Shays v. F.E.C.

• Decision Date: 18 September 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 02-1984(CKK).,CIV.A. 02-1984(CKK).
• Citation: 337 F.Supp.2d 28
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: Christopher SHAYS & Martin Meehan, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant.

Page 28

337 F.Supp.2d 28

Christopher SHAYS & Martin Meehan, Plaintiffs, v.FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant.

No. CIV.A. 02-1984(CKK).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

September 18, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles G. Curtis, Jr., Michelle M. Umberger, Michael M. Markman, Sarah E. Reindl, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, L.L.P., Madison, WI, Brent Rushford, Carl S. Nadler, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Roger M. Witten, David A. O'Neil, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, New York, NY, Randolph Moss, Stacy E. Beck, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, LLP, Washington, DC, Donald J. Simon, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP, Washington, DC, Fred Wertheimer, Alexandra Edsall, Democracy 21, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Erin Kathleen Monaghan, Stephen E. Hershkowitz, Robert William Bonham, III, Federal Election Commission, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Michael B. Trister, Lichtman, Trister, Singer & Ross, Trevor Potter, Caplin & Drysdale, Washington, DC, J. Gerald Hebert, Alexandria, VA, for Amicus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.

On October 8, 2002, Christopher Shays("Shays") and Martin Meehan("Meehan")(collectively "Plaintiffs"), both members of the United States House of Representatives, filed the above-captioned action against the Federal Election Commission("FEC" or "Commission" or "Defendant").¹Through their Complaint, Plaintiffs challenge the FEC's regulations implementing Titles I and II of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA").Plaintiffs contend that "[t]he FEC's new regulations, in multiple and interrelated ways, thwart and undermine the language and congressional purposes of Titles I and II of BCRA."Am. Compl. ¶ 6.

At the same time this case was filed, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and ten related actions challenging the constitutionality of BCRA were pending before a three-judge panel of this District Court.The three-judge panel issued its decision on May 1, 2003, seeMcConnell v. Federal Election Commission,251 F.Supp.2d 176(D.D.C.2003), and the case was immediately appealed to the United States Supreme Court.On September 29, 2003, in response to motions by the two sides in this current case advocating different methods of proceeding, the Court stayed proceedings in this case pending the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.The Supreme Court issued its decision on December 10, 2003, upholding almost all of Titles I and II of BCRA.McConnell v. Federal Election Commission,540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491(2003).This Court, after hearing the parties' views, set a briefing schedule for the pending cross-motions for summary judgment.²On February 27, 2004, the parties filed their respective Motions for Summary Judgment.Opposition briefs were filed on March 31, 2004.³The Court did not require the filing of Reply briefs, and the parties did not seek leave to file such briefs.

After considering the parties' briefing, the administrative record, and the relevant law, the Court shall grant-in-part and deny-in-part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and grant-in-part and deny-in-part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I: BACKGROUND

The Court begins its discussion of the facts by noting that this Court strictly adheres to the text of Local Civil Rule 56.1(identical to Local Civil Rule 7(h)).As such, in resolving the present summary judgment motions, this Court"assumes that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion."LCvR 56.1.In this instance, as the parties cross move for summary judgment, the Court looks to each party's statement to cull the relevant undisputed facts and to determine those facts that are conceded by the cross moving party.Having set forth these preliminaries, the Court moves to a discussion of the material facts not genuinely in dispute.

On February 13, 2002, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2356.McConnell,251 F.Supp.2d at 205(per curiam).The bill was then adopted by the Senate on March 18 and 20, 2002. Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute ("Def.'s Stmt.")¶ 1.President George W. Bush signed H.R. 2356 into law on March 27, 2002.Id.¶ 2.The Act is commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or "BCRA."Id.⁴BCRA represents the most recent amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (the "Act" or "FECA").Id.¶ 3.

The Federal Election Commission("FEC" or "Commission" or "Defendant") is the independent agency of the United States government with exclusive jurisdiction to administer, interpret and civilly enforce FECA.Id.¶ 4.Section 402(c)(2) of BCRA required the FEC to promulgate rules within 90 days of BCRA's enactment to carry out the provisions found in Title I of BCRA, which added new limitations on party, candidate, and officeholder solicitations and use of nonfederal funds.⁵Id.¶ 6.On May 20, 2002, the Commission published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") on "Prohibited and Excessive Contributions; Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money."Id.; Pls.'Stmt. of Genuine Issues in Opp'n to Def.'s Stmt. ("Pls.'Opp'n Stmt.")¶ 6.In its NPRM, the Commission solicited comments on its proposed rules, and in response received many public comments, and heard testimony on June 4 and 5, 2002. Def.'s Stmt.¶ 7.The Commission held an open meeting on June 19, 20 and 22, 2002, and adopted its Title I regulations on June 22, 2002.Pls.'Statement of Material Facts as to Which Plaintiffs Contend There is No Genuine Issue ("Pls.'Stmt.")¶ 4.On July 16, 2002, the FEC transmitted to Congress, and on July 29, 2002, the Commission promulgated in the Federal Register, its final rules and Explanation and Justification ("E & J") on "Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-federal Funds or Soft Money."Def.'sStmt. ¶ 7.These regulations became effective on November 6, 2002.Pls.'Stmt. ¶ 4.

Section 402(c)(1) of BCRA required the FEC to promulgate within 270 days of its enactment the remaining regulations required to carry out BCRA.Def.'s Stmt.¶ 8.On August 7, 2002, the Commission published its NPRM for Electioneering Communications in the Federal Register, which sought comments on its proposed rules.Id.In response, the Commission received many comments, and it heard testimony on its proposed rules on August 28 and 29, 2002. Id.¶ 9.The Commission also conducted an open meeting, and on October 10, 2002, adopted the regulations.Pls.'Stmt. ¶ 5.On October 11, 2002, the Commission transmitted to Congress, and on October 23, 2002, the Commission promulgated in the Federal Register, its final rules and E & J on "Electioneering Communications."Def.'sStmt. ¶ 9.These regulations became effective November 22, 2002.Pls.'Stmt. ¶ 5.

On August 22, 2002, the Commission published its NPRM on "Contribution Limitations and Prohibitions" in the Federal Register, which sought comments on proposed changes to the Commission's rules related to campaign contribution limitations and prohibitions under FECA as amended by BCRA. Def.'sStmt. ¶ 10.In response, the Commission received many comments, and on November 8, 2002, the FEC transmitted to Congress, and on November 19, 2002, the Commission promulgated in the Federal Register, its final rules and E & J on "Contribution Limitations and Prohibitions."Id.¶ 11.

On September 24, 2002, the FEC published its NPRM on "Coordinated and Independent Expenditures" in the Federal Register, which sought comments on proposed changes to its rules relating to payments for communications that are coordinated with a candidate and independent expenditures under FECA as amended by BCRA.Id.¶ 12.In response, the Commission received many comments, id.¶ 13, and the Commission held a public hearing on its proposed rules on October 23 and 24, 2002, at which it heard testimony from various witnesses, Pls.'Stmt. ¶ 6.After conducting an open meeting, the Commission adopted the regulations on December 5, 2002.Id.On December 18, 2002, the FEC transmitted to Congress, and on January 3, 2003, promulgated in the Federal Register, its final rules on "Coordinated and Independent Expenditures."Def.'sStmt. ¶ 13.These regulations became effective on February 3, 2003.Pls.'Stmt. ¶ 6.

Plaintiffs are both citizens of the United States, Members of Congress, candidates, voters, recipients of campaign contributions, fundraisers, and members of political parties.Id.¶ 11.PlaintiffChristopher Shays is a Member of the United States House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District of the State of Connecticut.Id.¶ 7.He was first elected in 1987, was re-elected in 1992, and has been re-elected every two years thereafter and is running for re-election in November 2004.Id.PlaintiffMartin Meehan is a Member of the United States House of Representatives from the Fifth Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Id.¶ 8.He was first elected to Congress in 1988, and has been re-elected every two years thereafter and is running for re-election in November 2004.Id.Plaintiffs are subject to regulation under FECA, BCRA, and the Commission's implementing regulations.Id.¶ 11.

Both Plaintiffs were principal sponsors in the House of Representatives of the legislation enacted as BCRA and spent many years seeking to promote its enactment.Id.¶ 9.They, along with other co-sponsors of BCRA, submitted written comments on the FEC's proposed rules implementing BCRA's provisions.Id.¶ 10.The Commission did not adopt some of their views in its final rules.Id.;Def.'s Resps. & Objections to Pls.' Stmt. ("Def.'s Resp.Stmt.")¶ 10.⁶

II:...