Definition of Federal Election Activity, 55257-55267 [2010-22648]

Agencies

• Federal Election Commission

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55257-55267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22648]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Part 100

[Notice 2010-18]


Definition of Federal Election Activity

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Final rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission is revising its rules as to 
the activities that constitute ``Federal election activity'' under the 
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. Specifically, these 
final rules modify the definitions of ``voter registration activity'' 
and ``get-out-the-vote activity,'' in response to the decision of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Shays v. 
FEC.

[[Page 55258]]


DATES: These rules are effective on December 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant 
General Counsel, or Attorney Mr. David C. Adkins or Attorney Mr. Neven 
F. Stipanovic, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 
or (800) 424-9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 
\1\ (``BCRA'') contained extensive and detailed amendments to the 
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. 
(``the Act''). The Federal Election Commission (``Commission'') is 
revising its regulations at 11 CFR 100.24 regarding ``Federal election 
activity,'' including the definitions of the terms ``voter registration 
activity'' and ``get-out-the-vote activity'' (``GOTV activity''). The 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found aspects of 
these rules invalid in Shays v. Federal Election Commission, 528 F.3d 
914 (DC Cir. 2008) (``Shays III''). Accordingly, the Commission is 
revising its rules at 11 CFR 100.24 to comply with the Shays III 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transmission of Final Rules to Congress

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), and the 
Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1), 
agencies must submit final rules to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President of the Senate and publish them in the 
Federal Register at least thirty calendar days before they take effect. 
The final rules that follow were transmitted to Congress on September 
7, 2010.

Explanation and Justification

I. Background Information

A. BCRA

    The Act, as amended by BCRA, and Commission regulations provide 
that a State, district, or local committee of a political party must 
pay for certain ``Federal election activities'' with either entirely 
Federal funds \2\ or, in other instances, a mix of Federal funds and 
Levin funds.\3\ See 2 U.S.C. 441i(b); 11 CFR 300.32. The Act identifies 
four types of activity that are subject to these funding restrictions, 
including ``voter registration activity''--Type I Federal election 
activity--and GOTV activity--Type II Federal election activity. See 2 
U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(i) and (ii), 441i(b); 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2) and (3).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Federal funds'' are funds subject to the limitations, 
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act. See 11 CFR 
300.2(g).
    \3\ ``Levin funds'' are funds raised and disbursed by State, 
district, or local party committees pursuant to certain 
restrictions. See 2 U.S.C. 441i(b); see also 11 CFR 300.2(i).
    \4\ In addition to GOTV activity, Type II Federal election 
activity also includes ``voter identification'' and ``generic 
campaign activity.'' See 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(ii); 11 CFR 100.24 and 
100.25. Types III and IV Federal election activity are outside the 
scope of this rulemaking and are not discussed. They pertain to 
public communications that refer to a clearly identified Federal 
candidate and promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate for 
Federal office (Type III) and services provided by an employee of a 
State, district, or local committee of a political party who spends 
more than 25 percent of his or her compensated time on activities in 
connection with a Federal election (Type IV). Types I and II Federal 
election activity may be funded with a combination of Federal and 
Levin funds; Types III and IV Federal election activity must be 
funded entirely with Federal funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Application of BCRA's Federal election activity funding 
restrictions for Types I and II Federal election activity is 
conditioned upon the timing of the activity. Voter registration 
activity (Type I), for example, constitutes Federal election activity, 
and therefore is subject to BCRA's funding restrictions, only if it is 
conducted ``120 days before the date a regularly scheduled Federal 
election is held.'' 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(i). Similarly, voter 
identification, GOTV activity, and generic campaign activity are 
Federal election activity only if they are conducted ``in connection 
with an election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on the 
ballot,'' a phrase that is defined in terms of a specific time 
window.\5\ 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(ii) and 11 CFR 100.24(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commission regulations define ``in connection with an 
election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on the 
ballot'' at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In BCRA, Congress chose to restrict the funds which State, 
district, and local party committees could use for Federal election 
activity because it determined that these activities affect Federal 
elections. See 148 Cong. Rec. S2139 (daily ed. Mar. 20, 2002) 
(statement of Sen. McCain) (noting, for example, that ``get-out-the-
vote and voter registration drives * * * are designed to, and do have 
an unmistakable impact on both Federal and non-Federal elections'').
    Restrictions on the funding of Federal election activity by State, 
district, and local party committees are critical because they prevent 
evasion of BCRA's restrictions on the raising and spending of non-
Federal funds by national party committees and Federal candidates and 
officeholders. See Final Rules on Prohibited and Excessive 
Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 FR 49064, 65 (July 
29, 2002) (``2002 Final Rule''). Indeed, in passing BCRA's Federal 
election activity provisions, Congress had in mind ``the very real 
danger that Federal contribution limits could be evaded by diverting 
funds to State and local parties, which then use those funds for 
Federal election activity.'' See 148 Cong. Rec. S2138 (daily ed. Mar. 
20, 2002) (statement of Sen. McCain).
    The Supreme Court upheld BCRA's Federal election activity 
provisions in McConnell v. FEC, 124 S. Ct. 619, 670-77 (2003). The 
Court found that non-Federal funds given to State, district, and local 
party committees could have the same corrupting influence as non-
Federal funds given to the national parties and therefore held that 
BCRA's Federal election activity restrictions were justified by an 
important government interest. Id. at 672-73. The Court held that 
BCRA's Federal election activity provisions were likely necessary to 
prevent ``corrupting activity from shifting wholesale to state 
committees and thereby eviscerating [the Act].'' Id. at 673.
    In reaching its decision, the Court noted that BCRA regulated only 
``those contributions to state and local parties that can be used to 
benefit Federal candidates directly'' and therefore posed the greatest 
threat of corruption. Id. at 673-74. As such, the Court found BCRA's 
regulation of voter registration activities, which ``directly assist 
the party's candidates for federal office,'' and GOTV activities, from 
which Federal candidates ``reap substantial rewards,'' to be 
permissible methods of countering both corruption and the appearance of 
corruption. Id. at 674; see also id. at 675 (finding that voter 
registration activities and GOTV activities ``confer substantial 
benefits on federal candidates'' and ``the funding of such activities 
creates a significant risk of actual and apparent corruption,'' which 
BCRA aims to minimize).

B. Rulemakings

    Although BCRA defines Federal election activity to include ``voter 
registration activity'' and ``GOTV activity,'' it does not specifically 
define those underlying terms. See 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(ii)-(iii). 
Accordingly, the Commission promulgated definitions of these terms.
1. 2002 Rulemaking
    The Commission first promulgated definitions of ``voter 
registration activity'' and ``GOTV activity'' on July 29, 2002. See 
2002 Final Rule, 67 FR at 49067. The 2002 Final Rule defined ``voter 
registration activity'' as ``contacting individuals by telephone, in 
person, or by other individualized means to assist them in registering 
to vote.'' Id. at 49110. The Explanation and

[[Page 55259]]

Justification (``E&J'') accompanying the rule noted that the definition 
was limited to ``individualized contact for the specific purpose of 
assisting individuals with the process of registering to vote.'' Id. at 
49067. The Commission expressly rejected an approach whereby mere 
encouragement to register to vote would have constituted voter 
registration activity. The Commission was concerned that taking such an 
approach would result in ``thousands of political committees and 
grassroots organizations that merely encouraged voting as a civic duty, 
who have never been subject to Federal regulation for such conduct, 
[being] swept into the extensive reporting and filing requirements 
mandated under Federal law.'' Id.
    The Commission similarly defined ``GOTV activity'' in 2002 as 
``contacting registered voters by telephone, in person, or by other 
individualized means to assist them in engaging in the act of voting.'' 
Id. at 49111. In adopting this construction, the Commission sought to 
distinguish GOTV activity from ``ordinary or usual campaigning,'' to 
avoid ``federaliz[ing] a vast percentage'' of the campaign activity 
that a State, district, or local party committee may conduct on behalf 
of its candidates. Id. at 49067. The Commission's definition focused on 
actions directed toward registered voters that had the particular 
purpose of ``assisting registered voters to take any and all steps to 
get to the polls and cast their ballots, or to vote by absentee ballot 
or other means provided by law.'' Id. The definition was not intended 
to cover activity aimed at ``generally increasing public support for a 
candidate or decreasing public support for an opposing candidate.'' Id.
    The Commission's 2002 definition of GOTV activity also expressly 
excluded ``any communication by an association or similar group of 
candidates for State and local office or of individuals holding State 
or local office if such communication refers only to one or more 
[S]tate or local candidates,'' in order to keep ``State and local 
candidates' grassroots and local political activity a question of 
State, not Federal, law.'' Id. The Commission declined to read BCRA as 
extending ``to purely State and local activity by State and local 
candidates'' and concluded that such ``a vast federalization of State 
and local activity'' required ``greater direction from Congress.'' Id.
    The Commission's 2002 definitions of voter registration activity 
and GOTV activity were challenged in Shays v. FEC, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 
(D.D.C. 2004) (``Shays I''). The district court held that the 
definition of ``voter registration activity,'' which required actual 
assistance, was neither inconsistent with congressional intent nor an 
impermissible construction of BCRA. See Shays I, 337 F. Supp. 2d at 100 
(applying Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 
U.S. 837 (1984)). The court further held that the ``exact parameters'' 
of the regulatory definition were unclear and, therefore, it was unable 
to determine if the definition ``unduly compromised'' BCRA's purpose. 
Id. Nevertheless, the court found that the Commission's definition was 
promulgated without adequate notice and opportunity for comment, 
contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. 553, and 
remanded the regulation to the Commission. See Shays I, 337 F. Supp. 2d 
at 100.
    The court reached similar conclusions as to the definition of 
``GOTV activity,'' holding that the definition, which required actual 
assistance, was neither inconsistent with congressional intent nor an 
impermissible construction of BCRA. Id. at 103, 105 (applying Chevron). 
The court also concluded that there was ``ambiguity as to what acts are 
encompassed by the regulation,'' which rendered the court unable to 
determine whether the definition of ``GOTV activity'' unduly 
compromised BCRA. Id. at 105. As it had with the definition of ``voter 
registration activity,'' though, the court found that the Commission's 
definition was promulgated without adequate notice and opportunity for 
comment and remanded the regulation to the Commission. See id. at 106.
    The court also found that the exemption from the GOTV activity 
definition for communications made by associations or groups of State 
or local candidates or officeholders ran contrary to Congress's clearly 
expressed intent. See id. at 104. The court found that BCRA provided no 
support for such an exemption, and it rejected all federalism concerns 
raised by the Commission in defense of the exemption, holding that 
``Congress was sensitive to federalism concerns in drafting BCRA'' and 
that the Supreme Court in McConnell had rejected the general federalism 
challenge brought against BCRA's Federal election activity provisions. 
Id.
2. 2005 Rulemaking
    The Commission commenced a rulemaking in 2005 to address the 
court's concerns, rather than appeal these aspects of Shays I. 
Following another notice and period for comment, the Commission 
promulgated definitions of ``voter registration activity'' and ``GOTV 
activity'' that were substantially similar to those promulgated in 
2002. The final rules were accompanied by an E&J that sought to address 
many of the Shays I court's concerns. See Final Rules on Definition of 
Federal Election Activity, 71 FR 8926, 8928 (Feb. 22, 2006) (``2006 
Final Rule'').
    The Commission's decision to leave unchanged the core aspects of 
the definitions of ``voter registration activity'' and ``GOTV 
activity'' was based on its continued concern that definitions which 
captured ``mere encouragement[s]'' would be ``overly broad,'' were 
unnecessary ``to effectively implement BCRA,'' and ``could have an 
adverse impact on grassroots political activity.'' \6\ Accordingly, the 
2006 definitions were designed to encompass activities that actually 
registered persons to vote and resulted in voters going to the polls. 
Id. at 8928-29. Thus, the Commission sought to ``regulate the funds 
used to influence Federal elections'' and not ``incidental speech.'' 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission did change other aspects of the GOTV activity 
definition in response to the Shays I court decision. The Commission 
removed from the definition of ``GOTV activity'' the exemption for 
communications by associations and groups of State or local 
candidates or officeholders. See 2006 Final Rule, 71 FR at 8931. The 
Commission also removed from the examples of GOTV activity the 
phrase ``within 72-hours of an election,'' to clarify that the 
definition covered activity conducted more than 72 hours before an 
election. See id. at 8930-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission noted in its 2006 E&J that its regulations would not 
lead to the circumvention of the Act precisely because they captured 
``the use of non-Federal funds for disbursements that State, district, 
and local parties make for those activities that actually register 
individuals to vote.'' Id. Moreover, ``many programs for widespread 
encouragement of voter registration to influence Federal elections 
would be captured as public communications under Type III [Federal 
election activity].'' Id. The 2006 E&J also provided a nonexclusive 
list of examples of activity that would--and would not--constitute 
voter registration activity. Id.

C. Shays III

    The revised definitions of voter registration activity and GOTV 
activity were challenged again in Shays v. FEC, 508 F. Supp. 2d. 10, 
63-70 (D.D.C. 2007). Analyzing the definitions of ``voter registration 
activity'' and ``GOTV activity,'' the district court noted that the 
Commission's 2006 E&J addressed only the most obvious instances of what 
was--and was not--covered activity but not the ``vast gray area'' of 
activities that State and local parties may conduct and that may 
benefit Federal candidates.

[[Page 55260]]

Shays v. FEC, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 65, 69-70.
    Regarding GOTV activities, in particular, the district court 
focused on Advisory Opinion 2006-19, issued to the Los Angeles County 
Democratic Party Central Committee, in which the Commission concluded 
that a local party committee's mass mailing and pre-recorded, 
electronically dialed telephone calls (``robocalls'') to the party's 
registered voters would not constitute GOTV activity.\7\ The district 
court stated that Advisory Opinion 2006-19 had announced a much 
narrower interpretation of the scope of GOTV activity than ``might 
otherwise [have been] presumed on the face of the definition.'' Id. at 
69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed communications would have been made four or 
more days before the election, would have informed recipients of the 
date of the election, would have urged them to vote for local, but 
not Federal, candidates, and would not have included additional 
information such as the hours and location of the individual voter's 
polling place. The Commission concluded that the communications 
would provide neither actual assistance nor sufficiently 
individualized assistance to constitute GOTV activity and that, as a 
result, the communications could be funded exclusively with non-
Federal funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The district court held that the Commission's failure to address 
these vast gray areas, and to explain whether activities falling within 
them would affect Federal elections, unduly compromised BCRA's 
purposes. Id. at 65-66, 69-70. Accordingly, the court remanded the 
definitions to the Commission. Id. at 70-71.
    The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision invalidating 
the Commission's definitions of ``voter registration activity'' and 
``GOTV activity,'' although on slightly different grounds. See Shays v. 
FEC, 528 F.3d 914, 931 (DC Cir. 2008). The Court of Appeals recognized 
that the Commission had discretion to promulgate definitions that left 
unaddressed large gray areas of activity and to fill them in later 
through enforcement actions and the advisory opinion process. See Shays 
III, 528 F.3d at 931.
    Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that the Commission's 
definitions of ``voter registration activity'' and ``GOTV activity'' 
were deficient because they served to ``create `two distinct 
loopholes.' '' Id. The flaws in both definitions were: (1) The 
``assist'' requirements, which excluded efforts that ``actively 
encourage people to vote or register to vote'' and (2) the 
``individualized means'' requirements, which excluded ``mass 
communications targeted to many people,'' and had the effect of 
``dramatically narrowing which activities [were] covered'' by the 
rules. Id. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the 
definitions would ``allow the use of soft money for many efforts that 
influence federal elections,'' which is directly counter to BCRA's 
purpose. Id.
    The court rejected the Commission's justifications for the 
definitions--to exclude mere exhortations from coverage and to give 
clear guidance as to the scope of the rules--finding the Commission 
could craft definitions that exclude routine exhortations and that 
provided clear guidance to State, district, and local party committees 
in a way that is more consistent with BCRA. Id. at 932. Accordingly, 
the Court of Appeals remanded the regulations to the Commission.
    In response to the court of appeal's decision, the Commission 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 20, 2009. See 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Definition of Federal Election 
Activity, 74 FR 53674 (Oct. 20, 2009) (``NPRM''). The NPRM proposed 
possible modifications to the definitions of ``voter registration 
activity'' and ``GOTV activity,'' as well as a modification to the 
``exceptions'' paragraph of the definition of ``Federal election 
activity.'' The public comment period for the NPRM closed on November 
20, 2009. The Commission received written comments from 14 commenters, 
including a comment from the Internal Revenue Service indicating that 
the proposed rules did not appear to present a conflict with the 
Internal Revenue Code or the regulations thereunder. The Commission 
held a public hearing on December 16, 2009, at which seven witnesses 
testified. After the hearing, the Commission accepted four supplemental 
comments expanding on issues raised during the hearing. All comments 
and a public transcript of the hearing are available at https://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml#FEAShays3. For purposes of this 
document, the terms ``comment'' and ``commenter'' apply to both written 
comments and oral testimony at the public hearing.
    These final rules define ``voter registration activity'' and ``GOTV 
activity'' for purposes of the Commission's Federal election activity 
regulations. These new definitions cover activities that urge, 
encourage, or assist potential voters to register to vote or to vote, 
regardless of whether the message is delivered individually or to a 
group of people via mass communication. Brief, incidental exhortations 
to register to vote or to vote are, however, exempt from the new 
definitions. Activities meeting these definitions must be paid for with 
Federal funds or with a mix of Federal and Levin funds, as appropriate. 
In addition, these final rules clarify that GOTV activity and voter 
identification conducted solely in connection with a non-Federal 
election are not subject to the Commission's Federal election activity 
funding restrictions, and provide that certain de minimis activities 
are not subject to the Federal election activity funding restrictions.

II. Final Rules

A. 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)--Definition of ``Voter Registration Activity''

    To comply with the Court of Appeals' decision in Shays III, the 
Commission is revising the definition of ``voter registration 
activity'' at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2). The Commission's new definition 
covers activities that assist, encourage, or urge potential voters to 
register to vote. The definition continues to cover contacting 
potential voters by individualized means but, as revised, it now also 
covers contacts directed to potential voters by any means to urge or 
encourage them to register to vote. As explained further below, the new 
definition excludes brief, incidental exhortations to register to vote, 
consistent with the court's decision.
1. 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)--Covered Activities
    New paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 11 CFR 100.24 lists the activities that 
constitute voter registration activity. The new definition identifies 
the following activities as voter registration activity:
     Encouraging or urging potential voters to register to vote 
by mail (including direct mail), e-mail, in person, by telephone 
(including pre-recorded telephone calls, phone banks, and messaging 
such as SMS and MMS), or by any other means (11 CFR 
100.24(a)(2)(i)(A));
     Preparing and distributing information about registration 
and voting (11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)(B));
     Distributing voter registration forms or instructions to 
potential voters (11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)(C));
     Answering questions about how to complete or file a voter 
registration form (11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)(D));
     Assisting potential voters in completing voter 
registration forms (11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)(D));
     Submitting or delivering completed voter registration 
forms (11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)(E));
     Offering or arranging to transport, or actually 
transporting, potential voters to a board of elections or county 
clerk's office for them to fill out voter

[[Page 55261]]

registration forms (11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)(F)); and
     Any other activity that assists potential voters to 
register to vote (11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(i)(G)).
    Accordingly, the revised definition of ``voter registration 
activity'' covers the following examples: (1) Sending a mass mailing of 
voter registration forms; and (2) submitting completed voter 
registration forms to the appropriate State or local office handling 
voter registration.
    The Commission received multiple comments on its proposal to expand 
the definition of voter registration activity to include encouraging 
potential voters to register to vote. Almost all the commenters agreed 
that expanding the definition in this manner would be responsive to the 
Shays III court. Commenters offered a range of opinions, though, on 
whether this expansion was required by the court's decision or if there 
was a narrower approach that might satisfy the court.
    Two commenters stated that the Commission could not do ``anything 
short of including encourage[ment]'' in the definition and ``still 
satisfy the concerns of the circuit court.'' In contrast, others that 
commented on this issue argued that a definition of voter registration 
activity that included activities that only encourage people to 
register to vote (regardless of the means) was unnecessary. Some 
commenters asserted that such a definition would subject to regulation 
all of the activities of State and local party committees, contrary to 
the intent of Congress.
    Instead, the majority of commenters advocated for a narrower 
definition that would not apply to activities that, in their opinion, 
are not appropriately characterized as voter registration activity. 
Commenters suggested definitions covering only activities that actively 
encourage voter registration (which would be informed by a time/space 
analysis), that were primarily aimed at increasing voter registration, 
or that facilitate voter registration. Another commenter proposed a 
definition that would cover only activities understood by a 
``reasonable person engaged in political campaign management'' to be 
voter registration activity. Multiple commenters wanted the Commission 
to adopt a definition of voter registration activity that would exclude 
``persuasion communications,'' which commenters characterized as 
communications that are intended to secure a vote for a specific 
candidate but that are not effective at mobilizing potential voters to 
register to vote.
    If any of these narrower approaches proved under-inclusive, one 
commenter suggested that the Commission could subsequently amend its 
regulations. This approach, according to the commenter, was preferable 
to adopting a broad definition at the outset covering all activities 
that encourage potential voters to register to vote.
    The Commission also received comments addressing its proposal to 
expand the definition of voter registration activity to include 
communications made by ``any other means'' that urge or encourage 
potential voters to register to vote. Two commenters thought that the 
court's decision did not require the Commission to adopt a definition 
covering all mass communications, and that the definition could simply 
be amended to cover certain specific activities, including phone banks 
and direct mail. Another commenter argued that the Commission should 
exempt from the definition of voter registration activity all Internet 
communications, stating that such communications are made at 
``virtually no cost.'' By contrast, one commenter asserted that the 
definition's ``any other means'' standard was not ``inclusive enough'' 
and that the definition should list ``the multiple methods of 
electronic communication used today.''
    As discussed above, the Shays III court identified ``two distinct 
loopholes'' in the Commission's prior definitions of voter registration 
activity. See Shays III, 528 F.3d at 931-32. The court determined that 
these ``two distinct loopholes''--which required that voter 
registration activity ``assist'' voters in registering to vote and that 
contacts with potential voters be ``individualized''--conflicted with 
BCRA's purpose. Id. at 932. Moreover, the Shays III court suggested 
that the Commission's regulations should reach both efforts that 
``encourage people to vote or to register to vote'' as well as ``mass 
communications'' that are directed to a significant number of people. 
Id. at 931. The Commission concludes that the definition of voter 
registration activity adopted in this rulemaking best addresses the 
court's concerns.
    For these reasons, the Commission has decided not to adopt any of 
the other proposals suggested by the commenters. Whatever the 
individual merits of these proposals, in the current rulemaking the 
Commission is charged with adopting a definition of voter registration 
activity that addresses the ``two distinct loopholes'' identified by 
the Shays III court. Furthermore, many of the alternative proposals 
suggested by the commenters will not provide clear guidance to State 
and local party committees and could prove difficult for the Commission 
to administer and enforce.
    The Commission has reorganized the definition of voter registration 
activity in section 100.24 in light of comments received. Whereas the 
proposed rule would have set forth a general definition of ``voter 
registration activity'' with a non-exhaustive list of examples, the new 
rule defines ``voter registration activity'' by providing a 
comprehensive list of covered activities. Notwithstanding this change 
in form, the new definition covers the same universe of activities as 
the definition proposed in the NPRM.
    This change is responsive to commenters who indicated that the 
structure of the proposed definition was ``confusing'' and unhelpful. 
The Commission has concluded that the new definition, which lists both 
specific and general activities, provides clear and effective guidance 
while capturing those activities that Congress and the courts 
identified as being ``voter registration activity.''
2. 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(ii)--Brief, Incidental Exhortations
    New paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 11 CFR 100.24 states that an activity 
is not ``voter registration activity'' solely because it includes a 
brief exhortation to register to vote, so long as the exhortation is 
incidental to a communication, activity, or event. This exception from 
the definition of ``voter registration activity'' ensures that 
activities that are not otherwise voter registration activity do not 
become voter registration activity simply because they include a brief, 
incidental reminder to register to vote.
    To qualify for the exception, the exhortation to register to vote 
must be both brief and incidental. Exhortations to register to vote 
that go on for many minutes of a speech, for example, or that occupy a 
large amount of space in a mailer are not brief and will not qualify 
for the exception. Similarly, exhortations, however brief, must also be 
incidental to the communication, activity or event. For example, a one-
line exhortation to ``Register to vote!'' appearing at the end of a 
campaign flier would be incidental to the larger communication, whereas 
a communication stating only ``Register to Vote by October 1st!'' and 
containing no other text would not be incidental and, thus, would not 
come within the exception from the definition of ``voter registration 
activity.''
    The exception applies to brief, incidental exhortations regardless 
of the forum or medium in which they are

[[Page 55262]]

made. The exception covers an exhortation offered in a speech at a 
rally, for example, as well as one appearing in an e-mail.
    Two examples of activities that would be covered under the 
exception appear at new paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (a)(2)(ii)(B) of 
11 CFR 100.24. The first example is a mailer praising the public 
service record of a mayoral candidate and/or discussing the candidate's 
campaign platform. The mailer concludes by reminding recipients: 
``Don't forget to register to vote for [the mayoral candidate] by 
October 1st.'' The second example involves a phone call for a State 
party committee fundraising event. The call provides recipients with 
information about the event, solicits donations, and concludes by 
reminding the listener: ``Don't forget to register to vote.''
    The new exception at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)(ii) differs in certain 
respects from the one proposed in the NPRM. The proposed exception 
would have applied only to incidental exhortations made during speeches 
or events, whereas the exception in the final rule applies to brief, 
incidental exhortations made in any communication or during any 
activity or event. Moreover, the proposed exception did not explicitly 
require that the exhortation be brief, although a brevity requirement 
was implicit in the proposal. Finally, the proposed exception included 
four examples of exhortations that would have qualified for the 
exception. The new exception includes only two examples, but they are 
more detailed than in the NPRM and, thus, provide better guidance 
regarding the intended application of the exception.
    Several of the comments received on the exhortation exception were 
simply an extension of the comments on the scope and organization of 
the proposed definition of ``voter registration activity'' itself. One 
commenter, for example, indicated that the exception did not 
sufficiently narrow the definition of ``voter registration activity'' 
and would not appropriately protect ``persuasion communications.'' 
Another commenter urged the Commission not to adopt the exhortation 
exception and, instead, simply to define voter registration activity as 
covering only activities that facilitate voter registration.
    Other comments focused on the scope of the proposed exception. 
Specifically, commenters addressed whether the exception should be 
limited, as it was in the NPRM, to exhortations made during speeches 
and events, or whether it should also cover exhortations made in other 
contexts. Two commenters supported adopting the proposed exception, 
pointing out that the court's opinion specifically referenced only 
``routine or spontaneous speech-ending exhortations.'' Several 
commenters, though, believed that there was no reason to limit the 
exception by the medium in which the communication was delivered or the 
forum in which it was made. One of these commenters stated that 
``[n]othing in the court's decisions [could] reasonably be read to mean 
that exhortations are to be excluded only if made in a speech or at a 
rally but not if made by other means of communications.'' Another 
commenter pointed out that limiting the exception in this way would 
render it functionally meaningless, because parties rarely rely on 
speakers at rallies to encourage people to register to vote.
    Two commenters discussed the proposed requirement in the NPRM that, 
to qualify for the exception, an exhortation be incidental to a speech 
or event. One commenter suggested that the Commission determine whether 
an exhortation is, in fact, incidental by engaging in a time/space 
analysis. Another commenter urged that the exhortation exception be 
further limited to only spontaneous communications and not cover 
communications that are scripted.
    The Commission has considered the comments and has decided to adopt 
a somewhat broader exception than initially proposed. While the Shays 
III court required the Commission to adopt a more expansive definition 
of ``voter registration activity,'' the court acknowledged that the 
Commission could exclude from the definition ``routine or spontaneous 
speech-ending exhortations'' and ``mere exhortations * * * made at the 
end of a political event or speech.'' Shays III, 528 F.3d at 932.
    The Commission agrees with those commenters who indicated that the 
exception should not be limited by medium or forum. To limit the 
exemption to exhortations made only at speeches or rallies would 
elevate form over substance and is not necessary to give effect to the 
court's opinion. The court did not require the Commission to create 
artificial distinctions between an incidental exhortation during a 
speech or rally and an incidental exhortation made in a written 
communication or telephone call conveying the same message.
    This exception will not inoculate speeches or events that otherwise 
would meet the new definition of ``voter registration activity.'' For 
example, a speech given sixty days before an election that devotes 
several minutes to providing listeners with information on how to 
register to vote would not qualify under the exception at new 11 CFR 
100.24(a)(2)(ii). Instead, the exception is intended to ensure that 
communications that would not otherwise be voter registration activity 
do not become voter registration activity merely because they include a 
brief, incidental exhortation encouraging listeners to register to 
vote.

B. 11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)--Definition of ``GOTV Activity''

    To comply with the Court of Appeals' decision in Shays III, the 
Commission is revising the definition of ``GOTV activity'' at 11 CFR 
100.24(a)(3). The Commission's revised definition covers activities 
that assist, encourage, or urge potential voters to vote. The 
definition continues to cover contacting potential voters by 
individualized means but, as revised, it now also covers contacting 
potential voters by any means to urge or encourage them to vote. As 
explained further below, the new definition excludes brief, incidental 
exhortations to vote, consistent with the court's decision.
1. 11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(i)--Covered Activities
    Revised paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 11 CFR 100.24 lists the activities 
that are GOTV activity. The revised definition identifies the following 
activities as GOTV activity:
     Encouraging or urging potential voters to vote (11 CFR 
100.24(a)(3)(i)(A));
     Informing potential voters about times when polling places 
are open (11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(i)(B)(1)), the location of polling places 
(11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(i)(B)(2)), or early voting or voting by absentee 
ballot (11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(i)(B)(3);
     Offering or arranging to transport voters to the polls, as 
well as actually transporting voters to the polls, is also GOTV 
activity (11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(i)(C)); and
     All activities that assist potential voters to vote are 
GOTV activity (11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(i)(D)).
    These activities fall within the definition regardless of the means 
by which information is conveyed.
    Accordingly, the revised definition of ``GOTV activity'' would 
cover the following examples: (1) Driving a sound truck through a 
neighborhood that plays a message urging listeners to ``Vote next 
Tuesday at the Main Street community center''; and (2) making telephone 
calls (including robocalls) reminding the recipient of the times during 
which the polls are open on election day.

[[Page 55263]]

    The Commission received multiple comments on its proposal to expand 
the definition of GOTV activity to include encouraging potential voters 
to vote. Many of those comments addressed together the proposed 
expansions of the definitions of ``voter registration activity'' and 
``GOTV activity.'' Those comments were discussed and addressed in the 
preceding section and are only briefly mentioned here. Other comments, 
though, focused on the proposed expansion of the definition of ``GOTV 
activity'' and are discussed below.
    Almost all the commenters agreed that revising the definition of 
``GOTV activity'' to include encouraging and urging potential voters to 
vote would be responsive to the Shays III court. Commenters offered a 
range of opinions, though, on whether this expansion was required by 
the court's decision or if there was a narrower approach that might 
satisfy the court.
    Two commenters asserted that the Commission could not do ``anything 
short of including encourage[ment]'' in the definition and ``still 
satisfy the concerns of the circuit court.'' Others that commented on 
this issue, by contrast, believed that a definition of ``GOTV 
activity'' that included activities that only encouraged people to vote 
(regardless of the means) is unnecessary. Some commenters were 
concerned that such a definition would subject to regulation all of the 
activities of State and local party committees, contrary to the intent 
of Congress.
    Several commenters were particularly concerned that the proposed 
definition of ``GOTV activity'' would cover all candidate advocacy 
conducted by State, district, and local party committees, including 
advocacy focused solely on State and local candidates that makes no 
mention of a Federal candidate. As with the definition of ``voter 
registration activity,'' commenters proposed narrowing the definition 
of ``GOTV activity'' to cover only activities that actively encourage 
or facilitate voting or that are primarily aimed at increasing voter 
turnout. Another commenter proposed a definition that would cover only 
activities understood by a ``reasonable person engaged in political 
campaign management'' to be ``GOTV activity.''
    Some commenters also offered more specific suggestions regarding 
the definition of ``GOTV activity.'' One commenter proposed defining 
``GOTV activity'' as ``activities directed toward encouraging voters 
who are identified as likely to support specific candidates to cast 
votes in an election in which federal candidates are on the ballot.'' 
Several commenters stressed the need to adopt a definition of ``GOTV 
activity'' that would exclude ``persuasion communications,'' which the 
commenters characterized as communications that are intended to secure 
a vote for a specific candidate but that are not effective at 
mobilizing potential voters to vote.
    In the event that any of these narrower approaches proved under-
inclusive, one commenter suggested that the Commission could 
subsequently amend its regulations. This approach, according to the 
commenter, was preferable to adopting a broad definition at the outset 
covering all activities that encourage potential voters to vote.
    The Commission also received comments addressing its proposal to 
revise the definition of ``GOTV activity'' to include communications 
urging or encouraging potential voters to vote made by ``any other 
means.'' Two commenters thought that the court's decision did not 
require the Commission to adopt a definition covering all mass 
communications, and that the definition could simply be amended to 
cover certain specific activities, including phone banks and direct 
mail.
    Another commenter thought that the Commission should exempt from 
the definition of ``GOTV activity'' all Internet communications, 
because such communications are made at ``virtually no cost.'' In 
contrast, a different commenter thought that the definition's ``any 
other means'' standard was not ``inclusive enough'' and that the 
definition should list ``the multiple methods of electronic 
communication used today.''
    As discussed above, the Shays III court identified ``two distinct 
loopholes'' in the Commission's prior definitions of GOTV activity. See 
Shays III, 528 F.3d at 931-32. The court determined that these 
``loopholes''--which required that GOTV activity ``assist'' voters in 
voting and that contacts with potential voters be ``individualized''--
conflicted with BCRA's purpose. Id. at 932. Moreover, the Shays III 
court suggested that the Commission's regulations should reach both 
efforts that ``encourage people to vote or to register to vote'' as 
well as ``mass communications'' that are directed to a significant 
number of people. Id. at 931. The Commission concludes that the 
definition of ``GOTV activity'' adopted in this rulemaking best 
addresses the court's concerns.
    For these reasons, the Commission has decided not to adopt any of 
the other proposals suggested by the commenters. Whatever the 
individual merits of these proposals, in the current rulemaking the 
Commission is charged with adopting a definition of GOTV activity that 
addresses the ``two distinct loopholes'' identified by the Shays III 
court. Furthermore, many of the alternative proposals suggested by the 
commenters would prove difficult for the Commission to administer and 
enforce. Introducing qualifiers into the definition of ``GOTV 
activity''--like ``targeting,'' ``active encouragement,'' or 
``primarily aimed''--may theoretically narrow the definition, but would 
require the Commission to make searching (and potentially burdensome) 
inquiries into the mechanics, decision-making, and intentions of State, 
district, and local party committees and associations of State or local 
candidates in order to enforce the law. In addition, such a vague 
definition would not provide clear guidance to State, district, and 
local party committees and associations of State or local candidates.
    The Commission has reorganized the definition of ``GOTV activity'' 
in section 100.24 in light of comments received. Whereas the proposed 
rule would have set forth a general definition of ``GOTV activity'' 
with a non-exhaustive list of examples, the new rule defines ``GOTV 
activity'' by providing a comprehensive list of covered activities. 
Notwithstanding this change in form, the new definition covers the same 
universe of activities as the definition proposed in the NPRM.
    This organizational change is responsive to commenters who 
indicated that the structure of the proposed definition was 
``confusing'' and unhelpful. The Commission has decided that the 
revised definition, which lists both specific and general activities, 
provides clear and effective guidance while capturing those activities 
that Congress and the courts identified as being GOTV activity.
2. 11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(ii)--Brief, Incidental Exhortations
    New paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of 11 CFR 100.24 states that an activity 
is not GOTV activity solely because it includes a brief exhortation to 
register to vote, so long as the exhortation is incidental to a 
communication, activity, or event. Like the exception to the definition 
of ``voter registration activity,'' this exception to the definition of 
``GOTV activity'' ensures that activities that are not otherwise GOTV 
activity do not become GOTV activity simply because they include a 
brief, incidental reminder to vote.
    The exception operates identically to the exhortation exception to 
the definition of ``voter registration activity.'' To qualify for the 
exception, the

[[Page 55264]]

exhortation to vote must be both brief and incidental. Exhortations to 
vote that consume many minutes of a speech, for example, or that occupy 
a large amount of space in a mailer are not brief and will not qualify 
for the exception. Similarly, exhortations, however brief, must also be 
incidental to a communication, activity, or event. For example, a one-
word reminder to ``Vote!'' appearing at the end of a mailer would be 
incidental to the larger communication, whereas a message in a mailer 
that stated only ``Vote on Election Day!'' or ``Vote for Smith next 
Tuesday!'' and contained no other text would not be incidental and, 
thus, would not be exempted from the definition of GOTV activity.
    The exception applies to brief, incidental exhortations regardless 
of the forum or medium in which they are made. The exception covers an 
exhortation made at the end of a speech at a rally, for example, as 
well as one appearing at the end of an e-mail.
    Two examples of activities that would be covered under the 
exception appear at new paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) and (a)(3)(ii)(B) of 
11 CFR 100.24. The first example is a mailer praising the public 
service record of a mayoral candidate and/or discussing the candidate's 
campaign platform. The mailer concludes by reminding recipients: ``Vote 
[for the mayoral candidate] on November 4th.'' The second example 
involves a phone call for a State party committee fundraising event. 
The call provides recipients with information about the event, solicits 
donations, and concludes by reminding the listener: ``Don't forget to 
vote on November 4th.''
    The new exception at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(3)(ii) differs in certain 
respects from the one proposed in the NPRM. The proposed exception 
would have applied only to incidental exhortations made during speeches 
or events, whereas the exception in the final rule applies to brief, 
incidental exhortations made in any communication or during any 
activity or event. Moreover, the proposed exception did not explicitly 
require that the exhortation be brief, although a brevity requirement 
was implicit in the proposal. Finally, the proposed exception included 
four examples of exhortations that would have qualified for the 
exception. The new exception includes only two examples, but they are 
more detailed than in the NPRM and, thus, provide better guidance 
regarding the intended application of the exception.
    Several of the comments received on the exhortation exception were 
simply an extension of the comments on the scope and organization of 
the proposed definition of GOTV activity itself. One commenter, for 
example, indicated that the exception did not sufficiently narrow the 
definition of ``GOTV activity'' and would not appropriately protect 
``persuasion communications'' that are ``devoted to convincing a voter 
to vote for a particular candidate or party.'' Another commenter urged 
the Commission not to adopt the exhortation exception and, instead, 
simply define GOTV activity as covering only activities that facilitate 
voting. A different commenter suggested that the line between 
exhortation and encouragement existed where the communication or 
activity specifically urged a potential voter to vote. In the opinion 
of this commenter, a sign saying ``Vote for Smith'' would be an 
exhortation to vote, while a sign saying ``Go Vote for Smith'' would 
encourage voting and thus constitute GOTV activity.
    Other comments focused on the scope of the proposed exception. 
Specifically, commenters addressed whether the exception should be 
limited, as it was in the NPRM, to exhortations made during speeches 
and events, or whether it should also cover exhortations made in other 
contexts. Two commenters supported adopting the proposed exception, 
pointing out that the court's opinion specifically referenced only 
``routine or spontaneous speech-ending exhortations.'' Several 
commenters, though, believed that there was no reason to limit the 
exception by the medium in which the communication was delivered or the 
forum in which it was made. One of these commenters stated that 
``[n]othing in the court's decisions [could] reasonably be read to mean 
that exhortations are to be excluded only if made in a speech or at a 
rally but not if made by other means of communications.''
    Two commenters addressed the proposed requirement in the NPRM that, 
to qualify for the exception, an exhortation be incidental to a speech 
or event. One commenter suggested that the Commission determine whether 
an exhortation is, in fact, incidental by engaging in a time/space 
analysis. Another commenter suggested that the exhortation exception be 
further limited to only spontaneous communications and not cover 
communications that are scripted.
    The Commission has considered the comments and has decided to adopt 
a somewhat more expansive exception than initially proposed. While the 
Shays III court required the Commission to adopt a more expansive 
definition of GOTV, the court acknowledged that the Commission could 
exclude from the definition ``routine or spontaneous speech-ending 
exhortations'' and ``mere exhortations * * * made at the end of a 
political event or speech.'' Shays III, 528 F.3d at 932.
    The Commission agrees with those commenters who indicated that the 
exception should not be limited by medium or forum. To limit the 
exception to exhortations made only at speeches or rallies would 
elevate form over substance and is not necessary to give effect to the 
court's opinion. The court did not require the Commission to create 
artificial distinctions between an incidental exhortation during a 
speech or rally and an incidental exhortation made in a written 
communication or telephone call conveying the same message.
    This exemption will not inoculate speeches or events that otherwise 
would meet the definition of ``GOTV activity.'' For example, a speech 
given within the covered Federal election activity period that devotes 
several minutes to providing listeners with information on how and 
where to vote would not qualify under the exception at new 11 CFR 
100.24(a)(3)(ii). Instead, the exception is intended to ensure that 
communications that would not otherwise be GOTV activity do not become 
GOTV activity merely because they include a brief, incidental 
exhortation to vote.

C. 11 CFR 100.24(c)(5) and (c)(6)--Voter Identification and GOTV 
Activity Solely in Connection With a Non-Federal Election

    The new provisions at 11 CFR 100.24(c)(5) and (c)(6) restructure 
the combined provision proposed in the NPRM by addressing voter 
identification and GOTV activity in two separate provisions. New 
paragraph (c)(5) of 11 CFR 100.24 provides that certain voter 
identification that is conducted solely in connection with a non-
Federal election that is held on a date within the Type II Federal 
election activity time periods, but on which no Federal election is 
held, and which is not used in a subsequent election in which a Federal 
candidate is on the ballot, is not subject to BCRA's Federal election 
activity funding restrictions.
    New paragraph (c)(6) of 11 CFR 100.24 provides that certain GOTV 
activity that is conducted solely in connection with a non-Federal 
election that is held on a date within the Type II Federal election 
activity time periods, but on which no Federal election is held, is not 
subject to BCRA's Federal election activity funding restrictions, 
provided that any communications made as part of such activity refer

[[Page 55265]]

exclusively to: (1) Non-Federal candidates participating in the non-
Federal election, if the non-Federal candidates are not also Federal 
candidates, (2) ballot referenda or initiatives scheduled for the date 
of the non-Federal election, or (3) the date, polling hours, and 
locations of the non-Federal election.
    The Commission received several comments on the provision as 
proposed in the NPRM. Five commenters supported the provision, saying 
that it struck the proper balance and characterized it as ``sensible.'' 
One commenter believed it was proper to exclude such activities from 
the Federal election activity funding restrictions because they do not 
directly benefit Federal candidates, which was the focus of the 
McConnell court in analyzing BCRA.
    Many of these commenters also indicated that the proximity of an 
exclusively non-Federal election to a subsequent Federal election 
should have no bearing on the application of the provision. One 
commenter said that the proximity of the two types of elections was 
irrelevant because they involve different variables; the issues that 
inform voter identification and motivate voters in non-Federal 
elections are very different from those that inform and motivate in a 
Federal election. Accordingly, according to these commenters, voter 
identification and GOTV activity conducted for a non-Federal election 
is of little use in a subsequent Federal election.
    In contrast, two commenters objected to the provision on the basis 
that it would allow activity that affected Federal elections to be 
funded with non-Federal funds contrary to BCRA's intent. According to 
these commenters, all voter identification and GOTV activity confer 
benefits on Federal candidates and, as such, these activities must be 
regulated to avoid the risk of actual or apparent corruption.
    BCRA requires State, district, and local political party committees 
and organizations to finance Federal election activity with Federal 
funds, or, in some instances, with an allocated mix of Federal funds 
and Levin funds. 2 U.S.C. 441i(b); 11 CFR 300.33. One of the principal 
sponsors of BCRA described its Federal election activity provisions as 
a ``balanced approach which addresses the very real danger that Federal 
contribution limits could be evaded by diverting funds to State and 
local parties,'' while ``not attempt[ing] to regulate State and local 
party spending where this danger is not present, and where State and 
local parties engage in purely non-Federal activities.'' 148 Cong. Rec. 
S2138 (daily ed. Mar. 20, 2002) (Statement of Sen. McCain).
    BCRA does not require the Commission to regulate voter 
identification or GOTV activities by State, district, and local 
political party groups that are exclusively in connection with non-
Federal elections. Many communities hold entirely non-Federal elections 
on dates that are separate from any election in which a Federal 
candidate appears on the ballot, but that nevertheless fall within the 
Type II Federal election activity time periods. See, e.g. https://www.usmayors.org/elections/electioncitiesfall2010.pdf (listing mayoral 
elections held in 2010) (last visited July 28, 2010). The Commission, 
therefore, is adopting exceptions in the final rule to distinguish 
better between voter identification and GOTV activities that are 
Federal election activity, and those activities that are not Federal 
election activity because they do not affect elections in which Federal 
candidates appear on the ballot.

D. 11 CFR 100.24(c)(7)--Activities Involving De Minimis Costs

    New paragraph (c)(7) of 11 CFR 100.24 provides that de minimis 
costs associated with the following enumerated activities are not 
subject to the Federal election activity funding restrictions: (1) On 
the Web site of a party committee or association of State or local 
candidates, posting a hyperlink to a State or local election board's 
Web page containing information on voting or registering to vote; (2) 
on the Web site of a party committee or association of State or local 
candidates, enabling visitors to download a voter registration form or 
absentee ballot application; (3) on the Web site of a party committee 
or association of State or local candidates, providing information 
about voting dates and/or polling locations and hours of operation; and 
(4) placing voter registration forms or absentee ballot applications 
obtained from the board of elections at the office of a party committee 
or association of State or local candidates.
    In the NPRM, the Commission asked generally whether the proposed 
definitions of ``voter registration activity'' and ``GOTV activity'' 
covered activity that Congress did not intend to regulate in BCRA and, 
if so, what those activities were.
    In response, one commenter pointed out that under the expanded 
definitions of ``voter registration activity'' and ``GOTV activity,'' 
``all the organizational activity of every county, every city, and 
every state committee is going to be brought into these regulations,'' 
since--on some level--organizing people to register to vote, and to 
vote, informs everything that party committees do. This commenter 
noted, for example, that State and local parties commonly post on their 
Web sites information on voter registration and voting but that the 
cost is ``typically minimal and is folded into the general 
administrative costs of operating the committee.'' To the extent that 
this activity was covered as ``voter registration activity'' or ``GOTV 
activity,'' all the operational costs would potentially need to be 
funded with Federal funds or a mix of Federal and Levin funds, as 
appropriate.
    The Commission is mindful of the administrative complexities that 
State, district and local party committees, as well as associations of 
State and local candidates, would face in tracking the nominal, 
incidental costs of these activities. As recognized by the courts, 
agencies may promulgate de minimis exemptions to the statutes they 
administer on the basis that ``Congress is always presumed to intend 
that pointless expenditures of effort be avoided.'' Ass'n of Admin. Law 
Judges v. FLRA, 397 F.3d 957, 961-62 (DC Cir. 2005). Although there are 
limits to this authority--de minimis exceptions are inappropriate for 
extraordinarily rigid statutes or when the regulatory costs of the 
exemption exceed its benefits--it is inherent in most statutory 
schemes. Id. at 962; see Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 466 (DC 
Cir. 1996).
    Accordingly, the Commission has decided to adopt new paragraph 
(c)(7) at 11 CFR 100.24 to make clear that certain activities are not 
subject to BCRA's Federal election activity funding restrictions. Such 
a de minimis exception is entirely appropriate in this context because 
many of the activities listed will involve no costs and, thus, already 
effectively fall outside the Federal election activity funding 
regulations. To the extent that the listed activities do involve de 
minimis costs, they are so small that--even aggregated over a long 
period of time--they would not result in any meaningful evasion of 
BCRA's soft money restrictions.
    The Commission notes that this provision only covers de minimis 
costs associated with the enumerated activities; amounts that are not 
de minimis, which are incurred in connection with the enumerated 
activities, must still be paid for with Federal funds or a mix of 
Federal and Levin funds, as appropriate. In addition, the provision in 
paragraph (c)(7) does not cover de minimis costs associated with other 
activities. The costs associated with activities not enumerated, 
regardless of how small,

[[Page 55266]]

must also be paid for with Federal funds or a mix of Federal and Levin 
funds, as appropriate. Thus, the list of activities enumerated in the 
provision is exhaustive. Activities not listed are not covered, 
regardless of how closely related they are to the activities listed.

E. Additional Issues

1. Advisory Opinion 2006-19 (Los Angeles County Democratic Party 
Central Committee)
    In Shays III, the Court of Appeals criticized Advisory Opinion 
2006-19 (Los Angeles County Democratic Party Central Committee), in 
which the Commission concluded that letters and pre-recorded telephone 
calls encouraging certain Democrats to vote in an upcoming local 
election did not count as GOTV activity because the communications did 
not provide individualized assistance to voters. See Shays III, 528 
F.3d at 932. The court held that this overly restrictive construction 
of the definition of ``GOTV activity'' was contrary to the statute. See 
id. The Commission is superseding Advisory Opinion 2006-19 because the 
conclusion of that advisory opinion, along with its reasoning, cannot 
be reconciled with the Commission's new definition of ``GOTV 
activity.''
2. Associations of State and Local Candidates and Officeholders
    One commenter pointed out that the NPRM ``refer[red] repeatedly to 
`state, district or local party committees''' and referred ``only 
incidentally to associations of state and local candidates and 
officeholders.'' The commenter noted that such associations are subject 
to the Federal election activity funding restrictions to the same 
extent as State, district, and local party committees.
    The Commission agrees with the commenter that the new definitions 
of ``voter registr