no private right of action, penalty schedule, or enforcement procedure related to campaign finance.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Wisconsin private right of action for campaign-finance violations lives in Ch. 11 (not ingested).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a private right of action for contesting election results based on alleged errors, but it concerns election administration and validity, not campaign-finance violations. The statute provides a procedural mechanism for citizens to challenge elections generally, but does not address campaign-finance enforcement or create a private right of action specifically for campaign-finance rule violations. Campaign-finance enforcement would require statutory authorization for private suits seeking to remedy financing-law breaches.