ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index

The section establishes specific contribution limits by statute, not by administrative discretion. The limits are enumerated exhaustively across multiple election types (primary, runoff primary, general), with clear dollar amounts, aggregation rules, and an inflation-adjustment mechanism that is itself codified with defined procedures. The framework is grounded entirely in statutory text.

The section provides explicit statutory codification of independent-expenditure rules, defining the threshold ($5,000), timing requirements (15 days pre-election and 14 days through election day), reporting obligations, required disclosure fields (expenditure amount, date, description, candidate name and whether supported/opposed), contributor-identification requirements (name, address, business activity for contributions over $50), and coordination-prohibition enforcement (subsection H treating coordinated expenditures as contributions). All key procedural elements are enumerated in the rule itself.

The rule provides clear statutory procedure for anonymous contributions: it sets a $50 threshold, prohibits acceptance of anonymous contributions exceeding that amount, and specifies an exhaustive disposition (forfeiture to state general revenue fund for amounts exceeding $50). The rule defines both what is permitted (anonymous gifts up to $50) and what happens to prohibited anonymous funds (deposit to general revenue), satisfying the core requirement of defined statutory treatment.

The section explicitly establishes the disclosure threshold in statutory text: contributions in excess of $1,000 in the aggregate must be reported. The threshold is numerically defined and applies to candidate committees, meeting the requirement that the disclosure threshold be codified in statute rather than left to regulation or administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section explicitly requires full disclosure of contributor identity—name, address, occupation, and employer—for all contributions exceeding $50 in the aggregate. This is statutory rule language (not delegated to administrative discretion) and exhaustively enumerates the four identity fields required by the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

This rule establishes civil remedies (restitution, disgorgement, treble damages, attorney fees) in administrative rules, but does not articulate specified penalty amounts or criminal grades. The civilly enforceable remedies are codified procedurally, yet 'where the Court deems appropriate' grants discretion rather than defining a penalty schedule with enumerated amounts. No criminal penalties are stated. The section provides a framework but lacks the definiteness of a true penalty schedule.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section defines permissible uses of candidate-committee funds and reimbursement procedures but contains no information about enforcement-body structure, appointment process, or political independence. The criterion requires demonstration that the enforcement body itself is appointed through multi-branch processes and insulated from in-cycle political control. This section addresses substantive campaign-finance rules, not enforcement-body governance.

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 26-7-103.2 addresses voter registration list access and prohibits foreign nationals from receiving voter lists for campaign use, but it does not prohibit direct foreign contributions to candidates or campaign committees. The section regulates data access, not contribution sources. FOR.1 requires a statutory prohibition on foreign funding of campaigns, which is not present in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section criminalizes bribery to influence votes and is unrelated to foreign-source contribution rules. It contains no statutory framework addressing indirect foreign-source channels, pass-through entities, corporate-ownership verification, or any mechanism to trace foreign control of domestic contributors. FOR.2 requires procedural rules for detecting and preventing foreign money via intermediaries; this section provides none.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prescribes the information that must be REPORTED to the Ethics Commission (contributor identity, expenditure details, account balances, etc.) but does not impose any statutory requirement on committees to RETAIN records themselves. The section is silent on whether committees must keep contributor lists, expenditure documentation, bank statements, or other underlying records, for how long, or for what purpose. Record retention requirements would need to appear as an explicit obligation on the committee, not merely as reporting content.

No matching sections in corpus.