Federal Election Com'n v. Florida for Kennedy Committee

• Citation: 681 F.2d 1281
• Decision Date: 02 August 1982
• Docket Number: No. 80-6013,80-6013
• Parties: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. FLORIDA FOR KENNEDY COMMITTEE, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Page 1281

681 F.2d 1281

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. FLORIDA FOR KENNEDY COMMITTEE, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 80-6013.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1982.

Donald M. Middlebrooks, Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellant.

Charles N. Steele, Gen. Counsel, Miriam Aguiar, Jeffrey H. Bowman, Fed. Election Commission, Washington, D. C., for petitioner-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before VANCE, KRAVITCH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

VANCE, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents delicate issues concerning the permissible scope of the Federal Election Commission's subpoena power. The Commission served a sweeping subpoena upon Appellant Florida for Kennedy Committee (FKC) as part of an investigation into the 1979 activities of nine "draft-Kennedy" organizations around the country. FKC refused to comply and, upon petition by the Commission, the district court enforced the subpoena. Although this case is one of first impression in this circuit, the questions presented here have been thoroughly considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in a companion case to this one. See Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 397, 70 L.Ed.2d 213 (1981). We substantially agree with that court and conclude that the activities of the Florida for Kennedy Committee are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. Accordingly, we reverse the order enforcing the subpoena.

I.

In May 1979 a group of Florida citizens formed FKC, the sole purpose of which was to encourage Senator Edward M. Kennedy to seek the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. FKC was one of numerous draft-Kennedy groups that sprang up nationwide during the spring of 1979, all of which were ostensibly independent. Its stated goal was to influence the outcome of a nonbinding straw poll that was to be held at the Florida State Democratic Convention in November 1979. FKC hoped that a strong pro-Kennedy vote in this party referendum would persuade Senator Kennedy to declare his candidacy for the party nomination.

Throughout the spring and summer of 1979, FKC solicited contributions and expended fairly large sums of money in its effort to convince Senator Kennedy to run. A major contributor to FKC was the Machinists Non-Partisan Political League (MNPL), the political action arm of the International Association of Machinists. Despite having supported the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, the MNPL had become disenchanted with the policies of the Carter Administration and by February 1979 had begun actively supporting the formation and operation of various draft-Kennedy groups around the country. Between May and November 1979 the MNPL contributed over $30,000 to different draft-Kennedy groups, including FKC. Although FKC labored throughout the summer on his behalf, Senator Kennedy continued to support President Carter and at least once specifically disavowed its activities. On October 29, 1979, however, Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy for the party nomination and the activities of FKC ceased.

On October 4, 1979 the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc. filed a complaint with the FEC. The complaint alleged that FKC was a political committee within the meaning of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ¹ and was affiliated with the eight other draft-Kennedy groups that had accepted contributions from the MNPL. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 431(d), 433, 441a(a)(5). The Carter-Mondale complaint alleged that FKC had violated the campaign laws by failing to disclose its affiliation with the other draft-Kennedy groups. The Carter-Mondale committee further complained that these allegedly affiliated draft-Kennedy groups were subject to a combined contribution restriction of $5,000 per contributor, a restriction that had been violated when the MNPL gave a combined total of more than $30,000 to the various groups. ² See 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(2)(C), 441a(f).

On October 19, 1979 the Commission notified FKC that it had "reason to believe" that violations of the federal campaign laws had occurred. In accord with the Commission's procedures, FKC moved on November 1, 1979 to dismiss the Carter-Mondale complaint, arguing that FKC was a draft committee and not a political committee within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, FKC argued, neither the Act's reporting requirements nor contribution limitations applied to it. The FEC did not rule immediately on this motion, but instead, on November 5, 1979 served the sweeping agency subpoena that is the basis of this appeal. ³ FKC moved to quash the subpoena. On November 29, 1979 the FEC denied both motions.

On December 24, 1979, after FKC refused to comply with the Commission's subpoena, the FEC instituted the present action to enforce its subpoena in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. FKC sought a plenary hearing to challenge the scope of the FEC's jurisdiction over draft groups. On May 2, 1980, however, the district court ruled that the subpoena enforcement proceeding was not the proper forum in which to challenge the FEC's jurisdiction or to raise constitutional objections to the subpoena. 492 F.Supp. 587. The court subsequently enforced the subpoena on November 6, 1980 and this appeal followed.

II.

The FEC argues that FKC cannot properly contest the subpoena in the enforcement proceedings below. The FEC contends that because the investigation was arguably within the scope of its statutory duties, the information sought by the subpoena was relevant to its investigation, and the subpoena was not overly broad or indefinite the court correctly enforced the FEC subpoena summarily. See United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652, 70 S.Ct. 357, 368, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950).

In granting the exclusive power to enforce administrative subpoenas to the federal courts, ⁴ Congress manifested its intention that the courts exercise independent judgment in evaluating agency subpoenas. See United States v. Security State Bank & Trust, 473 F.2d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 1973). ⁵ To avoid delays that might paralyze an agency's ability to investigate, however, the federal courts have created a self-imposed limitation upon the degree to which they will scrutinize agency requests to enforce subpoenas. See Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 443-44, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1515, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960). As a general rule, an administrative subpoena should be enforced "if the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information sought is reasonably relevant." United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. at 652, 70 S.Ct. at 368.

The salutary policies of judicial and administrative efficiency that underlie the Morton Salt rule do not, however, require that the courts limit their scrutiny of agency subpoena requests in every case. Cf. Federal Election Commission v. Lance, 617 F.2d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 1980) (courts should examine policies behind summary enforcement of subpoenas), supplemental opinion, 635 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.) (en banc), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 453 U.S. 917, 101 S.Ct. 3151, 69 L.Ed.2d 999 (1981). We agree with the District of Columbia circuit that this subpoena has several characteristics that make it necessary for the court to be certain of the FEC's investigative authority before enforcing it, although such scrutiny may entail some delay in enforcement. See Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d at 386.

First, the activities that the FEC seeks to investigate differ profoundly in terms of constitutional significance from the activities that are generally the subject of investigation by other federal administrative agencies. The sole purpose of the FEC is to regulate activities involving political expression, the same activities that are the primary object of the first amendment's protection. The risks involved in government regulation of political expression are certainly evident here. The FEC subpoena seeks disclosure of all members and volunteers of FKC, an organization the express purpose of which is to defeat the incumbent President. As the Supreme Court stated long ago:

It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute (an) effective ... restraint on freedom of association .... This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations.... Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensible to preservation of freedom of association ....

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1171, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958), quoted in Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d at 389; see also Marshall v. Stevens People & Friends for Freedom, 669 F.2d 171, 176-79 (4th Cir. 1981) (court closely scrutinizes administrative subpoena implicating first amendment rights notwithstanding general rule of Morton Salt ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1432, 71 L.Ed.2d 651 (1982). The Supreme Court has also made it clear that a higher degree of scrutiny must attach before courts can compel disclosure of information that may impinge upon these first amendment associational rights:

It is particularly important that the exercise of the power of compulsory process be carefully circumscribed when the investigative process tends to impinge upon such highly sensitive areas as freedom of speech or press, freedom of political association, and freedom of communication of ideas ....

Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 245, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1209, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 (1957); ⁶ see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14, 96 S.Ct. 612, 632, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (government...