SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission
567 F. Supp. 2d 70 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal contribution limits applicable to political committees do not violate the First Amendment when applied to groups that make only independent expenditures. The government's interests in preventing corruption and its appearance, as well as preventing circumvention of campaign finance laws, are sufficiently important to justify these limits.
Facts:
- SpeechNow.org was formed as an unincorporated non-profit association with the purpose of expressly advocating for the election or defeat of federal candidates based on their positions on campaign finance laws.
- SpeechNow.org's bylaws required it to be funded solely by individual donors and prohibited it from making contributions to or coordinating its spending with any candidates or political parties.
- The organization prepared scripts for political advertisements targeting the defeat of specific candidates for federal office, including Congressman Dan Burton and Senator Mary Landrieu.
- Several individuals, including Fred M. Young, wished to donate amounts to SpeechNow.org (e.g., $110,000) that significantly exceeded the $5,000 annual individual contribution limit for political committees under FECA.
- These potential donors refrained from contributing their intended amounts because doing so would violate federal law and subject them and SpeechNow.org to FECA's contribution limits.
- SpeechNow.org asserted that because it could not accept these larger donations, it could not operate effectively or raise enough money to produce and air its planned advertisements.
Procedural Posture:
- SpeechNow.org and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The plaintiffs alleged that FECA's limits on contributions to political committees were unconstitutional as applied to an organization that makes only independent expenditures.
- The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the FEC from enforcing the contribution limits against them while the lawsuit proceeded.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does applying the federal contribution limits under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to a political committee that makes only independent expenditures violate the First Amendment rights of the committee and its donors?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, J.
No. Applying federal contribution limits to a political committee that makes only independent expenditures does not violate the First Amendment because the limits are closely drawn to match sufficiently important government interests. The appropriate standard of review for contribution limits is intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, as they impose a lesser burden on speech than expenditure limits. The government has a sufficiently important interest in preventing not only actual quid pro quo corruption but also the appearance of corruption, which includes undue influence on officeholders and the sale of access. This interest is not eliminated merely because an organization makes only independent expenditures, as the rise of '527 groups' or 'shadow parties' demonstrates that legally independent groups can have close ties to candidates and parties, creating vehicles for circumventing campaign finance laws. The limits are also justified by the government's interest in preventing evasion of FECA's disclaimer requirements, which could be undermined if ads were funded by a few wealthy, anonymous donors hiding behind a misleading organizational name. Therefore, the challenged contribution limits are a proportional response to legitimate anti-corruption and anti-circumvention interests.
Analysis:
This district court decision represents a significant pre-Citizens United application of campaign finance doctrine, reinforcing the longstanding distinction between contributions and expenditures established in Buckley v. Valeo. The court's broad interpretation of the government's anti-corruption interest to include the prevention of undue influence and circumvention by 'shadow parties' highlights the judiciary's deference to congressional concerns about new forms of political organizations. This ruling upheld the regulatory framework that would soon be dismantled by the D.C. Circuit's en banc decision in this same case, which paved the way for the creation of Super PACs. The opinion is thus a key historical marker of the legal reasoning that favored regulating contributions to all political committees, regardless of whether their spending was independent.
Unlock the full brief for SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission