80 FR 72616 - Candidate Debates

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 224 (November 20, 2015)

Page Range		72616-72618
FR Document		2015-29494

The Commission announces its disposition of a Petition for Rulemaking (``petition'') filed on September 11, 2014, by Level the Playing Field. The petition asks the Commission to amend its regulation on candidate debates to revise the criteria governing the inclusion of candidates in presidential and vice presidential candidate debates. The Commission is not initiating a rulemaking at this time.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 224 (Friday, November 20, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72616-72618]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29494]

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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Part 110

[Notice 2015-11]

Candidate Debates

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Disposition of Petition for Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission announces its disposition of a Petition for
Rulemaking (``petition'') filed on September 11, 2014, by Level the
Playing Field. The petition asks the Commission to amend its regulation
on candidate debates to revise the criteria governing the inclusion of
candidates in presidential and vice presidential candidate debates. The
Commission is not initiating a rulemaking at this time.

DATES: November 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The petition and other documents relating to this matter are
available on the Commission's Web site, www.fec.gov/fosers (reference
REG 2014-06), and in the Commission's Public Records Office, 999 E
Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General
Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff, Attorney, 999 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 11, 2014, the Commission
received a Petition for Rulemaking from Level the Playing Field
regarding the Commission's regulation at 11 CFR 110.13(c). That
regulation governs the criteria that debate staging organizations
(which the petitioner refers to as ``sponsors'') use for inclusion in
candidate debates. The regulation requires staging organizations to
``use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates
may participate in a debate'' and further specifies that, for general
election debates, staging organizations ``shall not use nomination by a
particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine
whether to include a candidate in a debate.'' 11 CFR 110.13(c). The
petition asks the Commission to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c) in two respects:
(1) To preclude sponsors of general election presidential and vice
presidential debates from requiring that a candidate meet a polling
threshold in order to be included in the debate; and (2) to require
sponsors of general election presidential and vice presidential debates
to have a set of objective, unbiased criteria for debate participation
that do not require candidates to satisfy a polling threshold.
The Commission published a Notice of Availability seeking comment
on the petition on November 14, 2014. Candidate Debates, 79 FR 68137.
The Commission received 1264 comments in response to that notice. One
comment, that of an organization that stages presidential and vice
presidential debates, opposed the petition; the remaining comments
either supported the petition or took no position thereon.
The petition and many of the comments supporting it argue that a
staging organization's requirement that a candidate meet a polling
threshold for inclusion in a debate unfairly benefits major party
candidates at the expense of independent and third party candidates. As
an alternative, the petition and some of the comments proposed
requiring staging organizations to include each candidate who has
qualified for the general election ballot in states that collectively
have enough Electoral College votes for the candidate to attain the
presidency.\1\ The petition states that

[[Page 72617]]

this would provide an objective, and more inclusive, criterion
preferable to polling thresholds. Other commenters did not necessarily
support or oppose the petitioner's proposed alternative but supported a
rulemaking to determine if changes are warranted. Still other
commenters proposed alternative and additional rule modifications for
the Commission's consideration, such as a requirement that debate
staging organizations provide the public with information about
candidates not included in a debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Specifically, the petitioner proposes that a presidential
candidate who, at a given date during the election year, has secured
ballot access in states that collectively have at least 270
Electoral College votes (of a total possible 538 votes), could
potentially qualify to participate in the general election debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter that opposed the petition urged the Commission to
continue allowing a debate staging organization substantial discretion
in formulating the nonpartisan objective candidate selection criteria
of its choice. This commenter further argued that its particular
polling thresholds are reasonable and objective selection criteria
adopted for nonpartisan reasons and designed to advance voter
education. This commenter also asserted that the petitioner's proposed
alternative would favor early ballot qualification by candidates with
the most resources over more meaningful measures of candidate support
and viability.
The Commission has evaluated the petition and comments and decided
not to initiate a rulemaking to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c) at this time.
As the Commission stated in adopting the current candidate debate
rule in 1995, ``the purpose of section 110.13 . . . is to provide a
specific exception so that certain nonprofit organizations . . . and
the news media may stage debates, without being deemed to have made
prohibited corporate contributions to the candidates taking part in
debates.'' Corporate and Labor Organization Activity; Express Advocacy
and Coordination with Candidates, 60 FR 64260, 64261 (Dec. 14,
1995).\2\ Accordingly, the Commission has required that debate
``staging organizations use pre-established objective criteria to avoid
the real or apparent potential for a quid pro quo, and to ensure the
integrity and fairness of the process.'' Id. at 64262. In discussing
objective selection criteria, the Commission has noted that debate
staging organizations may use them to ``control the number of
candidates participating in . . . a meaningful debate'' but must not
use criteria ``designed to result in the selection of certain pre-
chosen participants.'' Id. The Commission has further explained that
while ``[t]he choice of which objective criteria to use is largely left
to the discretion of the staging organization,'' the rule contains an
implied reasonableness requirement. Id. Within the realm of reasonable
criteria, the Commission has stated that it ``gives great latitude in
establishing the criteria for participant selection'' to debate staging
organizations under 11 CFR 110.13.\3\ First General Counsel's Report at
n.5, MUR 5530 (Commission on Presidential Debates) (May 4, 2005),
http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/000043F0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See also Funding and Sponsorship of Federal Candidate
Debates, 44 FR 76734 (Dec. 27, 1979) (explaining that, through
candidate debate rule, costs of staging multi-candidate nonpartisan
debates are not contributions or expenditures); 11 CFR 100.92
(excluding funds provided for costs of candidate debates staged
under 11 CFR 110.13 from definition of ``contribution''); 11 CFR
100.154 (excluding funds used for costs of candidate debates staged
under 11 CFR 110.13 from definition of ``expenditure'').
\3\ See Candidate Debates and News Stories, 61 FR 18049 (Apr.
24, 1996) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93-1239 at 4 (1974)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission has a well-established history of ensuring that
corporate contributions are not made to candidates taking part in
debates, including by evaluating the objectivity and neutrality of a
debate staging organization's selection criteria in the Commission's
enforcement process. Enforcement matters regarding that issue have
involved a wide range of candidate selection criteria, including
polling thresholds (from 5% to 15%), campaign finance activity levels
(such as a minimum number of contributors as shown in reports filed
with the Commission), campaign engagement levels (such as numbers of
yard signs or participation in neighborhood association meetings),
ballot access, and office eligibility. See, e.g., First General
Counsel's Report at 5 n.5, MUR 5530 (Commission on Presidential
Debates) (May 4, 2005), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/000043F0.pdf
(including 15% polling threshold and ballot access criteria). In each
of these matters, the Commission evaluated whether the criteria were
objective, pre-established, and not arranged in a manner to promote or
advance one candidate over another so as to constitute corporate
contributions to the participating candidates.
In these enforcement matters, the Commission has carefully examined
the use of polling thresholds and found that they can be objective and
otherwise lawful selection criteria for candidate debates. Indeed,
almost two decades ago, the Commission found that a staging
organization's use of polling data (among other criteria) did not
result in an unlawful corporate contribution, with five Commissioners
observing that it would make ``little sense'' if ``a debate sponsor
could not look at the latest poll results even though the rest of the
nation could look at this as an indicator of a candidate's
popularity.'' MUR 4451/4473 Commission Statement of Reasons at 8 n.7
(Commission on Presidential Debates) (Apr. 6, 1998), http://www.fec.gov/disclosure_data/mur/4451.pdf#page=459. Citing this
statement, one court noted with respect to the use of polling
thresholds as debate selection criteria that ``[i]t is difficult to
understand why it would be unreasonable or subjective to consider the
extent of a candidate's electoral support prior to the debate to
determine whether the candidate is viable enough to be included.''
Buchanan v. FEC, 112 F. Supp. 2d 58, 75 (D.D.C. 2000).
Because the regulation at issue is designed to provide debate
sponsors with discretion within a framework of objective and neutral
debate criteria, and because the Commission can evaluate the
objectivity and neutrality of a debate sponsor's selection criteria
through the enforcement process, the Commission finds that the
rulemaking proposed by the petition is not necessary at this time. The
Commission concludes that section 110.13(c) in its current form
provides adequate regulatory implementation of the corporate
contribution ban and is preferable to a rigid rule that would prohibit
or mandate use of particular debate selection criteria in all debates.
See 11 CFR 200.5(c) (listing desirability of proceeding on case-by-case
basis as consideration in declining to initiate rulemaking); see also
MUR 4451/4473 Commission Statement of Reasons at 8-9 (Commission on
Presidential Debates) (noting that Commission cannot reasonably
``question[ ] each and every . . . candidate assessment criterion'' but
can evaluate ``evidence that [such a] criterion was `fixed' or arranged
in some manner so as to guarantee a preordained result'').
The petition and the commenters who support it rely primarily on
policy arguments in favor of debate selection criteria that would
include more candidates in general election presidential and vice
presidential debates. The rule at section 110.13(c), however, is not
intended to maximize the number of debate participants; it is intended
to ensure that staging organizations do not select participants in such
a way that the costs of a debate constitute corporate contributions to
the candidates taking part. Corporate and Labor Organization Activity;
Express Advocacy and Coordination with

[[Page 72618]]

Candidates, 60 FR at 64261-62. Staging organizations' use of polling
criteria is a reasonable way for a debate staging organization to
select and ``control the number of candidates participating in . . . a
meaningful debate,'' id., and to do so in a way that is objective and
does not constitute a corporate contribution. A per se rule prohibiting
the use of polling criteria is therefore not necessary to prevent
debates from constituting unlawful contributions.
Furthermore, the rule at 11 CFR 110.13(c) already permits the use
of criteria by staging organizations that could result in larger
numbers of candidates participating in debates. Indeed, the specific
criterion that the petition asks the Commission to include in a revised
section 110.13(c) is already lawful: A debate staging organization has
the discretion to stage a general election presidential or vice
presidential debate using selection criteria similar to the Electoral
College approach preferred by the petitioner (so long as the
organization's reasonable selection criteria are pre-established,
objective, and not designed to result in the selection of certain pre-
chosen participants). No rule change is necessary to enable that
approach, and the petitioner may sponsor a debate using such criteria
or persuade a debate sponsor to do so.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ If the petitioner (or another entity) is unsure whether it
is a debate ``staging organization'' as defined in 11 CFR 110.13(a),
it may ask the Commission for an advisory opinion on the matter.
See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1988-22 (San Joaquin Republicans)
(concluding that advisory opinion requestor, which did not yet have
relevant tax status, was not within candidate debate exemption).
Similarly, if a debate staging organization wishes to ask the
Commission to conclude that its proposed candidate selection
criteria are objective and not designed to result in the selection
of certain pre-chosen participants (and thus protect itself from a
later enforcement action), it may seek an advisory opinion on that
question. See 52 U.S.C. 30108(c) (establishing scope of protection
of advisory opinions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The petition sets forth certain data in support of its argument
that the use of polling thresholds as a debate selection criterion by
one staging organization ``creates a hurdle that third-party and
independent candidates cannot reasonably expect to clear,'' and
therefore is designed to result in the selection of certain pre-chosen
participants. Petition at 15. The use of polling data by a single
debate staging organization for candidate debates for a single office,
however, does not suggest the need for a rule change. The Commission
acknowledges that lower (or no) polling threshold selection criteria
may open debates to more candidates and that polling thresholds could
be used to promote or advance one candidate (or group of candidates)
over another. But to the extent that a debate staging organization uses
non-objective selection criteria ``designed to result in the selection
of certain pre-chosen participants,'' this would already be unlawful
under the Commission's existing regulation. Corporate and Labor
Organization Activity; Express Advocacy and Coordination with
Candidates, 60 FR at 64262.
Finally, the Commission notes that the petition focuses on and
seeks to amend the rule only with respect to polling threshold criteria
in the selection of participants for presidential general election
debates. However, the candidate debate rule applies to all debates
(primary and general election) ``at the presidential, House, and Senate
levels.'' Funding and Sponsorship of Candidate Debates, 44 FR 39348
(July 5, 1979).\5\ In the absence of any indication that polling
thresholds are inherently unobjective or otherwise unlawful as applied
to all federal elections (and the Commission is aware of no such
indication),\6\ the Commission declines to initiate a rulemaking that
would impose a nationwide prohibition on the use of such thresholds, or
that could result in giving different legal effect to the use of
polling criterion in different elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Indeed, the Commission has analyzed, in the enforcement
context, debate staging organizations' criteria under 11 CFR
110.13(c) at all levels of federal elections. See, e.g., MUR 5650
(Associated Students of the Univ. of Arizona) (Senate debate); MUR
5530 (Commission on Presidential Debates) (presidential general
election debates).
\6\ The petitioner provided data intended to demonstrate that
polling figures are sometimes inaccurate, but the fact that polls
can be inaccurate does not mean that a staging organization acts
unobjectively by using them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all of the above reasons, the Commission therefore declines to
commence a rulemaking to amend the criteria for staging candidate
debates in 11 CFR 110.13(c).

On behalf of the Commission.

Dated: November 9, 2015.
Ann M. Ravel,
Chair, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-29494 Filed 11-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P

72616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Submitting comments via email, hand generally known by or available from Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff,
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and other sources, (4) whether the Attorney, 999 E Street NW.,
documents submitted via email, hand information has previously been made Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650
delivery, or mail will also be posted to available to others without obligation or (800) 424–9530.
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want concerning its confidentiality, (5) an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
your personal contact information to be explanation of the competitive injury to September 11, 2014, the Commission
publicly viewable, do not include it in the submitting person which would received a Petition for Rulemaking from
your comment or any accompanying result from public disclosure, (6) when Level the Playing Field regarding the
documents. Instead, provide your such information might lose its Commission’s regulation at 11 CFR
contact information in a cover letter. confidential character due to the 110.13(c). That regulation governs the
Include your first and last names, email passage of time, and (7) why disclosure criteria that debate staging organizations
address, telephone number, and of the information would be contrary to (which the petitioner refers to as
optional mailing address. The cover the public interest. ‘‘sponsors’’) use for inclusion in
letter will not be publicly viewable as It is DOE’s policy that all comments candidate debates. The regulation
long as it does not include any may be included in the public docket, requires staging organizations to ‘‘use
comments. without change and as received, pre-established objective criteria to
Include contact information each time including any personal information determine which candidates may
you submit comments, data, documents, provided in the comments (except participate in a debate’’ and further
and other information to DOE. If you information deemed to be exempt from specifies that, for general election
submit via mail or hand delivery/ public disclosure). debates, staging organizations ‘‘shall not
courier, please provide all items on a use nomination by a particular political
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary party as the sole objective criterion to
necessary to submit printed copies. No determine whether to include a
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. The Secretary of Energy has approved candidate in a debate.’’ 11 CFR
Comments, data, and other publication of this notice of data 110.13(c). The petition asks the
information submitted to DOE availability.
electronically should be provided in Commission to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c)
portable document format (PDF)
Issued in Washington, DC, on November in two respects: (1) To preclude
16, 2015. sponsors of general election presidential
(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel,
WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format.
Kathleen B. Hogan, and vice presidential debates from
Provide documents that are not secured, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy requiring that a candidate meet a polling
that are written in English, and that are Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable threshold in order to be included in the
Energy. debate; and (2) to require sponsors of
free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special [FR Doc. 2015–29676 Filed 11–19–15; 8:45 am] general election presidential and vice
characters or any form of encryption BILLING CODE 6450–01–P presidential debates to have a set of
and, if possible, they should carry the objective, unbiased criteria for debate
electronic signature of the author. participation that do not require
Campaign form letters. Please submit FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION candidates to satisfy a polling threshold.
campaign form letters by the originating The Commission published a Notice
organization in batches of between 50 11 CFR Part 110 of Availability seeking comment on the
and 500 form letters per PDF or as one [Notice 2015–11]
petition on November 14, 2014.
form letter with a list of supporters’ Candidate Debates, 79 FR 68137. The
names compiled into one or more PDFs. Candidate Debates Commission received 1264 comments in
This reduces comment processing and response to that notice. One comment,
AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. that of an organization that stages
posting time.
Confidential Business Information. ACTION: Notice of Disposition of Petition presidential and vice presidential
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person for Rulemaking. debates, opposed the petition; the
submitting information that he or she remaining comments either supported
SUMMARY: The Commission announces the petition or took no position thereon.
believes to be confidential and exempt its disposition of a Petition for
by law from public disclosure should The petition and many of the
Rulemaking (‘‘petition’’) filed on comments supporting it argue that a
submit two well-marked copies: One September 11, 2014, by Level the
copy of the document marked staging organization’s requirement that a
Playing Field. The petition asks the candidate meet a polling threshold for
‘‘confidential’’ including all the Commission to amend its regulation on
information believed to be confidential, inclusion in a debate unfairly benefits
candidate debates to revise the criteria major party candidates at the expense of
and one copy of the document marked governing the inclusion of candidates in
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information independent and third party candidates.
presidential and vice presidential As an alternative, the petition and some
believed to be confidential deleted. candidate debates. The Commission is
Submit these documents via email or on of the comments proposed requiring
not initiating a rulemaking at this time. staging organizations to include each
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
DATES: November 20, 2015. candidate who has qualified for the
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it ADDRESSES: The petition and other general election ballot in states that
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

according to its determination. documents relating to this matter are collectively have enough Electoral
Factors of interest to DOE when available on the Commission’s Web site, College votes for the candidate to attain
evaluating requests to treat submitted www.fec.gov/fosers (reference REG the presidency.1 The petition states that
information as confidential include: (1) 2014–06), and in the Commission’s
A description of the items, (2) whether Public Records Office, 999 E Street NW., 1 Specifically, the petitioner proposes that a

Washington, DC 20463. presidential candidate who, at a given date during
and why such items are customarily the election year, has secured ballot access in states
treated as confidential within the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. that collectively have at least 270 Electoral College
industry, (3) whether the information is Robert M. Knop, Assistant General votes (of a total possible 538 votes), could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Nov 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 72617

this would provide an objective, and the Commission has noted that debate in an unlawful corporate contribution,
more inclusive, criterion preferable to staging organizations may use them to with five Commissioners observing that
polling thresholds. Other commenters ‘‘control the number of candidates it would make ‘‘little sense’’ if ‘‘a debate
did not necessarily support or oppose participating in . . . a meaningful sponsor could not look at the latest poll
the petitioner’s proposed alternative but debate’’ but must not use criteria results even though the rest of the
supported a rulemaking to determine if ‘‘designed to result in the selection of nation could look at this as an indicator
changes are warranted. Still other certain pre-chosen participants.’’ Id. The of a candidate’s popularity.’’ MUR 4451/
commenters proposed alternative and Commission has further explained that 4473 Commission Statement of Reasons
additional rule modifications for the while ‘‘[t]he choice of which objective at 8 n.7 (Commission on Presidential
Commission’s consideration, such as a criteria to use is largely left to the Debates) (Apr. 6, 1998), http://
requirement that debate staging discretion of the staging organization,’’ www.fec.gov/disclosure_data/mur/
organizations provide the public with the rule contains an implied 4451.pdf#page=459. Citing this
information about candidates not reasonableness requirement. Id. Within statement, one court noted with respect
included in a debate. the realm of reasonable criteria, the to the use of polling thresholds as
The commenter that opposed the Commission has stated that it ‘‘gives debate selection criteria that ‘‘[i]t is
petition urged the Commission to great latitude in establishing the criteria difficult to understand why it would be
continue allowing a debate staging for participant selection’’ to debate unreasonable or subjective to consider
organization substantial discretion in staging organizations under 11 CFR the extent of a candidate’s electoral
formulating the nonpartisan objective 110.13.3 First General Counsel’s Report support prior to the debate to determine
candidate selection criteria of its choice. at n.5, MUR 5530 (Commission on whether the candidate is viable enough
This commenter further argued that its Presidential Debates) (May 4, 2005), to be included.’’ Buchanan v. FEC, 112
particular polling thresholds are http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/ F. Supp. 2d 58, 75 (D.D.C. 2000).
reasonable and objective selection 000043F0.pdf. Because the regulation at issue is
criteria adopted for nonpartisan reasons The Commission has a well- designed to provide debate sponsors
and designed to advance voter established history of ensuring that with discretion within a framework of
education. This commenter also corporate contributions are not made to objective and neutral debate criteria,
asserted that the petitioner’s proposed candidates taking part in debates, and because the Commission can
alternative would favor early ballot including by evaluating the objectivity evaluate the objectivity and neutrality of
qualification by candidates with the and neutrality of a debate staging a debate sponsor’s selection criteria
most resources over more meaningful organization’s selection criteria in the through the enforcement process, the
measures of candidate support and Commission’s enforcement process. Commission finds that the rulemaking
viability. Enforcement matters regarding that proposed by the petition is not
The Commission has evaluated the issue have involved a wide range of necessary at this time. The Commission
petition and comments and decided not candidate selection criteria, including concludes that section 110.13(c) in its
to initiate a rulemaking to amend 11 polling thresholds (from 5% to 15%), current form provides adequate
CFR 110.13(c) at this time. campaign finance activity levels (such regulatory implementation of the
As the Commission stated in adopting as a minimum number of contributors as corporate contribution ban and is
the current candidate debate rule in shown in reports filed with the preferable to a rigid rule that would
1995, ‘‘the purpose of section 110.13 Commission), campaign engagement prohibit or mandate use of particular
. . . is to provide a specific exception levels (such as numbers of yard signs or debate selection criteria in all debates.
so that certain nonprofit organizations participation in neighborhood See 11 CFR 200.5(c) (listing desirability
. . . and the news media may stage association meetings), ballot access, and of proceeding on case-by-case basis as
debates, without being deemed to have office eligibility. See, e.g., First General consideration in declining to initiate
made prohibited corporate contributions Counsel’s Report at 5 n.5, MUR 5530 rulemaking); see also MUR 4451/4473
to the candidates taking part in (Commission on Presidential Debates) Commission Statement of Reasons at 8–
debates.’’ Corporate and Labor (May 4, 2005), http://eqs.fec.gov/ 9 (Commission on Presidential Debates)
Organization Activity; Express eqsdocsMUR/000043F0.pdf (including (noting that Commission cannot
Advocacy and Coordination with 15% polling threshold and ballot access reasonably ‘‘question[ ] each and every
Candidates, 60 FR 64260, 64261 (Dec. criteria). In each of these matters, the . . . candidate assessment criterion’’ but
14, 1995).2 Accordingly, the Commission evaluated whether the can evaluate ‘‘evidence that [such a]
Commission has required that debate criteria were objective, pre-established, criterion was ‘fixed’ or arranged in some
‘‘staging organizations use pre- and not arranged in a manner to manner so as to guarantee a preordained
established objective criteria to avoid promote or advance one candidate over result’’).
the real or apparent potential for a quid another so as to constitute corporate The petition and the commenters who
pro quo, and to ensure the integrity and contributions to the participating support it rely primarily on policy
fairness of the process.’’ Id. at 64262. In candidates. arguments in favor of debate selection
discussing objective selection criteria, In these enforcement matters, the criteria that would include more
Commission has carefully examined the candidates in general election
potentially qualify to participate in the general use of polling thresholds and found that presidential and vice presidential
election debate.
they can be objective and otherwise debates. The rule at section 110.13(c),
however, is not intended to maximize
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

2 See also Funding and Sponsorship of Federal

Candidate Debates, 44 FR 76734 (Dec. 27, 1979) lawful selection criteria for candidate
debates. Indeed, almost two decades the number of debate participants; it is
(explaining that, through candidate debate rule,
costs of staging multi-candidate nonpartisan ago, the Commission found that a intended to ensure that staging
debates are not contributions or expenditures); 11 staging organization’s use of polling organizations do not select participants
CFR 100.92 (excluding funds provided for costs of
data (among other criteria) did not result in such a way that the costs of a debate
candidate debates staged under 11 CFR 110.13 from constitute corporate contributions to the
definition of ‘‘contribution’’); 11 CFR 100.154
(excluding funds used for costs of candidate debates 3 See Candidate Debates and News Stories, 61 FR candidates taking part. Corporate and
staged under 11 CFR 110.13 from definition of 18049 (Apr. 24, 1996) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93– Labor Organization Activity; Express
‘‘expenditure’’). 1239 at 4 (1974)). Advocacy and Coordination with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Nov 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1

Document Created: 2015-12-14 13:59:04
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 13:59:04

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of Disposition of Petition for Rulemaking.
Dates		November 20, 2015.
Contact		Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff, Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
FR Citation		80 FR 72616