71 FR 54 pgs. 14218-14219 - Price Index Increases for Coordinated Party Expenditure Limitations
Type: NOTICEVolume: 71Number: 54Pages: 14218 - 14219
Docket number: [Notice 2006-3]
FR document: [FR Doc. E6-4052 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]
Agency: Federal Election Commission
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
[Notice 2006-3]
Price Index Increases for Coordinated Party Expenditure Limitations
AGENCY:
Federal Election Commission.
ACTION:
Notice of coordinated party expenditure limit increases.
SUMMARY:
As mandated by provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA"), the Federal Election Commission ("the Commission") is adjusting the coordinated party expenditure limits set forth in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, to account for increases in the consumer price index.
Additional details appear in the supplemental information that follows.
DATES:
Effective Date: The effective date for the limits is January 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gregory J. Scott, Information Division, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. , as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (March 27, 2002), coordinated party expenditure limits (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3)(A) and (B)) are adjusted annually by the consumer price index. See 2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(1). The Commission is publishing this notice to announce the limits for 2006.
Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for 2006
Under 2 U.S.C. 441a(c), the Commission must adjust the expenditure limitations established by 2 U.S.C. 441a(d) (the limits on expenditures by national party committees, State party committees, or their subordinate committees in connection with the general election campaign of candidates for Federal office) annually to account for inflation. This expenditure limitation is increased by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 1974).
1. Expenditure Limitation for House of Representatives
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for each general election held to fill a seat in the House of Representatives. The formula used to calculate the expenditure limitation in a state with more than one congressional district multiplies the base figure of $10,000 by the price index (3.961), rounding to the nearest $100. Based upon this formula, the expenditure limitation for 2006 House elections in those states is $39,600. The formula used to calculate the expenditure limitation in a state with only one congressional district multiplies the base figure of $20,000 by the price index (3.961), rounding to the nearest $100. Based upon this formula, the expenditure limitation for 2006 House elections in these states is $79,200.
2. Expenditure Limitation for Senate
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for a general election held to fill a seat in the Senate. The formula used to calculate the Senate expenditure limitation considers not only the price index but also the voting age population ("VAP") of the state. The expenditure limitation is the greater of: the base figure ($20,000) multiplied by the price index (which totals $79,200); or $0.02 multiplied by the VAP of the state, multiplied by the price index. Amounts are rounded to the nearest $100. The chart below provides the state-by-state breakdown of the 2006 expenditure limitations for Senate elections.
| State | VAP (in thousands) | VAP × .02 multiplied by the price index (3.961) | Expenditure limit (the greater of the amount in column 3 or $79,200) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 3,468 | $274,700 | $274,700 |
| Alaska | 475 | 37,600 | 79,200 |
| Arizona | 4,359 | 345,300 | 345,300 |
| Arkansas | 2,104 | 166,700 | 166,700 |
| California | 26,430 | 2,093,800 | 2,093,800 |
| Colorado | 3,485 | 276,100 | 276,100 |
| Connecticut | 2,675 | 211,900 | 211,900 |
| Delaware | 648 | 51,300 | 79,200 |
| Florida | 13,722 | 1,087,100 | 1,087,100 |
| Georgia | 6,710 | 531,600 | 531,600 |
| Hawaii | 975 | 77,200 | 79,200 |
| Idaho | 1,055 | 83,600 | 83,600 |
| Illinois | 9,522 | 754,300 | 754,300 |
| Indiana | 4,669 | 369,900 | 369,900 |
| Iowa | 2,296 | 181,900 | 181,900 |
| Kansas | 2,070 | 164,000 | 164,000 |
| Kentucky | 3,193 | 252,900 | 252,900 |
| Louisiana | 3,376 | 267,400 | 267,400 |
| Maine | 1,044 | 82,700 | 82,700 |
| Maryland | 4,197 | 332,500 | 332,500 |
| Massachusetts | 4,941 | 391,400 | 391,400 |
| Michigan | 7,597 | 601,800 | 601,800 |
| Minnesota | 3,903 | 309,200 | 309,200 |
| Mississippi | 2,173 | 172,100 | 172,100 |
| Missouri | 4,422 | 350,300 | 350,300 |
| Montana | 731 | 57,900 | 79,200 |
| Nebraska | 1,327 | 105,100 | 105,100 |
| Nevada | 1,794 | 142,100 | 142,100 |
| New Hampshire | 1,007 | 79,800 | 79,800 |
| New Jersey | 6,556 | 519,400 | 519,400 |
| New Mexico | 1,439 | 114,000 | 114,000 |
| New York | 14,709 | 1,165,200 | 1,165,200 |
| North Carolina | 6,542 | 518,300 | 518,300 |
| North Dakota | 500 | 39,600 | 79,200 |
| Ohio | 8,705 | 689,600 | 689,600 |
| Oklahoma | 2,695 | 213,500 | 213,500 |
| Oregon | 2,791 | 221,100 | 221,100 |
| Pennsylvania | 9,613 | 761,500 | 761,500 |
| Rhode Island | 831 | 65,800 | 79,200 |
| South Carolina | 3,228 | 255,700 | 255,700 |
| South Dakota | 588 | 46,600 | 79,200 |
| Tennessee | 4,572 | 362,200 | 362,200 |
| Texas | 16,534 | 1,309,800 | 1,309,800 |
| Utah | 1,727 | 136,800 | 136,800 |
| Vermont | 490 | 38,800 | 79,200 |
| Virginia | 5,743 | 455,000 | 455,000 |
| Washington | 4,803 | 380,500 | 380,500 |
| West Virginia | 1,434 | 113,600 | 113,600 |
| Wisconsin | 4,240 | 335,900 | 335,900 |
| Wyoming | 395 | 31,300 | 79,200 |
Dated: March 14, 2006.
Michael E. Toner,
Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-4052 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P