ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index

The statute explicitly sets partnership contribution limits by precise dollar amounts for each category of candidate office, with no delegation to administrative discretion. The limits are codified in statute (A.R.S. § 16-917(A)), satisfying the requirement that contribution-limit frameworks be grounded in statutory law rather than administrative regulation.

“A partnership may not contribute more than the following amounts per election cycle: 1. Six thousand two hundred fifty dollars to a candidate committee for city, town, county or district office. 2. Six thousand two hundred fifty dollars to a candidate committee for legislative office. 3. Six thousand two hundred fifty dollars to a candidate committee for statewide office.”

A.R.S. § 16-922 provides clear statutory codification of independent-expenditure rules, establishing the foundational definition of permissible independent expenditures (subsection A), defining what renders an expenditure non-independent through actual coordination or nonpublic-information tests (subsection B), and specifying rebuttable-evidence factors and firewall exceptions (subsections C–D). The statute explicitly addresses third-party spending separate from candidate committees, defining coordination standards and safe harbors, which satisfies the procedural-clarity requirement for this criterion.

“A. Any person may make independent expenditures. B. An expenditure is not an independent expenditure if either of the following applies: 1. There is actual coordination with respect to an expenditure between a candidate or candidate's agent and the person making the expenditure or that person's agent. 2. Both of the following apply: (a) The expenditure is based on nonpublic information about a candidate's or candidate committee's plans or needs that the candidate or candidate's agent provides to the person making the expenditure or that person's agent. (b) The candidate or candidate's agent provides the nonpublic information with an intent toward having the expenditure made.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The section explicitly defines multiple disclosure thresholds in statutory text: $50,000 for statewide campaigns, $25,000 for other campaigns (initial reports), and $5,000+ for individual donor identification. These are codified dollar amounts, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The thresholds are enumerated with specificity and broken down by campaign type.

“Within five days after first spending monies or accepting in-kind contributions totaling $50,000 or more during an election cycle on campaign media spending in statewide campaigns or $25,000 or more during the election cycle in any other type of campaigns”

The statute explicitly enumerates filing schedules with specific deadlines for multiple entity types: quarterly reports (15th day after quarter), preelection reports (15 days before election), postelection reports (15 days after quarter), and separate schedules for statewide and legislative candidates. Each filing type specifies both the deadline and the coverage period, satisfying the requirement for enumerated filing schedules with concrete dates.

The statute explicitly requires disclosure of contributor name (implied through 'identification'), occupation, and employer for in-state individual contributions exceeding $100. For out-of-state individuals, occupation and employer are also required. The statute comprehensively enumerates identity fields (name, occupation, employer) for the primary threshold category, satisfying the full-identity requirement under the scoring rule.

“Contributions from in-state individuals whose contributions exceed $100 for that election cycle, including identification of the contributor's occupation and employer.”

The section requires the Secretary of State to notify the Commission and deliver copies to the Commission and opposing candidates, and requires reports be made available for public inspection at campaign headquarters or through electronic disclosure. However, the statutory language does not mandate online-accessible filing within a defined timeframe; 'promptly' and 'in accordance with rules adopted by the commission' delegate specificity to administrative discretion rather than statutory enumeration.

The statute specifies criminal penalties for campaign-finance violations: class 2 misdemeanor for corporate/LLC/labor organization violations and class 6 felony for individuals effecting violations or committing the other prohibited acts (straw contributions, coerced contributions, dues-based contributions). Arizona's criminal-classification system is codified elsewhere in statute, providing defined penalty severity. Both civil and criminal frameworks exist in Arizona statute, though this section focuses on criminal grades.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-941 establishes spending and contribution limits and compliance procedures for Arizona candidates, but contains no provisions regarding the composition, appointment, independence, or political insulation of any enforcement body. The section references enforcement of violations (subsection B mentions 'civil penalties and procedures set forth in section 16-905, subsections J through M and section 16-924'), but does not itself address enforcement-body appointment or protection from in-cycle political control. Procedural clarity on enforcement-body independence must be found in other statutory provisions, not in this section.

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.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is a legislative findings and policy statement regarding Communist Party activity and national security concerns, not a campaign-finance statute addressing the mechanisms of foreign-source contributions or indirect pass-through channels. It contains no procedural rules, disclosure requirements, verification mechanisms, or enforcement procedures related to foreign nationals funding campaigns through domestic entities, foreign-controlled LLCs, or other indirect vehicles. The section does not establish statutory criteria for identifying or tracing foreign ownership or control of domestic campaign-finance conduits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-950 addresses clean elections funding qualification procedures, including verification of qualifying contributions through county recorder checks against voter registration. However, it contains no statutory requirement for campaign committees or the secretary of state to verify that contributors are not foreign-source, nor does it impose any foreign-source attestation or verification mechanism. The verification procedures described are limited to checking signatures, dates, and voter registration status of contributors.

The statute explicitly requires committees to retain all records (contributions, expenditures, disbursements, contributor identification, and bank account documentation) for a defined period—two years following the election cycle. This creates a clear, enforceable statutory obligation with specific duration, satisfying the record-retention element of procedural clarity.

“A committee shall preserve all records required to be kept by this section for two years following the end of the election cycle.”

No matching sections in corpus.