Federal Election Commission v. National Right To Work Committee

Decision Date13 December 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-1506,81-1506
Citation103 S.Ct. 552,74 L.Ed.2d 364,459 U.S. 197
PartiesFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Petitioners v. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a) prohibits corporations and labor unions from making contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections. The section, however, permits some participation by unions and corporations in the federal electoral process by allowing these organizations to establish and pay the expenses of "separate segregated funds" which may be used for political purposes during federal elections. The Act restricts the operations of such segregated funds in several respects. Of most relevance here, 2 U.S.C. §§ 441b(b)(4)(A) and 441b(b)(4)(C) provide that a corporation without capital stock may solicit contributions to a fund it has established only from "members" of the corporation.

During 1976 respondent National Right to Work Committee (NRWC), a corporation without capital stock, solicited some 267,000 persons for contributions to a separate segregated fund that it sponsored. Petitioner, the Federal Election Commission, determined that NRWC's solicitation violated § 441b(b)(4)(C) of the Act, because the persons it had solicited were not its members. Among other things, NRWC's solicitation letters did not mention membership, its articles of incorporation disclaim the existence of members, and members play no part in the operation or administration of the corporation.

Held: The persons solicited by NRWC were insufficiently attached to the corporation to qualify as members under § 441b(b)(4)(C) of the Act. Pp. 201-207. This interpretation of the Act does not raise constitutional difficulties. The First Amendment associational rights asserted by respondent are overborne by the interests Congress has sought to protect in enacting § 441b. The provision marks the culmination of a careful legislative adjustment of the federal electoral laws to prevent both actual and apparent corruption and reflects a legislative judgment that the special characteristics of corporations require prophylactic measures. Pp. 207-211.

214 U.S.App.D.C. 215, 665 F.2d 371, reversed.

Charles N. Steele, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Richard H. Mansfield, III, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in the case ultimately comes down to whether respondent National Right to Work Committee ("NRWC") limited its solicitation of funds to "members" within the meaning of 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(C).1

In April of 1977, petitioner, the Federal Election Commission ("the Commission"),2 determined that there was probable cause to believe that NRWC had violated the above-cited provisions of the Act by soliciting contributions from persons who were not its "members." Shortly thereafter, respondent filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the Commission. One month later, the Commission filed an enforcement proceeding against respondent in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to establish respondent's violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b. The actions were consolidated in the latter court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission on the basis of stipulated facts. 501 F.Supp. 422.3 The judgment of the District Court was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 665 F.2d 371 (1981), and we granted certiorari. --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1766, 72 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982).

Respondent NRWC is a nonprofit corporation without capital stock organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Given the central role of the congressional use of the word "member" in this litigation, it is useful to set forth respondent's organizational history in some detail. In 1975, respondent's predecessor and another corporation merged; the articles of merger filed in the District of Columbia by the successor corporation stated that NRWC "shall not have members." A similar statement is contained in the articles of incorporation of NRWC that are presently filed in Virginia. Likewise, respondent's bylaws make no reference to members or to membership in the corporation. The stated purpose of NRWC, according to its Virginia articles of incorporation, is "[t]o help make the public aware of the fact that American citizens are being required, against their will, to join and pay dues to labor organizations in order to earn a liv- ing. . . ." Pet.App. at 17a. In pursuance of this objective, NRWC regularly mails messages to millions of individuals and businesses whose names have found their way onto commercially available mailing lists that the organization has purchased or rented. The letters do not mention membership in NRWC, but seek donations to help NRWC publicize its opposition to compulsory unionism and frequently contain a questionnaire that the recipient is requested to answer and return.

In late 1975, in order to comply with § 441b of the Act, NRWC established a separate segregated fund, see 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(C),4 "to receive and make contributions on behalf of federal candidates." The fund was denominated the "Employees Rights Campaign Committee" ("ERCC"); its operation was completely subsidized from the NRWC treasury, which paid all the expenses of establishing and administering the fund, and of soliciting contributions. During part of 1976, NRWC sent letters to some 267,000 individuals, who had at one time contributed to it, soliciting contributions to ERCC. As a result of these solicitations, the fund received some $77,000 in contributions.

In October, 1976, another lobbying group, the Committee for an Effective Congress, filed a complaint against ERCC with the Commission, alleging violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4). The complaint asserted that NRWC had violated this section of the Act by using corporate funds to solicit contributions to ERCC from persons who were not NRWC's stockholders, executive or administrative personnel, or their families. NRWC did not deny these assertions, but took the position that the recipients of its solicitation letters were "members" of NRWC within the proviso set forth in § 441b(b)(4)(C). The Commission found probable cause to believe that a violation had occurred, and after completing the investigative procedures set out in the statute and unsuccessfully attempting to resolve the matter through conciliation, see 2 U.S.C. § 437g, it authorized the filing of a civil enforcement suit. This litigation followed.

Essential to the proper resolution of the case is the interpretation of § 441b(b)(4)(C)'s statement that the prohibition against corporate solicitation contained in § 441b(b)(4)(A) shall not prevent "a . . . corporation without capital stock . . . from soliciting contributions to [a separate segregated fund established by a . . . corporation without capital stock] from members of such . . . corporation. . . ." (Emphasis added). The Court of Appeals rejected the Commission's contentions regarding the meaning of "member," and went on to hold that the term "embraces at least those individuals whom NRWC describes as its active and supporting members." Pet. 10a. The opinion of the Court of Appeals indicates that this construction was reached at least in part because of concern for the constitutional implications of any narrower construction. Pet. 6a-10a. As explained below, we reject this construction.

The statutory purpose of § 441b, as outlined above, is to prohibit contributions or expenditures by corporations or labor organizations in connection with federal elections. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a). The section, however, permits some participation of unions and corporations in the federal electoral process by allowing them to establish and pay the administrative expenses of "separate segregated funds," which may be "utilized for political purposes." 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2)(C). The Act restricts the operations of such segregated funds, however, by making it unlawful for a cor- poration to solicit contributions to a fund established by it from persons other than its "stockholders and their families and its executive or administrative personnel and their families." 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A). Finally, and of most relevance here, the section just quoted has its own proviso, which states in pertinent part that "[t]his paragraph shall not prevent . . . a corporation without capital stock, or a separate segregated fund established by . . . a corporation without capital stock, from soliciting contributions to such a fund from members" of the sponsoring corporation. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(C). The effect of this proviso is to limit solicitation by nonprofit corporations to those persons attached in some way to it by its corporate structure. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(C).

The Court of Appeals, as we have noted, construed the term "member" in § 441b to embrace "at least those individuals whom NRWC describes as its active and supporting members." Pet. 10a. The two categories of members recognized by NRWC were described in the following terms by the Court of Appeals:

"NRWC attracts members by publicizing its position on issues relating to compulsory unionism through advertisements, personal contacts, and, primarily, letters. These letters describe the purpose of NRWC, urge the recipient to assist NRWC (by, for example, writing to legislators), request financial support, and ask the recipient to respond to a questionnaire that will determine whether that person shares a similar political philosophy. A person who, through his response, evidences an intention to support NRWC in promoting voluntary unionism qualifies as a member. A person who responds without contributing financially is considered a supporting member; a person who responds and also contributes is considered an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
153 cases
  • Becker v. Federal Election Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 5 Octubre 2000
    ...150, 153). Given that this section of the FECA is designed to prevent corruption in campaign finance, see, e.g., FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 209 (1982), and that Nader challenges it not based on corruption per se, but because it provides additional advantages to his c......
  • Unger v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 27 Diciembre 1984
    ...102 S.Ct. 434, 436, 70 L.Ed.2d 492.)2 Although several years after Buckley v. Valeo the court, in FEC v. National Right to Work Committee (1982) 459 U.S. 197, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 did uphold certain restrictions on campaign contributions and expenditures by corporations and labor o......
  • Federal Election Com'n v. Christian Coalition
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 2 Agosto 1999
    ...corporate structure and present the potential for distorting the political process."); Federal Election Comm'n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 209-210, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982) ("[T]he special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful......
  • Citizens for Respon. Gov. State Polit. v. Buckley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 10 Agosto 1999
    ...public confidence in the electoral process through the appearance of corruption." Federal Election Com'n v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197, 208, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982) ("NRWC"). The Supreme Court has recognized that it is just as important to prevent the appear......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480, 105 S.Ct. 1459, 84 L.Ed.2d 455 (1985), 1503 Federal Election Comm'n v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982), 1502 Federal Election Comm'n v. Public Citizen, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001), 1513 Federal Employmen......
  • Of Metaphor, Metonymy, and Corporate Money: Rhetorical Choices in Supreme Court Decisions on Campaign Finance Regulation - Linda L. Berger
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 58-3, March 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...at 571). 226. Id. (quoting Auto. Workers, 352 U.S. at 572). 227. Id. at 136 (quoting Fed. Election Comm'n v. Nat'l Right to Work Comm'n, 459 U.S. 197, 208 (1982)). 228. Id. at 144 (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 390 (2000)). 229. Id. at 148. 230. Id. at 150. 231. Id. a......
  • The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 63-4, 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 659-60 (1990), overruled by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); accord FEC v. Nat'l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 207 (1982) (noting the advantages of corporations in accumulating political influence and the particular dangers of corporate financial inf......
  • The lonely death of public campaign financing.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 33 No. 1, January 2010
    • 1 Enero 2010
    ...Political Action Comm., 528 U.S. 377, 381-82 (2000) (upholding state campaign contribution limits); FEC v. Nat'l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 20910 (1982) (upholding restrictions on solicitations by a corporate Political Action Committee (PAC)); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29 (upholding limi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT