5 the candidate does not trigger FEC jurisdiction. This was the FEC’s position in Shays, and it should be the FEC’s position now. FECA’s unambiguous text requires no less. Under the Multiple Candidate Allocation Regulation, political committees must use hard money for “[p]ublic communications that refer to one or more clearly identified Federal candidates, regardless of whether there is reference to a political party, but do not refer to any clearly identified nonFederal candidates.” 11 C.F.R. § 106.6(f)(1). The rule is categorical. Even if a communication only says “Vote No on State Ballot Initiative 123—They Waste Enough Taxes in Washington, D.C.,” merely referring (perhaps by means of a montage of grainy black-and-white photos) to United States Senators of both parties with a penchant for pork-barrel spending, the ad is per se deemed to have a federal purpose. This is true even if those big spenders hail from distant states, are not up for reelection for years, and the spot will not be shown anywhere near their voters. Whether such an ad could affect a federal race is doubtful, but the FEC goes further and says these ads always reflect a federal purpose. In an age when even pizza shops and used-car dealers invoke the stereotype of wasteful federal spending to sell their wares, the FEC’s lack of sophistication is startling. The FEC’s approach also ignores that a state campaign may be more effective if the campaigning group can mention a federal official’s endorsement. Many federal politicians are of national stature, particularly those associated with hot button political issues. If, for example, a referendum would make it more difficult to get an abortion, a pro-choice group may trumpet a statement denouncing it from a prominent prochoice United States senator, while a pro-life group may respond with a statement from an equally prominent pro-life senator. To say, as the FEC does, that citing these statements