Private pilot flying a candidate in a federal election

A

allPrimes

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
219
Location
Montana
Display Name
Display name:
allPrimes
I am a PPL that flies in C172s.

I know my limitations as a PPL when it comes to flying friends/family around who want to split costs with me, pro rata share, yadda yadda. Now, however, I volunteered to fly a candidate in a federal election from Airport A to Airport B, about a two-hour flight with the candidate, and I know there is a weird carve out in 91.321 related to "Carriage of candidates in elections." In doing some reading this afternoon about how to handle this, I've discovered that it's not as simple as making this an "in kind" donation.

How do I "charge" for this? My first thought was to bill the campaign for the costs of the plane ($84/hr wet, what I'm charged by the club) and my time ($100/hr is how I value my free time; total invoice would be <$400) but I read a few lawyer-type blogs on the issue that said that it's really the Federal Election Commission that regulates this and that there may be more to it.

How do I handle this? Do I need to find some sort of estimate of how much it'd cost a commercial provider to fly from A to B and charge them that or can it be limited to what my costs are plus my personal time? Does anyone have experience with 91.321?

Is this question asking too much of the PoA and I should just ask a lawyer/leave it up to the candidates legal team? The candidate definitely has a legal team and I could just leave it up to them.

EDIT: After doing some digging, it seems the whole thing may be moot in my case. The candidate is a US House candidate and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 restricts campaign-related travel on non-commercial aircraft for US House candidates. Candidates for US House, their authorized committees, and their leadership PACs are prohibited from making an expenditure for non-commercial air travel unless it's a government aircraft or is an aircraft owned or leased by the candidate or immediate family member of the candidate (from the FEC.gov website).
 
Last edited:
allPrimes said:
I am a PPL that flies in C172s.

I know my limitations as a PPL when it comes to flying friends/family around who want to split costs with me, pro rata share, yadda yadda. Now, however, I volunteered to fly a candidate in a federal election from Airport A to Airport B, about a two-hour flight with the candidate, and I know there is a weird carve out in 91.321 related to "Carriage of candidates in elections." In doing some reading this afternoon about how to handle this, I've discovered that it's not as simple as making this an "in kind" donation.

How do I "charge" for this? My first thought was to bill the campaign for the costs of the plane ($84/hr wet, what I'm charged by the club) and my time ($100/hr is how I value my free time; total invoice would be <$400) but I read a few lawyer-type blogs on the issue that said that it's really the Federal Election Commission that regulates this and that there may be more to it.

How do I handle this? Do I need to find some sort of estimate of how much it'd cost a commercial provider to fly from A to B and charge them that or can it be limited to what my costs are plus my personal time? Does anyone have experience with 91.321?

Is this question asking too much of the PoA and I should just ask a lawyer/leave it up to the candidates legal team? The candidate definitely has a legal team and I could just leave it up to them.
Click to expand...
This doesn't exempt you as a pilot from the requirements of Parts 61 or 91:
§ 91.321 Carriage of candidates in elections.
(a) As an aircraft operator, you may receive payment for carrying a candidate, agent of a candidate, or person traveling on behalf of a candidate, running for Federal, State, or local election, without having to comply with the rules in parts 121, 125 or 135 of this chapter, under the following conditions:
Click to expand...
The purpose of that is primarily to allow owners to "charge" candidates for flights because FEC rules require it, and FAA rules generally prohibit what would otherwise be an illegal charter.
 
AFAIK, you cannot get paid for this. You're not the operator, but the pilot. The operator in this case would be the club that you rent the aircraft from.
 
"For federal elections, the payment may not exceed the amount required by the Federal Election Commission."

That is where I would go to seek clarification on this.
 
allPrimes said:
I am a PPL that flies in C172s.

I know my limitations as a PPL when it comes to flying friends/family around who want to split costs with me, pro rata share, yadda yadda. Now, however, I volunteered to fly a candidate in a federal election from Airport A to Airport B, about a two-hour flight with the candidate, and I know there is a weird carve out in 91.321 related to "Carriage of candidates in elections." In doing some reading this afternoon about how to handle this, I've discovered that it's not as simple as making this an "in kind" donation.
Click to expand...
Under 91.321, the operator must be required to receive payment for such a flight. Ergo, you would be flying for compensation. Under 61.113, a private pilot cannot fly for compensation. You need a commercial pilot certificate to fly for compensation.
 
Thanks for the replies. This has been eye-opening. Most interesting are the fact that both my CFI and my DPE called out that a private pilot can't receive compensation except when carrying candidates in elections!

After doing some digging, it seems the whole thing may be moot in my case. The candidate is a US House candidate and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 restricts campaign-related travel on non-commercial aircraft for US House candidates. Candidates for US House, their authorized committees, and their leadership PACs are prohibited from making an expenditure for non-commercial air travel unless it's a government aircraft or is an aircraft owned or leased by the candidate or immediate family member of the candidate (from the FEC.gov website).
 
Yeah, I'm not seeing any allowance for a Private Pilot to do this flight. The 91.321 exception is to allow the flight to not require a Part 135 certificate (or 121/125), not to allow a Private Pilot to do the flight and therefore receive compensation.
 
 
As a private pilot you definitely can’t receive payment.

You can’t give the flight away for free because the payment being considered good will.

Sharing expenses could also be a sticky situation because of lack of common purpose.
 
allPrimes said:
Thanks for the replies. This has been eye-opening. Most interesting are the fact that both my CFI and my DPE called out that a private pilot can't receive compensation except when carrying candidates in elections!
Click to expand...
That's not true either. They can tow gliders.
 
Clip4 said:
As a private pilot you definitely can’t receive payment.

You can’t give the flight away for free because the payment being considered good will.

Sharing expenses could also be a sticky situation because of lack of common purpose.
Click to expand...
In the case that created the good-will precedent, the justification given for considering good will to be compensation was that the pilot could receive future employment or business as a result of it. People often extrapolate that to all good will, but I'm not sure that's valid.
 
Palmpilot said:
In the case that created the good-will precedent, the justification given for considering good will to be compensation was that the pilot could receive future employment or business as a result of it. People often extrapolate that to all good will, but I'm not sure that's valid.
Click to expand...
I don’t know which case you refer, but AC61-142 states good will is any expected economic benefit in the opinion of the FAA. Most people hanging out with members of Congress are doing so for some economic benefit,
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I don’t know which case you refer, but AC61-142 states good will is any expected economic benefit in the opinion of the FAA. Most people hanging out with members of Congress are doing so for some economic benefit,
Click to expand...
I agree that potential economic benefit is a problem in the eyes of the FAA.

The case was the Murray decision:


That case cited the Blackburn decision (attached).
 

Attachments

  • Blackburn - Goodwill as Compensation.pdf
    83.6 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
In the decision the bar was selling tickets that included air travel, but there was zero evidence the pilot was getting anything. Sounds just like congress .
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The Murray decision is a bit different because the bar was selling tickets that included air travel.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it puzzled me that they felt a need to invent the goodwill doctrine when the selling of tickets would have been sufficient to justify the violation on its own.
 
ateamer said:
Hopefully the latest Chevron decision will lead to reining in the FAA.
Click to expand...
Today I learned that rein is the correct spelling for the strap used to control a horse. I always thought it should be reign. Although in the context of this thread it could be argued still that reign is more correct.
 
Salty said:
Today I learned that rein is the correct spelling for the strap used to control a horse. I always thought it should be reign. Although in the context of this thread it could be argued still that reign is more correct.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta love English.....
:rolleyes:
Rein -> horse
Reign -> monarchy
Rain -> precipitation
Rane -> audio equipment
 
Like technology, many of the laws/rules are only as good as those writing, implementing, using, and interpreting them.
 
allPrimes said:
How do I "charge" for this?
Click to expand...
You can’t. Period. You’re a Private Pilot.
allPrimes said:
My first thought was to bill the campaign for the costs of the plane ($84/hr wet, what I'm charged by the club) and my time ($100/hr is how I value my free time; total invoice would be <$400) but I read a few lawyer-type blogs on the issue that said that it's really the Federal Election Commission that regulates this and that there may be more to it.
Click to expand...
You are blatantly ignoring the privileges and limitations of a Private Pilot certificate. You cannot be compensated for this, plain and simple. There is no loophole for it either. I would suggest not doing what you’re proposing, it’s a good way to find yourself under FAA scrutiny.

91.321 doesn’t give a PPL holder the freedom to charge for such flights.
 
Dude just get your commercial certificate, then you can legally do that! You can usually get it done in a week or two and it’s fun
 
Looks like the question has been answered sufficiently but I can't resist. This is from way before 91.324, but it's one my all-time favorite FAA opinion on sharing expenses (61.118 was recodified later into 61.113). The emphasis is mine.

December 19, 1977

Mr. Bob Von Seggern

Dear Mr. Von Seggern:

This is in response to your undated letter received in this office on December 14, 1977, wherein you advise that as the holder of private pilot certificate you contributed to a political campaign by flying a candidate to two meetings in your own airplane. The political candidate reimbursed you for your time off from work (nonaeronautical job), your time as pilot and for the use of your airplane. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 61.118 provides in part that, except as set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (d), a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire, nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. Subparagraph (b) provides that a private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight with his passengers. The two flights you described were not "share the cost" situations, that is, a joint venture for a common purpose with the operating expenses being defrayed equally by the passenger and yourself. Rather, you were simply providing transportation from one point to another and your passenger paid all the operating expenses, as well as your time off from work and your pilot time. Accordingly, on the two flights in question, you acted as pilot in command for compensation or hire in violation of FAR 61.118.

You now ask whether in the future you could contribute to such a political campaign as a private pilot as long as there is no regular schedule involved and it is done for gasoline expenses only. Again, in answer thereto, to come within the exception to FAR 61.118(b), the flight must constitute a joint venture and there must be an equal sharing of the operating expenses of each flight between the pilot and all the passengers involved. Since the candidate would be paying for the total gasoline cost and it is not a joint venture (you are not running for office), this operation would also be in violation of FAR 61.118.

As to your other inquiry, the fact that you are close to getting a commercial pilot certificate would not alter the situation since you are still the holder of a private pilot certificate and therefore bound by the limitations of FAR 61.118. Even should you obtain a commercial pilot certificate, you may also require ATCO certification under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations for the contemplated operation.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your inquiry. If there are any questions, please advise us.

Very truly yours,
JOSEPH T. BRENNAN
Regional Counsel
 
midlifeflyer said:
As to your other inquiry, the fact that you are close to getting a commercial pilot certificate would not alter the situation since you are still the holder of a private pilot certificate
Click to expand...
Wow. “I’m almost a Commercial pilot. Will the regulations pretend I’m a Commercial Pilot if I pretend I’m one?”
 
Salty said:
Not in your own aircraft.
Click to expand...

The way I read 91.321, that IS exactly what the exemption to Part 135/121/125 rules is about. Carrying a political candidate IS permitted, for pay, and the aircraft does NOT have to be on a 135 (etc.) certificate. A Commercial pilot certificate IS required, however, because it's still compensation.

I also want to add that although here on POA we see the same topics again and again and again, THIS one about political candidates is one I don't think I've seen before!
 
RussR said:
The way I read 91.321, that IS exactly what the exemption to Part 135/121/125 rules is about. Carrying a political candidate IS permitted, for pay, and the aircraft does NOT have to be on a 135 (etc.) certificate. A Commercial pilot certificate IS required, however, because it's still compensation.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the FAA reads "without having to comply with the rules in parts 121, 125 or 135" the same as you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top