Browse regulations

This regulation implements the presidential primary matching funds program, requiring candidates to sign agreements, certify compliance with spending limits, meet minimum contribution thresholds ($5,000 in 20+ states), maintain extensive records, submit to audits, and comply with disclosure rules to receive public financing. It outlines eligibility determination, grounds for ineligibility (vote thresholds, inactivity, violations), reinstatement procedures, and detailed documentation standards including computerized data requirements.

Public financing of presidential primaries forces taxpayers to subsidize political speech they may oppose, violating voluntary association principles. The extensive compliance regime advantages Establishment candidates who can navigate bureaucracy while burdening grassroots challengers. Matching funds distort political competition by disincentivizing innovative fundraising and entrench federal regulatory power over core political expression—functions better served by the free market of ideas and private voluntary support.

Defines terms and procedures for the presidential public financing system, including authorized committees, qualified campaign expenses, matching payment periods, and eligibility criteria for candidates to receive taxpayer-funded matching payments.

Forces taxpayers to subsidize political campaigns they may oppose, creates a costly compliance regime that disadvantages grassroots candidates, and concentrates regulatory power over political speech in a federal agency. The system intrudes on First Amendment rights and perpetuates the two-party duopoly by imposing complex rules only well-funded campaigns can navigate efficiently.

This regulation imposes spending limits and contribution restrictions on presidential candidates who accept public funding, while also prohibiting misuse of those funds and fraud against the FEC. It is enforced by the Federal Election Commission as part of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund program.

Keeping these restrictions forces candidates to choose between government funding with censorship-like spending caps or to forgo public funds altogether, infringing free speech and association rights. The limits advantage incumbents and wealthy candidates, raise barriers to entry, and divert resources to compliance. The FEC enforcement regime creates additional regulatory burden and potential for partisan weaponization. The unseen consequences include driving campaign activity into less transparent channels and entrenching the two-party duopoly by making it harder for outsiders to compete. The program's public funding also coerces taxpayers into financing campaigns against their will. These costs far outweigh any speculative anti-corruption benefits.

This regulation establishes procedures for the Federal Election Commission to audit and examine presidential candidates' campaign finances, including fieldwork requirements, audit reports, repayment determinations, and administrative review processes for public financing compliance.

This regulation creates an intrusive federal bureaucracy that audits and micromanages presidential campaigns, violating principles of limited government and free political association. The extensive paperwork requirements, mandatory field investigations, and complex repayment procedures impose significant compliance costs on campaigns while enabling federal oversight of political speech. Such regulation of campaign finance should be handled at state level or left to voluntary disclosure, not enforced through federal auditing powers.

This FEC regulation mandates separate reporting of campaign finances for federal candidates, distinguishing between general election expenditures, public funding receipts (Presidential Election Campaign Fund), and legal compliance funds. It specifies monthly/quarterly filing schedules and requires alphabetical ordering of computerized contributor/payee lists.

The regulation imposes compliance burdens on political speech, creating a chilling effect especially on grassroots campaigns. Its primary purpose is to administer the unconstitutional public financing system, which uses tax dollars to subsidize campaigns—an improper function of government. Transparency can be achieved through voluntary disclosure and market-based accountability without state coercion.

FEC regulations governing certification and payment of public funds to presidential candidates, including procedures for major, minor, and new party candidates based on vote percentages and eligibility criteria, with Treasury disbursement mechanisms.

Public campaign financing violates taxpayer neutrality by forcing citizens to subsidize political speech they may oppose, distorts democratic competition by entrenching major parties, and creates a bureaucratic apparatus that picks winners and losers. The unseen cost is a less vibrant political marketplace where new ideas struggle without establishment backing, contrary to free competition principles.

Provides federal funding for presidential campaigns based on vote percentages and qualified campaign expenses, with complex rules for pre-election payments, qualified expenses, and asset disposal

Creates a costly federal subsidy system that distorts electoral competition, entrenches major parties, and violates principles of limited government by using taxpayer funds for political campaigns

Regulation governs federal funding for presidential campaigns, requiring candidates to agree to audit conditions, spending limits, and compliance with campaign finance laws before receiving public funds. It establishes legal and accounting compliance funds for major parties and allows minor parties to solicit additional contributions beyond federal allocations.

Creates a complex bureaucratic system that distorts campaign finance, entrenches major parties, and imposes costly compliance burdens on candidates. The $2 trillion regulatory compliance cost burden extends to political campaigns, with unseen effects including reduced competition from minor parties and distorted spending patterns that undermine free political discourse.

Federal Election Commission regulations defining terms and procedures for presidential campaign finance, including candidate eligibility, fund disbursement, expenditure reporting, and committee authorization requirements under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund system.

These regulations create a complex federal campaign finance bureaucracy that distorts electoral competition, entrenches major parties through matching fund requirements, and imposes costly compliance burdens on candidates. The system violates free speech principles by restricting political spending and creates regulatory capture where incumbents benefit from complex rules while new challengers face prohibitive compliance costs.

Board regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, establishing procedures for individuals to access, correct, and control disclosure of their personal records maintained by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, including request processes, appeal rights, and fee structures.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it provides essential privacy protections and transparency for individuals regarding their personal information held by federal agencies, enabling citizens to verify accuracy of records, correct errors, and control unauthorized disclosure - fundamental rights that protect against government overreach and identity theft.

Procedural regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Defines meetings, requires open meetings with advance notice, lists exemptions for closure (national security, personnel, trade secrets, etc.), mandates recording and public disclosure of closed meeting transcripts, and includes provisions for nonpublic collaborative discussions with limited disclosure requirements.

While this imposes administrative compliance costs on the Board, it serves a critical transparency function for an agency overseeing nuclear safety—a legitimate government interest in preventing catastrophic harm. The Sunshine Act requirements provide essential public oversight and accountability for board decisions that could affect thousands of lives. The exemptions are narrowly tailored and reasonable. Deleting it would reduce transparency in high-stakes decisions without replacing it with any meaningful alternative accountability mechanism.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Defines agency records, establishes electronic reading room with publicly available documents (board rules, recommendations, meeting transcripts, orders, etc.), sets procedures for FOIA requests including fee structures and waivers, response timelines, appeals process, and procedures for handling privileged documents.

This regulation implements FOIA, a fundamental transparency law essential for government accountability. Americans would be worse off without it: nuclear facility safety information would be hidden from public scrutiny, undermining oversight of an agency charged with protecting public safety. The administrative costs of processing requests are the legitimate price of transparency in a constitutional republic, far less than the costs of unchecked bureaucratic power. Unlike economic regulations that distort markets, this one simply opens government operations to public view.

Internal DOE guidelines setting arrest authority and use-of-force policies for Protective Force Officers securing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and its personnel. Establishes when arrests (with/without warrant) and force (non-deadly/deadly) are permitted, required procedures (announcements, Miranda, transfers), training/qualification standards, equipment, and incident reporting requirements for DOE and contractor security personnel.

These guidelines expand a specialized armed federal police force to protect a federal facility—a function adequately served by existing general law enforcement (e.g., FBI, DHS, or Federal Protective Service). The unseen costs include permanent bureaucratic growth, mission creep beyond the SPR, and normalization of armed federal agents operating with arrest powers on federal property, setting precedent for further federalization of security. The internal compliance costs and training burdens are a waste of taxpayer resources that could be eliminated by reassigning protection to broader federal police or, per Tenth Amendment, allowing state/local jurisdiction where applicable. Even for critical infrastructure, creating a dedicated DOE security apparatus violates sound federalism and concentrates power unnecessarily.

Defines 'nonrecourse project-financed' for the specific purpose of qualifying 'new independent power production facilities' under section 416 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The definition outlines financing structures where debt is secured solely by project assets and revenues, without utility obligations to repay, and includes certain allowances for guarantees and equity financing.

This is a purely definitional rule with no substantive requirements or compliance obligations. It adds negligible clarity but contributes to regulatory bloat and complexity. Courts can interpret the statutory term without this guidance; its removal would not meaningfully affect project financing or the statute's application. Deleting it simplifies the CFR without real-world harm.

Part 20 establishes federal radiation protection standards for NRC licensees handling radioactive materials, setting dose limits for workers and the public, defining safety concepts like ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), and specifying monitoring and containment requirements to control exposure to ionizing radiation.

Radiation causes irreversible, latent harm (cancer, genetic damage) that crosses property and state boundaries, creating severe externalities markets cannot price. The technical dose limits are objective and rule-based, not discretionary. Deletion would impose uncompensated harms on innocent third parties and undermine beneficial nuclear medicine. The ALARA framework balances costs and benefits, making this one of the few defensible federal regulations.