On July 12, 2017, the Brennan Center submitted comments addressing the Secretary of State’s proposed rules 22.214.171.124 through 126.96.36.199. Thereafter, the Secretary distributed a modified version of the proposed rule. We commend the changes made to the rule’s coordinated expenditure provisions and submit this brief memorandum to make one additional suggestion.
 This tactic was used most prominently during the 2016 presidential campaign. See, e.g., Nicholas Confessore, Jeb Bush Outstrips Rivals in Fund-Raising as ‘Super PACs’ Swell Candidates’ Coffers, N.Y. Times, July 9, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/politics/jeb-bush-races-past-rivals-in-fund-raising-aided-by-super-pac-cash.html.
 See Brent Ferguson, Beyond Coordination: Defining Indirect Campaign Contributions for the Super Pac Era, 42 Hastings Const. L.Q. 471, 508–15 (2015) (arguing that coordination regulations are permissible when a candidate takes some action indicating she believes the expenditure would be useful).
 If this change is made, the word “whether” should be deleted in §§ 188.8.131.52(E)(1)-(6).
 See, e.g., CAL. CODE. REGS. tit. 2, § 18225.7(d) (creating rebuttable presumption of coordination “under any of the following circumstances”); CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 9–601c(b) (presuming “that the following expenditures are not independent expenditures”); see also 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d) (2010) (“Any one of the following types of conduct satisfies the conduct standard of this section.”). Contra N.Y.C. CAMPAIGN FIN. BD. R. 1–08(f).