ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index

Missouri's contribution limits are explicitly set by statute rather than delegated to administrative discretion. § 130.031(1) codifies a cash contribution limit of $100, and subsection (4) establishes a $25 threshold for anonymous contributions. Both limits are numerically defined in the statute itself, satisfying the requirement that contribution-limit frameworks be grounded in statutory text rather than regulation or agency discretion.

“No contribution of cash in an amount of more than one hundred dollars shall be made by or accepted from any single contributor for any election by a continuing committee, a campaign committee, a political party committee, an exploratory committee or a candidate committee.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 130.011 is a definitions section that does not contain independent-expenditure rules. While it defines 'committee' broadly to include various types of entities, it does not establish substantive rules governing independent expenditures, spending limits, coordination prohibitions, or reporting requirements specific to third-party spending. Independent-expenditure rules would need to appear in operational sections elsewhere in chapter 130, not in this definitional section.

The statute explicitly defines a disposition regime for anonymous contributions: those under $25 are permitted; those exceeding $25 are either returned to the contributor if identified or forfeited (escheat) to the state if not. The procedure is codified in statute with clear operative rules and timelines ('immediately'), satisfying the criterion's requirement for statutory treatment with defined disposition.

“If any anonymous contribution in excess of twenty-five dollars is received, it shall be returned immediately to the contributor if his or her identity can be ascertained, and if the contributor's identity cannot be ascertained, the candidate or the committee treasurer shall immediately transmit that portion of the contribution which exceeds twenty-five dollars to the state treasurer and it shall escheat to the state.”

The statute explicitly defines the disclosure threshold as one hundred dollars in the context of itemized contribution reporting. This threshold is codified directly in the statute (RSMo § 130.041(3)(e)), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The requirement applies to all contributions aggregating more than one hundred dollars and specifies exactly what information must be disclosed (name, address, employer/occupation, date, amount).

“A separate listing by name and address and employer, or occupation if self-employed or notation of retirement, of each person from whom the committee received contributions, in money or any other thing of value, aggregating more than one hundred dollars, together with the date and amount of each such contribution”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly requires disclosure of name, address, employer (or occupation if self-employed), date, and amount for contributions exceeding $25. All four identity elements mandated by DISC.3 are enumerated in statutory text with no delegation to administrative discretion. The $25 threshold is clearly defined.

“A separate listing by name, address, employer or occupation if self-employed, of each person from whom the committee received one or more contributions, in money or other things of value, which in the aggregate total in excess of $25, together with the date and amount of each such contribution.”

The section statutorily mandates that all reports filed in the campaign finance electronic reporting system be placed on a public electronic access system with open access to the general public. This satisfies the requirement for legally mandated public accessibility of campaign-finance filings. However, the section does not specify a defined time window within which filings must appear online after submission, which is a minor gap in procedural clarity on the temporal dimension of the requirement.

“A copy of all reports filed in the state campaign finance electronic reporting system shall be placed on a public electronic access system so that the general public may have open access to the reports filed pursuant to this section.”

The section codifies civil penalties including statutory damages (up to twice the prohibited amount) and enhanced penalties for knowing or willful violations (up to three times statutory damages), plus refund and disgorgement requirements. However, the section contains no criminal penalties—no criminal grades, fines, or imprisonment—only civil remedies. This satisfies the civil component but not the criminal component of ENF.1.

“the court shall award: (1) Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating sections 130.170 to 130.188 or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of such sections; and (2) Statutory damages up to twice the amount of the prohibited contribution or expenditure. 7. In addition to the penalties in subsection 6 of this section and any other remedies provided by law, if the court finds a knowingly or willful violation of sections 130.170 to 130.188 , the court may assess a penalty of up to three times the statutory damages.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs voting-system approval and cybersecurity standards, not campaign-finance enforcement or the structure of enforcement bodies. It does not address whether any enforcement body is appointed through multi-branch processes or protected from political control. The criterion applies to campaign-finance law and administrative structure; this section is procedural-technical election administration.

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.

Section 130.179 explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from participating in decision-making regarding contributions to influence elections and from soliciting donations or contributions by others. The statute clearly grounds the foreign-source prohibition in statutory text rather than administrative discretion, directly satisfying the criterion's requirement that a foreign-contribution ban be encoded in law.

“A foreign national may not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person with regard to that person's activities to influence an election on a ballot measure, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions to influence an election on a ballot measure. 2. A foreign national may not solicit, directly or indirectly, the making of a donation, contribution, or expenditure by another person to influence an election on a ballot measure.”

The statute prohibits contributions 'whether directly or indirectly' from prohibited sources, establishing statutory language that addresses pass-through channels. However, the section does not define what constitutes a 'prohibited source,' does not specify verification or tracing procedures for corporate ownership or intermediary entities, and does not enumerate the indirect mechanisms (foreign-controlled LLCs, straw donors, etc.) that must be screened. The operative rule is stated but procedural implementation and definition are absent.

“the committee shall not knowingly or willfully receive, solicit, or accept contributions from a prohibited source, whether directly or indirectly”

Missouri law requires only donor self-attestation (affirmation) rather than affirmative verification. The statute explicitly creates a rebuttable presumption from receipt of the affirmation, meaning committees satisfy their duty by collecting sworn statements without independent verification procedures. No statutory requirement mandates that committees verify the truthfulness of affirmations through cross-checking records, investigating sources, or using other verification mechanisms.

“Upon a committee's receipt of a contribution of more than two thousand dollars, the treasurer shall obtain from the donor an affirmation that the donor is not a foreign national”

The section establishes statutory requirements for official depository accounts and disclosure reporting, which imply record-keeping duties (e.g., banks must maintain records, committees must file reports). However, the section does not explicitly state a record-retention requirement—no defined period (e.g., '3 years,' '5 years') is specified for committees to retain contributor lists, expenditure documentation, or bank statements. The statutory grounding for retention is implicit rather than enumerated.

No matching sections in corpus.